The Palestinian Authority: Gaza's Best Hope

All the hostages must be released and returned or no progress is possible... but even if that happens today, and please may it, how do we get to that "day after" and what will it look like?  

Yes, the War must end.  Not just the fighting.  Not just the violence.  

The war itself must end.  

The only existing organization that has committed itself to both the existence of Israel and the Independence of the Palestinian people is the Palestinian Authority.  It is time for them to rule in Gaza, with the full faith and support of the International Community, Israel and the Palestinian People.

Some wars end with the seeds of the next war already in place.  The treaty of Versailles is an example, leading ultimately to a rise in German nationalism and aggression against the Allied powers, and the Second World War.  

Some wars end to create peace, by laying the groundwork to move beyond past grievances. There are two options.  They can be balanced compromises, like the Treaty of Portsmouth, which formally ended the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. Or they can be the result of unconditional surrender, like the Allied victories over Germany and Japan in WWII.  

Past attempts at armistice - long term cease fires - have not worked.  The 1948 "Green Line" around the West Bank and what many refer to as "Israel Proper" is an example of an armistice line.  Israel's goal in the War of Independence, named the Nakba by the Palestinian cause, was to assert control over a defensible territory, that could be further developed and united into a coherent nation state.  The Palestinian cause was to prevent that exact goal entirely, with the hope of a Palestinian nation state instead.  With the end of fighting, and the drawing of the Green Line, the seeds of war were not removed. Military threats and conflicts continued in 1956, 1967, and 1972. After losing state sponsors for overt warfare in the 70's, the Palestinian cause transformed their tactics into assymetrical warfare through acts of terror and civil unrest (two different categories), including intifada in the 80's and 90's.  After 1967, Israel re-drew the potential border to reflect its latest victories.  

In 1993, the Oslo Accords laid the foundation for actual peace.  The PLO became the Palestinian Authority, which in turn acknowledged Israel's ongoing right to exist, disavowed armed struggle ("resistance" in the current Hamas lexicon), and committed to peaceful negotiations to resolve issues such as the right of return and the status of Jerusalem.  Israel acknowledged the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian People, committed to a series of withdrawals and negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian State and permanently ending occupation.  The 1967 line was agreed upon to be the basis of future negotiations.  There is an excellent reason why Rabin, Peres and Arafat shared the Nobel Peace Prize.

Which will it be for Gaza? Will it be an armistice/cease fire line as a prelude to ongoing violence, terrorism, and war? Or will the groundwork that rejects the underlying seeds of the conflict be established?

Make no mistake:  There are many empowered voices in the current conflict in Israel and Hamas that are opposed to actual peace.  

It is clear that there are strong voices in the current Israeli governing coalition, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, who disavow any desire or willingness to permit a Palestinian State, or to make peace.  They are pursuing the unconditional surrender option.  By denying the essential motivation of the Palestinian people, they validate Hamas' claims and they ensure only future war, occupation, and suppression of human rights.  

On the other hand, Hamas has never chosen peace with Israel, even in theory. Hamas declared war on Israel from the beginning of their existence, and on October 7, 2023 they acted on that declaration in a brutal and shockingly effective attack.  They continue to justify that attack, as do their supporters, with phrases like "by any means necessary."  They continue to be in a state of war with Israel.  They have also had a cycle of civil war and detente with the Palestinian Authority, condemning them for their past attempts at a permanent peace with Israel.  

Hamas will never be a voice for peace.  Even a complete withdrawal of the Israeli forces, a return of all the hostages and a cessation of violence by Hamas can not be considered peace without Hamas doing what the Palestinian Authority has done: disavow violence and recognize Israel's ongoing right to exist.  If Hamas will not do that (and they certainly won't), then the only model for a future peace would be their termination as an active organization.  They stand in the way.

The Palestinian Authority has Earned the Right to Rule.  The truth is that - unlike Hezbollah, Iran and the Houthis - The Palestinian Authority has sat out the current war between Israel and Hamas.  That is why this is not a war between Israel and "the Palestinians."  By sitting out this war, the Palestinian Authority has proven that their Oslo disavowal of violence, terrorism, and armed struggle are not only real, but reliable.  And they should be amply rewarded.  Only the Palestinian Authority has the legitimacy and personal stake in the game to be on the ground without being an outside occupier.  

American-based protest movements that focus on being "anti-Israel" without any concern for the real difference between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are either naive or deliberately in sync with Hamas.  Hamas will never allow peace because its goal is not Palestinian Liberation, but the destruction of Israel en toto, and the establishment of an Islamicist State in its place.   If the problem is framed as Israel's existence, the only solution ("by any means necessary") would be the violent elimination of Israel - slaughter and expulsion of millions of Jews.  Those who march "against Israel" are not marching for peace, no matter how idealistic some participants may feel.

If there is to be any hope for peace, Hamas must not continue as a functioning organization.  The termination of Hamas' active organization can be done in one of three ways: 

1. Hamas could surrender unconditionally.   Highly Unlikely, and Israel is left to govern Gaza.
2. Hamas' could agree to disavow their own charter and raison d'etre:  Highly Unlikely, and Hamas is left to govern Gaza.
3. An international accord could empower the Palestinian Authority to lead the rebuilding of Gaza,  and to take over its governance, while disarming and disbanding Hamas as an institution in Gaza and the West Bank (Yehudah v'Shomron).  This may also be unlikely, but it is more likely, and preferable.

Without one of these three outcomes, there is no option for Israel other than permanent military control of the entire region.  Without the elimination of Hamas, military security is the only tool to protect Israeli citizens.  And that would lead to ongoing injustice and future violence.  The Israeli Military is not the solution.  Armies do not make peace.  Diplomats do.

Like it or not, Israeli or Palestinian, Jew Muslim or Christian, Democrat or Republican, we are left with only one reasonable conclusion with any hope for actual peace:

Yes, the War must end.  Not just the fighting.  Not just the violence.  The war itself must end.  And the only existing organization available that has committed itself to both the existence of Israel and the Independence of the Palestinian people is the Palestinian Authority.  It is time for them to rule in Gaza, with the full faith and support of the International Community, Israel and the Palestinian People.

"Mic drop"

Palestine Matters because Israel Matters, and Vice Versa.

Palestine Matters. Israel Matters.  

We live in a world of extremes, where people fear that any perceived support for "their side" fatally weakens necessary support for "our side."  

This conflict-oriented mentality has exacerbated American domestic politics and the ongoing conflict between the ideological ideas of Israel and Palestine.  It has cost thousands of lives.  I believe that this separation into warring camps is an essential problem in our society, in our country and between Israel and her neighbors.  I believe that Peace will only be possible when intolerance has become intolerable.

Intolerance is the unwillingness to accept or respect ideas, behaviors, or beliefs that differ from one’s own.   In a social context, it is the unwillingness to accept people, behaviors, or identities that differ from one’s own. When one refuses to live in proximity with people who are different, whether in a neighborhood or a country, that person is intolerant.  When one views this as a conflict between "us" and "foreigners", they are xenophobic.  The essence of democracy is that peoples who differ can live in peace and proximity.

Pro-Israel intolerance is manifested by a negation of the legitimate connection to the lands in and around the modern State of Israel by the Palestinian residents of those lands before 1948 and since.  Examples include statements like, "there is no such thing as the Palestinian people," or "there never was a Palestine," whose implication is to say that the resident Palestinian population in 1948 had no rights to self-determination or historical rights to sovereignty in the region.  The intolerant Pro-Israel person argues, that since they had no identity, or rights, then their rights can not have been taken or oppressed. In its most extreme form, this is used to justify all manners of forcible capture of land, relocation of populations, permanent occupation and denial of full human rights to Palestinians those areas under Israeli military control.

Pro-Palestinian intolerance is manifested by a negation of the legitimate connection of the Jewish people to the lands in and around the modern State of Israel, before 1948 (and since). It therefore negates their aspirations to expand their historic settlement in those areas by means of establishment of a modern state and then immigration to that state.  Examples include statements like, "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," or "Israelis are colonizers." The implication is to say that the resident Jewish population over time, and in 1948, had no rights to self-determination or sovereignty in the region, and that the State of Israel's later immigration laws are invalid.  By labelling them land-thieves and colonizers, the intolerant Pro-Palestinian voices justify (directly or indirectly) even the most extreme violence against Israeli civilians and towns as a necessary defense of their own homes against invaders.  In the most extreme form, that results in Hamas and its supporters on October 7, 2023 and since.

Both forms of intolerance lead to war.  By positioning the conflict as one of pure national sovereign rights on one side, and simultaneously negating those same rights by the other side, the only "just" solution for each side is inevitably use of force.  That is to say, in the face of opposition to one's own view of justice and legitimacy, forceful imposition of one's will against the opposition is the inevitable outcome.  Claims to pure and absolute sovereign rights are, by definition, intolerant and  ultimately violent.

"Two States" is not a "compromise," it is a necessity.  There is no solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict without embracing the ideas of Palestine and Israel.  While the intolerant views on both sides view this as a loss of their maximum freedoms, it is clear that their assessment of the real people involved is simply false and self-serving.  There are Israelis.  There are Palestinians.  These are not facts that can be eliminated with a debating point.  There will always be Israelis and Palestinians in this region.  

There only are Four Terrible Alternatives.  A "one state" solution, by either side, would result only in genocide, forced expulsions, permanent occupation, or permanent denial of equal rights.  Each is a crime against humanity.  The two-state solution, with an Israel and a Palestine beside each other offering mutual recognition, and guaranteeing sovereignty, self-determination and human rights, is the only solution. This is not a compromise except for those who want to "have it all."  There is no "all" to have.

There must be a Palestine.  There must be an Israel.  Both are legitimate as an historic legacy of the land and its peoples.  Both are legitimate as a demographic reality well before 1948.  Both are legitimate as a political necessity today.  Every life lost in this conflict is a sacrifice on the altar of something.  Pray that it be something other than inevitable violence and more war.  

There are many to blame.  Who do you blame, in order to justify your own intolerance?  Whose intolerance must never be repeated? The  Arab riots in the 1920's? The gross manipulation and political promises by mandatory Britain? The lack of genuine regional partnerships during the early waves of Aliyah? The Arab leaders' refusal to empower domestic Palestinian leaders in the early decades of Israel's existence?  Arab agression? The early Israel military expansions in 1948 and 1967?  The forcible relocation of Palestinians? The focus on pan-Arab movements to destroy Israel? The denial of legitimate Jewish population existing in Israel over centuries? The Islamicists?  The revolutionaries?  The settlers? The left? The right?  The Arabs?  The Israelis?  The Jews? The Muslims?  Europe? America? If you are blaming, you are part of the problem.  There is plenty of blame to spread around.  Until there is peace, no one has gotten it right yet.  Nobody is perfect and pure.

Models for Peace.  There are three great peace agreements that hold in the region today.  First, the Camp David Accords (1978) returned the Sinai to Egypt, offered complete mutual recognition of Israel and Egypt and asserted that Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza must be achieved.  Second, the Israel-Jordan peace treaty (1994) offered complete mutual recognition, warm cooperation as nations, and supported the Oslo Peace process which explicitly worked towards a two-state solution and resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem.  Third, the Abraham Accords (2020) between Israel and UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, which set no preconditions tied to Palestine or the Palestinians, instead breaking the historic pan-Arab policy of prioritizing Palestinian sovereignty over all other concerns.  By rejecting the intolerant form of Pro-Palestinian arguments against Israel's legitimacy, each of these agreements explicitly demonstrated that peace can be achieved through bi-lateral recognition.  If one wishes for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, it can not be based in any narrative of injustice.  It must work from an assumption of mutual recognition.  Every successful peace agreement has this in common.

Palestine Must Stand on Its Own.  The age of mutual delegitimization must come to an end.  Peace must come between Israel and any nation that wishes peace.  Saudi Arabia.  Syria.  Lebanon.  Oman.  Palestine must exist in order for Israel to make peace with Palestinians.  Palestinians can not rely on foreign advocacy or foreign legitimacy.  It must be an expression of the Palestinian people, while asserting that Israel will continue to exist.  That was the move of Oslo, which placed the Palestinian Authority in charge of much of the West Bank (Yehudah/Shomron).  And that  is what has kept the West Bank out of the current conflict.  Hezbollah in the north, Houtis in the Gulf of Aqaba, Iran and Hamas all joined in the military attacks on Israel since October 7th.  The PA has sat it out, waiting for the war to end, in hope of being the diplomatic solution "after Gaza" on the path to their much hoped for Palestinian State.  That has to count for something.  It is the only current hope for an eventual partner for a genuine peace like the others. There are those who believe that is not possible.  I have never heard them suggest a better solution.  No one who delegitimizes Israel can be (or would want to be) a part of that peace, just as no one who delegitimizes Palestine can be (or would want to be) on the Israeli side of that peace.  

The only argue against this is an argument against peace.  There are many who are willing to fall back on narratives that result only in the use of force. Many of those voices are powerful leaders in Israel.  Others are powerful leaders in the Palestinian protest movements.  They offer nothing but conflict or bloodshed for the foreseeable future.

The final outcome, the hope for the next generation, must be peace.   Sovereign rights, authentic legacy, legitimate aspirations to rule one's own affairs in a nation of our own.  On these topics Palestinians and Israelis must either admit each other's dreams or condemn the next generation to endless war.

Palestine matters because Israel matters.  Israel matters because Palestine matters.