The Day After: A Unique Two-State Solution

The conversation about when and if Israel will call for a cease fire has begun to shift in an intriguing, yet concerning manner. There are those who believe that the greater part of the war in Gaza is finished, although there is still much to do. At least this is the belief of Haviv Rettig Gur in the podcast with Dan Senor, “Call Me Back.” When I think of the tunnels that must be found and destroyed, and the persistence of Hamas to resist peace in any form, I become skeptical that the end of the war is near.

At the same time, I read two different articles written at two different times by the same man, Daniel Pipes, who is an acclaimed scholar on the Middle East. I’ve been following him for years and appreciate most of his scholarship, but I resisted concurring with his belief in the possibility that there was any possible way that two states, Palestinian and Israeli, could be created.

Still, in reading his earlier article, and reviewing his reasoning, and then considering his most recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, he’s given me cause for hope. And opportunities for experiencing hope regarding the Israelis and Palestinians have been exceedingly rare.

So I’d like to take you back to his first article, a transcribed interview, that I’ve referenced from February 2023, in particular his understanding of the Palestinians and their perceptions of the Israelis. In a new development, Pipes participated in creating the Israel Victory Project, a radical approach:

Many people have spoken about the need to impress on the Palestinians that Israel is there and its government can’t be defeated. Israel Victory takes it a step further and says that not only do the Palestinians have to understand that Israel won’t be defeated, but the Palestinians need to be defeated. That’s going further than anyone else does.

When Pipes was asked how he defined “defeat,” this was his response:

Very simply — defeat is imposing your will on your enemy. Whatever that might be. In this case, it would be accepting that Israel is there and permanent. My research suggests that through the past century about 20% of Palestinians have accepted that. Arabs played a very important role, especially in the pre-independence period, when they sold land, intelligence, and arms and provided all sorts of assistance to Jews. The rest are in denial, and the goal has to be to increase that [20%] to 40-60%.

Pipes states that Israel has simply “shrugged off” or tolerated the violence of the Palestinians, instead of confronting it. Again, the goal would be to convince the Palestinians that they have lost:

That said, let me give you one illustration. Israel should tell the government of Gaza — Hamas [this was before October 7] — that a single rocket or missile coming over from there means one day without any water or food or medicine or energy. Two missiles will be two days. I think there will be a lot of anger towards Israel for this, but I think it will be effective and won’t require military force. I think it’s worth the criticism in order to convince the Palestinians that they’ve lost.

To further convince the Palestinians that they must stop the violence, Pipes explains that the Palestinians must not be rewarded for losing, but they must feel the pain of defeat:

Everybody says let’s reward the Palestinians. I say no. Give them nothing, make them go through defeat, let them feel the pain. Then, once they’ve conceded, you can have Oslo-style agreements and benefits. It’s completely illogical to benefit your enemy while you’re at war with it. This is only an Israeli idea. The Marshall Plan only happened after the defeat of the Axis. We need to make them pay a price for continuing to want to eliminate the Jewish State.

Repeatedly, Israel and the rest of the world have tried to bribe Hamas, and the Palestinians even earlier, to acquiesce. Clearly, it hasn’t worked.

* * * *

Coming into the present, Israel has thought it could postpone dealing with the “Day after Hamas” scenario. But Haviv Rettig Gur says in the referenced podcast, the time has arrived to deal with this reality of success in the war. Daniel Pipes in this op-ed explains how P.M. Netanyahu has stepped up to offer a possible approach:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month presented Israel’s security cabinet with a short document: “The Day After Hamas.” Its key passage states that Jerusalem plans to work primarily with Gazans to rebuild their territory. ‘Civil affairs and responsibility for public order will be based on local actors with ‘management experience,’ it says, and ‘not identified with countries or organizations supporting terrorism’ or receiving payments from them.’

Pipes describes the arguments against this approach as coming from the U.S. and other nations, who insist that the Palestinian Authority oversee Gaza; given the P.A.’s historic support of terrorist organizations and paying the families of suicide bombers, it seems unlikely that the P.A. will be an acceptable candidate. Also, from a practical standpoint, it might be difficult to find Palestinians qualified to take on management roles in a new government.

In recent surveys, however, the Palestinians may finally be turning against their exploitative ruler, Hamas. A trove of evidence suggests that Gazans reject being used as pawns in the terror group’s strategy. Two surveys taken before Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre signal that Gazans want to live normal lives.

One, conducted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in mid-2023, found that 61% wish that more Israeli jobs were offered to those living in Gaza and the West Bank. Sixty-two percent want Hamas to preserve the cease-fire with Israel, and 67% believe that ‘the Palestinians should focus on practical matters, . . . not on big political plans or resistance options.’ Seventy-two percent say ‘Hamas has been unable to improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza,’ and 82% agree that ‘Palestinians should push harder to replace their own political leaders with more effective and less corrupt ones.’ Eighty-seven percent find that ‘many people are more preoccupied with their personal lives than with politics.’

I was stunned when I read these results, because other sources fairly recently have said that the Palestinians still support Hamas and their violence.

Still, Pipes assures us that Gaza will require a tough Israeli military rule to maintain peace and order. This is a brief overview of what that would entail:

These and other data points indicate that many Gazans want to be liberated from Hamas. However hostile to the Jewish state, they desperately want to move on from their present squalor, even if that means working with Jerusalem. Israel, therefore, can reasonably expect to find many cooperative Gazans ready to establish a new governing authority capable of taking on a range of tasks, from policing, utilities, municipal services and administration to communications, teaching and urban planning.

Unfortunately, I see other limitations to Pipes’ plan. First, there will need to be a transformation of the Palestinian attitude to Jews; public cries of “from the river to the sea” will likely be forbidden. Second, will the Palestinians have the patience to bring civilized existence into their lives, since it will take time for the process to develop? Third, will Israel abide by the plan, making sure that it isn’t violated by Hamas infiltrators?

I could list many more difficulties that would be encountered in this plan. But there is nowhere else for the Palestinians to go.

Yet as Daniel Pipes concludes:

If the Israelis have the acumen and stamina to make this happen, they will have retrieved something positive out of tragedy.