Calling the Peace Drunkards Bluff
How to Achieve Strategic Victory
The hostages and their release have been turned into throw-away lines, mere afterthoughts in the public pronouncements of most Western states. It is morally bankrupt. It is also terribly racist, it erases any Palestinian agency, reduces Palestinian political, moral, and spiritual leadership to that of emaciated infants in need of constant protection. Reading the tea leaves of the Western press, it is as if Israel is at war with ghosts, at war with “infrastructure”, and not a terrorist organization avowed to the destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of the Jewish people. On top of being morally bankrupt, it is terrible foreign policy, because the unilateral pressure on Israel lengthens the war, thereby prolonging the humanitarian crisis, and extending the suffering of all involved. When Western governments apply unilateral pressure on Israel, Hamas, like the Pharaoh in Exodus, hardens their hearts, and their negotiating position.
This whole exercise reeks of a passé imperial hubris; once mighty, imperial powers are now dictating terms of war and peace to the unwashed Oriental and Semitic masses, restoring peace and civilization to a region of tumult, darkness and disorder. Ninety years ago, when the circle of who was viewed as civilized extended no further east than Prague, another genocidal force crept towards its ambitions in Eastern Europe. To avoid calamity, a flustered Labour government dispatched their Prime Minister to Munich. The Germans asserted they were only acting to realize the “legitimate rights of self-determination” of their brethren in Austria, and the Sudetenland. No more! The whole of Czechoslovakia, then Poland, and soon the entire continent of Europe descended into madness, with two-thirds of European Jewry being offered as korbanot. Today, the same fecklessness and weakness is attempting to offer up Israel as a sacrifice on the altar of appeasement. There is the appearance of bend even in the Trump administration, Witkoff having been dispatched to Gaza not to pressure Hamas into an agreement, but to take inventory of food distribution efforts, and line-up fresh demands of Israel. However, the Trump administration still appears to be coordinating with Israel on these matters; their pullout from the negotiations in Doha was synchronized in light of this latest propaganda campaign by Hamas was mutual, as was their mutual boycott where the peace drunkards are falling over themselves to announce the recognition of the State of Palestine.
This begs the question, what are the peace drunkards, led by Macron intending to recognize in September at the UN General Assembly? Article I of the Montevideo Convention is authoritative: “the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) a government and (d) a capacity to enter relations with other states.”
According to the United Nations, the coterie of non-governmental organizations which orbit around it like flies, and more importantly, according to the French Court themselves, the Gaza Strip is not fit for human habitation, so the presence of a permanent population there is, according to France itself, not possible. This is the whole premise behind the French Court's ruling that all Gazans had a right to apply for asylum in France. With regards to a “defined territory” the closest legal instrument that Palestinians can point to are the Oslo II Accords, which delineate between Area A, B, and C of the West Bank. The Oslo II Accords being a zombified interim agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, demurred on questions of delineating borders as one of many final status issues to be negotiated bilaterally between the parties. On the question of governance, there are de facto two governing authorities inside the Palestinian territories described in the Oslo II Accords. On the one hand there is the corrupt gerontocratic “moderate” Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah led by (PhD in Holocaust Denial) Abu Mazen. They are the peaceful alternative to the hostage-taking, mass rape, and mass murdering jihadists that de facto govern the Gaza Strip.
French recognition as positioned by Macron is unconditional, and therefore makes no comment on which entity is the government of the State of Palestine, despite France having designated both the political and military wings of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The last point is that Palestine must have the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Under the auspices of the Paris Accords which complement Oslo; the Palestinian Authority cannot issue its own currency, and therefore cannot enter into an independent economic arrangement with other states. Palestine lacks full member status in the United Nations (a matter over which the Security Council, and therefore the United States possesses a veto), and therefore cannot be a full party to international treaties. For all the heady symbolism of the announcement, the French pronouncement is nothing but hot air.
None of this is “foreign policy”. There is nothing in the French national interest to pursue unilateral recognition of a state whose territories conflict with the borders of Israel, with which it has normal diplomatic relations. Through deduction, the French announcement seems to be based purely on domestic political considerations. That in my view is a confession of abject weakness. Macron has the time to sue Candace Owens and a number of his domestic political opponents for defamatory statements that nobody takes seriously, and pursue a phantasmic two-state solution because within France, he faces a do-nothing hung Parliament comprised of Melenchon’s communists to the left of him, and Le Pen’s Rassemblement Nationale to his right. His domestic agenda has stalled. He has no domestic political capital. This is an exercise in ego, in “legacy preservation”, and it must be said, a kowtowing to the pressure exerted by Islamists in the French street.
Only refracted through the lens of domestic politics, do the decisions of the peace drunkard begin to make sense. In Britain, Keir Starmer is deeply and profoundly unpopular, facing open rebellion from his backbench, as the British left fragments in real-time between the Greens, the Liberal Democrats, and Corbyns’ Jezbollah. Gaza is one of the few “glue” issues remaining and Starmer, in a desperate bid to hold on to power has already been pushed to the brink of unilateral recognition, while pretending that is not what he is doing to preserve some favour with British Jewry (and with his wife). The British position is that if Israel does not take immediate steps towards creating a Palestinian state; a ceasefire that leaves Hamas intact in Gaza, commitment to non-annexation of the West Bank, and commitment to a peace process, that Britain will recognize a Palestinian state, while imposing no demands on the Palestinians. In Australia, Canada, and elsewhere, buffeted by the slow disintegration of the postwar American-led order by an economically protectionist Trump Administration, rapid reorientation of economic and diplomatic relations is now the highest priority for their national security. The pivot away from the United States requires a certain shift in diplomacy. Australia, Canada and New Zealand will therefore move toward the European consensus. In Canada, where Mark Carney has since his election governed like an authoritarian progressive conservative, Palestine may be the red meat he throws to the progressive wing of his electoral coalition to keep it from collapsing if and when he decides to get some carbon-intensive energy projects moving.
The British framing of recognizing a Palestinian state as some kind of punishment for Israeli malfeasance is an electoral gift to Netanyahu, and a paralyzing blow to the peace camp. The Hostage Families Forum, which has become the moral centre of opposition to the Israeli government, and which advocates for an end to the war felt compelled to release this statement in response to growing European initiatives to recognize a Palestinian state:
“Recently, we have seen an increase in initiatives calling for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state - all while fifty hostages have been held captive by Hamas for 663 days. Recognizing a Palestinian state while fifty hostages remain trapped in Hamas tunnels amounts to rewarding terrorism. Such recognition is not a step toward peace, but rather a clear violation of international law and a dangerous moral and political failure that legitimizes horrific war crimes.
The abduction of men, women, and children, who are being held against their will in tunnels while subjected to starvation and physical and psychological abuse, cannot and should not serve as the foundation for establishing a state. If the international community truly desires peace, it must join U.S. efforts by demanding first the release of all hostages, followed by an end to the fighting. Recognition of a Palestinian state before the hostages are returned will be remembered throughout history as validating terrorism as a legitimate pathway to political goals…”
The Hostages Forum, which speaks for the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public that supports a comprehensive hostage-for-ceasefire deal is now echoing the talking points of a government it otherwise regularly calls to resign. By buying into the idea that Israel is solely responsible for continuation of the war, these European states send a clear signal to Hamas that their strategy is working. Rewarding Hamas with recognition of Palestinian statehood is a further boon to that strategy. As ever, when hot air confronts cold political reality, it is the ironclad laws of national interest that triumphs. As an example, the European Commission put a “concrete option" of removing Israel’s access to EU start-up accelerators and venture capital funds. They could not obtain a majority of European states, because Israeli start-ups produce immense economic value for European markets. Furthermore, these “concrete options” serve to further reinforce a right-wing narrative in Israel. Ever shrewd, Netanyahu has been carefully waiting to decide if he needs to reposition to the centre, or to the right ahead of an inevitable election. Netanyahu can now make the case to the electorate that unilateral actions against Israel must be met with decisive unilateral actions by Israel. European enthusiasm for unilateral recognition of Palestine will also provide the legal justification for annexation for parts of Judea and Samaria. I would note that staving off the partial annexation of Judea and Samaria was the starting point for negotiations that produced the Abraham Accords.
The credible threat of annexation can now re-emerge, only now in a strategic context where the Axis of Resistance has been decimated, and the depth of Israel’s air, intelligence, and special operations capabilities are on full display. The resolution of the Hezbollah question in Lebanon will provide the template for the resolution of the Hamas question in Gaza. The Lebanese government is under sustained pressure by the United States to take a formal cabinet decision on disarming Hezbollah. At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Michael Issa, the Lebanese-American nominee for Ambassador to Beirut was forthright “Hezbollah knows if they don’t disarm, there is something that is going to happen…”, and that the forthcoming cabinet meeting was a positive development: “maybe that would create some pressure and hopefully it will solve the situation, but Hezbollah needs to go, Hezbollah needs to be disarmed, to bring some kind of hope to Lebanon.”
In notable contrast to demands made in the context of Gaza, the “permanent” ceasefire in Lebanon provides Israel the ability to act against immediate threats, with an international mechanism for dispute resolution and monitoring. Israel continues to grind down Hezbollah, eliminating mid-level operatives, commanders, and attempts to re-establish command and control infrastructure. Israel is feeding the Lebanese Army human and signals intelligence to assist its efforts in uprooting Hezbollah missile silos, weapons caches, and other infrastructure in the Beqaa and south of the Litani. Netanyahu should leverage the threat of unilateral measures in Judea and Samaria to obtain a “permanent” ceasefire with Hamas modeled after the ceasefire with Hezbollah. The premise must be that Hamas must disarm, and that Israel must reserve the right to act against Hamas when it inevitably refuses to do so. The chief difference between Gaza and Lebanon remains the scale of the humanitarian disaster and the absence of a credible alternate government. By putting annexation squarely on the table, Israel can negotiate a softening of the Arab position for an irreversible pathway to a Palestinian state, and come to a consensus on necessary reforms to the Palestinian Authority. Contingent on these reforms, Israel can accept a limited administrative role for the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, but it should be made crystal clear to all, that recalcitrance and footdragging will be met with actions in Judea and Samaria: dunam diplomacy, peace or piece.
The time for indecision and bloviating is over. Israel must call the bluff of these bumbling cowards in the West, and must put immediate annexation on the table. The Arab League’s “New York Declaration”; a unanimous condemnation of October 7th and a call for the disarmament and dismantling of Hamas. The same Declaration’s reference to “the right of return” of Palestinian refugees sinks it from a document of genuine progress, to the status quo of schizophrenic posturing between Arab national interest and placation of the Arab street. Nevertheless, Israel should call their bluff and engage the international community in negotiations on the basis of this declaration to set up a timetable for fresh Palestinian elections, without further preconditions. No ban on Hamas, or any other terrorist faction. If Palestinians are serious about peace, then they must deliver a government with a mandate to pursue it. I will not hold my breath.
Fresh leaks suggest that Israel is mulling expanding military operations into areas where hostages are being held and considering targeting Hamas leadership abroad. These leaks are a political smokescreen to divide public attention as his government ousts the Attorney General, and as he appoints a loyalist to break the logjam on Haredi conscription, and stabilize his coalition. The leaks are also a way to gauge a sentiment of his political base - if Beitar Illit, and Sderot react to these leaks the same as Gush Dan, then we may see a swift return of the negotiation table in Doha. The horrific footage of Ram Braslavski and David Evayatar has reignited international outrage, and may yet yield actual diplomatic pressure on Hamas: the Security Council meets tomorrow for an emergency session on the Hostages. Meanwhile, Israel rightfully lambasts the impotent Red Cross, and Hamas signals it is willing to stop intentionally starving hostages in exchange for… permanent humanitarian aid corridors, and unsupervised delivery of aid through the United Nations. The course of events in the short term will be hard to predict. In uncertainty, we turn to faith, we recite Acheinu, we pray for the redemption of the captives, and we hold strong, because the closer we get to actually uprooting these monsters, the louder the shrieking will get. Tune out the noise.
Signed,
-Abba Eban