8 | JUNE 6 • 2024 
J
N

opinion
Peace Now?
T

he unbearable imag-
es of the war in Gaza 
have shaken the world, 
prompting urgent calls for an 
end to the suffering. However, 
neither calls 
for an imme-
diate unilateral 
ceasefire, nor 
incantations, nor 
grand speeches, 
nor votes at the 
United Nations 
will be enough 
to bring about 
peace or stop the violence. Yet 
somehow, this approach seems 
to prevail in much of the inter-
national community. 
To think that a solution can 
magically emerge — where hos-
tilities cease overnight without 
the release of hostages or a sig-
nificant weakening of Hamas’ 
military infrastructure, leading 
to its loss of control over the 
Gaza Strip — and that unilater-
al recognition of a Palestinian 
state, as recently voted for by a 
number of countries at the U.N. 
Security Council and promoted 
by several European countries 
including Spain, Slovenia, 
Ireland and Belgium, would 
lead to actual peace is not only 
naive but also dangerous.
It is first necessary to under-
stand that the events since Oct. 
7 are not just a renewed repe-
tition of the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict but mark a war 
between Israel and the Islamic 
Republic of Iran and its prox-
ies — Hamas and Palestinian 
Islamic Jihad in Gaza; 
Hezbollah in Lebanon; Shi’ite 
factions in Syria and Iraq; the 
Houthis in Yemen; and terrorist 
groups in the West Bank. Iran’s 
hegemonic ambitions, nuclear 
aspirations and alliance with 

other authoritarian and dan-
gerous global players, such as 
Russia, must be factored into 
any global analysis and strate-
gy. The West, which has been 
too passive in the face of the 
mullahs, must finally tackle this 
problem.
The current onslaught by 
these authoritarian and terrorist 
allies represents a multifaceted 
threat — not only geopolitically 
but also by exploiting vulnera-
bilities inherent within Western 
societies. By co-opting seem-
ingly progressive ideologies, 
these groups have launched a 
divisive assault aimed at frag-
menting our social fabric. This 
strategy is starkly evident in 
its most extreme form on col-
lege campuses, where we have 
witnessed an alarming trend: 
Influenced by these manipu-
lated narratives, some young 
people are not advancing the 
idea of peace but increasingly 
voicing support for radical 
anti-Israel discourse and ter-
rorist organizations, and for 
endorsing extremist actions, 
including the murder and 
genocide of Jews. 
This troubling development 
is a direct consequence of such 
an insidious strategy, designed 
to undermine and destabilize 
from within and to be leveraged 
as political pressure.
If we truly want to envision 
a better future for Israelis and 
Palestinians, it is also necessary 
to understand that continuing 
to offer better terms to a party 
that has consistently rejected 
any peace proposal to resolve 
the conflict in the past — and 
of which one faction, Hamas, 
has vigorously engaged in ter-
rorist acts — only encourages 
the most extreme elements 

among the Palestinians to per-
sist in this approach.
It also pushes the most 
intransigent parties in Israel 
to persuade the rest of the 
population that the status quo 
is preferable to any form of 
agreement. To those who know 
the reality on the ground, it was 
no surprise to see the recent 
vote in the Knesset, initiated by 
Israel Prime Minister Benjamin 
Netanyahu, against unilateral 
recognition of a Palestinian 
state. Despite Netanyahu’s 
low polling, 99 Knesset mem-
bers out of 120 supported 
him, including a large part 
of the opposition. The move 
toward unilateral recognition 
is perceived by the majority of 
Israelis as a reward for the hor-
rors of Oct. 7.
Moreover, the once unshake-
able support in Israel for a 
two-state solution has gradually 
waned, and the national trau-
ma experienced on that Black 
Shabbat seven months ago has 
further reinforced the rigidity 
in public opinion. 
In January, 59% of Jewish 
Israelis expressed their oppo-
sition to a two-state solution. 
This resistance is not ideologi-
cal but based on concrete con-
siderations and legitimate fears; 
although many Israelis are open 
to a compromise for peace, they 
are reluctant to abandon the 

status quo without any solid 
security guarantees and a peace 
deal that would actually bring 
about the final resolution of the 
conflict.
The history of Israel’s terri-
torial withdrawals is a caution-
ary tale for many. The Oslo 
Accords were followed by the 
bloody Second Intifada, during 
which more than 1,000 Israelis 
were killed, often in suicide 
bombings. 
The withdrawal from Gaza in 
2005 saw Hamas rapidly over-
take the Palestinian Authority 
and go on to invest years in 
building rocket factories and a 
complex underground military 
infrastructure. Similarly, the 
departure from the Israeli secu-
rity zone in Southern Lebanon 
did not lead to peace with 
Hezbollah, but rather enabled 
the group to consolidate its 
control, accumulate a large 
arsenal of rockets and deploy 
thousands of elite Radwan 
commandos near the border. 
These decisive moments have 
influenced Israelis’ perception, 
associating the abandonment 
of territory — and thus the idea 
of a two-state solution — with 
significant security risks. Many 
now prefer to maintain the 
status quo. Mere general talk of 
“security guarantees” will never 
reassure the public.
This perception is exacer-

Simone 
Rodan- 
Benzaquen
jns.org

View of the destruction caused by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023, in 
Kibbutz Kfar Aza, near the Israeli-Gaza border, in southern Israel, Nov. 
2, 2023.

ARIE LEIB ABRAMS/FLASH90

PURELY COMMENTARY

