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