It would be a dangerous mistake to reward violence with statehood

Israeli and U.S. leaders disagree over the future of Gaza post-conflict. The U.S. is pushing for a two-state solution, and Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is rejecting this approach. This disagreement over a complex underlying issue underscores the broader dilemma faced by Israel in response to international pressures following the Oct. 7 massacre.

In the wake of this tragedy, calls for establishing a Palestinian state as a solution to the Gaza conflict risk legitimizing violence as a means to diplomatic ends.

This proposed statehood, ostensibly under the Palestinian Authority, would inadvertently credit Hamas with a monumental victory, setting a dangerous precedent that massacres can yield political gains.

The calls come from almost everywhere, including some of the friendliest nations to Israel. As U.S. President Joe Biden put it, “There has to be a vision of what comes next. And in our view, it has to be a two-state solution.”

This sentiment, echoed globally, overlooks the profound implications of legitimizing violent means for political ends.

French President Emmanuel Macron stated, “We must act decisively today to finally achieve a two-state solution, with Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security.” British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak underlined, “The only answer that can allow a new future to be born is a two-state solution.” While acknowledging the desire for peace, these perspectives risk oversimplifying the situation, potentially paving the way for future violence in pursuit of political objectives.

Israel must stand strong against this international pressure, not only for its own good and the region’s good, but in fact, for the good of the whole free world.

Israel’s past experiences — the Oslo Accords following the first Intifada, withdrawal from southern Lebanon due to Hezbollah’s violence, and disengagement from Gaza after the second Intifada — show that concessions in response to terror beget more terror. The disengagement from Gaza, which was handed over to the Palestinian Authority, is a prime example. Despite Israel’s withdrawal, Gaza fell into Hamas’s hands, a group not only responsible for the Oct. 7 massacre but also enjoying significant Palestinian support. The Palestinian Authority’s failure to condemn this massacre, coupled with its track record of incentivizing violence and glorifying terrorism, underscores its unreliability as a peace partner.

Moreover, the proposed borders for a Palestinian state, encompassing areas with deep Jewish historical and religious significance — Bethlehem, Hebron, and Shechem — would require Jews to relinquish regions integral to Jewish identity and history.

The Oct. 7 massacre highlights the existential threat that Israel faces, drawing parallels to the intentions of its most vehement adversaries. A grant of statehood under these circumstances would not only embolden terrorist factions but could bring similar violence to central Israel, endangering countless lives.

Most importantly, rewarding terrorism with statehood sets a perilous precedent, undermining genuine peace prospects. A state established today would be credited, for the rest of history, to Hamas and to the violent massacre it committed on Oct. 7. It will become a stain upon our shared history that encourages violence and terrorism to achieve political goals. It would further encourage terrorism worldwide, potentially affecting cities such as New York, London, and Paris.

History has shown that terrorist attacks like that of Oct. 7 must be repaid with overwhelming defeat, not diplomatic gains. Israel, while adhering to international law and sparing Palestinian civilians, cannot bow to pressure that would allow Hamas to benefit from its massacre.

In the aftermath of the war in Gaza, the challenge lies in rehabilitating the local populace while eradicating deeply ingrained ideologies of hatred. This begins with overhauling the education system to eliminate anti-Jewish indoctrination.

Israel’s stance is clear: although we are retaining necessary military access to counter residual terrorism, we have no interest in occupying Gaza. As the chairman of the Knesset’s Abraham Accords caucus, I envision a significant role for international actors, particularly moderate Arab countries from the Abraham Accords, in Gaza’s rehabilitation.

Their participation starkly contrasts with the failed approaches of the Palestinian Authority, offering a tangible hope for stability and progress. This collaborative effort between Israel and Abraham Accords nations can forge a promising future for Gaza, distinctly benefiting both its residents and Israelis. We must approach this with a long-term perspective, understanding that the desire for swift solutions can inadvertently lead to more complex problems.

In conclusion, rewarding terrorism with statehood would be a critical mistake. It would undermine the prospects for genuine peace and set a perilous precedent for the world.

Confronting terror with strength and resolve, while pursuing viable, peaceful alternatives, is the only path forward.

Dan Illouz is a member of the Knesset for the Likud Party and serves as an alternate member of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.