Israel Wants Gaza, Hamas Wants the West Bank, but Hezbollah Still Doesn’t Know What It Wants

One achievement the Biden administration can claim in its relations with Israel and the war cabinet led by Benjamin Netanyahu is that it appears to have thwarted an Israeli plan to attack Lebanon after Israel vowed to flatten Lebanon into a wasteland, similar to Gaza. The Biden team insisted that, at this stage, there is no need to entwine Hezbollah in Lebanon with Hamas in Gaza within Israel's objective of eliminating the threat they pose to its existence, as Israel claims. Netanyahu and the war cabinet reluctantly accepted on condition Hezbollah’s provocations are restrained and Lebanese commitments under Resolution 1701 are implemented during this respite in the rare political and strategic standoff between the United States and Israel. But any such agreements are going to be conditional and temporary. Indeed, there are profound differences in visions for permanent solutions, and there are no signs of a breakthrough on the near horizon. Negotiations about the "day after" are fraught with stubbornness and anger. So, what lies on the tables of international, regional, Palestinian, and Israeli policy drawing boards? ?

?

Benjamin Netanyahu and his military team, with Israeli popular support, have finally revealed Israel's intentions, despite divisions and variations in positions especially in addressing the issue of hostages with Hamas. Credit must be given to Netanyahu for finally taking the mask off the Israeli deception behind its take on the Oslo agreement, which I exposed in a scoop in 1993 when I was the bureau chief of Al Hayat newspaper in New York. ?

?

At the time, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas played a pivotal role in convincing then-President Yasser Arafat to agree to the recognition of Israel by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as part of its efforts to establish a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders. At a closed-door session in which an Israeli official spoke before an important council in New York, a few interested people gathered for discussion with the official to deepen their understanding of policies on the condition that they are not attributed to him. But it was astonishing what he said: The problem with "Oslo" is that the Palestinian side has taken it very seriously, which we did not expect, and it did not occur to us to take it seriously.?

?

Israel has never been genuinely committed to the Oslo Accord's promise of establishing a Palestinian state. It consistently sidestepped the "two-state solution," while pocketing the security commitments implemented by the Palestinian Authority. Israel has always asserted that Jordan should serve as an alternative homeland for Palestinians, dismissing Jordan's sovereignty, contrary to U.S. and international positions that recognize Jordan as an independent state rather than an alternative homeland for Palestinians.?

?

When Yitzhak Rabin came to power, a leader who perceived the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel to be in Israel's interest, and an advocate of peace, coexistence, and the two-state solution, he was assassinated by Israelis. Since then, Israel continued to circumvent the two-state solution yet without explicit public rejection, until Netanyahu clarified his opposition to the Oslo agreement in unequivocal statements last week, declaring that Oslo was a "mistake" that will not be allowed to happen again.?

The common ground between Netanyahu and his extremist coalition, and Hamas and its leadership, is their rejection, both historical and ongoing, of the two-state solution. This explains why Israel and Hamas have always been fundamental partners. Israel played a role in the creation of Hamas, facilitating its funding for years to sustain its fight against the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas — the advocate of Oslo, the two-state solution, and the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.?

?

Oslo's achievement for the Palestinians lies in allowing the emergence of the Palestinian Authority on Palestinian territories, resisting occupation locally and in international forums, and gaining recognition from world countries and international organizations.?

?

Today, given Hamas's predicament in the aftermath of its attack on October 7 and Israel's retaliation against Gaza following Hamas's "calculated" adventures, as one of its leaders described it, Hamas's political leadership may want to portray itself as ready to make a radical change and transformation. But Hamas wants to go beyond self-preservation and embrace the Iranian model of tactical adaptation, either temporarily or as a profound metamorphosis, altering its ideology. Indeed, strategic ambiguity remains a key element in the thinking of both parties.?

?

Sources familiar with Hamas leadership's thinking suggest that their current actions are a practical preparation to convey the impression that a genuine process of radical change is underway, transitioning from the radical Hamas to a more peaceful version. This could explain the recent discussions or verbal slips about accepting the two-state solution and a willingness to join the PLO. Hamas's messages to Israel, the United States, and the world convey a readiness to reinvent itself, opting for moderation over extremism—albeit the real motive is not yet clear.?

?

The reality is that Hamas wants to rebuild itself with the aim of gaining control over the West Bank, not Gaza. Its leaders want to develop a strategic plan to reconstruct the organization, positioning it to assume leadership and act as an alternative to the PLO. While Hamas currently speaks the language of engagement and partnership with the PLO, its true intent is to replace the organization, especially as it believes that the Palestinian popular base supports it rather than the current Palestinian Authority.?

?

This is concerning given the suspicious relationship between Israel and Hamas. Historically, Hamas's actions have often provided Israel with pretexts to impose its agenda. The ongoing displacement of Gazan Palestinians aligns with Israel's longstanding policy, driven by the conviction that Sinai is a viable alternative to Gaza. In other words, the forcible displacement carried out under the guise of retaliation for Hamas's "calculated" adventures on October 7th has become a reality.?

?

Should Hamas succeed in gaining control of the West Bank, it will inevitably provide Israel with a pretext to enforce the forced displacement of West Bank Palestinians to Jordan, the "alternative homeland." But Hamas alone is not the sole pretext; the primary catalyst is Israel's extremist policies, the audacity of Israeli settlers, and a brazen government solely focused on retaining power at any cost to Israel, and not just at the expense of Palestinian civilians.?

Benjamin Netanyahu's statements, as relayed by President Joe Biden, justifying his actions of extermination against the Palestinians by comparing them to what the United States did in its wars, carry astonishing audacity. While it is true that American wars were never clean wars, Israel conducts its wars with American weapons and tax money, leading to legal implications for its use of American weapons in blatant violation of the rules of war and international treaties aimed at protecting civilians.?

?

Biden rightfully alluded to America’s grave mistake in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Back then, President George W. Bush hastily invaded and occupied Iraq and engaged in the failed war in Afghanistan as retribution for 9/11. However, Netanyahu doesn’t care about Biden's advice or calls for a change in Netanyahu's extremist government. In Netanyahu's calculations related to the upcoming U.S. presidential elections, which effectively begin next month, he does not care whether Democrats or Republicans win, as long as his government remains in power.?

?

Biden's team understands that Netanyahu prefers former President Donald Trump to win the presidency due to his firm stance against Iran and its proxies and unwavering support for Israel. However, Donald Trump adheres to a fundamental principle of avoiding U.S. involvement in all wars while Israel's war cabinet’s policies aim to drag the United States into a direct war with Iran and expand the conflict to Lebanon. This would present a dilemma for Donald Trump—how to reconcile his promise to the American people of avoiding wars with his support for a war-mongering government planning to lead his country into direct conflict??

?

It is still early to discuss Trump's foreign policy, but the rumors of the possible nomination of Nikki Haley for vice president are alarming given her extremism. Perhaps Trump's team has a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Israeli obstinacy and extremism and Netanyahu's rejection of the two-state solution. Such a strategy could go beyond considering Hamas as a terrorist organization, akin to ISIS and take into account the adjustments required in the U.S.-Israeli relationship for the Middle East and U.S. interests. ?

?

Trump prides himself on being adept at the art of the deal, so let's see if he can advance ideas for a permanent solution today or in the coming month or achieve that "grand bargain" after the momentous war.?

?

Today, we find ourselves on the brink of a regional and global war if Israel is allowed to expand the conflict. The success of Biden's team in preventing Israel from executing its plan to strike Lebanon means putting a spoke in the wheel of a regional war that Iran would enter directly if Israel risked a military strike on Lebanon. Deterring Israel means deterring Iran, and vice versa. ?

?

Hezbollah takes its marching orders from Tehran. It must stop pretending it is helping Hamas resist Israel through its low-level war across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Hezbollah must follow through on its commitments and obligations under Resolution 1701 and the agreement delineating the maritime borders between Lebanon and Israel. It should cease meaningless provocations that only serve to raise tension, posing a grave risk for itself, Lebanon, and its people, who will be the primary victims.?

?

Some Lebanese do not object to an Israeli war that destroys Hezbollah and eliminates its dominance over their country in the name of resistance and, primarily, on behalf of Iranian interests, wielding weapons directed against the Lebanese. It would be better if Hezbollah reevaluated its position, adjusted its ideology and loyalties, and became a moderate Lebanese entity prioritizing the interests of the Lebanese people above all else. This way, it saves itself, reinvents its role, and offers its popular base a peaceful coexistence instead of destruction and devastation.