I disagree with David Ignatius in his June 6th op-ed that “Biden is right, we must seize this opportunity for peace.” His assertion that “Hamas's dictatorial rule is over” was wishful thinking. The threat Hamas poses to Israel is as significant as its political power, and Hamas controls the weapons and tunnels, which remain lethal. Hamas fighters' use of RPGs against Israeli forces during the hostage rescue operation indicates the organization continues to have the capacity to engage.
Ignatius said, [Palestinian governance] “It will be built by supporters of the Palestinian Authority.” But a recent survey by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that more than 60 percent of respondents want the Palestinian Authority to be dissolved. And 61 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip want Hamas to rule Gaza after the war, while only 6 percent want the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority to rule. Hamas will not give up power peacefully, even if it means a 2007-style civil war.
“The UN, Egypt and Qatar will lead the international effort towards the comprehensive reconstruction of Gaza,” Ignatius said. But these two Arab countries and the UN are complicit in the militarization and radicalization of Palestinians. Egypt has been under pressure to address Hamas' tunnel construction and arms smuggling. Qatar funds Hamas (and did so with Israeli support before October 7) and harbors its leaders. For years, evidence has been documented in external reports that UN schools teach anti-Semitic attitudes, sometimes outright Jew-hatred. Israel cannot leave the reconstruction of Gaza to these organizations.
“We have been urging Israel to end the operation for months,” Ignatius writes. In conversations with Ignatius, retired General David H. Petraeus described the operation as “frighteningly difficult.” To get to “the next day,” Israel needs more time to destroy Hamas and destroy the tunnels. This “opportunity for peace” is illusory.
As David Ignatius rightly stated in the title of his June 6 editorial, “We must seize this opportunity for peace.” But the question remains: Who should that “we” include?
Ignatius rightly posed that straightforward question, but in my opinion, he did not go far enough. We must remember that after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the governing authority was supposed to remain the corrupt and dysfunctional Palestinian Authority. In the elections shortly after, Hamas, campaigning as the Reform and Reform Party, defeated the ruling Fatah Party and then consolidated its control over Gaza by force. Did the people of Gaza know then that they were empowering an Islamic extremist government? Of course they did. Why don't they speak out now? Some of them do. Others may feel powerless to speak out, think Hamas will not forgive them, or think they have to focus on survival. It's hard to blame them at this point.
A more straightforward question is why here in the United States, Palestinian-Americans, Muslim elected officials, and leaders of the large Midwestern Muslim community do not speak out forcefully against Hamas and for peace with Israel. Their power to speak out is limitless. Supporting two states without recognizing Israel's right to exist is meaningless. It is all too easy to interpret such silence as support for Hamas and its goal of eliminating Israel, because we hear nothing else. They are the “we” who should seize the opportunity for peace. Their silence is deafening.
Barry Leibowitz, Bethesda
Public Opinion and Opposition
Finally, David Ignatius hits the nail on the head: Why don't the majority of Palestinians actually demand that Hamas accept the latest US peace plan? Too few commentators have asked this important question so far, as it might seem to suggest that the Palestinian people themselves are the main obstacle to peace.
But continued support for the armed struggle is what empowers Hamas to reject any generous peace plan offered by Israel. Inability to face that reality is also what makes gullible protesters, many of them university students, so enthralled with the Palestinian cause. Poll after poll shows that overwhelming majorities of Palestinians not only support Hamas, but also wholeheartedly oppose a two-state solution.
David R. Solomon, Owings Mills
David Ignatius writes that Hamas' acceptance of a peace agreement with Israel “would undoubtedly be in the interest of Palestinian civilians who have suffered greatly from this conflict,” but Hamas does not care about the welfare of Palestinians.
As The Wall Street Journal detailed this month, Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar seeks Palestinian casualties to demonize Israel. Hamas uses Palestinian civilians and civilian facilities as a shield for its war efforts. Ordinary Gazans do not always receive the full amount of food aid that Hamas distributes, forcing them to turn to the black market.
Hamas is only interested in Israel, not in the welfare of Palestinians. Unfortunately, Palestinians living in the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories seem to support Hamas' obsession with Israel. Two-thirds of Palestinians fully support Hamas' October 7 attack, and 80 percent think it is an effective tactic to bring Palestinian concerns to the world stage. If granted the right to vote, Palestinian voters would choose Hamas over the Palestinian Authority. It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which Palestinians would collectively pressure Hamas to stop the war.
The biggest beneficiary is Iran, which led the war against Israel without paying the costs of its intervention.
Only Israel has spoken openly about the need to prevent the radicalization of all Palestinians. Only once this is achieved can Palestinians accept the legitimacy of the Jewish state and everyone can live in peace. This will never happen if the war is stopped prematurely and Hamas is allowed to regain control again.
Larry Shapiro, Calgary, Alberta
When it comes to thoughtful insights on the Israel-Gaza war, David Ignatius is my go-to. To say I was disappointed with his June 6th op-ed would be an understatement. By writing that “Gaza may indeed experience something like a post-war boom,” he unfairly downplayed not only the extent of the suffering that innocent Palestinians have undergone, but also what they will face for decades to come.
To suggest that a fragile agreement that may or may not be reached will enable Gaza to thrive anytime in the near future seems to ignore the tragic history of “peace deals” in the Middle East. History certainly teaches us that the real hard work begins once the parties sign. The parties must be held accountable to their commitments until they are fully realized. If the United States and other countries were truly serious about a lasting resolution to this complex conflict, they would aid and support local peacekeeping and humanitarian nonpolitical institutions that do just that.
Even if the infrastructure destroyed by the Israeli army is miraculously restored quickly, what will happen to the millions of surviving civilians, especially children? Their medical and psychological trauma will last a lifetime and reverberate for generations. There will be no “post-war boom” for them.
The anguish of the Gaza war is evident in readers’ thoughtful responses to my recent columns. They raise questions I’ve struggled with for nearly 45 years covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Barry Leibowitz, David R. Solomon, and Charles D. Eden ask, why don’t Palestinians speak out against bad leaders who have squandered an opportunity for peace? As Larry Shapiro says, why does Hamas use Palestinian civilians as cover and their blood as currency of war? And meanwhile, as Pam Kirby implicitly asks, why can’t the U.S. curb Israeli military action in Gaza that President Biden and other officials have warned from the start was an overreaction similar to the one the U.S. experienced after 9/11?
I try to remind myself of a promise I made to my Israeli and Palestinian readers decades ago when I was foreign editor of The Washington Post: that I would try to see the conflict “as a whole,” even when both sides are deeply hurting. Over the past few years, I've become more convinced than ever that Israel can only have lasting security if the Palestinians have lasting security, and vice versa. For the combatants, there is no middle ground in this conflict, but journalists must see that.
