logo
The Ayatollah's survival was no accident — it was Israel's choice, and a wise one

The Ayatollah's survival was no accident — it was Israel's choice, and a wise one

The Hill13-06-2025
Israel just executed the most far-reaching decapitation strike in the history of Iran. Within hours, targeted airstrikes had eliminated Iran's top military planners — General Mohammad Bagheri, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and General Ali Rashid. Simultaneously, missile development facilities and key military coordination nodes were targeted, severing some of Iran's communication links with proxy networks in Syria and Iraq.
And yet the man at the apex of the system, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was not targeted. To some observers, this omission may seem inexplicable. But martyring Khamenei would have produced explosive consequences far beyond the battlefield.
Under Iran's constitution, the death of the Supreme Leader triggers an emergency succession process managed by the Assembly of Experts. Since the March 2024 elections, this body has been dominated by clerics aligned with the hardline factions.
Their candidate would likely be Mojtaba Khamenei, the Supreme Leader's son and behind-the-scenes enforcer. But Mojtaba faces a problem: He lacks the religious credentials necessary for the role. He has never issued a formal legal opinion, never taught in the traditional seminaries of Qom or Najaf and has never been accepted as a senior clerical authority.
In Shi'a Islam, legitimacy must be earned through decades of scholarship and peer recognition — it is not inherited as with a monarchy.
Had Israel killed Khamenei, this would likely have fast-tracked and legitimized Mojtaba's rise. Absent that, it would be very controversial. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq, for example, has long rejected Iran's system of having a cleric as a political ruler. As long as the Ayatollah lives to a ripe old age, Mojtaba is both too illegitimate to unify the system and too protected to be sidelined. Thus, he may stall Iran's succession process into a doctrinal stalemate — one that Israel has now made more likely by weakening his military protectors while leaving his father alive.
Shi'a political theology is structured around martyrdom. The Seventh Century deaths of Ali and Hussein form the religious foundation of resistance and sacrifice.
Had Khamenei been killed by an Israeli missile, it would not have been processed politically but mythologically. His death would have been viewed as a reenactment of the Karbala tragedy. That would have sanctified his son, unified Iran's factions, and legitimized violent escalation from Iran's regional proxies.
These groups — Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq — see themselves as guardians of the Supreme Leader's religious authority. Iranian defectors have long hinted at internal escalation plans that treat the assassination of the Supreme Leader as a trigger for full-spectrum retaliation: coordinated missile barrages, cyberattacks on Gulf energy terminals, and asymmetric operations against U.S. targets in the region. Sparing Khamenei denies Iran that trigger.
It also preserves strategic ambiguity. By targeting Iran's ability to act but not its spiritual figurehead, Israel prevents the regime from invoking an existential crisis. The message to Iran's mid-level commanders and bureaucrats is clear: Escalation is not inevitable. There is still room for recalibration.
Khamenei's regime has never relied solely on brute force. At the center of this is the Office for the Preservation and Publication of the Works of the Supreme Leader. While nominally a clerical publishing organ, the office functions in reality as a doctrinal surveillance and enforcement bureau. Under the informal leadership of Mojtaba Khamenei, it regulates clerical discourse, curates access to the Supreme Leader, disciplines heterodox scholars, and manages a patronage economy for the seminaries.
This system operates under the protection of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps senior command. The generals eliminated were the regime's enforcers of doctrinal compliance. Their presence deterred rebellion, reinforced Mojtaba's authority, and insulated the clerical apparatus from challenge. The strike helps to break this protective outer layer, leaving the regime's ideological core exposed and overextended.
Israel should keep targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps command. But it should not eliminate Mojtaba or high-profile hardliner clerics. That would risk martyrdom and consolidation. Instead, it should be to disrupt the infrastructure that sustains Mojtaba's influence. This includes severing the financial lifelines that fund loyalist seminaries, exposing internal contradictions within Qom's clerical elite, and quietly empowering transnational rivals — especially those aligned with Sistani in Najaf, who reject clerical political rule altogether. The goal should not be to decapitate the regime, but to delay, fragment, and deny.
For the first time in decades, the Iranian religious establishment faces the threat of a vacuum of coercive insulation. In this new context, figures who once maintained quiet distance from the state may now emerge as active challengers to Mojtaba's succession, potentially leading to a schism that would dramatically affect the operations of pro-Iranian militias across the region. Their legitimacy not just to Tehran's treasury but also to the symbolic authority of the Supreme Leader.
If that authority is contested — if Mojtaba is promoted without consensus — then these groups may begin aligning with other clerics or factions. Figures such as Qais Khazali or Hashem Safieddine, who combine militia leadership with religious aspirations, could become new centers of gravity. The result would be the transformation of the Axis of Resistance from a coordinated deterrent bloc into a constellation of semi-autonomous and potentially competing actors.
In wars of theology, as in wars of missiles, the decisive blow is not the one that kills a man. It is the one that denies a myth.
Carlo J.V. Caro is a New York-based writer who studied and lived in both Jordan and Israel.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Saudi Arabia Is Making a Power Play Against Hamas in Gaza
Saudi Arabia Is Making a Power Play Against Hamas in Gaza

Newsweek

time10 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Saudi Arabia Is Making a Power Play Against Hamas in Gaza

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Saudi Arabia aims to reassert its regional influence by pressing Hamas and Israel to resolve their ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. The campaign comes as U.S.-backed ceasefire talks continue to fail, prompting Riyadh to help rally Western nations toward a new wave of international recognition for Hamas' rival government, the Palestinian National Authority (PA, or PNA), and underlined by the kingdom's decision to sign a statement backed by fellow Arab powers and European nations calling for Hamas' disarmament. These parallel developments have the potential to mark a turning point for Saudi Arabia's role in the conflict. "Saudi Arabia is now in the driver's seat," Nawaf Obaid, a former special adviser to two Saudi ambassadors and consultant to the Saudi Royal Court, told Newsweek. He argued that "the real challenge lies" today in how Saudi Arabia, "by far the most influential Arab country, both in terms of regional leverage and global diplomacy," would be able to press forward in its bid to gain concessions from both Hamas and Israel, while elevating the West Bank-based PA to a position in which it would be able to preside over a unified Palestinian state. "The central question that's been lingering for a while now is Saudi Arabia's role—not just in the Middle East, but far beyond it," Obaid, now a senior research fellow at King's College London, said. "Its importance continues to grow, and it's increasingly clear that if a Palestinian state ever emerges, it will be because of Saudi Arabia. "That is the key formula that many still haven't fully grasped," he added. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman listens as U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) speaks during the Gulf Cooperation Council Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 14. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman listens as U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) speaks during the Gulf Cooperation Council Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 14. Alex Brandon/AP The Balance of Pressure Saudi Arabia's relationship with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was forged early on in the history of the kingdom. Saudi Arabia, which was proclaimed by founder King Ibn Saud in 1932, was among the Arab nations to reject the United Nations' Israeli-Palestinian partition plan in 1947 and send troops to battle the newly declared Israel the following year. While Saudi Arabia's military role would remain limited in the following decades, the ruling House of Saud remained a major player in Arab views toward the conflict, having cultivated a unique level of regional influence, boosted by its custodianship of the Islam's two holiest sites of Mecca and Medina. Today, this position is further compounded by Riyadh's rapid economic growth and leading roles in regional blocs such as the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Organization of Islamic Cooperation. In addition to building upon its long-standing relationship with the United States, Saudi Arabia has also invested in growing ties with China and Russia at a time when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was pursuing historic transformations at home. Yet the region's dynamics have also shifted substantially since the last Arab-Israeli war that rocked the region more than half a century ago. The war in Gaza, likely deadlier than all previous Arab-Israeli conflicts combined, has pitted Israel against Hamas and a coalition of non-state actors backed by Iran. While Hamas' Muslim Brotherhood-inspired brand of militant Islamist ideology is widely rejected among the leaders of Arab states, regional governments have chosen their messaging carefully throughout the conflict. The last Arab peace plan, spearheaded by Egypt, did not once mention Hamas by name when it was first drafted in March. The call for Hamas to abandon its weapons during the French and Saudi-led conference in New York last week constituted a departure from this approach. Behind the scenes, Obaid argued that Saudi Arabia has begun to turn up the pressure against Hamas, whose military position has degraded significantly since the start of the war, though it continues to mount deadly attacks against Israeli forces. "On the Hamas front, Saudi Arabia exerts influence indirectly, particularly through Egypt and Qatar," Obaid said. "And the Qataris, frankly, are feeling the pressure. Their close association with Hamas is now a liability, and it's in their own interest to facilitate Hamas's agreement to the Saudi-led plan." Qatar, which hosts Hamas' main political office abroad, was notably among the Arab nations to call for the group's disarmament for the first time last week. Obaid said it was his understanding that "some key figures within Hamas have already agreed to the Saudi request," yet "the remaining question is not if, but when the rest will follow—and how the transfer of power to the Palestinian Authority and its security forces will be managed." "For that to happen," he added, "there must be a permanent ceasefire, and that's the biggest hurdle." And while U.S. and Israeli officials accuse Hamas of standing in the way of an end to the war, Obaid argued that "Israel remains the core obstacle—not merely as a state actor, but because of the political fate of one man," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu has vowed to continue all of the remaining hostages held by Hamas were released, the group was defeated and Gaza could no longer pose a threat to Israel. He has expressed opposition to allowing the PA to take control of Gaza and has preferred President Donald Trump's earlier plan to resettle Palestinians away from the territory, or, according to recent reports, have Israel reassume direct occupation of Gaza, as it did from 1967 to 2005. Such statements appear to have further galvanized Saudi Arabia's effort to enhance its position on the conflict. Eyad Alrefai, an instructor at King Abdulaziz University in Saudi Arabia, argued that "Saudi Arabia's efforts to pressure Israel regarding its actions, particularly in Gaza, are part of a broader goal to achieve a more balanced and equitable approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." This includes acknowledging that Hamas' rule over Gaza, which the group seized from the PA amid post-election clashes in 2007, and the lingering disunity has only brought setbacks to the Palestinian statehood cause. "The Kingdom recognizes that for any meaningful progress to materialize, it is crucial to address the internal divisions among Palestinians," Alrefai told Newsweek. "The governance of Gaza by Hamas has often been marked by conflict, political infighting, and a lack of a cohesive and strategic approach in negotiations with Israel." "This fragmentation complicates the prospects for peace and undermines the credibility of Palestinian leadership in the eyes of the international community," Alrefai said. Hamas fighters stand in formation ahead of a ceremony to hand over Israeli hostages to the Red Cross in Nuseirat, Gaza Strip, on February 22. Hamas fighters stand in formation ahead of a ceremony to hand over Israeli hostages to the Red Cross in Nuseirat, Gaza Strip, on February 22. Abdel Kareem Hana/AP A 'Multifaceted Strategy' Thus far, Hamas has publicly pushed back at the Arab demand for disarmament, particularly after media outlets cited President Donald Trump's special envoy to the Middle East and lead Israel-Hamas negotiator, Steve Witkoff, as saying the group had agreed to such terms. "We reaffirm that the resistance and its arms represent a national and legal right as long as the occupation remains in place—a right recognized by international charters and conventions," Hamas said in a statement issued Saturday. "We will never relinquish this right until all our national rights are restored, foremost among them the establishment of an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital," the group added. Yet Alrefai pointed out that Riyadh's "pragmatic strategy" in "setting clear terms for Hamas" could prove pivotal in shifting the dynamics of the conflict, especially in a way that paved the path for an empowered PA. "By advocating for the cessation of Hamas's rule in Gaza and facilitating a transfer of power to the Palestinian National Authority, Saudi Arabia seeks to promote a unified Palestinian leadership," Alrefai said. "This unification is essential, as it could result in a more credible negotiating partner for both Israel and the international community." "A consolidated Palestinian front would likely be viewed as more legitimate and effective," he added, "opening the door for greater international support for peace initiatives." Alrefai pointed out that Saudi Arabia had "has several strategic tools at its disposal to pressure Hamas into compliance with a peace agreement that facilitates the transfer of power in Gaza to the Palestinian National Authority." "These include leveraging diplomatic influence within the Arab League and among Muslim nations to politically isolate Hamas, providing economic incentives such as financial support to the PNA contingent on Hamas relinquishing control, and mediating reconciliation initiatives to foster dialogue between Hamas and the PNA that lead to power sharing or a full transfer of power," Alrefai said. "Additionally," he added, "mobilizing public opinion across the Arab world can increase pressure on Hamas to comply with expectations for a unified Palestinian leadership, while offering security assistance to the PNA can enhance its governance capabilities, serving as a deterrent against Hamas's continued rule." At the same time, Saudi Arabia could also "pressure Israel," he argued, by utilizing "the prospect of normalizing relations, working with global powers to advocate for a unified stance that calls for an end to the occupation and supports Palestinian statehood." Reports indicate that Saudi Arabia and Israel had discussed normalization under the auspices of the U.S. in the lead-up to Hamas' October 2023 surprise attack that sparked the ongoing war in Gaza. The kingdom has maintained, however, that such a move could only be taken in the event of a framework that would pave the way for Palestinian statehood, now the crux of Saudi Arabia's diplomatic push in Gaza. This "multifaceted strategy," as Alrefai described it, "involves diplomatic, economic, and security measures aimed at unifying Palestinian leadership while leveraging its influence to encourage Israel's compliance with a peace agreement." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the audience at a conference in Jerusalem on July 27. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the audience at a conference in Jerusalem on July 27. Ohad Zwigenberg/AP 'Not a Magic Wand' Given its long-standing relationship with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia is no stranger to peace initiatives. As far back as 1981, then-Crown Prince and future King Fahd proposed an eight-point plan that called for an Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied after the 1967 Six-Day War—including Gaza, the West Bank and east Jerusalem—as well as the Palestinian right to return and the establishment of a Palestinian state. A second Saudi-led proposal was launched in 2002, the "Arab Peace Initiative," which was built upon the 1981 framework, this time offering Arab-Israeli normalization in exchange for Israeli withdrawals and Palestinian statehood. The 2002 plan, though opposed by Israel and sidestepped by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco through their establishment of diplomatic ties with Israel via the Abraham Accords, continues to serve broadly as the basis for the Arab League's position. Saudi Arabia has also previously weighed in on the rift between Hamas and the PA's leading Fatah faction, overseeing the 2007 Mecca Agreement that sought to establish an ultimately unrealized Palestinian unity government. "Collectively, these efforts represent a continuous narrative of Saudi initiatives designed to lay a political and security foundation upon which a viable Palestinian state can be established," Hesham Alghannam, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Middle East Center and director general of Naïf Arab University for Security Sciences' Strategic Studies and National Security Programs, told Newsweek. Now, Alghannam argued, the recent "New York Declaration" represents a new chapter in Saudi Arabia's historic engagement on the issue, through its "calling for an immediate cessation of the Gaza war, affirming that the Gaza Strip is an integral part of the future Palestinian state, and demanding its unification with the West Bank under the principle of 'one state, one weapon,' achieved through disarming Hamas and transferring all weaponry to the Palestinian Authority's security forces." He warned, however, that such a declaration, as with past initiatives, was "not a magic wand." It would require not only Israeli buy-in, he said, but also the kind of international guarantees that eluded the 1990s Oslo peace accords, which established the PA but were followed by renewed violence rather than the era of peace that was promised. As such, Alghannam explained that the new initiative "advocates for a comprehensive package of international guarantees linking the disarmament of factions to tangible steps: halting settlements, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities and territories, establishing a multinational peacekeeping force to manage the security vacuum in Gaza, and a reconstruction aid package conditioned upon sustained calm." "Without these safeguards," he said, "the principle of 'one weapon' risks becoming 'no weapon' in the face of annexation bulldozers." Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin (not pictured) during their talks in the Grand Palace at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 10. Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin (not pictured) during their talks in the Grand Palace at the Kremlin in Moscow on May 10. Sergei Bobylev/RIA Novosti/AP Opening the Door Even with support from Saudi Arabia and other nations, the PA finds itself in a fraught position as the war in Gaza approaches the two-year mark on October 7. At 89 years old, PA President Mahmoud Abbas is as old as Saudi King Salman, yet the Palestinian leader lacks a clear successor. The Palestinian leader's two-decade rule has been increasingly subject to claims of corruption, calls for new elections and challenges from both Israel and Hamas. On one side, Israeli officials also accuse the PA of tolerating militant groups and Netanyahu himself has objected to the replacement of Hamas with a "Fatah-stan." On the other, supporters of the more popular Hamas and other armed factions accuse Abbas' administration of too closely cooperating with Israel and have undermined his government through independent activity. Such unrest, coupled with growing Israeli military and settler activity, has turned the West Bank into a war zone on the sidelines of the war in Gaza, further eroding the PA's position and throwing into question the very viability of Palestinian statehood. The hope, according to Alrefai, would be that Saudi intervention could serve as a much-needed boost to the PA's fragile position. "As the PNA garners increased international recognition, Saudi Arabia's endorsement of it over Hamas will serve to enhance the PNA's legitimacy," Alrefai said. "This elevation in status could translate into increased international aid and support for Palestinian state-building efforts, which are vital for the long-term viability and sustainability of a Palestinian state." But there are "significant challenges" involved with such an endeavor, Alrefai said, not least of which include the fact that "Hamas commands substantial support in Gaza, and any attempt to curtail its influence could provoke backlash and lead to further conflict." "The deep-rooted historical grievances and the intricate dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict imply that any transition must be managed with great care to avoid exacerbating existing tensions," he said. Meanwhile, Alghannam said "several critical aspects remain overlooked" as the debate plays out over how Saudi Arabia could play a substantial role on this front. "Reforming the Palestinian Authority—including elections, transparency, and modernization of security forces—is imperative to ensure that disarmament does not translate into unilateral dismantlement of national legitimacy," Alghannam said. "Transitional justice regarding crimes committed in Gaza and the West Bank is essential to prevent cycles of violence." "Economic recovery is even more urgent than constitutional arrangements," he added, "a collapsed economy will create a vacuum quickly filled by more extremist factions." Perhaps even more difficult to approach will be what Alghannam calls "the refugee issue—right of return or compensation," which he said "must be addressed from the outset rather than postponed to 'final status' negotiations, or the agreement risks being suspended in legal and moral limbo." So, while he felt that "the two-state solution remains the most persuasive framework," he argued at the same that "its success hinges on three indivisible components: an Israeli willingness to transcend settlement ideology, international guarantees that are implemented rather than merely promised, and unified Palestinian performance capable of consolidating arms under law instead of shattering it at the first test." "Saudi Arabia has once again opened the door," Alghannam said. "It is now incumbent upon the international community to demonstrate it has learned from Oslo's failure, ensuring this time the clauses are not written with the same ink used to sketch expansionist plans onto maps of the West Bank."

Israel says it will allow controlled entry of goods into Gaza via merchants
Israel says it will allow controlled entry of goods into Gaza via merchants

USA Today

time11 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Israel says it will allow controlled entry of goods into Gaza via merchants

Aug 5 (Reuters) - Israel says it will allow gradual and controlled entry of goods to Gaza through local merchants, an Israeli military agency that coordinates aid said on Tuesday, as global monitors say famine is unfolding in the enclave, impacting the hostages Hamas holds. Israel's COGAT said a mechanism has been approved by the cabinet to expand the scope of humanitarian aid, allowing the entry of supplies to Gaza through the private sector. The agency said the approved goods include basic food products, baby food, fruits and vegetables, and hygiene supplies. More: More Gazans die seeking aid and from hunger, as burial shrouds in short supply "This aims to increase the volume of aid entering the Gaza Strip, while reducing reliance on aid collection by the U.N. and international organisations," it added. It was unclear how this aid operation would work given the widespread destruction in Gaza. Palestinian and U.N. officials say Gaza needs around 600 aid trucks to enter per day to meet the humanitarian requirements - the number Israel used to allow into Gaza before the war. Images of starving Palestinians including children have alarmed the world in recent weeks, while a video released by Hamas on Sunday showing an emaciated captive drew sharp criticism from Western powers. Israel in response to a rising international uproar, announced last week steps to let more aid reach Gaza, including pausing fighting for part of the day in some areas, approving air drops and announcing protected routes for aid convoys. More: US envoy tells Israeli hostage families he's working on plan to end Gaza War Hamas said it was prepared to coordinate with the Red Cross to deliver aid to hostages it holds in Gaza, if Israel permanently opens humanitarian corridors and halts airstrikes during the distribution of aid. Israel and the United States urged the U.N. in May to work through an organisation they back, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which employs a U.S. logistics firm run by a former CIA officer and armed U.S. veterans. The U.N. refused as it questioned GHF neutrality and accused the distribution model of militarising aid and forcing displacement. Palestinians were killed near GHF sites where limited aid was distributed, with the U.N. estimating that Israeli forces have killed more than 1,000 people seeking food since May, most near the organisation's distribution sites. GHF denies that there have been deadly incidents at its sites, and says the deadliest have been near other aid convoys. The war in Gaza began when Hamas killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostage in an attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, according to Israeli figures. Israel's offensive has since killed more than 60,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials who do not distinguish between fighters and non-combatants. According to Israeli officials, 50 hostages now remain in Gaza, only 20 of whom are believed to be alive. Hamas, thus far, has barred humanitarian organisations from having any kind of access to the hostages and families have little or no details of their conditions. (Reporting by Alexander Cornwell; Writing by Tala Ramadan and Nayera Abdallah; Editing by Kim Coghill and Michael Perry)

U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate
U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate

This week, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu said the Israel Defense Force would occupy the Gaza Strip, following announcements by France, Canada, and the United Kingdom that they would recognize Palestine as a state. Will recognition of Palestine make a difference? What would it take to achieve peace in Gaza? Newsweek contributors Dan Perry and Daniel R. DePetris debate: Dan Perry: France, the U.K., and others may mean well by considering recognition of Palestine, but doing so now would backfire badly by sending the message that terrorism works—that the October 7 massacre by Hamas has brought Palestinians closer to their goal. At a moment when Arab states are finally calling on Hamas to disarm, Western recognition would embolden extremists and further alienate Israelis. What is essential now is the removal of Hamas as a military force from the Palestinian arena. Only then—and only under moderate, unified leadership—should the West actively support a demilitarized Palestinian state. Daniel R. DePetris: The decision by the U.K. and France to recognize an independent Palestinian state is unlikely to have any effect on the situation whatsoever. This was the definition of a symbolic move, in large part due to frustration over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stewardship of the war in Gaza as well as the horrible images depicting starvation that are streaming out of the enclave. The facts on the ground are such that a two-state solution—a U.S. policy objective for decades across Republican and Democratic administrations—is at best on life support and at worst already dead. The U.K. and French bids won't change this. Only the decisions of Israel and the Palestinians will. Perry: You're right that only those parties can make peace. But recognizing Palestine now would give Hamas a massive political lifeline with the Palestinian public despite its military thrashing by Israel. It signals that violence, even a global-historic massacre like October 7, yields previously unachievable diplomatic results. Without Hamas' removal, Israel won't move an inch. That's why this gesture risks sabotaging the outcome it seeks, and at the very least will need to be messaged very carefully. DePetris: Hamas was becoming more rigid in its negotiating stance before unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state became a mainstream policy in European capitals. I'm not so sure this latest move gives Hamas anything more than a short-term propaganda boost that will inevitably die out as the war continues. Right now, Palestinians in Gaza are focused on surviving, not on state-building—and Israel, particularly under Netanyahu's government, is unlikely to move an inch on statehood regardless of the circumstances. Perry: Sure, this Israeli government is as obstinate as they come. One good thing that may come of recognition is to further Netanyahu's unpopularity in Israel. But the main objective is Hamas disarming and leaving power. Perhaps Arab countries, having won this recognition for their brothers, might take further real steps to bring that about. They'll need to make sure the thing I fear—the strengthening of Hamas—does not happen. Newsweek Illustration/Getty DePetris: Of course, Hamas should disarm. But there are a lot of things that should happen, but don't, for any number of reasons. Despite the beating Hamas has taken over the last 22 months, it still remains obstinate, in large part because it sees disarming as akin to surrendering. A similar dynamic is occurring with respect to Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet another anti-Israel militia that ties demilitarization to tangible (and enforceable) Israeli concessions like a full withdrawal. Would Hamas leave its weapons behind if Israel withdraws from Gaza and permanently ends the war? Perhaps. But don't count on it. Netanyahu is more interested in annexing Gaza, pushing an already remote scenario further into the distance. Perry: What needs to happen is an end to the war with reconstruction (as opposed to humanitarian) aid completely conditional on Hamas disarming and leaving, with the people allowed to exit as refugees if Hamas refuses. That would create huge pressure on Hamas, and possibly spark infighting as well. For any of this to work, recognition of a Palestinian state must not be credited to Hamas—that's the huge risk. The Hezbollah case is simply about Lebanon reasserting its sovereignty, which it has finally started to try to do, and here too massive Arab and Western support will be needed. DePetris: You're essentially describing the Israeli position: ending the war in exchange for Hamas disarming and leaving the enclave. If that were realistically possible, it would have been done already. But it isn't realistically possible; to Hamas, disarmament means surrender, and surrender means not having a place at the negotiating table. Netanyahu still believes he can accomplish this objective through military means by squeezing Gaza until Hamas throws up its hands. This is a losing strategy. It has been tried before and it jeopardizes the lives of the remaining hostages. Netanyahu can have the hostages or a full victory; not both. Perry: My dear fellow Dan, disarming Hamas may be spun as a victory for Netanyahu, but mainly it would be a favor to the Palestinians. This diabolical, maximalist group oppresses Gazans and its existence ensures the Palestinians will not have a state. Israel will not budge as long as they're around. There will be no Palestinian state before Hamas disarms, and I actually think both, in one form or another, will happen. I realize you think the two-state solution is no longer realistic—and if you're right, Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to be at war. I'm more optimistic than that, and from familiarity with the terrain I know it remains possible. But just barely. Let's hope the well-meaning "recognizers" don't hinder it. DePetris: I'm going to rain on everybody's parade: the situation in Gaza, and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute more broadly, is as depressing today as it was before the U.K. and France made their dramatic announcements about unilateral Palestinian statehood. Everybody claims they want the war to end, yet when push comes to shove, the United States does next to nothing to move it toward a conclusion. If Donald Trump is serious about seeing the fighting stop, he's going to have to get tough with Netanyahu by leveraging the U.S.' considerable military assistance. Otherwise, his entreaties are just words that mean nothing and risk drawing the United States deeper into a moral conflagration that doesn't serve its interests. I suspect Trump will take the path of least resistance, in which case we can expect the war to continue and the two-state paradigm to be buried even deeper. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store