President Trump has reached an agreement with Iran, but Iran is only part of the overall regional conflict. The struggle between Jews and Palestinians in the Holy Land is, and always has been, the center of the entire regional conflict. Yet, America has abandoned the long-standing consensus solution, a two-part homeland for Palestinians, needlessly providing Iran and its proxies a justification - or cover - for their mischief.
America used to recognize the co-equal rights of Jews and Palestinians to a home in the Holy Land, both rights born of a unanimous UN resolution adopted in 1947. Until recently, U.S. policy had been to staunchly defend Israel’s right to exist, while, simultaneously, to advocate for a Palestinian homeland. No longer. The Palestinians have been forgotten.
Now, Israel pursues forever-wars against its neighbors and regional enemies and imposes harsh oppression on Palestinians living under its occupation. The U.S. abets a one-sided de facto expansionary Greater Israel enterprise. This goes way beyond justifiable retaliation for October 7th. Israel employs a right to preemptive action and to post-conflict retribution that other nations do not claim. Overall, it is a might-is-right approach, ignoring the always critical hearts-and-minds dimension of any conflict.
Nevertheless, today, there is a real opportunity to rebalance and create a Palestinian home (not state) in Gaza and the West Bank.
That potential already has tangible form. A variation of the two-state solution has already been adopted (but not yet implemented) as the short-term “day-after” solution in Gaza.
In Gaza, international peacekeepers (“the International Stabilization Force,” or ISF) are to disarm Hamas and replace the Israeli Defense Forces. The plan calls for Gazans to accept demilitarization and oversight by an external security force that protects them from Israel and vice versa. No surprise, Hamas and Israel cannot agree who goes first to do what, and without such a clear plan, no nation has offered troops for the ISF. This is a recipe for perpetual stalemate, if not return to conflict.
Yet, this plan could be jump-started if U.S. troops man the ISF together with troops from a major Arab nation. And, if it can be launched in Gaza, it can be expanded to the West Bank and extended long-term.
A Gaza-only plan is not a solution. How could Palestinians feel free in Gaza, while their brethren on the West Bank were severely oppressed? West Bank friends and families are under constant daily attacks by violent Israeli settlers with indulgent IDF troops standing idly by. They are under constant pressure from advancing Israeli settlements.
Israel does not want to cede its security to any international force, but it would have to yield to Americans troops. Israel would have to accede, because Israel exists only based on an American security guarantee. As former Israeli prime minister Yair Lapid grudgingly admitted recently, Israel is a “vassal state,” a protectorate of America.
This being the case, the U.S. should determine the form of the guarantee it provides.
The protectorate would need to be a permanent near century-long solution, given the intense mutual hatreds that have and will persist for generations. With U.S. troops at the center, alongside Arab troops, the protectorate would be militarily powerful and undeniably legitimate (all but a few U.N. members have already recognized a Palestinian state). This plan would create a real home for Palestinians without endangering Israelis.
On the U.S. side, committing American troops might seem to be doubling down on U.S. overinvolvement in the region in face of strong opposition from the American public. After fighting four costly Mideast wars from the Gulf War in 1991 to Iran today, Americans are rightfully sick of Mideast conflict.
With massive national debt limiting our ability to bankroll major warfare, we should see the wisdom of an investment to prevent costly future wars. We have done so in Korea.
Israel under Prime Minister Netanyahu will oppose the proposed protectorate. Netanyahu boasts that he has fought successfully to prevent the creation of a Palestinian homeland. Yet, he never acknowledges what that means for the Palestinians. It means forever-oppression and/or gradual-dispossession, certainly on the West Bank. Either the Jews will have to subjugate the Palestinians in perpetuity or they will have to “encourage” them to move elsewhere.
America should not lend itself to this dark, semi-genocidal and dystopian vision. It is antithetical to everything that America stands for.
Israel under Netanyahu might achieve military dominance and reluctant tolerance in the region, but resulting diplomatic relationships would be cold and unfriendly, just like those with Egypt and Jordan. The region would still hate Israelis. This itself is a strategic risk.
An American-led protectorate would be a real gamechanger between Israel and the Palestinians. It would also impact Iran and the whole region. It would strip Iran of the Palestinian cause as moral justification for its misbehavior and the Axis of Resistance of its primary raison d’etre.
A Palestinian homeland would deflate much of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian fervor of the generation coming of age. That fervor is certainly a security risk for Israel.
It would remove the key obstacle preventing Saudi Arabia – and other Arab nations – from joining the Abraham Accords and transforming the Mideast and further isolating a misbehaving Iran.
Last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury have devastated Iran’s nuclear facilities and its military-industrial complex, setting back its nuclear program for a long time. That’s a major accomplishment achieved by armed conflict. Resolution of the status of the Palestinians would be as important in the realm of hearts and minds, relieving much global anti-Israel passion and reaffirming American values.
Red Jahncke is a nationally recognized columnist, who writes about politics and policy. His columns appear in numerous national publications, such as The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, USA Today, The Hill, Issues & Insights and National Review as well as many Connecticut newspapers.
