Major Jewish organizations in the US, including liberal and democratic-leaning ones, are receptive to the claim that the outcome of the current war between Israel and Hamas should not be a two-state solution, Religious Zionist Party MK and Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee (FADC) Ohad Tal said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
Tal spoke to the Post from the US, where he has spent over a week meeting with US officials, including National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications Adm. John Kirby and Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson, leaders of Jewish and Christian organizations, and others.
Tal says that his core message in all of his meetings was that awarding the Palestinians a state as a result of the monstrous Hamas terror attack on October 7 indicates that terror pays off – and the entire world, not just Israel, will pay a heavy price and suffer a rise in global terrorism as a result.
This message is diametrically opposed to the US administration’s policy to end the war by creating a regional agreement, that will include normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia and concrete steps towards the formation of a Palestinian state. But Tal is adamant that Palestinian statehood at this time would have disastrous consequences.
“After October 7, even talking about a Palestinian State sends a very strong message in the Middle East that terror is the way to go … and tells radical Islam all over the world that if you want something, get it by terror,” Tal says.
Tal said that he was surprised by the receptiveness of his messages from members of the House on both sides of the aisle, as well as by Jewish organizations, some of which are outspokenly liberal and democratic-leaning.
“Many people in America [have been in] shock since October 7, and don’t really know what to do and how to translate their experience to a change of policy – but they do understand that something needs to change.” The fact that they were willing to hear Tal, whose party is considered far-right, and even admit that his claim made sense, was significant – but policy won’t change in one day, Tal adds.
“I think we need to keep conveying these messages in America both within the Jewish community and in the political [arena], and I hope that the end result will be a change in policy,” he says.
Tal believes that rather than end the war with a diplomatic agreement, Israel must defeat Hamas decisively – to win the war not in “Western” terms, but in “Middle Eastern terms.”
“We have to think the way Hamas thinks, the way [Hamas leader Yahya] Sinwar thinks,” he says. This means that Israel must not agree to a hostage deal that would include a lengthy cease fire and the release of a large number of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails, unless it includes all of the 136 hostages. Otherwise, Sinwar will simply demand even more for another deal later on. Only a return of all the hostages could be considered an achievement, and this will only happen if Sinwar feels threatened, he argues.
“The goal is to always pressure Hamas (militarily), that is the only language they understand,” Tal says.
Tal argues that in addition to pressuring Sinwar, Israel must not allow Hamas to return to positions of civil administration, and Israel should not allow the Palestinian Authority to receive such positions either – Tal repeats a claim made by many on Israel’s right, and even its center, that the Palestinian Authority was corrupt and de-facto supported terror, and therefore was not a partner for peace.
Civilian life in Gaza in a post-war world
If necessary, the IDF must run civilian life in Gaza until a moderate Gazan force comes forward, Tal says. He argues that such moderate forces exist, but they are not coming forward out of fear of Hamas and “mixed messages” from Israel. Some Hamas civilian officials have already begun to appear in northern Gaza, and Israel must make it clear that Hamas will no longer hold any administrative positions. If this requires that the IDF take over distribution of humanitarian aid and run civil matters in the Strip, so be it, Tal argues.
Furthermore, Tal presents a security-based argument in favor of Israel’s retaining control over at least parts of the Gaza Strip.
“Israel is facing for the first time in 75 years a real existential threat, because Sinwar succeeded in showing everyone in the Middle East that it is possible to [bypass] Israeli intelligence … that Israel is vulnerable. This in the Middle East is extremely dangerous,” Tal says. Israel’s enemies in the Middle East are sitting on the fences watching, and killing thousands of Hamas fighters or even killing Sinwar himself is not enough, “because Hamas will rebuild and everything will go back to being the same,” he adds.
The only real deterrence of Palestinian terror is therefore is loss of land, Tal argues, and only by taking over parts of the Strip will Israel’s enemies understand the price of attacking Israel. Tal even provides an estimate of the portion of Gaza that Israel should take over and demilitarize – 45%, which is approximately the entire Strip’s northern area. Debate over the issue of building Jewish settlements in the Strip can come later, Tal concludes.
