The battle for Washington

With President Trump’s second term, the contradiction between his commitment to ending wars and promoting peace and the Israeli government’s policy, which oscillates between signing an agreement to end the war in Gaza and making contradictory domestic promises, became apparent. Once again, in submitting to the vision of extremists advocating the perpetuation of Gaza’s occupation and the annexation of West Bank territory, coalition survival has taken precedence over Israel’s security,
Concurrently, a one-sided battle is taking place in Washington. For weeks, a minority advocating West Bank annexation and the permanent occupation of Gaza has been zealously preaching their ideology to senior Trump administration officials. Emboldened by the belief that Trump’s return to the White House, and his appointment of pro-settlement advocates to senior positions represent a divine intervention on behalf of their messianic vision, their message has been “our moment has arrived.”
In contrast, the voice of the Israeli majority, worried about the fate of the hostages and fully cognizant of the destructive implications of annexing millions of Palestinians and perpetuating the bloody conflict, remains absent from the Washington scene.
Seeking to fill that void, the Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS) movement has formulated an alternative approach that reflects the position of its members and a broad public consensus in Israel. The CIS plan also reflects President Trump’s commitment to end wars, bring peace, strengthen Israel’s security, and shift part of the regional security burden to allies. The plan focuses on four main objectives: ensuring the return of all hostages and ending the Gaza war, normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, integrating Israel into a powerful regional coalition to check Iran’s meddling, and advancing a process that will culminate in an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
The more than 550 CIS members – former IDF generals as well as Mossad, Shin Bet and Foreign Service equivalents – are convinced that the achievements of the IDF and other security agencies on numerous fronts have created a foundation to advance these goals during Trump’s second term.
Trump’s potential success where others have failed derives from the game-changing availability of a powerful group of regional allies willing and able to share the burden in response to American engagement.
Several Arab countries have expressed willingness to take responsibility for Gaza, deploy forces to prevent Hamas’s resurgence and operate in full cooperation with Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This would enable ending the war, releasing the hostages, and withdrawing the IDF. Moreover, they are prepared to chaperon the PA as it undergoes reforms aimed at improving its governance in the West Bank and enabling it to gradually assume responsibility for Gaza, and eventually serve as a viable partner in negotiations with Israel.
A call to Arab leaders
CIS recommends that the US, jointly with these regional partners, present Israelis and Palestinians with a framework that addresses Israel’s security needs and Palestinians’ aspirations. Moreover, CIS maintains that no one can persuade Israelis of the sincerity of Arab offers of peace and regional integration more than the Arab leaders who can make it happen. Consequently, it calls on those Arab leaders to address the Israeli public directly, acknowledging the legitimacy of Israeli security needs, presenting the benefits of normalization and regional integration while being forthright about risks associated with the alternative proposed by extremists.
A double bind prevails wherein regional players will advance normalization and regional integration only once Israel’s policy and conduct attest to a credible commitment to an eventual two-state solution, whereas Israelis’ support for progress on the Palestinian issue will be vastly enhanced by a credible offer of regional integration and normalization. Hence, the CIS proposed plan stresses the need to advance the proposed regional agenda simultaneously on both the Israeli-Palestinian track and the regional track.
CIS envisions a three-phase US strategy. First and most urgent is ending the Gaza war and securing the release of all hostages, followed by coordinating Gaza governance with an Arab coalition that stands ready to help the PA assume that responsibility. Second, during the ensuing months, the administration should focus on interim Israeli-Palestinian understandings that change West Bank dynamics and on PA reforms. The second half of Trump’s term would focus on negotiating three agreements: Israeli-Palestinian peace, normalization with Saudi Arabia, and a framework for a regional security architecture.
Trump’s exceptional popularity among Israelis coupled with lead regional players’ willingness to do much of the heavy lifting, hold the promise of affecting a policy shift in Jerusalem.
To get there, it is incumbent upon those concerned with the dire consequences of policies advocated by Israel’s extreme, messianic minority to counter them and present the Trump administration with an Israeli security-based and regional stability-promoting alternative.