Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Can Take Lead for Peace with Clear, Enforceable Alternatives, and Diplomacy Which Address Security
Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer . . .
— W.B. Yeats
The world is spinning out of control.
Communication has broken down, and with it, the possibility of mutual understanding.
In the midst of global pressure and deepening conflict, only one person can break through the logjam. Unlikely as it may seem, that person is Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Today, Israel finds itself cast as the global villain, criticized and condemned more loudly than the terrorist organizations it defends itself against.
This distorted narrative must be reversed.
The global community cannot focus only on the terrible casualties of war — which Israelis, like all decent people, deeply regret — while ignoring both the moral complexity and strategic restraint behind Israel’s actions and the real interests of the Palestinian people.
However, it’s Israel who should be willing to take the initiative to stop the war — but, as a condition, alongside the release of hostages, it would be perfectly legitimate to require something equally vital: clarity and support from most, if not all, of its allies for a realistic path forward.
This means laying out a clear, enforceable alternative that addresses security and diplomacy — something more than empty slogans or political pressure.
In short, stopping the war quite obviously has to take into account the negotiations underway at the present time by Steve Witcoff for a ceasefire, but also Israel’s assessment of how world opinion — including the foreign policy positions of its Western allies — might collaborate in establishing something that would be a reality for the Palestinians and not just a fantasy.
A Call for Real Strategy and Shared Responsibility
Netanyahu must speak clearly.
He must formulate and promote pragmatic, realistic steps not only to end the current conflict but to shape what comes after.
The leadership needs to come from Israel; the burden is no longer Israel’s alone and should be delivered personally by traveling to countries where he will not risk arrest, or by the most vibrant form of video connection with world leaders.
Realism means recognizing that the Palestinians have never had a leader willing to negotiate a peaceful, two-state solution.
And realism also means that Israel, alone — even with the support of the United States — cannot take the difficult steps necessary to allow the Palestinians to build a social and economic environment where its people can live decent lives.
The Palestinians cannot live with slogans alone.
And Israel, even with the most well-intentioned government, cannot assure the rebuilding of Gaza and the establishment of a stable authority that the people would support.
It is time for the broader international community to share responsibility — by helping to create the necessary conditions for statehood to become a reality, not just a fantasy.
That begins with:
- Supporting the creation of responsible, unified Palestinian governance, committed to peaceful coexistence, not extremism.
- Backing an internationally coordinated rebuilding effort in Gaza, with structured, transparent financing and development initiatives.
- Linking any path to statehood to verifiable progress: an autonomous phase of governance, reconciliation, and security reforms, monitored and benchmarked over time.
In this transitional phase, it is both useful and stabilizing to establish a timetable — one that clearly defines benchmarks for autonomy and outlines the conditions under which negotiations toward statehood can proceed.
Such a framework would provide both clarity and accountability, ensuring that statehood is not rushed but earned through demonstrated readiness.
Addressing the Global Narrative
This strategy is a direct response to world criticism that Israel lacks a vision for the day after. On the contrary, it makes clear to anyone with a clear mind that calling for immediate Palestinian statehood—without conditions or safeguards — is not only premature — it’s dangerously disconnected from ground realities.
Even the Oslo Accords of 1993 affirmed that Palestinian statehood must be the outcome of direct negotiations, not external imposition.
That principle remains valid.
Yet, throughout the peace process, Palestinian leadership has repeatedly rejected viable paths to statehood — because, for one of the rare times in history, political leaders rejected statehood unless nearly all their demands were met.
That truth must be acknowledged if progress is ever to be made.
Today, there is no unified Palestinian governance, and no assurance that attacks on civilians would stop with statehood.
To create a state under current conditions is not a step toward peace; it’s a shortcut to a permanent security crisis.
A Palestinian state located just 25 miles from Israeli population centers, without credible guarantees for peace, would pose a relentless and existential threat.
The danger is not theoretical—it is immediate and devastatingly real.
A Moral Imperative for Peace
It must be said plainly: Israel’s allies, in calling for Palestinian statehood under current conditions, are often engaging in domestic political theater.
These gestures may appease voters, but they ignore the real consequences for a nation defending itself against radical ideologies and relentless threats.
Yet Israel, while refusing to bow to reckless pressure, must not be seen as opposing peace.
On the contrary, for the first time, Israel should be seen as actively appealing to the world to help construct a viable, lasting peace — a vision where Palestinian autonomy is real, but not under occupation, not under rockets, and not under the shadow of future war.
By advocating for a step-by-step roadmap — autonomy, reconstruction, responsible governance, and then statehood — Israel takes the high ground.
It demonstrates that it is not seeking domination, but sustainable peace.
That it values human life on both sides, and that its objective is not perpetual war, but a responsible, secure future — for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Mark L. Cohen practices law, and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation Commission, an adviser to the PBS television program “The Advocates,” and assistant attorney general in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l’EDHEC. Read Mark L. Cohen’s Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
