Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur, and political observer.
The bloody and tragic conflict in Gaza could continue for months and even years. It is an extension of conflict that started before most of us were born and seems intractable. But Israel cannot eliminate Hamas, in the same way that the United States has been unable to eliminate Al Qaeda, ISIS or the Taliban.
These terror groups are not just people, but extreme ideologies. Attempts to eliminate the people of Hamas, especially with the inevitable and tragic “collateral damage,” will ultimately result in more ideologues. Only those who both support Hamas (whether actively or through their inaction) and live with the direct results of that support can end the ideology.
How did it get to this point? The land now referred to as Israel and Palestine has been the home of both Jewish and Arab peoples, and their ancestors, from before the beginning of recorded human history. The area has been conquered and controlled by a range of national entities over the centuries, with the local Jewish peoples usually being oppressed and sometimes forced from the area, later to return and re-establish themselves in what they saw as their homeland.
In modern times, since the end of World War I, there has been an international consensus for a two-state solution and, in November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution for a “Plan of Partition with Economic Union” that provided for “Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem.” This two-state solution was rejected by neighboring Arab countries, which invaded Israel the day after it was formally established in 1948.
This begs a thought experiment:
Where would Palestinians and Israel be today if on May 15, 1948, the day after the creation of the state of Israel, the Palestinians had declared their own state and initiated diplomatic relations with Israel and the broader global community? What if members of the Arab League had welcomed this new state of Palestine and initiated diplomatic relations with Israel? I’ll leave you to think through what might have been, but we should also consider what could be.
Arab nations and the Palestinian Arabs themselves (or at least their leadership) continued their resistance to a two-state solution for decades before beginning to temper their views. This began when Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Accords in 1978, with a final peace agreement signed in 1979. So momentous was this step that Sadat and Begin shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978. Sadat paid for this bold move with his life when he was assassinated by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in 1981.
Following the first Intifada (from 1987 to 1993) the Oslo Accords were signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel, wherein each party recognized the other party’s legitimacy and established a framework for future negotiations. There was resistance to these Accords on both sides, and when the second intifada broke out in 2000, the Oslo process came to a halt. While the PLO ostensibly continues to support a two-state solution, Palestinian and Islamicist resistance continues. And yes, there are Israelis who also resist a two-state solution.
More recently, with the Abraham Accords, the historically anti-Israel countries of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan each recognized Israel, and diplomatic relations were established. Whether directly or indirectly, the agreements all supported the two-state solution and a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Most recently there appears to have been progress in peace negotiations between Israel and Saudi Arabia that included support for a two-state solution and a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. There is speculation that Hamas, with the backing and encouragement of Iran, timed its Oct. 7 attack on Israel in part to pre-empt any such agreement.
So, while the Arab nations originally opposed a two-state solution, the trend is in this direction, though painfully slow and with tragic and violent interruptions. Several Palestinian and radical Muslim groups, including Hamas, continue to subscribe to the idea of a single Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” and the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people. In 2006, the year after Israel unilaterally ended its occupation and settlement in Gaza, Hamas won the first (and so far, only) Palestinian legislative elections. Because of Hamas’ history of violence and its continued intent to eradicate Israel, most of the international community refused to recognize it as the legitimate leadership of Palestinians. But given Hamas’ influence and strengths, it has controlled Gaza ever since.
The barbaric attack Hamas conducted on Oct. 7 has prompted Israel to conduct its retaliation as a full-scale war with the explicit intent to eradicate Hamas. This has resulted in a higher level of civilian deaths, injuries and displacement than past responses. The human tragedy is obvious. But given the goal to eliminate Hamas and given the Hamas strategy of embedding itself among civilians, this is not surprising. Even if one believes Israel is doing its best to avoid such results, which is contradicted by the video evidence, we grieve for those civilians, and we know more Palestinians are being radicalized.
Israel made it clear from the beginning that this would be a war and not a mere retaliation, and that it would continue the war until Hamas had been eliminated. I wish Israel had made it clear to the Palestinians that they could avoid the coming war. How? By rising up and overthrowing their real oppressors – Hamas. This may seem impossible, but so does Israel’s objective of eradicating Hamas. The only people that can do that are the Palestinians themselves. Doing so would almost certainly require a violent revolution and likely many Palestinians would perish in the effort. But after 75 years of dying in a failed and futile effort to destroy Israel, when does it become obvious that another approach is in order? For those Palestinians who recognize two states as the only solution, for their children and grandchildren, they must renounce the Hamas ideology and remove the Hamas organization from power.
So let’s extend our thought experiment. What would result if the Palestinians themselves put an end to Hamas and sought peace with Israel in the framework of a Palestinian state? Again, I’ll leave it to you to think through what can be. For those who support Palestinians from afar, especially politicians and protestors, and most especially those who find it difficult to blame Hamas, what would result?
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.