The author is assuming that the traditional means of bringing order have become ineffective. As much as it sounds hard, leaders should start cultivating the new kind of bringing order.
The author’s assumptions are valid, and I agree with his line of argument. It is in line with the Balance of Power theory, which states that when secondary states are given a free will to choose on whom to side in an international system’s two coalitions, they will always side with the weaker side (Waltz 127). It is to avoid being threatened by the stronger side. It is the reason most of the Middle East countries have sided with Palestine over Israel. The only way to control Hamas is by working with moderate Palestinians, and they will thus help Israel control Hamas.
Israel faces so many non-state actors, and Hamas, a political group that advocates violence is the main one. Hamas interacts with state of Palestine through its institutions and populations which in turn help them in planning attacks and violence (Papp 102). Hamas can even teach radical Palestine civilians on making homemade drones and rockets. The only way that the state of Israel can curtail the Hamas’ drones and rocket threat is by the Gaza Palestinians demanding the rockets to stop. The only way that the Palestinians can demand that is when the state of Israel works with them.
At times, national interest should supersede sovereignty (Papp 88). It is at times preferable to accept freedom of action constraints in order to achieve a wider benefit. Israeli government must be able to let some pride go for the sake of a wider benefit. It must be able to work closely with the Palestine authorities; the same tactic America applied in Iraq, to have lasting peace. Liberty must at times be limited for it to be possessed (Papp 52). States should move from their roles of hedging risks and preservation of failing status quo to shaping a