In the 77 years since the formation of the Jewish state, and for the 2,000 years since the destruction of the Second Temple, the West has understood peace in the Middle East—peace between Arabs and Jews—as impossible.

Semantically, the “Peace Process” was the continuing enjoyment of a process which could be ended only by peace. What, then, have the West, the world and the United Nations been doing in regard to the Mideast since 1948?

The terrorist Yasser Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994; the U.N., funded by the U.S., has dedicated time, treasure and prestige to the demonization of the Jewish state; Presidents Obama and Biden funded Iranian terrorism; presidents prior to Donald Trump vowed to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and broke their word; successive Democratic administrations promoted energy restrictions ensuring we’d have to buy oil from those enemies who paid for terrorism.

Through all the mishigas, the antisemites held that the Jewish state must be destroyed. The more philosemitic disagreed, suggesting instead accommodations that could only possibly end in Israel’s obliteration. Historically, this diplomacy was mistaken for and awarded as achievement.

There is an analog in my experience. It is the home game. This is a poker game made of a longtime, limited set of players—friends and neighbors, but acquaintances at least—given to “friendly” play. The game is “friendly,” as supposedly no one will lose greatly over the long run. Why? If they did, the game would dissolve from lack of players. The money, then, is largely just pushed around.

Should a player lose beyond his ability to pay, the others may allow him time to pay off his loss—usually, time until the next game—and he may offer up an IOU. If the players acknowledge the worth of the IOU and its holder bets it as if it were cash, it must be accepted at face value by the pot’s winner.

If the IOU isn’t redeemed in good time, the players have a problem. They will then understand the chit as worthless, which must mean the exclusion of the debtor from the game. In a small pool of players, that might mean the game’s end.

The point of the home game is its continuation. The home game, then, is essentially the opposite of any rational understanding of poker—the aim of which is to win the most money.

As the chits of losers proliferate, the members, seeking new cash, may admit outside players. These newcomers, however, have no stake in the comradely game’s continuation, and are in fact dedicated to its obliteration: They want to take the game’s money away.

Their success must reveal the home game’s essential fatuity. Should the newcomer win, he will first be offered the IOUs as payment—as the longtime members see this as a happy way to realize the worthless debt. The newcomer, however, would be foolish to accept the paper. He’d come prepared to pay his losses, with the understanding that he will be paid should he win.

The members must contrive to pay the new guy off, which means redeeming the deadbeat’s paper. Which means they can no longer allow their friend, the loser, to play. The nature of the home game is thus revealed. The players have been funding an evening of camaraderie and calling it poker. They are now out of pocket, short on players and, perhaps, abashed at their complicity. The game can no longer continue.

Far from being the impediment to the Peace Process, Hamas was its one essential element. If Hamas, like the insolvent card player, were eliminated, the “process” would be revealed as a sham. The marginalization of Hamas allowed those not interested in “process” to pursue actual resolution of the conflict. The “outsider” in this home game was, of course, Mr. Trump.

Before his appointment to the bench, Louis Brandeis referred to himself as “Counsel for the Situation.” This is a warm and pleasing understanding of the law, but for counsel to represent “the situation” rather than his client is actually a dereliction of his sworn duty.

The U.N., the various peace commissions, the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords, and so on, were the work of Attorneys for the Situation. “A situation” is a persistent state of affairs.

Mr. Trump recognized, and then busted out, the home game.

Mr. Mamet is a playwright, film director and screenwriter.