Today (Thursday, September 26), I returned to Haifa. The siren on Monday evening startled me and my partner, and we fled to Tel Aviv to a secure shelter with our daughter. Yesterday, on Wednesday, the sirens followed us all the way to Tel Aviv. At 6:30 a.m., our nimble and well-drilled 10-year-old grandson was the first to reach the door to run down the stairs straight to the parking lot across the street, which serves as a shelter. In our house in Haifa, there is no shelter; the staircase is open, there’s no security room, not even a safe interior wall, and through the window facing north, we already witnessed missiles falling on Haifa Bay. This morning, with the first news of a possible ceasefire, we returned home.

For a moment, it seemed that Haifa had returned to itself, although the state of emergency remained in place. There is a reason why the state of emergency persists. While Netanyahu was flying to speak at the UN General Assembly in New York, a statement was issued from his office: “The news of a ceasefire is incorrect. It’s an American – French proposal that the Prime Minister hasn’t even responded to.” Wow, I asked myself, did we return too soon? Is Netanyahu playing games with us? Does he really want to continue the war?

When I examined the text of that American – French proposal, it was clear from the very first line that this proposal leads nowhere, regardless of Bibi’s intentions. The proposal essentially states that ‘the situation between Lebanon and Israel since October 8th, 2023, is intolerable and presents an unacceptable risk of a broader regional escalation. It is time to conclude a diplomatic settlement on the Israel-Lebanon border.’  In this statement, the word ‘Hezbollah’ is conspicuously absent; it does not mention what caused the exchanges of fire, and, most importantly, it does not specify who ‘the other party’, that is, with whom an arrangement must be made. It is worth noting: the exchanges of fire began on October 8 due to a proactive action by a terrorist organization that swore it would not cease fire until Israel agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza, claiming this was in aid of the Gaza Strip.

This is the moment to ask why the United States and France waited an entire year to issue a joint statement for a “diplomatic settlement on the Israel-Lebanon border”? The answer is simple. According to American doctrine, the exchanges of fire between Israel and Hezbollah, which have been ongoing for a year, are merely background noise for to the real issue—the war in Gaza. According to both Americans and many Israelis, the way to close the ‘Lebanon chapter’ and return Israel’s displaced northern residents home is to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza. In fact, the U.S. has used the Lebanese border exchanges of fire as leverage on Netanyahu’s government to accept the Gaza ceasefire. This created a significant opportunity to accomplish three goals with one ceasefire: achieving quiet on the Lebanon border, securing the release of hostages, and, in the process, removing Netanyahu’s right-wing government.

These two partners for a so-called ceasefire, Hamas and Hezbollah, are classified in the U.S. as terrorist organizations. Their leaders have been indicted for serious crimes against humanity. Both advocate a radical religious ideology. These two organizations have taken control through a sort of military coup in both Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

A brief reminder: These two partners for achieving a ceasefire, Hamas and Hezbollah, are classified in the U.S. as terrorist organizations. Their leaders have been indicted for serious crimes against humanity. Both advocate a radical religious ideology. They have vowed to eliminate the Zionist entity, and for those who may have forgotten, Hezbollah has also engaged in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians, coming to the aid of the butcher of Damascus, Bashar al-Assad. These two organizations have taken control through a sort of military coup in both Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

Theoretically, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati represents Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas represents the Palestinian side. In practice, they represent no one. Hamas does not recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority, and Mikati represents a state that has disintegrated and is non-functional due to Hezbollah’s total military control over Lebanon.

This has created a stalemate that cannot be resolved through diplomatic means. In spite of launching mass atrocities on October 7, Yahya Sinwar will not relinquish his ambition to continue his control of Gaza and force a complete withdrawal of Israel, as long as Hassan Nasrallah imposes a war of attrition on Israel and holds 80,000 displaced Israelis as hostages. The only way to reach a diplomatic solution in Lebanon is to disconnect Nasrallah from Sinwar. This is the goal of the operation that Israel initiated on Tuesday afternoon with the explosions of beepers in the pockets of Hezbollah operatives. At that moment, a new phase emerged both internationally and within Israel itself.

While there is a deep divide within Israeli society regarding Gaza—between the government and those advocating for a ceasefire at any cost in exchange for the return of hostages—there is a unanimous  consensus regarding Lebanon: the situation along the Lebanon border must change once and for all. The reason for this consensus is simple—Israel has no territorial or other claims in Lebanon, and the goal of the operation is not to eliminate Hezbollah or harm Lebanon, but to achieve an arrangement that will ensure the safety of residents in the north. Many also argue that disconnecting Nasrallah from Sinwar will help secure an agreement for the return of hostages. All this comes after a whole year of fruitless negotiations, whether because Sinwar doesn’t want to, Netanyahu doesn’t want to, or neither of them wants to—each can choose an answer based on their political preferences and respond to the million-dollar question of why there has been no deal to date.

In any case, the fate of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, and subsequently Gaza, is not in the hands of Sinwar or Nasrallah, but in the hands of their Iranian patron. The one orchestrating the symphony, which includes the Houthis in Yemen and pro-Iranian militias in Iraq – is Iran. Iran has enjoyed a whole year of watching Palestinians, Lebanese, and Israelis bleed, while engaging in high-level diplomacy with the U.S. to reach some agreement that would lift the crushing sanctions on the Iranian economy.

Thus, a situation has arisen where the whole world watches and pulls its hair out over the ‘genocide in Gaza’ and ‘intentional starvation.’ Israel has become the new villain. Its leaders are wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and the state is being judged before the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity.  This is happening while the Iranian regime cold-bloodedly murders every dissident and every woman who reveals even a part of her hair, in blatant violation of human and civil rights for 45 years. The real enemy of Iran is not the State of Israel, but the sons and daughters of the Iranian people who rise up time and again and pay for it with their lives.

But now the celebration is over. The Israeli attack in Lebanon threatens Iranian assets there. The ballistic missiles threatening Tel Aviv are not meant to defend Lebanon but to protect the Iranian regime, which fears an attack on its nuclear facilities. Thus, we have returned to square one. The one who gave the signal and the means to attack Israel on October 7, to kidnap, massacre, plunder, and rape—the one who greenlighted his mercenaries in Lebanon to assist the monster in Gaza—is the same one who is now working to stop the fire. Not out of concern for the Lebanese, and not out of worry for the Palestinians, but out of concern for the survival of his bloodthirsty regime.

Just as I do not know when the next siren will sound, I do not know when there will be a ceasefire. One thing I do know, and most of the public in Israel knows it too, is that all of this should not have happened. The uncompromising war against fundamentalist terror cannot erase the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu enabled this, and he is responsible for the nightmare unfolding around us. The words spoken by bereaved father Elhanan Danino to Benjamin Netanyahu, when he came to comfort him over the death of his son, who was murdered along with five other hostages while held in Hamas tunnels, echoed in every home in Israel: ‘Fifteen years you have been in power, and you have done nothing; you equipped them (Hamas) with tunnels and dollars.’ Netanyahu, along with Israel’s entire security and political establishment, opened the gates to Iran, allowing it to conquer the fortress without a fight.

The regional peace with the worst of the Gulf regimes has turned into a honey trap, creating the illusion that we have solved the puzzle. We managed to make peace with the Arabs without the Palestinians. This illusion shattered forcefully on October 7. Not only have we not achieved peace, but we have also entered the longest and bloody war since 1948. If there is a ceasefire, it will be worth nothing if we do not manage to seal the gate against extremist Islam. This is not only because the unresolved Palestinian issue allows terror to sow destruction and ruin, but because this is the just path to follow—a genuine solution to the Palestinian question based on equality, democracy, and mutual respect.

The post The Big Opportunity first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

On a popular daily morning radio program, Hili Tropper a cabinet minister of the more moderate National Unity, was asked his position on Biden’s two-state proposal. Tropper’s answer was unequivocal – “currently irrelevant.” If we add to this, Netanyahu’s utter rejection of the American-Egyptian hostage deal proposal, it seems Biden is gradually losing ground among Israeli leadership. Biden’s popularity peaked when he stationed the USS Eisenhower off the Lebanese coast, expressing unconditional support for Israel. His triple warning of Hezbollah and Iran – “don’t” – is well remembered.

It is difficult to speak of a Palestinian state when 80% of Palestinians in the West Bank support the Saturday, October 7^th attack by Hamas, while the majority in Israel utterly deny full Palestinian sovereignty, especially considering the Hamas assault.

Israeli society is more divided than ever. The government against the military command, the right against the left, with debate over the fate of the hostages hanging above it all. Should we agree to an end to the fighting to save the hostages from Hamas, or continue the war, hoping that military pressure will soften Hamas?

The political issue also divides society. The government refuses to discuss the “the day after,” a refusal which the military claims results in the loss of military achievements attained with the blood of some 200 dead soldiers and thousands of wounded. A Palestinian state is not part of the discussion at all, and it appears there exists a massive short circuit in communication between the Americans and Israelis.

Notwithstanding, the cabinet’s political debate is interesting. It divides the unity government. Netanyahu claims that discussion about “the day after” will take place when the war ends, while Gantz and Eisenkot (and Tropper) claim the day after is here and now. In other words, the war in its intense form is over, and we must now decide what to do. One might ask, how is it possible that Netanyahu and Gantz are sitting in the same war cabinet, managing the battles together while disagreeing on a fundamental question: war or no war?

The reality on the ground makes it possible to better understand this conundrum. In fact, Israel divided Gaza into two, Gaza North and Gaza South. In northern Gaza, the war ended, and the army partially withdrew. This is the area over which debate exists – what to do with it and who will control it. Benny Gantz is gambling on local Palestinian officials to manage the lives of the 150,000 Gazans who remain there, while Smotrich and Ben Gvir want to annex the territory to Israel and settle it with settlers. And what does Bibi want? He wants to survive. If he goes with Smotrich and Ben Gvir, he will lose the partnership with Gantz, and Biden will come out against him. If Bibi goes with Gantz, his coalition falls apart and his political future ends in failure.

While Biden is attempting to get to the root of the problem, searching for a sustainable solution to the bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel’s coalition and opposition are squabbling over the future of northern Gaza. The Israelis are not currently open to radical solutions. In truth, they never were. They have always preferred conflict management over conflict resolution.

Despite the inner feeling of every Israeli that October 7th is a definitive moment, the greatest disaster that has befallen the country since its founding, there is currently no openness or mental energy to get to the bottom of things. On the surface, everyone understands that the army failed and trust in it was shattered. Everyone understands that the primary person responsible for the disaster sits at the top of the pyramid, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He denies responsibility while placing it on the army, all of whose commanders have already taken responsibility for this failure.

And here is the absurdity: What is Netanyahu’s failure? He trusted Hamas, financed it, allowed it to grow stronger in order to weaken the Palestinian Authority and bury the two-state idea once and for all. After all this, Biden come’s to him yet again with the same mantra of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu’s conclusion: There is no one to trust, neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas. And what should be done? He doesn’t currently have an answer and anyways be quiet, there is fighting going on!

Faced with this colossal failure, which brought Israel to its knees and forced the United States to come to its rescue, the American president, who put all his eggs in the Israeli basket, is scratching his head. How can Israeli eyes be opened, how to convince them that the illusion that the conflict can be managed instead of solved is what underlies the October 7 failure? I will bring them a solution in the form of a Palestinian state wrapped in Saudi finery. Maybe they won’t like the gift itself, but the wrapping will tempt them to accept it.

The trouble with Biden is that he doesn’t really have anyone with whom to work. The players he counts on are very far from his worldview and policies. How can one trust Saudi’s Mohammed bin Salman, the same MBS whom Biden declared upon his election to be an undesirable personality? What Palestinian Authority can be built with a bloody prince who despises democracy, and slaughters political opponents? What kind of Palestinian Authority can be established when its representatives are involved in corruption and suppress every sign of freedom and democracy?  Above all, what kind of “upgraded” Palestinian Authority will be built when Hamas hides behind it? Isn’t this simply a replication of the Hezbollah model, which hides behind the Lebanese government but is the determinant player?

So, what’s left of the Biden plan? Not much, except that it helps get rid of Israel’s messianic, extreme right-wing government once and for all. Is this a worthy goal? Yes. Is it essential? Yes. Is it practical? Yes.

2024 is an election year in the United States and possibly in Israel as well. The two election systems are intertwined. On one side will stand the Trump-Netanyahu duo, on the other Gantz and Israel’s entire opposition together with Biden. Trump symbolizes chaos and the trampling of democracy while Bibi symbolizes the end of democracy and nurturing the annexation ambitions of Smotrich and Ben Gvir. The overthrow of Netanyahu would undoubtedly be an achievement for Biden and the turning of a new Israeli page, while Trump’s victory would be a blow to every liberal and democrat all over the world and a disaster for the Americans.

But, in the end, the truth is that a solution depends solely on the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. They have lived side by side, on the small area of land between the river and the sea for eight decades. Their safety and well-being depend only on themselves, and what they decide or not decide to do. Neither Biden nor Muhammad bin Salman can save them from themselves.

 The democratic camp in Israel, which demonstrated many months for a democratic Israel, cannot be satisfied solely with overthrowing Bibi’s failed government. If the democratic camp wants to defeat the messianic Jews, the fascists, the corrupt and to reboot Israeli society, it must grab the bull by the horns. It is not enough to strive for unity among Israelis. This reboot requires resolving the conflict with the Palestinians.

The road is indeed long. Relying on dictators like bin Salman, Sisi, and Abdullah will not shorten it. To secure the future of the Palestinian people, the growth of a Palestinian democratic movement is essential. Such a movement does not currently exist, to the detriment of both the Palestinians and Israelis. Every Israeli democratic movement that sincerely strives for peace is obliged to clearly and unequivocally recognize the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, freedom and equality. This right, which cannot be undermined, should be guaranteed in whatever political form is decided upon at the end of the process.

The post Biden – Thanks but no thanks first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Israel’s new right-wing government loves the army and hates its commanders. They are especially hated by ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir. The first served in the army only partially and was suspected of planning a terrorist act during the Gaza disengagement. The second did not serve at all: the army disqualified him because of his identification with the racist Meir Kahane and his involvement in violent acts. The two are today working vigorously to save the army from its senior officers. Smotrich accuses Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi of politicizing the army, tweeting: “Those who want to keep the IDF united as the people’s army, consensual and outside of politics, should enact a minimum ten-year cooling-off period for chiefs of staff” before they can enter politics. Ben Gvir joined him in tweeting “keep the IDF free from politics.” According to them, the Chief of Staff has become a divisive figure that harms the “people’s army,” and in their eyes the last three chiefs – Benny Gantz, Gadi Eisenkot and Kochavi himself – are evidence of this. These generals were previously objects of admiration symbolizing national unity, but in the eyes of those mandated to establish a right-wing government, they are despised.

The Elor Azaria affair was a defining event. In March 2016, this soldier shot a Palestinian who had attacked soldiers with a knife in Hebron and was lying wounded and helpless on the ground, killing him even though he no longer threatened anyone. Then Chief of Staff Eisenkot issued an unequivocal statement: “These are not IDF values and this is not IDF culture,” and he was backed by Defense Minister Bogi Ya’alon. At first PM Bibi Netanyahu supported his Chief of Staff and Defense Minister, but when he understood that the most of the Israeli public favored Azaria, he changed his position, calling the soldier “our child.”

Since then, the rift between the top army brass and Netanyahu has only widened, culminating in the moment of coalition-building when he allowed Smotrich and Ben Gvir to dismantle the army. The powers related to West Bank settlements, as well as Civil Administration in the occupied territories, have been taken from the army and transferred to Smotrich, who has received (in addition to the Finance Ministry) the curious title of “Minister within the Defense Ministry.” Likewise, the Border Police units stationed in the West Bank have been reallocated to Ben Gvir. In short, control over 3 million Palestinians passes from the military to Smotrich and Ben Gvir. When Kochavi met with Netanyahu and expressed his disapproval, he was accused of “politicizing” the people’s army.

After Israel’s founding, when the people’s army was established, it reflected a wall-to-wall Israeli consensus. This has long ceased to be the case. Today, Elor Azaria is an authentic expression of what the right wing (elsewhere too) glorifies as “the people,” and Netanyahu, with his populist sensibilities, quickly understood this. The values of “the people” are remarkably compatible with the values of Smotrich and Ben Gvir, while the values of IDF leadership no longer fit the Zeitgeist.

Since 1967, hundreds of thousands of Israeli men and women have done their mandatory military service in the occupied territories, the West Bank and Gaza. Here they have been forced to perform the most despicable actions, such as standing at checkpoints, entering civilian homes at night, demolishing houses, arresting suspects, enforcing closures, protecting settlers and sometimes killing Palestinians. All this with one goal: to maintain Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza. The myth of being the most moral army in the world, valuing purity of arms and human rights, has long been eroded.

Over the years, a fracture has formed within the people’s army, reflecting a deep division in Israeli society. Urban, wealthy, liberal Israel, whose members carry a foreign passport for a time of need, does not police the West Bank. Its children find themselves in cyber units, and for them the army is a springboard to higher education and enrichment in private high-tech companies. The peripheral, poorer Israel, the Israel that does not have the option of an extra passport, is more conservative and patriotic by default. Most of them see Arabs as enemies and liberals as traitors.

The youngsters with only one passport eagerly wait to enlist in “meaningful” military service. The Kafir Brigade, responsible for policing the West Bank, welcomes them with open arms. After all, someone has to do the dirty work. After military service, they will find themselves in jobs that don’t require academic qualifications, jobs without promotion or appreciation. Their frustration, channelled toward abuse of Palestinians in their army years, is channelled post-army to support for the likes of Ben Gvir.

At the end of 1988, when the IDF was still the people’s army, and in an attempt to forcefully suppress the first intifada, Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave the order to “break the arms and legs” of stone-throwers. The sight of Israeli soldiers abusing Palestinians ignited a huge international protest. The security establishment recognized that excessive force would transform the IDF into an army of thugs.

Four years later, in 1992, Rabin was elected prime minister. A year later he signed the Oslo Accords with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. The ingenious Israeli idea was to quit policing the population centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, handing them over to the newly created Palestinian Authority. In response to his critics, Rabin issued his famous statement that the Palestinian police would fight Hamas “without the [Israeli] High Court and without [the human-rights organization] B’Tselem.” That did not appease Rabin’s critics on the Right. He was assassinated, the Oslo Accords are forgotten, and the Palestinian question has completely disappeared from public discourse. Israeli governments of various political shades have succeeded, in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority, to create a semblance of security and stability that has so far kept the situation from exploding. Employment permits for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Israel, as well as a certain restraint on settlement construction, has created a veneer of economic peace.

Yet this economic peace has been based not only on Israel’s iron hand but also on the Palestinian Authority, which has now lost the trust of its people. In fact, the new Israeli government wants to go back 30 years, take off the gloves and bring back what it calls “governance.” Settler-fascists like Smotrich and Ben Gvir have decided to end the economic peace, and the rift with the military brass cannot be patched over. The division of labor is clear. Smotrich will legitimize the illegal outposts and expand the settlements through his power in the Civil Administration, while Ben Gvir’s security forces will break the arms and legs of Palestinians who dare to resist.

The Haaretz headline on December 28 was “Chaos.” The writer David Grossman, whose son was killed during military service, predicts chaos under the new government. While lamenting the mutual hatred and disgust between Jews today, he writes that “the occupation also evidently won’t end in the foreseeable future; it is already stronger than all the forces now active in the political arena.” For him, this is one of many issues on which he disagrees with Netanyahu. He does not view the occupation as the engine that drives fascism, hatred for Arabs, and hatred for those who speak of Israel’s presence in the West Bank as “occupation.”

Contrary to Grossman, the occupation is not “stronger than all the forces now active in the political arena.” Fact: the occupation encounters fierce opposition from the Palestinians. The weakness of Grossman and his camp vis-a-vis the fascist right stems from the fact that they have never seen, and still do not see, the Palestinians as allies in constructing a shared democratic and egalitarian state. The Zionist Left that Grossman represents sees Palestinians as a demographic threat to Israel’s existence as Jewish and democratic. Therefore, it has always sought a political solution involving separation, even though this is no longer possible. In reality, there remain only two alternatives: either an apartheid state or a single democratic state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. The opposition to Netanyahu opposes both, so it had no concrete program to offer the electorate, thus opening the way for Netanyahu’s sixth term.

The post What Happened to Israel’s “Army of the People”? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Half a year since the so-called “government of change” launched Operation Breakwater in the northern West Bank, and given the increase of shooting incidents between Palestinian militants and the army, Israeli Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi has issued an exceptional statement accusing the Palestinian Authority (PA) of lacking in governance: “Part of the increase in terrorism stems from incompetence of the Palestinian security forces, which leads to a lack of governance in certain areas of the Palestinian Authority, and these constitute fertile ground for the growth of terrorism.”

The government of change wanted to restore a sense of security to Israelis following the wave of attacks that hit their cities in March and April this year. Accordingly, it began acting in the areas of Nablus and Jenin. Although the attacks inside Israel have since stopped, shooting incidents between the army and Palestinian militants in the West Bank have increased. Additionally, Palestinian security forces have stopped buffering the Israeli army from Palestinian militants. The result is not only a “lack of governance” by the PA, and rapid deterioration into chaos, but a lack of governance by the Israeli army, which considers itself entrusted with overall security in the region.

However, Operation Breakwater is not Defense Minister Benny Gantz’s sole response to the increasing wave of shooting incidents in the West Bank. Israel has realized that the stick alone will not yield results and must be accompanied by carrots. The goal is to separate the peaceful Palestinian population (the silent majority who want only to provide for their families, go to work in Israel and return home safely) from the armed groups. Both systems operate simultaneously. The Israeli army operates inside the cities and refugee camps, exacting from the Palestinians a daily dose of blood. The Palestinian armed groups, in turn, feel more challenged to confront the army. At the same time, this battle between the most powerful army in the Middle East and the militants does not stop hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from going through the crossings every day to earn a living in Israel. The separation is absolute: the workers do not cooperate with the militants, because they are preoccupied with earning a living.

This is the formula used by the government of change to avoid political negotiations with the PA and reduce the conflict to a minimum. “Economic peace” has become a substitute for political peace, and it has been strengthened by the “regional peace” between Israel and the Gulf states (an achievement of the Netanyahu government). However, that same “economic peace” is also the prime contributor to the PA’s “lack of governance.” Why? Because the PA has become irrelevant to most West Bankers. Israeli economic control is absolute. Israel issues Palestinian ID numbers; it ordains the shekel as the currency; it collects Palestinian customs, which it may pass to the PA or withhold. Above all, the Israeli economy has become the main source of income for the Palestinians of the occupied territories.

The PA is seen by its residents as a parasitic and corrupt entity, whose entire function is to maintain itself and its privileges at their expense. The fact that a Palestinian construction worker can earn a monthly minimum wage of NIS 6,000 in Israel, while a Palestinian teacher earns NIS 2,500 in the PA, tells the whole story. No one wants to work for a salary paid by a Palestinian employer, which amounts to a third of that in Israel. The economic peace eliminates what remains of the enslaved Palestinian economy. When Palestinians consider the free hand of the Israeli army in West Bank cities, and the PA’s zero contribution to the well-being of its people, the question arises: “Why do we need the PA security forces, which employ tens of thousands of police officers, in addition to hundreds of thousands of idle bureaucrats?”

Elections were last held in the PA 16 years ago. Since then, the successive governments have all been appointed by President Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), who has remained in office since January 2005 after being elected for a four-year term. The absence of any democratic process has helped disconnect the PA from its people. Judges are appointed by Abu Mazen, so there is no law or justice, while members of the security apparatus take bribes and extort business owners. Appointments to PA positions go to family members, as do franchises and business licenses. One word of criticism on social media is met by arrest without trial. This is how governance disappeared. On top of all that, the economic peace is another blow to what remains of the PA.

Towards the end of August, a call went out on social media for Palestinian construction workers employed in Israel to strike on Sunday the 21st of the month. The reason was to reject an Israeli government decision that employers must transfer salaries directly to the workers’ personal accounts held in Palestinian banks instead of paying them in cash. The decision would normally benefit the workers, for it guarantees the payment of their salaries according to law. It would obstruct the rampant trade in work permits (fictional companies that receive the permits sell them to workers for cash). Indeed, the main claims of the workers are not against Israel in this case.

Why then do the workers protest the decision? Their anger is against the PA, which they believe will exploit the bank transfers to impose additional taxes and take control of their funds. Their lack of trust is so complete that they also firmly refuse to allow the PA to manage their pensions, preferring that Israel do it. Palestinians believe in an old folk proverb: “The injustice of relatives is crueler than a sword over the head.”

The Palestinian social activist who quoted that proverb (and prefers to remain anonymous) expressed his thoughts after the Israeli decision to add another layer to the economic peace by opening the Ramon Airport near Eilat to Palestinian passengers. As a result, they will no longer have to cross into Jordan to fly abroad. As soon as the decision was made, the PA and Jordan objected. They dubbed those using Ramon Airport “traitors” who are prepared to “normalize” relations with the occupier, as if Jordan and the PA have not been normalizing the occupation for decades.

To the astonishment of the said social activist, “the use of the airport sparked a huge wave of controversy on social network sites and in small gatherings.” This is how the activist describes the phenomenon: “We are standing in front of a huge and politically significant popular wave, which starts in response to Israeli gestures. The occupier’s Civil Administration rides this wave and encourages it, that is, to live with Israel according to the economic peace plan.” Hence, while Operation Breakwater addressed the wave of attacks by armed militants, a “huge popular wave” has been developing that is interested in the economic peace maintained by the occupation itself.

The conclusion of this activist is clear: “It follows from economic peace that the Palestinian state will have no existence, that the PA which organizes civil affairs is undesirable, and that people are ready to live indirectly within a one-state solution.” These are the words of an activist who still believes in the vision of a Palestinian state but is watching it vanish between the economic peace of Gantz and the corruption, not to say utter dysfunction, of Abu Mazen. The Palestinian workers are voting with their feet, they do not believe in Abu Mazen or Hamas, nor in the possibility of a Palestinian state, and they understand very well that their fate is inextricably linked to Israel.

Economic peace may be able to separate the armed militant groups of despairing Palestinian youth from the majority of the population, but it will not be able to separate economic rights from the civil rights of the Palestinian people. The time of those rights will come. Economic peace unites the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean into one economic unit, but in its wake, Israel will have to deal with the Palestinian demand to become one political unit, shared by Israelis and Palestinians alike.

The post Economic peace makes the Palestinian Authority superfluous. first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Israeli PM Naftali Bennett’s axiom that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unsolvable, and that at best it can only be managed, has been accepted by his coalition’s eight factions, from Yamina through Meretz, and all the way to the United Arab List (UAL). Yet managing this conflict is a multifaceted process, conducted with multiple players. It sometimes seems that instead of Israel managing the conflict, the conflict is managing it.

The first layer is international, conducted vis-à-vis the United States, which is considered a strategic ally and without whose backing the entire management process becomes impossible. But over the years, Israel has found another partner in the form of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin became a regional player after coming to the rescue of his fellow dictator Bashar Assad, trampling for him the citizens of Syria in their cities and villages. The war between these two strategic rivals, between Biden and Putin, presents Israel with an unsolvable dilemma.

At the regional level, Israel, after tremendous effort and with the aid of Donald Trump, has found a way around the conflict. It has attached itself to a “Sunni” alliance that spans the entire Middle East, from Morocco, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and to the Emirates and Bahrain. The primary characteristic of these countries is their dictatorial and corrupt nature. It is no coincidence that in the bloody war taking place today in Ukraine over the future character of the world – between democracy and autocracy – Israel’s partners stand as one with Putin. Their prisons, those of el-Sisi, Mohammed V and Mohammed bin Salman, are full of opposition activists demanding democracy. Israeli prisons are full of Palestinian political activists. It seems that the choice between autocracy and democracy is no less difficult for Israel than the choice between being Jewish and being democratic.

The third layer is what we’ll call the Palestinian layer. It includes three parties with wholly conflicting interests. Israel is dealing with two partners, the Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah, and Hamas, which controls Gaza. The hatred between the PA and Hamas appears to outweigh their shared hatred of Israel, which imposes its sovereignty over both the West Bank and Gaza. Conflict management requires constant maintenance of the conflict between the West Bank and Gaza, thus preventing formation of a single Palestinian address, which would undermine Israel’s excuse that there is no partner to negotiate with. Against Hamas, Israel operates according to stick-and-carrot, easing restrictions and providing permits for Gazans working in Israel—as long as there is quiet. Against the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah there is no stick and no carrot, but instead an odd, symbiotic game. The Palestinian Authority is both a security partner and a political rival. It is essential for maintaining a quiet security situation, yet is simultaneously presented as a hostile authority that funds the families of terrorists, the same terrorists that the PA itself helps Israel to catch.

The “divide and rule” method, as old as occupation itself, is flawed when discussing the Palestinian reality. The separation between the West Bank and Gaza, between Fatah and Hamas, serves only to undermine the foundations of Israel’s sovereign governance, as the struggle between them takes place over Israel’s head and at its expense. When Hamas wants to hit Abu Mazen of the PA and expose his nakedness, it simply sends a group of young people to the al-Aqsa compound to fight with Israeli police, or it fires a rocket at Israel, setting the area alight despite the subsequent cost of death and destruction to Gaza. Divide-and-rule plus stick-and-carrot are ineffective for two entities that see the fate of their citizens as less important than the preservation of their own rule.

The fourth layer is already within the territory of Israel itself. It turns out that while Israel is trying to separate between Gaza and the West Bank, it is unable to separate the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories from its Arab citizens, because al-Aqsa manages to unite them. The inventor of the “al-Aqsa is in danger” conspiracy theory is an Israeli Arab citizen, the former mayor of Umm al-Fahm and head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement, Sheikh Raed Salah. His theory was also born of conflict: that between the southern faction of the Islamic Movement, which decided to run in the Knesset elections, and the northern faction, which radicalised and denied the legitimacy of these elections. We have before us another conflict within a conflict, one which the Israeli government cannot resolve. The outlawing of the northern faction did not prevent the flare-up around Al-Aqsa, and exactly one year ago such riots spilled over into Arab cities and villages within Israeli territory.

There is also another layer to this conflict, fifth in number, and that is the violence in Arab society, which the Israeli government has decided to uproot. But it turns out that the violence in Arab society cannot be resolved in isolation from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself. On the contrary, there is a close link between the conflict and violence in Arab society. Not only because of the free flow of arms throughout Arab communities that was ignored by all Israeli governments, but also because the Israeli government’s attitude toward its Arab citizens is not so very different from its treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. The Nationality Law enacted by the previous government, and the Citizenship Law recently enacted by the current government, demote Arab citizens to second class citizens. Violence in Arab society is the result of discrimination, neglect, and a lack of Israeli will to create an egalitarian society in practice. This violence is not limited to criminal gangs,  but has become a phenomenon that dominates all areas of life. It begins at home, with violence against women and children, flows to schools, from there to conflicts between families, to expansion of the grey market, and reaches the control of gangs over Arab public space. The police alone cannot provide an answer, so the government’s diagnosis is wrong, and the remedy is inappropriate.

The sixth and final layer deals with contradictions within the government. The agreement between its factions to manage the conflict, instead of resolving it, does not prevent the conflict from seeping into the government itself. Although the government tries to ignore the conflict with the Palestinians, the conflict does not ignore the government. This is how we reached the point where coalition chairperson Idit Silman resigned from Yamina, leaving the government without a majority, while UAL froze its activities in the Knesset following recent al-Aqsa events. The agreement between the right and the left in the government to put aside the main question that determines the fate of the state, its character, and the peace of its citizens, transforms the “government of change” into one that continues on Netanyahu’s path, while hatred of Netanyahu is the glue that keeps the government together.

Israel’s deterioration towards an apartheid regime and its joining of the regional and global autocratic camp, as well as the failure of the fabricated regional peace to bring about internal peace between Palestinians and Israelis, between Jews and Arabs, necessitate a new political recalculation aimed at resolving the conflict. The solution can apparently no longer be sustained on the basis of two-states, as 55 years of occupation have created a reality that does not allow this. A revolutionary change is needed within Palestinian society, on the one hand, and Israeli society on the other. We may hope that the war in Ukraine, and the defeat of Putin and his autocratic partners, will allow the formation of a large democratic camp in the world, including Israeli and Palestinian societies. Democracy is the key word. Without it, the humanity of all global citizens will be eroded.

The post Do not manage the conflict, resolve it! first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“Kite terror” is what newspapers call incendiary kites that set ablaze the fields of Israeli farmers on the “Gaza periphery.” This new terror has replaced “tunnel terror,” which, in turn, was neutralized by the IDF deployment of a new detection system and underground barrier against tunnels that crossfrom the Gaza Strip into Israel. “Qassam terror” was also neutralized by the Iron Dome rocket interceptors. So year after year we witness this cat and mouse game: Israel imposes a military blockade, the Gazans come up with new methods of fighting back, and Israel develops ways to deal with them.

However, skilled Hamas cells are not required to produce kites. Kites do not need workshops, lathes and explosives. Kites are flown by children who have ‘upgraded’ their hobby with added value attached. Kites serve the homeland and alleviate a life of desperation and despair. Kite terror puts Israel in a ridiculous light, not because of its dubious effectiveness, but because it completely negates the existing Israeli mantra that “We left Gaza,” as if there’s a real border between Gaza and Israel. What kind of border is it if you can fly kites that ignite the neighbor’s fields?

In order to deal with kite terror there is no need to sink billions into developing a sophisticated counter-punch, it’s enough to beef up the fire department. However, thousands of fire trucks, underground barriers, and sophisticated missile systems will not extinguish the great ball of fire that is just about to roll over Israel – an unprecedented humanitarian crisis that is presently erupting in Gaza. Every Israeli air force raid deep inside the Gaza Strip, which varies from 5 to 12 kilometers in width, only adds destruction and worsens the humanitarian disaster.

The catastrophe has gone on for a long time. As in the case of global warming, all know it is happening but  prefer to bury their heads in the sand. Gazans go thirsty while Israel “dries up.” For Israel, the solution is simple – shower two minutes less. In Gaza, they have forgotten what a shower is. They clean themselves with bottles of water filled from public fountains. For years, various observers have talked about 2020, the date when Gaza’s wells will be completely depleted and the Strip will die of thirst. The last seven dry years have accelerated the process. Gaza has already dried up.

Missiles and subterranean barriers, even if they provide protection, do not constitute an effective response to a humanitarian crisis. On the contrary, they foster the illusion that Israelis can continue living normally by showering two minutes less. In the meantime, Gazans live without electricity, and the only sound of water they hear is sewage flowingin the alleyways of refugee camps.

Israel’s interest and concern for its own population oblige it to act with maximum vigor to tackle the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza. Urgent answers are needed for water, electricity, infrastructure, sewage and hospitals, in addition to sources of employment that will lift the population out of poverty and return children to schools where they can study and read instead of making kites. However, the Israeli government headed by Binyamin Netanyahu and Yvette Lieberman is not built to meet such a human challenge. If we look at Israeli “solutions” to traffic congestion on Tel Aviv’s Ayalon Freeway, the long period of delay that doggedthe light railway in its capital, and the failures of modern public transport, we understand that the solution to Gaza’s problems will not come from Jerusalem.

Moreover, this impossible task has become more complicated since Gaza has been under the control of Hamas, which won a large majority in the Palestinian parliament in 2006 and established a government headed by Ismail Haniyeh. Hamas saw in its victory a mandate for ‘jihad’. Armed resistance took precedence over the daily lives and welfare of Gazans.

In June 2006, four months after the establishment of Haniyeh’s government, Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. A year later, Hamas staged a coup against the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and renounced the Oslo Accords, prompting a tightening of the Gaza blockade that continues to this day. The Hamas way of dealing with this blockade was to build a tunnel-based economy. The smuggling from Sinai into Gaza enriched Hamas coffers while keepingmerchants, tunnel diggers and operatorsbusy. The military coup in Egypt that ousted the first elected president, Mohammed Morsi, replacing him with General Sisi, a sworn enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore of Hamas, ended the “goodtimes.”

The rise of Hamas in the 2006 elections was not an accident, but a direct result of the PA’s complete failure to establish a proper government and economy inthe territories under its control. The problems in Gaza did not begin with Hamas but with the arrival of Arafat, who promised to turn Gaza into a “Singapore.” Instead, he set up another corrupt Arab regime like those swept away by the Arab Spring.

For its part, Israel worked with the corrupt regime. Israeli-Palestinian partnerships sprang up like mushrooms after the rain – from a casino in Jericho to various fuel and cement monopolies. The border crossings between Israel and Gaza were a source of easy income for PA officials and heads of security services, such as Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub, who partnered with Palestinian entrepreneurs seeking to open businesses.

In other words, during the ten years of Fatah rule in the West Bank and Gaza, the situation of Gazans has deteriorated under the watchful eye of Israel, whose sole aim has been to maintain security in the occupied territories, lining the pockets of the leaders of the Palestinian security services.

Disaster is imminent. The timing hinges on the heartbeat and immune system of the “omnipotent” Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen). The Netanyahu government has resolved, with the encouragement of President Donald Trump, to forgo the political process. Netanyahu hopes that economic interests and security cooperation with Israel will succeed in preventing total chaos in the West Bank when Abbas dies.

Like the issue of water in Gaza, and like global warming, the death of Abbas is a foregone disaster, even if the precise date is not known. Any cough or weight loss immediately raises the anxiety level in Israel. He’s an anti-Semite, he’s not a partner, he doesn’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but he maintains strict security coordination with it. In the meantime, all’s well: The many casualties in Gaza (over 100 recently) have not triggered an uprising in the West Bank, and Hamas, after losing its credibility both as a fighting force and a state-builder, has difficulty recruiting. Thus the Israeli Right can sink into the deep slumber of the returning warrior, imbued with the feeling that the Palestinians are defeated.

Yet even the defeated need water, medicine, food, a livelihood, and schools for their children. Not to mention freedom of movement, freedom of opinion and freedom to create, which were taken away more than fifty years  ago. Since the PA will collapse with or without Abu Mazen, and in Gaza there is no one to depend on, it is known in advance who the great winner in this long struggle will be. But he will bear the responsibility for what’s going on in the territories that “we have already left,” and he will be on the receiving end of incendiary kites.

The idea of two states is dead. Unilateral disengagement is dead. What remains are snipers facing desperate youngsters, airstrikes on military sites in Gaza, and five million stateless Palestinians. They did not succeed in building a state for themselves but they have not given up the dream of freedom and civil rights, just like every Israeli living nearby. According to the headline of an article by Shimon Shiffer on May 29th in Yediot Ahronot, “The Jewish underground has been victorious” (referring to a group of ultra-right religious settlers that plotted to blow up the Dome of the Rock). His conclusion is simple: “The two-state solution is no longer feasible. It’s finished.” The status quo of “no solution” will not remain forever. Paradoxically, the lack of a solution sets the stage for alternative possibilities within the framework of one state, where the resources will be divided equally among all.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Even Kites Shoot first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

One hundred and seven Palestinians have been killed and more than 10,000 wounded by Israeli troops over the past seven weeks along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel. The Palestinians stormed the fence and Israeli soldiers responded with live fire. On the bloodiest day, May 14, when the new American embassy in Jerusalem was inaugurated, 61 demonstrators were slain. This massacre was not necessary: the IDF did not need to employ snipers to cut down young people who galloped toward the bullets, and Hamas could have prevented those youngsters from approaching the fence. A quiet protest would have been no less effective.

The protest was not quiet because both sides – the Israeli right-wing government and the Hamas government in Gaza – provided an identical, although uncoordinated, script. Israel supplied the snipers and Hamas, the victims. There is no doubt that those who squeezed the trigger are responsible for the massacre, and they must be held to account. But once again, the massacre could have been prevented! After all, when it ends, each side will claim victory. However, Israel lost the public relations battle. However, with Trump calling the shots, public opinion is a negligible factor. Hamas, for its part, did not manage to achieve what it most needed, that is to lift the siege of Gaza.

The fence that separates Israel from Gaza is not a border. It is a fence that encircles the world’s largest open-air prison, where 2 million Palestinians live in worse conditions than those in Israeli prisons, who at least receive three meals a day. Gaza is not a state. It is controlled by Israel, who is the sole sovereign in Gaza, even after having withdrawn its army and settlers.

Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza did not change Gaza’s legal status. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip without any agreement. The area remained for a short period under the control of the PA (Palestinian Authority) and, after a bloody military coup in June 2007, the territory fell to Hamas control. The PA in Ramallah does not recognize Hamas’ rule, and thanks to Ariel Sharon’s “wise” policy of leaving unilaterally, Gaza became a No Man’s Land. Israel has an interest in maintaining the Hamas regime in order to preserve the political and geographic divide between Gaza and the West Bank. For this reason, responsibility for Gaza’s humanitarian disaster can be placed at Israel’s door. All the above pertains to the ‘here and now’, and not to the Nakba which took place 70 years ago.

Despite the fact that Israel is directly responsible for what is happening in Gaza, it is secondary to the ongoing struggle between Hamas and Fatah over control of the Palestinian Authority. While Israel imposes a siege on Gaza, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) makes sure to tighten the noose. While Hamas exploits the struggle against Israel to attack Abu Mazen and undermine PA legitimacy in Ramallah, Abu Mazen is using the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to subdue Hamas and make life difficult for Israel.

As Israel turns a cold shoulder to Abu Mazen and basks in Trump’s support, Abu Mazen is turning the screws and creating conditions that will ultimately force Hamas into a conflict with Israel. He keeps fuel from reaching power stations in Gaza, prevents drugs from reaching Gaza hospitals, and avoids paying salaries to PA officials employed in Gaza. He is bringing Gaza to the brink of starvation, poverty and darkness. Life in Gaza is impossible. The Israeli government and army are opposed to Abu Mazen’s policy, but they are not taking action to change the situation. Thus, when Hamas orchestrates the “March of Return,” Abu Mazen condemns Hamas for encouraging children to be killed at the fence.

Israel, the PA, and Hamas are the main actors in the tragedy playing out before our eyes. But there are others who are no less important: the Muslim Brotherhood headed by Turkish President Erdogan and, as expected, Qatar. There’s also Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both being led by Donald Trump, whose commitment to his evangelical base brings him to a one-sided support of Israel.

In this tragedy there is no good and bad, there’s only bad.And following the massacre in Gaza, it is difficult to determine who is worse: Erdogan joined forces with Putin and allowed Iran and the Russians to commit atrocities and occupy the city of Aleppo; Sisi massacred 2,600 Muslim Brotherhood demonstrators in Cairo’s Rabaa al-Adawiya Square during the military coup; Hamas maintains a cruel and dictatorial regime that suppresses any opposition, and Abu Mazen reached a new low by expressing anti-Semitic positions while maintaining close security coordination with Israel in order to ensure his autocratic rule. It is impossible to separate what is happening in Gaza from what is happening in the Arab world and in the internal Palestinian arena. The Israeli Right is alive and kicking, fuelled by the Fascist crusade now sweeping the world – from Washington, through Europe, Russia, and Turkey to the Middle East.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza cannot be resolved when the Right rules in Israel without serious opposition. It cannot be settled with Abu Mazen as head of the PA, it cannot be solved when Sisi controls the Rafah crossing, and it will not be solved when Hamas subordinates the situation of Gaza to its narrow interests – first and foremost to consolidate its rule and defeat Fatah.

In light of the danger of humanitarian collapse, various “solutions” are floating around which, until now, have produced nothing. The Israeli army is interested in giving Hamas a floating port off the coast of Gaza, and Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz supports it. Many demand that Israel agree to a hudna (cease-fire) with Hamas in order to ensure a temporary quiet. Some demand that Abu Mazen end the security coordination in order to pressure Israel to ease the military blockade of Gaza. And there are those who demand an end to the siege without preconditions. Nonetheless, all these solutions have many opponents with conflicting interests.

In Abu Mazen’s view, if Israel were to lift the siege on Gaza and normalize life there, this would perpetuate the division between Gaza under Hamas and the West Bank under Fatah, burying the idea of a Palestinian state. Egypt opposes a Hamas entity affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood bordering Sinai. The Israeli Right wants to tame Hamas, as is evident from the words of Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman “rehabilitation in exchange for demilitarization”, while Hamas argues that its weapons of resistance are sacred and are not negotiable.

Therefore, in the current political situation, there is no one to save Gaza. As long as the Right controls Israel, and the Palestinian people are at the mercy of Fatah and Hamas, there is no hope on the horizon. The policy of “sit and do nothing”—of managing rather than solving the crisis—is not an Israeli invention. It is dictated by the White House. It is not just employed here, but also in Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq. It is no accident that Netanyahu shuttles between Putin and Trump, dancing to their tune. He is facing Hamas in Gaza and Iran in Syria without having much in his tool box other than planes and snipers.

The solution in Gaza is connected to a solution in the West Bank, in Syria and in Egypt. There are those who are looking for a quick fix, floating ideas about lifting the siege and the two-state solution without examining an alternative economic and political vision. On the other hand, there are those who think that it is possible to stand up for human rights in Gaza while at the same time supporting the massive uprooting and murder of Syrians by Assad. They have lost their moral compass. The solution is to create an Israeli-Palestinian political movement that will demand democracy and equality for all. This is the only counter-balance to the Israeli Right, Fatah and Hamas – those who have brought us to this precipice.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post One Massacre, Many Partners in Crime first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

In an exhausting two-hour speech before the PLO Central Council on January 14, 2018, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) provided the morning papers with many headlines. Abbas laid into Trump saying Yehreb Beitak, a common insult which translates as “may your house be demolished.”  Many Israeli commentators see this as a clear sign that the Palestinian leader has “lost his marbles,” or in other words, “broken the rules”. Abbas said “no” to the “deal of the century” that Trump has been talking about since he met Netanyahu at the White House a year ago, but Abbas did not explain why he refused. He only stressed that Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is for him a casus belli, and he will not accept any American role in the Mideast peace process.

Trump’s “deal of the century” was passed on to Mahmoud Abbas by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS), as reported by the New York Times on December 4, 2017. According to the newspaper, MBS urged Abbas to accept the Jerusalem suburb of Abu Dis as the capital of the future Palestinian state, and to agree to a territorial compromise according to which most settlements will remain intact. The Palestinians would receive a mini-state with limited sovereignty and no territorial contiguity. The meeting between MBS and Abbas took place two weeks after a special visit by President Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Kushner handed over to the Saudis a plan prepared by three Orthodox Jewish envoys: Kushner, Ambassador David Friedman, and Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s chief Israeli-Palestinian negotiator. The three adopted the worldview of gambling magnate and Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, one of Trump’s main sponsors and owner of the freebie newspaper Israel Today. He is noted for his absolute support of Netanyahu.

Two weeks after Mahmoud Abbas’s fateful visit to Saudi Arabia on December 6, 2017, Trump declared his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The US State Department tried to mollify the impression, perhaps to curb angry reactions in the occupied territories and in the Arab world, by pointing out that the Trump declaration did not define the borders of the city, which are still subject to negotiation between the sides. Throughout that period, Mahmoud Abbas was subjected to heavy pressure to get him to say “yes” to the American proposal that had Saudi Arabia’s blessing, but to no avail. When Trump returned from his vacation this year, he turned to Twitter, and in a series of 14 tweets on various topics, he wrote in a clear, although disjointed manner: “We pay the Palestinians HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year and get no appreciation or respect. They don’t even want to negotiate… We have taken Jerusalem, the toughest part of the negotiation, off the table, but Israel, for that, would have had to pay more. But with the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?”

Mahmoud Abbas’s reaction in the speech to the Central Council, “May your house be demolished,” expressed frustration. But it is only declarative, and the impression is that Abbas convened the Council so that he could vent his frustration and, in effect, thwart any practical decision. His frustration stems not only from Trump’s actions. His main problem is the Arab world – the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians – who are fed up with the Palestinian question and want to remove it from the table in order to deal with the real strategic threat—which is Iran, not the Israeli occupation.

Mahmoud Abbas has additional troubles. He is facing an Arab front that is pressuring him to surrender, and he is also isolated at home. Despite his entreaties, Hamas declined to participate in the Central Council meeting, which overshadowed all efforts to close ranks and show solidarity on the Jerusalem issue. Moreover, attempts to reach a position paper acceptable to all factions of the PLO, especially those that do not include Hamas, have failed. Abbas is not interested in reaching any decision that would formally annul the Oslo Accords. The significance of such a move would be the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is a creation of the Oslo Accords. Abbas also wants to continue the security coordination with Israel, which is sacred to him. While he declares that Israel ceases to be committed to the Oslo Accords, he remains committed to them.

What is Abbas willing to do? He is prepared to continue the popular nonviolent resistance and send young Palestinians to demonstrate and be killed (in small numbers) in clashes with IDF soldiers. Of course, he is willing to continue negotiations with Hamas until the latter disarms and recognizes the PA’s authority in Gaza. He is determined to fight terrorism and continue a dialogue with the Israeli peace camp. On the political level, the plan is to work with hundreds of different international institutions in order to gain recognition of Palestine as a state. For Mahmoud Abbas, the PA is already a governing body of a state – without its own currency, without borders, without sovereignty – in fact a virtual state that exists by inertia.

But in response to Trump’s threats to stop aid to the Palestinians, a “senior Palestinian official” told the London-based newspaper Al-Hayat in a moment of impressive honesty: “The dismantling of the Palestinian Authority is not in an Israeli or American interest. In the event that the PA collapses, it will be Israel that will have to provide the services as an occupying power. Now the Palestinian Authority is receiving aid from Arab countries and the rest of the world in order to finance these services and if it collapses, Israel will face these problems alone. The dismantling of the PA will strengthen the aspiration for a one-state solution, and that is something no Israeli government wants.”

The current arrangement, the existence of a PA that provides services and security, that settles for a virtual state, and that is ready to keep the solution on the back burner indefinitely, plays into the hands of the Israeli Right. The Right can continue humming the tune, No partner. It is also great for the Israeli Left, which can continue humming the opposite tune, There is a partner. The consensus is that a one-state solution would be bad for all sides: Fatah in Ramallah, Hamas in Gaza, the Right in Jerusalem and the Left in Tel Aviv.

In his fiery speech, Mahmoud Abbas expressed anger at the Jews and Israel. According to him, “Colonialism created Israel to perform a certain function. It is a colonial project that has nothing to do with Judaism, but rather used the Jews as a tool under the slogan of the Promised Land.” On these things the Israeli Right will celebrate, saying: “We told you! The man is an anti-Semite.” And the Left, for its part, will weep over the fact that the Partner once again rips off the mask of being both “Jewish and democratic.” In the meantime, this ugly Occupation, which erodes every enlightened part of the Jews-only democracy, and preserves a military dictatorship in the occupied territories, will continue unabated.

An interesting point to be noted is that in his speech of anger toward Trump, Mahmoud Abbas found it necessary to confess that the Arab Spring is no more than a Winter that has brought disorder to the Middle East. Thus, Abbas joins many in the Arab world and certainly, in Israel as well. The reason is simple: the Arab Spring expressed young people’s desire for democracy and social justice. In light of the despair that prevails on the Palestinian street, the overwhelming majority of young Palestinians between the ages of 18 and 25 do not believe in a Palestinian state, and aspire to one state. This is the generation of the future. Like their brothers in the Arab world, young Palestinians understand very well the nature of the Palestinian Authority, which is like other Arab regimes they aim to overthrow. Netanyahu supports demonstrations in Iran, Mahmoud Abbas does not. Like all the Arab dictators, Abbas knows that what happens in Tehran may repeat itself in the West Bank.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Mahmoud Abbas is angry. So what! first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza is on the verge of exploding in our faces. But commentators continue to reassure us that Hamas has no interest in another round of war. In Israel, we want this summer to pass quietly. At least four governments are responsible for the humanitarian disaster in Gaza: the Palestinian Authority (PA), Hamas, Israel and Egypt – each helping to bring Gaza to the brink of collapse.

Since Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, the humanitarian situation has taken a turn for the worse. Initially, tunnels dug from Gaza into Sinai provided passage of goods and some breathing space for Gaza residents. However, since the coup in Egypt which sent President-elect Morsi to prison, these tunnels have been blocked and the situation in Gaza has deteriorated. The fall of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt resulted in the tightening of the siege on the Strip. With Turkish strongman Erdogan reconciled with Netanyahu, the Qatari ruler remained the only and last patron willing to back Hamas. But now that the Saudis, the Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt have severed ties with Qatar, Hamas runs the risk of losing the last of its political and economic support.

When PA President Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) saw Hamas was on the ropes and helpless, he decided that this was the time to go in for the kill. He launched a series of measures that have further aggravated the humanitarian disaster. First, he slashed the salaries of tens of thousands of government employees in the Strip who have been sitting idly for a decade; he stopped paying for the electricity that Israel supplies to it, so that Gazans are living with only three hours of power in the terrible heat of this summer. Finally, and the crushing blow, Abbas stopped the supply of medicine to hospitals, as well as permits for chronically ill patients to leave the Strip and receive treatment in Israeli hospitals.

The Israeli cabinet discussed the PA demand to reduce the supply of electricity to Gaza. After some soul-searching, the cabinet decided to comply with Abbas’s request, arguing that there was no moral justification for funding electricity while Hamas continues to dig attack tunnels. This decision is irrational. Should power cuts cause a humanitarian crisis, Hamas could be forced to attack Israel and Israeli citizens would suffer the consequences (not to mention that the cost of a war would far exceed the cost of paying for electricity.) Israeli fears were reinforced when Yahya Sinwar, military leader of Hamas’ Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Gaza, was elected prime minister there. This was viewed in Israel as a takeover by the Hamas military arm.

However, pressure exerted on Hamas did produce results. Instead of firing rockets toward Tel Aviv, Yahya Sinwar went to Egypt to seek assistance in easing the siege imposed by Abbas. The Egyptians, as a condition for taking any step, demanded that Sinwar reconcile with Mohammad Dahlan. Here is a small reminder: Dahlan headed Preventive Security in Gaza when the PA was established. While in that position, he pursued questionable deals and is considered a friend of Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He was forced out of the Strip during the Hamas takeover there in June 2007. His hands are stained with the blood of many Gazans. However, the hatred and abhorrence that Hamas feels toward Abu Mazen brought newly-elected Sinwar and his friends to drink the cup of poison. Sinwar met Dahlan in Cairo and reached a simple agreement with the Egyptians: they would lift the closure of Gaza (from the Egyptian side) and open the Rafah crossing; in exchange, Hamas would let Dahlan return to the Gaza Strip and control the border crossings.

It was Sinwar’s and Dahlan’s shared hatred of Abu Mazen that enabled them to fall into each other’s arms. For a long time, Dahlan has been demanding that he take over from Abu Mazen and exercise control over Fatah with the support of the Arab Emirates. Six years ago, Fatah’s Central Committee removed Dahlan from its ranks and declared him persona non grata. Since then, Dahlan moved to the emirates and became a close adviser to Emir Muhammad bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi. From there he strove to return to Fatah as its leader, but all his efforts failed when the last Fatah conference chose not to allow him to run for the leadership, leaving Abu Mazen as chairperson—and without an heir.

On the one hand, Abu Mazen has been weakened by the “deep freeze” in the peace process with Israel. On the other, Hamas has been hurt as a result of the savage blockade on Gaza. Dahlan does not particularly want to take control of the Strip, but he sees it as a stepping stone. His agreement with Hamas allows him to build a political base in Gaza with the aim of taking charge of Ramallah in the West Bank. According to the agreement with Egypt, Dahlan would serve as prime minister of the unity government in Gaza, while the security services, including the Interior Ministry, would remain in Hamas hands. Thus Dahlan would return to his favorite job – control of the crossings in return for generous “donations,” while Hamas remains the de facto ruler.

For Netanyahu, the Hamas-Dahlan agreement is a gift from heaven. First of all, it undermines Abu Mazen’s legitimacy and creates new possibilities. All he need do is wait for the return of “our pal” Dahlan to Ramallah, and this time not as head of Preventive Security but as president of the PA. Second, with the siege partially lifted, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza would be somewhat eased, and this could guarantee quiet on Israel’s southern front for years. Third, and no less important, Egypt is finally accepting responsibility for Gaza and relieving Israel of that onerous burden. In return, Egypt succeeded in pressing Hamas to end its association with the Muslim Brotherhood and to police the Sinai border, thus cutting off ISIS gangs that had taken control of the El Arish area.

It seems that all the pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place, and Netanyahu’s policy has paid off: Gaza stays in the hands of Hamas and Dahlan, the West Bank is ruled by a weak PA, and the Trump government continues to back the Israeli right. BDS can go on with its campaign to boycott Israel, Breaking the Silence will continue to oppose the occupation, the Labor Party will self-enthuse about a regional conference, Meretz will raise the banner of two states for two peoples, while the Egyptians, the Palestinians in all their factions, and the Israeli right wing continue unhindered in their campaigns for political survival. Meanwhile, the suffering of the Palestinians increases. The Israeli right dominates the public narrative, and an unholy alliance is being formed between players who have long lost all moral foundation and are motivated by a lust for power.

But this scenario seems too perfect for the chaotic reality in which we live. The members of the strange partnership have lost the trust of their citizens: Al-Sisi’s regime in Egypt is weak and repressive; Dahlan is corrupt and uncontrollable; Hamas has shown that power is more important than the principles of which they boast; and Abu Mazen has turned out to be spineless. These are the partners of the Israeli right, and unfortunately, of the Israeli left as well. Therefore, the current diplomatic victory–to the extent that it materializes— will be short-lived. In the long term, the Palestinian question will remain unresolved, the Occupation will continue, and the distress and misery in Gaza will only deepen.

Hope for peace cannot rely on corrupt, obsolete, and benighted regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Nor can it be based on people like Dahlan or Abu Mazen who cooperate with the Israeli right and view Trump as a savior. Hope for peace lies in the hundreds of thousands of young Egyptians who persist in fighting for democracy and social justice, in Palestinians who aspire to freedom and equality, and in those Israelis who understand that peace cannot be made between corrupt regimes, but only between Palestinians and Israelis sharing one common goal – a life of peace, democracy, and social justice.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Our pal Mohammad Dahlan returns to the fray first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

About 15,000 people gathered in Rabin Square on May 27th to mark 50 years of Occupation and call for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One by one, leaders of the peace camp took to the stage, from “Buji” Herzog to Ayman Odeh, as President Abu Mazen’s message echoed in their ears: “There is no stronger voice than the voice of a just and comprehensive peace, just as there is no stronger voice than the right of nations to self-determination and freedom from the burden of Occupation. The time has come to live — both you and us — in peace, harmony, security and stability. The only way to end the conflict and the fight against terror in the region and the world is a two-state solution based on the June 1967 borders, Palestine by Israel’s side.” Strong words intended to breathe life into a camp that has lost faith in itself and continues to believe in the slogan of “two states,” which has become obsolete and has no way of being realized.

On the face of it, Abu Mazen is the “ultimate” partner of the peace camp. But in reality, he is its gravedigger. He enjoys the praises of those seeking peace, but he is skeptical of the possibility of a political upheaval that will put an end to Israel’s right-wing government. And since political upheaval is not in sight, the two-state slogan has become a rationalization for the continued existence of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which, over time, has become a temporary solution to a permanent condition. Most of Abu Mazen’s energy is not aimed at ending the Occupation, but rather at trying to eliminate Hamas. While security coordination has become a cornerstone of the relationship between the PA and Israel, the struggle against Hamas has become a major obsession, and the PA hasn’t hesitated to prevent fuel, medicines and salaries from reaching Gaza, at the same time employing other pressure to bring Hamas to its knees and return Gaza to the hands of the Fatah movement.

The two-state slogan also serves Netanyahu. He isn’t under pressure to decide between the annexation of the West Bank and withdrawal from the occupied territories. Of course, the peace camp tries to convince the Jewish public of the need for a Palestinian state by cultivating fears of an Arab majority. Billboards are displayed showing an enraged Palestinian crowd with the caption “Tomorrow we will be the majority.” Abu Mazen is burning the candle at both ends: he continues his imaginary struggle against Netanyahu, and, simultaneously, he allows the Zionist Left to nurture the false hope that they can separate from the Palestinians, preserving the Jewish and democratic character of the state in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Netanyahu knows full well that Abu Mazen’s situation is not brilliant. The more Netanyahu refuses to negotiate with him, the more Palestinians’ trust in their president is eroded. It seems that Rabin Square is the only square where Abu Mazen can speak freely. He was disgracefully “thrown out” of Gaza Square, and, in the squares of the West Bank he only hears curses and insults. Just recently, he was cursed by the mothers of hunger-striking prisoners in Israeli jails, who claimed he was thwarting their struggle. The Labor Party, “Yesh Atid” and ” Kulanu”—the bloc that is supposed to stop Netanyahu in the next elections—does not believe in an attainable solution. Like Netanyahu, they use the two-state slogan in order to seek a new interim arrangement that will last for the next 50 years. And there is still a small matter that few have considered: how do we persuade the Palestinians to agree to another interim arrangement while the three core issues – the status of Jerusalem, the settlements and the refugees – still hang in the air? However, such trivialities are ignored.

The peace camp discerns a singular “historical opportunity” and has discovered the magic of the Sunni states, which overnight changed from an enemy to a lover. No more cultivating the Maronites, Shiites, Kurds, Copts, Druze, and all those who had suffer from the heavy hand of the Sunni majority. Until now, the Sunni-Israeli alliance against Iran has failed for one reason: President Obama liked the Iranians and feared the Sunnis, especially the Sunni Wahhabism of the Gulf States.

With Trump’s election, a historic opportunity became a reality as the erratic US president began his first overseas tour in Saudi Arabia. In return for a sizeable check of $400 billion, and at the request of King Salman, he put together an anti-Iran coalition. In order to cushion the new Sunni alliance and to improve its problematic image in his country, Trump has taken on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What an irony, the unbelievable has happened! Hillary Clinton was defeated and replaced by a mercurial thug, a close friend of Netanyahu, the one who cannot be refused. It is precisely Trump—a rival of Angela Merkel and the enemy of women, blacks and Muslims, a supporter of torture, a despiser of refugees, a climate change denier—who has become the messiah of Israeli peacemakers.

Trump’s supporters claim that even if all the above is true, it does not contradict the fact that Trump, in order to please the Saudis and thus bring America back to its grandeur, is urging Netanyahu to make concessions to pave the way for an agreement with Abu Mazen. Therefore, the peace camp must support such a move, which is expected to lead to separation from the Palestinians. Life is full of contradictions, and history has already proved that not everything bad for the Gentiles is necessarily bad for the Jews. The fact is that Trump’s emissary, Jason Greenblatt, is trying to persuade Netanyahu to transfer some of Area C to Area B, an ingenious idea that will make it appear that Israel is making concessions. The problem is that this idea was raised 20 years ago when, at the end of his first term, Netanyahu promised to move thirteen percent of Area C to the Palestinians in exchange for cancelling the Palestinian National Covenant. The Palestinians did indeed amend the charter at an impressive ceremony in Gaza in the presence of President Clinton. But Netanyahu suddenly repented and coined the phrase “If they give, they will receive. If they don’t give, they won’t receive,” which he still maintains to this day in various versions.

What may seem a historic opportunity to the peace camp is an anti-historical opportunity. In fact, Trump is trying to breathe life into a dying Saudi kingdom, which has seen its resources dwindle as oil prices have plummeted. The Saudi people are lazy and idle. The Arab Spring has removed most Arab dictators, and the Saudi economy is being drained by a costly and seemingly unwinnable war in Yemen. The Saudis also support radical Islamic militias in Syria. The irony is that Saudi Arabia is fighting Iran by spreading Islamic Salafi Wahhabism, al-Qaeda’s incubator. It is in this arena that Trump chooses to combat terror. The alliance between the Sunni states and Trump has no chance of succeeding, not only owing to the rotten nature of the Sunni regimes, but also because Iran is essential to Trump as an ally in Iraq, in the struggle against ISIS, and in the taking of Mosul.

In light of the reality that has emerged during the 50 years of Occupation, it is time to change the diskette. Reliance on Trump, Saudi Arabia and Abu Mazen, allies of the Israeli Right, will not save the peace camp. A truly historic opportunity to find genuine peace with the Palestinians was lost when, after the Oslo Accords, the PA was invented as a substitute for an independent state. Today, we pay a heavy political price for this. After the Right has entrenched itself in power, it cannot be defeated by fear that Israel will someday have a Palestinian majority.

The way to defeat the Right is to find a true partner for building an egalitarian society in a democratic state that honors its citizens without discrimination based on nationality, religion or skin-color. The Middle East is changing, new societies will emerge from beneath the ruins of civil wars, and the benighted Arab regimes are condemned to disappear. These deep and revolutionary changes will sooner or later bring about a democratic change in Palestinian society, which will force Israeli society to change likewise.

• Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post Abu Mazen: The peace camp’s partner or gravedigger? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.