Statement by the DAAM Party

The war between the United States and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other, which has been underway since February 28, has shaken the Middle East and reverberated throughout the world. As missiles strike across the region and drones explode in the skies above its cities—while Israeli civilians repeatedly run to bomb shelters—a fierce debate has emerged in Israel and internationally regarding the nature of this war: what caused it, and what consequences it may bring.

The statement of the DAAM Party presented here seeks to clarify the sequence of developments that led to this war. It challenges several widely accepted assumptions that have become entrenched within liberal and progressive discourse and points toward the direction that the forces of peace and democratic progress in Israel must adopt in order to defeat the far-right government in the upcoming elections.

DAAM is a joint Jewish-Arab political movement whose members are citizens of Israel committed to Israeli-Palestinian peace based on equality and mutual recognition of rights. Founded in 1995 by Jewish and Palestinian activists, the party promotes social justice, and Jewish-Arab cooperation as the foundation for a democratic future. For peace to rise, mutual recognition is a fundamental principle.

From the early 1980s onward, the founders of DAAM were active participants in the struggle against the occupation, a struggle that reached its historic peak with the outbreak of the First Intifada in December 1987. The party’s position regarding Hamas’s attack on October 7, 2023, and the regional war that followed is grounded in the same principles that have guided its activity from the beginning: opposition to oppression and reactionary forces on all sides, defense of democratic values, and commitment to a political future based on equality between peoples.

The War Against Iran Is a Direct Continuation of October 7

The war that erupted on Saturday, February 28, 2026, began with a coordinated American-Israeli strike against Iran. This confrontation cannot be understood in isolation. It represents the direct continuation of the events set in motion by Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

For many years Iran systematically cultivated Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as key components of a broader regional network of militias and proxy organizations. Through these forces Tehran expanded its influence across the Middle East while avoiding direct military confrontation with Israel.

This network included Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Assad regime in Syria; Shiite militias in Iraq; the Houthi movement in Yemen; and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories. Together these forces formed what Iran calls the “Axis of Resistance.”

Through this system of proxies—most of them non-state actors—Iran sought to destabilize its rivals while steadily building strategic leverage across the region. The aim of this alliance was never aimed at reaching a long lasting peace in the Middle East.  Ultimately, Tehran aimed to ignite a broader confrontation that would destroy Israel from several fronts and establish the regime of the ayatollahs as the dominant power in the Middle East.

For years the Iranian regime succeeded in pursuing this strategy with relatively little resistance. Its regional standing grew considerably during the past two decades, particularly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, which had served as a major obstacle to Tehran’s expansionist ambitions.

The failure of the American project in Iraq left a deep trauma in U.S. public opinion. A broad political consensus gradually emerged in Washington that large-scale military confrontation in the Middle East should be avoided whenever possible. This approach was reflected most clearly in the Obama administration’s policy of containment toward Iran, culminating in the nuclear agreement signed in 2015.

Under the diplomatic cover provided by that agreement, the Iranian regime strengthened its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza and encouraged a growing belief among its allies that a decisive confrontation was approaching—a final “day of judgment” aimed at destroying the State of Israel.

When Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched their coordinated assault on Israeli communities near Gaza on October 7, they were implementing a broader regional strategy whose objective extended far beyond the Palestinian arena.

The immediate participation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi movement in Yemen in attacks on Israel—what they described as a “war of support”—demonstrated that the assault was not an isolated operation but part of a wider strategic plan. The war that has unfolded since then, reshaping the lives of millions across the Middle East, is therefore the direct consequence of the murderous gamble undertaken by Hamas in the service of Tehran’s strategic ambitions.

The Iranian Regime Refused to Recognize the New Balance of Power

Over the following two years Israel worked to repel the assault launched by Hamas and Hezbollah, targeting the leadership of both organizations and destroying much of their military capacity.  Days after the agreement on a cease fire in Lebanon the Assad Regime in Syria collapsed like a card castle. A central pillar of the “Axis of Resistance” where Iran invested Billions was gone. 

A joint American-Israeli operation in June 2025 severely damaged Iran’s military capabilities and its nuclear program. Two and a half months later, in October 2025, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Gaza and all Israeli hostages were released. The war that had begun on October 7 appeared to have reached its conclusion.

The results of the war in Gaza were clear and decisive, and neither side had a clear interest in renewing the fighting. Yet the Iranian regime refused to acknowledge this reality. Since the June 2025 operation it promoted a narrative claiming that the “Axis of Resistance” had actually won the war and that Israel had been defeated—arguing that Israel itself had requested the ceasefire after suffering heavy damage to economic, medical, and military infrastructure in its major cities.

The leadership in Tehran refused to draw the strategic conclusions required by its defeat and the defeat of its proxies. It ignored the historic significance of the United States joining— for the first time—an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

At the end of December 2025 the regime’s weakness became dramatically visible when a massive popular uprising erupted in Iran. New social groups joined the protests, including merchants from the traditional bazaar.

Demonstrators chanted “Death to Khamenei” and demanded the overthrow of the regime that had ruled Iran through repression for nearly half a century and driven the country into poverty, hunger, and stagnation.

More than thirty thousand citizens were massacred by the repressive machine within a matter of days in a desperate attempt by the regime to crush the uprising.

Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump demanded that Iran enter negotiations, backing his demand with the deployment of significant military forces to the region. In February 2026 negotiations between representatives of the United States and Iran opened in the Sultanate of Oman, with the goal of reaching an agreement that might prevent a military confrontation. There was hope that such an agreement could also stabilize the situations in Gaza and Lebanon.

Many observers expected the Iranian regime to recognize the new balance of power and to abandon its megalomanic  strategic ambitions, including its nuclear project. Trump repeatedly stated that he preferred a negotiated settlement to military confrontation. Yet the leaders in Tehran chose to ignore what had become evident. The destructive arrogance that had characterized Hamas’s leadership and led Yahya Sinwar to launch the disastrous October 7 attack, also shaped the position of the Iranian regime. Its negotiators rejected American demands. The message quickly spread to Iran’s allies. Both Hamas and Hezbollah adopted similarly uncompromising positions.

Hezbollah declared that it would not surrender its weapons to the sovereign Lebanese government and would not allow the ceasefire with Israel to be implemented. Hamas rejected the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for its disarmament and continued to obstruct progress toward implementing the reconstruction plan for Gaza.

American Isolationism Allowed Iran to Grow Stronger

All available indications suggest that the Iranian leadership believed it could prevent an attack and secure a favorable agreement without making major concessions. Tehran’s calculation relied on widespread public opposition to war within the United States, including strong opposition from the Democratic Party as well as from segments of the isolationist wing of Trump’s MAGA supporters within the Republican Party.

Iran also assumed that the Gulf states—concerned that war could threaten their oil infrastructure—would exert pressure on Washington to avoid military confrontation. Tehran’s strategic gamble was that the United States would continue its traditional policy of containment, which had dominated American policy for more than a decade.

Indeed, for years Iran succeeded in maneuvering Western governments by exploiting Washington’s reluctance to enter into direct confrontation.

The nuclear agreement signed in 2015 lifted many of the sanctions imposed on Iran and opened economic opportunities that had previously been unavailable. But, under the international legitimacy granted by that agreement, the Iranian regime expanded its ballistic missile program, developed deadly drone technologies (aimed against Ukraine as well), and provided massive financial and military support to militant groups in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Gaza, and the Palestinian territories.

Even the October 7 attack did not prompt the Biden administration to abandon this flawed policy of containment. In April 2024, after Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel for the first time, the Biden administration sought to restrain Israel’s response, arguing that a regional war had to be avoided at all costs.

In reality, however, the regional war that Washington sought to prevent had already begun.

The aggression of Iran and its proxies against Israel—combined with the brutal massacre of tens of thousands of Iranian citizens during the recent uprising—cannot simply be ignored. Such passivity risks sending a dangerous signal to the world that the use of force is sufficient to deter the United States.

In February 2022 Russia invaded Ukraine and is threatening Europe. China is preparing for a possible invasion of Taiwan. Both are watching developments in the Middle East closely, waiting to see how the United States responds to Iranian aggression. Saudi Arabia’s behavior provides a clear example. In 2019 Iran attacked Saudi oil facilities in Ras Tanura during Trump’s first presidential term. The United States chose not to respond and offered little meaningful assistance to its ally.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states concluded that Washington might not defend them and began signing agreements with Iran and strengthening ties with China and Russia.

Even during the negotiations between Washington and Tehran in February 2026, the impression remained that the American administration was eager to reach an agreement and avoid military confrontation.

Yet Iran apparently believed that any concession regarding the foundations of the “Axis of Resistance” would undermine the regime itself. Consequently, Iranian negotiators arrived at the negotiating table in Muscat and Geneva with a rigid and defiant position.

Under those circumstances, Trump ultimately chose the military option.

The Objectives of the United States and Israel

As the war continues, an important question remains:
Will Israel and the United States succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime? Will the Iranian people take to the streets again?

Will Iran eventually become a democratic state capable of peaceful relations with its neighbors? At this stage of the war, any definitive answer would be premature.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliated networks function as a powerful military-economic structure dedicated to advancing Iran’s expansionist ambitions while enforcing domestic repression.

This organization possesses enormous economic interests inside and outside Iran and has little intention of relinquishing them. In many ways it operates as a violent, mafia-like structure—a state within a state.

These forces are currently driving the continuation of the war and refusing to acknowledge the emerging balance of power.

Although Israel and the United States have stated that they would welcome the fall of the regime, regime change was not among the official war aims. The declared objectives were more limited:
the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, severe damage to its ballistic missile and drone capabilities, and the neutralization of its regional proxies.

A fourth objective involves weakening the regime’s internal repression mechanisms—particularly the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.

If these goals are achieved, it may create conditions under which the Iranian people could again rise against the regime.

The American Public Struggles to Confront Global Changes

The attack launched on Saturday morning, February 28, came as a complete surprise to the American public. War with Iran had not been part of the national debate. In Israel, by contrast, the public had been preparing for such a possibility for months, as the government repeatedly warned about the growing likelihood of war.

When Trump delivered his State of the Union address to Congress on February 24—only four days before the attack—he devoted only a few minutes of a two-hour speech to Iran. It is therefore unsurprising that American public opinion was shocked and unprepared when the war began. Domestic concerns dominate American political life: economic challenges, rising costs of living, immigration issues, and political scandals.

Polls conducted after the attack revealed widespread skepticism about the war and deep concern about another prolonged American involvement in the Middle East. Many Americans do not view Iran’s efforts to destabilize the region as a direct threat to U.S. national security.

Yet from a geopolitical perspective it is difficult to deny that the United States—as the leading power of the democratic world—cannot remain indifferent to Iran’s attempt to impose a fundamentalist regional order and eliminate Israel, one of Washington’s closest allies.

The failure of the American administration to explain clearly to its own public the reasons and objectives of the war represents a serious leadership failure.

Israeli Public Opinion Supports the War but Will Not Forget October 7

Some small forces on the Israeli left—including the Communist Party, Hadash, Ahmad Tibi, and Balad—oppose the war and appear disconnected from the prevailing mood of Israeli society. Like segments of the left in Europe and the United States, they call for an immediate ceasefire and effectively align themselves with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

By contrast, the major opposition parties in Israel support the government’s military actions, recognizing that Iran represents an existential threat not only to Israel but to the entire region.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to transform the war into a political asset and to gain electoral points. He is presenting his close relationship with Trump as proof that he is the only Israeli leader capable of persuading the United States to cooperate militarily with Israel at such an unprecedented level.

The evidence of polls conducted after the attack on Iran was launched suggest that Bibi’s cards have not changed. Israeli political camps remain largely unchanged: Netanyahu’s supporters continue to support him, while his opponents remain firmly opposed. This is largely because a majority of Israelis strongly oppose Netanyahu’s domestic policies and his ongoing attacks on democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary and the free press.

Trump’s public attack on President Isaac Herzog and his call for Netanyahu to receive a pardon provoked widespread anger among Israelis, many of whom saw it as an attempt by Netanyahu to use the war and his relationship with Trump to escape his corruption trial.

Even if the war with Iran ends in a clear military victory, Israel’s political landscape is unlikely to change dramatically. Many Israelis fear that Netanyahu will attempt to use electoral success to further weaken democratic institutions while advancing the agenda of the far-right, the settler movement, and ultra-Orthodox parties.

The Political Task Ahead

The task facing supporters of peace and democracy in Israel after the war—regardless of its outcome—is to unite all opposition forces in order to replace the dangerous right-wing government led by Netanyahu.

The broad civic movement that filled Israel’s streets for nearly a year prior to  October 7 in defense of democracy continues today to oppose Netanyahu and his extremist partners. At the same time, the opposition camp still struggles to present a coherent political alternative.

It remains divided and lacks unified leadership as well as a clear policy toward both the Arab world and the unresolved Palestinian question.

Despite these difficulties, the democratic camp must unite and bring about the defeat of Netanyahu’s government.

Partnership with MK Mansour Abbas and the broad political forces he represents in the Arab community in Israel, is essential to securing a democratic majority and preventing Netanyahu from returning to power for another destructive term.

DAAM Party calls upon all its members and supporters to mobilize politically to end Netanyahu’s rule and bring about a political transformation in Israel.

Even if the government that replaces him does not fully adopt the peace program envisioned by DAAM, it would nevertheless represent a crucial change—one that safeguards Israeli democracy and creates the conditions for deeper processes that could eventually open the way to a just Israeli-Palestinian peace.

The post Iran’s Regime Is Now Paying the Price for Its Strategic Mistake in Backing Hamas’s October 7 Attack first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

In an unprecedented interview on Channel 11’s “It Will Be Good,” Brigadier General Amit Saar, former head of the Military Intelligence Research Division, offered a revealing confession. This man, whose task had been to warn of Hamas’s October 7th attack, not only acknowledges his failure but admits he never imagined Hamas would dare assault Israel the way it did. Following the announcement of the judicial reform, he had indeed warned the government several times about the danger of war erupting against Israel due to the internal fracture in Israeli society, but he had thought the threat would come from the north.

While watching the interview, I found little that truly surprised me, until one statement struck me like a hammer – a statement that explains Israel’s current situation on the eve of the hostage deal. While explaining his opposition to a proposal raised in the General Staff on October 11th to eliminate Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, he said: “The main reason was that in my view, we cannot conclude this event without extracting from Hamas an unimaginable price, one never before extracted from any enemy at any stage, and this cannot be achieved if we shift the spotlight to Lebanon.” Thus, the objective was to exact a price “beyond imagination.”

The instinctive response of this general, who had monitored Hamas and was supposed to warn of the danger, proves he was entirely blind to what was unfolding before his eyes. This, despite surveillance operators who repeatedly warned of Hamas’s intentions while monitoring its movements.

The reason for this is that Hamas’s October 7th attack was truly “beyond imagination.” There was nothing rational about this murderous assault, which included the kidnapping of civilians – among them teenagers, young women, infants, and elderly – as hostages, in addition to soldiers. The officer’s response seems to mirror Hamas’s behavior. Faced with a murderous action beyond imagination, he responded with a reaction that was equally so—and outside the realm of rationality.

From that moment on, nothing that happened in Gaza could be explained rationally. For over a year, the military, politicians, media figures, columnists, and commentators have been demanding that the government present a “day after” plan. However, as we approach the conclusion of the current phase of the war, the government has refused to present any political plan for the post-war period. It has limited itself to establishing three strategic objectives: first, eliminating Hamas’s military capabilities; second, dismantling Hamas’s governing capabilities; and third, returning the hostages.

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is the undeclared motto of this war, which better serves the instinct for revenge than the conduct of a rational military campaign.

As the general outline of the hostage deal emerges, it becomes apparent that the third objective contradicts the first two. In fact, the government added the third objective of returning the hostages due to public pressure. But it turns out that securing the hostages’ return comes at the expense of achieving the two main strategic objectives. Hamas continues to maintain military capabilities, evident in the fighting in northern Gaza which is extracting a heavy toll from Israel, and it remains the exclusive governing authority in Gaza. “Absolute victory”—Netanyahu’s slogan—has not materialized. The opposition accused Netanyahu that his position amounted to opposing a hostage deal, and thus it has turned out: one cannot achieve both absolute victory and the release of hostages.

The second reason why the war’s objectives cannot be achieved stems from the government’s continued refusal to discuss “the day after.” In other words, the government has no alternative to Hamas’s rule in Gaza. The absence of an alternative was the main reason why Israel, with its army and acclaimed generals, was caught with its pants down on October 7th. This lack of an alternative had led successive governments and the entire security establishment to compensate by trying to tame the monster. The purpose of allowing suitcases of Qatari money into Gaza, and avoiding confrontation, was to bring Hamas to a point where war would not be worthwhile, since they would have too much to lose.

This conception was undoubtedly rational, but it failed because it encountered an organization whose rationale is not rational – one willing to sacrifice its people to achieve its messianic goal. Thus, we arrive at a situation where thousands of Israelis take to the streets demanding the return of hostages while Hamas documents the horrors of war in a transcontinental public relations campaign. In the same breath, Hamas declares its willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Gazans for its sacred cause while abjuring responsibility for their fate.

It appears that the hostage deal reveals who is the winning side and who is the losing side. In Israel, people are horrified by the idea that Hamas will remain in Gaza, by the release of hundreds of terrorists, and by the fact that the strong failed to defeat the weak.

In light of the emerging details about the deal, Yoav Zitun, military correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, allows himself to state explicitly today: “The dismantling of Hamas’s civil and military rule is not a war objective. It’s a lie fed to the public since the first week of the war. It’s a fabricated spin, as long as it lacks the crucial missing piece: who will govern instead of Hamas over 2 million Gazans, from among whom and under whose auspices Hamas developed into a terror army, and still survives and will survive for years to come.”

Here, another question arises: who is feeding the public these spins – the government or the military? The military says that it cannot achieve the war’s objectives because the government has not set a political goal. However, it was the military itself that vetoed replacing Hamas’s rule with Israeli military governance. To this end, it invented the method of repeated raids on territories it had previously conquered and withdrawn from. This method not only results in numerous military casualties, but it also causes enormous destruction in Gaza and unbearable harm to the civilian population.

Thus, the military too has no alternative to Hamas and no answer for the day after. Talk of Arab states coming to rescue Israel from Gaza was and remains a pipe dream. Before or after October 7th, the equation remained unchanged, leaving only two alternatives – either Hamas or Israel. Since Israel rejects both, what remains is interminable chaos.

Consequently, the government has failed to achieve its primary objectives. Hamas has been neither militarily nor administratively demolished, but it has indeed fulfilled the wish of the Israeli general who was responsible for intelligence warnings. Israel has indeed extracted a price “beyond imagination.” And to be clear, it is not just Hamas that has paid the price, but also, and above all, the civilians of Gaza. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is the undeclared motto of this war, which better serves the instinct for revenge than the conduct of a rational military campaign.

In light of this situation, it is very difficult to predict what the day after the return of the hostages and the start of a ceasefire will look like. Hamas will remain in Gaza as a governing force and will continue to impose itself on the population while relying on what remains of its military power. Yet Gaza has been completely destroyed. It has become Ground Zero, and the displaced have nowhere to return to. The situation is beyond imagination, and it’s unclear what Hamas’s “rule” can possibly mean. Therefore, it is so difficult to imagine what will happen in the future – who will provide for residents’ needs, who will rehabilitate the ruins, what will happen to an entire generation of children left without schools or homes in which to do their homework?

It turns out that not only does Israel have no idea what will happen the day after, Hamas has no idea either. Thus, the Israeli government and military have created a reality that is beyond imagination, and currently, there is no Israeli or Palestinian entity capable of offering a solution. The thesis that this conflict has no solution, and that nothing remains but to manage it, is what led us to the abyss. The only rational solution remains what it has always been: peace, equality, and democracy for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

The post A price beyond imagination first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

I was exposed to these assessments while watching the July 13 interview Eisenkot gave to the program “Meet the Press,” where he reveals his full views on political/security issues. What drew my attention is the “coexistence” he sees possible between the fight against terrorism and the prospect of a viable liberal society. Paraphrasing his words, Eisenkot is essentially dealing with the question of how to maintain a free and democratic society alongside what he calls terrorism and what the world calls occupation.

The horrifying thing about Eisenkot’s predictions, even after the October 7 massacre and the heavy personal price he paid, is that he did not change his positions one bit. What was will be, and hence the logical conclusion is that in 20 years, terrorism might again take us by surprise and one of our grandchildren will fall in battle. This is the future according to Eisenkot and it is built on the concept that has become a national consensus connecting the right and left: there is no possibility of a political settlement, there is no Palestinian partner for peace and the Palestinian problem is fundamentally a security problem that Israel must manage, regulate and fight – but not solve. This is the “conception” with which the Israeli governments cooperated. They fed and contained Hamas and let Qatar pump in billions of dollars that were invested in the damned rockets and tunnels.

If defeating Hamas, according to Eisenkot’s view, is unfeasible, how does he define victory? “The victory of Israel is the ability to fight terrorism with focused determination, without it changing the values ​​of the Israeli society, and allowing us to continue developing a strong, progressive, high-quality country in which the young want to grow up and which is a magnet for Jews of the world. We must not fall into the black hole into which terrorism wants to throw us.” And here is the essence of the liberal concept: to maintain an occupation “without it changing society’s values.” This is what the struggle between the right and the left in Israel is all about. The right claims it is not possible to simultaneously maintain a democratic regime and fight terrorism. It claims that democracy in the form designed by Israel’s High Court is an obstacle to the war on terrorism because it is based on the Geneva Convention, international law, human rights, and other universal principles that limit the state’s ability to fight terrorism. The bottom line: an occupation can only be sustained by denying the basic rights of Palestinian citizens.

The sad thing in Eisenkot’s view, supported by the protest movement which made democracy its main banner, is that the current government is the ultimate proof that occupation cannot be sustained without it changing the values ​​of Israeli society. The El-or Azaria affair was a watershed and clear warning sign that trying to separate the occupation of a civilian population from the preservation of democratic values ​​is impossible. The soldier El-or Azaria shot dead a Palestinian who was involved in a terrorist act when he was already lying on the road, neutralized and not a danger to the soldiers’ lives. This happened in March 2006, when Gadi Eisenkot was Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya’alon the defence minister, and Bibi Netanyahu was Prime Minister. While Ya’alon and Eisenkot condemned the soldier on the grounds that he violated the values ​​of human dignity and purity of arms, MKs from the right, from Naftali Bennett to Avigdor Lieberman, supported the soldier. At first, Netanyahu supported Eisenkot and Ya’alon’s position, but when he realized where the wind was blowing, he reversed himself and announced: “The IDF soldiers, our children, are facing murderous terrorist attacks by terrorists who come to kill them. They need to make decisions in real time, under field conditions, under conditions of pressure, under conditions of uncertainty.” Defence Minister Ya’alon resigned from the government and is today one of the leaders of the protest movement against the judicial coup d’état.

Unfortunately, the “ideological” debate that has been going on for many years in Israel leads to a dead end. The solution of the right is to impose apartheid on an entire people, while the answer of the left is to live with the occupation as if it were “shrapnel in the butt (Naftali Bennet).” How is it possible that after a tragedy on the scale of October 7, and the fascist attempted coup, since January 2023, Israeli society continues to adhere to the same concept that brought it to the point of existential danger, both on the security and regime levels?

The power of the right in Israel is based on a simple truth: occupation and democracy do not go together. The State of Israel suffers from an inherent contradiction in being both Jewish and democratic. The Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, enacted in 2018, declares that “the State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people… The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” In August 2018, I wrote in the In the shadow of Israel’s nation-state law: The Left ducks: “In the wings is the ‘Basic Law on Legislation,’ which will define the limits of judicial review for years to come. In other words, the Arabs are the excuse, but the goal is to change the liberal lifestyle and the democratic space enjoyed by the Jewish majority.”

6 years have passed since then. Unfortunately, my hypothesis was fully realized with establishment of the ultra-right-wing government and the January 2023 announcement by Justice Minister Yariv Levin of the upcoming of the judicial revolution. By the way, this coup was nowhere to be found in the platform of the Likud party as it run in the elections. But the circumstances seemed ripe with the joining of Smotrich and Ben Gvir to the coalition. The principle is clear: democracy yes, but only for the Jews, and the fate of the Palestinians is to live in an apartheid regime. What Eisenkot and the protest movement are offering is an illusion, an attempt to halt the fascist train that has long since left the station.

Unfortunately, the “ideological” debate that has been going on for many years in Israel leads to a dead end. The solution of the right is to impose apartheid on an entire people, while the answer of the left is to live with the occupation as if it were “shrapnel in the butt.” How is it possible that after a tragedy on the scale of October 7, and the attempted fascist coup, Israeli society continues to adhere to the same concept that brought it to the point of existential danger, both on the security and regime levels?

The 5 million Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are an integral part of our lives. They cannot be disappeared, ignored or separated from them. The same unfortunate statement by Eisenkot, that terrorism will continue to accompany us in the generations to come, necessarily carries with it the insight that the Palestinians are here today and in the generations to come. And, if after 57 years of occupation, and 20 years since Eisenkot’s horrifying prophecy we have come this far, maybe it is time finally to understand that occupation and democracy cannot coexist. That a Jewish and democratic state is an inherent contradiction. And that the only way to maintain a democratic society and prevent another terrible massacre is to look for every way, every path, every point of light on the Palestinian side who would be willing to live according to universal democratic values ​​and on the basis of full equality between all the inhabitants of this land between the river and the sea.

The post The War on Terror Versus Liberal Values first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

The Islamic State did not last long. A broad coalition of countries led by the United States mercilessly bombed ISIS-controlled areas until its defeat. No one counted the number of civilians killed in these bombings, as the elimination of ISIS justified them even at the cost of innocent victims. This is how Israel hoped the world would view its war against Hamas, and it embarked on a massive bombing campaign that led to the destruction of Gaza and enormous casualties, including children and women.

However, unlike the war against ISIS, in Gaza the world counted every casualty, every bombed home, and every destroyed hospital. The fact that Hamas transformed all of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure into a military fortress, digging itself in beneath the entire area, didn’t really concern the world. Israel lost all international credit and legitimacy. The International Court of Justice in the Hague is still investigating suspicions of genocide, and the International Criminal Court is investigating the possibility of putting the Prime Minister and Defense Minister on trial for suspected war crimes. Despite Hamas being a terrorist organization that committed blatant violations of fundamental human rights, in the world’s eyes it was transformed from a group associated with ISIS to a legitimate “resistance” organization against the Israeli occupation.

Only recently, Hagari appeared in a series of television interviews, an unusual step, and declared that “Hamas is an idea – and it cannot be destroyed.” Hagari’s statement fell like a bolt of lightning because suddenly, it seemed, Hamas was no longer ISIS. Although the terrorist organization ISIS was destroyed, the terrorist organization Hamas cannot be destroyed. Hagari did not explain the difference between the ‘idea’ of ISIS and the ‘idea’ of Hamas, and if he had tried to do so, he would have found it difficult to find differences. Hamas’s crimes are ISIS’s crimes, the same idea and the same method.

Yet what is the difference between them? ISIS did not receive absolute support from the peoples among which it operated, while Hamas is deeply rooted in the Palestinian people. Despite all the casualties it has brought on them, Hamas continues to receive popular backing. The ‘idea’ of Hamas enjoys broad support compared to the ‘idea’ of ISIS. Primarily, the idea of ISIS threatened the US, being the continuation of Al-Qaeda, which reminded every American of September 2001.

Even today, nine months after the October 7th massacre, the refusal to deal with Gaza’s future leads many Israelis to accept that Hamas will remain in charge there because no governmental alternative exists. The Israeli consensus that connects both Right and Left is that the Palestinians are not partners for peace, that the Palestinian question is ‘unsolvable,’ and all that remains is to manage it. However, October 7th proved that this conflict cannot be managed, cannot be lived with. It has exploded in our faces with all its ugliness.

Hamas cannot be destroyed by air strikes, and the Israeli army is therefore required to change its thinking to avoid a Sisyphean war. Initially, Hagari’s position was stated behind closed doors. Apparently, it fell on deaf ears, so that he was forced to bring matters into the open, thus starting a broad public discussion on the burning issue, ‘What is the Israeli plan for Gaza?’

The response of Netanyahu was quick and decisive: “The government has decided on the destruction of the military and ruling capabilities of Hamas,” and to this Hagari responded that “the IDF is committed to achieving the war objectives as defined by the Cabinet.” If this is the case, why did Hagari need to say in his broadcast that the idea of destroying Hamas amounts to “throwing sand in the public’s eyes”? Although Hagari’s words suggest that the army is trying to align with the saying “Israel is a country with an army, not an army with a country,” nevertheless, the army is kicking with all its might to force the government to come up with a coherent plan on who will replace Hamas in power. Without such a plan, military achievements will be in vain.

While Hagari was being interviewed, a parallel conference was held under the title “Time of Decision,” attended by hundreds of reserve officers from the right wing and the settlers. It highlighted positions opposite to that of Hagari. The conference’s guest of honor was Major General (res.) Yiftach Ron-Tal, who called for the decisive defeat of Hamas. His plan for the day after Hamas is “to impose a military government to prevent a void, and through it, it will be possible to dismantle Hamas’s governing capabilities.”

In addition to these two positions, another popular position among left-wing voters suggests declaring “we’ve won,” withdrawing from Gaza, and leaving it in ruins under Sinwar’s control. This is also proposed by Thomas Friedman in a New York Times article, and it appears that his position is accepted by the Tel Aviv protesters against Netanyahu. From their perspective, the issue of the hostages is top priority, and they see Netanyahu as the real threat to Israel’s existence, more so than Sinwar and Nasrallah combined.

It is interesting to note Netanyahu’s position. He laid out his doctrine in a lengthy interview for Israel Channel 14’s “Patriots” program on June 23. He was asked about his plan for the day after, and this was his response: “It is absolutely clear that there will be military control for the foreseeable future, there is no other way… But we would also like to create a civil administration with external backing to manage the humanitarian aid and civilian management of Gaza…. Now the army is coming up with a different idea, which I will not elaborate on, to undertake this process in a gradual manner, and I think this is positive. In the end, there needs to be military disarmament in Gaza, and a civil administration needs to be established.”

When Netanyahu was explicitly asked about the possibility of putting settlers in Gaza, he answered briefly and clearly, “The settlement issue is not realistic.” Netanyahu, like Netanyahu, distances himself from the messianic settlers like Smotrich and Ben Gvir. At the same time, he does not neglect his right-wing base when he says that the army will not withdraw from Gaza and will maintain security control. On the other hand, Netanyahu continues his cooperation with the army and with Defense Minister Yoav Galant, who are offering him “positive alternatives” that may include a Palestinian civilian component to manage Gaza’s civil affairs. There is a lively, stormy, and sometimes hysterical discussion between those who want to leave Gaza immediately, those who want to establish military rule, and those who want a kind of Palestinian rule under Israeli security auspices. Yet the debaters are careful not to touch on the cardinal question: what will be the future of Gaza? For two decades, a solid consensus has been created in Israeli public opinion that Gaza is not an Israeli problem, and that Israel does not want to conquer Gaza, rule it, or be responsible for its residents. This is the consensus that underlay Israel’s previous “conception” of Gaza. And since Israel did not want Gaza, it welcomed Sinwar.

Even today, after the October 7th massacre, the refusal to deal with Gaza’s future leads many Israelis to accept that Hamas will remain in control because there is no governmental alternative. To repeat what Hagari said, the idea of eliminating Hamas is nothing but “throwing sand in the public’s eyes.”

The Israeli consensus that connects both Right and Left, among Netanyahu, Gantz, Bennett, and Lapid, is that the Palestinians are not partners for peace, that the Palestinian question is “unsolvable,” and all that remains is to manage it. However, October 7th proved that this conflict cannot be managed or lived with. It exploded in our faces in all its ugliness. So much so that most of the Israeli public lives uncertain about its future. The fall of Netanyahu and his delusional government may somewhat alleviate the current sense of suffocation, but it will not solve our existential problems.

Israeli society needs to define for itself how it wants to live with the Palestinians. It needs to distance itself from military concepts on the Right, Center, and Left, as well as from generals like Gantz, Eisenkot, and Yair Golan. They see the Palestinian question as a security problem, just like Rabin before them, who was a partner in the Oslo Accords that bypassed Palestinian independence and sovereignty by establishing a regime that will “manage” the Palestinian issue for Israel. Oslo was fertile ground for the growth of Hamas.

All those who oppose the constitutional coup, the messianists, the ultra-Orthodox, and the fascists must act to promote the growth of a democratic, authentic Palestinian force that will take the lead among its people and gain their support. This force does not exist today, and the task seems very distant. But what is currently being offered is years of security control and civil administration in Gaza. That is a recipe for disaster.

The protest movement and supporters of democracy must forge ties with every democratic Palestinian who opposes both the rule of Abu Mazen and the rule of Sinwar, in order to reach a political solution based on equality between the two peoples. This is a long-term investment, but it is the only way to solve the conflict instead of managing it until the next bloodbath.

The post Hamas = ISIS. Really? first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“A decision has been made,” says Israeli journalist Nachum Barnea on the expected withdrawal of Benny Gantz’s from the government. “Netanyahu has been forced to choose between two opposing trends. One, to continue fighting in the Gaza Strip and the North until what he calls “total victory”. The other is to halt the fighting in Gaza for at least four months, gain release of all the hostages, the chance for an arrangement on the Lebanese border, a regional alliance against Iran led by America, a possibility for normalization with Saudi Arabia, and the rehabilitation of Israel’s foreign relations. Netanyahu decided in favor of the first option”, meaning he preferred absolute victory. Gantz dubs talk of an absolute victory as empty promises. In his resignation speech, Gantz coined the term ‘real victory’, which is presented as a more realistic promise. What is the meaning of Gantz’s ‘real victory’? It is essentially identical to total victory, except that according to him it will be achieved in a war “lasting years.”

The two victories, the ‘real’ one and the ‘total’ one, lead to the same goal – “the decimation of Hamas’ military and governing capabilities.” Gantz and Netanyahu do not disagree on the war’s goals, but on how to achieve them. The differences in emphasis between them, however, hint at deep gaps between the two conceptions. For Gantz, return of the hostages is defined as the highest priority, while the collapse of Hamas is presented as a long-term mission over many years. We should therefore now halt, withdraw from Gaza, end the war and bring the hostages home. It’s that simple, but doubtful if it’s correct.

In fact, Gantz, encouraged by the American administration, is proposing to meet Hamas’ demands, which are analyzed ad nauseum in every TV studio in Israel. Every Arab affairs commentator repeatedly states that Hamas has not changed its demand – a cessation of hostilities and complete withdrawal from Gaza. Describing Hamas’ demand as a cessation of hostilities does not, however, fully reflect its position. If one wants to comply with Hamas’ demand, one must understand exactly where it is heading, and shouldn’t be surprised if Hamas also seeks ‘total’ victory, or if you will, a ‘real’ victory.

If there is no Palestinian partner, we must strive to create such a partner. Not by violently dictating who their leadership will be, but by offering a democratic solution based on full equality between the two peoples and an end to the occupation. The struggle against Iran is the mission of the Iranian people. Our mission is to defeat the Israeli extreme right and Hamas. Peace is total victory, and it is indeed real. Anyone who promises victories based on the continued humiliation, oppression, and occupation of the Palestinian people is making empty promises.

For Hamas, there is no contradiction between the two types of “victory.” In the Arab media, there is no trace of an internal Palestinian debate over tension between these two concepts. Palestinian commentators from the right, left and center do not argue at all about what is right to do. Tens of thousands of casualties, the destruction of Gaza, and economic collapse in the West Bank do not raise any doubts. They all believe in the righteousness of Hamas’ path. And how do they know Hamas is right? They simply and fervently read the Israeli press.

They are familiar with every columnist and commentator who criticizes the government and attacks Netanyahu for giving up on the hostages. They are in love with the endlessly quoted Major General Yitzhak Brik. For example, see the headline on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar website: “Israel needs to halt the war because we have already lost it.” The disintegration of Israel from within, the severe internal division, and the loss of Netanyahu’s legitimacy in Israel and the world are doing the work for Hamas.

If you want to understand Hamas, you simply have to listen to what its leaders are saying. One of them is Ghazi Hamad, the same terrorist who repeatedly promised to commit the October 7th massacre a hundred times more. That same Ghazi Hamad, the star of Arab media, gave a long interview on June 9 to the Qatari newspaper “Al-Arabi al-Jadeed”, founded by none other than our acquaintance, former Arab-Israeli MK Azmi Bishara, who is in comfortable self-exile in one of the Qatari palaces. In that interview, Hamad was asked about Hamas’ position regarding “the day after” and, unlike Netanyahu who has no plan, Hamas has an organized plan:

“We tell the Americans, the Israelis and others: Hamas will remain on the political scene and will not disappear, regardless of the Americans and Israelis. Hamas and the resistance forces made history on October 7, changed the face of the Palestinian issue, mobilized the international arena, and exposed the true face of the occupation. Therefore, anyone betting on the disappearance of Hamas and the laying down of its weapons is deceiving himself. These are invalid words, because we are the sons of the homeland, the land and the Palestinian cause, and the one who needs to leave (disappear) is the occupation.”

Here is a military victory accompanied by a strategic political plan that changes history. This is how you bring about the elimination of Israel’s governing and military capabilities using the most primitive means and a willingness to generously sacrifice as many Palestinian civilians as necessary. This was also explained by Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al in a January 2024 television interview: “The Algerians sacrificed a million and a half civilians over eight years for their independence, and what happened? These casualties became part of their history.”

After tasting some of Hamas’ position, we must re-examine Benny Gantz’s ‘real victory.’ In fact, the real victory is a magic solution offered to us by the American administration, whose various officials come and go in order to persuade Israel to adopt it. Respected commentators from Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, such as Majors General Amos Yadlin and Tamir Hayman, are tearing their hair out due to the foolishness of those refusing to adopt this solution that will immediately bring local and regional peace to Israel. Simply stop the war and receive the hostages as a gift, a cessation of hostilities with Lebanon, and the long-awaited peace with Saudi Arabia.

However, anyone who insists on examining the details of this “real peace” will have to face some disturbing questions. Let’s start with Lebanon. Why would Hezbollah agree to withdraw 40 kilometers from the border when Hamas, its smaller and battered brother, succeeds in expelling Israel from all of Gaza, despite or perhaps because of what it perpetrated on October 7th? It is more likely that Hezbollah will say that what happens in Lebanon, beyond the border, is an internal Lebanese matter. Lebanon’s fate is like that of Hamas – you lost in Gaza and there is no reason for us to give you a victory in Lebanon.

Let’s proceed. We might remind ourselves that we already have regional peace with the Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan, and in the shadow of that peace, or because of it, we were defeated on October 7th. But let’s put that aside and ask another question. Why would Saudi Arabia want to form a regional alliance with Israel and America against Iran, when Hamas succeeds in defeating and humiliating them? We have witnessed the nature of this regional alliance, when after Biden threatened “don’t” several times, Iran fired 300 ballistic missiles at Israel, and then the U.S. demanded that Israel not retaliate.

Therefore, it seems that the common denominator between Netanyahu’s ‘absolute victory’ and Gantz’s ‘real victory’ is that they are both empty promises.  The divide in Israel is deep and real, yet it also reflects a loss of direction and a dead end. How can one achieve an ‘absolute’ or ‘real’ victory when both sides of the dispute are unwilling to consider the roots of the dead end, and especially the terrible disaster of October 7th? How can one explain Israel’s isolation and the fact that its prime minister and defense minister are wanted for questioning in the Hague? The reason is simple – a chronic unwillingness to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict and settle for ‘managing’ it instead. The claims that there is no partner and that the conflict is insoluble have amplified the power of the messianic forces on both sides – the Israeli messianic right and Hamas.

If there is no Palestinian partner, we must strive to create such a partner. Not by violently dictating who their leadership will be, but by offering a democratic solution based on full equality between the two peoples and an end to the occupation. This is the lesson that must be learned from October 7th. Anyone who wants to secure the future of the coming generations must present a political plan that will give both Palestinians and Israelis hope. Not an imaginary regional peace at the expense of the Palestinians, but a genuine peace plan proposal that will resolve the existential issues of both peoples once and for all.

The struggle against the Iranian regime is the mission of the Iranian people. Our mission is to defeat the Israeli extreme right and Hamas. Peace is total victory, and it is indeed real. Anyone who promises victories based on the continued humiliation, oppression, and occupation of the Palestinian people is making empty promises.

The post The Two Faces of “Total Victory” first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Chuck Schumer, the American Senate Majority Leader, urged Israelis to hold elections to oust Bibi Netanyahu, signaling a profound disruption in US-Israel relations. Schumer’s impassioned plea reflected concerns about Israel’s future following the October 7th events. However, what truly unnerves American officials is Trump’s looming presence, which casts a shadow over Biden’s presidency.

Netanyahu’s fate hung in the balance that fateful Saturday, as he and Israel’s military leaders teetered on the brink of total paralysis. It was only Biden’s resounding cry – “Don’t!” – that stopped this collapse and gave the nation a chance to regroup, though the trauma remains.

Despite his socioeconomic policies and positive macroeconomic indicators, Biden’s fate hangs in the balance. His firm stance against Putin’s aggression and his support for workers, African Americans, and women do not help his popularity. In contrast, as Donald Trump ramps up his fascist rhetoric, loses ground in legal battles against him, is depicted as a pathological liar, thief, and provocateur, his popularity only rises.

The severe blow suffered by Israel, coupled with its lack of preparation for mentally and militarily handling the magnitude of the disaster caused by Hamas’s attack, compelled Biden to reluctantly enter a destructive and perilous arena. The American president found himself unwittingly starring in a horror movie, depicting unprecedented destruction, death, and starvation, leaving the world horrified and questioning how can a powerful military force like Israel be let to crush a civilian population of refugees who have already lost so much.

In the streets of Israel, the contemptuous slogan “You’re the head, you’re guilty” is directed at Benjamin Netanyahu, who refuses to acknowledge his responsibility for the October 7 massacre. Simultaneously, mass protests are erupting in the streets of New York and numerous cities across the US, with demonstrators labeling Biden as “Genocide Joe.”

Israel is accused of genocide, while Biden is directly blamed for its actions in Gaza. The protesters’ demand that Biden declare an immediate ceasefire implies granting a lifeline to Hamas and giving the green light to advance its plan to establish the Islamic state “from the river to the sea”. The problem is that the protesters are part of Biden’s coalition, and without their support he will struggle to prevail over Trump. The latter’s victory would plunge the US into the abyss. We’ve already seen this movie.

Fate has set the stage for a head-on clash between Biden and Netanyahu, each grappling with an existential dilemma. On one side stands Bibi’s coalition with Ben Gvir and Smotrich, facing off against Biden’s coalition with Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib. These are two opposing coalitions, with the former comprising extreme right-wing elements and the latter including radical leftists and the activist Black Lives Matter movement. Biden is employing every possible tactic to dismantle the partnership between Bibi, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich. He has labeled them undesirable figures, imposed sanctions on settlers, and emphasized to Bibi that their actions and statements are causing significant reputational damage to Israel.

However, Bibi is not yielding. He understands that ending the partnership with Ben Gvir and Smotrich would collapse his government and mark the end of his political career. The confrontation between Bibi and Biden began over a year ago when Minister of Justice Yariv Levin announced the overhaul in Israel’s judiciary and Smotrich called for the wiping out of Huwara. Today, five months after the October 7th onslaught, with Gaza in ruins and images of death and despair broadcasted worldwide, the relationship between the two leaders has deteriorated into a zero-sum game: Bibi or Biden.

It appears that both sides have abandoned restraint. Netanyahu has mustered 100 Knesset members to oppose the idea of a two-state solution, and he is once again mobilizing his base for a direct confrontation with Biden. In doing so, Netanyahu positions himself as the singular leader capable of “standing up to American pressure”; the sole figure capable of preventing the formation of a Palestinian state; and the only one who can lead Israel in “eliminating Hamas.” Those who align with Biden are painted as betrayers, while anyone advocating for immediate elections undermines the prospect of achieving “total victory.” Biden is portrayed as someone who has shifted from ally to adversary. According to the Israeli government’s perspective, Biden is working against Israeli interests due to electoral considerations, and Chuck Schumer is criticized for treating Israel as a puppet state.

And who bears responsibility for the grave failure on October 7th? According to Bibi’s narrative, the primary culprits are the Army Chief of Staff and the head of the Israel Security Agency, both of whom should be dismissed. But what about Bibi himself? He insists on remaining. While every official or general has a potential successor, Bibi does not. As demonstrated over the past two decades, each time it seemed Bibi was on the verge of downfall, he managed to rebound. According to him, the Israeli populace seeks a resolute leader like Netanyahu, who, along with other “strong” leaders such as Putin and Erdogan, eagerly awaits the return of their ally Donald Trump to the White House.

Biden’s challenge doesn’t just lie with Bibi and his administration. Chuck Schumer, in his address, highlighted the malignant influence of extremism, which obstructs any prospects for peace. Alongside Smotrich and Ben Gvir, he also indicted Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. This list could be extended to include figures like Khamenei, Ben Salman, and Nasrallah, who govern oppressive regimes antithetical to democratic principles.

Moreover, akin to Bibi, Biden finds himself contending with extremist factions. One faction seeks to transform the entirety of Israel into a halachic, autocratic state, while the other aims for Palestine, from the river to the sea, as an Islamic, fundamentalist state. However, while Biden and Schumer grapple with the extremist fringes within their party, Netanyahu fully aligns himself with the far-right. He’s willing to imperil Israel’s future, its democratic ethos, and its standing among civilized nations, all in pursuit of maintaining his grip on power.

There exists a crucial factor capable of safeguarding democracy, both in America and Israel. It’s an element seldom acknowledged, yet it remains potent. It’s the sole force capable of offering alternatives, having thwarted regime changes through sustained and unwavering activism. If Biden has an ally in Israel, it’s the protest movement—hundreds of thousands of activists once again taking to the streets, clamoring for “elections now.”

While all coalition parties and most opposition parties were entangled in a mindset that aimed to manage rather than solve the conflict with the Palestinians, allowing the situation to fester, the protest movement emerged as a formidable force against messianic extremism, ultra-Orthodoxy, settler movements, and any aspirations to transform Israel into a dictatorship. The protest movement envisions an egalitarian, democratic Israel that lives in peace and harmony with its Palestinian neighbors. Supporters of democracy refuse to accept an apartheid state or a halachic state, prompting them to take to the streets to forge a new reality and secure the future for generations to come.

This is why Israel urgently needs elections. The political leadership and security establishment have lost the trust of the people. The upcoming election won’t revolve around the question of whether to establish a Palestinian state, as Netanyahu would prefer. Instead, voters will face a straightforward query – who is accountable for the October 7th tragedy? Who advocated and advanced the failed strategy? In the upcoming elections, the debate will focus on whether to manage or resolve the conflict. Those who were willing to empower Hamas in order to block a political resolution will find themselves sidelined. Their approach will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Will Netanyahu’s departure from the political stage resolve the Palestinian issue? Probably not. Ultimately, the fate of this question rests with the Palestinians themselves. Unfortunately, many Palestinians view the Palestinian Authority as an inevitable fate and are swayed by Hamas’s extremist and militant rhetoric, as well as its imagined triumphs. Ultimately, it will be their decision to chart their future course.

And what about Biden’s future? Netanyahu’s exit will undoubtedly bolster Biden’s position and empower the moderate factions within his party, potentially leading to victory over Trump and the fascist camp in the United States. If that scenario unfolds, good enough!

The post The soul of America versus the soul of Netanyahu first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

A month after the terrible massacre on October 7, the horror and anguish are not subsiding. On the contrary – it only gets worse. In addition, the deep chaos in the rescue procedures continue to shock us. The kidnapped, the missing, the bodies still waiting to be identified, the survivors scattered in hotels, the over 125.000 displaced from the north and the south, the names of those who fall in battle, the rocket sirens that  beckon us day and night, the pupils who study on Zoom, the university students who wait, the unemployed, the bankrupt, the hundreds of thousands of conscripts, the billions of shekels burned in the war, the political leadership that does not lead anyone or anything, and the feeling that this massacre beheaded the political and security elite – all these create uncertainty that we have never known.

Yet this chaos is only one side of the coin. On the other side, the side of Palestinians in Gaza, the same side that we stubbornly refuse to look at directly, is the unprecedented humanitarian crisis, the likes of which we have never seen. 10,000 Palestinians killed, over a million displaced, tens of thousands of buildings turned into ruins and the chaos in the hospitals – all these are not an international, Arab, or Palestinian problem – they are an Israeli problem. This is the reality that Israeli governments created during 55 years of occupation.

In 2005 Israel ostensibly disengaged from Gaza, but Gaza never disengaged from Israel. Everything – water, electricity, fuel, food, the issuance of identity cards, entry and exit permits, work, trade, medical care – all of these were and remain under Israeli responsibility, even following the disengagement. It wasn’t really a disconnect but like everything else before October 7, it was part of a virtual reality, a concept that Israelis wanted to believe, until it blew up in our faces.

The concept

The tragedy is that there is no one party responsible for this chaos and disaster. As Yair Lapid said, “If everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.” The concept fostered by all leaders in Israel, from the right, left and center, from the “only Bibi” camp to the “anyone but Bibi” camp was that we left Gaza forever, never to return. Hamas also bought into this concept. Although it never abandoned its belief that the fate of the Jews is to be thrown into the sea, it clearly understood that the Israelis were determined to get rid their responsibility from Gaza, and for many years Hamas was consider the partner (if only ostensibly) that conducted itself as the master of the house.

Israel’s repugnance with Gaza, the avoidance of any talk about conflict resolution, the willingness, as Naftali Bennett described it, to live forever with “shrapnel in the buttocks,” all of these provided Hamas with an almost unlimited scope of action. While Israel cultivated the false idea that “it withdrew from Gaza”, Hamas was busy building the city of tunnels known as “the Metro”. The Israeli collective refused to accept the reality emerging before its eyes. The arrogance of Hamas, its self-confidence and the belief that Israelis are afraid of returning to Gaza, no matter how many rockets and balloons Hamas launches, all these blinded the leadership of Hamas itself. The war became a fight between two blind entities.

The Abraham Accords, President Trump’s gift to Israel, received wall-to-wall support. The accords promoted a concept of regional peace which could skip over the Palestinian problem, and thus dazzled the Israeli leadership and society. The Emirates, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia chose the Israeli regional power as a force that can deter Iran. And just as Israel ignored the murderous nature of Hamas because it served its needs, so it also ignored the murderous nature of “our moderate Arab partners.” The Saudi butcher Mohammed bin Salman, whose men dismembered the body of opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and the princes of the Emirates, who are engaged in genocide in Libya and Yemen, have become members of our household and welcome guests.

It turns out that Israel isn’t fussy about the identity of its partners if they serve the “concept.” However, in the fortified wall of the anti-Iranian “Sunni alliance”, there remained a gap that allowed the Iranians to penetrate and sow chaos in our ranks. This gap is the outbreak of the conflict with the Palestinians. Iran dragged the isolated Hamas into its ranks and built an axis of evil that stretches from Yemen through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, to Gaza. This axis managed to surprise Israel and smash its conception to pieces.

The American vision remains without partners

The Americans also recognized this “loophole.” Biden and his team understood very well how the political and security failure left Israel exposed and unable to respond following the shock that gripped all levels of its political and security command. After placing the Sixth Fleet off the coast of Lebanon and warning Iran not to interfere, the Americans consistently demanded that Israel define its strategy for leaving Gaza, the end game, and the outlines for a political agreement – that is, realization of the “two states” vision.

As it became clear to them, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the same hushed word – “occupation” – of which Israeli society refused to speak of for many years, the same word that became taboo so as not to upset the electorate, became no less than a threat to American national security! While the US is involved up to its neck in the Ukraine war against a nuclear power like Russia, the US is dragged involuntarily into a regional Middle East conflict, and more. Following the October 7 massacre, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict took on an international dimension, related to the struggle between the democratic West and the autocratic/fundamentalist Russia-Iran-China axis.

The big problem is that the Americans have no partners to realize their vision of two states. Both the Israeli and Palestinian political arenas have been eroded to the bone. Today there is not even one significant political actor in Israel or Palestine that believes in the feasibility of the two-state concept. Israel claims, and rightly so, that the Palestinian Authority cannot be a partner in peace, because while it cooperates in the security arena with Israel against Hamas, until now it has refused to condemn the massacre of October 7. The Americans also believe that the Palestinian Authority is a corrupt entity that has lost all public support and doubt its ability to run a country. And as for the Americans, for them the Hamas organization is nothing more than a terrorist organization that has lost any legitimate basis and is destined for demise.

The Arab partners in the Abraham Accords no longer believe that Israel can protect them from Iran while it itself is forced to rely on the Americans for protection. No one, then, will come to Israel to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. Gaza is once again an Israeli problem. Israel nurtured Hamas, it created the monster and fed it, and when it believed it had succeeded in taming it, the monster rose up against its creators. The elimination of Hamas brings us back to square one.

You can’t say goodbye

Finally, I will say something very unpopular. In response to those demanding Bibi take responsibility for October 7, Bibi is correct in replying that he is not the only one responsible. Everyone is responsible – the army, Israel Security Agency, Military Intelligence Directorate, and all the governments after that of deceased Ariel Sharon. We must take his words seriously and understand once and for all that Bibi did indeed become the father of the concept, he is the one who created the horrible, distorted reality that blew up in our faces, and tried to establish it through the judicial coup d’état. Bibi whitewashed messianic fascism, which believes in complete annexation of the Palestinian territory, yet he was not alone. If Israeli society is content with putting only Netanyahu and his delusional partners under the spotlight, it will miss the mark.

Israeli society must understand that its future is inextricably linked to the future of Palestinian society. One million Palestinians can be moved to southern Gaza, but they cannot be taken out of Gaza. You can build separation fences, barriers and sensors, but you can’t separate from Gaza and the West Bank. This is the basic premise that must guide anyone who wants to ensure the safety and prosperity of Israeli society. The slogan of two states for two peoples creates an illusion that it is possible to part in peace. Yet in reality there exists one territorial, demographic and economic continuum between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

We live in a strange reality of one country which every side, both Israeli and Palestinian, refuses to recognize. They both want to break up and can’t. When you live in the same house and can’t get along, frustration and hostility increase. Therefore, out of these ruins must grow new forces, Israelis and Palestinians too, liberals and democrats, who are ready to join forces and create a new egalitarian and democratic reality for the welfare of both peoples. If not, the current chaos experienced by the two nations will only deepen.

The post Chaos, Israeli Style first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas perpetrated crimes against humanity by targeting civilians, children, the elderly, women, and men in the communities surrounding the Gaza Strip. The actions of Hamas on that day resulted in a staggering toll of 1,300 fatalities, thousands injured, and some 200 hostages. However, the long-term impact of these actions is likely to be even more severe. In the long run they represent not only an assault Israelis, but also against Palestinians as they target the fabric of a future life. The DAAM Party stands for the right of both Israelis and Palestinians alike to a life of freedom and dignity in this land. DAAM opposes the Israeli military rule over the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 and has consistently strived, sometimes in challenging conditions of isolation, for a just resolution that ensures equal rights for Palestinians.

Simultaneously, DAAM has consistently condemned the Islamic extremism that Hamas represents. We have observed with concern the domination of Hamas over the Palestinian scene and the destructive discourse that has subsequently developed within it. We have acted and hoped for the resurgence of a democratic Palestinian force that opposes this extremist ideology, grounded in hatred and which denies any possibility of a political solution and peace between the two peoples.

All Israeli governments have preferred Hamas to be the influential, ruling faction in Gaza. Despite recurring cycles of violence and the assurances of Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, Israel has consistently acted to provide Hamas with legitimacy. It has perceived Hamas as an effective sub-contractor, ignoring the organization’s dangerous ideology and the terror it has exerted upon Gaza inhabitants themselves.

This disaster could have been prevented

DAAM opposed the 1993 Oslo Accords, arguing that they lacked any basis for establishing a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority, established within the framework of the Oslo Accords, quickly revealed itself as a corrupt entity incapable of providing the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza with an alternative to Israeli occupation. The Palestinian Authority acquiesced to continued settlements and rightly incurred the wrath of the Palestinian street. Hamas exploited the weaknesses of the Oslo Accords and the Palestinian Authority. It began disseminating its poisonous ideology among the Palestinians, accompanied by suit side bombings of buses and a campaign of terror against Israeli civilians. This grim reality nourished and strengthened the Israeli right. The October 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was a pivotal moment in the history of the conflict, solidifying the dominance of the Israeli far right.

In 2005, PM Ariel Sharon implemented the Disengagement Plan from Gaza. This unilateral withdrawal plan, implemented without an agreement with the Palestinians, was in essence a gift to Hamas. Sharon’s goal was to leave Gaza and thus solidify Israel’s hold on the West Bank, neutralizing any political move that would necessitate a withdrawal and dismantling of settlements there. The policy of separating Gaza from the West Bank (the “isolation principle”), was henceforth adopted by all Israeli governments. It was meant to provide security for Israelis, relying on a form of ceasefire (“hudna”) with Hamas. Thus, the terrorist organization in Gaza became a partner to Israel in managing Gaza. Even recurring cycles of violence with Hamas did not alter the perception that Hamas controlled Gaza and had to be dealt with accordingly.

On October 7th, 2023, Israel reaped the bitter fruits of this misguided and destructive policy. Now, after 18 years, the circle has closed. Israel finds itself with no choice but to reassert control over Gaza. Hamas’s barbaric attack was a strategic, military, social, and political blow that horrified Israel and transformed it entirely.

The future ground incursion into Gaza will come at an incomprehensible cost to both Israelis and Palestinians. From the Israeli side, a protracted and ruthless war, which could develop to include multiple fronts, will claim the lives of many young people, impact the economy, and destroy resources that could have been directed towards welfare and development. From the Palestinian side, there will be thousands of innocent victims and an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Already today (October 18th), there are over half a million displaced people in the Gaza Strip, fleeing to the south in the hope of escaping the crossfire.

This human tragedy will be seared into the consciousness of both peoples for many years to come. The direct culprits are Hamas and the Israeli government. As noted, the preservation of Hamas as the post-disengagement ruler in Gaza was a joint interest of Hamas and the Israeli right. Despite the perceived autonomy of Gaza under Hamas’s governance, in reality Gaza remained closed and entirely dependent on Israel. The supply of electricity and water, issuance of identity documents, the shekel as the official currency, and the import of food and fuel —key to all aspects of life in Gaza- remained in the hands of Israel. All Israeli governments, with support of the international community, played a part in creating this quagmire, which shattered in the unimaginable display of terror by Hamas on Israeli soil.

The symbiotic relationship between Israel and Hamas

In January 2006, Hamas won the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council. Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas, became the head of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. Instead of acting as the leader of a responsible political entity, however, the Hamas organization used its position to strengthen its military power. In June 2006, armed members of the organization abducted Gilad Shalit. In June 2007, within the chaotic reality that ensued after the abduction, the Israeli siege and continuous military pressure, Hamas militants attacked Fatah activists in Gaza and seized all institutions, employing brutal violence against their opponents.

Hamas opposed the Oslo Accords, which did not prevent it from participating in the Palestinian parliament elections that were held based on the Oslo Accords. Hamas used the Oslo Accords as a platform to take control of the Gaza Strip, hoping, eventually, to gain control over the entire Palestinian people in the West bank too.

In 2011, under pressure from the Israeli public demanding release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli government finally relented and agreed to a prisoner exchange deal. In exchange for the release of one soldier, Gilad Shalit, more than a thousand prisoners were freed, including Yihya Sinwar, who became the leader of Hamas in Gaza and orchestrated the October 7 terrorist attack.

Thus, Hamas built its power. From an organization that held a limited number of mortars in 2007 with a maximum range of 2 kilometers, Hamas has evolved into a formidable military force, equipped with thousands of missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and Haifa. By constructing an underground city of tunnels in Gaza, Hamas has positioned itself as the official and exclusive representative of the Palestinian people, akin to the PLO in its time. Its leaders, based primarily abroad, are received as esteemed guests in the Arab world and in countries including Russia and Iran. The Palestinian Authority, which failed in managing the territories it received from Israel and became corrupt and disconnected from the people, failed to compete with Hamas and establish its supremacy.

The absurdity in Israel’s policy, which instead of distinguishing between residents and the leadership that took control of them, and viewing Hamas as a cynical terrorist organization that exploits the Palestinians in Gaza as pawns, allowed Hamas to rule Gaza and strengthen its military power.

Hamas’s policy was based on the premise that in case of an Israeli military attack, the ensuing humanitarian disaster would trigger global pressure globally, isolate Israel, lift the siege from Gaza, and increase Hamas’s legitimacy. This enabled the organization to continue embezzling humanitarian aid funds intended to assist Gaza residents and instead use it to produce missiles.

As a fundamentalist, deterministic organization not aimed at advancing a political solution, Hamas had no problem linking the fate of the Palestinians to Iran’s Ayatollah regime, a regime lacking any historical connection, whether religious or national, to the Palestinian people. In 2012, Hamas leaders left Damascus after condemning Assad regime’s massacre carried out against the Syrian people, the majority of whom belong to the Sunni sect, to which most of the Palestinian people also belong. This rupture plunged Hamas into a crisis in its relations with Iran, which had been providing it with patronage and support together with the murderous regime in Damascus. The crisis concluded in 2022 with a visit by Hamas leaders to Damascus and the renewal of relations with Iran.

Hamas’s attitude towards Israel presumed that Israelis are fools. First, because they are democrats, an idea that is not accepted by extremist Islam, which perceives democracy as a weakness. And second, because they are liberals, a phenomenon deemed despicable by the same perception, as it sanctifies consumerism and is disconnected from spirituality.

Indeed, in the name of that “spirituality,” Hamas agents committed a barbaric massacre against defenseless civilians. Hamas spokespeople deny the massacre and all the atrocities which have taken place. However, all atrocities committed were documented and captured in the detailed instructions received by the “Al-Nukhba” forces sent out for the Jihad war. The Arab press ignores the massacre and collaborates with Hamas in brainwashing millions around the world. The facts, however, cannot be hidden. 1,300 bodies, including 500 bodies burnt alive by the insurgents, remain unidentifiable. There are living testimonies and evidence that prove the crimes committed by Hamas operatives.

In the long run, Hamas miscalculated. The organization’s leadership overestimated its role as Israel’s subcontractor. It failed to understand that without Israel, it has no existence in the region. Perhaps it assumed that Hezbollah and Iran would come to its aid and launch the battle of Gog and Magog against Israel. The Hamas leadership’s inflated sense of security led it to conclude that by inflicting a strategic blow to Israel, it would become an independent power. It did not consider that such an action would leave Israel no choice but to annihilate the organization.

The Americans and the protest take control

Hamas’s attack found Israel amid an existential internal struggle over its character – whether it would be a democratic liberal state or an emerging dictatorship. An unprecedented protest movement stood up against a dangerous coalition of messianic, fascist right-wingers, including dangerous religious leaders and power-hungry, corrupt politicians. While we identified in the protest movement a source of hope and an opening for correcting Israel’s misguided and aggressive policies, Ismail Haniyeh and the Hamas leadership saw it as a weakness to be exploited.

The Israeli military relies on both technology and intelligence, as well as air power based on the professionalism and motivation of its pilots. The erosion in the motivation of Israel’s air force pilots, because of the government’s attempted regime change, appeared to Hamas’s leadership as a golden opportunity. Additionally, Hamas’s intelligence successfully gathered information about Israel while concealing its own plans from it. Hamas operatives knew exactly how to reach the Israel’s Gaza Strip command center thanks to an accurate map in their possession (Ronen Bergman, NYT). Hamas operatives knew everything that could be known about the communities in the vicinity, as well as the cities of Sderot and Netivot. Every group of Hamas operatives that infiltrated Israel knew exactly where they were going and what they were doing.

The Israeli army was stunned and struggled to function for 48 hours. Those who saved residents were the police and border guards, as well as other civilians who went to the battlefield themselves to rescue loved ones. The Israeli public was hit by an existential anxiety due to the army’s disappearance and the political leadership’s hollowness.

Into this governmental void entered the American administration, which acted to prevent any possibility of Israel’s collapse. The Churchillian speech of President Biden showed what leadership should look like in a place empty of leadership. He expressed unconditional support for Israel and warned those, such as Iran and Hezbollah, who wanted to exploit the situation that it would be better for them to be careful.  “DON’T” was the word he repeated twice. Biden declared that Hamas poses an existential threat to the Israeli people, thus emphasizing the justification of Israel’s defensive war.

From the moment of Biden’s election, we argued, despite many critics, that he is the sole force in the world standing against dictatorships and fascism. Once again, Biden understood that he had to intervene, as Israel’s collapse would pose a threat to democracy worldwide and to the national security of the Americans themselves. Hamas’s victory is a victory for the axis of Iran, Putin’s ally, and thus, also threatens Ukraine.

The Israeli right-wing had been flirting with Putin and refused to support Biden in the uncompromising war for Ukraine. Hamas’s attack revealed that there are now two opposing camps confronting each other: the United States, Europe, Ukraine, and Israel on one front, with Russia, Iran, Syria, and perhaps even China on the other. The American deployment of its Sixth Fleet to the Mediterranean and spreading of its defensive umbrella over Israel were intended to save Israel. It restored security to Israelis and, for the first time, a consensus was formed in Israel on the courageous leadership of Biden.

Since 2011, DAAM has closely followed events of the Arab Spring in Syria, a spring which transformed into a cruel winter. Russia and Iran came to Assad’s aid and helped him massacre the Syrian people. A huge wave of refugees was created, many of whom reached Europe. When Putin invaded Ukraine, we supported Ukraine without reservation, as those defending democracy against dictatorship. The elimination of Hamas, from Biden’s administration’s perspective, is also necessary in the face of the axis of evil comprising Russia, Iran, and their regional affiliates. Biden declared his support for Israel because this democracy is important not only for Israelis, but also for Palestinians and the possibility of the Arab Spring’s return. The forces that emerged during the Arab Spring will not be able to strengthen and change the face of the Middle East while it is ruled by fundamentalist or monarchical dictatorships. In the United States itself, a war over the soul of democracy is still being waged. The Trump camp, supported by Putin and demonstrating admiration for Hezbollah, is a threat to the American people and humanity.

Many young people in the Arab world, including prominent intellectuals, still judge reality according to the old paradigm: Russia = anti-imperialism – is on our side; the United States = aggressive imperialism – is the enemy of the people. This perception also shapes the bias in favor of Hamas and Hezbollah, defining these organizations as freedom fighters. Many supporters of the FREE PALESTINE movement fall into this trap. The fate of the Ukrainian and Syrian peoples testifies to the great lie at the core of this perception. When Israel today embraces the leadership of the United States, it is essentially departing from the path led by Netanyahu, which linked it to the axis of dictatorships.

A decisive role for protest organizations.

The second factor that saved Israel was the protest movement, which since October 7th has led the massive home front aid campaign. From the outset, the protest understood that Biden is a trustworthy ally, and therefore raised the American flag alongside the Israeli one during the demonstrations in Kaplan St. (Tel Aviv). The movement’s leadership demanded that Biden not meet with Netanyahu. The protest movement has now transformed into the backbone that holds Israeli society together. This is crucial as the alliance between Israel and the United States completely deteriorated in Netanyahu’s tenure, during which Israel behaved as an independent force, detrimental to the alliance of democratic nations.

When DAAM decided to support the protest movement, we did so because it was a movement that flew the flags of democracy and equality. The predominance of the Israeli flag in the protests was problematic in our view, as it prevented creation of a common denominator with the Arab society. Nevertheless, we understood that at its core, the protest is a democratic movement that does not exist in the Arab world.

Biden does not support Israel because he is a Zionist. The annihilation of Hamas as a terror entity is an interest of the entire democratic camp, including Europe and Israel. Israel’s past approach was that Biden does not understand what he is doing. We Israelis are tightrope walkers who know how to walk a thin line, and we will succeed in outsmarting Hamas and leveraging all sides to our advantage. We have no one to rely on but ourselves. The war initiated by Hamas on October 7th put an end to this approach. Israel realized it needs democratic allies.

DAAM’s position: Get rid of the Israeli fascist right and also of Hamas, with which it collaborated

Anyone who sees what is happening in Gaza today and says it is a human tragedy is right. One million residents have been thrown into the streets, and forced to evacuate to the southern part of the Gaza Strip. The fate of women, children, and helpless elderly people is uncertain. We oppose the extremist voices in Israel demanding revenge, those who do not distinguish between Hamas and the Palestinian people. We call for action to prevent harm to civilians to the extent possible and to ensure humanitarian corridors that will allow UN forces and others to protect the lives and peace of Gaza residents.

The big question is whether Israel can totally eliminate Hamas, given the prevailing political situation and the moral blow it has suffered. This question has yet to be settled. Another strategic question that will arise once Israel completes its military operation is who can replace Hamas and take control of Gaza. On the other hand, the Palestinians and their supporters need to honestly ask themselves whether they are in favor of a Hamas victory over Israel and whether they are actually willing to live in a state with a fundamentalist regime, like Iran, or Iraq.

We want Hamas to be defeated, but do not believe that victory can be achieved under the leadership of Netanyahu and the fascist settler group that, to our delight, has lost all public support. Israel will need to establish a government led by members of the protest movement, which has defined the parameters of a democratic state. The protest leaders and their supporters are tirelessly engaged in assisting citizens day and night, filling the void created by the government’s dysfunction, and they tell Netanyahu: If we win the war, it will be despite your leadership and not because of it.

Immediately following the end of the fighting in Gaza, a critical struggle for the removal of Netanyahu and his associates from power will unfold within Israel. We are preparing for that moment and will try to assist and promote this struggle with all our might. The victory of the democratic protest movement over the fascist forces in Israel will also open a new chapter in Arab-Jewish relations. The Palestinian arena without Hamas, will hopefully undergo a significant transformation. In the past two decades, Hamas has managed to suppress all free discourse, silencing any liberal opinion. Any collaboration with Israelis was defined as normalization. If we succeed in removing Hamas and the fascist right in Israel, all possibilities for examination of a shared peace will be opened. Therefore, this is a crucial battle on both fronts.

It is important to note that many Israeli residents living in “the Gaza envelope”, those killed and abducted, supported a political settlement with the Palestinians, including with Hamas. The idea that peace could be achieved based on siege and separation, and reconciliation with the existence of a terrorist regime just a few kilometers away from your home, collapsed on October 7. The concept of two states, of which one is a democracy, and the other is ruled by a “lawless” regime (which so called “fits the mentality” of the Palestinians), has also crumbled disastrously. We must recognize that Gaza and the West Bank are also tied to Israel, geographically and economically. We have been living for years in a one state reality, where an apartheid regime of national discrimination exists between Israelis and Palestinians. Until we are ready to live in equality with the Palestinians, in one democratic state in the geographic space between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, this terrible bloodshed will not be resolved.

The post Position of DAAM Party: October 7th Massacre: crime against humanity! first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.