The UN Security Council resolution adopting Trump’s 20-point plan and authorizing a stabilization force in Gaza declares that once the Palestinian Authority enacts reforms and Gaza’s reconstruction moves forward, “conditions may be ripe for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” The very mention of a “Palestinian state” triggered political panic in Israel. Netanyahu, opening this week’s cabinet meeting, stated bluntly: “There will be no Palestinian state.” He then reassured his right-wing ministers that the “conditions” mentioned in the document are impossible to meet.

Hamas rejected the resolution as biased toward Israel, failing to meet the Palestinian people’s basic demands and imposing an international mandate on Gaza. Its refusal only reinforces the conclusion that no Palestinian state is actually being proposed, and that the plan is not meant to be implemented — it is political lip service. The Palestinian Authority, which calls itself the “State of Palestine,” welcomed the decision, claiming it “cements the ceasefire and guarantees the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent state.”

Despite his categorical rejection of Palestinian statehood, Netanyahu also issued an English-language statement praising the resolution and lauding Trump’s leadership. Indeed, the phrase “credible pathway to self-determination” has raised new expectations — on top of the hopes generated by the Oslo Accords in 1993, celebrated with endless speeches and ceremonies, culminating in a Nobel Peace Prize. Thirty years later, we received the massacre of October 7.

The resolution’s own wording exposes how bleak the situation is, and how detached its conditions are from reality. It leads to two obvious conclusions: first, the Palestinian people lack leadership capable of establishing or governing a state; second, the international community — including the 142 countries that recognized Palestine in the recent UN General Assembly vote — understands that making PA reform a condition stems from the fact that the Palestinian administration is rotten to the core. Corrupt, authoritarian, allergic to democracy, dependent on security agencies tied directly to Fatah — and totally devoid of public support.

Demanding reform from the Palestinian Authority is like demanding reform from the Iranian, Egyptian or Saudi regimes — it simply will not happen. These flawed, degrading traits are part of the political DNA of most Arab regimes. As for Gaza, it is one giant terror infrastructure, above and below ground. That is why its murderous rulers are expected to surrender their weapons and cede authority to a committee of Gazan technocrats who would begin reconstruction with Gulf funding.

This convoluted architecture — likely impossible to implement — stems directly from Israeli policy, or more precisely, from the absence of one. Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank are both products of long-term Israeli strategy. To separate the strip from the West Bank and prevent a unified Palestinian state, Hamas became a “strategic asset.” It grew stronger with Qatari funding and Israeli acquiescence, until October 7 turned that “asset” into a nightmare still convulsing Israeli society. The PA, sheltered by Israel’s Shin Bet, is likewise considered useful: it spares Israel from administrative and economic responsibility for Palestinian civilian life.

The longstanding policy of Israel’s political-security establishment — embraced by all parties in the Knesset — is to avoid responsibility for Palestinian welfare in Gaza and the West Bank. The Security Council resolution therefore tries to fill the vacuum that would emerge if Hamas were to relinquish control, relying on clumsy phrasing that includes a supposed “pathway” to statehood. Yet Hamas has already rejected the resolution, adding it to the long list of UN initiatives dumped in the trash since Resolution 242 in 1967.

And that’s not all. The resolution may not advance Palestinian statehood, but it does advance a strategic alliance between Saudi Arabia and the United States. It reflects Riyadh’s interests, wrapped in Trump’s plan and blessed by Israel. Israel’s unwillingness to confront the consequences of the Gaza war — or take responsibility for reconstruction — forced it to accept the Saudi option.

Thus the only concrete outcome of the resolution is the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, turning it into a strategic U.S. ally alongside Israel. Not only Saudi Arabia — viewed in Israel as a “moderate Sunni state” — benefits, but also Qatar, a major sponsor of Hamas, now enjoys Trump’s protection. Mohammed bin Salman, who seeks the mantle of Arab world leader, must insist on the demand for a Palestinian state to fend off claims that Saudi Arabia is willing to normalize relations with Israel at the Palestinians’ expense, as happened with the Abraham Accords.

October 7 reshaped the region’s geopolitical map. Netanyahu boasts that he reshaped the Middle East by weakening the Iranian axis, but he has no plan to capitalize on that. For his government, recognizing a Palestinian state would be “a reward for terror” and a victory for Hamas.

Israel therefore claims that if normalization with Saudi Arabia requires establishing a Palestinian state, Israel will forgo normalization. Saudi Arabia’s position is the exact opposite: for Riyadh, the Gulf states’ neglect of the Palestinian cause in pursuit of peace with Israel is what opened the door to Iran and its allies, who accused them of betrayal and paved the way for the October 7 attack.

The Gaza war has not only isolated Israel internationally; it has also inflamed the Arab masses against their rulers, creating dangerous political instability. The Security Council resolution tries to square the circle — offering Saudis a supposed path to Palestinian statehood and offering Israelis a path to removing Hamas from Gaza.

So where does Trump stand in this regional chaos? Trump is, as always, Trump — concerned only with Trump. A Palestinian state interests him as much as last year’s snow. Nor is it clear what he wants for Gaza: months ago he said the strip should be emptied of its population; today he chairs a “Peace Council” for its reconstruction. What’s clear is that the vast wealth of the Gulf — the palaces and gold-plated toilets — attracts him more than anything else.

Trump is trying to “square the circle”: intervening in Israel’s judicial system to help his friend Netanyahu and seek him a pardon; refusing, however, to sacrifice his ties with Turkey’s Erdoğan or Qatar’s Emir Tamim. And he has even acquired a new friend — Syria’s president, once wanted by U.S. authorities as an al-Qaeda-linked terrorist leader. Even Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya received condolences from Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, after his son’s death in an Israeli strike in Doha.

With U.S. policy devoid of any moral, ideological or political principle, nothing meaningful can emerge from Trump’s 20-point plan. Selling advanced jets to Saudi Arabia, embracing Syria’s ruler, and courting Hamas backers like Erdoğan and Qatar’s emir — all of it produces chaos, not solutions. Israel’s extremist government is fully dependent on Trump. It has no regional or global allies, no diplomatic strategy, and fights fiercely against Israel’s own democratic institutions. Its sole aim is to survive and try to derail Netanyahu’s trial. But the situation is complex. The Security Council resolution will not create a Palestinian state — not now, not anytime soon — but the messianic fantasies of Israel’s far right have hit a dead end. Trump, their only hope, has ruled out outright the possibility of annexing the occupied territories to Israel. “Enough is enough,” he declared — and on that point he is right. People are sick of endless conflict, settler violence, attacks on democracy, and the racist, fascistic rhetoric.

It is time to remove this destructive government — and at the same time, start thinking seriously about our future and our relationship with the Palestinian people. The fact that a Palestinian state will not arise any time soon does not mean five million Palestinians can be denied basic rights indefinitely. The first step toward shaping the future is to change the present: the failed government of October 7 must go.

The post The Pathway to a Palestinian State Is Blocked first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

“Whoever occupies territory is responsible for the needs of the population in it. That’s simply how it is” – this is the quote next to the photo of journalist Emmanuelle Elbaz-Phelps in an advertisement for the “Relevant” website. Why did Phelps-Elbaz bother to explain the obvious? Because Israel has invented an international ploy for itself: it is possible to occupy territory, control it security-wise, yet completely shirk responsibility for the needs of the occupied civilian population.

Although the ploy is not easy to execute, with a bit of creativity and chutzpah one can certainly become an invisible occupier. To achieve this, of course, one needs to find a partner willing to be dazzled by an original combination of flattery, false promises, and threats. This is what happened in 1993, when retired Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin met the legendary leader of the Palestinian people, Yasser Arafat. Rabin convinced Arafat to sign the Oslo Accords with the unwritten promise that one day the Palestinians would receive a state. Thus began the bloody saga that culminated on October 7, 2024.

The most terrible aspect of the Oslo Accords was that they tainted the word “peace.” Although Rabin, Peres, and Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize, it was for an agreement that created a reality that did not fulfil the aspirations of either the Palestinians or the Israelis. In fact, the Oslo Accords provided fertile ground for the growth of the twin phenomena we have come to know: the extreme right in the form of Netanyahu and the settlers, and Hamas, which opposed Oslo for the opposite reasons. The Israeli right wants a Greater Israel, and Hamas wants Palestine from the river to the sea. Thus, for thirty years, extremists have taken over Israeli and Palestinian internal politics. The word “occupation” disappeared from the Israeli lexicon, and Israel disappeared from the Palestinian lexicon. Israelis and Palestinians stopped communicating, each side accusing the other of nationalist extremism.

While the Israeli left invented Oslo, the Israeli right, despite initial vehement opposition, did everything to maintain it, finally recognizing its advantages. The Israeli left fully supported Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the Israeli right vigorously opposed it. However, after Hamas expelled the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, the right again embraced this new arrangement: the existence of two separate, divided, and conflicting Palestinian entities eliminated any future danger of a political settlement.

The Israeli left also adapted to the new situation, and when Bibi’s right-wing brought “regional peace” with the Gulf states, it was the left that got excited about it, even though it came at the expense of a political solution with the Palestinians. Things reached a point where left and right united in the “government for change,” headed by Bennet-Lapid which lasted only one year. What characterized it was a mutual agreement to give up in advance on any “ideological” agreement, which is a euphemism for the Palestinian issue. They thought they could fight Netanyahu without a political programme and without ideology.

Another party that did everything to uphold the Oslo Accords was the Palestinian Authority. Without its consent the agreements could not have lasted until this very day. Thus, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) swallowed the bitter pills of settlement construction; the separation wall; checkpoints; the “hilltop” settler youth; the dispossession in south Hebron hills, and the severe violations of Palestinian human and civil rights. Abu Mazen repeatedly declared that security coordination with Israel was sacred. He quickly became a corrupt dictator, disconnected from his people, and primarily concerned with the privileges of his close associates.

It seems that the American perception dictates that whoever lives in the Middle East must come to terms with the existing autocratic regimes there when there is not a single democratic regime to be found.

Hamas also accepted the arrangement but demanded special conditions befitting its status. While Israel had full control over the West Bank, the disengagement from Gaza and the absence of an Israeli presence there created a unique situation where Hamas became the sole and all-powerful ruler under the envelope of Israeli occupation. Gaza did not separate from Israel; instead, Israel became entirely dependent on Hamas. It acceded to all its demands, from Qatari suitcases stuffed with money through close ties with Iran, the construction of an elaborate tunnel network, turning UNRWA into its executive arm, transforming schools into hotbeds of Islamic brainwashing, and every hospital into a military headquarters. Israelis became so addicted to Oslo that the commanders of the women surveillance soldiers on the Gaza border treated their warnings about Hamas’ invasion preparations with complete disdain and ignored them.

After October 7th, when Israel justly mourns the fate of the murdered, kidnapped, and displaced, when Gaza has become a battlefield with thousands of men, women, and children dead and wounded amidst an ongoing humanitarian crisis of immense proportions, both sides, the Israeli left and Hamas, want to continue maintaining the arrangement that led to this disaster. A long line of retired generals, speaking on behalf of the Israeli protest movement, emphatically tell the press that the war must stop. Retired general Israel Ziv said in an interview with Channel 12 what Defence Minister Yoav Gallant and Benny Gantz have not yet dared to say explicitly, “It seems that Gaza will be controlled by some sort of coalition, and that unfortunately Hamas will be a part of it.”

This is in essence the proposal in dispute between Defence Minister Gantz and Netanyahu. Gantz expressed strong opposition to the establishment of an Israeli military government in Gaza, which he perceives as a national disaster. The alternative he proposes: “The day after Hamas can only be achieved through the control of Palestinian forces with international supervision, which would serve as an alternative to Hamas.” The problem is that any Palestinian faction that takes responsibility for Gaza will depend on Hamas’s consent, as described by Ret. General Ziv above.

This formula is promoted by the Biden administration, which sees it as a magic solution to all of Israel’s pains – releasing all the captives, normalization with Saudi Arabia, an agreement with Hezbollah in Lebanon and with Iran regarding its nuclear program and securing shipping routes in the Red Sea. It seems that the American perception dictates that whoever lives in the Middle East must come to terms with the existing autocratic regimes there when there is not a single democratic regime to be found. All that remains is to try to contain extreme Islam in its Iranian or Saudi version. This is the essence of American policy not only in the Middle East. According to this model, Zelensky will also have to come to terms with Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, because the US is not seeking wars and is willing to go to great lengths to prevent them.

And so, we find ourselves at the threshold of an imagined “upgraded” Oslo, based on an upgraded Palestinian Authority and with a supposedly “tamed” Hamas, and we must choose between an Israeli military government and the same magic solution that brings us back to the reality of October 6th. The truth is, neither the Americans nor the Israeli military and its representatives in the government have any real alternative to a military government. And since “whoever occupies territory is responsible for the needs of the population in it,” as Emmanuelle Elbaz-Phelps rightly said, Israel will have no choice but to establish a military government as the only realistic alternative to Hamas rule.

Apart from defending Israel as a democracy (albeit flawed) against the right wing’s attempt to impose an undemocratic coup, the Da’am Party has found itself at variance with the Israeli left at every historical juncture: we vehemently opposed the Oslo Accords in 1993, we also opposed the unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza in 2005, and we strongly oppose the current American plan for an upgraded Oslo. All of these agreements have served only to strengthen the right and wipe the left off the political map – witness the fate of the Labor and Meretz parties.

Each of these plans has been designed to perpetuate Israeli control over the Palestinian people and has only increased hostility between the two nations. In 1993, the opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel was missed. In 2005, the chance to reach an agreement with the Palestinians regarding the withdrawal from Gaza was also missed. Now, the left is working to revive the monster of the upgraded Oslo Accords to separate from the Palestinians at any cost, without considering their fate at all.

October 7 must become a lesson. The world is tired of the occupation, Hamas and Abbas are not partners for peace, and only a true pursuit of peaceful coexistence on an equal basis with the Palestinians will ensure both our and their survival in this region. The Israeli true interest is to encourage the growth of a democratic Palestinian movement, and the Palestinian true interest requires dialogue and cooperation with democratic and liberal Israeli forces. Unfortunately, the existence of military rule in Gaza will illustrate to Israelis that there are no shortcuts and no subcontracted occupation. The only way to exist here is on the basis of national and civil equality between the two peoples. Only with such an understanding can a political settlement be reached that will ensure the future of both Israelis and Palestinians.

The post Back to Oslo first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

“Lead not by example of power, but the power of our example,” was President Biden’s rallying cry at the beginning of his tenure. Due to Donald Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his election loss, the United States narrowly escaped a coup attempt following the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Since then, democracy in America can no longer be taken for granted. The economic and social crisis that befell the U.S. following the 2008 financial meltdown shook the foundations of its democracy, leading to unprecedented social and political polarization. In Russia, autocracy replaced communism, and in the US Donald Trump was crowned as the representative of dictators, such as Putin through Bolsonaro, Orban to Xi Jinping.

Learning from the bitter experience of the failed Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Biden decided that the struggle for democracy would not be waged through military force akin to the methods of George W. Bush, but through profound economic and social change. America would return to its New Deal roots, and on a grand scale. This was undoubtedly a revolutionary approach. Such change could propel American society forward based on the technological revolution, investment in the public sector, especially in education, and thus surpass competitors, primarily China and Russia.

However, reality is much more complex, and Biden’s days of grace ended the moment Putin decided to seize control of Ukraine and capture Kyiv. Only a year passed between Biden’s entry into the White House and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Lacking high technology and economic achievements to boast about, Putin decided to use his military power to maintain Russia’s status as a global power.

Putin decided to challenge Biden and managed to surprise him, despite his strategic failure to capture Kyiv. Thus, the American government entered a confrontation between two superpowers, with Biden concerned that Kyiv would survive, but on the other that Russia would not be utterly and disgracefully defeated. This formula served to play into Putin’s hands, as he succeeded in proving that the United States fears of spreading the conflict throughout Europe. A year and a half passed between the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’s invasion of Israel, and more than one line connects these two events.

The Tehran-Moscow axis was formed during the war in Ukraine, without a clear opposing axis being formed against it. The Netanyahu government, and later the Bennett-Lapid government, adopted a “neutral” stance towards Ukraine. Netanyahu, out of sympathy to the anti-liberal camp led by Trump and Putin, and Bennett-Lapid out of narrow considerations of safeguarding Israeli interests, even if they come at the expense of US interests and those of democracies in Europe.

Thus, the gap between Israel and the American government widened, especially with the establishment of the ultra-right-wing government under Netanyahu. The rupture in relations between the US and Israel, Netanyahu’s attempted judicial coup, his government’s loss of international legitimacy, and the massive protest movement that erupted in Israel going as far as threats of refusal to serve in the IDF, if Israel goes all the way in its judicial coup  – all these created optimal conditions for the October 7 massacre.

During the three years since Biden entered the White House, the power of positive example has only weakened, and American democracy has failed to overcome the looming threat to the regime. Donald Trump continues to threaten democracy and strengthen in polls despite the legal proceedings against him. Alongside this, the American Congress has become an example of utter lack in governance, with a small group of extremists controlling its agenda.

Biden failed in spreading the American example worldwide, while Putin managed to organize an extreme faction within the Republican Party that succeeded in delaying approval of American aid to Ukraine for six whole months. This is the harsh reality in which the US (and thus the world) finds itself, and from which American foreign policy is derived. Biden is now primarily fighting for the survival of democracy in the US, and his considerations are subordinated to the goal of thwarting fascism at home.

From here, one can understand the White House’s position regarding the Gaza war. October 7 was a strategic blow that threatened to undermine Israel. When Netanyahu’s government was paralyzed and in disarray, Biden arrived in Israel within 12 days to clarify America’s full support. From America’s point of view, an Israeli defeat was not possible because it would have represented a victory for Putin and Iran, endangering not just the Middle East but Europe too. Biden’s support for Israel stemmed primarily from a vital interest of American democracy itself.

However, Israel is not viewed with the same sympathy as Ukraine; it carries the stain of 55 years of occupation and the most right-wing, fascist government in its history. Additionally, the political and security establishment, from both right and left, nurtured, and fed the Hamas monster. On that cursed day, Israel found itself weakened and defeated despite its absolute technological and military superiority.

After the world recovered from the horrors of October 7, it began to express its full condemnation of Israel. The scenes of destruction and the deaths of over 30,000 Gaza residents automatically transformed into accusations of genocide and deliberate starvation of the civilian population. Ironically, Netanyahu is now subjected to severe criticism for his past refusal to occupy Gaza and eliminate Hamas. The justification for his refusal appears in a passage from his book “Bibi – My Story,” written a year ago:

“In light of the recurring public demands from Bennett, with Lieberman’s support, to occupy the Gaza Strip, I convened the cabinet. I asked the Chief of Staff to present a ground occupation plan and the human cost it would entail. I then asked the Ministry of Defence to assess the resources needed to manage Gaza after the war. I believed that the human cost and resources did not justify such action.”

In other words, the occupation of Gaza and the immense toll it exacted in destruction and loss of life did not stem from an Israeli plan. It was a result of the arrogance and madness of Hamas. Only a fanatic organization like it could carry out such an unjustifiable massacre. However, all of this doesn’t interest the radical faction within the Democratic Party, for whom white Israel represents the villains, while Palestinians are seen as the good guys, even if they support Hamas.

Despite all efforts to “balance” support for Israel with support for Palestinians, warnings by Biden and his officials about the large number of casualties, the humanitarian crisis, Israel’s refusal to accept the two-state solution, refusal to accept Netanyahu in the White House, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s explicit call to oust Netanyahu and hold elections now, have turned into a coordinated campaign. This made the war illegitimate because the government is not legitimate. Even the hostages became a card in the hands of the United States to pressure and vilify Israel. It seems that the situation has spiralled out of control: Hamas has gained legitimacy, and the Muslim Brotherhood leaders are leading protests across Europe and infiltrating campuses in the US. It has come to the point where even Iran has joined the bloodbath and launched unprecedented missile attacks on Israel.

The power of example has weakened to the extent that following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Biden unwillingly went to Riyadh to visit Mohammed bin Salman, the man responsible for the Khashoggi murder, and to sign a strategic agreement with Qatar. Recently, Thomas Friedman proposed in a New York Times article that Israel needs to choose between Riyadh and Rafah. In other words, to choose between an agreement to allow Hamas to remain in Gaza in exchange for the gift of normalization with Saudi Arabia, or to abandon both. The democratic vision has shrunk to a “day after” vision that many in the Israeli left are enthusiastic about, despite being based on the autocratic Saudi kingdom, with its extreme ideology and religious regime, such, that Smotrich and Ben Gvir can only envy.

The vision of world peace and democracy cannot exist alongside Putin, Khamenei, Xi Jinping, and Mohammed bin Salman. It also cannot exist alongside Trump, Netanyahu, Orban, and the extreme European right. America must stand with every democratic force in the world, especially if such a force does arise in the Arab world. In Israel, we took to the streets for months in support of democracy, yet we have not found even one Palestinian partner. If, amid all this destruction, a new Israeli-Palestinian democratic movement is created that aspires to build a shared democratic and egalitarian future, we can also be part of the force of example, and forever abandon the example of force.

The post The Power of Example first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Let’s begin from the end, tragic as it is. Abdullah Abu Gaba, a Gaza resident killed by a Palestinian rocket during Israel’s Operation Shield and Arrow, was recognized (by Israel) as a casualty of hostile actions and his family will be entitled to rights in accordance with the law.” Abdullah Abu Gaba was killed while working in one of Israel’s “Gaza envelope” settlements located within 7 kilometres from Gaza. He worked legally in Israel therefore was recognized as a casualty of hostile actions. From this point we can begin to unravel the story of Operation Shield and Arrow against the Islamic Jihad, which operates as Iran’s proxy. In response to Jihad rockets, retaliating the death of Khader Adnan, a Jihad prisoner on hunger strike, the Israeli government launched a military operation in which it meticulously differentiated between Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. Only those familiar with the particulars will understand the ideological differences between the two organizations, but the Israeli security establishment knows how to distinguish and even separate between them.

Although Hamas is the organization controlling Gaza, Israel remains the sovereign force, from issuing identity card numbers to supplying water, electricity, and other daily needs. The role of Hamas is to manage Gazan lives and to keep order, just like the Palestinian Authority does in the West Bank. This is the result of the May 2021 Operation Guardian of the Walls against Hamas, which attained its goal. The demolition of high-rise buildings in central Gaza and massive bombings made Hamas realize that launching 4,000 missiles into Israel cannot change the strategic equation between them.

Gaza fell to its knees, its residents are unable to withstand the unbearably heavy burden of a hopeless war, and Hamas had no choice but to reach an understanding with Israel. The opening of border crossings for 20,000 residents from Gaza to work in Israel (process began in August 2022) reflects the fact that economic peace does indeed work. Since the Islamic Jihad did not accept this new arrangement, two more rounds of violence and damage to the organization’s leadership were required, to tame the Jihad, and force it to come to terms with this new reality.

Today, after 18 years, the unilateral disengagement plan (2005) conceived by Likud prime minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, has borne its fruits. The same disengagement that members of Religious Zionism and other advocates of the regime change scheme lament and condemn day and night, was actually intended to benefit them. It was this disengagement from Gaza that finally buried any chance of a political settlement and rendered the idea of a Palestinian state irrelevant. On the other hand, there is no doubt that since the disengagement from Gaza the settlement enterprise in the West Bank has flourished under the auspices of right-wing governments.

The fact is that even representatives of the right-wing government refrain from mentioning the idea of “re-occupying Gaza” or overthrowing the Hamas government. The truth is that until 2005, the Israeli presence in Gaza to protect 8,600 settlers took a huge security toll, and it is worth noting that Qassam rockets were also fired at Israeli towns while Jewish settlements in Gaza still remained. The Gaza settlements did not prevent this.

In retrospect, it was the disengagement that allowed Hamas to take control of Gaza through its forcible expulsion of the Palestinian Authority. The retreat of the IDF from Gaza was the trigger for a civil war and deepest division within Palestinian society, which continues to this day. This division also conveniently allows Israel to claim it has no partner for a political settlement. Things have reached the point where the issue of a potential political solution has completely disappeared from national and international agendas. This situation allows delusional leaders like Bezalel Smotrich to move toward what he calls “A final decision,” meaning a change of the status of the Territories from “occupied” to “annexed”, for the Jewish settlers to become “full” Israeli citizens, with no planning restrictions on lands, and for the Palestinians to emigrate or else accept being subjected to Israeli (Jewish) dominance. Thus, in addition to the occupation itself, the disengagement from Gaza strengthened a layer of Israelis who exploited the political void in seeking any solution, stepped into this vacuum in-order to further nourish fascist messianic ideas. These voices are today at the core of the ideological fight to turn Israel into a Hungarian style dictatorship. For example, Meir Rubin’s family, the current CEO of the right wing think tank Kohelet Forum, was evacuated from one of the Gaza settlements.  

While Smotrich and Religious Zionism strive to annex the West Bank, Israel’s security establishment, Supreme Court, and leaders of the protest movement against regime change, have no answer regarding the future of the occupied territories. When you ask a politician or a military official what’s the solution to the “Gaza problem” and God forbid, what are the chances of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians, the answer is one: “There is no solution” and all that can be done is “deterrence.” This means to use excessive military might to force the Palestinians to continue living in a situation of “no solution.” In fact, it is to accept the undeclared apartheid as a given situation and at most settle for economic good will gestures.

It seems that this policy was more than successful. No matter how many Palestinians Israel kills daily in the West Bank, how many raids it carries out in broad daylight inside Palestinian cities and refugee camps – security coordination with the PA in the West Bank continues. In Gaza, Hamas’ non-intervention in Operation Shield and Arrow against the Islamic Jihad proves it is “deterred.” It continued its coordination with Israel while the bombings went on. It must be admitted, therefore, that so far, Israel has reached an understanding with the two official Palestinian authorities, Abu Mazen’s in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, and that “economic peace” is ostensibly working.

Yet, if we want to learn from the reality created in the West Bank to future consequences in Gaza, we must admit that the economic peace has made the Palestinian Authority irrelevant. When 200,000 Palestinian workers from the West Bank depend on Israel for their livelihood, and the PA is unable to provide even minimal services while corruption pervades all PA institutions, the citizens’ trust in it, is fatally eroded. This is the reason why, as the PA control loosens, “lone wolf terror” increases. In other words, organized resistance has been eliminated, and what remains is for the IDF to pursue the spontaneous initiatives of young Palestinians who obtain weapons to attack Israeli citizens, soldiers and settlers. That’s why the Israeli security presence is gradually being sucked deeper into the West Bank, and it will be forced to take control of it again if the Palestinian Authority collapses due to its failures or following the death of Abu Mazen.

From here we can speculate what will happen in Gaza. Jihad will eventually become “deterred” and Hamas, which has already abandoned the armed struggle, will play the double game of not recognizing Israel while simultaneously cooperating economically with it, and the flow of workers from Gaza into Israel will increase. In a situation where Hamas, like the PA, will also become a corrupt dictatorial government that leaves Gazan residents in a state of abject poverty and without any basic civil rights, “individuals” will begin to fill this vacuum. A rocket here, an improvised explosive device there, firing over the fence or any other such act, will once again create security tension for which Israel has no answer. Air Force planes will remain grounded due to a lack of an adequate target to bomb from the air and targeting individuals will require boots on the ground in Gaza, as occurs in the West Bank. In other words, this “no solution,” and the so-called normalizing of relations with the leaderships of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, are sucking Israel back into the occupied territories.

That is why the time has come for all those, who rightly take to the streets today, against the plans of this conservative, messianic government, to consider how the Palestinian question can be resolved. The attempts to separate between the West Bank and Gaza have failed, and the “no solution” paradigm is not a solution at all. The emerging processes show there is only one way, and that is to add political peace to the economic peace. In other words, we need to create a situation in which the economic unit that already exists today between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, which includes Israelis and Palestinians, will become one political unit, in which both Israelis and Palestinians will enjoy equal civil rights. Only in such a situation will the call for d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y receive its true meaning.

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