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.

Recently Ben & Jerry’s made headlines by announcing it would not sell its ice cream in West Bank settlements. This has ignited a healthy debate over the issue of the Occupation. It is still unclear how the company’s announcement will affect the contract with its Israeli plant, or its NASDAQ shares, and whether this move will eventually lead to the termination of its operations in Israel. What is clear is that the Israeli issue arouses strong emotions throughout the United States, and probably also among Trump-hating ice cream connoisseurs.

We don’t know how much the American public knows about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is certain that it knows enough to identify Trump with Netanyahu, Netanyahu with the Occupation, and the Occupation with the settlements. If the “social” ice cream stands with the tens of millions opposing Trump, this is a sign that it has a healthy sense of smell for business. Ben & Jerry’s is an ice cream powerhouse, recognized in 37 countries. Its revenues last year totaled $860 million, and it holds the second-largest market share in the giant UK and American ice-cream markets.

The Ben & Jerry’s business model is so successful that its parent company, Unilever, agreed to sign a clause allowing its board of directors freedom of decision on issues of a “social” nature. It turns out that Unilever also has a well-developed sense of smell for business, otherwise it would not have acquired Ben & Jerry’s as early as the year 2000. Just as Ben & Jerry’s is an ice cream powerhouse, so Unilever is a global food powerhouse, employing 180,000 worldwide. It is in fact an oligopoly: one of the ten international companies that monopolistically control the global food market. In letting itself be bought, while “preserving its social character,” Ben & Jerry’s in fact sold its soul to the devil, joining Unilever’s predatory capitalist machine.

Wearing its social cap, Ben & Jerrys at first intended to boycott Israel entirely while adopting the position of the BDS movement. Its official announcement, limiting the boycott to West Bank settlements, stemmed from a compromise with Unilever. The latter, which also operates in Israel, employs 2500 Israeli workers here; it controls dozens of companies in food and cosmetics, such as Strauss ice cream and Thelma. Unilever was not about to shoot itself in the foot, so Ben & Jerry’s position eventually came out tasting “half tea, half coffee.”

Half tea, half coffee is also the position of the Zionist Left, which today, for example, projects the illusion of a future, vague “political process” like a fig leaf over its participation in the Bennett-Lapid government, continuing to sell us two-state solution. MK Michal Rosin (Meretz) appeared on the program “Six o’clock with Oded Ben Ami” to defend the Ben & Jerry’s boycott of the settlements while sparing their creator, Israel. For this purpose, she harked back to the decision of the Netanyahu government to sign a “Horizon 2020 agreement with the European Union, which excludes settlements from any investments that are made through the plan.” Therefore, Rosin argued, the one who harms the State of Israel is “the one who conflates people who oppose selling in the settlements with people who oppose selling in Israel.” Meretz and the EU continue to promote the two-state solution, even though in practice they do nothing to advance it, as evidenced by Meretz’s participation in the Bennett-Lapid coalition.

Comparing Ben & Jerry’s with the European Union is like comparing ice cream and gazpacho. Both are cold, but that sums up the similarity. The EU, like Israel, is formally committed to the Oslo Accords, which do nothing about the settlements, leaving them as a bone of contention.

Ben & Jerry’s is another story altogether. First, it is a business venture and not a political one, and there is no diplomatic connection between it and the State of Israel. It is not committed to a two-state solution or any solution. It is simply protesting the Occupation by boycotting the settlements. Moreover, the July 22 headline of Yedioth Aharonot, “The Anti-Israel Brain Behind the Ice Cream Boycott,” leaves no room for doubt. Beside the headline was a picture of the chairperson of the company’s board, Anuradha Mittal, with several of her Tweets. Ms. Mittal adopts the BDS principle of boycotting not just the settlements but Israel as a whole, including Israelis who fight for justice toward the Palestinians.

Despite Michal Rosin’s claims, the decision to boycott settlements does not stem from support for a “Jewish and democratic” Israel, but from an aversion to the apartheid regime. Therefore, without getting into political gibberish designed to market the two-state program (which has long since disappeared from the political agenda), we may ask where BDS is heading. This is a legitimate question for any political activist operating against the Occupation, whether the action takes place in Israel and or the Occupied Territories. On this issue, BDS is silent. It wants to emulate what was done to South Africa, that is, to boycott Israel until apartheid collapses, without offering a political alternative. The solution in South Africa was “one man one vote.” Of this we hear nothing from BDS.

The so-called Palestinian equivalent of the South African ANC is the PLO, which ended its historic role when it signed the Oslo Accords and agreed to autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza, thus perpetuating the settlements, whose fate remains outside the agreement.

In fact, the number of settlers more than doubled after Oslo, but this did not stop the Palestinian Authority from continuing its cooperation with Israel in all areas, including security. Thus we are witnessing an absurd situation: while BDS is calling for a boycott of Israel, it is not calling for a boycott of the Palestinian Authority that cooperates with it. It is convenient for BDS to skip over reality, over the PA, and attack Israel, which, by the way, maintains overt or covert diplomatic relations with most Arab countries.

Before boycotting or taking any action to oppose the Occupation and the settlements, the right thing to do is to determine the political alternative to the Occupation and thus delineate the path of struggle. We agree with most of the BDS movement that the two-state solution is no longer viable. We also agree that Israel maintains apartheid in the Territories, and discriminates against Arab citizens within Israel. We also agree that action must be taken to change this reality. But at this point the question arises: What is the solution?

Here, the Da’am Party bids boycotts goodbye. Da’am advocates one democratic state between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River for all who live there, Jews and Palestinians. To achieve this goal, we oppose the boycott of the Palestinians by the Israeli Right, and we equally oppose the boycott of Israelis, which is what BDS and many Palestinians do in the name of rejecting “normalization.” The solution will not take place through mutual cancellation, but through constant cooperation and dialogue between democratic forces on both sides.

We look to the progressive movement in the United States, which advocates racial equality and multiculturalism, upholds democracy against autocracy, condemns blind nationalism and white supremacy, and favors climate and social justice. This movement can play an important role in bringing Israeli and Palestinian democratic forces together for the construction of a common future. Boycotting Israel and Israelis will not do this. Ben & Jerrys’ position has the good effect of reviving the issue of the Occupation, but it tastes too much of BDS.

The post BDS-flavored ice cream first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

Jason Greenblatt is undoubtedly an intriguing personality. Beneath his black skullcap lies a shrewd real estate dealer who knows marketing and is skilled in identifying business opportunities. Greenblatt dons or doffs the skullcap according to the occasion. On March 19, 2017, he participated (without skullcap) as an observer at the Arab League Conference on the Jordanian side of the Dead Sea. But returning home, via Ben-Gurion Airport, Greenblatt accepted the blessing of the head of the Ponevezh Yeshiva, where the skullcap returned to his head.

So who is Jason Greenblatt : a senior American diplomat in the Middle East or a religious Jew who loves Israel and is Netanyahu’s ardent supporter? Even if it takes time to figure out, Greenblatt is undoubtedly a trusted representative of Donald Trump. His immediate boss is Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, likewise a devout Jew. Kushner, who knows Netanyahu, heads the White House Office of American Innovation. What distinguishes the Trump-Kushner-Greenblatt trio is that all are realtors whose business interests, combined with political interests, precede all else.

Netanyahu could not get along with a black president and a Harvard Law School graduate, so now he must deal with Obama’s diametric opposite: an in-your-face celebrity and ruthless businessman. True, both Trump and Netanyahu share a burning hatred of Iran, but for different reasons: Netanyahu sees Iran as a danger to Israel’s existence, while Trump sees Iran as an existential threat to the Saudi kingdom. Obama talked optimistically about Iran, while Trump is soft on Saudi Arabia. Obama had no business interests in Iran, while Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (until recently CEO of ExxonMobil) have plenty in Saudi Arabia!

Even before entering the White House, Trump sharply criticized Obama’s failure to veto the UN Security Council’s anti-settlement resolution. He tweeted: “As far as the UN is concerned, things will look different after January 20.” On February 16, at a joint press conference with Netanyahu in Washington, Trump pulled out his pistol and fired without warning when he urged Netanyahu to “hold back” from building Jewish settlements for a “little bit.” Netanyahu’s smiling face could not conceal his embarrassment.

Although the above was said as an aside, since that day Jason Greenblatt has doffed his skullcap, rolled up his sleeves and begun to work energetically to realize the “ultimate deal.” The paradigm is simple: since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially a matter of real estate, only sophisticated realtors can solve it. “I’m looking at two-state and at one-state, and I like the one that both parties like,” Mr. Trump said at the same news conference. He thus taught Netanyahu some basic truths: money has no smell and in business there is no ideology—one or two states, the main thing is to reach a solution.

Greenblatt’s extraordinary presence at the Arab summit in Amman on March 29 shows that Trump’s intentions are serious. He had sent his emissary to promote a deal. While the countries directly involved, Jordan and Egypt, support the resolution of the conflict, the backing of the Arab world can only help. Trump has already invited General Sisi to visit the White House, followed by Abu Mazen. These two visits are intended to resolve the conflict between the Egyptian regime and the Palestinian Authority. (The conflict was the outcome of Abu Mazen’s exclusion from the planning of a regional conference under the auspices of former Secretary of State John Kerry). The Saudi Crown Prince and the Jordanian King have had meetings with the Trump in Washington, and everything points to a big regional move.

With “the Donald” in the White House, yesterday’s refusal will be today’s consent, and what is true for Abu Mazen, will be doubly true for Netanyahu. The time of decision approaches. Two states or one state, the main thing is to overcome the current situation of procrastination. But Netanyahu does not want two states or one state, he wants to leave the situation as it is, and here he clashes with Trump. The “happy days” of Obama are over, and Netanyahu’s bridges to the Democratic Party have been burned. Among the Republicans he will not find many dissidents. Trump, Kushner, Friedman and Greenblatt, one president plus three skullcaps!

Time is running out. Abu Mazen is old and it is not clear what will happen after his departure. In Gaza, there is little drinkable water, while electricity, work and medical services are collapsing under the Israeli siege. The problem is that Netanyahu does not have a majority in the present government in order to conclude an agreement. Likud ministers Ze’ev Elkin and Yariv Levin nixed Herzog’s entry into the coalition when they preferred Lieberman. The walls are closing in on Netanyahu. On the one hand, the US administration is not willing to accept “No” for an answer, and on the other hand, the current governing coalition is unwilling to give “Yes.”

Here is where Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon enters the picture. A coalition crisis surrounding Israel’s new Public Broadcasting Corporation seems like a weak excuse to go to elections. It only strengthens the assumption that Netanyahu intends to dissolve the government in any case. So he creates a crisis with Kahlon, but his real quarrel is with Bennett and the extreme right-wing in his government. Netanyahu signals to both: if you raise obstacles and attempt to separate me from my base, we will go to elections. Bennett’s hastily arranged meeting with Jason Greenblatt in Washington attests to the wide rift between him and Netanyahu. Bennett’s lobbying campaign for annexation of Area C takes place at a time when Netanyahu is negotiating with Trump on the future of the settlements. Bennett opposes early elections and is working desperately to scotch a regional peace conference. He cannot be a partner in a government that freezes settlements. He knows that should there be new elections, he might not be included in the next government. In light of the present coalition’s inability to reach an agreement on the Palestinian issue, the Labor Party’s entry into a Likud government will prove that, this time, Netanyahu is willing to do business.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu faces a dilemma. He has little wiggle room and may be forced to risk his political capital on a regional conference whose main players are weak and unfocused: Saudi Arabia is knee-deep in the war in Yemen; Jordan is imploding under the burden of Iraqi and Syrian refugees who have fled to its territory; the Egyptian regime is unable to overcome the Islamic State in Sinai and is involved in the war in Libya; and Abu Mazen is losing ground to Hamas. In the end, a regional conference will not focus on the two-state solution; instead it will endorse another interim agreement that would expand the powers of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, deferring issues already deferred in the Oslo agreement: borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, and the refugee problem.

Abu Mazen understands that such an agreement will not “fly” in the Palestinian street. He knows that “interim agreement” is newspeak for continuing the Occupation, the separation barrier, and the closure of the West Bank, and that therefore it would require the backing of the entire Arab world. An agreement would lead to the collapse of the present Israeli government. For the sake of a dubious arrangement that is unlikely to materialize, Netanyahu would have to risk splitting from his base and entering new elections. As long as Trump wants an agreement, however, and even if the current crisis with Kahlon gets resolved, the time will come when Netanyahu will have no choice but to take that risk.

* Translated from the Hebrew by Robert Goldman

The post It’s the Settlements, Stupid! first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.

When Naftali Bennett compared the Palestinians to shrapnel in the backside of an IDF soldier, undoubtedly many public figures in Israel identifies with his allegory. Bennett, Israel’s newest political star and now Economy Minister, asserted it was better to leave the shrapnel where it is than risk paralysis in removing it. Having seen how the political issue was marginalized during the last elections, and how the social protest movement of 2011 embraced the settlers, it’s clear that Bennett isn’t the only one who believes it’s better to leave the shrapnel firmly lodged in Israel’s backside, which will lead to nothing worse than occasional discomfort. Indeed, Bennett has many partners both inside and outside the Knesset.

Let us not forget how effortlessly Bennett teamed up with Yair Lapid and forced upon Netanyahu a coalition free of the ultra-Orthodox parties, thus leaving two major ministries – the Ministry of Construction and Housing, and the Ministry of Economy – in the hands of the settlers, who are fast becoming the mainstay of Netanyahu’s government. In an interview with the New York Times (May 19), Lapid expressed opposition to freezing settlement construction, claiming that it’s not certain Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) is a “partner for peace.” The idea that the conflict is unsolvable is accepted by a majority starting from the right wing coalition and ending at the Labor Party, and this has indeed made the Palestinians mere shrapnel in Israel’s behind.

Since Obama’s visit, US Secretary of State John Kerry has been trying to kick-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. So far, Israel has made no reply to all his visits and entreaties to enter serious talks. Bennett announces that the Palestinian issue is not on the agenda and Lapid backs him up, while Tzipi Livni fumes on the sidelines declaring she refuses to be a fig-leaf for an extreme rightwing government. However, that’s exactly what she is. Since the conflict is unsolvable, we can finish the business and build under every tree and on every hilltop, until the two-state solution becomes a forgotten dream.

The settlers’ victory

The settlers’ victory is so sweeping that they’re willing to bring up the issue themselves while the opposition mumbles and stutters, devoid of any alternative program. Buoyed by the knowledge that retaining the “settlements blocs” and the city of Ariel has become part of the consensus, the settlers continue their settlement efforts, supported by Netanyahu and Likud-Beiteinu. According to their vision, the settlement blocs will be swallowed up by settlement throughout Area C, and the Palestinians will receive nothing but the enclaves under Palestinian Authority control. While those on Israel’s Left gave up grappling with the issue, the settlers continue marching forward, sure in the knowledge that those who now agree to the settlement blocs will eventually agree to annexation.

Of course, this sliver of shrapnel will hurt more than Bennett lets on. Just recently Bennett was compelled to denounce the work of his wayward followers who sprayed “Arabs out” in the Arab town of Abu Ghosh, a town close to Jerusalem within the Green Line and thus Israeli. This was the work of a loosely united group who sign themselves off as “price tag,” which is a reference to the price Palestinians will pay each time the settlers are hurt. Last week something similar happened in Jaffa’s cemetery. Who knows where it will happen next? Interestingly, the omnipotent General Security Services (Shin Bet) haven’t been able to locate a single suspect. The reason is clear: when all settlers hate Arabs and wish only for their “disappearance,” “price tag” is a general term for any act which satisfies a person’s racial urges without obliging him to be part of a formal organization. Moreover, “they haven’t killed anyone yet,” as Netanyahu put it as he explained his opposition to branding “price tag” a terror organization.

Warped fantasy of annexation

Those on the Left who welcomed Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip are now stuck with the tragic consequences of their support. Sharon got out of Gaza in order to keep hold of the West Bank. When Hamas took over the Strip, the Palestinian Authority ceased representing all Palestinians, and the “Palestinian partner” disappeared. Gaza will become a Palestinian state if the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt opens the Rafah crossing for its Hamas brethren. Then, when the Palestinian question has been “solved”, the settlers will be able to annex the West Bank.

The post The settlements: shrapnel in Israel’s backside first appeared on Da'am Party: One state - Green Economy.