Defying the ‘spoilers’

As the war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas nears its anniversary, I have been casting my mind back to ascertain when my overwhelming current despair really kicked in.

I know I was already feeling cynical and despondent before October 7^th. Israeli society was in chaos. The threat of a bloody civil war had become very real. Radical voices in the newly-elected Knesset had stirred up a divisive cauldron of animosity between civilian factions within the country, with any dissenting opposers branded as ‘traitors’ regardless of their proven unconditional commitment to the country. Violent clashes between protesters and mounted police had become weekly occurrences, applauded and defended by notoriously idiocentric zealous lawmakers. My family began discussing in earnest where we could elope to in order to get away from the toxic Israeli day-to-day that was corroding away at our lives, but the decision to abscond from Israel, even under these circumstances, is not as simple as it may seem.

I grew up in Manchester, England. I was afforded a comfortable, middle-class, British suburban life, but following years of Jewish and Zionist education, I made the decision that I wanted to live my life in Israel. I didn’t choose the easy or comfortable path, but instead I made an ideological decision and followed my heart.

I remember a deep conversation I had with a childhood friend in the weeks following my ‘aliyah’. He listed four things that I should be mindful of which could prevent a succesfull transition to Israeli life. Obviously finding employment and coping with the language were the first two challenges, and the third was yearning for family and struggling to build a social circle, but it was his fourth reason that is often misunderstood and overlooked, although probably the most potent. He called it ‘ideological disillusionment’.

Ideology is very powerful. When abused or exploited, ideology can be a very dangerous tool. There is no compromise on ideology, otherwise, by definition, it is not ideological. Thus, ideology does not change, despite its adherents periodically adapting the methods through which it is implemented or acted upon. I am a unashamed Zionist. For me, Zionism is about making the world into a better place. This is not through superiority or force, and it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Zionism is the national realization of basic Jewish ethics and principles. The goal of Zionism is to cultivate a “light unto the nations”,  a country that we can be proud of, one that others would aspire to replicate and choose to befriend.

I am the first to criticize Israel. I know the road to achieving Zionism is long and riddled with challenges, but I am guilty of holding myself and my country to the highest of expectations because I believe in the utopian Zionist vision, and we can only achieve it by constantly reminding ourselves of the “Israel” we want to be, and not by succumbing to comparisons with those that are ‘worse’ than we are.

The State of Israel was created by negotiating between different interpretations of the Zionist goal. As a result, despite the 1948 Declaration of Independence not being a constitution for Israel, it clearly lays out the basic guiding principles for a modern democratic nation state by embracing the visions and opinions across a spectrum of Jewish leaders in order to reach a unified consensus. It is something that Israelis can be proud of, not just because it explicitly decreed a sound basic ethos, but because it brought together the spectrum of different opinions to adopt a document that embodied Jewish values “based on precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets” and vowed to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens without distinction of race, creed or sex”. In short, it is the Jewish People’s most significant and substantial pledge in modern memory, and it must be safeguarded. The alternative would be catastrophic – national suicide brought about by metaphorically pressing the “Zionist self-destruct button”.

From the outset, Israeli politics has entertained contrasting ideals and diverse philosophies sustained by a democratic system and free elections. Consequently, Israeli governments are transient as each general election yields a new configuration of political parties and ministers. Although the country has clearly shifted towards a more conservative base over the past couple of decades, there is still a healthy vocal opposition to the government, and a system that allows the people to express their opinions. There is always competition for votes, and a structure that upholds the freedom to choose a different path when the next elections come around. Israel has always been lead by a coalition, so whichever political parties form the government have to prioritize their goals and compromise so as not to go against their basic principles, yet be able to join a stable, workable alliance.

In contrast, since Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005, following political tensions and much bloodshed between Palestinian factions, Gaza has become an autocratic theocracy. Hamas’s leadership is determined and controlled by foreign hierarchical structures. Subsequently, Palestinian supporters of Hamas and their like minded associates, have no choice but to ‘religiously’ follow their assigned representatives. Dissention is futile, and those that did oppose have largely been permanently ‘silenced’. Hamas (translates to “zeal” in Arabic) is a political movement based on fundamentalist Islamist ideology. There are no free elections and there is no free speech in Gaza. They do not compromise. Their ideology will not change, even though they will adapt to current conditions in order to remain on track toward their ideological endgame.

Hamas’s substantial welfare activities are largely not known about. They facilitate a wide network of social and charitable institutions that are a crucial fullfilment of their obligation to Muslim faith, whilst also securing strong domestic support. The only “Hamas” we hear about is one committed to violent jihad (i.e. religiously sanctioned resistance against perceived enemies of Islam) ensuring that they are essentially known for their activities as a Palestinian terrorist group operating under the guise of a ‘resistance’ movement.

Despite the unambiguous differences between the Israeli and Gazan systems of governance, there are uncanny similarities in the current realities of their presiding administrations. Hamas led the barbarous offensive on October 7^th and enabling a mass abduction of Israelis, but they don’t know the whereabouts of all the hostages (allegedly), or whether they are alive or dead. Accordingly, Gaza was targeted by Israel initially as retribution following the October 7^th massacre, with the collective backing of the Israeli nation that had been absolutely divided until the night before. In the ensuing months, the divisions within Israeli society have definitely not gone away, reflected not only in numerous ongoing domestic Israeli crises, the ambiguous direction of the war effort, and most significantly, in the overt clashes over the hostage negotiations. The world watches on as Gazans suffer regardless of their affiliation, Hamas leaders and their sponsors remains defiant, Hezbollah increasingly demonstrate the capacity of their vast rocket arsenal, and all the while, global support for Israel’s ‘right to self-defense’ wavers. Consequently, all sides are facing a lose-lose scenario.

Although a few parties may turn up for the negotiations in Cairo next week, there was never, and will never be any chance of reaching a workable settlement. Arguably there is a historic smorgasbord of guilty parties who have contributed to my assumption, but primarily it is down to the two leading actors on the stage who are both driven by ego and narcissism, who both fear for their own existence and are both supported by dangerously inflexible ideologues. Even if the US bulldozes through an agreement in the hope that they can score political points for the Democrats ahead of the November elections, it will not be a lasting peace as the fundamental sticking blocks will never be resolved, or at least not in the foreseeable future. This is because that the intractable Israel-Hamas “game” is played by “spoilers”.

The term “spoiler” was coined in the 1990s by an academic called Stephen Stedman to describe any actors who will do whatever it takes to undermine and “spoil” negotiations that may lead to the warming of diplomatic relations. When they succeed, the results are catastrophic. Hamas are quintessential spoilers who raise their demands for rage and violence whenever talks advance between Israel and any Arab or Muslim entity. At the time of the Abraham Accords, for example, there was significant encouragement of violence by Hamas leaders and clerics. Perhaps a more apt example is demonstrated by the particular timing of the October 7^th attack, just as hype was developing for the potential normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia. These examples are not coincidences. They are deliberate timely acts aiming to undermine and derail negotiations. In short, Hamas are model spoilers. They act this way because they are absolutely committed to their cause, and view any challenge to their world vision as absolutely unacceptable.

It is Hamas’s unswerving ideology that ensures that they become spoilers, and will never succumb to compromise, but they are not the only intransigent belligerents in the game. Sitting across the negotiation table (assuming both parties show up) are the Israeli representatives, and the current Israeli administration has proved that it is also an exemplary “spoiler”. It does not require much intelligence to see that Israel’s economic successes of the last 15 years have allowed Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to divert the nation’s attention away from emergent and growing issues through the use of unrivaled charisma and smart PR, coupled with cunning manipulation and a perpetual self-absolution of accountability. There are plenty of shameful examples that have emerged from the October 7th debacle, but perhaps the most poignant has come from the residents of the Upper Galilee who have been crying out for the government to confront the growing threat from Hezbollah, but as there were no actual attacks, there was no action taken. Inevitably, when there will be a catastrophic war, it will fall on the taxpaying “traitors” to pay the price. Whilst the northern front has been steadily escalating, and other socioeconomic and political divisions have been brewing,  Bibi’s focus has been on preserving his own power. More explicitly, Bibi knows that the nature of his own personal political survival, and the survival of his legacy is now wholly dependent on the war in Gaza. As long as it continues, he does not have to face his reckoning for the failures that lead to October 7^th, and can also circumvent the criminal proceedings that have cast a shadow over his legitimacy for the last few years.

Netanyahu hopes that he may be able to save face and declare a victory to the nation in some form or another. This, he believes is the only possible salvation that can save his skin. In addition, the survival of the government requires each member of the coalition to protect and stand by their basic fundamental principles. So the strings of the Israeli negotiators are ideologically pulled by a megalomaniac leadership intent on preserving their own survival. Their only hope is to spoil any effort to end the military engagement. The result – stalemate and war. Expendable Palestinians and Israeli hostages will continue to be used as pawns in an opera conducted by ideological fundamentalists with foreign bosses, and an Israeli government that is seemingly doing everything it can to undermine the very ethos that was declared on May 14^th 1948.

Israeli leadership has not been setting any example “to the nations” for a while, and it would seem that the bond between the people and my understanding of Zionism has been severed, thus smashing the fundamental ethos and principles that makes Israel a place I can be proud of.

My world has been shattered.

This is called “ideological disillusionment”.

By my friend’s analysis, I should be packing my bags and leaving Israel, but in fact, the current crisis had the opposite effect on me. As American activist, Eldridge Cleaver said “There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you’re going to be part of the problem.” When I moved to Israel, I chose to be a ‘part of the solution’. If I leave, then I am ‘going to be part of the problem’. My connection to Israel has never been so steadfast. I strongly believe that if you want to make a change, then you need to be a part of that change.