Israel’s awakening

The Israeli military spokesperson was wrong to say that there is no way to defeat Hamas because it is an idea, rooted in the hearts of the people. It is a party, serving as a resistance movement. Like the Israeli groups, the Irgun or Lehi, ideas and the movements they spawn end when they achieve their aims—the end of occupation and their national rights in a state. Hamas, the military threat, loses its reason for existence once there is a Palestinian state, but could continue as a conservative, religious party amongst other political parties focused on state-building.

When the Knesset passed a resolution against a Palestinian state as a threat to Israel’s existence, it raised the question, what is this perpetual war based on occupation, if not an existential threat? Even if one thinks Palestinians are not serious about dividing the land and living peacefully in their own state, and will use their state to take over Israel, how better to counter that than by creating a state that answers to the international community, the Arab and Muslim world and Israel, through a peace agreement?

A certain outcome of the current war in Gaza over the future of Israel and Palestine will be a new effort to define a border and divide the land. Either this is forced through by the international community, or Israel awakens to the fact that the status quo ante of endless occupation over the Palestinians has ended. To those nationalist settlers who follow Biblical not international law, who live for the Zionist dream, the values of that ambition were lost in the scramble for territory. Israel no longer can veto the rights or determine the future of another people and nation.

Forty percent of children in Israel now come from nationalist settler or haredi Orthodox families that practice a chauvinism that will preclude any sort of peaceful coexistence in the region. In a modern era of plural societies, with ideas and technologies that transcend borders, it should dawn on Israelis that they are fighting for a world that no longer exists. Given the unrelenting attacks on Palestinian rights, it is easy to criticize Israel for conduct reminiscent of the colonial era.

Too much Israeli energy is focused on pummeling the Palestinians into submission, which, according to Netanyahu advisor Daniel Pipes in a Jerusalem Post interview last year, was the only Government strategy for dealing with the conflict. It seems to have worked to defeat the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. However, the ultimate outcome of this traumatic phase of war in Gaza is unknown.

At the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that making peace with the Saudis would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as though the Palestinians were an irrelevant nuisance. He was wrong. Daily knife attacks or cars ramming into crowds of people can create chaos, since settler proximity to Palestinians assures there are many targets.

Yet, the Hamas attack was not aimed at stopping an enlargement of the Accords that pretend to be about ending conflict where none existed. They were a response to Israeli encroachment into Area C and on the Haram es Sharif. Hamas became popular in the region as it sought to remind the world that the Palestinians remain and will pose a threat to Israel until they have their state. Until then, no one came to the aid of the Palestinians when they were  under attack by settlers acting as Government proxies.

Now, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq have joined in the battle to confirm the Palestinian issue is alive, until the creation of a Palestinian state ends the rationale for attacks on Israel. (And if Israel returned Shebaa Farms and Ghajar to Lebanon, that would provide leverage for Israel securing the northern border under UNSC resolution 1701). Both Palestinians and Lebanese would appreciate being freed from their authoritarian resistance movements. Even Iran would struggle to find a pretext for enmity with Israel, once the Palestinians sign a peace agreement. Their Persian ancestors allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem.

Since Prime Minister Netanyahu does not want a Hamastan or Fatahstan ruling Gaza, he must opt for the only alternative–to end the war by handing over Gaza to a Palestinian state with a transitional government and new leaders. The end of Hamas can only come with the end of the need for resistance against the Israeli occupation. And there may not be much support for a liberation organization when Palestine exists as a state. New political groupings, based on patriotism or religious conservatism may rise in their place. If Israel releases all the capable Palestinians held in administrative detention, who were only a threat because they criticized the occupation, a new pool of leaders can emerge, focused on the creation of a state instead of fighting for one’s existence.

Prime Minister Netanyahu declared this war would end Hamas rule in Gaza, although for years he had assured that Hamas leaders had enough money from Qatar, and even allowed 18,000 Gazan laborers to earn a living in Israel. Backing the rejectionists had suited the Israeli narrative that there was no partner for peace, when the Palestinian Authority could have been strengthened into a peaceful Palestinian state. It was a dangerous game that backfired.

Netanyahu also said Gaza must be de-radicalized–reeducated, indoctrinated out of the idea that the Israeli occupation is preventing Palestinians from self-determination. How can you teach a people that their occupier is not their enemy? When the Israelis pulled their settlers and forces out of Gaza nearly two decades ago, it was not the end of their control. Israelis later would point to their withdrawal from Gaza as evidence of what would happen if they withdrew from the West Bank–a disingenuous comparison. Gazans never equated the Israeli withdrawal with freedom but insisted they would continue to resist until there was a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Palestinian goodwill was tested through the passive compliance of the Palestinian Authority in security coordination with Israel. In the process, their own people came to see them as collaborators with the Occupation.

The proposal for compromise has not changed. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post on the eve of his departure from office, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that if Israel gave up the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, it could have peace with the Palestinians. However, because Israelis in power do not find those terms acceptable, they conclude there is no partner–for the maximalist peace they want, which leaves the Palestinians in scattered enclaves. Yet, fragmenting Palestinian social and economic life will never lead to peace. Keeping the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem–most of which Israelis never visit–assures perpetual war.

Israeli leaders say Hamas must not be rewarded for its attack of October 7 by the creation of a Palestinian state, but Hamas proved their inability to govern and would not participate in the Transitional State of Palestine. Repeatedly, Hamas said their aim was resistance, not providing services. If Palestinians needed to be defended against the onslaught of Israeli missiles, the UN should provide protection, they said. After all, Palestinians are under occupation. When Palestinians demonstrated last year outside the offices of UNRWA for materials to rebuild their homes from the previous war, or for jobs, it was clear they had no government officials to whom they could appeal.

Israel may not recognize the declaration of a Palestinian state backed by most countries in the world, just as Serbia did not recognize the changes on the ground that led to the creation of Kosovo. But that would mean that the chance to finally end the conflict, and draw a border that can be secured, will be converted into a new phase of war. The failure of the Oslo peace process was that Palestinians thought the occupation would end, and that Israelis would stop taking the land. Instead, more land was confiscated to build “peace roads” to separate Palestinians from settlers.

Peace and occupation cannot co-exist. The outcome of the shocking attack of October 7 should be an awakening that old misconceptions led to this disaster and a new peace can emerge, based on all that was agreed in previous talks and not a relaunch of decades of negotiations. Both peoples are traumatized and need time to reflect and rebuild. Israelis and Palestinians can assure their own safety behind defensible borders. As issues dividing the region are resolved, the need for resistance is removed, and the radicals on all sides are disempowered.