/

Can’t win by ravaging Gaza

by Ramzy Baroud

When the bodies of three Israeli settlers — Aftali Frenkel and Gilad Shaar, both 16, and Eyal Yifrach, 19 — were found on June 30 near Hebron in the southern West Bank, Israel went into a state of mourning, and a wave of sympathy flowed in from around the world. The three had disappeared 18 days earlier in circumstances that remain unclear.

The entire episode seemed to traumatize Israelis into ignoring harsh truths about the settlers and the militarization of their society. Amid a portrayal of the three as hapless youths, although one was a 19-year-old who had been in a pre-miliary program, commentators have failed to provide badly needed context to the events. Few, if any, assigned the blame where it was most deserved — on expansionist policies that have sown hatred and bloodshed.

Before the discovery of the bodies, the real face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government was well-known. Few held Illusions about how “peaceful” an occupation could be if run by figures such as Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett and Deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon. But because “children” — the term used by Netanyahu himself — were involved, even critics didn’t expect to see political point-scoring.

There was sympathy elicited for the missing settlers case, but it quickly vanished in the face of an Israeli response (in the West Bank, Jerusalem and later in a full-scale war on Gaza) largely seen in the crucible of world opinion as disproportionate and cruel. Rather than being related to the tragic death of three youths, this response reflected Netanyahu’s grand political calculations.

As mobs of Israeli Jews went out on an ethnic lynching spree in Israel, Jerusalem and the West Bank — which some people likened to a “pogrom” — occupation soldiers arrested hundreds of Palestinians, mostly Hamas members and supporters.

Hamas said it had no role in the death of the settlers, and this appears plausible since it rarely hesitates to take credit for something carried out by its military wing. Israeli military strategists were well aware of that. This war on Hamas, however, has little to do with the killed settlers and everything to do with the political circumstances that preceded their disappearance.

On May 15, two Palestinian youths, Nadim Siam Abu Nuwara, 17, and Mohammed Mahmoud Odeh Salameh, 16, were killed by Israeli soldiers while taking part in a protest commemorating the anniversary of the Nakba, or “Great Catastrophe.” Video footage shows that Nadim was innocently standing with a group of friends before collapsing as he was hit by an Israeli Army bullet.

The Nakba took place 66 years ago when the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict emerged. An estimated 1 million Palestinians were forced out of their homes as they fled a Zionist invasion. Israel was established on the ruins of that.

Nadim and Mohammed, like the youths of several generations since the Nakba, were killed in cold blood as they walked to remember the exodus. In Israel, there was no outrage. Palestinian anger, which seems to be in constant accumulation under military occupation and enduring harsh economic conditions, was reaching a tipping point.

In some way, the deaths of these Palestinian youths were a distraction from the political disunity that has afflicted Palestinian leadership and society for years. Their deaths were a reminder that Palestine, as an idea and a collective plight and struggle, goes beyond the confines of politics or even ideology.

Their deaths reminded us that there is much more to Palestine than the whims of the aging Palestinian Authority “President” Mahmoud Abbas and his Ramallah-based henchmen, or even Hamas’ regional calculations following the rise and fall of the “Arab Spring.”

The Israeli reaction to the settlers’ death has been different. After the discovery of the bodies, fellow settlers and right-wing Israelis began exacting revenge from Palestinian communities. The mob was united by the slogan “death to the Arabs,” reviving a long-disused notion of a single Palestinian identity that precedes the emergence of Fatah and Hamas.

Perhaps paradoxically, the grief and anger provoked by the death of Mohammad Abu Khdeir, 17, who was burned alive by Israeli settlers as part of this lashing out, has furthered this reawakening of a long-fragmented Palestinian national identity. This identity, which had suffered due to Israeli walls, military tactics and the Palestinians’ own disunity, has been glued back together in a process that resembles the events that preceded the first and second intifada uprisings of 1987 and 2000, respectively.

However, unlike in the previous intifadas, the hurdles toward a unified voice this time seem insurmountable. Abbas is a weak leader who has done much to meet Israel’s security expectations and very little to defend the rights of his people. He is a relic from a bygone era who exists because he is the best option Israel and the U.S. have right now.

In the aftermath of the Israeli violent response to the killing of the settlers, Abbas labored to coordinate with the massive Israeli search. At times, he stayed away as Israeli troops brutalized Palestinians in the West Bank.

It is clear that there can be no third intifada that leaves Abbas and his wretched political apparatus in place. This is precisely why Palestinian Authority goons prevented many attempts by Palestinians in the West Bank to protest the Israeli violence unleashed in the occupied territories, which finally culminated in a massive war against Gaza that has killed and wounded hundreds.

Whatever credit Abbas supposedly gained by closing ranks with Hamas to form a unity government in June has been lost. It has been overshadowed by his own failures to live up to commitment under the unity deal. The relevance of his “authority” was quickly eclipsed by Israeli violence, highlighting his and his government’s utter irrelevance to Israel’s political calculations.

When Israel launched its massive arrest campaign that mainly targeted Hamas in the West Bank, Hamas’ political wing was already considering “alternatives” to the unity government in Ramallah. Hamas’ objectives were not being met. The unity deal was meant to achieve several goals: End Hamas’ political isolation in Gaza resulting from the intensifying of the siege by Egyptian President Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, resolving the economic crisis in the Gaza Strip and allowing Hamas to revert to its old brand as a resistance movement first and foremost.

Even if Hamas succeeded in establishing a new brand based on the resistance/political model, Israel was determined to deactivate any potential for Palestinian unity. Destroying that unity became almost an obsession for Netanyahu. The disappearance of the settlers gave Netanyahu’s quest a new impetus. He began a campaign pressuring Abbas to break away from Hamas.

There is still more to Israel’s war on Gaza than this. Fearing an intifada that would unite Palestinians, threaten the PA and slow down the construction of illegal settlements, Netanyahu, with war on Gaza, means to distract from the slowly building collective sentiment among Palestinians throughout Palestine and Palestinian citizens in Israel.

This unity is much more alarming for Netanyahu than a political arrangement by Fatah and Hamas. The targeting of Hamas is an Israeli attempt at challenging the emerging new narrative that is no longer about Gaza and its siege anymore, but the entirety of Palestine and its collectives regardless of which side of the Israeli “separation wall” they live on.

A true Palestinian unity culminating in a massive popular intifada is the kind of war Netanyahu cannot possibly win.

Ramzy Baroud, managing editor of Middle East Eye, is a columnist, author and founder of PalestineChronicle.com.

  • xexon

    Hey Ramzy,

    I thank you for your frank observations. As you know, in the states much of the commentary and articles on this subject have been written by Jewish authors. And as a result, it has produced a biased vibe in our media. Because as we both know, it’s important to keep the US Christian community on Israel’s side because they keep US aid flowing to the zionist state. Lots of money and military hardware.

    Folks in Japan don’t have this problem in their media. And being the openminded society they are, I hope they exert pressure on their own government to put pressure on Israel to cease their racist way of life. It’s time to join the international boycott of Israel.

    Because we need to break the back of Israeli apartheid. And bring the zionists before the world court for punishment. Their long history of human right abuses needs to be put and end to. Then, maybe Israel will know peace.

    x

    • phu

      Getting the world to collectively taking real measures to punish Israel and bring its influence back to sane levels might help or even solve this particular situation.

      However, the larger issue here is the unwillingness of the entire middle east to pull itself out of the archaic state of theocracy and hatred that fuels both its politics and its violence (if you believe the two are even separable there, I suppose). As long as we have so many different groups that all share the same key feature — a murderous loathing for anyone who disagrees with them — there will always be another conflict, another border dispute, another jihad.

      So how do we truly solve it? That’s a hard question that’s not likely to be answered by mouthpiece newspapers or internet comments. I can’t think of any way that wouldn’t involve the large scale use of force by outside parties… which definitely is not ideal… but then no one involved so far can seem to come up with anything else, so it’s hard at this point to hope for real progress. The involved parties simply don’t want it.

      • xexon

        The best answer is to trigger a revolution inside Israel by the Jews themselves.

        Let them give Netanyahu&Co the Mussolini treatment.

        x

      • phu

        In the short term, a revolution by Israelis themselves absolutely would be the best way to depose the current order. Triggering it from outside, though, runs a very high risk of ending the way so many similar situations do: With ever more animosity towards the third parties who encouraged and/or funded it.

        And, really, why would we assume whoever took power next would be any better? Or even not any worse? The problems causing these issues run too deep to be solved by a single country changing its government, even if we assume that change works out in a perfectly ideal way.