Blaming Barak and Netanyahu’s electoral ambitions as the main cause for this recent round of violence is simplistic. Emphasizing the upcoming elections sidesteps the fact that violent actions against the Palestinians are actually quite the popular move among Jewish Israelis. With this in mind, Barak and Netanyahu can be viewed as a product of a general Israeli strategic approach to dealing with the Palestinians – force, the more the better. Barak and Netanyahu are not worse than the average Jewish Israeli (or American-Jew for that matter) that supports them. In general, the centrist to radical Zionist side of the political map, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis, hardly ever pretends that it sympathizes with Palestinian suffering. What is left of the Zionist left sees Palestinian suffering as a necessary evil. With this moral environment Barak and Netanyahu should not be singled out.
What still eludes me is what the
pair representing the whole wants to achieve. My understanding of the Israeli
interest is that it is similar to that of the de-colonizing European
empire. All modern empires eventually withdrew from their colonized
territories, leaving in their wake post-colonial regimes that could somehow
secure the former rulers' most vital interests. Whereas Israel seems
determined as ever to maintain its domination over the West Bank, in
2005, something changed in the Gaza Strip. This did not mean that Gaza became
“free” but it did enter into a perturbed de-colonization processes.
The most vital interest Israel had in the Gaza Strip was to keep in check the local populations' grievances against a state founded on the ruins of its towns and villages. Hamas, although rhetorically committed to the destruction of the Zionist state, has also shown itself time and time again to be committed to its own survival and sovereign status in the Strip. Indeed, frequently this Hamas interest coalesced with the Israeli post-colonial interest of limiting Palestinian violence originating in the Strip. At times there was even a harmonious relationship wherein the siege on Gaza allowed for Hamas to tighten its grip on the constrained supply routes, and in turn, Hamas would often force the more radical organizations in the strip to moderate their violence. The post-colonial relationship between Israel and Hamas was of course not perfect for both sides but at least the two sides could talk, even if at times this dialogue was in the language of bombs.
The most vital interest Israel had in the Gaza Strip was to keep in check the local populations' grievances against a state founded on the ruins of its towns and villages. Hamas, although rhetorically committed to the destruction of the Zionist state, has also shown itself time and time again to be committed to its own survival and sovereign status in the Strip. Indeed, frequently this Hamas interest coalesced with the Israeli post-colonial interest of limiting Palestinian violence originating in the Strip. At times there was even a harmonious relationship wherein the siege on Gaza allowed for Hamas to tighten its grip on the constrained supply routes, and in turn, Hamas would often force the more radical organizations in the strip to moderate their violence. The post-colonial relationship between Israel and Hamas was of course not perfect for both sides but at least the two sides could talk, even if at times this dialogue was in the language of bombs.
This time Israel expressed its
dissatisfaction with the deal by assassinating no less than the Hamas
government’s chief of staff. Barak and Netanyahu could have killed a
lower ranking officer, claim that he was an arch terrorist, get some political
cache, go through a round of tit for tat and end it there - until next time.
But killing Ja‘abri could be understood as signaling to Hamas, or at least to
me, that the deal is off. At that moment Israel might have lost the only party
it could talk to in the Gaza Strip. What’s particularly baffling to
me is that Barak and Netanyahu seem to have done so not due to a
miscalculation but out of intent.
Hamas Chief of Staff Ja'abri
My concern as an Israeli and as a
human is that the assassination of Ja’abri points to a complete lack of
strategic thinking on how to sustain what I consider my home and society.
Where is this leading? Israel will win this round and the next ones militarily
but politically it will be defeated. This is because it is single handily undoing
any possibility that one day a sustainable Palestinian regime in the Gaza Strip
will rise and take upon itself some responsibility for the suffering of the
Palestinian population there, a suffering which is now justly projected against
Israel. Just to be clear, post-colonial regimes tend to be corrupt and
oppressive but that is the price all Western
states are glad to accept to nominally secure their interests -
Israel will probably not adhere to a higher standard. The misery of the Palestinians in Gaza
will, as it ought to, always be a source for Israeli insecurity yet Israel has
the power to either aggravate of sublimate this equation. If endless
decapitation of the Palestinian national movement, in both the Gaza Strip and
the West Bank, leads to a rise to prominence of a democratic and non-violent
Palestinian organization, I’ll be the first to admit that I was wrong and that
indeed Barak and Netanyahu knew what they were doing.
