Interview with Bertrand Badie: “in Gaza, we are facing a de facto annexation”

AN INTERVIEW WITH BERTRAND BADIE IN “HUMANITÉ”

Caught in the grip of the bombings, it is difficult for Gazans not to think that they are about to experience a second Nakba. For Bertrand Badie, specialist in international issues, the dogma of omnipotent power is not only disastrous, but also counterproductive.

Luis Reygada

Israel says it wants to eradicate Hamas. But is the objective simply military, when certain voices at the UN speak of the risk of ethnic cleansing in Gaza 1?

BB: This is the big question. It is indisputable that the operation carried out by Israel is a repressive operation, which also aims to dismantle an opposing organization, to which is added a punitive dimension, consisting of avenging the 1,200 victims of the October 7 attack. But many elements raise fears that, explicitly or not, a work of “ethnic cleansing” will begin, as has been said.

When we force a population to leave their homes to go south, where the bombings nevertheless continue and there is no other imaginable outlet than to eventually cross the border, we can only be disturbed. This impression is confirmed, unfortunately, when these refugees are prohibited from returning to their homes, with no other possible form of salvation than to confine themselves to a small area of barely more than 8 km², where more than 2 million people!

When we see that in the West Bank methodical work continues consisting of driving out Palestinian Bedouins to establish new settlements there, we understand that this work of purification goes beyond the simple framework of Gaza, and can even concern all of the Palestinian territories. occupied, as far as East Jerusalem. It is therefore difficult for Palestinians not to think that they are about to experience a second Nakba.

Is the term “war” appropriate to describe this conflict which pits a power against a non-state adversary?

BB: It is true that we are closer here to new forms of intra-state conflict in which companies are strongly involved. From this point of view, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in line with decolonization and the transformations it has brought about in the organization of conflicts.

On the one hand, because it derives from a desire – more than seventy years old – for the emancipation of a people seeking to free themselves from domination and humiliation; on the other hand, because the methods used by some of the organizations leading this struggle are exposed to the accusation of terrorism, well-founded and recurring in such an asymmetrical context.

The international community has never known how to deal with this type of conflict in which States tend to only use military force, even though this is no longer operational. The wars of decolonization have all shown the impotence of power, as have the wars of intervention that followed. We saw this clearly through the horrors of October 7, when everyone in Israel woke up painfully to discover that a state, even heavily armed, is not invincible. We can draw a parallel with September 11, 2001. Power reaches its limits as soon as it has to face extreme forms of social energy which border on rage, however unacceptable it may be on an ethical level.

We are talking about a conflict that we seem to be rediscovering today, even though it was still relevant...

BB: A sort of bad conscience emerges almost everywhere. Since the agony of the Oslo Accords, many thought that the Palestinian issue could remain under the table, or even under the carpet, with the certainty that it no longer belonged on the international agenda. This is true, first of all, of Israel, which considered that the balance of power allowed it to perpetuate a status quo which was not really one, since its successive governments were able to take advantage of it to nibble away at the occupied territories. and lead to a de facto annexation.

But this is also the case for almost all Arab governments who seemed satisfied with this false status quo and who did not want to return to a costly confrontation with Israel. For their part, the Northern States were delighted to see that this embarrassing conflict had come to an end. Furthermore, non-compliance with the resolutions adopted by the Security Council has never given rise to sanctions against Israel, which can only reinforce such a posture.

However, the social resistance of the Palestinian people has never ceased and, despite the abandonment of this cause by governments, many societies across the globe have never renounced their solidarity. Identification with the Palestinian cause has remained very strong: it has taken over from state policies as the new parameter of the international game.

Is it the fact of never having really been slowed down that contributes today to Israel feeling free to act without restraint?

BB: Israel is making a triple bet. The first is to think that the power relationship will in one way or another put an end to this conflict. However, we have already seen that power does not solve anything. The second bet is that of unwavering support from the United States, on the one hand in the Security Council, on the other hand on the ground, by contributing decisively to the war effort.

Here too, the bet is dangerous because we can clearly see that opinions are evolving within American society and that the leaders themselves are aware of the new limits of their power. Finally, the third bet is to believe that Israeli public opinion will always accept this policy which leads to nothing. Certainly, we see that there is for the moment a very strong consensus at this level, under the legitimate emotion of the horrors of October 7. But it is not certain that this consensus can stand the test of time, especially if this war becomes complicated, or even spreads into a regional conflagration.

“This is what I call the escalation of the unimaginable, and this is what must be avoided at all costs. »

This triple bet therefore seems risky to me, and above all terribly belligerent because banking on force inevitably leads to sowing the seeds of new horrors, perhaps even worse than those we experienced on October 7. This is what I call escalating the unimaginable, and this is what must be avoided at all costs.

Are the events of October 7 perhaps already the consequence of this escalation of the unimaginable?

BB: Yes, because, behind October 7, there was a rage which we do not know if it was controlled, ordered or spontaneous, but which was real. And rage is the mechanical and cruel result of the accumulation of resentment, despair and humiliation. However, in the daily banality of international relations, rage becomes the equivalent of weapons of mass destruction in the classic strategic game.

Everyone agrees that there is only one political solution that can overcome this situation, but it is difficult to see which path to follow...

BB: We are far from it. As long as Israel is convinced that only power can solve problems, we cannot even begin to sketch out a method of achieving peace. A real milestone will be reached the day its leaders abandon this dogma of omnipotent power which is not only disastrous, but also counterproductive. We will still have to repair the damage caused by the de facto disappearance of any credible Palestinian representation!

Is the United States still the only power capable of influencing Israel?

BB: Yes, because American aid is the only one that is absolutely essential to the Israeli state. If one day the leaders of the United States were to interrupt it, the Israeli government, whatever it may be, will have to change its attitude. As a result, the American administration plays a role of responsibility that is not shared by any other state in the world. However, things are a little more complicated than yesterday. The United States is in fact increasingly isolated on this issue, whether in the Arab world or at the UN, its diplomatic capacity is less, and its public opinion is evolving...

Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, warned on October 14 that Palestinians were in “grave danger of massive ethnic cleansing.” 

Bertrand Badie has just published For a subjective approach to international relations (Odile Jacob).

Source: L'Humanité