Self-dialogue: The War on Gaza: How We Got to Where We Are Today?

Q. Netanyahu built his entire strategy on eliminating the idea of a Palestinian entity

A. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has focused on a political strategy aimed at undermining or diminishing the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state. This strategy comes in the context of long-standing policies towards the Palestinian territories and the rights of the Palestinians.

The main points that can be highlighted in this context are:

1. Strengthening settlements: Netanyahu and his government have strongly supported the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a move that the international community considers a major obstacle to achieving the two-state solution. The settlements have expanded in areas deemed necessary for the establishment of a geographically contiguous Palestinian state.

2. Opposition to the two-state solution: Although Netanyahu has sometimes stated that he supports a “Palestinian state” under certain conditions, his practical policies often reflect a position opposing the traditional two-state solution. Netanyahu prefers complex security arrangements and long-term Israeli control over most of the West Bank.

3. Normalization with Arab countries: Through recent normalization agreements with several Arab countries (the Abraham Accords), Netanyahu has sought to redefine Israeli-Arab relations beyond the Palestinian issue. This shift seeks to reduce international pressure on Israel to find a solution with the Palestinians.

4. Control over Jerusalem: Netanyahu has always emphasized that a united Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel, refusing to divide the city or allow East Jerusalem to be the capital of a Palestinian state.

5. Marketing security as a priority: Netanyahu focuses heavily on security issues as a justification for his policies toward the Palestinians, claiming that continued Israeli control is necessary for Israel’s security and to prevent the Palestinian territories from becoming a platform for threatening Israel.

6. International diplomacy: Netanyahu has succeeded in using his international relations, especially with the United States under former President Donald Trump, to support his policies and reduce international pressure on Israel regarding Palestinian rights. An example of this is the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem and its recognition as the capital of Israel.

In short, Netanyahu’s strategy is based on strengthening Israeli control and undermining the foundations on which an independent Palestinian state can be built, which reduces the chances of achieving the traditional two-state solution.

Q. Therefore, Netanyahu overlooked the increasing militarization in the West Bank and overlooked the development of Hamas’s capabilities in Gaza.

A. Yes, it can be said that Benjamin Netanyahu has followed a strategy based on managing the conflict rather than resolving it, which includes overlooking some developments on the ground, whether in the West Bank or in the Gaza Strip, to achieve his political goals.

1. Chaos in the West Bank:

• Weakening the Palestinian Authority: By overlooking the increasing security chaos and the decline in the authority of the Palestinian government in some areas of the West Bank, Netanyahu seems to have sought to weaken the position of the Palestinian Authority. The weakness of the Palestinian Authority is used as an excuse not to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state capable of self-rule.

• Weakening internal opposition: The weakness of the Palestinian Authority may create a state of instability that leads to increased protests and unrest, allowing the Israeli government to say that the Palestinian partner is not reliable and cannot manage an independent state.

2. Developing Hamas’ capabilities in Gaza:

• Divide and Conquer Policy: Ignoring Hamas’s development of capabilities in Gaza may be part of a “divide and conquer” strategy, whereby the division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority is maintained. This division reinforces Israel’s position that it does not find a unified Palestinian partner with whom it can negotiate.

• Managing the conflict with Hamas: Rather than completely eliminating Hamas or engaging in a comprehensive confrontation with it, Netanyahu may have preferred to keep Hamas under control through intermittent rounds of escalation and calm. This approach allows him to avoid getting involved in a full-scale war with Gaza while at the same time maintaining the balance of power that prevents Hamas from actually threatening Israel.

• Establishing the existing reality: Ignoring Hamas’s development of capabilities may help establish a political and security reality that serves Israeli interests, whereby the conflict remains within certain limits without the situation turning into a permanent solution that involves the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

3. Using chaos and escalation as political tools:

• Strengthening the domestic position: Using escalation and security chaos as tools to strengthen Netanyahu’s domestic position, where he appears as a strong leader who deals with security threats with determination.

• Reducing international pressure: Allowing a continuing threat could be used to divert attention from international pressure to other issues, such as the peace process, and instead focus on security and counterterrorism issues.

In short, Netanyahu appears to have used a combination of deliberate disregard and tactical conflict management to maintain the status quo, which he sees as more beneficial to Israeli interests than trying to reach a final resolution to the conflict.

Q. And Gaza served to market the idea that a Palestinian state would be similar to Gaza and would threaten Israeli existence, giving him an excuse to persuade the world not to support this approach

A. Yes, it can be argued that Netanyahu used the situation in the Gaza Strip as a tool to market the idea that the establishment of a Palestinian state would be similar to the situation in Gaza, posing a threat to Israeli security. This strategy contributes to strengthening his arguments against supporting the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Here is how this strategy could be used:

1. Promoting the security threat

• Comparing it to Gaza: Netanyahu suggests that any potential Palestinian state would be similar to the situation in Gaza, controlled by Hamas, which Israel considers a terrorist organization. Thus, the establishment of a Palestinian state is promoted as a permanent threat to Israel, similar to the threats it faces from Gaza.

• Escalation as evidence: The repeated escalations between Israel and Hamas in Gaza are used as evidence of the seriousness of the situation, reinforcing the idea that any Palestinian state would be unstable and pose a threat to Israeli security.

2. Emphasis on instability

• Security situation: The security situation in Gaza is used to emphasize the instability of Palestinian rule in Gaza, reinforcing the argument that the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank could face similar problems. This argument is intended to demonstrate that a Palestinian state would be unable to maintain order and security.

• Failure of governance: Pointing to Hamas’s failure to govern Gaza is used as evidence of the Palestinians’ inability to effectively govern an independent state, supporting his argument against the idea of establishing a Palestinian state.

3. Marketing Israeli policy

• Continuation of the status quo: By portraying Gaza as an example of what might happen if a Palestinian state were established, Netanyahu justifies his continued policies that strengthen Israeli control over the Palestinian territories. This includes strengthening settlements, enhancing security measures, and emphasizing the lack of a reliable Palestinian partner.

• Directing international pressure: Promoting the idea that a Palestinian state would be a threat helps reduce international pressure on Israel to make concessions in peace negotiations. It is also used to bolster domestic and international support for Israeli policies that do not include a final settlement of the Palestinian issue.

4. Taking advantage of internal Palestinian conflicts

• Palestinian division: Netanyahu promotes the idea that the division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank shows the Palestinians’ inability to form a unified government, which weakens their position in negotiations with Israel. In his view, any permanent solution requires a unified and stable Palestinian government, which he sees as impossible under current circumstances.

5. Convincing the international community

• Threat to regional security: By marketing the idea that a Palestinian state would be similar to Gaza and pose a threat to regional security, Netanyahu is trying to convince the international community that supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state could destabilize the region in general, which constitutes an argument against any steps toward establishing a Palestinian state.

In short, using the situation in Gaza as a pretext to market the idea that a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israeli security is part of Netanyahu’s strategy to convince the world not to support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This strategy aims to maintain the status quo and promote Israeli policies that do not include a two-state solution.

Q. So Hamas helped the Israeli far-right camp achieve its goals of coming to power and the left-wing camp reduced support for the peace process

A. Yes, it can be said that the situation created by Hamas in the Gaza Strip has indirectly contributed to promoting the goals of the far-right camp in Israel, and thus reduced the left-wing camp’s support for the peace process. This effect is evident in several aspects:

1. Strengthening the security position of the right-wing camp

• Promoting the Hamas threat: The right-wing camp in Israel used Hamas’s threats as an argument to promote strong security policies and Israeli control over the Palestinian territories. The presence of Hamas in Gaza, which is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, strengthens the right-wing position that calls for maintaining full security control and not making concessions to the Palestinians.

• The security threat: The repeated rocket attacks and escalations from Gaza are used as justification for refusing to make any concessions in negotiations with the Palestinians, which strengthens the position of the right-wing camp that sees peaceful solutions as impractical under the current security conditions.

2. Hamas’s influence on Israeli domestic politics

• Rising support for the right: The escalation of threats from Gaza strengthened support for the right-wing camp in the Israeli elections, as right-wing leaders took advantage of security concerns to increase their popularity and reach power. This helped the right achieve its political goals and influence Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

• Decreasing support for the left: With the increase in security concerns over Hamas attacks, the left-wing camp’s support for the peace process declined. The Israeli left, which used to promote peaceful and negotiated solutions, found it difficult to attract public support in light of the tense security situation. This contributed to reducing its influence in Israeli politics.

3. Scaling back peace efforts

• Rejection of peace initiatives: The Israeli right used the situation in Gaza as a pretext to reject peace initiatives and negotiations with the Palestinians, as it believes that any peace agreement may be unsustainable due to the instability of the situation in Gaza. This helped reduce international pressure on Israel to make concessions in peace negotiations.

• Obstruction of the political process: The negative impact of the situation in Gaza on the peace process strengthens the position of the right, which believes that any settlement with the Palestinians will lead to increased security threats. This contributes to impeding any progress towards a two-state solution or any other peaceful solutions.

4. Hamas’s Benefit from the Israeli Political Situation

• Strengthening Hamas’s Position: By demonstrating its ability to resist the occupation and refuse to negotiate with Israel, Hamas strengthens its position in the Palestinian street and benefits from popular support at the expense of the Palestinian Authority and peace efforts.

• Impact on Negotiations: Escalating the situation in Gaza may complicate Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and make it difficult to achieve any progress, which contributes to the continuation of the political stalemate and the dominance of the right-wing camp that rejects peaceful solutions.

5. Manipulating International Strategies

• Impact on International Support: Using Hamas as a tool to increase security concerns may affect international support for Palestinian rights and the two-state solution. This strengthens the position of the Israeli right internationally, as it seeks to reduce international pressure on Israel.

In short, the situation in Gaza, especially the strengthening of Hamas’s capabilities and the increasing escalation, has helped the extreme right-wing camp in Israel achieve its political goals, which has reduced the left-wing camp’s support for the peace process and affected the possibility of achieving progress towards the two-state solution.

Q. Hamas realized that Israel, with its extreme right-wing camp, was using it to achieve its agenda and was aware of this, so it planned to tip the scales and attack Israel

A. Yes, Hamas may have realized at times that the extreme right-wing camp in Israel is using the situation in Gaza as a means to achieve its political goals, and so it may have taken some steps to try to change the equation and achieve its own goals. This awareness may be manifested in several aspects:

1. Taking advantage of the Israeli political situation

• Realizing that Hamas is being used: Hamas may have realized that the Israeli right-wing camp is using it as a pretext to strengthen its security policies and demand that it not make concessions to the Palestinians. This realization may be a motive for Hamas to take steps aimed at changing this situation and regaining the initiative.

2. Military planning and attacks

• Increased escalation: In an attempt to change the balance of power, Hamas may have planned to increase military escalation against Israel, including rocket attacks and cross-border infiltration, in an attempt to put pressure on the Israeli government and demonstrate its ability to influence the security situation.

• Show of force: These attacks may also be an attempt to show Hamas’s strength and ability to challenge Israel, which strengthens its position in the Palestinian arena and attracts popular support.

3. Attempting to influence Israeli policy

• Creating security crises: Through escalation, Hamas may seek to create security crises that affect the internal situation in Israel, which may lead to a change in the balance of political power in Israel or stimulate international reactions that may affect right-wing policies.

• Putting pressure on the international community: Escalating the situation may also seek to attract the attention of the international community to pressure Israel, which may strengthen the international community’s calls for more serious negotiations and peaceful solutions.

4. Improving its domestic and international standing

• Strengthening influence: By effectively confronting Israel, Hamas may seek to strengthen its position in the Palestinian arena, demonstrating its ability to resist the occupation and challenge Israeli policies.

• Popular support: Escalation may help Hamas strengthen its popular support in Gaza and the West Bank, especially in light of the difficult conditions and economic pressures facing the Palestinians.

5. Crisis management and control of the situation

• Dealing with Israeli reactions: Sometimes, Hamas may also be trying to manage Israeli reactions through strategies that include temporary calm or organizing controlled attacks to minimize the damage and impact on its political and military position.

6. Challenges facing Hamas

• Economic and humanitarian pressures: As the military situation escalates, Hamas may face significant challenges related to economic and humanitarian pressures in Gaza, which may affect its ability to continue escalation and provide support to the citizens of Gaza.

In short, Hamas may have realized that the Israeli right-wing camp is using it as a tool to achieve its political goals, and it may have tried, through escalating the military situation and attacks, to change the balance in its favor or strengthen its position in the Palestinian and international arena. This escalation could be an attempt to reduce pressure on Gaza and regain the initiative in the conflict with Israel.

Q. There are points of convergence between the goals of the Israeli far right and those of Hamas

A. Yes, there are some points of convergence between the goals of the Israeli far right and those of Hamas, although each has different goals and different methods to achieve them. The points of convergence can be summarized as follows:

1. Perpetuating conflict and tensions

• The Israeli far right: often promotes policies that increase conflict and tension, such as expanding settlements and imposing strict security measures, which can lead to an escalation of tensions with the Palestinians. This conflict strengthens their political position and reduces international pressure on them.

• Hamas: may seek to maintain a state of tension and conflict as a means of strengthening its position in the Palestinian street and highlighting its resistance to the Israeli occupation. Military escalation helps it promote itself as a defender of Palestinian rights.

2. Dealing with Palestinian divisions

• The Israeli far right: takes advantage of divisions between Palestinian factions, such as the division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, to undermine Palestinian efforts to reach a political settlement. Divisions make it difficult for Palestinians to form a unified position against Israeli policies.

• Hamas: It may seek to exploit political divisions between Palestinian factions to strengthen its control over Gaza and weaken the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. At times, Hamas may support escalation of tensions to improve its position inside Gaza and on the international stage.

3. Justifying policies before the international community

• The Israeli far right: It uses the security situation and escalation by Hamas as a pretext to strengthen its security policies and settlement expansion, justifying its rejection of peace initiatives and Palestinian rights.

• Hamas: It uses escalation and resistance as a means to draw the international community’s attention to the suffering of the Palestinians and to request support, which contributes to highlighting Palestinian issues on the international stage.

4. Marketing local and international positions

• The Israeli far right: It takes advantage of tense conditions as a means to strengthen its internal political position, as it can demonstrate the government’s strength in the face of security threats.

• Hamas: It takes advantage of escalation as a means to strengthen its position internally and enhance popular support by adopting a resistance position against Israel.

5. Influencing Palestinian Authority policy

• The Israeli far right: Strengthens its position against the Palestinian Authority through escalation and the security problems that accompany it, which weakens the Authority’s ability to negotiate or implement effective policies.

• Hamas: It may seek to increase pressure on the Palestinian Authority by escalating the conflict, which further weakens the Authority and strengthens Hamas’s position as an alternative resistance force.

6. Taking advantage of humanitarian crises

• The Israeli far right: It may take advantage of the humanitarian crises that occur in Gaza to confirm its position that the Palestinians are unable to manage crises effectively, which justifies its security and expansionist policies.

• Hamas: It uses humanitarian crises as a means to attract humanitarian and political support, and presents itself as a defender of Palestinian rights in the face of the occupation’s policies.

7. Avoiding a peaceful settlement

• The Israeli far right: It opposes peaceful solutions that include making concessions or establishing a Palestinian state, and uses the ongoing conflict as a means to avoid negotiations.

• Hamas: It may seek to escalate the conflict as a means to reject peaceful solutions that do not achieve its goals, and to maintain the status quo so that the Palestinian issue remains alive in the international arena.

In short, there are points of convergence between the goals of the Israeli far right and Hamas, as each benefits from the continuation of the conflict and tensions to achieve its own goals. This convergence complicates peace efforts and reinforces the continuation of the current situation without fundamental changes.

Q. Hamas seeks to restore the Israeli occupation of all of historical Palestine, and this constitutes the core of its strategy, thus ensuring the preservation of the claim to all of historical Palestine.

A. Yes, Hamas’s strategy revolves around the following goals:

1. Re-occupation of all of historical Palestine

• Strategic goals: Hamas seeks to remove the Israeli occupation from all of the lands it considers historical Palestine, including the lands that constitute the current state of Israel. This means that its goal goes beyond merely ending the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to include all of the lands included in historical Palestine.

• Political discourse: Hamas often emphasizes in its political discourse that Palestine is a historical Islamic land that must be returned to the Palestinians. This discourse reinforces its position as a resistance movement working to liberate all of the Palestinian lands from the Israeli occupation.

2. Adherence to the claim to the entire Palestinian land

• Rejection of negotiated solutions: Hamas rejects peaceful solutions that include dividing the Palestinian land into two states, such as the two-state solution. Instead, it insists on the rights of Palestinians to the entire historical lands of Palestine.

• Demand for Jerusalem: Hamas considers Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, to be part of historical Palestine, and believes that any political settlement must include Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.

3. Strategy of resistance and liberation

• Military methods: Hamas relies on armed resistance as a means to achieve its goals, including attacks on Israeli forces and settlements. This strategy aims to increase pressure on Israel and keep the Palestinian issue alive in the international arena.

• Development of military capabilities: Hamas invests in developing its military capabilities and tactics to confront the Israeli occupation, which strengthens its position as a continuing resistance force.

4. Commitment to Palestinian constants

• Rejection of concessions: Hamas rejects concessions that may include recognizing Israel or making concessions on Palestinian rights. Its position focuses on the right of return for all Palestinian refugees and rejects any solutions that do not align with its goals.

• Demanding Palestinian rights: Hamas seeks to achieve full Palestinian rights, including the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the establishment of a Palestinian state on all historical lands.

5. Impact on international negotiations

• Complicating the peace process: Hamas’s position contributes to complicating international peace efforts, as the Palestinian issue remains irresolvable within the framework of negotiations that include the division of territory and the establishment of two states. This position affects political dynamics and makes reaching a peaceful settlement more difficult.

6. Strengthening its domestic position

• Popular support: By adhering to Palestinian constants and resistance, Hamas seeks to strengthen its popular support in the Palestinian territories, especially in the Gaza Strip, where it is considered a major resistance force.

7. International and local reactions

• Impact on Israeli policy: Hamas’s position puts pressure on Israel, as Israel uses this position as an excuse to strengthen its security policies and settlement expansion.

• International community: Hamas seeks to influence the international community by highlighting issues of Palestinian human rights and justice, which affects international interaction with the conflict.

In short, Hamas’s strategy focuses on regaining all historical Palestinian lands and restoring the Israeli occupation. This goal forms the core of its strategy and affects the Palestinian position in international negotiations and policies.

Q. So here Hamas meets with the extreme Israeli right, which demands the entire land of Palestine and rejects concessions and rejects a Palestinian state, although they are in complete opposition.

A. Yes, there are unexpected similarities between the goals of Hamas and the extreme Israeli right, although their positions appear contradictory on the surface. These similarities can be explained as follows:

1. Rejection of political concessions

• Hamas: Rejects political concessions that may include recognizing Israel or making concessions on Palestinian rights, including the right of return and establishing a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. Hamas stresses the need to restore all of historical Palestine.

• The extreme Israeli right: Opposes making any concessions to the Palestinians, including withdrawal from the occupied territories or establishing a Palestinian state. It also rejects the idea of dividing Jerusalem or recognizing a Palestinian state.

Q. This is where the strange rapprochement between the extreme right camp and Hamas began since its inception

A. The strange rapprochement between the Israeli far-right camp and Hamas, despite their apparent divergence in goals, can be understood through several historical and political factors:

1. Exacerbating the conflict

• The far-right: contributed to strengthening settlements and controlling Palestinian lands, which led to the escalation of the conflict and complicated peace efforts. The far-right took advantage of the escalation of tensions to impose its security and expansionist policies.

• Hamas: took advantage of the escalation of tensions as a means to support its resistance position and strengthen its popular support in Gaza. The ongoing conflict strengthens Hamas’s position as a resistance movement and increases its internal cohesion.

2. Expanding the scope of the conflict

• The far-right: opposes any peaceful settlement that might lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, and takes advantage of the continuation of the conflict to strengthen its expansionist policies, such as expanding settlements and imposing strict security measures.

• Hamas: seeks to escalate the conflict as a means of resisting the occupation and strengthening its position as a defender of Palestinian rights, and uses this conflict to justify its military strategies.

3. Exploiting Palestinian divisions

• The far-right: takes advantage of the division between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to strengthen its policies and refuse to make concessions. Division weakens the unified Palestinian position and enhances the right's ability to impose its policies.

• Hamas: Exploits Palestinian political divisions to strengthen its position in Gaza and enhance its control, which strengthens its position as a resistance force and weakens the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

4. Rejection of peaceful solutions

• The extreme right: Rejects peaceful solutions that include making concessions or dividing lands, and works to strengthen Israel's control over the disputed territories.

• Hamas: Rejects any peaceful settlement that includes dividing Palestine or recognizing Israel, and insists on the need to restore all historical Palestinian lands.

5. The impact of escalation on local policies

• The extreme right: Uses escalation as a means to strengthen its domestic political position, as it shows its strength in the face of security threats, which enhances its popularity.

• Hamas: Benefiting from the escalation to strengthen its popular support in Gaza and the West Bank, demonstrating its ability to resist the occupation and challenge Israeli policies.

6. Convergence in strategic objectives

• The extreme right: Focuses on strengthening Israeli control and not making concessions to the Palestinians, which strengthens its position in the face of international pressure.

• Hamas: Seeks to resist the occupation and regain all Palestinian territories, which strengthens its position as a resistance force and rejects solutions that include making concessions.

7. Influencing the political process

• The extreme right: Using the ongoing conflict as a pretext to avoid negotiations and settlements, which hinders peace efforts.

• Hamas: Complicating the political process by rejecting peaceful solutions and escalating the conflict, which keeps the Palestinian issue alive on the international stage.

8. Exploiting humanitarian crises

• The extreme right: Benefiting from humanitarian crises to justify its security policies and expand settlements.

• Hamas: Using humanitarian crises as a means to attract international support and highlight the suffering of the Palestinians, which strengthens its position as a resistance movement.

Conclusion

The strange rapprochement between the extreme right camp and Hamas since its inception is due to complex interactions involving political and security strategies that perpetuate the conflict and hinder peace efforts. Each side takes advantage of the status quo to achieve its own goals, which perpetuates the conflict and complicates the peace process.