Bishara: “As long as the American-Israeli agreement continues on the goal of the war, and as long as there are no real steps from the Arab countries, the war of annihilation against the Gaza Strip will continue.”

“Arab TV” broadcast a special interview with the Arab thinker and the Director General of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, Dr. Azmi Bishara, to talk about the ongoing Israeli war on the Gaza Strip since last October 7.

Bishara pointed out during the meeting that the three conditions for Israel to stop its aggression are that the Israeli consensus on the war be violated, that the American-Israeli agreement on the goal of the aggression, i.e. eliminating the Hamas movement, be disturbed, and that the major Arab countries take real steps of the type of serious threat to sever relations with Israel. He believed that it is in the interest of everyone at the level of countries and powers in the region that Israel does not achieve its goals in the war on Gaza.

Regarding Hezbollah, Bishara said that any entry into the war would not change the situation in Gaza, but rather would increase the price paid by Israel.

Bishara pointed out that as long as there is an Israeli consensus on restoring balance, prestige and revenge through war, and as long as the American-Israeli agreement continues on the goal of the war, and as long as there are no real steps from the Arab countries, the war of annihilation against the Gaza Strip will continue. .

He stressed that “in light of the current balance of power, the decision is exclusively on the ground, because imposing a ceasefire is impossible to achieve except with a change in the level of the Israeli consensus on the war, and with a disruption in the American-Israeli agreement on the central goal of the war, i.e. eliminating Hamas, and with the Arab countries taking positions.” A real process of severing its relations with Israel or a real threat to sever them.” In conclusion, “now is not the time for political initiatives, but rather for resistance, fighting, and steadfastness,” in Bishara’s opinion.

Bishara warned that if Israel completes its plan in agreement with America, American and Israeli arrogance will double with all the countries and forces of the region, wondering, “How will these countries be dealt with, with respect when they were not even able to bring in aid and evacuate the wounded?”

He considered that Israel's failure to achieve its goal in the war was in the interest of all countries and forces in the region. In his opinion, there is a factor that may change the course of the war, which is for the Arab countries to take steps related to normalization with Israel and severing relations with it, instead of simply summoning ambassadors, for example, and this is something that would change the American calculations that are strongly concerned with an Arab-Israeli rapprochement that would reassure it to continue giving priority to its projects in the Far east, “there is no alternative to the Arabs for Washington in the region,” as Bishara put it.

In this context, Bishara described the refusal of Arab officials to discuss “the day after” the war and who will rule Gaza after “Hamas” with US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, in Amman on Saturday, and their insistence that the only issue worth discussing currently is the ceasefire, as a good thing.  Bishara also concluded that the words of Arab officials about the necessity of establishing international courts to try Israeli officials have little real value, “because the one who is tried is always the one who is defeated historically.” Instead, Bishara pointed out that “the weakest belief is that Egypt will open the Rafah crossing without coordination with Israel regarding at least aid and the wounded.”

In response to a question about the course of the aggression and its goals for Israel, Bishara reiterated his opinion that the war has one goal for Israel, not two: eliminating the Hamas movement. As for the goal of liberating Israeli prisoners, “it is subordinate to the first and is not what is important.” Indeed, the Tel Aviv rulers’ statement that the release of detained Israelis is one of the goals of the war “is talk that contradicts itself, because the bombing may kill some of these prisoners and may weaken Hamas’ desire to release them. Moreover, the Israeli leadership today rejects a truce for more than 24 hours to release civilians. This does not express any interest It has in the lives of Israeli prisoners,” according to Dr. Bishara.

Bishara recalled that the Hamas movement announced its agreement to release all Israeli prisoners in exchange for all Palestinian prisoners, these words were echoed by Israeli officials before Hamas, but this is impossible to happen because it will be portrayed as an achievement for the resistance and Israeli decision-makers will not agree to it. Bishara revealed. The problem currently does not lie in the number of people being released, but rather in two things for Israeli officials: first, they are negotiating humanitarian truces that they refuse to exceed 24 hours in exchange for the release of Israelis detained in the Gaza Strip, and second, the issue of fuel, as we are facing a country in which the situation has reached to the point that it offers to allow the entry of some fuel in exchange for the return of the hostages in the Gaza Strip, while a truce is necessary to collect the hostages if negotiations for their release progress, Bishara says.

In response to a question about the possibility of a change in the American position in absolute support of the aggression, Bishara replied that this is possible “if there is a major change in American public opinion, and this is possible if the resistance endures.” He noted that a change has already begun to appear in American and even European public opinion, despite the fact that most Western media outlets are “complicit in the war,” according to Bishara, who pointed out that there is a general feeling that people in the West are starting to get tired and see the amount of lies.

As for the recent speech by the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, he explained that Nasrallah was not expected to declare war in a speech, nor was he required to declare war, and he recalled that the majority of the Lebanese reject Lebanon’s involvement in a comprehensive war, and “Hezbollah,” after becoming more and more involved in Lebanese affairs, acted pragmatically in not blowing up a comprehensive confrontation. He said on this issue that Hezbollah is currently causing Israel to pay a price, “but the nature of the war on Gaza does not change what happens on the border with Lebanon, meaning that Hezbollah’s involvement in a comprehensive war does not change the course of what is happening in Gaza.” He stopped at the fact that what is happening on the Lebanese-Israeli border “is a change in the rules of engagement,” meaning that the losses that either party must pay before reaching a comprehensive war have become much greater than they were previously, as evidenced by the death toll on both sides in the clashes. What happened since October 8, although large, did not lead to a comprehensive war, while a much smaller toll recorded in 2006 led to a war of the size we saw that year. Bishara expressed his conviction that "there is no decision for war for Israel and Hezbollah, but things may turn towards that, and this matter may also be regional." The director of the "Arab Center" warned that "the Israeli voices calling for an attack on Hezbollah after Gaza are very numerous," and concluded that the theory of the balance of deterrence has ended for Israel because this balance can only be with countries and not with organizations and factions. Therefore, if it does not shift, Hezbollah will become a more organic part of the Lebanese political fabric, that is, if it does not become the Lebanese state, the Israeli desire to eliminate it will increase.

In a related matter, Bishara expressed his confidence that Iran has no intention of participating in the war, and described its positions in Yemen, Iraq and Syria as related to Iranian regional interests that involve calculations that have nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinian issue. He said that the targeting of American bases in Iraq, for example, is an Iranian response to the American message related to sending American aircraft carriers and military battleships to the region. Regarding the solidarity of the Syrian people, after all their suffering, with the Palestinian cause, Bishara said that it is a solidarity that is not adequately appreciated. As for the absence of the Syrian regime stance regarding the war on Gaza, Bishara expressed his belief that this is one of the results of “the end of Syria as a state” after all the war that the regime committed against its people and the mismanagement of the crisis in its country 12 years ago to the point that “Syria has returned to an arena without State,” as he put it.

On the other hand, in response to a question about the possibility of implementing the scenario of displacing the residents of Gaza to Sinai, Bishara recalled that displacement has been a systematic policy since the founding of the State of Israel, and this has been happening in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza for decades as a result of the restrictions on the lives of the residents of those areas. In his opinion, the dream of getting rid of the people of the Gaza Strip at once, although it exists in the desires of many Israeli officials, is impossible to achieve as long as the countries concerned with the issue refuse to do so, especially Egypt. Therefore, it is difficult for Israel to get rid of the Palestinians of Gaza except through extermination.

Regarding the level of Israeli popular pressure currently being exerted on Netanyahu, Bishara pointed out that there is constant doubt about his ability to lead the battle and there is no trust between him and the army leadership, so he was forced to bring former generals into the “war cabinet.” Likewise, with regard to the pressure on him against the backdrop of the Israeli prisoners, this pressure currently exists, but it has not yet reached the point of explosion, and this, according to Bishara’s assessment, is something that the Hamas movement must rely on because Netanyahu’s policy of this barbaric bombing contradicts the goal of releasing these people through some mediation.

Regarding the positions of the Palestinian Authority and its performance since the start of the aggression on Gaza and the implicit Israeli war on the West Bank, Bishara noted an absence of authority from many political aspects of the event, internally and with the Arab countries. Regarding this issue, Bishara recalled that the Authority did not sign the Oslo Accords with the settlers, wondering, “Why do its security services not confront them in the areas of the West Bank, since these people are even outside Israeli law?” Regarding the political shortcomings of the authority, Bishara touched on its failure to clearly and accurately define its demands from Arab countries such as Egypt regarding opening the Rafah crossing, for example.

The global anti-war movement had a large role in the “Arab TV” interview with Dr. Azmi Bishara, who described that massive movement in the West in particular as “the main asset of the universal moral, humanitarian dimension of the Palestine issue,” far from any ideology. Regarding the participation of many Jews in the West in the massive demonstrations against the Israeli war, he considered it the clearest evidence that the problem is not with the Jews, but with Zionism, with Israel’s policies, and with colonialism and occupation. “Therefore, it is important that we address the world with universal moral and human values,” according to his words.

Regarding the human cost of this aggression, which is almost entering its second month, Bishara stressed the necessity of not getting used to these massacres and “normalizing” them. He explained this huge number of martyrs by saying that the war was given an immoral basis from the beginning, expressed in the terms of Israeli officials such as President Isaac Herzog, who asserted that there were no innocents in Gaza, “otherwise they would revolt against the Hamas movement,” or Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant described the residents of the Gaza Strip as "Human animals" without any Western official condemning them. Bishara noted how, in the beginning, Israeli officials were trying to justify their crimes, such as what happened in the Baptist Hospital massacre, but today they no longer even have to justify it, since the bombing of hospitals and schools did not find any condemnation from world leaders.