***

 

Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians has changed over the years becoming more pragmatic and successfully sidelining its more ideological Zionist players. With the onset of the Oslo accords Israel has moved towards the position of a “two-state solution.” This has gained more traction to the point where Sharon’s Kadima party pushed this strongly at the expense of Sharon’s more conservative traditional constituency. Moreover the US, as exemplified by the Bush administration position has been working towards the same strategy with the Israelis. The “two-state solution” is not a humane realization by the Israelis and its US allies, but rather the fulfillment of the Zionist dream. This dream is to have a Jewish state in the land of Palestine, that is recognized and its existence unquestioned by all including those that surround it. In saying its existence is to be unquestioned I mean to say that Israel wants to erase the memory of Palestine before the declaration of Israel. It wants to erase the notion that there was a time prior to Israel, hence affirming its nationalist myth of a Jewish people on a Jewish land. Standing in the way of this dream is the Palestinian national liberation movement, which holds as one of its essential demands the right of return for Palestinian refugees.[i] 

 

The Palestinian refugee question and the Palestinian demand for the right of return is an essential cry of the Palestinian movement. Palestinian refugees even more than fifty years later have preserved their land deeds and keys to their former homes not only as a reminder of their rights and their homes, but also in direct opposition to Zionist mythology of a land without a people, and Israeli policy to erase the land conquered and settled from any memory of its former inhabitants.

 

Israel wants to rid itself of this issue. It aims to do this by transforming the Palestinian question from one of a national liberation movement’s call for liberation to a conflict between two sovereign states over borders. Within the “two-state solution” paradigm Palestine will be given sovereignty over its land and be recognized as a state. This state will have pre-defined borders that were developed by Israel and clearly demarcated by Israel’s “security wall.” The wall already outlines the borders of the Palestinian state, one that is based on Israeli wishes, and outside of the negotiation paradigm. Any changes to the border as already demarcated by the wall will require pricey concessions by Palestinians. Moreover the “two state solution” as forwarded by Israel and the US calls for shifting the refugee question to something that the Palestinian state and other Arab states have to resolve.[ii] Any further problems become one between two states, rather than between an occupier and occupied, colonizer and colonized, a colonial state and a national liberation movement.

 

The Israeli version of the “two state solution” is a tall order, one that requires a Palestinian authority willing to accept it and cannot be done unilaterally by Israel. The former Palestinian president Yasser Arafat, someone who was willing to compromise so much of the Palestinian aspirations away, was still not willing to make those concessions. Arafat understood that making those concessions will have meant the end of the Palestinian movement without it having achieved its main goals. He did not want that to be a part of his legacy. It is for this reason that Israel essentially stopped recognizing Arafat, putting his office in Ramallah under siege in the latter part of his life, claiming that he was no longer a “partner in peace.”[iii] This was followed up by the US president’s explicit call for an end to Arafat’s presidency, another example of Tel Aviv and Washington’s convergence in dealing with the Palestinian question.[iv]    

 

Israel and the US attempted to remove the roadblock to their “two state solution,” namely Arafat and the legacy of the PLO, by introducing a new person, Mahmoud Abbas: “in 2003, under pressure from the United States and members of his own Cabinet, Arafat appointed Abbas to the new position of prime minister”.[v] Abbas would later resign because Arafat did not give him enough power. With Arafat’s death in November of 2004 the circumstances changed, and with the election of Abbas as Palestinian president the “two-state solution” became an achievable goal.   The positioning of Abbas as the leader of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Fatah was pre-meditated by Israeli government, which had cleared the way for Abbas by removing through incarceration and assassination other prominent Fatah leaders who could replace Arafat. Most notable of these leaders is Marwan Barghouti, former leader of Fatah’s military wing, the Tanzim. Mahmoud Abbas is a key figure because he is one of the few people along with his cadre who are willing to make the necessary concessions that will actualize Israel’s “two state solution” as it sees fit.

 

The coming to power of Abbas was a short-lived opening for Israel, with the surprise victory of Hamas in January of 2006.   This highlighted the importance of neutralizing Hamas and its influence, in order to reaffirm Abbas and his government. Israel along with the quartet (US, EU, Russia, and the UN) attempted to undermine Hamas by cutting off aid to occupied Palestine. Palestine’s economy without it being able to take advantage of tourism, revolved around providing labor for the Israeli economy, with the authorities in Palestine responsible for social control and reproduction of that labor force. This changes after the second Intifada with the structural relationship of the Palestinian population going from a cheap segmented labor force for the Israeli economy to a surplus population, putting in a structurally more vulnerable position. Thus Palestinian economy was heavily dependant on foreign aid, and its cutting off would immobilize Hamas from carrying out any of its domestic plans, and basically disabling it from governing. Hamas in the face of efforts by the quartet, Israel, and Fatah to undermine its authority took control over Gaza ousting Fatah, which was followed up on by Fatah ousting Hamas from the West Bank. In part this was due to Fatah’s unwillingness to relinquish control of the Palestinian Authority to Hamas, a move supported by Israel and the quartet. This allowed the boycott of the Palestinian territories to be focused on Gaza, and negotiations began again with Abbas touted as the moderate and model Palestinian leader by the US and Israel. Having ousted Hamas from the West Bank, Gaza became the Alamo, the last place to drive Hamas out of.   It is here that we currently find ourselves in, and it is here where the current Israeli campaign fits within.

 

The ruthless Israeli assault on Gaza has two main objectives: deterrence and unifying Gaza and the West Bank under Abbas’s Fatah. Israel as it did with Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 wants to ensure that everyone is sure of its “readiness to fight, and to inflict enough death and destruction so that foes think twice about attacking”.[vi] In this way it wants to move the situation where it takes out military confrontation as a means for any actor, state or non-state. Specifically this is a message that Israel wants to send to Iran. It is within this objective that Israel has concentrated its PR campaign, legitimizing its brutal and inhumane activities as somehow civilized and rational. However the more important objective, I believe is the latter one. Through its vicious bombardment of Gaza, Israel aims to set back Hamas militarily, severely damaging Hamas organizationally putting it on the defensive and making it more difficult for it to respond to the changing political situation. Moreover it attempts to send a message that even though people can agree with Hamas rhetorically, the repercussions of allowing it to govern are too severe. In this way Israel does not want Hamas to come out of this current situation as looking like it is able to govern, and wants it weakened to the point that will enable Fatah to regain control over Gaza. The latter it hopes can be achieved through either brute force by installing Fatah in Gaza, or through a negotiated settlement between Hamas and Fatah that can be facilitated by Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. 

 

If it is able to bring back Fatah’s dominance over both Gaza and the West Bank, Israel will move to restart negotiations. It will also push its allies in the quartet to strengthen Abbas’s position within Palestine by providing him much needed aid. We already are beginning to see this plan moving forward. In a speech given at the State Department on January 22nd, President Obama stated that “As part of a lasting ceasefire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime, with the international and Palestinian Authority participating…The United States will fully support an international donor’s conference to seek short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term reconstruction for the Palestinian economy. This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority.’ Across the Atlantic Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, whose country holds the EU presidency stated that “Palestinian reconciliation behind president Mahmoud Abbas is fundamental to progress” and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband commented that the “reunification of the Palestinian people with a single voice to speak to them, to speak for the West Bank and for Gaza is absolutely essential.’[vii]  The insistence on unification under Abbas, in addition to the Palestinian Authority controlling aid to Gaza as well as its border crossings is an effort to bring back Fatah security forces back into Gaza along with its functionaries who currently only control the West Bank. Following this short term measure, then a donor conference is held where two things will occur: 1) promise aid based on neo-liberal economic foundations, not only linking Palestine to transnational capital circuits, but also creating a Palestinian elite who is materially integrated in transnational circuits 2) to channel the aid through the PA.   This will give the PA the capital to invest into services and “reconstruction’ that can be used to build legitimacy for its authority in opposition to Hamas. The Obama administration can play an important role for the Israeli regime in this crucial time when it needs international legitimacy, which it will borrow from Obama’s reserve of political capital.

 

 

If we understand the Israeli strategy to be the one explained above, then the Palestinians have much to fear even after the bombs stop falling on them in Gaza. Beyond Israel and the US the most dangerous enemies and roadblocks to Palestinian aspirations is Fatah in its current manifestation under Mahmoud Abbas and the Arab states who do Israel’s bidding (due to their convergent interests), namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. 

 

This does not mean that Hamas is somehow unproblematic and the solution for the Palestinian people. I simply aim to show how problematic Fatah has become to the dreams of the Palestinian people that they once championed, and the hypocritical position of the Arab states that call for Arab nationalism when it benefits them and turn a blind eye to massacres the following month.  

 

The Palestinian national liberation movement itself is important, and its demands sacrosanct.   Even though I do not think it is my place to say what the Palestinian people should agree to, especially knowing the great oppressions and criminal behavior that they have had to endure, I believe that the national liberation movement itself and its continuance is a leverage that the Palestinians have. The movement should be ended only upon concessions made by the Israelis.