In the Israel-Hamas war, an emblematic battle for Al Shifa hospital

Fighting raged around Gaza City’s main Al Shifa hospital on Friday in the 12th day of operations by the Israeli military around the hospital complex. It is the second time in six months that Israeli forces have sought to oust Hamas fighters from the area.

Fighting around the Al-Shifa hospital in the Gaza Strip continued on Friday in what is now the Israeli army’s longest-running “targeted operation” in its war against Hamas. This is Israel’s second assault on this hospital complex, the largest and oldest in the Palestinian enclave, since the start of the war on October 7.

Around a thousand Israeli soldiers, backed by tanks, entered the Al Shifa hospital complex on March 18, in the second offensive to “cleanse” the hospital of fighters from Hamas and its ally, Islamic Jihad.

A tactical success

This second incursion should have been swift, since the Israeli army had already announced in November, during the first assault, that it had “emptied” the premises of Hamas combatants. The first operation was also supposed to have enabled Israel to block a maze of tunnels under the hospital used by Palestinian fighters.


Fighting has rocked the Gaza City district around Al Shifa Hospital since March 18, 2024. © France Médias Monde graphics studio

 

Not only has the current Israeli attack dragged on, but fighting has also spread to the area around the gigantic hospital complex. Hamas was able to launch 70 attacks against Israeli forces from both inside and outside the hospital in recent days, according to the Institute for the Study of War, an American think-tank which works with the Critical Threats project to provide daily summaries of events in the Israel-Hamas war.

Despite intense fighting in a supposedly “cleared” area, the Israeli army presented the operation as a success. It stressed that it had been able to “eliminate dozens” of enemy fighters and locate new “infrastructure and weapons caches” in the hospital.

“The actual operation was a tactical success,” confirms Veronika Poniscjakova, a specialist in international security issues and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the University of Portsmouth in the UK. The Israeli army “let Hamas think that they would attack elsewhere – in the central refugee camps of the Strip – and when Hamas returned to Shifa, the Israelis closed in on them”, and took many prisoners, according to Ahron Bregman, a specialist in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at King’s College London.

The Israeli action enabled Israel to recover “extremely valuable intelligence” about their enemy, as suggested by the images and videos of the interrogations that the Israeli army has made public, notes Omri Brinner, an analyst and specialist in Middle East geopolitics at the International Team for the Study of Security (ITSS) in Verona, Italy.

The Israel-Hamas PR war

The operation’s progress appears to be slow, as the Israeli army seeks to avoid the media backlash associated with a previous operation launched at Al Shifa. Last November, Israeli-initiated fighting at the hospital caused the death of more than 20 patients, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry. The assault also led to a health disaster for Gazans, who were deprived of the enclave’s most important hospital complex. Washington openly expressed concern to its Israeli ally about civilians being caught in the crossfire at a hospital.

The current Israeli operation at Al Shifa has once again attracted international attention. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), described the conditions in the hospital as “totally inhumane” for patients and health personnel.

But in the current offensive, “the Israelis have been far more sophisticated in the way they are presenting this operation” and “they are using a much more precise way to message to the world that the threat inside the complex is real and credible,” says Clive Jones, a specialist in Israel and the Middle East at Durham University in the UK. The army is using drone footage of gun battles and photos of the discovery of weapons caches to “try to convince international opinion that they had legitimate reasons for returning to fight in this hospital”, adds Jones.

Israel also needs to prove it has the ability to carry out this type of highly sensitive operation with as few civilian casualties as possible. The precedent of the US-Iraq war in 2003 shows that “as soon as an army leaves an area, insurgents seek to return”, says Bregman. This view is shared by other analysts. “We can expect Hamas to do the same thing in other hospitals, but also in schools or refugee camps where there are civilian populations”, notes Shahin Modarres, an independent expert on international security and the Middle East.

By taking its time in the Al Shifa operation, the Israeli army is “signaling to Hamas that it will target it even if it harbours in places considered safe havens, such as hospitals, UNRWA compounds, mosques and schools”, says Brinner. At the same time, it’s trying to prove to the international community that it knows how to do it” with a level of restraint.

Strategic failure

But if this current battle looks like an “operational success, it’s also a strategic failure for Israel”, says Jones.

After the fighting in northern Gaza at the start of the war, and the first assault on the Al Shifa hospital, it must be worrying for the Israeli military leadership “that Hamas still had the possibility to operate” from the hospital complex with “so many troops”, explains Poniscjakova.

Hamas is still able to carry out guerrilla operations aimed at “frustrating Israeli soldiers, who are forced to retrace their steps, while seeking to distract them long enough in the hope that international pressure will push Israel to accept a ceasefire“, notes Modarres.

The fact that Hamas adopted this strategy was certainly expected, say the experts interviewed by FRANCE 24. But the intensity of the fighting around the hospital “says something about Hamas’s ability as a guerilla organisation to regroup, and Israel might have underestimated it”, says Jones.

According to Jones, the renewed battle for Al Shifa illustrates the political flaw in the Israeli advance into Gaza – the lack of any plan for how the territory would be governed in areas where the Israeli army is not present.

“It’s a political issue because Netanyahu’s strategy has left a governance vacuum enabling a quick Hamas reorganisation in the north” of the enclave.

“You have to remember that the level of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip has been vastly reduced,” Jones adds.

“It’s a classic chicken and egg problem,” explains Poniscjakova. “What should come first: governance or destroying Hamas?”

Israel’s choice, she says is to either push for a new governance structure in northern Gaza and other areas “cleared” of Hamas control, or to prioritise an assault on Hamas in southern Gaza and then try to negotiate an overall political deal with the Palestinians.

For now, the consensus of analysts seems to be that the fighting at Al Shifa shows that the Israeli army is still far from achieving its main objective: the destruction of Hamas.

Source link

#IsraelHamas #war #emblematic #battle #Shifa #hospital

Biden sees backlash over Gaza, Trump faces GOP holdouts in Michigan primaries

While Joe Biden and Donald Trump are marching toward their respective presidential nominations, Michigan’s primary on Tuesday could reveal significant political perils for both of them.

Trump, despite his undoubted dominance of the Republican contests this year, is facing a bloc of stubbornly persistent GOP voters who favor his lone remaining rival, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, and who are skeptical at best about the former president’s prospects in a rematch against Biden.

As for the incumbent president, Biden is confronting perhaps his most potent electoral obstacle yet: an energized movement of disillusioned voters upset with his handling of the war in Gaza and a relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that critics say has been too supportive.

Those dynamics will be put to the test in Michigan, the last major primary state before Super Tuesday and a critical swing state in November’s general election. Even if they post dominant victories as expected on Tuesday, both campaigns will be looking at the margins for signs of weakness in a state that went for Biden by just 3 percentage points last time.

Biden said in a local Michigan radio interview Monday that it would be “one of the five states” that would determine the winner in November.

Michigan has the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the nation. More than 310,000 residents are of Middle Eastern or North African ancestry. Nearly half of Dearborn’s roughly 110,000 residents claim Arab ancestry.

It has become the epicenter of Democratic discontent with the White House’s actions in the Israel-Hamas war, now nearly five months old, following Hamas’ deadly Oct. 7 attack and kidnapping of more than 200 hostages. Israel has bombarded much of Gaza in response, killing nearly 30,000 people, two-thirds of them women and children, according to Palestinian figures. 

Democrats angry that Biden has supported Israel’s offensive and resisted calls for a cease-fire are rallying voters on Tuesday to instead select “uncommitted.”

FRANCE 24’s UN correspondent Jessica Le Masurier reports from New York



Jessica Le Masurier reports from New York 2024 © FRANCE 24

The “uncommitted” effort, which began in earnest just a few weeks ago, has been backed by officials such as Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman in Congress, and former Rep. Andy Levin, who lost a Democratic primary two years ago after pro-Israel groups spent more than $4 million to defeat him.

Abbas Alawieh, spokesperson for the Listen to Michigan campaign that has been rallying for the “uncommitted” campaign, said the effort is a “way for us to vote for a ceasefire, a way for us to vote for peace and a way for us to vote against war.”

Trump won the state by just 11,000 votes in 2016 over Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and then lost the state four years later by nearly 154,000 votes to Biden. Alawieh said the “uncommitted” effort wants to show that they have at least the number of votes that were Trump’s margin of victory in 2016, to demonstrate how influential that bloc can be.

“The situation in Gaza is top of mind for a lot of people here,” Alawieh said. “President Biden is failing to provide voters for whom the war crimes that are being inflicted by our U.S. taxpayer dollars – he’s failing to provide them with something to vote for.”

Our Revolution, the organizing group once tied to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has also urged progressive voters to choose “uncommitted” on Tuesday, saying it would send a message to Biden to “change course NOW on Gaza or else risk losing Michigan to Trump in November.”

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a Biden backer who held several meetings and listening sessions in Michigan late last week, said he told community members that, despite his disagreements over the war, he would nonetheless support Biden because he represents a much better chance of peace in the Middle East than Trump.

“I also said that I admire those who are using their ballot in a quintessentially American way to bring about a change in policy,” Khanna said Monday, adding that Biden supporters need to proactively engage with the uncommitted voters to try and “earn back their trust.” 

“The worst thing we can do is try to shame them or try to downplay their efforts,” he said. 

Trump has drawn enthusiastic crowds at most of his rallies, including a Feb. 17 rally outside Detroit drawing more than 2,000 people who packed into a frigid airplane hangar. 

But data from AP VoteCast, a series of surveys of Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, reveals that his core voters so far are overwhelmingly white, mostly older than 50 and generally without a college degree. He will likely have to appeal to a far more diverse group of voters in November. And he has underperformed his statewide results in suburban areas that are critical in states like Michigan. 

Several of Trump’s favored picks in Michigan’s 2022 midterm contests lost their campaigns, further underscoring his loss of political influence in the state. Meanwhile, the state GOP has been riven with divisions among various pro-Trump factions, potentially weakening its power at a time when Michigan Republicans are trying to lay the groundwork to defeat Biden this fall.

Both Biden and Trump have so far dominated their respective primary bids. Biden has sailed to wins in South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire, with the latter victory coming in through a write-in campaign. Trump has swept all the early state contests and his team is hoping to lock up the delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination by mid-March.

Nonetheless, an undeterred Haley has promised to continue her longshot presidential primary campaign through at least Super Tuesday on March 5, when 15 states and one territory hold their nominating contests.

As Haley stumped across Michigan on Sunday and Monday, voters showing up to her events expressed enthusiasm for her in Tuesday’s primary — even though, given her losses in the year’s first four states, it seemed increasingly likely she wouldn’t win the nomination.

“She seems honorable,” said Rita Lazdins, a retired microbiologist from Grand Haven, Michigan, who in an interview Monday refused to say Trump’s name. “Honorable is not what that other person is. I hate to say that, but it’s so true.”

(AP) 

Source link

#Biden #sees #backlash #Gaza #Trump #faces #GOP #holdouts #Michigan #primaries

Israeli ground offensive in Rafah ‘aimed at making Gaza uninhabitable’

Israel has announced plans to launch a full-scale offensive on the town of Rafah in the southern Gaza strip, claiming it is the only way to “completely destroy” Hamas. But according to former French military officer and author Guillaume Ancel, a large-scale military operation in the city that is now host to half of Gaza’s population is of no strategic interest. In his analysis, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s only goal is to make the Palestinian enclave “uninhabitable”.

The countdown has begun for Rafah. Israel repeated on Sunday its threats of carrying out a major ground attack against the southern Gaza city before the start of Ramadan: the holy month in Islam, during which Muslims fast, is expected to begin around March 10. The perspective of a ground operation in the city, which was once considered “safe” for civilians, is fuelling international concern about the fate of the 1.5 million Palestinians trapped in the city.

“The world must know, and Hamas leaders must know – if by Ramadan our hostages are not home, the fighting will continue everywhere, including the Rafah area,” Benny Gantz, a former Israeli defence minister currently serving on Netanyahu’s war cabinet, told a conference of American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem on Sunday. “Hamas has a choice. They can surrender, release the hostages and the civilians of Gaza can celebrate the feast of Ramadan,” he added.

Having so far ignored the warnings of his Western allies, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems more determined than ever to continue the war against Hamas, reaffirming on February 9 that he was aiming for “total victory”. On February 17 he said that foreign countries calling on Israel to spare the city were effectively telling the country to “lose the war” against Hamas.

“Benny Gantz’s statements reflect a rift within the war cabinet,” French military expert Guillaume Ancel said in an interview with FRANCE 24. “While the extremists led by Netanyahu want to go all the way, those who are more moderate, like Benny Gantz, want to leave the door open for negotiations, which are currently going very badly.”

Pressure ‘on partners involved in negotiations’

According to a Hamas official quoted by Israeli daily Haaretz, the arrival of the movement’s political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Cairo on Tuesday did not mean there had been any breakthrough in the negotiations.

Organised by Egypt and Qatar, several rounds of talks were held in Cairo earlier this month but failed to reach an agreement on a truce and the release of Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. According to Israel, 130 hostages are still being held in Gaza, at least 30 of whom have reportedly died, out of the 257 kidnapped on October 7.

Read moreWho are the remaining Gaza hostages?

Talks have stalled over Hamas’s demands, described as “delusional” by Binyamin Netanyahu. These include a ceasefire, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, an end to the Israeli blockade of the Palestinian territory and safe shelter for the hundreds of thousands of displaced Palestinian civilians.

“More than on Hamas, this is about putting pressure on the partners involved in the negotiations, specially Egypt, Qatar and the US”, says Tewfik Hamel, a researcher in military history at Université Paul Valéry in Montpellier, who sees Israel’s ultimatum as a call for the Islamist movement to capitulate.

Fears of ‘carnage’

Should new negotiations fail, the prospect of a military ground offensive in overcrowded Rafah raises the worst fears for the trapped Palestinian refugees. Nearly 30,000 people have so far been killed in the conflict, mostly women and children, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.

“In an area of 10 square kilometres, there are almost 1.5 million Palestinians, so this will necessarily lead to a massacre of the civilian population,” says Hamel. “Attacking the town of Rafah, where two-thirds of Gaza’s population is now squeezed, would mean committing carnage,” agrees Ancel.

The former soldier points out that the town has already been subjected to daily bombardment designed “to prepare the territory” for a ground attack. On Thursday, fresh Israeli bombardment of the city flattened a mosque and destroyed homes in what residents called one of their worst nights yet, killing at least 97 people and wounding 130 others in the last 24 hours, according to Gaza’s health authorities. Most victims were still under rubble or in areas rescuers could not reach.

“We can’t even begin to imagine what this would mean for all these displaced people. A military offensive is going to create even more chaos,” Jamie MacGoldrick, the UN’s Middle East coordinator, told FRANCE 24.

Reports from humanitarian organisations have been increasingly alarming on the situation in the Gaza Strip, where 2.2 million people could face starvation. According to UN agencies, food and drinking water have become “extremely scarce”, and 90 percent of the enclave’s young children now suffer from infectious diseases.

Watch moreThe desperate search for food and water in Gaza

Netanyahu has said Israel would provide “safe passage” to civilians trying to leave Rafah before the assault, but never mentioned to which destination. In the event of an offensive, Palestinian civilians would have to try to force their way across the closed border with Egypt.

Egypt doesn’t want refugees in Sinai because the authorities don’t know whether Israel would later accept their return to the Gaza Strip, and Egypt doesn’t want to host the refugees out of fears some might end up being Hamas fighters, even if authorities don’t explicitly state it,” explains Bruno Daroux, FRANCE 24’s international affairs editor.

But recently Cairo seemed to be preparing for this scenario. According to reports by the Wall Street Journal and an Egyptian NGO, Cairo is constructing a walled camp in the Sinai Peninsula to receive displaced Palestinian civilians from the Gaza Strip. After satellite images appeared to show extensive construction work along the border, the reports claim the compound could accommodate more than 100,000 people on the Egyptian side, parallel to the border with Gaza.

Ancel sees this flight from Rafah as the real objective of Binyamin Netanyahu’s government. “Rafah is the only urban centre that has not been destroyed by the Israeli army. The government therefore wants to complete the destruction of the Gaza Strip’s infrastructure to make it uninhabitable. Netanyahu’s aim is to empty the Gaza Strip of Palestinians under the guise of fighting Hamas,” says the former officer, who believes that “a terrorist organisation cannot be destroyed by a military offensive”.

Destruction rendering ‘return of civilians impossible’

“The current Israeli government rejects the creation of a Palestinian state. From that point of view, the most reasonable option is to drive the Palestinians out of the territory,” says Hamel. “However, the attachment of the Gazans to the territory remains strong, because they know that as soon as there is a displacement of the population, the possibility of a return completely ceases to exist.”

As well as farmlands, almost 40 percent of the buildings in the Gaza Strip had been destroyed by January 17, an Israeli study revealed. According to satellite data analysis obtained by the BBC, the actual figure is higher. That analysis suggests between 144,000 and 175,000 buildings across the whole Gaza Strip have been damaged or destroyed – meaning between 50 and 61 percent of Gaza’s buildings.

UN human rights chief Volker Turk on February 8 accused the Israeli army of committing a “war crime” in its reported destruction of buildings within one kilometre of the barrier between the enclave and Israel in order to create a “buffer zone” along the border inside Gaza itself.

Read moreGaza: More than 40% of buildings destroyed in the ‘buffer zone’ Israel plans to create

Turk said the destruction “appears to be aimed at, or has the effect of, rendering the return of civilians to these areas impossible,” adding Israel’s “extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, amounts to a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a war crime”, he said in a statement.

This story has been adapted from the original in French.

Source link

#Israeli #ground #offensive #Rafah #aimed #making #Gaza #uninhabitable

Discord over two-state solution opens rift between the US and Israel

US President Biden and Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu held their first phone call in nearly a month on Friday following the Israeli PM’s rejection of a Washington-backed call for Palestinian sovereignty, with Biden and Netanyahu appearing to be at odds on the issue of a two-state solution to follow the war in Gaza. FRANCE 24 spoke to David Khalfa, co-director of the North Africa and Middle East Observatory at the Jean Jaurès Foundation, to shed more light on the situation. 

US President Joe Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for the first time since December 23 on Friday, a day after the Israeli PM reiterated his opposition to the idea of Palestinian statehood and a post-war future for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank backed by the US.

Netanyahu said on Thursday that Israel “must have security control over all the territory west of the Jordan [River]”, saying he had made this clear to Israel’s “American friends”.

“This is a necessary condition, and it conflicts with the idea of [Palestinian] sovereignty,” Netanyahu said in a televised news conference.

Seeking a more permanent solution to the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict that forms the backdrop of the current war between Israel and Hamas, the United States has pushed Israel for steps toward the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Read moreFrom 1947 to 2023: Retracing the complex, tragic Israeli-Palestinian conflict

US authorities have called for a reformed Palestinian Authority, which currently governs semi-autonomous zones in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, to govern Gaza after the war. The Gaza Strip is currently ruled by Hamas, which ousted the Fatah government of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas in 2007 after a landslide victory in parliamentary elections.

Despite the Israeli premier’s open resistance, Biden said Friday after their phone call that Netanyahu might eventually agree to some form of Palestinian statehood, such as one without armed forces.

“The president still believes in the promise and the possibility of a two-state solution” for both Israelis and Palestinians, US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters in a briefing after the call, adding that Biden “made clear his strong conviction that a two-state solution is still the right path ahead. And we’re going to continue to make that case.”

The United States does have some leverage over its main Middle East ally, given that Israel has been the main beneficiary of US foreign aid since World War II, receiving more than $260 billion in military and economic aid. Whether Netanyahu – who said this week that “a prime minister in Israel should be able to say no, even to our best friends” – can be convinced remains to be seen, however.

FRANCE 24: Are we witnessing a turning point in US-Israel relations?

David Khalfa: The US-Israeli bilateral relationship is said to be “special” because it is based on shared values and strategic interests. However, relations between America and Israel have never been idyllic.

It is an ardent relationship between two friends and allies, but one that has known periods of tension. In fact, these tensions go back a long way: we could easily see this in the presidencies of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter or, more recently, Barack Obama.

Even Donald Trump, described by Netanyahu as “Israel’s best friend”, did not hesitate last October to call Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant a “jerk” or to criticise the Israeli prime minister in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 massacres.

The establishment of a Palestinian state is backed by the US and Saudi Arabia, and even by some of the Israeli ruling class. Can Netanyahu continue to resist it?

In the short term, yes. Binyamin Netanyahu will do absolutely anything to stay in power, and his strategy is very clearly to wage war for as long as possible because he knows he is unpopular and facing multiple charges (for corruption, bribery and fraud). He is therefore trying to buy time, hoping to win back public support by assuming the role of warlord.

Netanyahu is a shrewd and calculating politician, but he is weakened by his Faustian alliance with the far right, which opposes any prospect of a two-state solution to the conflict.

Moreover, he is old and on borrowed time, and will sooner or later have to step down. Beyond the national unity discourse fostered by the war and the trauma of October 7, the Israeli population has largely withdrawn its support for him. Polls show his popularity plummeting, even among moderate right-wing voters.

But the Gulf states’ offers to normalise relations with Israel in return for substantial progress towards the establishment of a Palestinian state will outlast Binyamin Netanyahu (Saudi Arabia on Tuesday said it would recognise Israel if a Palestinian state is established). This is even more so as the leaders of the petrostates are young and will probably remain in charge for decades to come.

Finally, it should be noted that the Israeli political configuration will change profoundly after Netanyahu’s departure. The centre, embodied by Benny Gantz (a centre-left MP who has repeatedly challenged Netanyahu for the premiership), is likely to take over with the right and far right serving in the opposition.

By refusing Biden’s proposals, is Netanyahu betting on Trump winning the 2024 election?

Absolutely, but it’s a risky bet. After all, relations between Binyamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, whose temperament is extremely volatile, are now very cool. The former US president feels that Netanyahu betrayed him by recognising Biden’s electoral victory in November 2020.

Next, let’s remember that the $14.5 billion in additional emergency aid promised to Israel by Joe Biden has still not been endorsed by the Senate because the Republicans are opposed to it for purely political reasons, which have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but everything to do with the polarisation of US politics.

Any Democratic proposal is a pretext for systematic Republican obstruction, even if it means putting their immediate political interest ahead of the US strategic alliance with Israel. Conversely, if Trump comes to power, the Democrats are likely to adopt an identical strategy of systematic obstruction.

Could Washington’s $3 billion in annual military aid to Israel be at stake?

There is a pro-Israel tradition that goes beyond the White House to the Pentagon, where most US strategists believe that the alliance with Israel is, first and foremost, in the US interest.

But even if US aid is not called into question, the conditions under which it is granted are likely to become more complicated, as we are witnessing a politicisation of American military support for the Hebrew state, an issue which up until now had avoided any real debate in the United States.

The Republicans are turning towards isolationism and the Democrats towards progressivism: in the medium term, changes in the US political game will lead Israel to make more concessions if it intends to maintain a high level of US diplomatic and military support.

Israelis are more dependent than ever on military aid due to their recent focus on high-tech weapons, while urban fighting in Gaza demands artillery munitions of all kinds – including “low-tech” ones such as tank shells – which are not made in Israel.

This gives the United States leverage over Israel’s conduct of the war. The setting up of humanitarian corridors in Gaza, the increase in humanitarian aid and the scaling back of Israel’s offensive on the Palestinian enclave were all achieved under pressure from the US administration – contrary to what Netanyahu would have his people believe.

This article was translated from the original in French.

Source link

#Discord #twostate #solution #opens #rift #Israel

Post-war Gaza: ‘The Palestinian Authority is not in a position to govern in Gaza’

The Israeli government recently laid out its plans for the future governance of Gaza once its war with Hamas is over. The proposal released on January 4 made clear that the Islamist movement would no longer control the besieged Palestinian enclave. However, there was also little provision for the return of the Palestinian Authority.

After three months of war between Israel and Hamas, Israel laid out a plan on January 4 for the “day after” in Gaza for the first time since the conflict began.

The proposal, although lacking in details, outlined a sort of roadmap for Gaza’s future governance – a key concern of Israel’s ally, the United States.

It has already met with sharp criticism. For some, it was too superficial. For others, like army spokesperson Daniel Hagari, the proposal revealed the state’s secret plans to its “enemies”.

Presented by Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant on the eve of a visit by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the proposal hinges on Israel achieving its main military objective – destroying Hamas in the Gaza Strip. 

“Hamas will not govern Gaza and Israel will not govern Gaza’s civilians. Gaza residents are Palestinian, therefore Palestinian bodies will be in charge, with the condition that there will be no hostile actions or threats against the State of Israel,” said Gallant in a statement. “The entity controlling the territory will build on the capabilities of the existing administrative mechanism (civil committees) in Gaza – local non-hostile actors,” the Israeli defence minister added.

“It is very important that at long last a very senior political figure in Israel is outlining a political plan for the future. I know he was criticised by the army spokesperson, who said that it is too early to reveal our secret plans. I don’t agree with [Daniel Hagari],” explained David Shimoni, a former member of Israel’s intelligence services and a member of Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS),  a thinktank bringing together 400 former members of the security forces, the army and Israeli intelligence.

“It sounds very good to me that first of all, Israel will not be governing Gaza. Second, that Hamas will not be governing Gaza. That is, of course, the main goal of this war.”

Read moreIsrael’s ‘refuseniks’: ‘I will never justify what Israel is doing in Gaza’

‘The Palestinian Authority stands no chance’

The Israeli government’s plan is simple on paper, but difficult to implement, as many Palestinians support Hamas. According to a poll carried out between November 22 and December 2 by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), 42% of the population of Gaza support Hamas, compared with 38% at the start of the war.

The Islamist movement is especially gaining traction in the occupied West Bank: 44% of residents today say they support the party, compared to 12% in September. The rise in support for Hamas may also be explained by the growing unpopularity of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Nearly 90% of respondents wanted Abbas to resign, representing an increase of 10 points compared to three months ago. In the occupied West Bank alone, 92% called for the resignation of Abbas, whose administration is widely seen as corrupt, autocratic and ineffective.

Putting the Palestinian Authority in a position of governance in Gaza therefore seems unrealistic.

“The Palestinian Authority as we know it does not have the power and the influence to enter Gaza. They are weak, they are corrupt, and they do not enjoy the support of most of the Palestinian population,” said Shimoni. “They have been a big disappointment to the Palestinians. They are not delivering, they are not solving the [daily] problems of Palestinians. We heard the Americans speak of a rejuvenated Palestinian Authority [. . .] hopefully that is something that will happen. But for the time being, [with] the way the Palestinian Authority looks now, they have no chance.”

At the end of his visit to the occupied West Bank on January 10, Blinken nevertheless said President Abbas was prepared to move forward. “We talked as well about the importance of reforming the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian governance so that it can effectively take responsibility for Gaza – so that Gaza and the West Bank can be reunited under a Palestinian leadership,” he added.

In 2007, Hamas ousted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza following violent clashes with Fatah, the party founded by Yasser Arafat. Hamas seized power in the enclave after also winning legislative elections a year earlier. Described as a “coup d’état” by Abbas, Hamas’s takeover led to the strengthening of Israel’s blockade on Gaza. No elections have been held in Gaza or the occupied West Bank since.

“The Israeli government […] had multiple chances to strengthen the Palestinian Authority and place them within Gaza”, said Nimrod Dweck, CEO and co-founder of Darkenu, an Israeli grassroots movement. “Even the Shalit deal, [the Israeli soldier held hostage by Hamas for five years, editor’s note] – instead of doing the deal with Hamas, [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] could have done it with Abbas. He did not do it, and he preferred bringing the money directly to Hamas, instead facilitating it through a different organisation. [He thought] he could manage Hamas with force and money. This is Netanyahu’s responsibility,” said Dweck.

Calls for the return of Israeli settlers

After the shock of the October 7 attacks, Israeli society is looking for security guarantees. Gallant’s plan stipulates that Israel will reserve the right to operate inside the Gaza Strip as often as necessary. In concrete terms, this means the army could intervene the way it currently does in the occupied West Bank. The borders would be controlled, which implies that the two-decade long blockade of the enclave would continue. Nothing would be allowed in or out without being carefully inspected.

The army will soon tell the inhabitants of the towns, farms and kibbutzim surrounding Gaza that there is no danger and that they can return home, said Shimoni. The Israeli army has eliminated many of Hamas’s fighters and destroyed much of their equipment. The chief of staff and the defence minister have said: “When you go home, you will see the IDF all over the place.” They are trying to give the impression that things will be safe, even if we do not eliminate Hezbollah’s capabilities [in the north], he added.

Gallant ruled out the option of resettling Israeli civilians in the Gaza Strip in his plan, to the dismay of the extreme right of the Israeli government. Far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has repeatedly called for the return of Israeli settlers to the territory after the war and for a “solution to encourage the emigration” of Gaza’s Palestinian population.

His words echoed those of the far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. “We need to encourage immigration from this region. If there were 100,000 to 200,000 Arabs in the Gaza Strip and not two million, the discussion about the aftermath [of the war] would be completely different,” said Smotrich in late December, in an interview with Israeli army radio. “They want to leave. They have lived in a ghetto for 75 years and are in need.”

Reassuring Arab allies in the region

These comments are “very problematic” for Dweck. Although the Israeli government has ruled out the option of resettling Gaza, certain politicians continue to raise it every day.”

“What will Likud do to tell it’s partners to stop [speaking about repopulating Gaza]?” said Dweck. It also goes beyond rhetoric, he noted. “They organised a convention and hundreds of families have already signed up to repopulate Gaza,” he said.

“The organisers were the same people who organise illegal settlements in the West Bank. […] The problem with them is that they only see their messianic interests and not the interest of Israel,” said Dweck. This will only antagonise our moderate allies in the Middle East, like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, with whom we were going to sign agreements, he added.

Saudi Arabia was moving towards normalising relations with Israel when October 7 took place. Yet in an interview with BBC Radio on January 9, Prince Khalid bin Bandar al-Saud, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, said that talks would resume at the end of the war on condition that an “independent State of Palestine” was created. 

More than thirty years after the Oslo Accords, sealed by the historic handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, this prospect seems more distant than ever. The creation of a Palestinian state appears to be the only solution for achieving lasting peace in the Middle East, said Mohammad Shtayyeh, prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, when interviewed by the Financial Times.

For him, any possible agreement must include “a political solution for the whole of Palestine”. Gaza’s future cannot be discussed without taking into consideration the occupied West Bank, where Israeli military operations have increased since the start of the war. In short, the region is a ticking time bomb. “There’s an international consensus on the two-state solution,” said Shtayyeh. “The question is: what are they going to do to preserve the two-state solution at a time when Netanyahu is systematically destroying [it].

This article has been translated from the original in French

Source link

#Postwar #Gaza #Palestinian #Authority #position #govern #Gaza

Supreme Court ruling: Checkmate for Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu?

From our special correspondent in Israel – Three months into the war between Israel and Hamas, the Israeli Supreme Court dealt two major blows to Binyamin Netanyahu and his governing coalition this week. The court struck down an essential part of the government’s polarising judicial reform plan and postponed the implementation of a law shielding the PM from mandatory recusals. FRANCE 24 spoke to Dr. Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, about the impact these decisions will have.

Issued on:

5 min

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu suffered a major setback on Monday as the country’s top court voted narrowly (8 to 7) to overturn a law passed in July that took away judges’ ability to veto government and parliament decisions that they deem “unreasonable”. 

The law was a key component of the government’s contentious plan to overhaul the country’s judicial system that sparked massive protests across the country. 

On Wednesday, the Israeli prime minister suffered another legal defeat as justices ruled (6 to 5) to delay the enforcement of a controversial law that would shield Netanyahu from being forced to recuse himself from office if ordered to do so by the attorney general or the Supreme Court. 

The recusal law, which was passed in March, will now only go into effect at the beginning of the next term of the Israeli parliament after the next general elections.  

The Israeli high court’s rulings comes as Netanyahu’s popularity plummets in opinion polls amid mounting criticism of Israel’s offensive on Gaza.  

According to a recent survey, Netanyahu’s party – Likud – would win only half of the seats it currently occupies (16 versus 32) if elections were held now. 

To better understand the impact of the high court’s decisions, FRANCE 24 spoke to Dr. Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute.  

Dr. Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute, in Kfar Sava, Israel on January 4, 2024. © Assiya Hamza, FRANCE 24

France 24: What would have been the consequences of this reform had it not been overturned by the Supreme Court? 

Fuchs: The government’s reform aimed to reduce the power of the judiciary. Israel doesn’t have a formal constitution. But we do have these Basic Laws that serve as a quasi-constitution. If a law goes against the Basic Laws, the Supreme Court can say this is an unconstitutional law, and they can therefore strike it down. This has happened just under 20 times in 30 years since the Supreme Court altered Israel’s system of government in 1995.

In Israel, we don’t have checks and balances as in other country’s systems. For example, we don’t have a real separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. The government rules through a majority coalition in parliament. If you win a simple majority of 61 seats, you can do whatever you want. The only thing we have as a counterbalance is a strong and independent Supreme Court. And what Netanyahu’s government wanted to do was to change that. 

The government also wanted to change how the judges are nominated. So that they could just appoint the judges they wanted.

The attorney general heads the state prosecution system. Netanyahu is currently facing charges of fraud and corruption. If the law had been passed, Netanyahu could just fire his prosecutor and pick another one, which would be more convenient for him.

The high court also postponed the recusal law which aims to protect Netanyahu, stating that it was “clearly personal” in nature”. What does that mean? 

Fuchs: For decades we had a very vague law which said that when the prime minister is incapacitated, then someone will replace him. But it didn’t explain what the grounds for this incapacity might be. Would it be on medical grounds or for other reasons? Nothing was written about this – or the procedures to be followed. 

So Netanyahu’s government decided to change the Incapacitation Law – meaning that only when the prime minister himself says he is incapacitated, or three quarters of the government says he is, would the prime minister then be recused.

The government then needs a two-thirds majority in the Knesset. They introduced measures to ensure that this would never happen. After they voted for it, Netanyahu announced to everyone that his hands were no longer tied. However, the court said the law was “clearly personal in nature” and postponed its enforcement until the next Knesset. So the law won’t be implemented until the next elections. 

Can Netanyahu be impeached? 

Fuchs: If there is a majority of 61 MPs, they can just hold a no confidence vote and form a new government. 

But what can happen – and what always happens in Israel when a government loses political support – is that they just announce new elections. And for that, you need 61 MPs in the Knesset who support a new election. And the whole opposition will agree with that. We’ve seen in polls that a lot of people who voted for the coalition are now totally against it.  I don’t know when the war will end. But if the war ends tomorrow, they will probably announce an election.

Will Netanyahu be held accountable for the October 7 attacks? 

If the government changes, there will be an investigation committee, which is very independent because it is appointed by the Supreme Court, not by the government. This is what usually happens after big failures like what happened in 73, and in 82, when Christian militias, with the support of the Israeli army, massacred up to 2,000 Palestinians in Lebanon’s Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. 

The committee will ask Netanyahu hard questions and they will deliver a verdict. And they will say that he is to blame. He was negligent. He cannot be re-elected. For example, when they said that former prime minister Ariel Sharon, who also served as defence during the Sabra and Shatila massacres, can no longer be defence minister, he was removed from office.

If Netanyahu is convicted in his various trials, will he be able to stay in power? 

If he’s convicted in a final court decision after the appeal, then according to the Basic Laws, he has to step down. It will take time – at least another year.

Maybe after the war when Netanyahu will see that everything is falling apart, he might get some kind of deal – whereby he doesn’t go to prison and isn’t even convicted of anything serious in exchange for stepping down and not participating in the election. 

Once Netanyahu understands that he can’t be re-elected, then maybe he will go for the deal. And I’m kind of sure that the attorney general will aim for such a deal so he/she doesn’t have to deal with the trial. 

Again, this is an optimistic scenario. I’m not sure that this will happen. A lot of people were sure that that this would happen years ago when he was indicted in 2019 on corruption charges. But he chose to fight and ran in elections again and again. He’s never given up but maybe he will have some good advisors that will say: “This is the time to step down, you’re not popular enough, you won’t get elected. So at least use that bargaining chip to close all the criminal files on you.”

This article has been translated from the original in French

This interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

Source link

#Supreme #Court #ruling #Checkmate #Israels #Binyamin #Netanyahu

Israel’s ‘refuseniks’: ‘I will never justify what Israel is doing in Gaza’

from our special correspondent in Israël – On December 26, Israel’s first conscientious objector since the start of its war against Hamas, Tal Mitnick, was sent to prison after refusing to serve in the army. Mitnick, however, is not alone. A small group of Israelis are refusing to take part in the “oppression of the Palestinians” by refusing to serve in the Gaza conflict. FRANCE 24 met with some of them in Israel.  

Young people refusing to serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are known as “refuseniks” in Israel. The term dates from the Soviet era and once referred to Jews denied the right to emigrate to Israel from the Soviet bloc.

Although military service in the Jewish state is compulsory for both men and women – with many seeing it as an important part of their national identity – the refuseniks are increasingly speaking out.

“On February 25th (my enlistment date) … I will refuse to enlist and go to military jail for it,” Sofia Orr, an 18-year-old Israeli woman, told FRANCE 24 in the Pardes Hanna-Karkur municipality of the Haifa district.

“I refuse to take part in the violent policies of oppression and apartheid that Israel enacted upon the Palestinian people, and especially now with the war,” Orr said in English. “I want to fight to convey the message that there is no military solution to a political problem, and that is more apparent than ever now. And I want to be part of the solution and not the problem.”

Orr’s words echo those of her friend Tal Mitnick, the jailed 18-year-old who was sentenced on January 2 to 30 days in prison by a military court.

In a statement published on social media before his incarceration, Mitnick said that a lasting solution will not come from the army. “Violence cannot solve the situation – neither by Hamas, nor by Israel. There is no military solution to a political problem. Therefore, I refuse to enlist in an army that believes that the real problem can be ignored, under a government that only continues the bereavement and pain.”


“I’m very proud of him (Mitnick) and also inspired by his courage,” Orr said. “Everyone has different beliefs. But in the general sense, yes, I absolutely stand behind his open letter and behind his stand.”

She said the political situation in Israel has made it harder than ever to conscientiously object.

“Right now, it’s more difficult than ever to refuse and to take this stand, because the political environment in Israel has gotten way tougher since the war started. There has been a strong shift to the right, and the entire political sphere has become a lot more violent and aggressive,” Orr said.

The Israeli army relies almost exclusively on reservists. Men are required to enlist for 32 months and women for 24, after which they can be mobilised until their 40th and 38th birthdays, respectively.

Following Hamas’s surprise attacks on October 7 that left more than 1,100 Israelis dead, the army mobilised more than 360,000 reservists, about 4 percent of the country’s population of 9.8 million, representing Israel’s largest mobilisation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

‘A politically motivated decision’

Orr, who describes herself as an “activist” and a “political person”, said it was already clear to her that she would conscientiously object at the age of 15. And she has not wavered since.

“The 7th of October changed nothing in either direction,” she said. “It should have been expected, because when you put people under extreme violence, extreme violence will rise back at you. It’s inevitable.”

She said the attacks in southern Israel “only made me surer in my decision”.

“Since the war started, and the horrible violence that is enacted on the Gazans in Gaza and the destruction of the whole place, it made me surer that we must fight for a different option and that this will never solve anything. And that I have to resist this cycle of bloodshed or it will never end,” Orr said.

The Israeli army rarely accepts refusals to enlist on grounds of pacifism or ethics.

Apart from the ultra-Orthodox and Israeli Arabs, who are automatically exempt from military service, only young Israelis suffering from physical or mental problems can be declared unfit after a medical examination.

Exemption was, however, out of the question for Orr.

“I choose to be part of the rare few who do have political motivations behind [not serving] … more than that, [who] choose to make it public [as] a public statement and a political statement,” she said. Orr chooses “to resist” and to do so publicly, “to raise awareness for the situation as a whole”.

With the support of her parents and sister, Orr is convinced that she can make a difference.

When a classmate rallied to her cause, Orr said, it “made me believe that I can change things, and that as small an impact that I have, it’s still an impact and it’s still worth it”.

Violence only leads to more violence

Seeking to bring the plight of Palestinians to public attention in Israel, Orr travelled to the West Bank to meet Palestinians.

“I went to the West Bank and talked to settlers, and then went and talked to Palestinians. And I think it’s an important experience, to see for yourself … how the settlers live and how the Palestinians live, what the settlers say and what the Palestinians say,” Orr said.

“We’ve seen for the past 70 years that the military using military means leads us nowhere. The only progress we’ve ever made on this piece of land has been by political means and negotiations and trying to make peace. So again, there is no military solution to a political problem. And this problem is both political and humanitarian. And the military does not solve either of those things,” she said.

Surprisingly mature and filled with conviction, Orr has stuck by her words and refused to abandon her beliefs even though talk of peace in Israel has mostly been silenced since the October 7 massacres.

“Israel’s attempts to eradicate Hamas is only making Hamas stronger, because if you offer no alternative to the Palestinians and they think that violent resistance is the only way … and [if they think] it’s the only language that Israel knows how to speak and … their only chance at freedom … Then, yes, of course they will join Hamas and try violent resistance,” Orr said.

The violence wrought by Hamas was also counter-productive, she said. “I don’t think that the horrible attack on October 7 made any progress for the Palestinian cause.”

But Israel’s war on Gaza pushes any hopes for a solution farther away.

“I will never justify what Israel does right now in Gaza. Violence only leads to more violence. So I think the only way to really weaken the violent resistance is to offer an alternative. And that has to come from inside Israel, and that has to come from Israel, because Israel is a much stronger side in the equation,” Orr said, adding that both Israelis and Palestinians should try to make peace amid the increasingly brutal Gaza war.

“It’s the only viable solution.”

While Orr’s words have, for the most part, fallen on deaf ears in Israel, some have resorted to calling her a “traitor” and a “self-hating Jew” while others even threatened to murder or rape her.

Orr said she has also suffered other consequences of her choice to go public, whether while job hunting or in the social sphere.

“People aren’t supposed to ask if you went to the army – and definitely not why you didn’t, if you didn’t,” she said. But of someone Googles her, her decision not to serve comes up.

“It can have consequences,” she acknowledged. “The biggest consequences are social because it’s a very militaristic society, and I’m very publicly not a militaristic person … but I believe that it’s worth it no matter what … I will endure [the consequences].”

When asked if she’s afraid of going to prison, Orr, who planned on studying literature after serving her sentence, didn’t equivocate. “It’s scary. I know it will be hard … but it’s part of the whole thing. I’ve made peace with it long ago.”

Avital Rubin, a young Israeli, has already served a total of four months in prison. Then 19, Rubin was sentenced for refusing military service in 2021.

Quietly seated on the terrace of a café in Haifa, Rubin said he was born into a family that he described as “dovish Zionist” – both liberal and conciliatory in their attitude.

Evyatar Rubin, 20, spent four months in prison for having refused to enroll with the Israeli military. © Assiya Hamza, FRANCE 24

“I remember as a kid, my mother bought me these mini biographies of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. And I always viewed these people as heroes. But the moment [Donald] Trump won, there was this shift on the internet and it all of a sudden became much more right-winged or much more bigoted, homophobic, sexist. And so I had to find places that I felt comfortable being … I had to [find] more and more leftist places,” Rubin said.

Rubin, who currently works in IT, educated himself by watching videos of Noam Chomsky and calls himself “anti-Zionist”.

Rubin took part in 2021 demonstrations by Jews and Arabs in Sheikh Jarrah, a neighbourhood in East Jerusalem that has been the centre of a heavy legal battle over the past 20 years between Palestinian families and Israeli settlers.

Without knowing how to exempt himself from military service, Rubin hesitated on whether to enlist.

‘Each time, the solution is to bomb Gaza’

Rubin was introduced to a member of Mesarvot – “Those who refuse” in Hebrew – at one of the group’s gatherings.

The NGO informs and advises young people without necessarily discouraging them from joining the army.

Like Mitnick and Orr, Rubin saw that it was possible to refuse military service on political grounds.

Mesarvot provided him with legal support and even visited him in prison.

“I’m happy I didn’t do it (military service) and I refused. Not because I’m a pacifist, but because I always grew up viewing the occupation and the Nakba (“Catastrophe” in Arabic; Nakba refers to the forced exodus of Palestinians in 1948) with disgust. And so to be part of the IDF would be to be part of this thing. And I think that is what, more than anything, pushed me away from enlisting in the military,” Rubin said.

While clearly disapproving of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, Rubin admitted to having discovered the realities of the West Bank only when he was 16.

“When I was in prison, and I told people I’m refusing because of the occupation … they were like, ‘what is the occupation?’ I said, you know, over the Green Line (the pre-1967 border from before the Six-Day War). And they were like, what is the Green Line? Honestly, I didn’t blame them because three years prior to that, I didn’t know what the Green Line was either,” he said.

Rubin has since chosen to isolate himself, likening his isolation to the mark of Cain, a visible mark placed by the Abrahamic God on the biblical figure Cain’s forehead, so that others would recognise him as the murderer of his brother Abel.

This self-isolation has allowed Rubin to distance himself from the Nakba and Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

“The only thing I actually sacrificed was an easy job because, if I enlisted, I would have gone to some intelligence [unit], done like three years – maybe signed for an extra two years – then I would have left and found some cushy job in high tech and gotten paid like six figures for doing nothing. Which is basically what all my high school friends are going to do,” he said.

Rubin said his family and friends didn’t try to persuade him otherwise, as they saw that he stood by his convictions, which remained unchanged even after the October 7 attacks.

“Israel has this spectacular capability of never learning from anything. It’s like, for 100 years, we’ve been bombing and murdering and occupying, and then a massacre happens, and then we bomb and occupy and kill. Then a massacre happens. But every time something happens, the solution is to bomb Gaza. This time it will work. This time it will be different … And that’s what people say,” Rubin said.

“[The PLO] committed acts of terror and massacres, but ultimately they wanted, at the beginning, a one-state secular democratic solution, then a two-state solution. And then, in the 80s, Israel didn’t want to deal with the PLO. So we invaded Lebanon to try to push PLO [out] and instead we got Hezbollah, which is like a million times worse. And then Israel didn’t want to deal with the PLO in the occupied territories in Gaza. So it helped raise Hamas, which is a million times worse … The history of Israel is just like [a series of] military solutions that just make the situation worse time and time and time again,” he said.

When asked about the future, Rubin didn’t attempt to hide his pessimism.

“I think the situation is going to become noticeably worse. Israel is in a death spiral … There’s no room left for personal agency in Israel. I feel it has all been determined by by the currents of history. The same way that the earth revolves around the sun and slowly sinks into it – the same way that Israel cannot help but fulfill its historic destiny,” Rubin said, adding that even a change in premiership wouldn’t bring about a significant change in Israel.

“It doesn’t matter who is the next prime minister – who will it be? Probably [Israeli opposition leader Yair] Lapid or no, probably Benny Gantz most likely,” referring to the MP and onetime challenger to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“But it doesn’t matter. He’s the same as Binyamin Netanyahu,” he said.

Despite his pessimistic outlook, Rubin said he would remain in Israel.

Citing Oskar Schindler, the German industrialist who saved hundreds of Jews from Nazi extermination camps, Rubin said he hoped to sacrifice himself in some way to save others.

“That’s the most heroic thing a man can do. The most correct thing a man can do. And that’s what matters for me most. And there’s no other place in the world where I can actually do it, other than Israel. So I will. My place will always be here,” he said.

This article has been translated from the original in French.



Source link

#Israels #refuseniks #justify #Israel #Gaza

Germany’s historical guilt haunts opponents of Israeli war in Gaza

Germany’s responsibility for the Holocaust underlines Berlin’s staunch defence of Israel and its bans on expressions of Palestinian solidarity, which authorities blame for a rise in anti-Semitism. But critics say the state is failing German Jews opposed to Israel’s policies and stifling the freedom of expression of immigrants.

Deborah Feldman knows a thing or two about standing up to authority. Her bestselling autobiography – which was the basis of the Netflix miniseries, “Unorthodox” – attests to that.

In her book, “Unorthodox: The Scandalous Rejection of My Hasidic Roots”, the New York-born Feldman recounts how she escaped her ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, the Yiddish-speaking Hasidic Satmar sect.

After moving to Berlin, Feldman became a naturalised German citizen in 2017 and is a familiar figure in her adopted country, where her book readings are sold-out events.

In numerous media appearances, she has discussed the curious twist of fate that saw a girl, brought up to be terrified of Germany by Holocaust survivors, embrace a country that is now considered an icon of post-conflict national reckoning.

But on Tuesday, November 1, Feldman took her adopted country to task in an electrifying TV appearance.

As Israeli warplanes pounded Gaza in retaliation for the October 7 Hamas attack, Feldman appeared as a panelist on the primetime Markus Lanz talk show on a German public TV station.

In a clip that has since gone viral on social media, Feldman held truth to power on a particularly sensitive topic in Germany: the country’s ironclad special relationship with Israel and its implications for German Jews and Muslims criticising Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government and calling for an end to the Gaza war.

Postwar Germany’s atonement for the horrors of the Holocaust has seen the German government and all major political parties condemn the Hamas attack on Israel while brooking no discussion on the context of the current conflict. Pro-Palestinian rallies have been banned. The list of writers, artists and cultural figures disinvited or being forced to resign due to expressions of sympathy for the Palestinian people grows longer by the day. Even small Jewish protests criticising Israel’s actions in Gaza have faced censure.

In her TV takedown of the current situation in Germany, Feldman cut to the heart of the matter. As a grandchild of Holocaust survivors, the 37-year-old Jewish writer noted that “there is only one legitimate doctrine of the Holocaust. And that is the absolute, unconditional defence of human rights – for everyone”, she said in German. “Anyone who wants to instrumentalise the Holocaust to justify further violence has forfeited their own humanity.”

The responsibilities of the past

On the foreign policy front, the German position has been in line with the US on the Gaza war, which has claimed more than 12,000 Palestinian lives, according to health authorities in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, in addition to the roughly 1,200 people killed in a single day during the October 7 Hamas massacre in Israel.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was the first Western leader to visit Israel following the Hamas attack. After his meeting with Netanyahu on October 17, Scholz said that “the responsibility we bear as a result of the Holocaust makes it our duty to stand up for the existence and security of the state of Israel”.

The next day, US President Joe Biden was on the tarmac at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, where he walked into Netanyahu’s arms.

Both visiting leaders called for humanitarian pauses, but not a ceasefire, to enable Israel’s stated goal of destroying Hamas.

But Middle East foreign policy is not a driving issue for Berlin, which tends to follow Washington’s lead. In Germany, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is much more of a domestic issue, one that is more beholden to atoning for the past than addressing the challenges of the future, according to critics.

Addressing anti-Semitism

Germany has seen an explosion of anti-Semitic incidents over the past month. In the week after the Hamas attacks, anti-Semitic incidents in Germany soared by 240 percent compared with the same period in 2022. Mosques were also targeted, with eight mosques receiving parcels with torn-up Koran fragments mixed with fecal matter during the same period, according to the police.

On October 18, at around 3.45am local time, assailants threw two Molotov cocktails at a Berlin synagogue. The bottles, filled with liquid explosives, landed on the pavement outside the synagogue and a small fire was put out by security officials, “preventing further consequences”, said a police statement.

Scholz was quick to condemn the synagogue assault, but the German leader was not as eloquent as his vice-chancellor, Robert Habeck, a poet-turned-politician from the Green party.

In a widely acclaimed speech, the German vice-chancellor criticised anti-Semitism from Islamists, “parts of the left” and the far-right. Habeck’s 10-minute video clip immediately went viral, getting more 11 million views on X, formerly Twitter.


“Anti-Semitism is not to be tolerated in any form,” said Habeck. “Anyone who is German will have to answer for it in court. If you’re not German, you also risk your residency status. Anyone who doesn’t have a residence permit provides a reason to be deported.” 

Hours later, Habeck joined the Markus Lanz talk show panel via video link. His fellow panelist, Feldman, directed her own 10-minute speech at the German vice-chancellor.

“Herr Habeck,” said Feldman as the screen behind her displayed the vice-chancellor listening intently. “You say you stand for the protection of Jewish life in this country. I’m horrified how Jews can, in principle, only be considered Jews here if they represent the right-wing conservative agenda of the Israeli government.”

As an outspoken secular Jew, Feldman is no stranger to backlash from conservative Jewish groups. Shortly before getting on air, she received a screenshot of a post in which a journalist working for a state-funded German Jewish newspaper fantasised about the “Unorthodox” author being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza.

The latest ire was sparked by an open letter signed by more than 100 Jewish academics, artists and writers, including Feldman, rejecting “the conflation of anti-Semitism and any criticism of the state of Israel” and calling on Germany to “adhere to its own commitments to free expression and the right to assembly”.

The calls appear to be falling on deaf ears, admits Susan Neiman, director of the Potsdam-based Einstein Forum and one of the open letter signatories.

“German politicians are cleaving to the old position, indeed doubling down on it,” said Neiman. “Politicians and most media are absolutely holding on to the idea that we have to support Israel, right or wrong, and what Israel is doing in Gaza is justified by Hamas terrorism. My position is we can condemn both.”

German far-right party embraces Israel

It’s a position under strain in the Bundestag as German parliamentarians confront the rising popularity of the far-right Alternative for German (AfD) party, which overtook Scholz’s coalition in opinion polls this year amid concerns over surging migration.

Since it secured 14 seats in the Bundestag in 2017, the anti-immigrant AfD has “tried to make common cause with Israel’s tough stance toward terror and self-styled position as a forward bulwark against Islamic extremism,” noted the Times of Israel.

Once shunned on the political stage, the AfD has attempted to refute suspicions of neo-Nazism within its ranks by public displays of support for Israel, according to experts.

“Racism toward other groups can be covered up by denouncing anti-Semitism and swearing support for any Israeli government,” wrote Neiman in an article in the New York Review of Books.

In May 2020, the German far-right party raised eyebrows in Israel when a senior AfD European Parliament member used a photograph and quote of the Israeli prime minister’s son, Yair Netanyahu.

“Schengen zone is dead and soon your evil globalist organisation will be too, and Europe will return to be free, democratic and Christian,” said the AfD poster featuring Yair Netanyahu.

Migration anxiety binds ‘difficult’ allies

The Bundestag is currently debating a new immigration law, which includes a provision for denying citizenship to people convicted of anti-Semitism. German Interior Minister Nancy Fraser announced the draft citizenship law on October 25, following a meeting with Israel’s ambassador to Germany, Ron Prosor.

Given the sweeping definition of anti-Semitism in Germany, the announcement had a chilling effect on free speech, with some German TV stations saying they were unable to get Arab guests on-air due to residency and job security anxieties.

“Right-wing politicians have called for making unconditional support for Israel a condition of living in Germany. Not surprisingly, the appeal is meant to apply to immigrants from Muslim countries. They are not going after far-right white German anti-Semites, even though official figures show most anti-Semitic crimes are conducted by right-wingers. Nonetheless all the focus is on so-called left-wing anti-Semitism, which means criticism of Israel,” explained Neiman.  “At a recent demonstration, police told demonstrators that the slogan ‘Stop the War’ cannot be spoken.”

Migrant anxieties can bring together difficult allies in Germany. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has called Israel a terror state and accused it of fascism, met with Scholz in Berlin on Friday.

Erdogan’s visit to Germany came despite calls by German opposition conservatives and even the liberal FDP, a member of Scholz’s coalition, urging the chancellor to scrap the invitation.

But the centre-left-led government said it was important to keep talking in the toughest of times. “We have always had difficult partners whom we have to deal with,” Scholz’s spokesman told reporters ahead of the visit.

Turkey signed a key 2016 deal with EU to alleviate the migrant influx, primarily from war-torn Syria. As the Gaza humanitarian crisis worsens, some European politicians have warned of a new round of displacements from the Middle East.

A ‘reason of state’ turns state of confusion

The 2016 migrant deal was struck by former German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who elevated Germany’s already close ties to Israel.

In a 2008 address to the Knesset marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Israeli state, Merkel declared that Israel’s security was part of Germany’s Staatsräson, or “reason of state”.

The declaration set experts scrambling to understand the meaning of the legal term and, more importantly, the implications of the new Staatsräson.

“Nobody sat down to discuss it, and nobody knows what it means. Does it mean Germany is going to send troops to the Golan? Of course not. It’s just a symbolic claim that no one feels they can question,” explained Neiman.

Feldman was left with the same feeling after her televised confrontation with Habeck, when she urged the vice-chancellor to provide a space for people to express their grief over Gaza and asked him to “decide between Israel and Jews” because the two were not interchangeable.

“He tried his best, responding that while he understood that my perspective was one of admirable moral clarity, he felt that it was not his place as a politician in Germany, in the country that committed the Holocaust, to adopt that position,” wrote Feldman in a Guardian column days later. “And so, at that moment, we arrived at a point in German discourse where we now openly acknowledge that the Holocaust is being used as justification for the abandonment of moral clarity.”

The acknowledgment though is unlikely to assure Turkey’s Muslim citizens and residents as the Bundestag debates an immigration bill that could kill their German dreams for expressing doubts about Berlin’s position on the bitterly divisive Israeli-Palestinian crisis.



Source link

#Germanys #historical #guilt #haunts #opponents #Israeli #war #Gaza

From outrage to hate: In the wake of October 7, Israel’s far right seeks to extend its influence

Ministers from Israel’s extreme right have been making increasingly controversial statements since the Hamas attacks on October 7 in a game of one-upmanship that has seen the right wing seek to extend its influence over Israel’s government and beyond.

In a radio interview on November 4, Israel‘s Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu said there were “no non-combatants” in Gaza before adding that providing medical aid to the enclave would amount to a “failure”. Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip would be “one of the options” for dealing with Hamas, he said. 

Eliyahu is a member of the religious supremacist party Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), part of Israel’s ruling coalition.  

Public outrage was swift and furious. “Amihai Eliyahu has got to go” ran an editorial headline in the Jerusalem Post on November 6. Liberal newspaper Haaretz went farther, with a call to “fire Israel’s far right” altogether.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was also quick to condemn the statement, saying Eliyahu was “divorced from reality” before suspending him from government meetings until further notice.

‘Outrageous’ 

“It doesn’t sound like something a savvy politician would say,” says Eitan Tzelgov, a specialist in Israeli politics at the University of East Anglia in the UK. “[It is] just outrageous and so wrong on many levels – one of them being that Israel has never officially acknowledged it has the nuclear bomb.”  

Tzelgov says such declarations are symptomatic of a culture of one-upmanship among politicians on Israel’s extreme right, who have been vying to make increasingly outlandish statements since the deadly Hamas attacks in Israel on October 7.      

Omri Brinner, an Israel analyst and specialist in Mideast geopolitics at the International Team for the Study of Security Verona says these declarations have included warnings that Arab-Israelis “are about to embark on a violent campaign within Israel” – from National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is also leader of the Otzma Yehudit party – or that “Jews murdered in the West Bank are more important than Jews murdered in Gaza, because the former are right-wing settlers and the latter are left-wing kibbutz members”, from Simcha Rothman of the far-right Religious Zionist Party. 

Eliyahu’s comments on nuclear weapons were not his first brush with controversy. In a Facebook post from  November 1, he wrote that north Gaza was “more beautiful than ever” following Israeli bombardments.

He also called for the “mass movement” of Palestinians out of Gaza, reiterating a longstanding and controversial talking point from the extreme religious right. 

Waning influence 

Many Israelis reject the views of the far-right ministers who entered into government following electoral gains in 2022 that saw them acquire six seats in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, heralding the most right-wing government in Israel’s history. 

For some, the Otzma Yehudit party is the political offspring of the radical orthodox Kach party, which was banned under Israel’s anti-terrorism laws in 1994.   

But widespread public shock at the brutality of Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel has played into the hands of the most radical fringe of the Israeli government, and making brash statements has become part of a calculated political risk.

“Right now, it may be more acceptable for the constituency to say things like this because of the emotional state in Israel,” says Artur Skorek, Israel specialist at Jagiellonian University in Krakow and director of the European Association of Israel Studies.

Netanyahu is personally reliant on politicians on the extreme right to maintain his grip on power and avoid the damning legal charges against him for fraud, breach of trust and accepting improper gifts.

Right-wing politicians “are crucial for the survival of the coalition”, says Brinner. “Without them Netanyahu doesn’t have a majority in the Knesset, meaning that he will not be able to continue as prime minister, which means that he will not be able to weaken the judicial system and cancel the trial on the three charges he faces.”

So far, the prime minister has avoided taking a firm stance on the most controversial of the far right’s comments, with the exception of condemning Eliyahu’s endorsement of using a nuclear bomb.

But beyond their hold over Netanyahu, far-right ministers are likely using strong rhetoric to mask their waning influence.

“This war marks a reduction in their influence at the heart of Netanyahu’s government,” says Peter Lintl, a specialist in Israeli politics at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik).

This is partly because Netanyahu’s war cabinet has seen the return the centrist Kahol Lavan (Blue and White) party to government, led by retired army general Benny Gantz – a fierce opponent of Israel’s extreme-right parties and Netanyahu. 

Within the cabinet itself, “the extreme-right ministers and Knesset members do not have direct operational influence on how Israel conducts the war”, adds Brinner.

“The state and security executives who run the war don’t take them into consideration and even look down at them. None of them even served in the military.”

Lacking tangible power, the far right “are trying to win [over the electorate] by making outrageous comments like this – they can use this language because they don’t have influence and power on how the war is fought”, Skorek adds. 

Targeting the West Bank 

But Israel’s vocal far-right ministers are likely aiming to do more than just persuade potential voters with outlandish statements.

Despite the shock waves that have swept through Israeli society since 7 October, the far right seems focused on longstanding goals: the “transfer” of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and the eradication of the Israeli secular left.

“Their ultimate goal is to have a very different Israeli state – religious rather than secular – and it starts in the West Bank,” says Brinner.

“Keeping the eyes of the world on Gaza allows them and their followers to advance extreme right-wing agendas in the West Bank, even violence against Palestinians there; the bigger the war in Gaza, the less oversight there is in the West Bank.”

Read moreGaza conflict spills into West Bank amid settler attacks

Ben-Gvir has already succeeded in playing on fears stirred up by the Hamas attacks to advance a long-held political goal – loosening firearms regulations to allow more Israelis to carry guns.  

Since October 7, more than 180,000 applications for weapons permits have been submitted in Israel. “The minister has used this crisis to promote a plan to make it easier for citizens to carry weapons,” says Tzelgov.

“His followers will be the first to ask for them.”

Far-right politicians are also playing a long game, aiming to be as aggressive as possible now so that once the war is over, they can settle scores with political opponents.

“They are preparing the stage for the next round: continue to target their opponents – [including] the left, NGOs and the media – as not sufficiently aligned with what was necessary to defend Israel’s interests,” says Tzelgov.

At the same time, provocative rhetoric from far-right ministers is likely to cause “great damage” to Israel’s overall war effort, says Brinner, stirring discontent both inside and outside the country.

“People who support the religious parties are going to question why the government is not being more aggressive in the war against Hamas,” adds Lintl, while internationally, the extremely nationalist tone risks weakening support for Israel and accelerating calls for a ceasefire.

In the long-term, Lintl says, the inflammatory statements could also have a lasting negative impact on relations with allies  – including the US and regional powers like Saudi Arabia – who might be less inclined to sit around the negotiating table with an Israel that is so unwaveringly combative.

This article was translated from the original in French.

Source link

#outrage #hate #wake #October #Israels #seeks #extend #influence

Can the Palestinian Authority lead a post-Hamas Gaza Strip?

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is working hard to involve the Palestinian Authority in a resolution of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Despite having a significant security apparatus, a civil service and other trappings of a state, the weaknesses of the internationally recognised Palestinian leadership mean it may not be well positioned to play a meaningful role in Gaza’s future.

Antony Blinken reiterated Washington’s opposition to Israel reoccupying the Gaza Strip once its war with Hamas ends at a G7 meeting in Japan on Wednesday. “Palestinian people must be central to governance in Gaza and the West Bank as well,” the US secretary of state told reporters, adding: “Gaza cannot continue to be run by Hamas.”

But Washington’s stated opposition to an Israeli occupation of Gaza begs a key question: Who can lead a post-Hamas Gaza Strip?

Blinken’s recent trip to see Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas may provide an insight into US thinking.

On November 5, Blinken passed through Israeli checkpoints on his way to Ramallah to meet with Abbas, his second trip to the region since the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7 and his first to the Palestinian administrative capital.

Blinken reiterated that the United States would like to see the PA playing a central role in any post-Hamas Gaza.

But according to Palestinian media, Abbas told Blinken that the Gaza Strip is an integral part of the state of Palestine and that the PA could only have a role there if Israel ends its occupation of both Palestinian territories within the framework of a “comprehensive political solution that includes all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip”.

“There are no words to describe the genocidal war and destruction that our Palestinian people in Gaza are enduring at the hands of the Israeli war machinery, with no regard for international law,” Abbas added.

The Palestinian Authority in 2023

Established in 1994 as a consequence of the Oslo AccordsYasser Arafat was elected PA president two years later. Today the PA formally exercises authority over only 18% of the West Bank, known as “Area A”. The remaining 82%, separated into Areas “B” and “C”, is controlled either jointly with or entirely by Israel.

Faced with the largest crisis in decades, Arafat’s successor appears more powerless than ever. The PA has been absent from the Gaza Strip since Hamas made gains in the 2006 legislative elections and its subsequent victory in the Battle of Gaza, which saw the Islamist group take complete control of the enclave in 2007.

Among Palestinians, the PA is deeply unpopular, seen as corrupt, repressive and in the service of Israel. But it has a semi-functioning political structure, a civilian administration, and security and intelligence services. It also receives financial support from the United States and the European Union as well as Saudi Arabia and other Arab League states.

There is limited data available about the Palestinian security apparatus in the West Bank but its forces are thought to number in the tens of thousands. These forces are divided among several agencies – including the Palestinian Civil Police, the National Security Forces and the internal Preventive Security Force, which includes the presidential guard – some of which are equipped with light armoured vehicles.

All of these forces loyal to Abbas are restricted to certain areas of the West Bank and have engaged in continuous security cooperation with the Israeli state.

Read more‘We are failing again’: UN, US resignations highlight splits over Israel’s Gaza assault

“The cooperation between the Palestinian and Israeli [security] services is extensive and has withstood any challenge. Every time Mahmoud Abbas has wanted to suspend security cooperation, the Americans have opposed it and he has fallen in line,” says Jean-Paul Chagnollaud, director of the Paris-based Institute for Research and Studies on the Mediterranean and Middle East (Institut de recherche et d’études Méditerranée Moyen-Orient).

“It’s an almost organic relationship, and for many Palestinians, security cooperation comes with no political return. That’s why many accuse the Palestinian Authority of a sort of collaboration.”

Chagnollaud says the idea that the PA would return to Gaza – with Israeli armoured vehicles – as part of an occupying army would be unacceptable to most Palestinians and politically untenable for Abbas and his government.

Can the Palestinian Authority govern Gaza again?

Frédéric Encel, a specialist in Middle Eastern politics at Sciences Po University in Paris, says the Palestinian Authority’s return to Gaza is the only viable solution.

Israel has no legitimacy and no intention of reoccupying, let alone annexing, the enclave,” he says. “Egypt, which occupied it until 1967, has no interest in taking charge. And no state will send peacekeepers to control the Gaza Strip.”

However, for a PA return to be possible, many preconditions need to be met.

“The first condition, which is not easy, is the demilitarisation of Hamas’s main forces, meaning its missiles and especially any terrorists who could enter Israel. As long as this condition remains unmet, the Israelis will not stop the war,” says Encel.

“The second condition is massive support from the international community. And the third is that the current Israeli government [of hard-right Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu] collapses in the short term.”

Encel has “guarded expectations” that these conditions can be established, particularly given Netanyahu’s plummeting approval ratings in the wake of Hamas’s attack in southern Israel. “This combination of circumstances is certainly difficult, but not impossible. All opinion polls conducted in Israel since the Hamas massacre on October 7 consistently give substantial advantage to a centrist and centre-left cohort who are not at all opposed to the two-state solution and the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians.”

Read moreShock Hamas terror attack: The beginning of the end for Israel’s Netanyahu?

US bets on Abbas

The United States would like to have an “effective and revitalised Palestinian Authority take back governance and ultimately security responsibility in Gaza”, as Blinken told a Senate hearing in late October.

But the Biden administration’s hope faces clear obstacles, principally Hamas itself.  

Osama Hamdan, one of Hamas’s Lebanon-based leaders, said on Monday that his people “will not allow the United States to impose its plans to create an administration that suits it and that suits the [Israeli] occupation, and our people will not accept a new Vichy government” – a reference to the collaborationist government that controlled northern France during World War II. 

But the US project also faces opposition on the Israeli side.

Netanyahu once again rejected the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza on Monday. He promised Israel would take “overall security responsibility” in the enclave after the war, prompting a round of denials from Washington, which made clear it would not support an Israeli reoccupation of Gaza.

But the US diplomatic initiative may have a long road ahead, since it would rely on an agreement between the Palestinian Authority and a future Israeli government – one run not by hawks and their far-right allies, but one willing to partner with the Palestinians to map out Gaza’s future.

This article is translated from the original in French.

Source link

#Palestinian #Authority #lead #postHamas #Gaza #Strip