Azmi Bishara, Director-General of Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, emphasizes any Gaza deal should prioritize ending Palestinian suffering
Any talk of a settlement or a future truce in the Gaza Strip must entail an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people, a full ceasefire or an international agreement that bans the bombing and shelling of civilians, according to Azmi Bishara, director-general of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies.
Any temporary truces that may be reached would be tantamount to a “punishment, not a solution” because Israeli shelling and bombing would intensify the day that a truce expires, he added. The resistance movements’ rejection of negotiations over prisoner exchange without a ceasefire undermines the Israeli government’s attempt to show Israeli society that it is concerned for the welfare of the Israeli prisoners in Gaza, he elaborated.
In an interview with The New Arab’s affiliated Alaraby TV in Doha, the Arab thinker predicted that Israel would fall into a “quagmire” in Gaza, especially since Israeli leaders are planning for the war to continue for one whole year. This, he added, would cause Israel a problem because on the one hand, “that will not be long enough for it to achieve its declared objectives”, rendering a decision to withdraw into a defeat before the Israeli public; while on the other hand “it will be unable to deal with the consequences of the war persisting longer than that.”
Commenting on the Israeli army’s announcement that it was entering “the next phase” of the war, Bishara said Israel has not achieved its declared objectives and has only partially achieved its main objective, which is “to destroy the resistance movement.” On the contrary, “the occupation is creating an opportunity for the resistance movement” in Gaza because “resistance (usually) arises when an occupation is complete,” according to Bishara. The resistance “begins to launch its attacks when Israel takes up positions (. . .) and the occupation army begins to pay the price and to sustain losses.”
The third phase of the war “is not merely a choice” for Israel but a necessity because “its carpet bombing has destroyed Gaza, and there are no longer any real targets to bomb.” He added that Israeli leaders “falsely and dishonestly” claim that phase would entail “surgically precise operations”, which signifies more specific operations, “but that requires establishing positions in the middle of Gaza to separate the south of the Strip from its north.”
The Arab Center Director said it was likely “that Israel will establish a buffer zone around Gaza,” which would mean that “all Israeli positions would become targets for the resistance.”
Bishara pointed out that the writings of some Israeli analysts warning that Israel is entering “the quagmire” of Gaza because the losses the Israeli army is sustaining there are a “correct description”. But he also warned against “substituting the image of an invincible Israel with notions that underestimate Israel.”
Referring to the massive loss of civilian life in the Gaza Strip, Bishara said the colossal damage there was not merely “collateral damage”, particularly since “Israeli officials have been saying that they want to destroy Gaza.” “Such destruction is the main aim of the war”, he said, which he linked to Israel’s goal of “punishing the Palestinian people” on the one hand “and satisfying Israeli society’s desire for revenge” on the other hand.
The Arab intellectual added that Israel hopes that the destruction of Gaza “will lead to a phase of serious migration” from Gaza, particularly since the war has so far led to the displacement of 300,000 families. Another of Israel’s aims in destroying the Gaza Strip is its desire “to provoke a reaction by (Gaza’s) people against the leadership of the Palestinian Resistance,” he said.
He continued that “all the Western talk that claims Israel is not targeting civilians is untrue (. . .) since (the targeting of civilians) is a planned, methodical and gradual goal that is being assiduously implemented.” He emphasized that such brutality within Israeli society has been forged through “a methodical educational and media process and a political discourse that employs racist language to depict Arabs” and hence, it is necessary to interpret “Israeli consensus about the war” on that basis.
About international and Arab moves and initiatives, Bishara said that talks in Cairo on a proposed political plan must take into consideration “the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinian people.”RELATED
Two-state solution is dead, but Palestinians didn’t kill it
PerspectivesAlex Croft
Two-state solution
Regarding the discourse of “the two-state solution”, Bishara pointed out that this had been going on since the Oslo accords were signed. However, what has been occurring is a process of hindering such an initiative, “with negotiations taking place in the absence of an agreed basis” because Israel, in reality, rejects the two-state-solution, whereas the Palestinian side has adopted it. This has turned negotiations “into an open-ended process” because the parties concerned “are not negotiating to reach an agreement; rather, they negotiate when they reach an agreement, whereas Israel is only willing to accept a (Palestinian) state in name only, thus the emptying the negotiations of any substance.”
The Arab thinker further pointed out that although the Western powers emphasize their espousal of the two-state solution, they reject a Palestinian state that would have sovereignty, armed forces, and control over its borders (. . .) Biden and the Europeans talk about two states, but what exists on the ground is an apartheid system.” He added that Israel is not talking about the two-state solution, although some opposition party leaders, such as Benny Gantz, talk about two entities, while others still in Israel talk about segregating the Palestinians.
Asked if the Arab parties concerned could take advantage of events in Gaza to pressure Washington into seriously pursuing a two-state solution, Bishara affirmed that “If the Arab countries undertake sincere efforts, they can make use of those events to put forward the Arab peace initiative”, but he added that “any concessions on this issue will provide free normalisation (with Israel) that will strengthen the Israeli right.”
Bishara expressed the opinion that “the Arabs must not interfere in the way that the Gaza Strip will be governed once the war is over because talk of arranging things after the war is complicity (in the war).” He qualified this by adding, “Of course, the Arab countries can help the Palestinians between themselves, but not by going along with Israel and the US about how to relieve Israel of the Gaza Strip.”
The Arab thinker described the recent UN Security Council resolution as being “colourless, tasteless and odourless . . . an empty gesture that entails nothing that would change the reality of life in Gaza.” To illustrate the resolution’s weakness, Bishara quoted UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who said that any resolution that did not call for a ceasefire would have no value. Bishara also referred to Israel’s comment mocking the Security Council as “living in another world”.
