May 2, 2024
Not only has
Israel failed to defeat Hamas, but it is being dragged into discussions on
Palestinian statehood, which its Gaza genocide has put back onto the
international agenda.
After seven
months of a brutal military assault on Gaza, it is abundantly clear that Israel
has not succeeded in eradicating Hamas. Instead of delivering a decisive
military victory, the occupation state finds itself being drawn kicking and
screaming into negotiations over a two-state solution.
Withstanding the
impracticality of establishing a genuinely independent, sovereign Palestinian
state in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, this scenario
is becoming increasingly likely despite long-standing opposition from the
Israeli government. It is an extraordinary development, particularly as Tel
Aviv’s strategy, as articulated by foreign policy advisor Ophir Falk, was
mainly to “destroy Hamas” and its military and governance capabilities
entirely.
Today, the
two-state option is frantically being resuscitated in Washington, of all
places, and by stalwart allies of Tel Aviv.
Martin Indyk, a
former US ambassador to Israel and staunch supporter of the occupation state,
argues in Foreign Affairs magazine that far from being “dead,” the two-state
solution now looks to be the only reasonable game in town:
The
reason for this revival is not complicated. There are, after all, only a few
possible alternatives to the two-state solution. There is Hamas’ solution,
which is the destruction of Israel. There is the Israeli ultra-right’s
solution, which is the Israeli annexation of the West Bank, the dismantling of
the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the deportation of Palestinians to other
countries. There is the ‘conflict management’ approach pursued for the last
decade or so by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which aimed to
maintain the status quo indefinitely – and the world has seen how that worked
out. And there is the idea of a binational state in which Jews would become a
minority, thus ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state. None of those alternatives
would resolve the conflict – at least not without causing even greater
calamities. And so if the conflict is to be resolved peacefully, the two-state
solution is the only idea left standing.
Disarmament for
statehood?
In widely
publicized comments last week, Khalil al-Hayya, deputy head of Hamas in Gaza,
has appeared to endorse the 1967 borders for a future Palestinian state
explicitly.
In a recent
interview with AP, Hayya spoke of “a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip and the return of Palestinian refugees in accordance
with the international resolutions” along Israel’s pre-1967 borders.
Most
significantly, though, he hinted that the resistance movement’s military wing,
Al-Qassam Brigades, could potentially dissolve itself and/or fold its cadres
into a Palestinian national army:
All
the experiences of people who fought against occupiers, when they became
independent and obtained their rights and their state, what have these forces
done? They have turned into political parties and their defending fighting
forces have turned into the national army.
Instead of
embracing these possibilities, Falk dismissed Hayya as a “high-ranking
terrorist” and sought to redirect the conversation back to intransigent Israeli
demands:
“Prime Minister
Netanyahu’s government set a mission to destroy Hamas’ military and governing
capabilities in Gaza, free the hostages, and ensure that Gaza does not pose a
threat to Israel and the rest of the civilized world in the future,” he said,
adding, “Those goals will be achieved.”
Diplomacy in
Doha and Istanbul
Although Hayya
emphasized that his views are aligned with Hamas’ historical positions, as
articulated by the resistance movement’s spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin,
in 1998 and reiterated in its 2017 charter of general principles and policies,
his public statements highlight the immense political pressures faced by Hamas,
notably from political allies Qatar and Turkiye.
These pressures
aim to foster high-level international and regional talks that could
potentially end the conflict and establish ‘permanent stability.’ As with any
negotiation, there are essential questions to address: Who will have the
authority to enforce these terms? What limitations will be imposed? These are
critical issues for Palestinians besieged in Gaza and for their broader cause –
as well as for Al-Qassam and the entire resistance.
Behind the
scenes, both Qatar and Turkiye have been instrumental in shaping Hamas’ new
diplomatic approach. The movement’s external leaders, including Khaled Meshal
and Ismail Haniyeh, have participated in discussions facilitated by both
countries in Doha and Istanbul.
Earlier this
month, in a joint press conference with his Qatari counterpart, Sheikh Mohammed
bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, Turkiye’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan was explicitly
supportive, also highlighting the west’s positive stance toward intensifying
peace efforts based on the two-state solution.
“In our
political talks with Hamas for years, they have accepted a Palestinian state to
be established within the 1967 borders,” Fidan told reporters.
“They have told
me that following the establishment of the Palestinian state, Hamas would no
longer need an armed wing and they would continue as a political party,” he
added.
The ball is in
Israel’s court
Although
Israel’s western allies have long sought to exclude Hamas from any and all
Palestinian processes, it has become abundantly clear that Gaza’s military
leadership, particularly Al-Qassam Brigades, is set to play a crucial role in
any negotiation process.
This is an
extraordinary victory of sorts for Hamas, which has successfully managed to
insert itself into future deliberations, not only on Gaza but Palestine as a
whole. The movement’s tactical decision to endorse the 1967 borders not only
aims to position Hamas as a credible negotiator but also strategically corners
the far-right coalition government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
By signaling
willingness to demilitarize in exchange for statehood, Hamas aims to place the
onus on Tel Aviv, toying with the inherent vulnerability of its coalition
government and potentially precipitating its collapse. This move not only
improves Hamas’ leverage in any forthcoming negotiations but, ironically, also
aligns with the US interests in seeing regime change in Israel.
It is clear that
Hamas has – whether out of conviction, under pressure, or as a wily tactic –
become a necessary partner in broader and long-term political negotiations
concerning the future of Palestine and the region.
Over the years,
the movement has itself been compelled to engage in several rounds of indirect
negotiations with Israel, most notably at the end of the first decade of the
millennium when Hamas was still based in Damascus. That was part of a larger
regional effort spurred by Ankara to rejuvenate the peace process.
Twenty-six years
ago, Khaled Meshaal met with former US President Jimmy Carter in Damascus
during the latter’s nine-day West Asia tour aimed at breaking the deadlock
between Israel and Hamas early in their governance of Gaza.
The Palestinian
resistance movement enjoyed considerable leeway for political maneuvering due
to the geopolitical climate at the time. Carter reported that Hamas expressed
willingness to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders if agreed
upon by the Palestinians and acknowledged Israel’s right to exist peacefully as
a neighboring state.
Compelling
Israel to do Hamas’ will
But today,
Hamas’ renewed strength comes from two main factors: the relentless, unified military pushback by
the region’s Axis of Resistance in support of their Palestinian allies and
unprecedented global condemnation of Israel’s Gaza genocide – both sharply
impacting and confounding Tel Aviv’s initial, over-confident war objectives.
Rather than
defeating Hamas, Israel now finds itself on the back foot, engaging in
negotiations that center around the one outcome it had least expected – that of
a two-state solution.
Tel Aviv’s
disturbing dilemma also showcases the political acumen of Hamas and the
Palestinian resistance, who recognized the utility of hard power in achieving
political ends rather than as an end in itself – in sharp contrast to Israel’s
approach throughout this conflict.
The fact that,
seven months after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Hamas retains its array of
capabilities signifies not only the abject failure of Israel’s military and
political objectives but also an unexpected humbling of Tel Aviv. Israel,
today, is being forced into negotiations on Palestinian statehood that it has
assiduously avoided for 30 long years.
This shift is
undoubtedly energized by the unprecedented US student protest movement and
other anti-colonial voices around the world, adding a global dimension to the
local struggle. These developments are yet another ace in the hand for Hamas
and another nail in the coffin for Israeli leverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment