Time to ditch Israel's hegemonic rhetoric

After a volley of rockets were fired from Gaza into Southern Israel, former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman advocated a re-occupation of the enclave, declaring that in two years’ time Israel might find itself facing an advanced strategy from Hamas, with ‘aircraft and hundreds of missiles that will reach beyond Tel Aviv’.

The Israeli military spokesman Peter Lerner described the rocket firing as ‘an intolerable act of aggression against Israel and its civilians’. While Israel has suggested that the Islamic Jihad bears responsibility for firing the rockets, collective responsibility was placed upon Hamas. Border crossings between Gaza and Israel were closed, while Israeli aircraft destroyed military targets, including weapons storage facilities and a rocket launch site.

Lieberman’s remarks are reminiscent of the assumption of force which is devoid of responsibility. Citing the ‘campaigns’ of Operation Cast Lead and Operation Pillar of Defence which, in Lieberman’s philosophy, should have served as an incentive for Palestinians to quell resistance, the proposed invasion of Gaza is reminiscent of the perpetual security concerns rhetoric. In an attempt to make the obvious sound innovative, Lieberman justifies his stance by failing to offer other options, since ‘Hamas has no intention to recognise Israel or coexist in peace or accept the Jewish presence in Israel’.

What Lieberman consciously fails to mention is that recognition of Israel by Hamas undermines the Palestinian claim to legitimacy, as well as the foundations of the organisation. Within the Palestinian context, alternatives can only serve to fragment the concept of unity further. The Palestinian demographic majority is burdened with dispossession and, in the case of Palestinians in the region, geographically incarcerated, rendering discourse of majorities a contentious issue embroiled within Israeli refusal to apply the right to return. Any acceptance of a colonial power which achieves superiority by aligning itself with imperial interests would divest Palestinians of their quest for self-determination. A display of compliance emanating from the oppressed population in order to aggravate collective punishment seems to be a requirement for Israel to portray its aggression as a phenomenon other than retaliation. Any form of acquiescence would possibly further Israel’s occupation within a narrative sanctioned not only by intentionally alienated international organisations and leaders, but also by compliance.

Blockaded by sea, land and air, Gaza remains under siege even without a physical manifestation of occupation in the territory. Any ‘cleansing’ of Gaza is nothing but an exercise in obliterating any formidable opposition to Israel’s illegal colonial and apartheid practices. ‘Without willingness to take things to their conclusion we merely increase the threats,’ stated Lieberman. The only befitting conclusion in Zionist narrative would be absolute dominance over Palestinian land. It is the manipulation of language – ‘coming to terms with Jewish presence in the land of Israel’, which Lieberman exploits in order to portray a legitimate demand which makes this suggestion to perpetrate yet another crime unworthy of further monitoring and investigation. The international community should do away with duplicity and perceive Israeli rhetoric for what it is – the expression of an unwanted hegemony persisting in occupying Palestinian public space.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.