Security measures remain ubiquitous in Israeli and PA rhetoric

The Palestinian Authority has complained intermittently about the unyielding Israeli preconditions throughout the lengthy and fruitless process of negotiations. This concern became more open following last year’s Israeli General Election and the inclusion of ministers such as Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked in influential coalition posts in education and justice respectively.

An alternative Israeli government, however, is unlikely to exhibit any tendency to take a softer approach. According to the Times of Israel, opposition leader Isaac Herzog has declared that security measures would be his main focus were he to be elected prime minister. Indeed, Israel’s security would still be the ubiquitous item in Israeli and PA rhetoric.

On two separate occasions this week — speaking to Army Radio and during a conference at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv — Herzog stated that a bilateral agreement, with reference to the two-state paradigm, would not be a priority. “I don’t see a possibility at the moment of implementing the two-state solution,” he pointed out. Instead, the physical isolation of Palestinians would take precedence. “There is a need to initiate security measures that match the reality on the ground and that means separation from the Palestinians,” explained Herzog. “I wish to separate from as many Palestinians as possible, as quickly as possible. You exist there and we exist here.”

The implementation of such “separation” (for which read apartheid) would undoubtedly consist of a more rapid colonial expansion which, again, would ensure the further deterioration of any hypothetical Palestinian state. It is also likely that Herzog would find a willing, complicit partner in the Palestinian Authority, given its concessionary gestures that have prevailed in return for symbolic recognition, which have been endorsed by several international organisations professing their “support” for a future state.

Security measures are profitable for Israel in various ways. Surveillance technology and security hardware and techniques have been promoted and exported — all duly field-tested on live subjects, the Palestinians — and are even gaining ground with centre-left governments in South America, despite the relatively recent history of dictatorships in the region. The security rhetoric has allowed Israel the means through which to manipulate the international agenda in its favour, reaping benefits for every insignificant gesture it makes to the Palestinians. Within the context of colonial expansion, the PA’s reluctance to end its “sacred” security coordination with the occupation authorities has garnered Israel a subjugated, defeated, but still useful, ally. In a recent report published by Defence News, Majed Faraj, the director of the PA’s General Intelligence Service, is described as viewing security coordination as “a bridge that can sustain a decent atmosphere until the politicians go back to serious talks.”

The dynamics of dependence between Israel and the PA are portrayed clearly; security coordination and the oppressive policies targeting Palestinians remain a contentious issue of the violation of human rights. However, the benefits of such violations resulting in the strengthening of Israel’s narrative, as well as ensuring — for now — the PA’s survival, will take precedence in diplomatic circles.

Herzog’s scheming towards possible future leadership of Israel has been consolidated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s exacerbation of already dreadful conditions, particularly through massacres of Palestinians in Gaza as well as their brutal and systematic oppression in the occupied West Bank. Any future separation of the Palestinian population will ultimately be brought about through the implementation of well-known strategies, such as forced displacement, home demolitions and settlement expansion, as well as the international community’s approval of the slow extermination policies and ethnic cleansing favoured by Israel as a way to maintain the levels of violence required by its abhorrent colonial project.

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