The synchronised outlook of Israel and the PA

While Mahmoud Abbas has once again resorted to France as the “supporter” of Palestine and willing collaborator in drafting further futile resolutions, former Israel Defence Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Benny Gantz added his opinion recently regarding the two-state paradigm. He shed light upon how the incessant rhetoric and, indeed, any hypothetical emergence of such a fallacy, will ultimately ensure the perpetual subjugation of Palestinians.

As reported by Israel National News, during a conference at the Institute for National Security in Tel Aviv, Gantz expounded upon Israel’s challenges, stating that the colonial entity should “strive for peace on the local, regional and international level, but only with a security agreement with the PA [Palestinian Authority].” He described the security agreement as “strategically important”, adding that such a precondition would provide the foundations for any permanence.

Gantz also praised Defence Minister Moshe Ya’alon for “protecting the IDF” after the extrajudicial killing in Hebron. Ya’alon’s rhetoric reflected Gantz’s comments during the conference, effectively neglecting the consequences of colonial violence and shifting the focus towards Israeli society in a way that further stifles Palestinian resistance.

Indeed, Ya’alon’s rhetoric seems to be centred upon the immediate consequences. “There is a struggle here over the character and image of the state of Israel and Israeli society,” said the Jerusalem Post last month, “in a way that influences the IDF.” However, a comparison with Gantz’s remarks shows some cohesion with the ultimate aim of undermining Palestinian resistance through consigning the issue to history. The general also referred to Israel as passing through a problematic phase with regards to “education, rifts in Israeli society and inequality.”

Typically, Ya’alon’s aggressive comments with regard to Palestinians have generated sporadic outrage. Gantz, however, uses language skilfully and perversely as a tool for alienation; one example is his differentiation of settler violence based upon who the victims are. Settler anger at purported state or military misgivings is treated as a marginal phenomenon. Settler violence against Palestinian civilians is an additional chapter to be consigned to oblivion.

Likewise in this context, both Ya’alon and Gantz have teamed-up in “exposing” grievances within Israeli society as a cover for having further impunity to act in violation of international laws and conventions. The intention is to carve a niche of alleged concern which can be interwoven within Israeli narrative as befits the context, whether related to the current uprising against state and settler violence, or the negotiations and the two-state compromise, which leads ultimately to the cycle of security coordination jargon.

Gantz’s comments should be a cause of consternation rather than submissive agreement. Expectations that the PA or the international community might react with a sliver of indignation are surreal. However, at least within activist circles which, despite their professed support for Palestine, still veer towards the two-state imposition, the recent discourse should shed light upon the fact that whether or not a peace deal is agreed, both Israel and the PA have exposed their synchronised outlook with regard to domination and subjugation respectively. Unless Palestinian resistance is given the required support, Palestine’s future will be damaged unequivocally and irreversibly, probably to alienated applause from the PA every time a symbolic gesture is heralded as a great achievement.

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