By Bruce S. Ticker
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania — Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar’s death was “the best day of my life,” Mohammed, 22, tells a New York Times reporter.
“He humiliated us, started the war, scattered us and made us displaced, without water, food or money,” he continues. “He is the one who made Israel do this.”
Would that most Palestinians think like Mohammed, who did not allow his last name to be listed. Some believe that Israel and Arabs who reside in Gaza and the West Bank could live in peace and partner together to build prosperity for all parties. That is doubtful.
Long before Sinwar was killed by Israeli troops last Wednesday (Oct. 16), most observers pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to reach a cease-fire and grant Palestinians their own independent state.
They behave as if Hamas and other terrorist groups have nothing to say about this. If Netanyahu loosens up, then Hamas will gleefully join him. So far, after its rampage in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, when terrorists massacred nearly 1,200 Israelis, Hamas has rejected any reasonable cease-fire deal with Israel, and they could well continue rejecting a cease-fire forever.
Oct. 7 proved this fact: Hamas wants to destroy Israel and probably believes it will do so eventually. They cannot reach this goal if it releases the remaining hostages and ends its hostile acts against Israel. Many other Palestinians feel the same way. They have felt this way for 75 years, if we do not count the decades leading up to Israel’s creation.
They have an attitude – an attitude that will prevent any durable change in their relationship with Israelis. It is impossible to quantify how all Palestinians view Israel, but their hostility still prevails.
Mohammed fears retaliation from Hamas so much that he offered his afore-mentioned views sans mention of his last name. Many Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and Arabs in other nations, have celebrated Israeli deaths.
Arab leaders of friendly nations did not care about the fate of Palestinians before 10/7. Now Saudi Arabia is demanding that Israel negotiate an independent state with the Palestinians before they develop a cooperative relationship with Israel. Arabs in these countries have long hated Israel, but their fury is boiling over after a year of Israel’s attacks on Gaza. The Hamas-controlled health ministry claims that Israel’s response has killed more than 40,000 people there.
Netanyahu is resisting a cease-fire and refuses to support an independent state. Israelis have practical reasons for opposing a Palestinian state. Israel already offered the Palestinians an independent state in 2000 during a summit at Camp David, and their then-leader Yasser Arafat not only rejected Israel’s plan but started or facilitated another war. In fact, 10/7 violated a cease-fire spawned by a previous military confrontation.
Israelis can rightfully fear that Arabs will mount assaults from their own independent state. Of course, they already did just that. Gaza has been a de facto independent state under Hamas for the last 17 years.
Consider that Israel is capable of changing course. Israel consistently holds parliamentary elections. Hamas has held no elections after it seized control of Gaza in 2007 from the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition can remain in control for the next two years unless a special election is necessary. Many people blame Netanyahu for some of the present conditions, but the next election can end his reign. Of course, that election cannot guarantee such an outcome.
Also, there are those who simply believe that an independent state will not work for a range of reasons. I will be pleased if it succeeds, but I think the affected parties should look at other options.
Netanyahu’s coalition has taken positions that contradict calls for a cease-fire and taking steps toward an independent state, and they appear to be serious about annexing the West Bank and installing new communities in Gaza. That would be nearly two decades after Israel moved many of its citizens out of Gaza. Issuing threats to implement these plans might serve as effective leverage in negotiations, but it will ruin attempts at compromise.
Even so, all parties must cooperate. If Netanyahu rolls back these plans or if his coalition is replaced by a more sensible government and alters course, Hamas and other Palestinian leaders can still refuse a temporary cease-fire and an independent state proposal. In the end, they probably will.
Their present goal remains the elimination of Israel, and hatred toward the Jewish state is widespread in Arab states. I wondered if Arafat turned down Israel’s proposal at Camp David because many of his people, especially those prone to violence, would never accept a reasonable deal.
Unless Arabs change their attitude, what can Israel do?
*
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia-based columnist.
The unvarnished truth is that—correctly conceptualized—the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian-Arabs over the control of the Holy Land is a clash between two rival collectives, with irreconcilable foundational narratives.
They are irreconcilable because the raison d’etre of the one is the preservation of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land, while the raison d’etre of the other is the annulment of Jewish political sovereignty in the Holy Land—thus generating irreconcilable visions of homeland.
As such, the conflict between the Jews and the Palestinian-Arabs is an archetypical zero-sum game, in which the gains of one side imply an inevitable loss for the other.
It is, therefore, a clash involving protagonists with antithetical and mutually exclusive core objectives. Only one can emerge victorious, with the other vanquished. There are no consolation prizes.