In “What Does Israel Fear from Palestine?” Raja Shehadah, an experienced Palestinian human rights activist, thoughtfully revisits his 2016 lecture to frame it relevantly to the present following the Gaza attacks which took place on October 7th. Shehadah voices his dissatisfaction with the stagnation of progress over the past decade, his belief unwavering that the Israeli-Palestinian situation remains in deadlock. While the horrific war in Gaza may have stirred international condemnation and amplified support for the Palestinian case, the focal centre of Palestinian resentment remains the ongoing occupation.
Shehadah expresses deep disappointment over the unmet expectations of the Oslo Peace Accords. He notes, with a feeling of vindication, that those Palestinians who opposed the treaty in 1993 have been justified in their stand, insisting Israel never intended to dismantle the settlements. It is also argued by Shehadah that Israel succeeded in misrepresenting further Palestinian opposition during the 2000 and 2008 discussions as stubbornness, while it discreetly expanded territorial control over the West Bank alongside the execution of a de facto apartheid system.
This foreseen situation was surprisingly predicted by none other than Yitzhak Rabin in 1976, when he described the then 60 settlements as “a cancer in the social and democratic tissue of the state of Israel”. However, she points out that Rabin himself, akin to other Israeli leaders, was unable to curtail the growth of these settlements during his terms in power.
Amidst Shehadah’s anger-filled yet non-bitter narration, he concludes the book on a somewhat hopeful note, drawing inspiration from the successful Madrid peace conference after the troubled first Intifada. He also finds hope in efforts by some European countries including Spain and Ireland, who are making a move towards restoring dialogue after more than a decade under the influence of Binyamin Netanyahu’s roadblocks.
Professor Beverley Milton-Edwards from Queen’s University Belfast and Stephen Farrell a correspondent from Reuters, revisit their 2010 investigation of Hamas’s rule in Gaza, in an enhanced edition of their previous book, “Hamas: The Quest for Power”. Granted, the latest edition has some evident hasty inclusions in view of current affairs, resulting in avoidable recurrences between older and newer content. However, it presents a comprehensive analysis of Hamas – despite Israeli attempts to assassinate its leadership, and the imposition of Western sanctions, the extremist party has managed to retain its credibility amongst Palestinians, primarily because of its resistance against Fatah’s corruption.
The authors base their work on numerous interviews with influential personalities in Palestinian society, both within and outside Hamas, providing an invaluable understanding of the movement’s standpoint. Hamas rose to power partly due to its ruthless and intimidating tactics, but also by promoting itself as an alternative to the corrupt Fatah.
A significant reason behind Hamas’s success, is the continued tolerance of its actions by Israel. This tolerance stretches back to the beginning of Hamas, known formerly as al-Mujamma’ al-Islami. Founded in Gaza in 1973 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (the founder of Hamas), this affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood often indulged in thuggery including burning cinemas, threating women who refused to wear the hijab, and violent attacks on newspaper stands. Israel seemingly turned a blind eye to these actions in the 1970s, an indifference that allowed Hamas to combat social reforms brought about due to the Egyptian occupation.
Israel also disregarded the considerable foreign funding Hamas received in its early years. These funds were clearly aimed to counter the influence of the PLO. Despite initiating deadly suicide bombings in Israel post the Oslo Accords, Israeli administrations predominantly focused on the PLO, perceiving it to be a higher threat. While they did assassinate Hamas leaders such as Salam Shedade in 2002 and Sheikh Yassin in 2004, their attention remained firmly focused on PLO. In recent years, Netanyahu continued this ambiguous policy by allowing Hamas to accept payments via Qatar, even as they steadily became Israel’s main foe.
The attempts of Israel to control the conflict have proven disastrous, illustrated by the calamity of October 7th. Notwithstanding the rigorous assaults and targeted killings it has endured, Hamas shows no indications of disappearing – something Netanyahu openly dreams of. Israel’s heavy-handed response in Gaza could potentially swell Hamas’ ranks with embittered volunteers. The ascendency of Hamas in Palestinian regions would certainly present a bleak picture, especially for Palestinians. Nonetheless, Hamas, or at least its members, will inevitably feature in any future resolution, which will require them to make significant compromises.
Michael A Horowitz, an Israeli author, in his book, Hope and Despair: Israel’s Future in the New Middle East, claims the exhaustion over the Palestine issue spurred the reconciliation between Israel and the Gulf countries. This led to the 2021 Abraham Accords with Morocco, UAE, Bahrain, and potentially Saudi Arabia as next in line. Yet, whilst the Palestine affair might have worn out the Gulf leadership, Horowitz notes that the Arab populace is still deeply concerned. Even autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia display caution in their warming relationship with Israel, with plans to normalise ties put on pause following the outbreak of war in Gaza.
According to Horowitz, the primary split is not necessarily between Palestinians and Israelis, but more so between those that believe they can triumph in the conflict and those who are seeking resolution. It may be slightly overstated, yet it rings true that both sides harbour strong ideological factions – Hamas and the Israeli far-right – who perceive themselves as the future victors in an all-or-nothing situation. These deeply motivated factions are currently the most potent historical actors within their own nations. However, this zero-sum mindset must be abandoned for any form of peacemaking to occur. Regardless, neither side is going to back down, implying both will have to be grappled with in the end.
The author provides a detailed insight into Israel’s extreme right-wing settler movement. They specifically highlight Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of the Irgun paramilitary group, who was ominously clear about the potential for Palestinian resistance to colonisation, far more aware than the Labour party. Despite Jabotinsky’s deeply racial and destructive attitudes towards Arabs, his stern ideology is currently prevalent in Israel. This rise has been facilitated by Benzion Netanyahu’s son, the former personal secretary to Jabotinsky. Observing the manner in which Netanyahu’s successive governments have conducted the war in Gaza, with “tragic mistakes” resulting in civilian deaths and friendly fire incidents, it is possible to question if self-isolation is their ultimate aim.
Indeed, it bears a resemblance to the strategy of radical Islamist groups seeking to intensify conflicts and render peaceful cohabitation between Muslims and non-Muslims unattainable. Could it be that the goal of the Israeli extreme right is also to render any peaceful resolution unapproachable? A core belief mirrored through the lens of Revisionist Zionism in the period following the Holocaust, is that Jews, living in Israel and in the diaspora, can rely solely on themselves, as friends can turn into foes, and anti-Semitism is a constant adversary taking various shapes over time. This has driven Israel under Netanyahu’s reign, to pragmatically build substantial alliances in Europe with far-right political parties, despite some of them having past or current associations with anti-Semitic figures.
Horowitz’s book offers a balanced and serious examination of a nation at a pivotal point, as susceptible to internal discord as to external threats. His work is worth perusing, particularly for the sternest critics of Israel.
“Blindness: October 7 and the Left”, which was published as the May 2024 issue of The Jewish Quarterly, presents journalist Hadley Freeman criticising the radical left for their anti-Zionist positions, which she claims are veering into anti-Semitism. Freeman attests that the attacks on October 7th confirmed her belief that “the progressive left despise Jews”. This accusation is fleshed out in her 80-page argument, with mixed outcomes.
Freeman’s assertion that reactions from certain left-wing factions to the events of October 7th were insensitive and full of malice is accurate. Ranging from an American academic gleefully relishing the onslaught without any direct impact, to protesters in Sydney heckling with anti-Semitic slurs, was a disheartening celebration of civilian killing. Further rampant was the casual indifference and immediate pivot to focus on the Palestinians’ plight, as if to overshadow the pain endured by those victimized by Hamas.
In the Western context, it’s uncommon to find leftists sharing the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, or violating Jewish burial grounds. However, anti-Semitism, prevalent among the left and especially among pro-Palestinian advocates, typically manifests in more ordinary yet still harmful forms. Many authors of these acts may not even understand that they’re indulging in anti-Semitism. One typical scenario is the redirection of unrelated Jewish themes towards Palestine. A clear example occurred last December when the Celtic Football Club extended Hanukkah greetings to its Jewish followers on Instagram, only for the post to be inundated with “Free Palestine” responses. After the merciless killing of four Jewish individuals (none linked to Israel) in a Parisian kosher supermarket in 2015, I know of an Irishman whose response was the sadly forgone “do people apprehend what they are causing to the Palestinians?”
While some leftist factions may argue that raising these issues merely diverts attention from Israeli actions against Palestinians, it’s just an attempt to cloud the truth. With several instances of targeted Jewish murders happening in recent years across the USA and Europe, it stands to reason for them to feel uneasy about a deteriorating rhetorical environment. While the situation isn’t improved by Israel and many of its defenders consistently branding critics as anti-Semites, the left’s inability to separate Palestinian issues from everyday Jewish life only reinforces this dishonest strategy.
Freeman’s book, replete with a range of selective debates, will likely resonate with longstanding watchers of Israeli hasbara. One of her propositions delves into the shift in the European left, from supporting Zionism to criticising Israel post the six-day war in 1967. She brings up a statement by Howard Jacobson, a novelist, who suggests that the left is incapable of empathising with the victors. While an intriguing perspective, it glides past the disenchanting impact that the unlawful possession of the West Bank has had on Israel’s global standing, not limited to the left only. This illicit occupation has been relentlessly pursued by sequential Israeli administrations, despite worldwide disapproval, justifying it with distortions of history.
Freeman’s book also features some curious inconsistencies. For instance, she backs a quote by Anthony Julius which accuses those advocating for a truce of practically suggesting ‘…a ceasefire now…to enable Hamas to rearm’. However, later on in her book, she expresses the regret that Israel takes too many lives and that Netanyahu was lured into a trap set by Hamas after October 7th. So, what is her stance, truly?
Furthermore, Freeman, who has displayed, for some time now, either dubiousness or antagonism towards the topic of trans rights, a position that has alienated a chunk of the British left, isn’t likely attempting to convincingly represent the left’s views in her book. The book, laden with many recognisable Zionist arguments, will predominantly attract readers who are seeking affirmation of their pre-existing beliefs.