Israel’s lack of a strategy is the strategy

Israel’s seeming lack of strategy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may, in fact, be its strategy, according to insights from the late Ariel Sharon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Historical context: Sharon and others believed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is permanent, and that any attempts at resolution, such as a two-state solution, are not truly feasible.
* Sharon saw the conflict as a part of life in the Middle East, and that the Arab world had never truly accepted Israel’s presence.

Netanyahu’s stance: In an interview, Netanyahu was vague about his goals for Gaza, from which the Israeli military is trying to remove control from Hamas.
* Netanyahu mentioned the need for a “civilian government” in Gaza but did not mention who this should be.
* His refusal to accept the Palestinian Authority as the administration in Gaza, a group that endorses a two-state solution, might be seen as rejecting the notion of permanent peace.

The implications: Netanyahu’s lack of concrete strategy can be seen as aligning with the belief of conflict as a permanent feature in the Middle East.
* In an interview, Netanyahu suggested that Palestinians could have governance over areas not of interest to Israel, while Israel retains all power over security matters.
* While not pursuing peace with Palestinians, Netanyahu has sought to establish diplomatic ties with Arab nations, circumventing the Palestinians.

The big picture: Israel’s lack of a long-term peace plan for Gaza might not be an omission but a strategic choice, reflecting a belief in the permanence of the conflict.
View original article on NPR
This summary was created by an AI system. The use of this summary is subject to our Terms of Service.

Contact us about this post

Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *