The Israeli Right and Center’s plan to grant power in the Gaza Strip to local Gazan groups once Hamas is defeated is “unrealistic” and “negligent,” and there is no alternative to eventually allowing the Palestinian Authority to administer the Strip, Labor MK Gilad Kariv said to The Jerusalem Post in an interview on Wednesday.
“The debate about the ‘day after’ (the war) is negligent, and is a debate that endangers the military achievements of the war,” Kariv begins. “Moreover, it endangers our soldiers. When you do not have a diplomatic agenda, you tend to continue with military actions …and we may find ourselves in a situation where we continue to endanger our soldiers more than what is necessary if we had a diplomatic agenda.”
“Third, it endangers the State of Israel’s strategic assets. At the end of the day, the countries of the West, led by the United States, will not agree over time to the current strength of their strategic alliance, if Israel is not capable of presenting some form of diplomatic agenda,” Kariv says.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has the utmost responsibility in this matter, and his chronic indecisiveness on everything that does not have to do with his own political interests are not helpful, Kariv says. But the centrist parties’ doctrine of “managing the (Israeli-Palestinian) conflict” as opposed to solving it, serves as de-facto support of Netanyahu’s doctrine of weakening the Palestinian Authority –which is what led to the strengthening of Hamas, Kariv argues.
“In this regard, the Israeli Center is a partner in the negligence,” he says. “Even today, the Israeli center – that which sits in the coalition (National Unity), and that which leads the opposition (Yesh Atid) – is not able to free itself from the lack of realism of its diplomatic language. I hear (National Unity) minister Chili Tropper, who I respect as a person and a politician, give an interview about the ‘day after’ without mentioning the name of (PA president) Abu Mazen, as if [Abu Mazen] is (Harry Potter villain) Voldemort, whose name cannot be uttered” Kariv says.
If it works in West Bank, then why not Gaza?
Kariv’s argument in favor of involving the PA in Gaza is simple: Israel counts on and cooperates with the PA in the West Bank, despite the fact that half a million Jews there live in close proximity to Palestinians. Why then would Israel not be willing to cooperate with a PA in Gaza – where no Jews will live? Advertisement
“There is something here that does not make sense. If Abu Mazen equals (Hamas leader) Sinwar … then how do we live with him in Judea and Samaria? Are there no security concerns there?!
“If, as Bibi (Netanyahu) says, Fatahstan equals Hamastan, then why do you accept Fatahstan in Ramallah? And if (Yesh Atid chairman MK) Yair Lapid and (National Unity chairman, minister-without portfolio MK) Benny Gantz believe that the PA is irrelevant to Gaza, then how is it relevant to what happens in Judea and Samaria?” Kariv asks.
“Secondly, are we in a fantasy land?! There are senior ministers in the cabinet who say that they do not want to rule two million Palestinians (in Gaza), so they will work with ‘local officials’ in Gaza. What local officials are you talking about? The criminal gangs, who smuggled in arms from Egypt?! The Islamist Palestinian factions that are not Hamas, but Islamic Jihad?! Who do you think resides there?!”
“There are two options [in Gaza] – either Hamas, or the PA,” Kariv says. “Stand up and speak courageously. If you are (Finance Minister and Religious Zionist Party chairman Bezalel) Smotrich, say that you believe in (Israeli) military rule, and if you are not Smotrich, then speak the truth: Israel lives with Abu Mazen and the PA in Judea and Samaria, and this is what needs to happen in Gaza.”
Kariv admits that “this is not simple or easy. [The PA] needs to be pressured to do reforms, and must be watched closely, as at any given moment it can turn against us – (but) there is no alternative to the PA,” Kariv says.
According to Kariv, no one believes that a two-state solution will emerge in the near future. What needs to happen, therefore, are two things: an update to the Oslo Accords, and a return of the PA to Gaza.
“The Oslo Accords can no longer serve as the contractual and narrative foundation of the relations between the two groups. They were written for five years, and 30 years have passed. The reality on the ground is different – from the amount of water that the Palestinians need, to the cellular communications protocols. Israel should have said that it is interested in renewing the diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinian Authority,” Kariv says.
A “dramatic update” to the existing agreements so that they reflect the reality of 2024 is therefore necessary, Kariv says. For example, the division between areas A, B, and C is no longer relevant. There are claims that the Palestinians are “trespassing” onto Area C, but this is because areas A and B no longer contain them, Kariv argues. “Is there no demographic growth in Al Bireh or Nablus? What did you think will happen?” Kariv asks. This “dramatic update” will not include any evacuation of settlements, but will include redefining some lands as Area B instead of Area C, in order to enable Palestinian civil control in those areas. This will create a diplomatic, economic, and security horizon for the Palestinians, and enable the PA’s eventual return to Gaza, Kariv argues.
The incentives for the PA that such a package deal presents, which will lead to tangible improvements in Palestinians’ quality of life, gives Israel and its allies the leverage to condition the deal on fundamental reforms in the PA: Changing school curriculums, uprooting corruption, especially in the Palestinian security forces, cancelling payments convicted terrorists, and more, Kariv continues.
“They say that Abu Mazen and the PA is corrupt and rotten. Tell me, are the other Arab governments that we cooperate with the jewels of democracy? Is there no corruption there? Is the PA dramatically different from other Arab countries that are part of our leading security strategies?” Kariv asks.
While he does not expect the Israeli right to agree with him, what amazes him is that the Israeli center does not have a clear diplomatic vision. It is therefore the Zionist left’s role to present an alternative, Kariv concludes.
