FLASH
Shkruar nga Jamie Dettmer
But what could go wrong if you put a fox inside a chicken coop?
Is it possible that Winston Churchill approved of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arming criminal militias and clans against Hamas in Gaza? After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
On the eve of Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, Britain's iconic wartime leader apparently told an aide that he was ready to make common cause with early Bolshevik enemy Joseph Stalin.
"If Hitler were to conquer Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons," he is reported to have joked. Similarly, there is certainly no love lost between Hamas and the gunmen of Rafah native Yasser Abu Shabab.
However, this approach can have its drawbacks and lead to devastating consequences, as we have seen in recent history: US cooperation with the likes of Osama bin Laden did not work out so well in the end - although it was useful in humiliating the Soviets in Afghanistan.
The shortcomings of this tactic — often used by Egypt in Gaza before 1967 and by Israel since — have also been evident in the short-term tactical embraces of secular Palestinian nationalists, the Muslim Brotherhood, Fedayeen insurgents, and a variety of other factions, only to ultimately unravel.
After October 7, when Hamas launched a deadly attack across southern Israel, killing 1,195 people and taking 240 hostages, Netanyahu faced justified anger from politicians and citizens. Before the barbaric attacks, he had been a leading advocate for strengthening the Islamist militant group in Gaza in a dangerous game of “divide and rule” — a game that pitted Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar’s militants against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
To this end, from the late 2010s to the early 2020s, he encouraged Qatar to channel hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas, even telling a conference of Likud lawmakers in 2019 that anyone who wants to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas.
To be fair, the Israeli leader was not alone in thinking that Hamas could be used as a useful strategic asset and that, over time, the group would moderate and focus more on governing their mini-state than on insurgency. Then, with the Palestinians hopelessly divided between Hamas and the PLO, Israel could throw up its hands and insist that it had no real negotiating partner, while expanding settlements in the West Bank and avoiding any progress on a two-state solution.
Many others in Israel's political and defense establishment were also convinced of this tactic.
But the apparent success of the tactic arguably left both Netanyahu and Israel’s defense establishment in the lurch, misinterpreting the signals in the run-up to October 7 and falling into a colossal intelligence failure. Warnings issued by the tatzpitaniyot – mostly female border guards – were ignored, their reports of unusual activity and evidence of staged attacks dismissed, as their intelligence did not fit the prevailing narrative: that there was nothing to fear from Hamas.
And now, despite the fact that Hamas support contributed to the disaster, Netanyahu has been forced to admit that he has “activated” several anti-Hamas Palestinian clans in Gaza – many of them known for drug smuggling and crime – on the grounds that they could undertake missions, thereby saving the lives of Israeli soldiers.
Netanyahu’s somewhat forced admission of this fact came after one of his political critics, right-wing lawmaker and former deputy prime minister Avigdor Lieberman, tipped off Israeli media that Israeli intelligence had been arming several Palestinian factions in Gaza. Lieberman warned that the tactic could backfire — that the small arms and assault rifles supplied to the clan factions could ultimately be turned against Israelis — just as Qatari money helped finance October 7.
Among these groups is the Abu Shabab Popular Forces, which now claims to be helping to guard new Israeli-sponsored food distribution centers run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation — a private American contractor that Israel has appointed to replace UN aid distribution. In a statement to the media, the group said it is helping to “ensure that food and medicine reach their beneficiaries” and secure the environment around the centers. And according to Abu Shabab itself, which claims to be operating “under Palestinian legitimacy,” the militia aims to protect civilians from “aid thieves” as well as “the terror of the de facto Hamas government.”
Meanwhile, UN officials like Jonathan Whittall of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs claim that Abu Shabab fighters have been involved in looting UN aid in areas controlled by the Israeli military. And he is furious about the group's labeling as "protectors of goods being distributed through Israel's new militarized centers."
But what could go wrong if you put a fox inside a chicken coop?
According to Lieberman, many. The lawmaker claimed that some of the “criminals and criminals” who are armed by the IDF “identify with the Islamic State” — although he offered no evidence to support this inflammatory accusation. However, the individuals Netanyahu is targeting are hardly a pleasant bunch. Abu Shabab himself was imprisoned by Hamas for suspected drug trafficking, and it is not clear whether he was released when Israel launched its military campaign after October 7, or whether he escaped from prison.
However, senior Israeli security officials told national media that the Abu Shabab group is the most prominent among several armed factions receiving Israeli support, as the strategy aims to reduce IDF casualties and weaken Hamas by coming up with "alternative models of governance."
But what model of good governance can arise from an alignment with criminal clans?
Instead of encouraging serious, reform-minded Palestinians, a return to thugs will only add to the chaos in Gaza. On the other hand, it will give Netanyahu’s far-right partners, Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, both of whom were sanctioned by the UK this week, more room to argue for Jewish settlements in Gaza, a move that would undoubtedly scuttle any chance of serious negotiations on a two-state solution. According to the new US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, the two-state solution is no longer supported by the Trump administration.
Overall, the entire effort fits the old pattern of the last 70 years: Turning into a fox to distract from serious thinking about how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could end peacefully. / Adapted from "Pamphlet" by "Politico"
Lini një Përgjigje