Careful what you hope for

Now that they've got a Jewish-free Gaza, why are the Palestinians doing everything in their power to bring back the IDF?

Andrew Friedman|Published: 06.30.06 , 11:52

Immediately following the withdrawal of all Israeli civilian and military personnel last summer, Palestinian spokespeople around the world set out on a strange (and largely unsuccessful) PR campaign to convince the world that Gaza was somehow still occupied.

To be sure, Palestinian history is full of strange claims about Israel (such as charges that Israeli soldiers pass out poison candy to Palestinian children), but this was surely one of the strangest. How could Gaza be "occupied" with no Jews? What is the nature of this claim?

Another question: Since the disengagement, Palestinians have done everything in their power to force Israel to re-enter Gaza. As Bethlehem-based human rights lawyer Shawqi Issa wrote, "the Palestinians must force Israel to re-occupy Gaza."

Doesn't make sense

But it just doesn't make sense. Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza has been the centerpiece in Palestinian claims for years. Palestinian factions don't agree on much, but the notion that an Israeli withdrawal would facilitate the construction of a Palestinian state has been one thing they could all agree on.

Israelis of many stripes have also lined up to back such a withdrawal, saying such a move was not only the only way to ensure Israel's Jewish, democratic nature, but would also to encourage the Palestinians to give up dreams of Greater Palestine and finally make peace with Israel. "Give them something to lose, and they won't be so fast to gamble with it," went the argument underlying the process.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the peace: The Palestinians didn't buy it. Israel made significant withdrawals from disputed land in 1994, 95, 96 and 97, and by the time Benjamin Netanyahu was elected in May, 1996, well over 90 percent of Palestinian civilians lived under Palestinian civil jurisdiction. But the number of terror attacks rose consistently, forcing Israeli to increase arrests, security closures and eventually targeted killings, in direct relation to the amount of territory given over to Palestinian control. The whole picture seems to suggest a concerted effort on the part of the Palestinian leadership to ensure Israel maintain some control over Gaza.

Two possibilities

There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. The most obvious is that the absence of an Israeli occupier places a tremendous burden on the Palestinian leadership to produce results. Since the "naqba" in 1948, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, Israel has always been there as a scapegoat for every Palestinian or international problem imaginable, from September 11 to the death of Yasser Arafat and everything in between.

Now that the Israel is out of Gaza and the "occupation" is no longer, the Palestinians are in a bind. They've got the resources to build the state they say they want (per capita the PA receives more foreign aid than any other country in the world), meaning they've got to reign in corruption and start producing, or they've got to come up with some reason they "can't."

In other words, in an Israel-less Gaza, the only options for the Palestinians are to create their state or to reconstruct their scapegoat. In this context, Shawqi Issa's words bear repeating: "The Palestinians must force Israel to re-occupy Gaza."

Perhaps there is another possibility: Could it be that for the Palestinian national movement, the Israel – Palestinian conflict is existential in nature? Groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PLO and others were created to fight Israel, and for very little else. Could it be that these groups will try to preserve the conflict at all cost, because without the conflict there is no PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad?

One might even take this line of reasoning further. While it is true that there are a group of people who now identify themselves as Palestinian, it is equally true that before 1964 no such group existed. Had Arab residents of Jaffa, Haifa or Jerusalem been asked in 1900, or even in 1950, about their nationality, they would likely have answered "Arab," not Palestinian.

And indeed, it is difficult to distinguish 'Palestinianism' from a broader Arab identity. All the main defining characteristics of "nation" – language, cuisine, culture, religion - are indistinguishable from Arab culture. And even in examples where a unique, Palestinian culture has emerged – such as film maker Hany Abu-Assad or poet Mahmoud Darwish – their work focuses almost entirely on aspects of the conflict with Israel.

Not that this negates Palestinian nationhood today. With somewhere between 2-7 million people around the world who define themselves in whole or in part as Palestinians, the nation exists, and must be treated as such. But it could be an explanation for the determination of Palestinian officialdom – in all groups and at all levels – to prevent a true end to Israeli involvement in Palestinian life.