Azmi Bishara, former Palestinian member of the Israeli Parliament: ‘Starting a genocide in Gaza was a political decision’

Azmi Bishara was not born in exile — a fate that has defined the lives of millions of Palestinians since the Nakba, the expulsion of much of the native population that was inseparable from the creation of Israel in 1948. This intellectual was born 68 years ago into a Christian family in Nazareth. He holds Israeli citizenship and once served as a member of that country’s parliament. But in 2007, after years of legal proceedings — during which he was accused of supporting terrorism due to his political statements — he joined the Palestinian diaspora.

Since then, he has lived in Qatar, where he heads the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS). Bishara is the author of several influential works on political thought. His latest is Palestine: Matters of Truth and Justice. In that book, he explains via video call from Doha (Qatar), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is addressed from its roots: an “injustice” born of a “colonial project” that still endures.

Question: In your book, you debunk what you call Israel’s “myths.” Is one of them the right to defend itself against Hamas attacks?

Answer: Referring the current situation to October 7, 2023 [the day of those attacks] is equivalent to saying that the victim is the aggressor and the aggressor is the victim. I don’t agree with what Hamas did, but the victims remain the victims: those who are occupied are the Palestinians. [After those attacks], of course, other states understood that the Israelis would retaliate against Hamas, but what Israel decided was to launch an all-out war against Gaza. Starting a genocide against the Palestinians was a political decision. The allusion to October 7 is propaganda, an effective mechanism that resonates in Europe, not because of the history of Palestine, but because Jews were victims of antisemitism on that continent, and thus countries like Germany are somehow cleansed of their guilt.

Q. This strategy seems to be working.

A. Israel believes it has proven that force can be used and that Arab countries should therefore normalize relations with it, not to build a just peace, but because force and power politics work. It is a country intoxicated by power and militarism. So while it talks about establishing relations with Arab countries or security agreements in Gaza, it doesn’t say a word about solving the Palestinian problem, which is the background to all of this. If it had been resolved, Hamas wouldn’t have done what it did. That background is one of injustice and colonialism that dates back to the beginning of the 20th century and has continued since 1948.

Q. The Israeli government does not seem interested in that solution.

A. One can imagine that democratic Israelis would consider living in a just peace with the Palestinians and the region, which would benefit Israel. But the Israeli government does not view its country’s interests from this perspective.

Q. More than 80% of Jewish Israelis support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.

A. [The Israeli authorities] have revived the ghetto mentality, the feeling of a group of people who feel threatened because they know what they’ve done to the Palestinians and can’t believe the Palestinians will forgive them. They can’t say to themselves, ‘The people whose land we took will forgive us,’ and they continue to feel threatened, even if we give them every assurance.

Q. Will the Palestinians be able to forgive what is happening in Gaza?

A. After this genocide, the situation has changed, but, in the end, people would be willing to forgive as long as there is a just peace. The Palestinians have become realistic. There are many Jewish Israelis, and most of them were born there and have no other country. That is their country too. They will live with us, and we with them, and the only way to do so is in peace, whether in one state with two nationalities, in one state with equal rights, or in two different states.

Q. You have said that the Arab countries could have stopped Israel.

A. Yes, Egypt — a country Israel does not want to go to war with — could have made that threat without actually going to that point. It could also have broken the blockade and delivered food and medicine to Gaza. It could have taken the risk of Israel bombing its trucks, something the Israeli army would hardly do. The problem is that Egypt wanted the Israelis to get rid of Hamas, but it didn’t think it would take that long or that the price would be genocide.

Q. You have said that the Arab states must make Gaza habitable without Israel’s permission. Will they do so?

A. Not with these regimes, which are not prepared to challenge American hegemony in the era of [Donald] Trump.

Q. Would Arab countries collaborate in the total ethnic cleansing in Gaza?

A. No. Since 2011, the Arab world has been walking a fine line with its public opinion, which is pro-Palestinian, and these regimes fear their people’s reaction. They went through this in 2011 [with the Arab Springs] and are afraid. They won’t cooperate with this so-called voluntary immigration, which is actually a forced relocation of Gazans. They will make the Americans understand that it is a danger to the stability of their regimes. If we had democratic Arab countries, there would be an alternative, because a democratic Arab state could pose a real problem. The survival of the Arab regimes depends on U.S. protection, not on elections or democracy.

Q. Is Trump serious about expelling the Gazans?

A. I think he has understood that he was wrong, that without the Palestinians they can’t turn Gaza into the Riviera of the Middle East, but even if Israel doesn’t succeed in expelling them, it is turning the Gaza Strip into a living hell so that the population will have to leave. Gazans won’t leave for themselves, but for the future of their children.

Q. Spain is critical of Israel, but it hasn’t severed relations with the country. Do you think a European country could risk sparking Trump’s wrath over this?

A. No, but Spain is playing a moral role. There is an alternative discourse, but its impact is limited. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have never truly condemned Israel, nor do they call genocide by its name. On the contrary, they condemn solidarity movements by fallaciously using the term antisemitism. Still, the main problem lies in Washington’s support for Israel.

Q. In your book, you describe how Trump embraced the rhetoric of right-wing religious Zionism.

A. The U.S. has always been allied with Israel, but Trump fully adopted the far-right religious Zionist rhetoric to please the evangelical churches, Christian Zionism. If you read the “deal of the century” [by which several Arab countries established relations with Israel in 2020], it’s a biblical text, as if God were a real estate agent for the Zionist movement: ‘God promised this, God promised that.’ Trump is not a Zionist; he lacks ideology, but this cynical discourse is aimed at his electorate. This position has provoked a reaction among young people in the Democratic Party, who are now more critical of Israel. There is hope for change in the future, but the critical moment is now.

Q. To what extent can the Palestinians continue resisting?

A. In the past two years, resistance has been a matter of self-defense, but with the Arab countries preparing to make peace with Israel, it is unrealistic to think of armed resistance as a way to liberate Palestine. It is not a real political strategy. The negotiation strategy that the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] leaders worked out in Oslo also failed and worsened the situation, with more settlements and apartheid in the West Bank. Perhaps strategies similar to the resistance against apartheid in South Africa could be adopted, but this will require understanding what kind of [Palestinian] political organization will emerge after this genocide.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition