The Punishment
of the Palestinians

The year-long Israeli onslaught against the Gaza strip and its inhabitants after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the forefront of international politics after being overlooked for many years. While many actors are scrambling to develop approaches that can deescalate the conflict, others are calling for further punitive measures against the Palestinian people. 

Palestinians are blamed by this camp for the conflict’s intensification and accused of resorting to irrational violence that ultimately antagonizes Israel and worsens the situation. As an alternative, they advocate for an approach that can be described as “deradicalizing the Palestinians” which they present as the only path to achieve peace and stability. 

In reality, this approach is extremely dangerous because its underlying logic is one of collective punishment that will only intensify an already bloody conflict. Nonetheless, there is an active campaign to promote this approach and it is gaining traction internationally, despite current attempts to revive the two-state solution,  due to the absence of a clear plan not only for the Gaza Strip, but also for resolving the devastating conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis overall. 

The “deradicalizing the Palestinians” argument stipulates that Palestinians have been indoctrinated to destroy Israel by any means necessary from the very beginning of the conflict. Any step towards a peaceful settlement would therefore require the entire Palestinian population to “deradicalize”. “Deradicalization” in this context means that Palestinians satisfy Israel’s security interests and accept its dictates. It also means that Palestinians cease to resist Israeli political, economic and military might that shapes every aspect of their lives. In addition, “deradicalization” would also entail Palestinian institutions parrot Israeli discourse on the conflict and police Palestinians in public life to prevent them from challenging Israeli interests.  This “deradicalization” would take place under some sort of international supervision that manages Palestinian affairs until Palestinians become “deradicalized”. 

However, the international supervision in this framework is one that governs Palestinian affairs in alignment with Israeli interests and concerns. The “deradicalization” process also extends to other fields such as welfare provision and education. For example, the curriculum that would be taught at Palestinian schools in this context would normalize Israeli domination over Palestinians through concepts such as “Israel’s right to exist “. It would also be devoid of Palestinian perspectives and arguments for self-determination. Aid and services provided by non-profit organizations serving Palestinians would also be contingent on the recipients refraining from pushing back against Israeli anti-Palestinian policies. 

If Palestinians accept to be “deradicalized”, then the argument goes that they will be deemed worthy of eventual self-governance and autonomy. Implicit in this stance is that the Palestinian people are too hostile to Israel and untrustworthy to engage with politically due to their “radicalism” and “maximalism”.  In this framework, many legitimate Palestinian demands and concerns are dismissed as both “radical” and “maximalist”. Thus, as long as Palestinians act in opposition to Israeli interests in any shape or form then they are denied the right of self-determination. The Palestinians in this context are treated as subjects instead of stakeholders. From this standpoint, resolution to the conflict can only be achieved when Palestinians satisfy Israeli needs and abandon their “maximalism”. 

It is unsurprising that this approach was first formulated in Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that it’s one goal of Israel’s campaign in Gaza and it is echoed by many Israeli public figures. It was, however, adopted by many abroad who are supportive of Israel and its policies. The Oct. 7 attacks is often invoked by this camp as conclusive proof that Palestinians are too “extreme” to be treated as an equal partner in a negotiated peace process. 

With regards to the two-state solution, Israel and its supporters claim that a Palestinian state would only intensify the conflict because it “rewards” Hamas and like minded groups which are conflated with the entirety of the Palestinian people. While this argument took shape in the aftermath of Oct. 7, its substance is not entirely new. In fact, similar talking points were raised in previous years by supporters of Israel in response to criticism that Israel abandoned the two-state solution which resulted in its dormancy. It’s a variation on a theme. 

The theme in question is that peace with the Palestinians cannot be achieved and the best course of action is to maintain the status quo of upholding the occupation which Israel claims guarantees it security while Palestinian political demands and aspirations are framed as destabilizing. Some have labeled this Israeli approach as “occupation-management” and it is this approach to the conflict that has led to the increase of tensions between the Palestinians and the Israelis in recent years and ultimately paved the way for the Oct.7 attacks. 

The Hamas takeover of the Gaza strip in 2007 and the election of Benjamin Netanyahu in 2009 (becoming Israel’s Prime Minister for the 2nd time) sowed the seeds of the current mayhem taking place in Gaza and the West Bank. Negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority broke down in the early 2010s, which coincided with a series of brief, but deadly wars between Israel and Hamas (along with other Palestinian paramilitary groups) in Gaza which itself has been under a severe Israeli blockade since the late 2000s. 

At the same time, the schism and rivalry between the Palestinian Authority(PA)/Fatah and Hamas resulted in the political separation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, with the latter being mostly occupied by Israel. Netanyahu cited the political divisions among the Palestinians as a reason for not engaging in negotiations. In reality, Netanyahu (along with the rest of Israel’s political and military establishments) fomented this political disunity and fragmentation amongst the Palestinians as a divide and conquer strategy. 

For instance, Netanyahu and his government urged Qatar to provide financial support to Hamas in Gaza until the Oct.7 attacks. In parallel, Israel used security arrangements with the PA to hunt down Palestinian paramilitary groups in the West Bank. It also pressed the PA to function in accordance with Israeli security interests in parts of the West Bank that are under its control. As a result of these actions, Israel under Netanyahu’s leadership was able to create facts on the ground that further stifled the Palestinians’ ability to politically mobilize and advocate for their interests. 

The Trump and Biden administrations’ push for the normalization of ties between Israel and the Arab world (while overlooking the Palestinians) provided diplomatic cover to Israel’s “occupation-management” and Netanyahu often touts the so-called “Abraham Accords” as vindication of his approach to the conflict. These developments allowed Israel to entrench its control of the West Bank through various means such as settlement expansion and building infrastructure that allows Israel to maintain its military domination. Netanyahu stated on several occasions that the occupation will remain even if peace were to be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  

The combination of Israel’s expanding occupation of the West Bank, the failure of the Palestinian political class to effectively represent the Palestinian people and a lack of a political roadmap to solve the conflict resulted in bloody violence. Even before the Oct. 7 attacks, 2023 was already the deadliest year of Israeli settler attacks against the Palestinians in the West Bank. Jerusalem has also experienced major upheaval in recent years due to Israeli encroachments into the city and endangering Palestinian heritage and livelihoods there in the process. 

Finding themselves beleaguered from all directions, Palestinians took it upon themselves to push back against Israeli domination and expansionism. Against this volatile backdrop, the factions that claim to represent the Palestinian people faced questions about their legitimacy and effectiveness. Fatah, the political party controlling the PA, is detested by the majority of Palestinians for its authoritarianism, corruption and collaboration with Israel which facilitates the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. 

Prior to the Oct. 7 attacks, Hamas itself also came under scrutiny from Palestinians who saw the group being more interested in governing the Gaza Strip for its own benefit instead of defending Palestinians against Israeli aggression. While the exact motivations behind the Oct. 7 attacks are still shrouded in mystery, some have speculated that the attacks were a means for Hamas to preserve (if not regain) its standing as a leading faction in Palestinian politics. Considering these dynamics, the Oct. 7 attacks can be seen as a blowback of Netanyahu’s “occupation-management” policy which instead exacerbated the conflict.

Defenders of Israel and its anti-Palestinian policies have been repackaging the essence of Netanyahu’s “occupation-management” policy in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks. The difference is that the policy has taken a more hawkish turn in the form of “deradicalizing the Palestinians” and it is even more blunt in its dismissal of Palestinian demands and aspirations. It is often invoked in response to international calls for the two-state solution and especially for the recognition of the Palestinian state. However, advocates of this policy do not propose an alternative that can bring about a just and durable peace. What they actually propose is the preservation of the never-ending occupation and the deprivation of the Palestinians of their rights and freedoms. The approach’s proponents also simplify the conflict by treating its causes as purely ideological while ignoring the real-world factors that drive it. They believe that if Palestinians simply change their views on Israel and the conflict then there would be stability. However, policing the Palestinians until they fully submit to Israel will only generate more violence and even radical figures in Israeli politics do not find this approach feasible while favouring more extreme measures.

As it stands, collective punishment is the underlying logic of the “deradicalizing the Palestinians” approach because it stipulates that Palestinians should not have rights and freedoms that other populations around the world enjoy until they abide by Israeli conditions without Tel Aviv offering concessions of its own. In addition, this stance absolves Israel from responsibility for fueling the conflict through policies such as settlement construction. It also diverts attention away from Israel’s ongoing escalation against the Palestinians following Oct. 7. 

Examples of this escalation include land grabs in the West Bank, economically strangling the Palestinians, undermining the PA  and signaling that it would annex the Gaza Strip through building settlements. Despite international condemnation of these moves and the calls for peace under the two-state solution framework, Israel is still moving ahead with its escalatory actions which are intensifying the already dangerous situation. 

Furthermore, Israel, along with its international supporters, are continuously pushing for the “deradicalizing the Palestinians” approach despite the clear risks that it poses. In his visit to the U.S. this past summer, Netanyahu reiterated that the goal of Israel’s Gaza campaign is to “deradicalize” the strip which would involve Israel re-occupying the territory. Although the visit was marked by controversy and denounced from many quarters, Netanyahu was still enthusiastically received by many American politicians, and he in turn used this occasion to legitimate Israel’s current hardline policies. 

These belligerent policies also have the support of the EU’s far right political parties and movements that have been gaining new ground politically at both the national and EU levels. The grievous lack of urgently needed international leadership to tackle the tragedy in Gaza and its repercussions in-turn creates space for policies designed to collectively punish the Palestinians. Although the international community is still calling for the two-state solution, this approach is undermined by continued international support for Israel which no longer believes that it could gain from this framework. Amidst this impasse, Palestinians continue to suffer from death and destruction with no end in sight. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also being exacerbated by the policies of countries such as Canada, the US and others because they are marked by the tension between their support of Israel and their endorsement of the two state-solution. Instead of appeasing Tel Aviv, the international community must emphasize that Israel cannot veto Palestinian self-determination and dismiss Palestinian aspirations. The international community also needs to vehemently reject Israeli domination over the Palestinian people and stress that its end is the key to a sustainable peace.