E-Paper
Ex-Israeli security head argues for Palestinian state, proposes intifada leader Marwan Barghouti's release
Marwan Barghouti is considered by many Palestinians as a symbol of resistance, while Israel views him as a terrorist.
A former leader of Israel's domestic security force Shin Bet has argued that the country's security is intricately tied to the establishment of a Palestinian state. In an interview with The Guardian, Ami Ayalon, a retired admiral who also commanded Israel’s navy, dismissed the idea of destroying Hamas as an unrealistic military goal and cautioned that the ongoing operations in Gaza might bolster support for the group rather than weaken it.
“We Israelis will have security only when they, Palestinians, will have hope. This is the equation,” he was quoted as saying. “To say the same in military language: you cannot deter anyone, a person or a group, if he believes he has nothing to lose.”
While Ayalon acknowledged the nature of Israel's retaliatory actions in response to the October 7 attack by Hamas as just, he stressed that many Israelis fail to recognize that Hamas does not represent all Palestinians.
According to Ayalon, the prevalent Israeli belief that all Palestinians support or are affiliated with Hamas poses a significant obstacle to acknowledging the legitimacy of the Palestinian identity and their rightful claim to statehood.
He proposed releasing Marwan Barghouti, a jailed leader serving a life sentence for his role in the second intifada, as a crucial step toward meaningful negotiations. Ayalon argued that Barghouti's popularity in Palestinian polls and commitment to a two-state solution make him a potential leader for peace talks.
“Look into the Palestinian polls. He is the only leader who can lead Palestinians to a state alongside Israel. First of all because he believes in the concept of two states, and secondly because he won his legitimacy by sitting in our jails.”
Ayalon lamented the lack of acceptance of alternative viewpoints and urged a shift from the mindset of hatred as a plan or policy. He warned against perpetuating conflict without a clear political goal, drawing parallels with past Israeli experiences in Lebanon and the West Bank.
“I’m so upset that we are not willing to discuss the day after. Because I know what happens to wars without a political goal. The war becomes a goal in itself, instead of being a means to achieve a political goal,” he said. “We are experts: this is exactly what happened to us in Lebanon, this is exactly what happened to us in the West Bank. And I am afraid that this is what will happen if we go on fighting without defining a clear essence of victory. What is a victory?”
Read the full report here
