Article - Will the New Palestinians End Security Coordination?

Amidst the fervent talk of national reconciliation sparked by Israel’s recent assault on Gaza a question remains. What happens to the security coordination between the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation forces that protects Israel’s settlement enterprise and undermines not only Palestinian security but also continued existence as a people? Indeed, is it possible to achieve national unity while simultaneously coordinating security under U.S. supervision?

The Israeli-Palestinian agreement is a rare historical model: Only South Africa’s Bantustans participated in such a system. The arrangement is at the heart of the Oslo Accords and it is doubtful that the Palestinian Authority (PA) would be allowed to continue to function in the West Bank if it ceased security cooperation with its occupiers. And more doubtful still that such coordination could be reconfigured to focus onto Palestinian security.

There is a new reality after Israel’s attack on Gaza that provides an opportunity to overturn the security component of Oslo once and for all. Most Palestinians believe that Israel did not achieve its goals during November 2012 despite the enormous power imbalance between the Palestinian resistance groups and one of the world’s largest armies equipped with U.S.-made F16s, Apaches, the drones that hovered continuously over the Gaza Strip, and a massive propaganda machine. As a result, Israel has handed the Palestinian resistance groups an impressive victory.

If anything, Israel’s attack on Gaza may be the final nail in the coffin of its “Dahiya Doctrine” which, it is worth recalling, was developed in Israel’s academic institutions, particularly Tel Aviv University. Israel first applied the doctrine in Lebanon in 2006, deliberately targeting densely populated residential areas to pressure the Lebanese resistance to surrender and to turn the population against it. Yet the Lebanese resistance stood fast despite the horrendous losses in dead, injured, and infrastructure.

Three years later, Israel applied the Dahiya Doctrine to the Gaza Strip, killing 1443 Palestinians, including 434 children in a brutal 22-day campaign in December 2008 and January 2009. Israel had set three objectives for its operation: releasing the captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, eliminating rocket fire from Gaza, and ending the rule of Hamas. None were achieved, and Shalit was only released through negotiations and a prisoner exchange.

The intensive eight-day aerial bombardment in the most recent war on the Gaza Strip proved the Dahiya Doctrine’s biggest failure yet. First, all nationalist and Islamist forces joined ranks in a potent display of national unity although some played a greater role in defending the civilians in Gaza. Second, the changed Arab order meant that Gaza was no longer isolated. Israel’s accomplice, the dictator Hosni Mubarak, has vanished from the political scene, weakening those Palestinian factions that used to rely on him. In other words, the deterrence Israel aimed to achieve through its attacks required, if not active cooperation, a compliant Palestinian domestic environment.

This changed environment is the key difference between the wars of 2009 and 2012. But will the Palestinian resistance groups prove capable of putting it to good use? They committed a strategic error after the 2009 massacre by failing to capitalize on their victory. They unanimously accepted the Mubarak regime’s invitation to all Palestinian political forces to participate in national dialogue under its auspices, even though it had completely lost its credibility by co-blockading the Strip and closing the Rafah Crossing. Moreover, the war on Gaza was announced in Cairo in the presence of the Egyptian foreign minister.
By accepting that invitation to national unity negotiations in these circumstances, the Palestinian resistance factions lost not only the opportunity to end security coordination but also to end the blockade. They should have refused to leave Gaza unless the Rafah Crossing was reopened and Arab leaders visited the Strip. In fact, the siege has continued until this day, and was only slightly eased after Israel’s attack the Freedom Flotilla in 2010. The crossing still awaits a decision to be fully opened to the unrestricted passage of people and goods.

Those of us who survived Israel’s 2009 operation were certain that Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation would not survive what was described as a war crime and a possible crime against humanity by the United Nation’s fact-finding mission on Gaza (also known as the Goldstone Report.) And yet it did.

Today, there is a new Palestinian. It is not the new Palestinian who embodies the neo-liberal Oslo vision and who is much heralded by the West. Rather, it is the tens of thousands of Palestinians who took to the streets of Gaza at 9:00pm on November 21, 2012, to express their overwhelming happiness at an unprecedented victory over Israel, their head unbowed despite the crippling blockade underway since 2006. It is also the thousands of Palestinians who took to the streets of the West Bank, of Nazareth and Israeli campuses, and of all around the world on the first day of the November war to say no to the killing of the Gazan Palestinians.

These new Palestinians underscore the common destiny of the Palestinian people despite the prescriptions of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the abhorrent security coordination, the years of futile negotiations, and the appalling moves toward normalization.

These are the Palestinians who continued to resonate to the messages of steadfastness and of resistance to oppression, who fought normalization, and who refused to embellish the occupation. Without them, the victory now being celebrated would not have been achieved.

Because the tears of the Al-Dalou and Al-Samouni families still flow, there is an overwhelming momentum to end the division in the Palestinian national movement and restore its strength.

But this cannot be done without a final break with of the agreement for security coordination with Israel. Maintaining security in the West Bank cannot be achieved at the expense of Palestinian blood in Gaza. And fulfilling the Palestinian rights to self-determination, freedom, justice, and equality cannot be done by maintaining the security of the illegal settlements, helping Israel strengthen its apartheid policies, and normalizing with the multi-faceted Israeli oppression. Ending security collaboration must top the agenda of the new Palestinian.

Haidar Eid is Associate Professor of Postcolonial and Postmodern Literature at Gaza's al-Aqsa University. He has written widely on the Arab-Israeli conflict, including articles published...
(2012, December 17)

Latest Analysis

 Politics
The erasure of Indigenous populations lies at the core of settler-colonial narratives. These narratives aim to deny existing geographies, communities, and histories to justify the displacement and replacement of one people by another. The Zionist project is no exception. Among Zionism’s founding myths is the claim that it “made the desert bloom” and that Tel Aviv, its crown jewel, arose from barren sand dunes—an uninhabitable void transformed by pioneering settlers. This framing obscures the fact that the colonial regime initially built Tel Aviv on the outskirts of Yaffa (Jaffa), a thriving Palestinian city with a rich cultural life and a booming orange trade. The “dunes” description projects emptiness and conceals the vibrant agricultural and social life that flourished in the area. By casting the land as uninhabitable until redeemed by settlers, this narrative helped justify dispossession and colonial expansion. This process intensified after 1948, when Tel Aviv absorbed the lands of ethnically cleansed Palestinian villages, including al-Sumayil, Salame, Shaykh Muwannis, and Abu Kabir, and ultimately extended into the city of Yaffa. This same settler-colonial discourse drives the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza, where destruction is reframed through the narrative of “uninhabitability.” Gaza is increasingly depicted as a lifeless ruin—a framing that is far from neutral. This commentary contends that “uninhabitable” is a politically charged term that masks culpability, reproduces colonial erasure, and shapes policy and public perception in ways that profoundly affect Palestinian lives and futures. It examines the origins, function, and implications of this discourse within the logic of settler colonialism, calling for a radical shift in language from narratives that obscure violence to those affirming Palestinian presence, history, and sovereignty.
Abdalrahman Kittana· Aug 27, 2025
 Politics
Since October 2023, Israel’s assault on Gaza has produced one of the most catastrophic humanitarian crises in recent history—an unfolding genocide enabled by world powers and continuing unabated despite the sweeping global solidarity it has sparked. Alongside relentless bombardment and mass displacement, the Israeli regime is waging a deliberate campaign of starvation. In response to this Israeli-manufactured catastrophe, several European states have begun recognizing or signaling their intent to recognize the State of Palestine. Most recently, France announced its intention to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September. The UK has stated it will follow suit unless Israel abides by a ceasefire and recommits to a two-state solution. The recent wave of symbolic recognitions that began in 2024 now appears to be the only step many European powers are willing to take in the face of genocide, following nearly two years of moral, material, and diplomatic support for the Israeli regime as well as near-total impunity. This roundtable conversation with Al Shabaka policy analysts Diana Buttu, Inès Abdel Razek, and Al Shabaka’s co-director, Yara Hawari, asks: Why now? What political or strategic interests are driving this wave of recognition? And what does it mean to recognize a Palestinian state, on paper, while leaving intact the structures of occupation, apartheid, and the genocidal regime that sustains them?
 Politics
In March, Israel shattered the ceasefire in Gaza by resuming its bombing campaign at full force and enforcing a total blockade on humanitarian aid—ushering in a new phase of the ongoing genocide. In response to mounting international criticism, the Israeli regime introduced a tightly controlled aid scheme designed not to alleviate suffering, but to obscure its use of starvation as a weapon of collective punishment. Through the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), Israel has transformed humanitarian aid into a tool of control, coercion, and forced displacement. Israeli forces have additionally blocked UN and other aid agencies from accessing over 400 distribution points they once operated throughout Gaza. They consequently forced two million Palestinians to rely on just four GHF sites, most near its southern border in what appears to be a deliberate effort to push mass displacement toward Egypt. Investigations have also revealed how US-based private contractors are actively profiting from the GHF’s deadly operations. In this policy lab, Yara Asi and Alex Feagans join host Tariq Kenney-Shawa to discuss how the GHF fits into Israel’s genocidal strategy—and to expose the network of individuals and companies profiting from what has been a death trap masquerading as humanitarian assistance.
Skip to content