No Political Solution for the Occupying Entity’s Internal Conflicts

 September 03, 2024

By Nasser Kandil

• For over two years, the religious and nationalist right-wing has held power in the occupying entity, pushing agendas and initiatives to reshape its identity and seize control over decision-making, sidelining traditional institutions, especially the judiciary. While the overhaul of the judicial system has become the epicentre of the open confrontation between the entity’s two major factions – marked by the extremist bloc’s dominance in the Knesset and control over the government, and the opposition’s strong presence in protests involving hundreds of thousands – the broader perspective on the entity’s international and regional role has also come to the forefront. This cultural and strategic vision of the extremists aims to sever the entity’s image as a mere extension of and reliant on the West, contrasting with an opposing view that believes the entity’s survival is tied to its identity as a bastion of the West, safeguarded by it.
• The Al-Aqsa Flood operation temporarily unified the streets, institutions, and leadership of the entity in a brutal quest for vengeance, with all segments and factions rallying behind the massacres and atrocities. The distinction between right-wing and left-wing within the entity dissolved, exposing instead a savage, tribal local right-wing in opposition to a Western secular right.

The confrontation is now between Zionism and “Israel”, both united in their fight against the Palestinians. Zionism, as a global movement tied to the West, and “Israel”, a creation of Zionism, whose new generation seeks independence and the construction of its own model. Neither side advocates for a political solution to the Palestinian issue, the establishment of a Palestinian state, or withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967. Both factions are united by a security doctrine based on occupation, superiority, and brutality.

• As the war grows more complex, the differences between the two factions become clearer, presenting additional challenges and appearing increasingly aimless. The conflict demands greater sacrifices without a clear vision for victory. If we categorise the factions as the “Israeli-Zionist” stream versus the “Western-Zionist” stream – similar to how American Zionism is represented by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party, and Israeli America by Donald Trump and the Republican Party – we see that the Israeli stream is willing to sacrifice prisoners if it advances the war effort. This stream is prepared to endure the economic and social toll of a protracted war, including the loss of Western cultural and media support, and eventually political support, if it prevents a political solution that might grant even a minor victory to the resistance.

Conversely, the Zionist stream believes the war must be conducted in a manner that keeps the entity aligned with the West, as this is crucial for its survival and protection. This approach may involve adjusting war strategies, including the possibility of pausing the war until the West is ready for a new round, and accepting terms that ensure a return to normalcy, prisoner releases, and time to rebuild damaged capabilities. This strategy aims to maintain alignment with the broader U.S.-led conflict against Iran and the resistance axis in the region – a conflict that is ongoing and cannot be fought independently of the current war.

• The protracted and deepening internal conflict within the entity has prompted Foreign Affairs magazine to predict its persistence beyond the war with the entity facing three scenarios: the secession of West Bank settlements to form an independent government, a civil war between armed settlers and the entity’s secular Zionist institutions, or a scenario where internal divisions lead to a political struggle that weakens the entity, coupled with economic decline and reverse migration, ultimately transforming it into a “failed state”.
• The critical point and crux of the struggle between the two factions lies in the ruling “Israeli-Zionist” faction’s failure to present a coherent strategy for victory or make tangible progress in the battle of deterrence across multiple fronts. Meanwhile, the “Western-Zionist” faction is acutely aware of the entity’s mounting losses in the West, the high costs of waging war without Western support, and the failure to secure victories through its own efforts. This scenario risks a strategic defeat as the entity clings to illusions of tactical success, a concern echoed by the U.S. Secretary of Defense months ago.
• Today, this internal struggle is a crucial factor in shaping the new reality and influencing the balance of the war itself. It epitomises the entity’s existential, security, and political crisis, acting as an uncontrollable force that exacerbates damage and increases vulnerabilities in its war efforts. As this conflict intensifies, it directly undermines the war project, with the dynamics of the internal struggle becoming a decisive element in the potential resolution of the war.