GAZA BORDER

THE shocking images of slaughter at the Gaza border earlier this week are a public relations disaster for Israel. At this very moment in time when the Jewish state is marking the 70th anniversary of its foundation, its government finds itself the target of global anger and outrage.

An occasion which may perhaps been one for national pride is now badly tarnished by media coverage of its soldiers shooting teenagers and civilian protestors.

History, of course, has always offered fuel for such controversy in this combustible region. It is filled with the legacies of territorial disputes and religious clashes. Israel’s “birthday” was always likely to provoke some sort of turmoil.

For the creation of the state of Israel is a source of profound grievance to many Palestinians, who believe that their people were driven off their own land and displaced into Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

In this narrative of despair, they feel they were robbed of their livelihoods and their nationhood through the event known as the “Nakba” or the “Catastrophe” whose anniversary fell on May 15, 2018.

Tensions were always bound to be high at this period, particularly as Palestinian demonstrators – some of them crudely armed – gathered on the border with Israel to demand the right of return to the home of their forebears.

But what has really ignited the powder keg was the decision by the White House to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to the divided city of Jerusalem, which the state of Israel regards as its capital.

It is a step that has inflamed discord with the Palestinians, who lay claim to the eastern part of the city and whose Muslim faith has several sacred sites within its walls, as of course do Jews.

It was the fear of inflaming tensions that prevented a succession of US presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, from implementing a pledge to shift the American embassy to Jerusalem.

But Donald Trump, never a man to follow political precedent, has ignored such doubts.

He adopted his stance partly because he has always been a big admirer of Israel and is deeply suspicious of Muslim fundamentalism in the region, as he demonstrated in his decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal – a policy that was eagerly welcomed by the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Mr Trump also has close personal ties to Israel, for his daughter Ivanka is married to Jared Kushner, whose family has donated money to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

For the Palestinians, all of this is highly provocative, making a mockery of US talk about the need for a peaceful solution to the long-standing conflict. This mood of anger is also sedulously cultivated by Hamas, the ruthless terrorist organisation which runs Gaza and relies on the culture of victimhood to maintain its iron grip on power.

That is why it has always been more interested in fomenting bitterness and hatred towards Israel than in improving living standards in the Gaza strip. And why the fact that so many martyrs have died – or been sacrificed – suits its cause.

Endlessly exploiting the climate of indignation, Hamas continually preaches the apocalyptic gospel of the armed struggle and martyrdom.

The interests of Hamas are served by turning a youthful, seething, radicalised population’s anger towards Israel.

That is the opposite of what Israel wants on its border with Gaza. Many British people, viewing the heart-rending reports of bloodshed, will understandably feel that the Israeli authorities grossly over-reacted to the demonstrations.

However, there are two crucial considerations to bear in mind about the Israeli response. First, one of the central themes of the radical Palestinian movement is to reclaim former homelands that are now Israeli territory. It is a drive called “The Great March of Return”.

YET, by its very nature, this would threaten the very existence of the state of Israel. The security forces must therefore feel that, however savage the consequences, they cannot allow thousands of protesters in a human wave to cross the border and squat in Israel.

Second, although most of the demonstrators were unarmed, some definitely were. Hamas’s cynical eagerness to exploit the discontent means that there were bound to have been hardened insurgents in the crowd, carrying knives, guns, petrol bombs or even rocket launchers.

The entire experience of Israeli history over the last 70 years is filled with attacks from its enemies. Almost every flashpoint becomes another challenge to the state’s right to exist. That is why the Israeli forces must be so vigilant.

It could be that the hard-line tactics actually work in deterring further border demonstrations. But the tough response could have the opposite effect, emboldening Hamas and fuelling radical fury as well as sympathy for the Palestinians from abroad.

Certainly, there is little doubt that the region will descend into further strife. In the face of the casualties caused by Israeli guns, the more moderate Palestinians, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and a traditional Arab secular nationalist, have been pushed to make radical protests too, to keep pace with popular anger.

Hamas will continue to say that figures such as Abbas have achieved nothing with their impulse to compromise, with the result that force now must be used.

Similarly, the rapprochement between Israel and Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan – inspired by their shared fear of a dominant Shia Iran – could now break down.

The three nations formed a close alliance in opposition to president Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

But what is certain is that it will now be far more difficult for any predominately Muslim state to work with Israel. For those who may have hoped that Palestinian people-power protests would help bring harmony, this is another bitter disappointment in a region scarred by decades of lost opportunities for peace.

. Reference and appendage: