Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli Security Agency Shin Bet, asserts that Israel will not achieve security until the Palestinians have their own state. He urged the Israeli authorities to release Marwan Barghouti to steer negotiations toward the creation of a Palestinian state.
In an interview at his home with the British newspaper “The Guardian,” Ayalon, a retired admiral who commanded the Israeli Navy and was injured in battle, explained that the destruction of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) is not a realistic military goal. He believes that the current war in Gaza might solidify support for Hamas.
Ayalon expanded by saying that Hamas is more than just a militia; it is an “ideology with an organization, and the organization has a military wing. You can’t destroy the ideology with military force. Sometimes, if you try, you will only embed it deeper – and we are seeing exactly that. Today, 75% of Palestinians support Hamas, whereas support was less than 50% before the war.”
Palestinians Have Nothing to Lose
Ayalon added that deterrence cannot be achieved against anyone – individuals or groups – if they believe they have nothing to lose. He pointed out that Palestinians feel they have nothing to lose.
He stated that most Israelis believe that all Palestinians are either Hamas or supporters of Hamas, unwilling to accept the concept of a Palestinian identity, and they do not view Palestinians as a people — posing a significant problem for Israel’s state concept.
Regarding the release of Barghouti, a Palestinian imprisoned since 2002 and serving a life sentence for murder after leading the second intifada, Ayalon believes it would be a vital step towards meaningful negotiations.
Ayalon: Barghouti believes in the two-state solution and has earned his legitimacy through our prisons (Activists)
The Only Leader
The former Shin Bet chief noted that Palestinian polls show that Barghouti is the only leader capable of leading Palestinians towards a state alongside Israel “because he believes in the two-state concept, and secondly because he has gained his legitimacy by sitting in our prisons.”
He mentioned that the support for Barghouti reflects the fact that the current Palestinian support for Hamas is due not to its ideology but because Palestinians feel Hamas is the only faction effectively fighting for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Ayalon acknowledged that his views are not popular in the current Israeli political climate, stating that whenever he says hatred is not a policy and not a plan, he finds wide dissatisfaction among Israelis.
Absence of a Palestinian State
Ayalon clarified that Fatah’s move away from violence lost credibility due to the repeated failures of diplomatic efforts to establish a Palestinian state, which is dangerous for both Israelis and Palestinians.
He remarked on his role in the Shin Bet, which required meeting with Palestinians regularly, including visiting the late leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Yasser Arafat, and making friendships with Palestinians like the head of security for the Palestinian Authority, Jibril Rajoub, and philosophy professor Sari Nusseibeh from Jerusalem, who can trace his family’s presence there to the 7th century.
Ayalon questioned, “Can I say to Sari Nusseibeh, well, this land is mine, and you are just a visitor? That’s nonsense.”
He stressed that attempts at normalization in the region, where Palestinians have neither a state nor much hope for one, prompted Hamas to launch its attack on October 7th.
What Sinwar Wanted
Ayalon explained that Yahya Sinwar wanted to tell everyone in the Arab and Islamic worlds, as well as the international community, America and Europe, that they will not achieve anything in the Middle East unless they put the Palestinian issue on the table.
He concluded that there is almost universal agreement in the international community – enemies and allies of Israel, from China to the United States and Russia to regional powers – on the need for a two-state solution. The alternative is continued fighting in an era where wars have become more violent, and “the enemy” has become more radical.
