The enemy of my enemy could be my enemy as well

Arab News

20 hours ago

https://arab.news/768ag
Not every proverb that sounds plausible is necessarily universally true, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' which is thought to originate from an Indian Sanskrit treatise, the Arthasastra, dating back to around the 4th century B.C., is no exception.
On more than one occasion in history, the enemy of one's enemy has proved, in fact, to be one's enemy as well.
I was reminded of this proverb when I learned that Israeli authorities have been arming a Palestinian militia in Gaza — as if there was not already enough weaponry there to cause horrific bloodshed — as part of their efforts to 'eliminate' Hamas.
For more than a year we have repeatedly heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was 'a step away from victory' in this effort. This has proved to be more a case of wishful thinking than reality.
Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming what it calls a 'clan' that operates in the Rafah area and is led by Yasser Abu Shabab who, according to the European Council on Foreign Affairs, is a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks, has been jailed by Hamas for drug smuggling, and 'has alleged ties' with Daesh.
Not your ordinary guy who you would want to mix with, then. His group consists of anything from 100 to 250 armed men, and is somewhere between a militia and a criminal gang — most probably both.
To find an ally in times of conflict is to gain an asset, and to divide and rule is another war tactic known since the dawn of history. But if allies are not selected carefully, the long-term unintended consequences can be worse than the immediate supposed benefits.
The Soviet Union was hardly a friend of the West after the Second World War, but the US decision to arm the mujahideen when the Russians invaded Afghanistan came back to haunt Washington, for example.
Similarly, Israel's support of Hamas in its early days, as a counter to Fatah, and continuing to do so until the disastrous consequences of this manifested themselves on Oct. 7, 2023, was an act of sheer self-harm. Why they would now repeat that mistake with a similar folly is incomprehensible.
Netanyahu did not hide his true intentions when asked about arming Abu Shabab's group. He said: 'We have mobilized clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas. What's wrong with that?' The answer to his question is: Where do we start?
Netanyahu's interpretation of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' reveals ignorance and an extreme lack of judgment, possibly signs of desperation, and the air of a colonialist approach. He is confusing the concept of a clan with what is simply a band of criminals, wrongly equating the latter with legitimate local leaders who represent the best interests of their people — alliances that have been a method of maintaining control that occupying forces have employed for centuries.
But forging an alliance with legitimate local leaders is very different from being in cahoots with those who for months have been accused by Palestinians and international humanitarian organizations of looting aid lorries and profiting from the misery of their own people.
In their inability to achieve the unrealistic goal of eliminating Hamas, Israeli authorities are instead coming up with ideas that are detached from reality. In this case they are looking for allies that appear uninterested in helping to fulfill the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and instead are more interested in enriching themselves, and possibly gaining political power.
Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming Yasser Abu Shabab, a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks.
Yossi Mekelberg
It is obvious why Israel opposes Hamas remaining in control of Gaza. But the organization has said — though the claim has yet to be tested — it is prepared to hand over governance of the territory to any Palestinian organization that is agreed upon nationally and regionally. However, it insists it will not disband, and so a formula is required to ensure the organization does not pose a threat to Israeli security or Palestinian unity.
Netanyahu also rejects postwar Palestinian Authority governance of Gaza, having declared this year that 'the day after the war in Gaza, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will be there.'
This approach raises the suspicion that by supporting armed militias, Israel is deliberately becoming an agent of chaos whose goal is not necessarily to defeat Hamas but to prolong the war indefinitely, thus helping to ensure Netanyahu's government remains in power, at least until next year's general election.
In recent weeks, we have seen demonstrations of spontaneous popular opposition to Hamas, despite a brutal crackdown on such dissent by the organization, with hundreds of demonstrators calling for it to be ousted and the war to end.
Considering the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza — recently described during an interview with the BBC by International Committee of the Red Cross President Mirjana Spoljaric as 'worse than hell on Earth' — it is only to be expected that ordinary Gazans, who for nearly two years have been enduring such a hellish situation, would vent their anger against both Israel and Hamas.
But the engagement by Israel with clans and militias, and even gangs, has nothing to do with trying to alleviate the suffering of the 2.3 million people of Gaza; it is all about creating a force to counter Hamas, and to undermine the Palestinian Authority and also the Palestine Liberation Organization's position as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
While some clans in Gaza were approached last year with the aim of creating an opposition to Hamas, the Abu Shabab gang is not regarded as a clan but calls itself, according to media reports, an 'antiterror service,' with no clear aims or indication of who it serves. If this is truly the case, Israel is creating a monster that will take a long time to contain once it is let loose, as we have seen with similar situations in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. And it will pose a threat, first and foremost, to Israel itself.
When countries embark on risky experiments of this kind with nonstate actors, they toy with the idea that they will always be able to control and even disarm them when they have outlived their usefulness.
History shows us that in many cases, such groups develop their own sets of interests and revenue streams, not to mention coalitions with like-minded armed groups, sometimes even those they were initially supposed to contain. Meanwhile the country that initially sponsored them tends to lose control of them.
Worse still for Israel, since Abu Shabab is depicted on social media in Gaza as 'the Israeli agent' — in other words a traitor, which in the middle of a bitter war is as good as putting a bounty on his head — he has an incentive either to eventually join forces with Hamas, or simply turn on Israel using the weapons it put in his hands.
This might be the right time for the Netanyahu government to recognize that there are better ways to undermine extremism and fundamentalism than encouraging civil war. In this case, they begin with ending the killing of innocent civilians, allowing humanitarian aid to reach those that so desperately need it, and then recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It would be well worth checking this alternative path in place of the one Israel is on.
• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
X: @YMekelberg