Azmi Bishara: Regional and international momentum building to end Gaza war

Azmi Bishara, Director General of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, surmised in a new interview that there is a growing regional, international, and Israeli consensus on the need to end the war in Gaza, and did not rule out the possibility of an Israeli shift within the next two days regarding the sticking point of its military deployment inside the Strip during the proposed truce. This, he suggested, could pave the way for a possible agreement, perhaps driven by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s growing awareness that elections in Israel are inevitable.

However, Bishara warned that even if the war is not resumed after a potential 60-day ceasefire, serious challenges will remain. These include continued Israeli military operations akin to what is happening in Lebanon, the persistence of the blockade, and efforts to prevent reconstruction.

In a wide-ranging interview broadcast Monday night by Alaraby TV from Lusail, Qatar, Bishara also condemned the current trend—one he doubts is innocent—among some Arabs to promote normalisation with Israel. He argued that now is the time to think about punishing Israel, not rewarding it through normalisation, reminding audiences that normalisation has not solved any of the problems facing the states that pursued it.

On a separate issue, he ruled out the possibility that Syria’s new regime would sign a peace agreement with Israel without reclaiming the occupied Golan Heights.

Subscribe Now and Listen to our Podcasts On

A deal in Gaza soon?

Bishara said an Israeli shift in its stance on troop withdrawal from Gaza could be imminent. The international and Israeli momentum is leaning toward the need for an agreement, and the resistance has made the maximum possible concessions, he added. He said the ball is now in Israel’s court, and Netanyahu is under political stress.

He outlined some features of the possible agreement, saying Israel’s insistence on minimising the areas from which it would withdraw is causing delays. He revealed that the deal might include Israel abandoning the “death traps” operated by the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, complicit in Palestinian deaths according to international testimonies. In their place, UN agencies—notably the World Food Programme and FAO—would take over distribution, while two centres would remain under Israeli control during the 60-day truce.

Referring to Israel’s refusal to fully withdraw or redeploy, Bishara said Israel had established a new military envelope inside Gaza, and invoked building what it calls the “humanitarian city” in Rafah, and was preparing to prevent reconstruction and impose forced displacement, if not complete transfer, then at least a population reduction in Gaza.

According to the author of The Palestinian Cause: Questions of Truth and Justice, Israeli policy could change due to U.S. pressure, internal Israeli instability, or Netanyahu’s recognition that early elections are now unavoidable due to persistent disagreements over the ultra-Orthodox draft law and the budget, which may prompt Netanyahu to dissolve the Knesset and call elections while his popularity remains high.

Yet Bishara warned that a ceasefire would not guarantee the end of Israeli airstrikes: “Israel may continue its bombardments, even during a truce—as it is currently doing in Lebanon. I have the impression this is a new military doctrine: bombing during ceasefires.”

He stressed that no ceasefire guarantees peace: “The only assurance is that there is an Israeli, regional, and international mood to end the war—because its objectives have been exhausted, even according to the Israeli army. There’s almost nothing left to bomb in Gaza.” Still, even if the war stops, he said, “the main battle in the coming days may be around preventing reconstruction, maintaining the blockade, and continuing military operations.”

After the Iran attack

Responding to a question about Israel’s gains from its recent strike on Iran, Bishara said most of Israel’s objectives were achieved before the attack: Hezbollah was neutralised, Syria bombed as the collapse of the previous Iranian regime was exploited to eliminate its military, and Hamas was targeted.

He noted that Netanyahu has long dreamed of striking Iran—over 20 years—often repeating false claims that Tehran was just two weeks away from building a nuclear bomb.

On the effectiveness of the assault, Bishara said, “Iranian deterrence was clearly damaged.” He highlighted the painful nature of the strike, enabled by U.S.-Israeli technological superiority and deep Israeli penetration of Iranian, possibly to the surprise of Iranian leaders. Similar penetration, he added, has occurred in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, exposing a systemic vulnerability in Arab societies not present in Israel due to its unified national-security consensus.

He predicted major future challenges for Iran in countering both this infiltration and the broader technological threat. He questioned whether Iran could achieve technological development without lifting sanctions, or if it would instead pivot entirely toward Russia and China.

Asked whether the Israeli strike ended Iran’s nuclear programme, Bishara responded that the programme is likely still alive. The real achievement for Netanyahu, he said, is the geopolitical message: that Israel—not the U.S.—is the regional police force protecting Arab states from Iran.

This situation, he argued, poses a dilemma for Arab leaders, who may soon have to decide whether to accept Israeli hegemony in the region. Bishara expressed hope that this would provoke a counter-reaction across the Arab world, challenging the framing of Iran as the main enemy.

He also addressed the alignment between Netanyahu and Donald Trump—a duo he once called “deadly.” He mocked how quickly world leaders have learned to deal with Trump, whom he described as “a rare combination of ignorance and narcissism.”

Netanyahu, a master of political manoeuvres, also quickly figured out how to handle Trump. Bishara pointed to what he called the absurdity of nominating “a war criminal and a leader with no relation to peace or humanity” for the Nobel Peace Prize, while the likes of UN official Francesca Albanese and the International Criminal Court are sanctioned.

He warned that Trump, who only respects strongmen, might support Netanyahu in annexing parts of Syria and the West Bank.

The dubious normalisation trend

On the current wave of Arab normalisation with Israel, Bishara—author of The Trump-Netanyahu Deal: From Text to Action, published in 2020 during the Abraham Accords—insisted that the real discussion should be about punishing Israel and stopping genocide, not rewarding it with normalisation.

Such a proposition, he said, is unacceptable even to those who support peace with Israel, given the clear conditions outlined in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (notably, Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories). Today’s Arab states seeking normalisation, however, do so without demanding that those conditions be met, a development Bishara finds suspect and unnatural.

He reiterated that normalisation solves none of the internal issues in normalising countries, citing worsening economic conditions in Egypt and Jordan despite their peace treaties with Israel. He condemned the promotion of normalisation through delusions, myths, psychological intimidation, and social media propaganda—elements he said must be actively countered.

Bishara appeared confident that the current Syrian regime “cannot sign any agreement with Israel without the return of the Golan Heights.”

Sectarianism and the disintegration of the national state

In the final segment of the interview, Bishara addressed the rise of sectarianism and the fragmentation of Arab societies. He argued that the nation state of equal citizens has disintegrated in Iraq and may be disintegrating in Syria.

According to the author of Sect, Sectarianism, and Imagined Sects, once a national identity fractures along sectarian lines, sectarianism reproduces itself.

He believes that building a secular, civil state is the only way to transform societies and cultivate democratic citizenship. Otherwise, at best, the state creates a precarious coexistence among sects rather than a unified citizenry. This undermines the state’s institutions, erodes merit-based evaluation, and results in laws that are not equally applied to all citizens.