The present events in Gaza were carefully timed. They were preceded by periodic Israeli air attacks on Gaza with associated fatal casualties. These attacks made the (previous) cease fire unsustainable. Hamas responded; Israel replied with the deadly power if its air force. Contrary to what is often asserted in ‘talking points`, it was Israel, not Hamas, who escalated the conflict. It provided Israel with a good pretext to assassinate a military chief in Gaza. The conflict was then in full motion. Hamas has some rockets that can cause very limited damage. Israel has the power to neutralize them. In fact, it has an industry that is now proving its effectiveness in intercepting the rockets. Contrary to the carefully orchestrated propaganda, Israel needs to defend itself from Gaza as much as the US needs to defend itself from Belize. The numbers of injured and killings speak for themselves.

This conflict serves Netanyahu and the Israeli right wing very well. In fact, it may help him to achieve three main objectives: (i) limiting Obama’s ability to revive any initiative for a settlement of the Palestinian issue, which Israel strongly opposes; (ii) preparing Israeli society to accept the continued occupation of the West Bank, a more aggressive blockade of Gaza, and the quasi formal establishment of an apartheid state as the only way to preserve Israel as Jewish state; and (iii) winning the forthcoming elections.

This conflict has necessarily postponed any initiative for resolving the Palestinian issue. That is what Netanyahu wanted after Obama won re-election. Similarly, that was what the then Government of Israel wanted in 2008, when the previous bloody invasion of Gaza took place, immediately after Obama was first elected. The defeat of Romney was a disappointment for Netanyahu and apparently for a large segment of Israeli society. Conditions for attacking Iran do not seem favorable for Netanyahu, at least for the time being. There seems to be an increasing interest on the part of the Obama administration in reviving conversations leading to a Palestinian state. The US ability to intervene in other, even hotter, spots like Syria is limited. Advancing peace with the Palestinians could bring some tangible results for Obama, notwithstanding the difficulties. Netanyahu does not want any settlement of the Palestinian issue. In fact, the existence of this conflict is a good “buffer” against the inevitable conflict inside Israel when Palestinian-Israelis become more vocal in asserting their rights.

Postponing the resolution of the Palestinian issue also allows Israel to expand its land expropriation in the West Bank thereby benefiting some Jews. That solidifies the commitment of more (Jewish) citizens to leaving the Palestinian issue unresolved. It constitutes an effective way of changing the reality on the ground even more and conditioning any future deal. The question then becomes what to do with the Palestinians, inside and outside Israel. This issue is now being openly discussed by the political establishment in Israel. Palestinians are close to outnumbering Jews if Israel and the occupied territories are taken together and even inside Israel itself, Palestinians will soon represent thirty percent of the population, a kind of “threshold” line. They remain still subdued but may soon demand full inclusion and rights. That will clash with existing laws, regulations, practices, even symbols. The danger of “demographic suicide” is openly mentioned now in Israel. Demographic suicide is code for either expulsion or a more formalized apartheid so that Palestinians are forced to leave the country in increasing numbers. Furthermore, the alarming levels of child malnutrition and infant mortality in Gaza constitute a gradual way of racial cleansing. How far Israel will go in implementing apartheid policies will depend on internal and external resistance to them. Using the power of the Israeli lobby in the US and the support of the majority of the Jewish population inside Israel, the government has advanced substantially in making Israel a de facto apartheid state in many respects. We don’t know how much further Israel will be able to pursue this. If implementing more apartheid policies becomes too expensive because of internal or external opposition, then the ability to continue on this path will diminish. The unconditional US support of Israeli policies will probably allow Israel to go to unthinkable extremes. As the situation looks at present, a more formalized apartheid may be introduced gradually. It might not take shape in a comprehensive formulation as in South Africa. Rather, additional rules on immigration, the law on return, public employment, access to public land, security, etc. may be produced to neutralize the danger of “demographic suicide”. Very extreme and racist public statements (for example by the Deputy Prime Minister, the son of former Premier A. Sharon) have failed to cause uproar in society, not even in the west, not even in so-called liberal circles.

Last, but not least, Netanyahu has to solidify support around his aggressive policies. He will win the elections, thereby complicating Obama’s foreign policy options. The round of nationalism in Israel seems on the rise. Netanyahu thrives in such an environment. A new chapter has been opened. It will cause Mr. Obama a lot of headaches.