A former chief of Israel’s home safety drive Shin Bet has argued that the nation’s safety is intricately tied to the institution of a Palestinian state. In an interview with The Guardian, Ami Ayalon, a retired admiral who additionally commanded Israel’s navy, dismissed the concept of destroying Hamas as an unrealistic army aim and cautioned that the continued operations in Gaza would possibly bolster assist for the group slightly than weaken it.

“We Israelis will have security only when they, Palestinians, will have hope. This is the equation,” he was quoted as saying. “To say the same in military language: you cannot deter anyone, a person or a group, if he believes he has nothing to lose.”

While Ayalon acknowledged the character of Israel’s retaliatory actions in response to the October 7 assault by Hamas as simply, he pressured that many Israelis fail to acknowledge that Hamas doesn’t symbolize all Palestinians.

According to Ayalon, the prevalent Israeli perception that each one Palestinians assist or are affiliated with Hamas poses a major impediment to acknowledging the legitimacy of the Palestinian identification and their rightful declare to statehood.

He proposed releasing Marwan Barghouti, a jailed chief serving a life sentence for his position within the second intifada, as a vital step towards significant negotiations. Ayalon argued that Barghouti’s recognition in Palestinian polls and dedication to a two-state resolution make him a possible chief for peace talks.

“Look into the Palestinian polls. He is the only leader who can lead Palestinians to a state alongside Israel. First of all because he believes in the concept of two states, and secondly because he won his legitimacy by sitting in our jails.”

Ayalon lamented the shortage of acceptance of different viewpoints and urged a shift from the mindset of hatred as a plan or coverage. He warned in opposition to perpetuating battle and not using a clear political aim, drawing parallels with previous Israeli experiences in Lebanon and the West Bank.

“I’m so upset that we are not willing to discuss the day after. Because I know what happens to wars without a political goal. The war becomes a goal in itself, instead of being a means to achieve a political goal,” he stated. “We are experts: this is exactly what happened to us in Lebanon, this is exactly what happened to us in the West Bank. And I am afraid that this is what will happen if we go on fighting without defining a clear essence of victory. What is a victory?”

Read the total report here