Tulkarm in Netanyahu and Ben Gvir’s electoral calculations: When the suffering of a people turns into electoral propaganda

author

D. Abdullah Kamil

It has become clear that Tulkarm and its two camps, Nour Shams and Tulkarm, have become a present material in the electoral discourse of both Benjamin Netanyahu and Itamar Ben Gvir, who seek to exploit the security concerns of Israeli society, and to exploit the Palestinian geography close to Israeli cities in the service of their political and electoral calculations.

Repeatedly talking about Tulkarm as a source of threat, warning against a repeat of the events of October 7, and calling for the disarmament of the Palestinian Authority are not statements that can be separated from the Israeli electoral climate, where issues of security and fear of the Palestinians top the discourse of a number of political forces, while fundamental questions related to the future of conflict and peace recede.

The matter has become clear: Tulkarm is brought up in electoral discourse not as a Palestinian city with the right to life, security and development, but rather as a tool to mobilize the Israeli voter and promote extremist discourse. This is a political reading based on the timing and content of the statements, in light of the approaching Israeli elections.

But the question that Netanyahu and Ben Gvir avoid answering is: Can security be achieved by continuing the occupation, destroying the camps, displacing their residents, closing roads, and restricting the lives of civilians? Does turning Palestinian cities into permanent arenas of confrontation lead to a more secure and stable future for Israelis?

The military operations, population displacement, and harsh economic and humanitarian repercussions witnessed by Tulkarm and its camps cannot be reduced to electoral slogans. Behind these statements are families who have lost their homes, children who have been deprived of stability, and citizens struggling to maintain their lives and livelihoods in extremely difficult circumstances.

What is more dangerous is that this discourse not only intimidates Israeli society, but also contributes to consolidating the image of the Palestinian as a permanent threat, and closes the way for any serious discussion regarding Palestinian national rights, ending the occupation, and establishing an independent Palestinian state.

Security is not achieved by extremist speeches, electoral bidding, or perpetuating the suffering of another people. True security begins with the recognition that Palestinians, as well as Israelis, have a right to life, freedom and security, and that continued occupation, settlement and displacement cannot constitute the basis for sustainable peace.

Hence, Israeli society is required to distinguish between those who offer real solutions for the future of the region, and those who exploit their fears and the suffering of the Palestinians to achieve political gains. The international community must not allow the suffering of Palestinian civilians to become an electoral card, or for security concerns to be used as a cover to ignore the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

Tulkarm will remain a Palestinian city seeking life, freedom and security, not an open arena for electoral bidding. The future of the region will not be more secure as long as politicians bet on fear and hatred instead of the political courage necessary to end the conflict on the basis of a two-state solution, ensuring the Palestinian people their right to freedom and independence, and the two peoples a future of security and peace.

Ending the conflict requires courageous leadership that makes peace, not leaders who make the continuation of the conflict a means to remain in power.