Miko Peled: Dismantle Israel, Build State for All

Miko Peled: Dismantle Israel and build a state for everyone

Miko Peled is the grandson of Avraham Katznelson, one of the signatories of Israel's Declaration of Independence, and the son of Mattityahu Peled, a general in the 1967 Six-Day War. He himself served in Israeli special forces. Today, he holds views diametrically opposed to what his surname represents: that Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a democratic state serving as a home for Israelis and Palestinians on equal footing. He stated this in an interview with El Independiente, included at the start of this discussion, when the conflict in Gaza had accumulated more than 32,000 deaths and the Strip was reduced to rubble.

What exactly does the grandson of an Israeli founder propose?

Peled's thesis allows no nuance: "Israel is a mafia regime that was humiliated by a relatively small group of fighters who entered and basically paralyzed the country." Hence his conclusion: dismantle the state and build a democratic Palestine. It is not an isolated position on paper, but it is a minority view in practice. He acknowledges this himself: "There are other Israeli voices saying what I say, but they are very few. It has become very dangerous to speak."

His activism, according to his account, was triggered in 1997 after losing his niece in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. From this came The General's Son: The Journey of an Israeli in Palestine. Regarding Gaza, his diagnosis is blunt: "Israel has been committing genocide in Palestine for 76 years." He adds that what is seen now is "a high level of genocide, without a doubt."

The Israeli state described by Peled: political chaos and ineffective army

Regarding Israel's immediate future, Peled does not see an imminent collapse, but something more uncomfortable: internal implosion. "The Israeli political system is in complete chaos. It is imploding. They are devouring each other." In his view, the army and intelligence services have been exposed: "The recent Hamas attacks have shown that the Israeli army and intelligence are nothing but a paper tiger."

As for Netanyahu, Peled does not speculate about his fall: "He can remain in power for a long time. I do not think his position as Prime Minister is in danger in any way." And he explains why: his coalition is broad, has a comfortable majority in the Knesset, and above all, "his government is doing exactly what the Israeli public wants to see: killing as many Palestinians as possible." About him, he concludes: "Netanyahu deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life."

The two-state solution and the debate on democracy and religion

In the discussion trinc the interview, the idea of the two-state solution is dismissed quickly. One intervention summarizes it: "The two-state solution makes no sense." From there, the focus shifts to an uncomfortable question: Is there any Muslim-majority democracy? Malaysia and Iran are cited. The most repeated answer is that Iran is not a real democracy, because after Khomeini's arrival, dissidents of all kinds were purged. Another intervention clarifies that Malaysia is indeed a democracy and Muslim-majority.

Skepticism extends to the concept itself: "Democracy is a myth, a pseudo-spiritual abstraction, the Western trademark of a fanciful wrapper covering plutocracies." And a recurring retort: "Do you know any democratic Muslim country?" To which the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan is answered, qualified as "American-style democratizations, that is, Israeli-style, that is, mass murder."

The shift in debate: from geopolitics to insult and disqualification

As the discussion pogre, the analysis degrades. Accusations of serving foreign interests appear, references to a supposed "Anglo-Zionism," comparisons with the Holocaust used as weapons, and, in the final sections, direct threats and responses boasting of having answered them with violence. The level drops to the point where the discussion about Gaza's future is buried under the exchange of disqualifications.

In between, a concrete proposal: move the UN headquarters from New York to Jerusalem, declare it the capital of Palestine and the United Nations, and return to the situation prior to 1948 by declaring invalid the agreements that established the Jewish state, because "Israel has NOT COMPLIED WITH ANY since then." It is recalled that the Oslo agreements between Arafat and Rabin ended with both assassinated and that it was Netanyahu who failed to comply upon taking office.

What can be read between the lines in the rest of the discussion?

There is an argumentative thread running through much of the debate: the idea that the problem is not Israel in the abstract, but a model of organized community perceived as a cohesive power within other states. The dispersion model historically applied in Spain is mentioned and defended as a recipe. This is a line that borders on generalization about a collective and, at best, remains a hypothesis without data.

Also appearing is the comparison with other Arab countries: "Most Arab countries are places with order and prosperity. They are not failed states, except when USA intervenes to liberate them." And the warning that democracy "is not part of their culture. Nor ours."

With these materials, prediction is complicated. If anything is clear from the material, it is that the distance between those demanding the dismantling of Israel and those doubting the possibility of democracy in the region is not measured in arguments, but in mutual distrust. And that gap, today, has no bridge.