Israelis Struggle to Imagine a Possible Peace

A month after the Hamas attack that murdered 1,400 Israelis, including entire families, the country is still at war. Israel has launched a ground offensive aimed at “defeating Hamas.” Israelis are mourning their lost ones, attending funerals, dealing with well over 200,000 people displaced from their homes near the border, identifying bodies, and fearing for the fate of the more than 240 remaining hostages,

The country is caught between the front lines in the Gaza Strip, where the death toll of Palestinians has reached nearly 10,000 people, and the ongoing conflict with Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah in the north. Settler violence has surged in the West Bank, with armed militants raiding villages, torching fields, and firing at Palestinians, and even targeting Israeli peace activists. The West Bank death toll has surged to 154 Palestinians killed by Israeli fire since Oct. 7.

But after a month of conflict, is it still possible to imagine not just a cease-fire, but a peace? A bruised peace movement is struggling to come to terms with the brutality of Oct. 7—but some see the possibility of hope among the ashes.

Normally, during wartime, citizens rally in support of their government—the so-called rally-around-the-flag effect—and a wave of national unity is evident. Israelis are helping farmers in the south with the harvest, members of the ultra-Orthodox community have volunteered to cook and serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and mothers have donated breast milk for orphaned infants. It is estimated that almost 50 percent of Israelis have volunteered since the war began, all while the public and the military are engaged in a substantial activation of reservists.

But the sense of popular determination stands in sharp contrast to the profound decline in trust toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government. Public confidence in Netanyahu is at a historic low. According to a recent poll by Israeli Channel 13 News: Some 44 percent of respondents believe that Netanyahu is directly responsible for Hamas’s attack, and 76 percent believe that he should resign, with 47 percent suggesting he should do so after the war and 29 percent calling for his immediate resignation.

A verse from Haim Nachman Bialik, widely considered Israel’s national poet, has begun to circulate on social media suggesting anger at the government juxtaposed with the cohesion of the populace: “It is the unseen wind that propels the ship forward, not the sails flapping noisily above the mast.”

Despite the resilience of civil society, it’s hard to imagine what comes next. Popular frustration has not coalesced into the organized demonstrations seen in the past, such as in the wake of the Sabra and Shatila massacres, when hundreds of thousands of Israelis called on then-Security Minister Ariel Sharon to resign, or after the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, with a protest that partially led to the resignation of Prime Minister Golda Meir. Nor have they matched the scale of more recent protest movements, such as the demonstrations against an attempted judicial overhaul.

Even before the Oct. 7 attacks, Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, was already under pressure. He was contending with charges of bribery and fraud, and his efforts to enact judicial reforms—which aimed to diminish the power of the Israeli Supreme Court and potentially make it more difficult to oust him from office—had triggered some of the largest public protests in the nation’s history.

The Israeli liberal left has suffered a setback because the momentum of the anti-judicial reform and anti-Netanyahu protests was stopped in its tracks. Though Netanyahu is widely blamed for the security failure, that frustration hasn’t been channeled into renewing the movement; instead, demonstrations have been mostly limited to installations and peaceful protests to raise awareness to the hostages.

“Israeli society is in a state of shock. We are still identifying bodies, still attending funerals. People feel that this is not the moment to restart protests,” said Ido Dembin, the executive director of Molad, a liberal think tank, in an interview with Foreign Policy. “Moreover, there is a deep disconnect between the public’s desire for Netanyahu’s departure and the political leadership, which has yet to acknowledge this pressing demand.”

The hurt on the left is all too physical. Some of the kibbutzim that were worst hit by the Hamas attack, such as Be’eri, Nahal Oz, and Holit, are strongholds of leftist ideology. Among those murdered was Hayim Katzman, a peace activist; among those kidnapped was Vivian Silver, a dedicated peace advocate. Hundreds have been murdered, including many who devoted their lives to peace, Arab-Jewish solidarity, and the pursuit of ending the occupation. Maoz Yinon, whose parents both were murdered, has been vocal about his support for peace.

Public outrage at the right-wing government, with individuals such as Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, who controversially suggested dropping on atomic bomb on Gaza, is evident. Ministers are chased away from hospitals by relatives of the injured.

“We’re seeing the unraveling of the right-wing doctrine that managing the conflict without end while weakening the voices of moderation is sustainable,” Labor Party Knesset member Naama Lazimi said in an interview with Foreign Policy. “Netanyahu and his colleagues have long empowered Hamas, because it served their interest by halting progress toward political dialogue. This approach has significantly undermined the Palestinian Authority and resulted in one of the gravest crises since Israel’s foundation.”

Yet there’s little public appetite for a cease-fire. According to a poll from the Israel Democracy Institute, even though Israelis lack clarity about the objectives of the operation in Gaza in relation to the government’s goals, they support the army and its mission. Save for Ayman Odeh, the head of the left-wing Hadash-Ta’al coalition, who along with 35 Israeli Jewish and Arab rights groups issued an open letter, no other Israeli leader has called for a cease-fire.

Many Israelis view the war as a necessary action to eliminate the threat of Hamas—and don’t put a lot of weight on Palestinian lives. The same Israel Democracy Institute poll showed that nearly 48 percent of Jewish Israelis surveyed think that Palestinian civilian suffering should not influence Gaza conflict strategies, and 36 percent say it should be given  “not so much” consideration. Meanwhile, 83 percent of Arab Israelis feel “very much” or “quite a lot” in agreement that it should be taken into account.

There are several reasons for this, beyond the sense of anger over the attacks. First, the lack of leadership has led Israelis to place an overinflated trust in the IDF. They trust it because with 300,000 reservists called up, most Israelis know someone who is serving.

Second, Israelis aren’t aware of the magnitude of destruction in Gaza. “Israelis are among the least aware of what’s happening in Gaza,” Dembin said.

The Israeli media, influenced by Netanyahu over the years, has also normalized extreme right-wing rhetoric. This includes people such as researcher Eliyahu Yossian, who suggested that the IDF should adopt the brutal behavior patterns of Hamas militants: “Zero morality, maximum bodies,” he declared on a prime-time TV show. “Liberalism has become the cult of the devil.”

Ratings have shot up for Channel 14, a Netanyahu-loyal TV channel that has taken a jingoistic line. Channel 12, the most popular channel, provides little coverage of the ongoing bombardment in Gaza—in part because journalists either need to get authorization from Israeli authorities to enter the enclave or enter another way.

As Shimrit Meir, once an advisor to right-wing former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, wrote, “Someone decided about 20 years ago that coverage of the other side is leftist, and since then, the coverage of the opposing perspective has been minimal. This has strategic implications. For example, the heavy price Gaza already paid with bombardment. The feeling in Israel is that until we enter by land, nothing has happened.”

Protests against the situation, or even expressions of solidarity with the hostages, have also been met with censorship, suppression, or even violence.

Four former Arab Israeli Lawmakers were arrested over plans for anti-war protests. Uri Horesh, a professor at Achva College, was suspended from his job for posting against the war. Additionally, the police banned anti-war protests in the cities of Umm al-Fahm and Sakhnin.

Violence broke out at a Tel Aviv protest when a bystander accused the father of one of the abducted children of being a “traitor” and told him that he wished for “your daughter to die.” Left-wing activist Yona Roseman wrote, “Unlike the impunity the police have extended to far-right mobs, left-wing activists are facing detention and arrests for much less.”

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has been particularly provocative. A former Kahanist—an outlawed party that advocates for a Jewish theocratic state and supports the annexation of the occupied territories—Ben-Gvir, who was convicted of expressing sympathy for terrorism, attempted to incite animosity against Israel’s Arab population at the onset of the war by claiming that there were indications of planned riots.

When those failed to materialize, Ben Gvir called to simplify the process for citizens to acquire firearms. Just last week, an Israeli rapper called the Shadow, known for his extreme right-wing views and online activism, was spotted on the Tel Aviv boardwalk carrying a gun.

“Unfortunately, there are those who have taken this tragedy as a chance to become vengeful and violent” said Alon-Lee Green, the director of Omdim Beyachad. “Right now, we are concentrating on Jewish-Arab solidarity,” Green said. “We are able to show people that Arab society is equally appalled by the murder of Israelis, and that we are in this together.”

The left, already marginalized domestically, feels further betrayed and alienated by a global left that has often engaged in apologism for the massacre, framing it as just another salvo between the oppressed Palestinians and their Israeli oppressors. Israel’s left find itself caught between the trauma of Hamas’s violence, a feckless government, and the dehumanization and abandonment by those who claim to stand up for human rights.

Yet despite the absence of leadership, the suppression of anti-war views, and a profound sense of alienation from the international community, there are signs of an increasing recognition of the conflict’s consequences and the potential for civil society and international actors to pave a new way toward resolution.

There is a growing awareness among Israelis and the international community that Hamas is distinct from the Palestinian people and their aspirations for self-determination. The actions and comments of Hamas leaders have solidified the movement’s status as an outcast, regardless of whether Israel can “erase” it.

Indicative of this perspective is the suggestion by Tzachi Hanegbi, the head of Israel’s National Security Council and a known security hard-liner, that the Palestinian Authority should take over governance in Gaza if Hamas were to be defeated. While it’s a controversial suggestion, it underscores an acknowledgment by some Israelis of the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate governing body for the Palestinians.

Emboldened by recent electoral gains—which saw Ben-Gvir ascend to the role of internal security minister and Bezalel Smotrich become finance minister (both of whom have been under investigation by the Shin Bet in the past)—the settler movement had overreached, underestimating the determination of mainstream liberal Israel. The liberal public began to connect the dots between the assault on the Supreme Court by the government and the attacks by settlers in Palestinian villages such as Hawara. “Where were you in Hawara?” became a chant in the anti-judicial overhaul protests.

The public has also become aware that on Oct. 7, just two battalions were deployed to maintain security at the Gaza border, while 32 units were dedicated to protecting the settlements.

This overstep by the settler leadership has unintentionally cast a spotlight on the immediate threats to democracy that many Israelis now perceive with growing clarity. The settlers and their allies not only benefit from the occupation, but also endorse an agenda that erodes democratic values. They promote a model of Israeli governance that is in sharp contrast to the pluralistic, democratic values held dear by a substantial segment of the population.

This animosity may lead Israelis to acknowledge that reining in the settler initiative, dismantling illegal outposts, and granting the Palestinian Authority more autonomy is not just a partisan issue; it’s a matter of existential importance. Settlers have used the cover of war to increase their violence in the West Bank, a phenomenon that the U.S. White House has called out aggressively

Another powerful factor is the White House’s renewed vigor in seeking to resolve the conflict with a sustainable long-term solution. As President Joe Biden’s approval ratings decline domestically, in Israel, his unequivocal support for the Israeli populace—and his critiques of leadership—have garnered respect even from those who were previously doubtful.

“Since the war began, Biden has proven that he is a true leader in this conflict. Even right-wingers, who had until recently written him off as senile and ineffectual, have started to change their tune,” Dembin said.

A Maariv poll showed that if elections were held today, a centrist coalition would have 78 seats. This would give it a mandate to govern effectively the day after. The old right/left paradigm is dead for now. This could give the White House a way in to create a package that could suit a wide range of the Israeli population.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that Gaza “must not be reoccupied” discussed the Palestinian Authority taking control over Gaza when the war is over. PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s approval—albeit as part of a wider Palestinian state—shows that there is some possibility of that proposal working

Yair Lapid stated in an Al-Arabiya interview that the Palestinian Authority should govern Gaza post-conflict, with backing from the global and Arab communities. He added that this could revive two-state talks. And Netanyahu himself has remained implacable, suggesting that Israel will control Gaza for the foreseeable future. However, in a private conversation, Biden suggested that Netanyahu’s reign is on borrowed time.

And so, amid this crisis, a window has opened to find a sustainable solution to the conflict. Members of the Abraham Accords, along with states contemplating the normalization of relations with Israel—such as Saudi Arabia—hold potential sway in convening an international conference.

When it comes to the Israeli public’s readiness to support a process leading toward Palestinian sovereignty, Dembin is cautiously optimistic.

“I would think yes, they might get on board, but it would need to be a measured, gradual approach that reassures Israelis that their safety is front and center—not just an American push for regional peace,” he explained. “Israelis seem to warm up to the idea of peace and coexistence when there’s a solid proposal in play and tend to reject it when there’s nothing tangible in sight.”