world news
Israel-Hamas war: Did Oct. 7 change Israeli left-wing views on peace?
Israel’s political spectrum is unique among other democratic and Western countries. While the differences in opinion between the Left and the Right focus on social and economic policies, as they do around the world, in Israel they also focus heavily on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel’s Right generally believes in Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza, with many right-wing Israelis being opposed to a Palestinian state alongside Israel. This can be seen in many of the current government’s policies, which have worked toward expanding Israeli settlement of the West Bank.
As such, Israel’s far-right parties believe that when the war ends, Israelis should once again settle in the Gaza Strip as they did before the disengagement in 2005.
A significant percentage of these parties’ constituents are settlers who see it as their right and duty to settle in various areas of the West Bank, and they are usually the ones involved in violent confrontations with Palestinians in the West Bank.On the opposite side of the spectrum sits Israel’s Left, which largely believes that Israel is “occupying” the West Bank and that an end to the conflict can only be achieved by ending that status and enabling a two-state solution.
Aside from the Arab parties, this viewpoint is mainly expressed through the ideologies of Israel’s left-wing Meretz and Labor parties, both of which tout the two-state solution among their aims. The far-left can often be found protesting against and getting into physical fights with the IDF in the West Bank.
Hamas’s massive surprise attack on Israel in October was unprecedented and the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. Some 1,200 people were massacred, with thousands more wounded. Some 240 men, women, and children were taken hostage.
The attack was a significant event that changed the course of politics in Israel. In the last year, Israel found itself leaning Right, with what many have called “the most right-wing government in Israeli history” getting elected at the end of last year. In the last election, the Left got so few votes in comparison, that Meretz didn’t pass the electoral threshold to make it into the Knesset.
Recent polls published in the last seven weeks, however, show that if elections were held now, the new government would likely be largely centrist, while the far ends of the political spectrum would remain mostly stable. Despite this, an N12 poll last week found that 36% of Israelis have gone farther Right, as opposed to only 6% who reported going farther Left. Among the people who reported becoming more right-wing were 10% of Center and Left voters.
Shifts among the Left
Many right-wing people, and a minority of left-wingers, saw October 7 as proof that peace with the Palestinians is impossible.
Some of them, like Avida Behar, came from the towns and kibbutzim near the border with Gaza. Behar’s family lives in Kibbutz Be’eri, and his wife and son were murdered in the October 7 attack. The people of the kibbutz are mostly secular and left-wing, and saw Gazans as their neighbors. But not all of them still hold that view.
Lying in the hospital, recovering from his wounds that forced doctors to amputate his leg, Behar said that the whole of Gaza had to be obliterated. He told Channel 13 that Gazans of all ages had taken part in the attack, and that the only way residents of Gaza border communities could go back home was if none of them were left.
Political changes of heart have also been expressed by Israelis who had not been harmed in the attack, among them renowned chef Meir Adoni.
“I confess that I was one of those losers who supported and preached peace,” he wrote in an Instagram post last week. “For 30 years, I traveled the world to peace camps in Norway, Jordan, Israel, and the rest of the world. I had delusional dreams of a beautiful and peaceful world that is full of good and love.”
He went on to say that he held on to his views despite the great personal cost of losing clients and campaigns because of them.
“On October 7 at 6:30 a.m., Meir Adoni died,” he continued. “A minute later, a new Meir was born. A Meir that repents his sin. A Meir who is ashamed that he was part of the delusion of the delusional Left who don’t understand that we are surrounded by extreme Islam monsters who have no interest in peace and normalcy, and only want to burn us alive.”
He ended by asking forgiveness from Israel and God for having identified as left-wing.
Still, the majority of Israel’s Left remains unwavering in their belief that peace with the Palestinians is possible and sees October 7 as proof that it is more necessary than ever.
Meretz management chairman Uri Zaki has spent his career helping advance the peace process. He was involved in negotiations of the Geneva Accord, which was published in 2003 and sought to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Oslo peace process, which began in 1993.
While Zaki knew people who were murdered on October 7 or died in the subsequent war, it has not changed his views but only confirmed them.
“My outlook on the conflict hasn’t dramatically changed,” he told the Magazine. “Of course, it was an awful attack. I always saw Hamas as a force whose raison d’etre was to oppose a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I believed we should fight it like a terrorist organization.”
He added that he had been against the Gilad Schalit deal, maintaining that the release of 1,027 terrorists from Israeli prison would pose a danger in the future. Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was released in that deal, and Zaki said he should have been a target for Israel.
He also said that while Meretz supported the Israeli disengagement from Gaza in 2005, they had seen issues with it at the time because it was too one-sided. He now believes it had been a mistake.
Despite all this, the attack was surprising to Zaki.
“We were all surprised by the cruelty and barbarity,” he said. “We were also surprised by the failure of the security forces to prevent it. But the fact that Hamas is murderous and extreme and doesn’t want to live alongside us isn’t surprising.”
The surprising cruelty and barbarity of the attack has not swayed Zaki from his faith in peace, however, alongside his belief that Israel needs to act strongly against Hamas.
“At the same time, we cannot neglect the Israeli-Palestinian issue,” he said. “Until we solve it, we cannot live here in peace. The solution will have to be diplomatic, even if it includes IDF presence in the event that a Palestinian state is established.”
Zaki explained the importance of peace with Israel’s neighbors by pointing out that Israel is not canceling peace agreements with Egypt, where there are massive protests against Israel; or with Jordan, where Queen Rania is denying the events of October 7.
“We won’t cancel peace agreements with them because peace is the strongest solution,” he said.
Committed to coexistence
The same faith in peace was also expressed by Women Wage Peace (WWP) member Naama Barak-Wolfman, who joined the organization six years ago.
“I joined WWP when my first kid joined the army,” she told the Magazine. “I had two more who were going to follow, and I realized I had to do something about the political situation.”
The organization, founded after Protective Edge in 2014, works toward negotiations to bring about a “just and reliable peace agreement” between Israel and the Palestinians in order to bring about a resolution to the conflict and “a better future for the youth.”
WWP focuses on the role of women in achieving peace, in accordance with UN Resolution 1325, which says that women must play an active role in conflict resolution and peace negotiations.
“We recognize that there are many potential solutions that have been offered, and we don’t endorse any specific one of them,” said Barak-Wolfman. “We have to sit and talk about it and negotiate.”
While Barak-Wolfman didn’t lose any direct family members on October 7, the organization lost one of its founders, Vivian Silver, and another member, Orit Swirsky. Silver was initially believed to have been taken hostage in Gaza, but a few weeks into the war her body was identified.
The attack has affected Barak-Wolfman’s political views, she said, but she still believes in the bottom line that the resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to be achieved through negotiations and a political agreement, and that Hamas can no longer be in power.
“It would be in the best interests of the Gazans if Hamas were removed from Gaza,” she said. “After that is achieved, I know we will still have to solve the conflict permanently. It’s still possible, but it’s going to be harder. We’ve been taken two steps back because of fear and mistrust, and it’s trust that we’re trying to build.”
Barak-Wolfman said that WWP was being supported in its efforts by its sister organization, Women of the Sun, made up of women from Gaza.
“We still have our partnership with them,” she said. “We talk to them daily. They immediately called [on October 7] to express horror and concern, and reminded us that we have to stick together and be there for each other.
“This isn’t something they can do easily because they are in danger when they speak out this way. They cannot be too vocal, but they send us messages all the time.”
But not all foreign organizations have been as supportive as Women of the Sun. Meretz’s Zaki said he was most surprised by the “strength of the hypocrisy and antisemitism from foreign organizations,” including some Jewish ones.
“We’ve never had contact with the Jewish Voice for Peace or organizations like them,” he said. “But I knew one of the founders of IfNotNow, and I was very surprised by Jewish organizations. They didn’t stop for enough time to understand. They just see Israel as the devil, and that’s support for terrorism, and they are turning their backs on Jews.”
Zaki explained that he saw these organizations as hypocritical because there are laws against attacking civilians that Israel heeds, but on October 7 civilians were targeted by Hamas.
“These organizations didn’t consider that, and immediately attacked [criticized] Israel,” he said. “They didn’t try to hide their hypocrisy, which I can only take as antisemitism.”
Barak-Wolfman added that WWP has been strongly disappointed with UN Women and the Red Cross.
“WWP is an adviser to UN Women,” she explained. “Their statement made no mention of the atrocities, so that was a great disappointment; and the Red Cross hasn’t been doing their job with the hostages. They should be working on a way to see them, and they haven’t.”
The Red Cross’s president Mirjana Spoljaric visited Hamas’s Sinwar in Qatar earlier this week, more than six weeks after the war began. A Red Cross team still has not visited the hostages in Gaza.
But with or without the help of international organizations, Zaki and Barak-Wolfman are optimistic that peace is still possible between Israel and the Palestinians.
“I never stopped advancing this, even in the last few years when it was unpopular,” Zaki said. “We all feel strongly about Palestinians right now, but we need to be rational and think about what is good for Israel, and what is good for us is not to mix.
“Palestinians need self-determination in the West Bank. This is a Zionist interest because Israel cannot survive for much longer as a Jewish state when there is a majority of Palestinians. It would be very dangerous.”
Meanwhile, WWP is already getting back in action.
“We’re working on a new plan,” said Barak-Wolfman. “It’s only been six weeks. At first, we were stunned and could only be there for one another. But now we’re trying to recover and revise all our projects.
“On October 4, WWP and Women of the Sun had a huge day-long get-together of women from both sides of the border. We called for peace, and we felt so hopeful. Then October 7 happened.”
She added that WWP is aware of the great suffering on both sides as a result of Hamas’s attack and the war.
“Eventually, it will get better,” she promised. “It has to. Even with the setbacks, this will help people see that the only solution is a political, negotiated one. I’m optimistic because we all just want to live in peace.”
Right now is the closest Israel has been to a full war with Hezbollah since October 7.
This is true even in comparison to the period between July 30 and August 25, probably the second most dangerous period between the sides.
How do we know that the coming days, weeks, and months or two before the coming winter are so potentially explosive?
It is not just the statement that Defense Minister Yoav Gallant issued on Monday about his talk with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in which he said that the possibility for a diplomatic solution with Hezbollah in the North is running out.It is not just the rumors that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to replace Gallant with Gideon Saar as defense minister in order to have greater support for a major operation against Hezbollah.
It is not even just that Netanyahu’s main political opposition, Benny Gantz, continues to pound the prime minister as being too scared to risk a major battle in the North, which has left the 60,000 evacuated northern residents abandoned for nearly a year.
Confidence for major Hezbollah operation
These are the open and obvious signs – and frankly, much of Israel’s political and military class has been threatening to send Hezbollah back to the Stone Age since late early spring 2024.
It is also that the Jerusalem Post has received indications behind the scenes at both the political and military levels from sources who before were pouring cold water on the public statements, who are now signaling that the public statements are serious.
The reasons they give show how realities have changed a lot throughout the war.
For most of the war, the main reason not to get into a big fight with Hezbollah was to avoid distractions that might handicap the IDf from taking apart all 24 of Hamas’s battalions in Gaza.
As of August 21, Gallant declared Hamas’s last battalion in Rafah defeated.
Despite Netanyahu’s publicly threatening words and tone, another major reason that a big war with Hezbollah was not likely going to really happen until now was that the prime minister was privately terrified of how many Israelis might die from the expected Hezbollah onslaught of 6,000-8,000 rockets per day in the event of such a war.
That seems to have changed as of August 25.
On August 25, Hezbollah planned to launch several hundred and maybe up to 1,000 rockets on Israel, including on critical Israeli intelligence headquarters bases just North of Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu and the war cabinet instructed the IDF not to launch a full preemptive war on Hezbollah because, among other reasons, he was still worried about the impact on the Israeli home front.
However, something changed radically as a result of the events of August 25.
Since October 7, Netanyahu has doubted the IDF in areas where the objective risk was higher, even if the military supposedly would have the upper hand.
Sources have indicated that behind closed doors he was initially hesitant for each of the three invasions of Gaza; northern Gaza in late October, Khan Yunis in December, and Rafah in May.
Yet on August 25, the IDF did not just beat Hezbollah – it cleaned house.
Despite IDF’s substantive victories over Hamas and small tactical victories against Hezbollah, this was the first time that the IDF won a major and complex strategic victory over Hezbollah during this war.
It blew up the vast majority of the rockets and drones Hezbollah intended to attack Israel with before these threats could even be launched.
Hezbollah neither killed nor damaged anyone or anything of significance, while the IDF destroyed thousands of Hezbollah rockets.
Suddenly, Netanyahu has a newfound confidence that he can afford a major operation against Hezbollah with much fewer losses to the home front than he had expected.
What if – instead of 5,000 to 10,000 dead Israelis from tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets over several weeks – he could hit Hezbollah harder than it’s ever been hit before – and destroy so many of its rocket launchers on the ground, that Israeli casualties might be not just smaller, but exponentially smaller?
Another factor was until now there was a good chance that Hamas would agree to a ceasefire and that such a deal would lead Hezbollah to unilaterally stop attacking Israel, just as it did during the November 23-30 ceasefire with Hamas.
While this is not impossible, the chances of a ceasefire with Hamas now are lower than they have been in several months after both sides have dug in on various issues after having seemed to have navigated around 90% of the obstacles.
All along, the only other option that has been discussed if diplomacy failed was a major Israeli operation.
And Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah is still furious about the killing of his military chief Fuad Shukr by the IDF on July 30, so no one views him as being more flexible now than in other periods.
Finally, the winter comes into play.
Sources have told the Post that if more than 4-6 weeks pass without an operation, it may be impossible or much harder to carry out such an operation until Spring 2025.
That would mean condemning the northern residents to another 6 months outside of their homes, something becoming increasingly untenable domestically in Israel.
Pressed that the IDF managed a successful invasion of Khan Yunis and the finishing off of Hamas in Shejaia in northern Gaza in the middle of winter 2023-2024, sources responded that the winter in mountainous Lebanon is far more fierce and difficult to manage than in the deserts of Gaza.
None of this means that a new broader war with Hezbollah is certain.
It would still be a massively risky proposition for Israel, Hezbollah, and also for the sides’ sponsors: the US as well as Iran.
The US could be drawn into a regional war or at least be seen as having failed to prevent a larger war after a year of diplomacy, something that could impact the current US presidential election.
Iran could lose Hezbollah as its major potential threat to hold over Israel should the Jewish state dare to think of attacking the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. Hezbollah would undoubtedly remain the main player in Lebanon but might lose many of its most feared capabilities.
But this is clearly the riskiest moment in the North since October 7.
Time might have been on Israel’s side for significant portions of the current war, but it no longer is and likely has not been since April-May.
Yemen’s ballistic missile attack on Israel on Sunday made this clearer than ever.
Too much of the conversation about how long the war should go revolves around whether more military pressure can crack Hamas and get the Israeli hostages back versus whether a deal must be cut now, even if Hamas remains in power, so as to get the hostages back as time runs out for them.
Too little of the conversation takes into account how much more vulnerable Israel is becoming to attack on new fronts. Regarding these new fronts, Israel might never have taken direct hits or might have avoided taking direct hits for years or decades more if not for the length of this war, gradually exposing additional asymmetric holes in Israel’s military power.In order of current severity, Israel is facing seven fronts of attack: Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, and Iraq.
That’s right: Gaza is now probably only the fifth most dangerous front militarily, even though Israel is still treating it as the most important in terms of military resources (and diplomatically, it may be the most important front.)
Originally, when longer meant from October until January, part of the purpose of being willing to drag out the war longer was to take the necessary time to defeat Hamas in different pockets of Gaza while leaving time to move the Palestinian civilian population from place to place in between invasions.
Another part was to use the mix of ongoing pressure and threats of continued impending military invasions and pressure to wear Hamas down into cutting a deal to return the Israeli hostages.
A third part was that a slower war using strategic air strikes, tanks, and artillery as a prelude to infantry invasions of various areas meant fewer infantry casualties.
The theory was that Israel’s air defense was strong enough to withstand whatever Hamas could fire on the home front up until the point that the IDF destroyed most of Hamas’s rocket firing capability around December-January.
But all of this was assuming the war with Hamas would end around January – the official estimate of all defense officials in October-November – and that the other fronts would stay relatively quiet.
But as the war drew on, Hezbollah started firing on a larger number of northern towns and cities; Yemen joined the war, at first only against Eilat, but eventually also striking Tel Aviv, and now aiming again for central Israel.
Iran started pushing much harder to threaten Israel from the West Bank, Syria, and Iraq, as well as encouraging its proxies in Lebanon and Yemen to take more risks against Israel.
Israel’s increasing tolerance for terrorism
Prior to the war, Israel had come to terms with a horrible, nearly 20-year-long conceit that it would be “ok” with low-level rocket and other attacks on its Gaza corridor villages as long as this did not touch the rest of the country.
From March 2022 until October 7, 2023, most of Israel came to terms with it being “ok” for significant waves of terror against Jews in the West Bank as long as not too much of it crossed the Green Line.
Starting on October 8, 2023, Israel decided it was “ok” for 60,000 northern residents to be evacuated from their homes and for whole towns and cities to be ghost towns, not just for a few weeks, but for nearly a year and counting with no deadline in sight.
Then, it was “ok” for Eilat to be attacked from time to time by the Houthis as long as the missiles were shot down outside of Israeli airspace.
On April 13-14, it became “ok” for Iran to launch over 300 aerial threats at Israel as long as a remarkable number of the threats were shot down, people were not killed, and Israel got to “deter” Tehran in a retaliatory strike against its S-300 anti-aircraft missile system on April 19.
It was “ok” that Israel got into a huge fight about a partial arms freeze with the US in May and that the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, which had warned Israel but stayed on the sidelines from October to May, went more all out after the Jewish state in May.
It was “ok” that Hezbollah in August wanted to target 11 IDF bases and northern Tel Aviv key intelligence headquarters as long as the military preemptively struck hard enough on August 25 that Hezbollah’s main goals were thwarted.
The truth is that many of Israel’s nuanced approaches would have worked if the war had ended a long time ago or shortly after the nuanced retaliation.
And there were critics of Israel bashing it from November onward.
But when time continues to drag on, Israel’s enemies on many fronts have more time to dissect the way the IDF operates and when and where it lets its guard down more, and then get lots of chances to test the many potential holes. When time drags on, Israel’s legitimacy problems move from critics to its top allies like the US, UK, and France and metastasize with the international courts from a minor problem to a major crisis.
On Thursday of last week, I was in Rafah in Gaza. There were no Palestinians to be seen. No battles. No gunfire. I had my helmet and flak jacket, and they moved us around in a Namer armored vehicle. I felt as safe as could be. Of course, there are still thousands of Hamas terrorists in Gaza, and if anyone ignores them as we did on October 7, there could be another disaster in Israel’s future.
But right now, they can barely pose a threat to IDF forces a block away from them – and that only if the forces are not in Namers and lack air and tank support – let alone to anyone outside of Gaza.
This morning, waking up at 6:21 a.m. in Modiin to rocket sirens after months of quiet, not knowing whether Hezbollah or Iran was firing missiles at us, only to then learn that it was the Houthis, I felt far less safe than I had in Gaza.
When I traveled to Paatei Modiin Train Station Platform 4 this morning and saw the impact of shrapnel on an escalator I have walked on a thousand times, it was clear how many people could have been killed if the Houthis had fired an hour or two later than 6:21 a.m. This is without even getting to the mass mayhem and death that even one ballistic missile getting through to a populated area could cause.
How the war should end, and whether it should be with a quick ceasefire to get back the hostages or with a relatively quick but intense major invasion of Lebanon, synchronized with major strikes on other parties threatening Israel, is an important debate.
Yet, whichever direction is chosen, Israel should pick a direction and act to wrap things up rapidly and decisively.
And anyone who thinks that the war can just continue with no price on these other fronts beyond Gaza until after the US elections in November is kidding themselves and ignoring the writing on the wall on a grossly negligent and serial basis.
The IDF must occupy southern Lebanon to establish a “security corridor” against Hezbollah, Likud MK Ariel Kallner demanded in an interview with Maariv on Sunday.
The coalition lawmaker called on the government, led by his faction leader Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to address tensions along the northern border by conquering Lebanese lands, from the border to as far north as the Litani River.
“Our reality can no longer continue as is,” Kellner told Maariv. “The sole, unavoidable conclusion is that the current border in the North is unsustainable.”
Kellner further claimed that today’s border between Israel and Lebanon is curbing the government’s ability to “provide security for residents of northern Israel.”Kellner: Life along Israel’s northern border can no longer be supported
When asked about the steps Israel’s military should take to destroy the threat Hezbollah poses on the North, Kellner argued that Israel has only two options: “We either create a ‘security zone’ by controlling the Litani River, or life in northern Israel can no longer be supported.
“That is our equation; there is no other way around it,” he added.
Kellner spoke to Maariv while visiting the North as part of a delegation of lawmakers from the Knesset’s Eretz Yisrael Lobby, which advocates for expanding settlements in the West Bank.
Gallant ‘not the same minister who called to bomb Lebanon’
During his visit, Kellner also attacked Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, calling on him to resign.
As per the Likud lawmaker, Gallant is “no longer the defense minister who spoke on bombing Lebanon back to the Stone Age” and must be replaced.
However, Kellner stressed his support for Netanyahu, arguing that the prime minister “continues to seek out victory” amid international pressure.
-
Solar Energy3 years agoDLR testing the use of molten salt in a solar power plant in Portugal
-
world news10 months ago
Gulf, France aid Gaza, Russia evacuates citizens
-
Camera3 years agoCharles ‘Chuck’ Geschke, co-founder of Adobe and inventor of the PDF, dies at 81
-
Camera10 months agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
-
Solar Energy10 months agoGlencore eyes options on battery recycling project
-
world news10 months ago
Strong majority of Americans support Israel-Hamas hostage deal
-
TOP SCEINCE5 months agoCan animals count?
-
Camera3 years ago80,000MP panoramas: EarthCam announces world’s highest-resolution robotic webcam
