Australian Outlook

In this section

Israel’s Struggle for Peace at Home

07 Oct 2024
By Dr Irena Kalhousová
Family members of Israeli hostages held by Hamas are seen praying at the Ohel, the resting place of the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson. Source: Chabad Lubavitch / https://t.ly/nthCL

While the war against Hezbollah and defense against Iran have united Israel, deep societal divisions persist, manifested particularly in the differing responses to the Gaza war. Some prioritise military action to dismantle Hamas for long-term security, while others emphasise the need to end the military operation and negotiate for the release of hostages, reflecting a growing rift over the government’s approach and the nation’s future direction.

As Israelis celebrate the elimination of Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, along with much of the military leadership of the powerful Lebanese Shia Islamist group, the country appears unified behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Polls from September indicated that Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party would narrowly win the election, surpassing the opposition center-right National Unity Party, led by former general Benny Gantz. The same polls show that Netanyahu himself was regarded as the most suitable candidate for prime minister, outpacing alternatives like Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid, or Gantz. This may not be entirely surprising, as people often rally behind their leaders during times of war.

Yet, in the first six months after the 7 October attacks, support for Netanyahu, his party, and his government plummeted. Many believed that this unprecedented security failure marked the end of Israel’s longest-serving prime minister’s career. Even before the attacks, Israeli society was deeply divided over a controversial judicial reform, which had brought record numbers of protesters to the streets, fearing that its passage would undermine the country’s democratic foundations, steering it toward illiberal, autocratic, and religious governance.

However, a series of successful operations, including high-profile assassinations of senior Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iranian Quds Force figures, as well as a strong defence against Iranian missile and drone attacks, enabled Netanyahu and Likud to regain lost political momentum. This resurgence has bolstered Netanyahu’s standing, despite ongoing security threats from various fronts, including Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran.

Netanyahu’s political recovery highlights the disparate ways Israelis perceived these threats. The 7 October attacks instilled a profound sense of helplessness and vulnerability—emotions many Israelis find intolerable. The Gaza war then presented a difficult choice: either take decisive military action against Hamas or negotiate with Hamas to secure the return of hostages, risking the encouragement of future kidnappings. In the initial months, with attacks not only from Hamas but also Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran, and as hostages continued to die in Gaza, Israelis felt increasingly insecure and frustrated. However, as Israel began responding to Hezbollah and Iran, public sentiment shifted. The military’s ability to adapt, take the initiative, leverage cutting-edge technology, and execute bold special forces operations resonated with Israelis’ self-image, restoring national pride and reinforcing belief in Israel’s strategic superiority. Thus, it was the opening of the northern front and the challenge to Iran that contributed to a renewed confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership.

Despite renewed confidence in Israel’s military strength and Netanyahu’s leadership, deep trauma from the 7 October attacks remains unresolved. The country is still grappling with a shattered sense of security and profound emotional wounds, worsened by the government’s perceived indifference to the plight of the hostages. While one of the main goals of the military campaign against Hamas in Gaza was to secure the release of hostages, the destruction of Hamas has taken priority. This shift, driven by pressure from far-right ministers and some Likud members, has placed more emphasis on military pressure rather than negotiation. However, the Israeli army has rescued only eight hostages, while 105 were released in a prisoner exchange deal with Hamas. So far, heavy military pressure has not forced Hamas to show greater flexibility in negotiations.

As the fear grows that more hostages will die in Gaza’s tunnels, something even more significant is at risk—Israel’s long-standing ethos that no soldier will be left behind. This unwritten promise, originating from the War of Independence, has been a foundational trust between the Israeli Defense Forces, its conscripts, and their families, ensuring that every effort will be made to bring them home. A powerful example of this was the 2011 release of soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 prisoners, many of whom were involved in deadly attacks against Israeli civilians. This ethos has also extended to Israelis in danger abroad. However, the issue of the hostages has taken a back seat, causing deep divisions within Israeli society. Tens of thousands, including released hostages and the families of those still held captive, have been regularly protesting, demanding a ceasefire to give their loved ones a chance to return. Yet, a part of Israeli society opposes these calls, leading to a growing societal rift over how to balance military objectives and long-term security, and the key foundational ethos of Israel. As the focus shifts to the war with Hezbollah, the families of those still held in Gaza feel increasingly abandoned and marginalised.

Despite the latest polls, the deep fractures in Israeli society are still evident, as seen in the ongoing protests against the government’s handling of negotiations with Hamas. Many of those demanding the prioritisation of hostages’ release and a ceasefire are the same people who were protesting before 7 October. These protesters are often deeply disgusted by a government in which far-right ministers hold veto power, and a prime minister who has refused to take responsibility for the events of 7 October. They suspect that Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza not for genuine security reasons but to delay investigations into the most catastrophic security failure in Israel’s history, while also trying to hold onto power and avoid corruption charges.

On the other hand, those who support the government and its handling of the war in Gaza believe that prioritising the destruction of Hamas is crucial for Israel’s long-term security. They argue that any ceasefire or deal with Hamas risks encouraging future acts of terrorism and hostage-taking, thereby emboldening Israel’s enemies. For them, Netanyahu’s approach aligns with their belief in maintaining a strong and uncompromising stance against Israel’s adversaries. To them, any investigation into the security failures of 7 October can and should wait until after the existential threat posed by Hamas and Hezbollah has been neutralised. For now, they argue, unity and strength are paramount, and the government’s approach is the best path forward to restore Israel’s deterrence and protect its future. Furthermore, many government supporters view the opposing camp as seizing any opportunity, even in a time of war, to bring down Netanyahu and the government they have opposed from the start. They believe that those advocating for a ceasefire or prioritising negotiations with Hamas are undermining Israel’s position and jeopardising the country’s security.

In the midst of these complex dynamics, Israel finds itself at a critical juncture. While military successes and a renewed confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership have unified some, the country remains deeply divided over the handling of hostages, the course of the Gaza war, and the actions of the government. Importantly, the trauma of 7 October still lingers, fracturing the social fabric and leaving questions about the nation’s future direction. As Israelis navigate this challenging time, the balance between long-term security concerns, humanitarian priorities, and political responsibility will play a crucial role in determining the country’s path forward.

Irena Kalhousová is Assistant Professor and Head of the Herzl Center for Israel Studies, Faculty of Social Science, Charles University, and Research Fellow, Peace Research Center Prague.

This review is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.