[[link removed]]
WHY DO ISRAELIS FEEL SO THREATENED BY A CEASEFIRE?
[[link removed]]
Meron Rapoport
March 29, 2024
972 Magazine
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
_ Halting the Gaza war means recognizing that Israel’s military
goals were unrealistic — and that it cannot escape a political
process with the Palestinians. _
An Israeli tank seen near the Israel-Gaza fence, southern Israel,
January 21, 2024, Chaim Goldberg/Flash90
The American decision not to veto
[[link removed]] a
UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire in
Gaza — the first time since the beginning of the war
[[link removed]] that it had allowed
such a resolution to pass — sent shock waves through Israel.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s subsequent cancellation of a planned Israeli
meeting with the Biden administration in Washington only heightened
the impression that Israel had been left isolated in the international
arena and that Netanyahu was jeopardizing the country’s most
important asset: its alliance with the United States.
Yet, though there was widespread criticism of Netanyahu’s handling
of these sensitive issues, even his opponents — both in the
“liberal” camp and on the moderate right — were unanimous in
their rejection of the UN vote. Yair Lapid, head of the opposition
Yesh Atid party, said that the resolution was “dangerous, unfair,
and Israel will not accept it.” Minister Hili Tropper, a close ally
of Netanyahu’s rival Benny Gantz — who polls show
[[link removed]] would
win handily if an election were held today — said
[[link removed]],
“The war must not stop.” These comments did not differ greatly
from the angry reactions by extreme-right leaders such as Bezalel
Smotrich or Itamar Ben Gvir.
This near-unanimous rejection of a ceasefire mirrors the cross-party
support for an invasion of the city of Rafah
[[link removed]], in the
southern Gaza Strip, even though Netanyahu does not claim that the
operation will achieve the long-awaited “total victory” he has
promised.
The opposition to a ceasefire may seem strange to some. Many Israelis
accept the claim that Netanyahu is continuing the war to further his
political and personal interests. The families of the Israeli
hostages, for instance, are growing more critical
[[link removed]] of
Netanyahu’s “foot-dragging” and amplifying their calls for a
“deal now.”
Even within the Israeli security establishment, more people are openly
saying that “eliminating Hamas” is not an achievable goal. “[T]o
say that one day there will be a complete victory in Gaza — this is
a complete lie,” former IDF spokesman Ronen Manelis recently said.
“Israel cannot completely eliminate Hamas in an operation that lasts
only a few months.”
So if the view that Netanyahu is continuing the war for personal
interests is growing; if the futility of continuing the war is
becoming clearer, with regard to both toppling Hamas and releasing the
hostages; if it is becoming obvious that continuing the war is liable
to damage relations with the United States — how can one explain the
consensus in Israel around the “danger” of a ceasefire?
[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, MKss and ministers attend
a vote on the state budget at the assembly hall of the Knesset, in
Jerusalem, March 13, 2024. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)]
[[link removed]]
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, MKss and ministers attend a
vote on the state budget at the assembly hall of the Knesset, in
Jerusalem, March 13, 2024. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, MKss and ministers attend a
vote on the state budget at the assembly hall of the Knesset, in
Jerusalem, March 13, 2024. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
Fundamental QUESTIONS
One explanation is the trauma inflicted by Hamas’s October 7
massacre. Many Israelis tell themselves that, as long as Hamas exists
and commands popular support, there is no alternative to war. A second
explanation involves Netanyahu’s undeniable rhetorical talent,
which, despite his political weakness, has succeeded in instilling the
slogan of “total victory” even among those who do not believe a
word he speaks, and those who understand, consciously or
unconsciously, that this victory is not possible.
But there is another explanation. Until October 6, the consensus among
the Jewish-Israeli public was that the “Palestinian issue” should
not bother them too much. October 7 shattered
[[link removed]] this
myth. The “Palestinian issue” returned, in full, bloody force, to
the agenda.
There were two ostensible responses to the destruction of this status
quo: a political arrangement that genuinely recognized the presence of
another people in this land and their right to a life of dignity and
freedom, or a war of extinction against the enemy beyond the wall. The
Jewish public, which never really internalized the first option, chose
the second.
In this light, the very idea of a ceasefire seems threatening. It
would force the Jewish public to recognize that the goals presented by
Netanyahu and the army — “toppling Hamas” and releasing the
hostages through military pressure — were simply unrealistic. The
public would have to concede what may be perceived as a failure, even
a defeat, in the face of Hamas. After the trauma and humiliation of
October 7, it is hard for many to swallow such a defeat.
But there is a deeper threat. A ceasefire could force the Jewish
public to confront more fundamental questions. If the status quo does
not work, and a constant war with the Palestinians cannot achieve the
desired victory, then what remains is the truth: that the only way for
Jews to live in security is through a political compromise that
respects the rights of the Palestinians.
The complete rejection of the ceasefire and its portrayal as a threat
to Israel shows that we are far from the acknowledgment of that truth.
But strangely, we may also be closer than people think. In 1992, when
Israelis were forced to choose between a rift with the United States
— due to then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s refusal to agree to
the outline presented by the Americans for talks with the Palestinians
— or mending the rift, they chose the second option
[[link removed]].
Yitzhak Rabin was elected prime minister and, a year later, the Oslo
Accords were signed.
Will the current rift with the American administration convince
Israeli Jews to abandon the idea of perpetual war and agree to give a
chance to political deal with the Palestinians? It’s very unclear.
But what is certain is that Israel is rapidly approaching a junction
where it will have to choose: toward a ceasefire and the possibility
of dialogue with the Palestinians, or a war with no end and
international isolation the likes of which it has never known. Because
the option of going backwards, to the status quo of October 6, is
clearly impossible.
_This article was published in partnership with The Nation
[[link removed]] and
Local Call._
_Meron Rapoport is an editor at Local Call._
_+972 Magazine is an independent, online, nonprofit magazine run by a
group of Palestinian and Israeli journalists. Founded in 2010, our
mission is to provide in-depth reporting, analysis, and opinions from
the ground in Israel-Palestine. The name of the site is derived from
the telephone country code that can be used to dial throughout
Israel-Palestine._
_Our core values are a commitment to equity, justice, and freedom of
information. We believe in accurate and fair journalism that
spotlights the people and communities working to oppose occupation and
apartheid, and that showcases perspectives often overlooked or
marginalized in mainstream narratives._
* Israel
[[link removed]]
* Gaza
[[link removed]]
* Palestine
[[link removed]]
* Ceasefire
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT
Submit via web
[[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]
Twitter [[link removed]]
Facebook [[link removed]]
[link removed]
To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
