Yossi Mekelberg
Conducting public opinion polls during a war is a risky business that can easily lead to the wrong conclusions. The results invariably reflect the specific, present mood when emotions are running at their highest, and respondents are more interested in expressing their anger and frustration than in being reflective and retrospective.
Hence, while findings that Israeli society has turned more hawkish as a result of Hamas’ murderous attack of last month and the subsequent war should not come as a huge surprise, it might also be the case that by the end of the conflict many will return to their prewar position, or even go further and reconsider the sustainability of pre-Oct. 7 relations with the Palestinians, or of using disproportionate force in response to the Hamas attack. Still, opinion polls provide us with a current and disheartening picture of the long road toward reaching a lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and the level of persuasion that will be required for this to become a realistic possibility.
At present, a mere 24.5 percent of Israeli Jews support peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, a fall from 47.6 percent who were in favor in September, while 66 percent are against engaging in such negotiations. By contrast, among Palestinians living in Israel, an overwhelming 58 percent support peace negotiations with the PA. Much of this attitude can be attributed to the fact that only 7.5 percent of Israeli Jews believe that talks could lead to peace between the two peoples.
This suggests a quite gloomy prospect to bringing the never-ending Israeli–Palestinian conflict to an end, and even if it is not surprising, it cannot and should not be left to fester unaddressed, otherwise it will become even further entrenched. For too long the Israeli public has been fed the notion that relations between their country and the Palestinians are characterised by some sort of uneasy stability and that in any case there is no partner for peace. This has meant continuation of the occupation and creeping annexation of the West Bank; relying on the PA’s security apparatus to cooperate with Israel to ensure its own security; low-intensity conflict and violence; but no intention to enter into negotiations for a peace agreement based on a two-state solution.
Equally, this status quo mirage assumed that the blockade of Gaza was sustainable, and there was no danger emanating from Hamas. When these notions collapsed on Oct. 7, especially vis-a-vis Gaza and Hamas, but also before that in the West Bank when militant groups began to challenge the imposed occupation order, Israelis were both shocked and their attitudes to the Palestinians hardened. Their hawkishness is being expressed not only in terms of any future peace solution with the Palestinians, but also by their support for the use of excessive force in Gaza.
At a time when most of the world, with few exceptions and including Israel’s closest allies, is warning Israel that the level of civilian killings is unacceptable, most Israeli Jews believe that Israel’s military is employing too little force, and this view is providing a discredited Israeli government a tailwind for continuing the war, and with full force, even though more than 14,000 Palestinians have already been killed and enormous destruction has been inflicted on the entire Strip.
One of the most detrimental views among Israelis regarding the resumption of peace talks is that they believe there is no Palestinian partner for peace, and that the two-state solution is neither achievable nor desirable. Hence, they resort to the only response they know, despite it being contributory to the current disaster. While options such as a two-state solution, or one bi-national state in which both Jews and Palestinians have equal rights, enjoy little support (14.6 percent for the first and 2.6 percent for the latter), the preferable “solution,” according to the polls, is to continue the current situation; and around 20 percent of Jewish Israelis support an annexation of the Occupied Territories and granting Palestinians limited rights — in other words legitimising and legalizing Israel’s current position as an apartheid state.
It might be too optimistic, almost naive to expect either side to have a vision of peace when both sides have suffered unimaginable losses, and all that they can see is only the worst of one another. However, as history has taught us, in the darkest of times for humanity, there also emerge new ideas from those who can see the light beyond the present darkness, mainly because they refuse to let despair take over.
For now, the peace camp in Israel has been decimated, and there is almost no support for a peace and coexistence discourse. Yet, from the ashes and the collective trauma of this war, there must arise, in both societies, new thinking and fresh leadership that is ready to admit that by not advancing peace and by not accepting that only compromise and mutual recognition of everyone’s entitlement to live in security and enjoy the same rights, the extremists have been allowed to hijack and dictate their very existence, and contribute to the implosion we are currently witnessing.
By the end of such extreme bloodshed, an aftermath of fear and anger, even hatred, is inevitable. It would be pointless and unhelpful to dismiss the mutual negative feelings and perceptions, but they can and should be harnessed to become a transformative experience, into a commitment for this to never happen again, and to the introduction of a diametrically opposite vision. To allay their mutual fear and loathing, both sides need reassurance that their concerns for security and wellbeing are being addressed. This will need new leaderships who are not discredited as the current ones, and solid guarantees from the international community of its active support for such a transformation.
Beyond the deaths and the mountains of rubble left by the war, there must be a recognition of the futility of leaving a conflict to fester without resolution, and that security is not achieved merely by acquiring weapons and ammunition, as sophisticated and deadly as they might be, but through finding an inclusive working formula that involves all segments of domestic and international societies, from grassroots to international diplomacy, in order to convince those who are afraid and outraged by what has happened since Oct. 7, and are mainly skeptical about the future, that there is indeed a viable alternative, one that sidelines the militants not by physically eliminating them, but by ensuring there is a prospect of peace based on fairness, justice, and security that will prove them irrelevant.
