Israeli opinion: War and public opinion in Israel

At the level of those who pretend to hold the title of leftist within Israeli public opinion, this war has proven, once again, that the overwhelming majority of them are doves chirping within the flock, not doves with universal values that go beyond a narrow local framework.

The current war waged by Israel against the Gaza Strip immediately attracted broad consensus among Israeli public opinion, perhaps due to several factors and reasons. Of these factors, two central ones can be noted:

First, this war is also considered a “war of partisan interests.” Therefore, electoral calculations and narrow interests place all Zionist parties on the side of their supporters. It is noteworthy here that within the same context, wars or military operations were launched in the past on the eve of general elections. For example, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor during the electoral battle in 1981. In 1996, the Prime Minister at that time, Shimon Peres, launched the “Grapes of Wrath” military operation against Lebanon, at the height of the electoral battle, and most Israelis were sure he did this to win the elections. But the operation failed, and Peres lost the elections, and the victory went to the head of the Likud Party, Benjamin Netanyahu. Ehud Barak, Minister of Defense and Chairman of the Labor Party, and Tzipi Livni, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Kadima Party, repeated the matter during the war on Gaza in 2008-2009, with the support of the outgoing Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. While Livni and Barak's eyes were on the general elections that took place on February 10, 2009, Olmert aimed for the war to restore some of his prestige that had been undermined by the Second Lebanon War in July 2006.

Secondly, we do not need much trouble to realize that since the 2006 war ended, a general climate has prevailed in Israel, at all levels, suggesting to everyone near and far that an Israeli war on the horizon, whose main goal is to restore Israel’s deterrent power, is almost inevitable, in light of the results of that war. The war, and the conclusions of the commission investigating its facts (the Winograd Commission). Many people mention that this committee was assigned to investigate the facts in that war from a very specific angle, including: Why did Israel fight the war and how did it fail? This remains the most prominent mandate granted to the Committee. Therefore, many observers and analysts considered the main statement issued by this report to be the prescription given to the Israeli government, in order to fight the next war according to it and avoid failure in it.

The conclusions of this committee included a basic conclusion, which we should return to, which states: “The Second Lebanon War once again brought to the table of discussion and reflection issues that Israeli society, in part, preferred to exclude and set aside, most importantly the following: Israel cannot remain in this region. You will not be able to live there in peace or even quietly, without there being in and around it those who believe that the State of Israel possesses political and military leadership, military capabilities, strength and social immunity, enabling it to deter anyone from among its neighbors who dares to attack or harm it, and preventing them, even by force, from achieving their goals. These facts are not subject to or linked to this or that political orientation.” As stated: “It is true that Israel is obligated, politically and morally, to aspire to peace with its neighbors and to reach the settlements required for this purpose. However, attempts to achieve peace or settlement must come from a position of military strength, social and political immunity, and from the ability and willingness to defend the state and its values and the security of its residents.”

At the level of those who pretend to hold the title of leftist within Israeli public opinion, this war has proven, once again, that the overwhelming majority of them are doves chirping within the flock, not doves with universal values that go beyond a narrow local framework. The type that opposes war and supports peace for universal moral motives has become a rare type, and this type is the one that does not seek refuge in the embrace of blind patriotism and circumstantial consensus that arises specifically during wars.