Israel’s prime minister is not a man who often appears rattled. Benjamin Netanyahu has weathered myriad storms during his years in power, with his succession of coalition governments teetering on the brink many times.
On Sunday, he came out fighting once again, appearing at short notice before the international media to defend his plan to expand military operations in Gaza to Gaza City and blaming Hamas for each and every charge that has been laid at Israel’s door. Israel’s goal, he said, was not to occupy Gaza, but to free Gaza. Israel did not want to prolong the war, but to end it.
Confident though Mr Netanyahu may have seemed, the very fact of his appearance on a Sunday afternoon and the point-by-point rebuttals he gave of practically every accusation levelled against Israel, from blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza, to reports of starving children and shooting on people trying to reach food distribution points, were in themselves an acknowledgement that the national and international outcry prompted by his new plan had hit home.
He reserved some of his most excoriating comments for those, such as Sir Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, who have undertaken to recognise a Palestinian state, accusing them of falling for a longstanding canard and risking bringing the next war closer. He was also clearly stung by the decision of Germany to suspend deliveries of weapons that could be used in Gaza – Germany’s history militating against any move that would hint at any open disapproval of Israel.
International condemnation is one thing, however, and was reinforced in no uncertain terms at a session of the UN Security Council, supported by every member bar the United States and Panama. But statements and threatened actions by foreign leaders, even hitherto staunch allies of Israel such as the UK and Germany, may not represent the most serious or effective form of opposition currently confronting the Netanyahu government – or, indeed, the opposition he had in his immediate sights at his press conference.
That opposition lies closer to home. The Israeli government’s five-point plan to expand operations in Gaza, which was approved last week only after a marathon 10-hour cabinet session, has prompted some of the biggest and most impassioned public protests since the start of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas, with thousands descending onto the streets of Tel Aviv and other cities. The central fears are not only for the fate of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, 20 of whom are believed to be still alive, but also of ever more Israeli losses.
As we report today, a prominent theme of the latest protests goes beyond the fate of the hostages, extending to Israelis’ view of themselves and their country. “Israelis want peace. Israelis want to get out of Gaza,” said the brother of one hostage. “This is not in our name.” There were also highly unusual appeals to members of the armed forces not to obey orders if deployed in a new offensive in Gaza.
Most telling of all, opposition to expanding the campaign to Gaza City comes from former soldiers and senior military figures, with no less a figure than the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff reported as warning that any attempt to complete a full military takeover of Gaza could well turn into a trap. In other words, it was a risk of an order that was not worth taking.
Polls also suggest that a majority of Israelis support an end to hostilities that would allow for the return of the remaining hostages. Instead, it would appear that the very opposite is in prospect, with the five points, which include disarming Hamas and demilitarising the Gaza Strip, only exposing how far operations have fallen short of the original objective of destroying Hamas, despite the number of deaths and the enormous scale of the destruction caused. This evident failure cannot but fuel popular protest against policies that would appear to be more of the same.
Much is made of Israel as a democracy in a region where democratic government is a rarity. This is also advanced as a reason why Israel seems at times to be given a relatively easy ride by its allies for policies and actions that would, if committed by any other country, be condemned as repellent. The rationale is that these are decisions that have a democratic mandate.
Now, in relation to Gaza, this is less and less evident. The difficulty that Mr Netanyahu had getting his latest plan through his cabinet, the misgivings of the top brass, and the immediate, highly negative response from the streets, could, it must be hoped, combine to force a rethink.
Even if Mr Netanyahu can afford to dismiss international opprobrium, for now, the strength of internal dissent is something that could well be set to rise further, and that, if he values his job, he would be wise to heed sooner rather than later.
