Why do Israelis and the rest of the world view the Gaza conflict so differently? And can this disconnect be overcome?
- Written by Eyal Mayroz, Senior Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney
Hamas’ vicious attack on southern Israel on October 7 and Israel’s ruthless response have sparked a global campaign for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to Palestine’s occupation.
Once the fighting stops, the world’s attention will shift to tough “day after” negotiations, which would necessitate, among other things, painful and risky[1] concessions from both sides.
Given the vast deficits of trust and favour between Israelis and Palestinians, such concessions will be extremely difficult to achieve.
Decades of mutual grievances, tit-for-tat violence, daily rights violations of Palestinians and intergenerational trauma have eroded whatever goodwill may have existed once for the “other side”.
And while learning about the tragedies of others can support[2] healing and reconciliation processes, turning victimhood into a competition[3] has produced polarisation and distrust.
The only hope for peace now is of a plan imposed from the outside.
To encourage faith in the process, mediators will have to demonstrate both fairness and a previously missing commitment to push the parties into making such concessions – on assurances of robust and durable international support.
Even then, changes of leadership will have to take place for any meaningful breakthrough to occur.
How Israelis are viewing the war
The world has largely moved on from the October 7 attacks, with many people’s memories now obscured by the daily footage of the carnage in Gaza. More than 28,000 Palestinians have been killed[4] so far, and many more are still under the rubble.
However, Israelis don’t see on their screens what the rest of the world sees. Rather, they continue to relive — through survivors’ testimonies and other stories[5] — the horrors of October 7. These kinds of reports are rarely watched now by others.
Gaza’s destruction and the mass killings of Palestinians – many of them elderly, women and children – are reported by Israel’s mainstream media very selectively, as “unfortunate” but inevitable collateral damage[6] for which Hamas alone should be held accountable.
While relentlessly thrashing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government for their failures before, during and after October 7, the Israeli media continue to shield[7] the public from the images of the unimaginable despair coming out of Gaza.
So long as the fighting continues and Israeli troops remain in harm’s way, rallying around the Star of David is considered the right thing to do.
Read more: Reflections on hope during unprecedented violence in the Israel-Hamas war[8]
A sense of betrayal
The widely reported displays of glee[9] in the hours after the brutal massacres or kidnappings of over 1,400 Israelis – including women, children and elderly people – stunned Israeli society.
In their worst nightmares, Israelis could not imagine or make sense of the support for the Hamas attack[10], or the widespread denial[11] that atrocities had occurred at all. That it took nearly two months[12] for UN officials and prominent women’s rights organisations to acknowledge the systematic rape that took place during the attack dismayed and enraged the entire country.
Nowhere was the shock felt more acutely than within Israel’s small and now battered peace camp. Some of the victims on October 7 had for years been active[13] members of the peace movement. After years of campaigning, anti-occupation activists felt suddenly betrayed[14] by many progressives in the West who seemed uncaring or oblivious to their pain. In the days following the attack, the pages of the left-leaning Haaretz newspaper were filled with expressions of this anger and raw emotion[15].
By magnifying old, festering feelings of isolation and victimisation within Jewish society, the callous or insensitive reactions to the October 7 attack ended up inflicting damage on the Palestinian cause, as well.
As emotions in Israel continue to run high, more and more people have been adopting the view that if the world hates us so much[16] (evoking the days of the Holocaust), we will forever have to live by the sword[17].
Inadvertently fanning the victimisation narrative, the global outrage over Gaza has hardened Israelis’ defiance, as well. Why, many of them are asking, didn’t the same rage manifest over the bloody conflicts in Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia or Myanmar? Why is Israel being singled out[18]?
These feelings – and the delusional thinking that Hamas could be destroyed[19] and all hostages freed by force – have overwhelmed all other considerations for the Israelis.
For years, public opinion in Israel had significant influence over government policies on the occupied territories. The shock of October 7 may have amplified the importance of these opinions by upending[20] many people’s long-held positions on the Palestinian “problem”. This has been more likely the case on the political left and in the centre, where many people have lost a sense of security and hope.
The arguably more logical lesson of the attack — that peace and security for Israel are inextricably linked to the self-determination of the Palestinian people — has failed to gain many new adherents, at least for now.
As a result, the death toll in Gaza has so far had little impact[21] on the Israeli Jewish public. The only thing animating some calls[22] for a ceasefire deal now is the ongoing risk to the hostages and the sense of national responsibility for their fate.
Read more: Gaza war: Israelis feel angry at their government and abandoned by the international community[23]
The international campaign for Palestine
For much of the world, the never-ending violations of Palestinians’ rights by Jewish settlers, the Israeli state and Israeli security forces have legitimised the struggle for a free Palestine, many times over.
This accumulation of past wrongs – together with the brutality of Israel’s military operation – have succeeded in placing the Palestinian agenda at the forefront of global attention and keeping it there for months.
However, anger at injustices should not lead to support – or even acquiescence – for the killing of civilians, by either side. No amount of violence will bring a resolution to this highly asymmetric conflict. Israel has for decades tried to impose its own solutions on the Palestinians through force and failed. Why would the same means succeed now in the other direction?
The path to a Palestinian state must provide, among other things, a sense of security for the Israelis. Not because this objective is more important than others, but because without it, there will be no end to the horrors of the occupation.
The ‘day after’ solution
In the days and months to come, international leaders have two major tasks to achieve. In addition to bringing an end to the bloodshed in Gaza (to which the US alone holds the key), they must strive to earn trust on both sides of the fence.
Both Palestinians and Israelis should be able to have confidence in the process and the will of the mediators to keep their concerns and interests at heart in the difficult negotiations over inevitably painful and risky[24] solutions.
Read more: Defending space for free discussion, empathy and tolerance on campus is a challenge during Israel-Hamas war[25]
Since the events of October 7 have set the prospects for grassroots peace-building back years, solutions imposed from the top down will be necessary to chart a feasible path forward.
Hate comes easily in the face of injustices, as does empathy for the suffering on one own’s side. It is much harder to empathise with the misfortunes of “others” who may or may not have brought their misery upon themselves.
Selective denunciation of atrocities based on one’s support or rejection of a cause — any cause — is not only morally flawed, but counterproductive as well. Resistance to any, and all, atrocities should be proactive, decisive and resolute.
Those who have been severely aggrieved may struggle to apply the same yardstick to others, but the rest of us could and should. We can do better.
References
- ^ painful and risky (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ can support (onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
- ^ competition (www.scientificamerican.com)
- ^ More than 28,000 Palestinians have been killed (apnews.com)
- ^ survivors’ testimonies and other stories (apnews.com)
- ^ collateral damage (www.vox.com)
- ^ shield (www.americamagazine.org)
- ^ Reflections on hope during unprecedented violence in the Israel-Hamas war (theconversation.com)
- ^ displays of glee (www.independent.co.uk)
- ^ support for the Hamas attack (www.theatlantic.com)
- ^ denial (www.washingtonpost.com)
- ^ nearly two months (www.jpost.com)
- ^ active (www.dissentmagazine.org)
- ^ anti-occupation activists felt suddenly betrayed (newrepublic.com)
- ^ expressions of this anger and raw emotion (www.haaretz.com)
- ^ if the world hates us so much (blogs.timesofisrael.com)
- ^ live by the sword (www.cbc.ca)
- ^ singled out (unwatch.org)
- ^ Hamas could be destroyed (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ upending (www.aljazeera.com)
- ^ little impact (www.haaretz.com)
- ^ some calls (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ Gaza war: Israelis feel angry at their government and abandoned by the international community (theconversation.com)
- ^ inevitably painful and risky (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ Defending space for free discussion, empathy and tolerance on campus is a challenge during Israel-Hamas war (theconversation.com)
