October 7 changed everything in Israel, they said. But did it?
The immediate reckoning was brutal. “So many policies and paradigms,” David M. Weinberg of the Misgav Institute wrote, “have been proven faulty, phantastic, illusory, and grotesque.” The idea of a Hamas-governed Gaza placated by economic well-being, Martin Sherman of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies concluded, was but “a hallucinatory pipe dream.”
Politicians abruptly and radically changed their tune. Netanyahu spoke repeatedly of victory and winning.
Politicians abruptly and radically changed their tune. Netanyahu spoke repeatedly of victory and winning. “Victory will take time. … now we are focusing on one goal, and that is to unite our forces and storm ahead to complete victory.” He told soldiers “The entire people of Israel are behind you and we will deal harsh blows to our enemies to achieve victory. To victory!” And: “We will emerge victorious.”
Many others in government followed suit. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant quoted himself informing President Joe Biden that Israel’s victory “is essential for us and for the United States.” To his soldiers, Gallant declared, “I am responsible for bringing victory.” Bezalel Smotrich, the minister of finance, announced the halt “of all budgetary outlays and redirected them to one thing only: Israel’s victory.” He called the goal of Israel’s war with Hamas to be “a crushing victory.” Benny Gantz, a member of the War Cabinet, deemed it “the time for resilience and victory.”
Public figures expressed unprecedented verbal aggressiveness. Gallant called Hamas “human animals” and Bennett called them “Nazis.” The deputy parliamentary speaker called on Israel to “burn Gaza.” The minister for heritage endorsed attacking Gaza with nuclear weapons. Television news anchor Shay Golden went off-script to unload a tirade.
A hip-hop anthem promising to rain hell on Israel’s enemies jumped to the #1 spot. A pop singer called for Israel to “Erase Gaza. Don’t leave a single person there.”
That consensus signified less a fundamental shift in outlook than a passing surge in emotions.
And Israel’s voters? The Middle East Forum-commissioned poll on October 17 found extraordinary support for the destruction of Hamas and for a ground operation to achieve this. When asked “What should be Israel’s primary objective?” in the current war, 70 percent of the public answered to “eliminate Hamas.” In contrast, only 15 percent answered to “secure the unconditional release of captives held by Hamas” and 13 percent “disarm Hamas completely.” Remarkably, 54 percent of those Israeli Arabs (or, more technically, voters who supported the Joint List, a radical anti-Zionist Arab party), made “eliminate Hamas” their preferred objective.
In short, a ferociously anti-Hamas and anti-PA mood came to dominate Israeli politics, with only the two left-wing parties (Labor and Meretz) somewhat in opposition.
But that consensus signified less a fundamental shift in outlook than a passing surge in emotions, with the robust rhetoric of victory lasting only a few weeks. Israel’s security establishment and public alike showed signs of hastily reverting to the attitudes and policies that led to Oct. 7. Symptoms of this reversion included:
The security establishment approved the entry of 8,000 West Bank workers to Israel, mostly to engage in agricultural work, not a month after October 7. It did so in response to Israel’s agriculture minister assuring his colleagues that the workers had been vetted and posed no danger. That thousands of workers from Gaza had spied on Israel and made themselves complicit in the October 7 massacre seemed blithely to be forgotten.
Contrary to the initial impression that “October 7 changed everything,” almost nothing had changed in the following months.
The Palestinian Authority that nominally governs part of the West Bank not only offered full-throated support for the Hamas massacre, but PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement boasted of having a role in it. The PA also required mosques in its jurisdiction to instruct congregants that exterminating Jews constitutes an Islamic duty. Despite this, the Israeli cabinet continued to send tax monies to the PA. Gallant endorsed this decision, saying that “It is appropriate to transfer, and transfer immediately, the funds to the Palestinian Authority so that they will be used by its forces who help prevent terrorism.”
Before the massacre; Israel supplied Gaza with 49 million liters of water, or 9 percent of the territory’s daily consumption, through three pipelines. It cut all supplies after the massacre. But that lasted just twenty days, after which Israel reinstated 28.5 million liters through two pipelines. Why not all three? Because Hamas had damaged the third on October 7, necessitating repairs. Not to fear: IDF Col. Elad Goren announced his office had “assembled a team of experts who assess the humanitarian situation in Gaza on a daily basis.” Avigdor Liberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, called this “simple idiocy,” to no avail. Fuel supplies also quickly resumed.
If mid-October polling showed 70 percent wanting to “eliminate Hamas,” in mid-November polling by The Jewish People Policy Institute,1 a mere 38 percent defined victory as “Gaza is no longer under Hamas control,” a roughly 50 percent drop. Asked about the war’s most important objective, a November poll of Israeli Jews by Hebrew University of Jerusalem researchers found that 34 percent say incapacitating Hamas (and 46 percent the hostages’ return). Asked about making “painful concessions” to secure the hostages’ release, 61 percent expressed a readiness, a near-tripling of the 21 percent ready to do so six weeks earlier. A poll by Israel’s Channel 14 reported a 52-32 percent approval of the hostage agreement. The numbers – 38, 34, 32 – are impressively consistent.
In conclusion, contrary to the initial impression that “October 7 changed everything,” almost nothing had changed in the following months.
1. By theMadad.com with 666 respondents on Nov. 15-18.
