Israel’s six-point plan to rally citizens behind its war on Gazahttps://en.majalla.com/node/307401/politics/israel%E2%80%99s-six-point-plan-rally-citizens-behind-its-war-gaza
The shock of the 7 October attacks not only transformed Israeli politics but, more importantly, the psyche of the nation, which united around the government's strategy to achieve broader goals.
Netanyahu's war cabinet launched a sustained and systematic campaign to rally public support behind the war effort. Dissenting voices have been drowned out and dismissed in the quest for "total victory.
But maintaining this public support is no simple feat. Israel thus strung together a six-point tactical plan to achieve this.
Netanyahu chairs a mini-government meeting at the Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv on December 24.
One: Undermining the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle
This tactic has been a long-established one that predates 7 October. It aims to show Israel as having fulfilled all of its obligations to address Palestinian statehood aspirations.
It propagates the notion that Palestinians are inherently violent people and are not genuinely seeking a resolution but rather the eradication of Israel and its replacement with an Arab or Islamic state.
This is used to imply that there can be no reconciliation between the two sides and that there is no room for the Palestinians to have a right to self-determination.
Netanyahu's war cabinet launched a sustained and systematic campaign to rally public support behind the war effort and uses a six-point tactical plan to achieve this.
Two: The dehumanisation of Palestinians
In the immediate aftermath of 7 October, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant described Palestinians as "human animals."
The intentions of such rhetoric are clear – to diminish empathy, portraying the people of Gaza as less than human – and, by extension, undeserving of the same dignity afforded to others.
This strategy has also involved drawing parallels between Palestinians and Nazism, known for its extreme brutality. The goal appears to be to associate Palestinians with the Jewish community's most significant historical enemy, the Nazis, and the mass murder of the Holocaust.
This approach aims to encourage a generalisation among Jews, and by extension, the international community, to overlook Palestinian suffering by associating them with the brutality of history.
Three: Generalising all Palestinians as adversaries
Israel is determined not only to justify its war on Hamas but Palestinians as a whole. To do this requires instilling a belief that all Arabs, Muslims, Palestinians, or Gazans seek to destroy Israel and harm Jews. This allows Israelis to justify their occupation and oppression of Palestinians as necessary to protect Israel.
Such sentiments have been publicly expressed throughout the war, including from a prominent figure in the Labour Party who expressed them simply as the conflict began: "There are no innocents in Gaza."
Similar views have been echoed by leaders of other political parties, including Yisrael Beiteinu.
Protesters raise their painted hands as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin testify during a Senate hearing for a $105bn aid request to support Israel on October 31, 2023.
Israel is determined not only to justify its war on Hamas but Palestinians as a whole. To do this requires instilling the belief that all Palestinians seek to destroy Israel and harm Jews.
Four: Framing the conflict as everlasting
This approach involves portraying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as perpetual, primarily due to what is presented as the Palestinians' reluctance to agree to a reasonable settlement.
In this narrative, Israel points out the Palestinian rejection of the 1947 partition plan and references to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)'s original charter, which called for the elimination of Israel.
The narrative often includes references to statements from Palestinian groups and their charters, including Hamas, as well as significant figures within these groups.
A frequently cited pivotal moment is the Camp David Summit of 2000, involving Yasser Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, where a peace agreement was not reached.
Testimonies from the then-US president, Bill Clinton, and his aides are used to support the claim that the Palestinian leadership is not genuinely seeking a political solution but rather the dissolution of Israel.
The viewpoint uses these purported Palestinian objectives to portray the conflict as intractable. It promotes the view that Israel's survival and security can only be ensured through maintaining a position of strength.
Five: Alleged focus on targeting Israeli civilians as a Palestinian tactic
The narrative that Palestinian military efforts intentionally target Israeli civilians – especially in the context of 7 October – has been a focal point.
On the other hand, despite various reports on the overwhelming extent of civilian casualties in Israel's operations against Palestinians, including the Gaza war, Israel continues to claim it does not target civilians.
Palestinians inspect a destroyed building in Al-Maghazi camp, where 70 people were killed in Israeli bombing.
This narrative goes on to compare Hamas to the Islamic State (IS). It suggests that Hamas is seeking full-scale violence and terrorism rather than seeking political solutions or the right to self-determination for the people it represents.
This perception leads to the belief that Hamas will either continue these tactics until Israel's elimination or until Hamas and its military capacities are neutralised. It leaves no room for negotiations or compromise.
Moreover, when Hamas leaders express willingness for a two-state solution or negotiations or acknowledge the PLO's achievements secured via diplomacy, such statements are often dismissed in Israel as mere tactical ploys.
A recent incident that gained attention in Israeli media involved Yocheved Lifshitz, a resident of the Nir Oz Kibbutz, whom Hamas released on 23 October 2023.
When asked what she meant by the gesture of shaking a Hamas gunman's hand, freed hostage Yocheved Lifshitz, 85, says 'because they treated us very nicely'.
"They seemed really prepared and had concealed it for a long time," she added.
Her accounts of humane and non-violent treatment during her captivity sparked controversy and criticism in Israel, challenging the prevailing narrative that consistently portrays Hamas as ruthless.
The example highlights the difficulties of sustaining media propaganda.
By comparing Hamas to the Islamic State (IS), Israel portrays the group as seeking full-scale violence and terrorism rather than seeking political solutions or the right to self-determination for the people it represents.
Six: Reinforcing a sense of continuous oppression
There is a persistent campaign within Israel to portray Israelis and Jews as oppressed and subject to unjustified external attacks.
The roots of this prevailing sentiment can be traced back to Jewish European history, including the rise of nationalism and the nation-state, the prevalence of anti-Semitism, and instances of racism and assaults against Jews.
Nonetheless, it has endured historically, even after the establishment of Israel. It has been generously wielded to mobilise the Israeli public and secure global support and sympathy for Israel and its policies.
The approach is typically accentuated during times of crisis, asserting that the world is antagonistic towards Jews and Israel solely on account of anti-Semitic motives. It conveniently leaves Israel's oppressive policies towards the Palestinians out of any discussion.
Since 7 October, this victimhood narrative has notably intensified in Israel. It has become a central pillar in the Israeli discourse regarding Hamas' attack and its repercussions, particularly concerning assaults on civilians.
Any objections to Israel's war on Gaza and its high civilian death toll are chalked up to anti-Semitism. That applies to measures taken by Israel that amount to ethnic cleansing via the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians by targeting their properties and lives through aerial and ground assaults in Gaza.
This justification is based on a false historical narrative that invokes a dark history of persecution into a narrative of perpetual victimhood.
An Israeli activist holds a picture of Netanyahu with the words "Guilty" during an anti-war demonstration in Tel Aviv on December 23.
Sustained campaign
The national unity sought by these internal strategies also draws prominent political opponents of the governing coalition into the war cabinet set up after the 7 October attacks.
Throughout, there has been a noticeable shift in the media. Voices dissenting from the war narrative or sympathising with Palestinian suffering are increasingly sidelined.
A media consensus is crucial to upholding a broad-based commitment to securing the government's grand objectives. This involves the systematic fabrication and distortion of facts.
This extends beyond politics, reaching various institutions, including unions and universities. Colleges have taken action against students advocating for an end to the war, moving even against mild support for the Palestinian cause. The same is true on college campuses in the US.
People march as they gather to protest the banning of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) at Columbia University on November 20, 2023 in New York City.
Coverage of the extent of material and human losses on the Israeli side in the war is deliberately hidden to preserve national unity.
Critics of the war and its goals are marginalised in official media. They encounter severe criticism, even during live broadcasts, should they dare to express anti-war sentiments or address the plight of the Palestinians amid the death and destruction on the Gaza Strip.
Dissenting voices ignored by media
Dissenting voices are treated as traitors. A media consensus is crucial to upholding a broad-based commitment to securing the government's grand objectives.
This process entails more than merely repeating statements by military and security spokespeople or their equivalents in the government. It also involves the systematic fabrication and distortion of facts, alongside the voluntary alignment of journalists and analysts with the declared objectives of the war and tactics.
The only variation in the narrative applies to peripheral details or tactical differences over how to reach the goals outlined. Debate occurs only over how to subdue the Palestinians and destroy Hamas. Criticism of the aims – or the extent of the unethical and even criminal means used towards them – is rare and marginalised.
Even journalists and academics who were previously known for their critique of the state, its security apparatus and its actions toward Palestinians seem reluctant to express criticism.
The majority is willingly aligned with the prevailing narrative despite clear signs that Israel is committing war crimes against Palestinians in general and the people of Gaza in particular.
The national consensus over Israel's assault on Gaza is increasingly looking fascist, and the prospect of a political resolution to the conflict looks to be disappearing into the abyss.
