Skip Navigation
Remote View
world World News @lemmy.world
MicroWave @lemmy.world

Israelis rally to demand ceasefire and Netanyahu's resignation

"We hope the world hears us and knows that the people of Israel are not the government of Israel," said one protester.

Israelis protested on Saturday night, calling for a ceasefire and the resignation of hardline Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Tens of thousands took to the streets in Tel Aviv to demand that the government reach a deal with Hamas to secure the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza. 

They also called for new elections, accusing Netanyahu of prolonging the conflict to keep himself in power.

You're viewing a single thread.

155 comments

  • I wish them luck. They have an uphill climb against someone cementing dictatorial powers but I hope they can achieve those goals.

    • Unfortunately this can be said for a few nations now at this point

    • All the research I'm doing right now points to them just wanting their hostages back. Can anyone post evidence of citizens protesting the war on the grounds of genocide?

      I just don't see the humanity here... I want to see it, but I can't find any evidence at all that they are against the actual atrocities being committed. If there is a huge vocal outcry for this, then their media (and/or ours) is doing overtime to hide it.

      • It's interesting that Lemmy has pretty okay representation globally, not great but OK.

        Are there any lemmings in Israel that can tell us what's going on?

        I think it's important not to project into these protesters what we would like them to be protesting about. We need to hear their words, from them.

        • I've seen a couple and they were mostly Zionists defending the genocide. So far, they haven't reflected well on their state, but if there's anyone who actually doesn't like the atrocities committed by Israel in Israel, I'd be curious to see if they exist here. The only one I've seen in articles is that one who sent to jail instead of participate in the IDF.

        • Hi, Israeli here.

          I'll start off by saying this turned out to be a VERY long post. I did my best to condense the absolutely necessary parts, and I still feel I've left a lot of important stuff out. Anyway, hopefully anyone who's interested in the situation and reads this will be able to gain some insight.

          The thing is, you guys are looking at the situation in Israel from your perspective without understanding the factors at play. To actually understand the situation among Jewish Israelis (who I'll refer to as "Israelis" for simplicity's sake) requires a thorough explanation about Israeli culture, politics and some history.

          Saying "I don't see any signs against genocide, that must mean all Israelis are pro-genocide" forces your perspective on the situation, like saying (in very broad terms) "I didn't see any signs that talk about 'all life matters' in the BLM protests, that must mean they only value black lives", so imaging that, but instead of an American saying it, it's some dude in Thailand who has very little understanding of the racial situation on the US.

          So, let's go:

          Right now, the country is pretty divided among supporters of the current government and those opposed to it. While the government has a 53% majority in the parliament, it really never had more than 50% supporters among the population (Firstly, some left wing parties didn't get enough votes to get into parliament. Also, right after the elections the Likud government adopted a plan proposed by the religious far-right party that would, in essence, transform Israel into a Hungry-like hybrid regime which made many liberal Likud supporters oppose the government). The opposition grew stronger after Oct. 7th, though the government still has the support of (mainly) the far right, the ultra-orthodox religious parties and the Israeli version of Trump supporters who mainly want to "own the libs". There are weekly polls that check how many people support the current government and Netanyahu is using every trick in the book to increase support among the public because his coalition is extremely fragile.

          However, regarding the war in Gaza, there is a consensus that's shared among a very large majority of the population from both sides:

          1. The Israeli hostages must be returned. I cannot overstate how important this is. Firstly, Israel is a tiny country, quite communal and most Israelis have large families. The hostages aren't "citizens", "people" or even "fellow Jews". They're "The niece of my dentist", "My ex's uncle", "The daughter of friends of my colleague" etc. Nearly Every Israeli knows someone who knows someone who's been kidnapped. Secondly, one of the founding ethos of Israel is to have a safe place for Jews that's free of persecution no matter what. The Oct. 7th massacre is seen not only as a tragedy, but as the state not performing one of its core functions to some extent. Lastly, redemption of prisoners is a major commandment in the Jewish faith. This is the main point on all virtually ALL Israelis can agree upon (Let me stress that again - the agreement isn't that the hostages "should" be returned, but that they MUST be returned. That's important for later).
          2. Hamas must be destroyed. If they're allowed to exist, this will happen again (There is, however, disagreement on how best can Israel vanquish Hamas).

          These two objectives are seen among many (not sure if most) as contradictory - Hamas is using the hostages to force an Israeli retreat from Gaza, and the only way they will release all of the hostages is if that secures their rule in Gaza. This is also important to remember for later.

          1. What Israel is doing in Gaza is somewhere between unfortunate and tragic, but it's absolutely not genocide, rather a result of Hamas integrating itself into civilian infrastructure and hiding behind civilians (again, this is the mainstream opinion, not something agreed by ALL Israelis).

          I, personally, subscribe to the first two points, do not believe they are contradictory and while I believe the IDF isn't nearly as cautious about harming civilians in Gaza as it should be and that not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is immoral, both things do not constitute genocide.

          Those numbed three points are in the Israeli consensus, but we have one more crucial piece of context before I get to the demonstrations - There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum - in the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages. The other group is left  leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas Will solve the issue in the long run. They also believe the current government doesn't really want to get rid of Hamas, rather they want to make sure Hamas will remain the only Palestinian ruler in the strip, so the government has an excuse to continue the current treatment of Palestinians (both as individuals and as a people). The first group thrives on extremism and sowing division (and if this reminds you of a certain US political party and a US politician in particular, you are absolutely on the money), and the second group is trying to build on a consensus, and make room for liberal right leaning people in order to gain influence (the opposition is actually composed of two liberal right wing parties).

          Oh, wait, just one other thing - There's a joke that goes: A Jewish man is stranded on an island for 20 years. He is finally rescued, and the rescuers see the life he built for himself. Among all the things they see, there are two synagogues. They ask the man "you were on this Island alone. Why do you need two synagogues for?" The man looks lovingly at the first synagogue and says "Well, this is the synagogue where I prayed every day for someone to come and rescue me, and this" he says while looking disdainfully at the second synagogue "is the synagogue where I wouldn't be caught dead in". Point is, Jews and Israeli Jews in particular, love to argue and have disagreements. Think The Life of Brian's The People's Front of Judea and Judean People's Front. So when I say "there are two groups", it's more like "there are about 1,000 groups that can be broadly divided in two camps".

          You'd think this leads to a society that's fractured on many levels so that it can't really operate, but Israelis are also very good at putting differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal.

          So, finally, about the protests - as you may have guessed, the people who are protesting belong to the second camp. And yes, many of them think what's happening in Gaza is wrong. But remember the whole "putting our differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal" and the "The hostages must be returned"? That's the strategy in a nutshell. The protesters are trying to use the single most agreed upon goal, and build a consensus for a deal from there. That's the reason you won't see anything about Gazans in the protests. Going outside the consensus gives the far right more ammunition to paint the protesters as traitors and to rally the moderate right against them. The push for a deal NOW (the main rally cry) will cease virtually all IDF operations in Gaza anyway, so in some of the protesters' minds (mine included), protesting against the IDF while correct in a vacuum actually goes against that very cause. Now, I don't really know US history that well, but think what would happen if the Vietnam anti-war movement made room for more conservatives on the grounds that the war is harming the US. Maybe Nixon's "law and order" campaign would have failed and he'd have lost the elections. I might be talking out of my ass here, but even if I'm wrong I hope this at least gives a better understanding about the strategy used by the protesters in Israel - they're saying "You don't have to join us because you're a hippie peacenik. You have to join us because that's what's best for our country".

          I'd like to stress that the protesters are NOT hiding their opinions. They just want to make as much room for other supporters. Some people are willing to protest for a cease-fire if that means getting the hostages back, but would not be willing to protest alongside a sign that says "The IDF is killing innocent people".

          So that was about the situation in Israel. If you came this far, I hope you found the read worth your time. Now I'd like to ask for a bit more of your time in return.

          I have a question for the people who are protesting against Israel to stop the "genocide" unconditionally (or those who are in support of said protests), but are not protesting against Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally (or those who see no need for these protests) - I assume you don't agree with Hamas's actions on Oct. 7th, but obviously you don't believe these actions justify what Israel is doing in harming innocent people (BTW, most Israelis would agree. If you don't understand how this can be, refer to the 3rd point stated previously).

          I'd like to ask why does this logic not work the other way around? If what Israel is doing is reprehensible regardless of anything Hamas has done previously and should be opposed, then surely what Hamas has done is also reprehensible regardless of what Israel has done previously and should be opposed. Is it just a matter of numbers, so there's a "minimum casualty" that justifies protests, and below that the victims are SOL?

          Not saying that's the case, but that's what I was able to come up with. Maybe I'm missing some context.

          And before you say that's just whataboutism - I don't think it is. Both things are a part of the same situation, so I think this is more a case of a cop seeing two cars driving on the road at night and stopping only one of them (where the driver happens to be black).

          • Thank you so much for this thoughtful response. I’ve read it several times, and I may have to respond to it in pieces (I've actually had to paste it into a word doc to follow along). I may be updating my response in edits. I’m going to be trying to be as respectful as possible in my responses out of appreciation for the depth you’ve offered on this perspective, and I’d like to respond to what I think I see is your questions; firstly I’ll need to respond to some of your answers as a part of that, because I think that's where some of the cross talk is occurring from, or perhaps confusion from the part of Israelis about how the world, and specifically the US is seeing this. I’m going to have to use metaphors in some locations because I think much of this is about perspective, and one of the metaphors you used I think has utility in this regard.

            You brought up 3 points as the primary consensus shared among the Israeli population. I’m going to repeat them here to ensure my understanding of them is characterizing them correctly.

            These attacks were personal, not abstract. Israellis are identifying individually, at a personal level with having been attacked. It's also an extension of local culture that hostages ‘must’ be returned. Layered in this sentiment is the idea that this was a failure of government to defend it's citizens. Israellis see Hamas as an existential threat to Israel (perhaps them individually, see above) and must be vanquished. Israel's actions in Gaza are viewed as unfortunate but necessary.

            I want to highlight a few additional points of context you offered:

            There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum

            the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages

            left leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas

            I think this frames how you see the situation plays out in Israeli society and is useful for informing the discussion.

            So to set up the discussion a bit further, it might be helpful for you to understand the context that October 7th sits in from an outside perspective. In the years and months leading up to October 7th (really the 18 months prior), the nature of the Israeli/ Palestinian relationship had been becoming increasingly, and overwhelmingly clearly an apartheid state/ concentration camp type relationship, where Israel seemed to be continuously eroding any pretense of a lasting solution, while regularly worsening conditions for Palestinians on the ground (again, prior to Oct 7). There seemed to be a regular drumbeat where it looked like public sentiment was finally about to roll over on the kind of continuous and unquestioning support for Israel that they had enjoyed from the US since it's inception. It seemed like there would be calls for Israel to effectively stop maintaining it's apartheid state relationship with Palestaine, because time and the scale of violence was just not on Israel's side. The summary for this point is that there was a palpable shift in the conversation that was happening prior to October 7th, where it was becoming increasingly clear that the Israelis were pretty clearly and plainly the oppressors in this relationship.

            I think there it's also worth the context of work the BLM movement did to educate the American left's perspectives on power and positionality. Through BLM, Americans who were receptive to it, were able to advance their perspective of how the dynamics of power and racism come to play in oppression. There is way too much to unpack here for this discussion, but understand that Americans, especially young Americans and left wing Americans have been basically been studying the dynamics of power that come into play around race and racism for the better half of a decade at this point. Most leftwing Americans probably attended at least some kind of BLM protest during the last 10 years, and many leftwing Americans have at this point directly experienced the kind of state sponsored violence that black people have continuously been saying they experience but most white people just never believed to exist because it hadn’t happened to them personally. That perspective has now shifted.

            I think initially the reaction in the US to October 7th was basically shock and disappointment. It really felt like Israel was finally being dragged to the table, and that their meal-ticket of international exceptionalism was finally up, but that October 7th completely reset the clock on that. Likewise, it completely eroded any credibility that Hamas could possibly have had. But the we saw the response happen and it was like “What?” and I’m not talking days and weeks later. Like the moment Israel began it's bombing campaign, from the outside itt was very clear that they did not give a fuck about Palestinian society what so ever, or even really going after Hamas; that these bombings were of Palestestine and the palsetian people, Hamas or no Hamas be damned.

            And that basically seems to have been the way that Israel has continued to this point. The more reporting that comes out, it doesn’t seem like Israel is even bothering trying to recover hostages (I mean how can you engage in a bombing campaign if your goal is to recover hostages?).It's so clearly about genocide and the elimination of the Palestinian people from the land, that looking from the outside there is no other word for it other than genocide. If this isn’t a genocide, then the word has lost all it's meaning.

            So I want to address the ‘left-right’ spectrum you described and offer context to where I see that fitting in how the broader community might see that. You suggested that broadly the three primary points are held up, but that the left-right axis is about whether to engage in negotiations or to bomb. From the outside, these three points are clearly all centered in an extreme-right framing of the conflict, and you are rotating around another axis orthogonal to the typical framing that the outside world is viewing the conflict through. It's not clear at all that there is any Palestinian perspective even being peppered into that axis. It would be a ‘purely extreme right’ axis, where the framing is just about tactics.

            And so I think it becomes a matter of addressing the three primary points. I think people can understand the first point without much more effort, especially millennial Americans. We lived through 9-11, many of us went to war (myself included), many of us lost family. We survive school shootings and racial violence basically constantly. Very few Americans live lives completely unscathed from a deeply personal impact of extreme violence. So there is sympathy on this first point.

            The second point is much more difficult, because it's not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith. Since then it's been more and more and more egregious settler-colonialism from Israel, only putting into stark contrast (even moreso because of the legacy of genocide and pograms * within * the history of Judaism) the clearly apartheid nature of Israel's foreign policy positions with Palestine. So it's like, Israel has shown no good faith as an actor being willing to engage in a peace process? I think the headlines of the day only further emphasize this.

            I think the third point highlights the departure most significantly. When seen from the outside, people just don’t care about the history at a certain point and become focused on just this conflict. The whole thing becomes a scoreboard where one side has killed 30,000 women and children, while the other side killed 1000 or so non-combatants. The numbers are so incomparable that it's barely worth discussing. Obviously Oct. 7th was horrendous, but it in no way justifies what we see coming from Israel. October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel (along with I guess secretly funding Hamas? Again, headlines of the day). Like what's the point of funding Iron Dome if Bibi is going to let things like this through for political purposes?

            And that's what the crux of this becomes from a taxpaying, leftist (or rightwing, they're views aren't that different) perspective. What exactly are we funding Israel for? So they can continue to genocide the Palestinians and make international conflict inevitable in the ME? It seems like that's all we’re really getting for our money; it's not like Israel has been a particularly good ally.

            So in summary, the idea that what Israel is doing in Gaza is in any way proportional or necessary, or even effective is basically unacceptable to most of the US population in one way or another, be it anti-war/ pro-peace/ or from a purely monetary perspective. What exactly are we getting as US citizens funding this genocide? And it doesn't seem like much. Mostly just a shittier and shittier “ally” in Israel (although they rarely act like it), and a more volatile situation in the region.

            I would also point out that from an outsider perspective, your leftwing to rightwing framing doesn’t appear along a L to R axis. It looks more like a R-R axis argument about soft versus hard power. I’ve been following Israeli media this entire time, and it's clear to me that most Israeli media outlets are not considering the damage that this has done to the Israeli people's good graces in the world. The world had real sympathy for the Israeli position on October 8th, but that good will is long gone, and Israel is rapidly becoming a pariah state.

            I’m not sure where you personally fall in the perspectives you outlined but I appreciate you enumerati

            • Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.

              First of all, you got the gist of what I'm saying. There are a few things I'd say were a bit off, but most of it isn't worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you've actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where...).

              You're absolutely correct saying the two camps I've described are not left-right. Notice I didn't say "left", rather "left-leaning".

              The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to "Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?" Or, how it's usually framed, "Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?". If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian "Is Israel a partner for peace?", which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.

              It's also correct to say that in the last year there's been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there's A LOT of historical context I'm not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I'm all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren't protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don't understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.

              Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel's invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a "free pass" since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a "free pass" as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side's violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it "the cycle of bloodshed"). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas's foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as "aparthide"). I'm saying this not to try and convince you that "the Palestinians started it!", but to explain why "They started it!" is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.

              The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying "October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel" is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians''. That's blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).

              "The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith." Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on "How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution". The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that "Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden", and Netanyahu saying "Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas".

              Regarding Israel being a "bad ally" to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don't know what Israeli news sources you're following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don't provide Israel with support?

              To finish, I'd like to address the use of "apartheid" when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.

              Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I'm saying "Arab" to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as "ethnically" Palestinians who don't identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren't citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that's more akin to the way black people are ("are", not "were") treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so "apartheid" doesn't apply. We're left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn't race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as "living under occupation" and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as "the occupation" (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than "apartheid", especially considering that "apartheid" is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid  a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that's one of the reasons the distinction between "occupation" and "apartheid" is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.

          • No matter how developed you Hasbara troll is, Isntreal solidified it's pariah status for the increasingly limited remainder of its illegitimate existence : the palestinian resistances have won.

      • You won't be able to find reliable information because Israel has a lot of ability to influence discourse especially online. They will kill and threaten journalists. They are the global leader in providing computer exploits and spy tools to nation-states. Don't forget that nothing happened at Tienamen square, and there is no war in ba sing se.

      • Standing.together.english on Instagram.

      • Is there any suggestion that they're protesting against "genocide"?

        Is it possible you're looking at this situation through a particular lens?

    • Israellis are basically the only people on the planet that can stop this genocide. I said that back in November, it's still true now.

    • Not going to be easy when so many other corrupted governments are aiding this one

155 comments