The Israeli people are turning on Netanyahu
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Power plant south of Yemeni capital hit by 'aggression', Houthi-run TV says
CAIRO (Reuters) -A power plant south of the Yemeni capital Sanaa was hit by an "aggression", knocking some of its generators out of service, the Houthi-run Al Masirah TV reported on early Sunday. The Yemeni channel did not identify the source of the reported "aggression". Teams were working to put out a fire caused by the incident, Al Masirah added, citing a source in civil defence as saying. At least two explosions were heard earlier in Sanaa, residents said. Israel has been bombing Yemen in what it says is in response to the Iran-aligned Houthis' attacks on Israel. The Yemeni group has been firing missiles towards Israel, most of which has been intercepted, in what they describe as support to Palestinians during the war in Gaza. The U.S. and the U.K. had also previously launched attacks against the Houthis in Yemen. In May, the U.S. announced a surprise deal with the Houthis where it agreed to stop a bombing campaign against them in return for an end to the group's shipping attacks, though the Houthis said the deal did not include sparing Israel. Solve the daily Crossword


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
The Trump administration wants to end the UN peacekeeping in Lebanon. Europe is pushing back
WASHINGTON (AP) — The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has split the United States and its European allies, raising implications for security in the Middle East and becoming the latest snag to vex relations between the U.S. and key partners like France, Britain and Italy. At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah. The multinational force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year, but has drawn criticism from both sides and numerous U.S. lawmakers, some of whom now hold prominent roles in President Donald Trump's administration or wield new influence with the White House. Trump administration political appointees came into office this year with the aim of shutting down UNIFIL as soon as possible. They regard the operation as an ineffectual waste of money that is merely delaying the goal of eliminating Hezbollah's influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces that the government says it is not yet capable of doing. After securing major cuts in U.S. funding to the peacekeeping force, Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed off early last week on a plan that would wind down and end UNIFIL in the next six months, according to Trump administration officials and congressional aides familiar with the discussions. It's another step as the Trump administration drastically pares back its foreign affairs priorities and budget, including expressing skepticism of international alliances and cutting funding to U.N. agencies and missions. The transatlantic divide also has been apparent on issues ranging from Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to trade, technology and free speech issues. Israel has for years sought an end to UNIFIL's mandate, and renewal votes have often come after weeks of political wrangling. Now, the stakes are particularly high after last year's war and more vigorous opposition in Washington. European nations, notably France and Italy, have objected to winding down UNIFIL. With the support of Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Lebanon, they successfully lobbied Rubio and others to support a one-year extension of the peacekeeping mandate followed by a time-certain wind-down period of six months, according to the administration officials and congressional aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. Israel also reluctantly agreed to an extension, they said. The European argument was that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit. The French noted that when a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in. With the U.S. easing off, the issue ahead of the U.N. vote expected at the end of August now appears to be resistance by France and others to setting a firm deadline for the operation to end after the one-year extension, according to the officials and congressional aides. French officials did not respond to requests for comment. The final French draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, does not include a date for UNIFIL's withdrawal, which U.S. officials say is required for their support. Instead, it would extend the peacekeeping mission for one year and indicates the U.N. Security Council's 'intention to work on a withdrawal.' But even if the mandate is renewed, the peacekeeping mission might be scaled down for financial reasons, with the U.N. system likely facing drastic budget cuts, said a U.N. official, who was not authorized to comment to the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. One of the U.S. officials said an option being considered was reducing UNIFIL's numbers while boosting its technological means to monitor the situation on the ground. The peacekeeping force has faced criticism There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000. Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel and sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol. Israel, meanwhile, has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's military activities in southern Lebanon and lobbied for its mandate to end. Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst and founder of the Israeli think tank Alma Research and Education Center, said UNIFIL has played a 'damaging role with regard to the mission of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon.' She pointed to the discovery of Hezbollah tunnels and weapons caches close to UNIFIL facilities during and after last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, when much of the militant group's senior leadership was killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Hezbollah is now under increasing pressure to give up the rest of its weapons. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL continues to discover unauthorized weapons, including rocket launchers, mortar rounds and bomb fuses, this week, which it reported to the Lebanese army. Under the U.S.- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese army taking control in conjunction with UNIFIL. Israel has continued to occupy five strategic points on the Lebanese side and carry out near-daily airstrikes that it says aim to stop Hezbollah from regrouping. Lebanon supports keeping UN peacekeepers Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country's cash-strapped and overstretched army is not yet able to patrol the full area on its own until it. Retired Lebanese Army Gen. Khalil Helou said that if UNIFIL's mandate were to abruptly end, soldiers would need to be pulled away from the porous border with Syria, where smuggling is rife, or from other areas inside of Lebanon — 'and this could have consequences for the stability' of the country. UNIFIL 'is maybe not fulfilling 100% what the Western powers or Israel desire. But for Lebanon, their presence is important,' he said. The United Nations also calls the peacekeepers critical to regional stability, Dujarric said. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said deciding on the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the U.N. Security Council. 'We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission's mandate and we're waiting for the final decision,' he said.


Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
The Trump administration wants to end the UN peacekeeping in Lebanon. Europe is pushing back
WASHINGTON — The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has split the United States and its European allies, raising implications for security in the Middle East and becoming the latest snag to vex relations between the U.S. and key partners like France, Britain and Italy. At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL , whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and the militant group Hezbollah .