I am writing just prior to enormous shifts in the story of the Hamas-Israel war: a possible hostage and ceasefire deal, and the inauguration of US President Donald Trump. Both these eventualities may overturn much of the current stalemate, but they are not likely to alleviate the abyss between the right (now almost wholly mastered by Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir) and the liberal centre-left.
That chasm emerged about a decade ago – and it has never been about the Palestinians. It is about the Supreme Court and the attorney general, who became Netanyahu’s foes after he was indicted on three charges of corruption. Attempts to demonise the judicial branch of Israel’s government began a decade ago, but the present coalition has finally been able to weaken and politicise it. So, a year after October 7, the Knesset resumed its legislative blitz against the judiciary.
The Gaza war has dealt a deadly blow to Israeli solidarity. Most victims of October 7 – many kibbutzniks and Nova festival participants – belonged to the pro-democracy movement and some of them belonged to the peace camp. Numerous Israelis are now convinced that this explains the shabby treatment by the government of the destroyed kibbutzim (Netanyahu is yet to visit any of them or meet their communities), as well as the breathtakingly rude treatment of the hostages’ families by some ministers and Knesset members – not to mention the violence against them by Ben-Gvir’s police.
In addition, a significant number of Israelis are disgusted by the war waged in Gaza in our name. What began as an eminently just war has deteriorated into a bloodbath of Palestinian innocents, also taking a horrible toll on the lives of Israeli soldiers. Only a small, though growing, minority of Israeli Jews care for the former, but almost everyone is deeply pained by the latter. The public is ripe for a ceasefire and the return of as many hostages as possible.
How will this moment affect the so-called judicial reform? I am among those who call it a constitutional crisis or a coup d’etat, and see the current legislation as a move to change our form of government by destroying the separation of powers. Clearly, Trump shares Netanyahu’s playbook when it comes to one-sidedly politicising the Supreme Court. The Israeli constitutional crisis will have to be resolved by the Israelis, probably in the next elections due late 2026 – and hopefully earlier.
What about the Israeli/Palestinian future? I suggest we stay tuned and expect the unexpected. Immediately after October 7, 2023, I faced eerily similar refrains from the Israeli right and from the global anti-Israeli left on my Twitter account and at public lectures: the two-states solution is dead, they jeered.
Right-wingers felt they had won their argument for Greater Israel. After all, the phrase “from the sea to the Jordan” was part of the Likud’s political creed since the 1970s. There was, from day one, some ugly jeering against the massacred kibbutzniks for being “lefties” who believed in peace.
On the opposite front, Israel haters worldwide bluntly rejected a territorial compromise, telling the Jews to get the hell out of the land they had colonised. I was personally vilified by the likes of Owen Jones for being a left-wing Zionist and holding on to my belief that Israel and Palestine can one day become peaceful neighbours.
A softer version surrealistically demanded “one state, secular and liberal, for Arabs and Jews”, without explaining exactly how secularism and liberalism can currently emanate from either Gaza or the West Bank.
And yet, under Trump’s unpredictable auspices and the pressure of Arab regimes, a territorial compromise may yet materialise. In Israel, peaceniks are traumatised but not capitulating. The anti-government demonstrations allow space for humanist and peace-seeking slogans. Speakers mention the plight of innocent Gazans. In the large Tel Aviv rallies and in some regional protests, a growing circle of Jews and Arabs call for peace. NGOs such as “Standing Together” and “Women Wage Peace” have significantly expanded their reach.
A territorial compromise is not yet peace. For years, the Zionist left was accused of pushing a starry-eyed, delusional rapprochement between Israelis and Palestinians. But this was largely a straw man argument. As my late father, the writer Amos Oz, used to say, “Make Peace, Not Love!”. No future two-states agreement would include a love clause, or a blind trust clause. It will be gradual, cautious and bitterly suspicious. As it should.
I am hopeful enough to believe that most Israelis would support it if responsibly conducted.
However, I am not starry-eyed enough to believe that a Palestinian peace camp would emerge any time soon. There are times in human history when grinding pressure from above must change the political geography for the better – when empires or superpowers call the shots. We are probably entering one of these junctures.
What can Israeli civil society offer at this point? Not much, except the promise that once a responsible peace agreement is on the table, and a non-genocidal Palestinian leadership is able to sign it, millions of Israelis would rise in support. Our political DNA still includes a willingness to compromise that our enemies have never shown. And we have hope. A badly injured hope, a heartbroken hope but hope. We therefore stand ready to pour our teaspoon of civic humanity into the cauldron of self-interested mega-powers that 2025 is likely to bring to the boil.
Fania Oz-Salzberger is Professor Emerita of History at the University of Haifa’s Law School and an activist in Israel’s pro-democracy movement. Her books include Jews and Words (Yale University Press, £9.99), co-authored with her father Amos Oz
