Survey Shows 'Complete Collapse' of Israeli Left Since Oct. 7
Nearly nine months after Hamas's Oct. 7 terror attack, the Jewish state's political divisions have reemerged, with protests criticizing the government for various and often opposing reasons breaking out across the country.Israel Fights Wars Knowing It Values Life, While Enemies Seek ‘Power Over Death’
But a sweeping new public opinion survey by pollsters affiliated with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has revealed how the Oct. 7 attack on Israel solidified a national consensus on what used to be the country's main political disagreement. When it comes to the Palestinians, the survey found, almost everyone is a right-winger now.
"Oct. 7 caused a complete collapse of the old Israeli left," Hebrew University political psychologist Nimrod Nir, who led the survey, told the Washington Free Beacon. "Until a few years ago, I could find out which political camp you were in by asking you one question: Palestinian state, yes or no? Today, that question doesn't really differentiate the two camps because no one supports the old idea of a Palestinian state."
The findings help explain why the Biden administration has so far failed to persuade Israel to end its war to destroy the Palestinian terror group Hamas in Gaza and recommit to a two-state solution.
"There isn't even a majority for a Palestinian state among liberal voters anymore," Nir said. "It's just not on the table."
Nir and his team, known as Agam Labs, surveyed a nationally representative sample of 4,000 Jewish Israeli adults in August and then, from Oct. 9 through last month, checked back in with most of them every 10 days or so. By tracking so many of the same individuals over time, the pollsters were able to minimize noise and uncertainty—yielding the most comprehensive picture to date of how Israeli politics have shifted since Oct. 7.
Each round of polling had a margin of error of about 4 percentage points. But changes as small as 2 percentage points are significant if consistent over time, according to the pollsters.
The survey found that the rightward ratchet of Israeli politics across decades of Palestinian terrorism and rejectionism has lurched ahead since Oct. 7. Based on political self-identification, the right has grown by 5 percentage points to include 36 percent of Jewish Israelis, or 60 percent when the poll factors in the moderate and hard right. The left has shrunk by 3 percentage points to just 8 percent of the public, or 13 percent factoring in the moderate and hard left. And the center has held steady at about a quarter of the political spectrum.
Though the most evident source of human governance is power, true power can never stem from war-making stratagems or capacities. In principle, at least, consummate power on planet earth is immortality, but such power is intangible and must be based on faith rather than science. All things considered, the promise of “power over death” holds primary importance in world politics. This is especially the case in the jihadist Middle East.
There are relevant particulars. The consequences of this sort of thinking represent a lethal triumph of anti-Reason over Reason. Such triumph, in turn, expresses the continuing supremacy of primal human satisfactions in war, terrorism and genocide. On this matter of world-historical urgency, scholars and policy-makers should consider the probing observation of Eugene Ionesco in his Journal (1966). Opting to describe killing in general as affirmation of an individual’s “power over death,” the Romanian playwright explains:
I must kill my visible enemy, the one who is determined to take my life, to prevent him from killing me. Killing gives me a feeling of relief, because I am dimly aware that in killing him, I have killed death … Killing is a way of relieving one’s feelings, of warding off one’s own death.
Whatever the standards of assessment, all individuals and all states coexist in an “asymmetrical” world. Certain state leaderships accept zero-sum linkages between killing and survival (both individual and collective), but others do not. Although this divergence might suggest that some states stand on a higher moral plane than others, it may also place the virtuous state at a grave security disadvantage. As a timely example, this disadvantage describes the growing survival dilemma of Israel, a still-virtuous state that must unceasingly bear the assaults of utterly murderous adversaries.
What should Israel do when it finds itself confronted with faith-driven enemies who abhor Reason and seek personal immortality via “martyrdom?” As an antecedent question, what sort of “faith” can encourage (and cherish) the rape, torture and murder of innocents? Must the virtuous state accept barbarism as its sine qua non to “stay alive”?
There are science-based answers. What is required of still-virtuous states such as Israel is not a replication of enemy crimes, but decent and pragmatic policies that recognize death-avoidance as that enemy’s overriding goal. For Israel, this advice points toward jihadist enemies. Of special concern is a soon-to-be-nuclear capable Iran and Iranian terror-group surrogates (e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah), notably anxious to acquire “power over death.”
Israel’s most immediate concern will be the expanding war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, a conflict in which the terrorist patron state (Iran) could display greater commitments to Reason than its associated fighting proxies. Nonetheless, even this relative reasonableness would devolve into brutish expressions of anti-Reason. What else ought Jerusalem to expect from adversaries who take palpable delight in the killing of “others?”
For Israel, there will be moral, legal and tactical imperatives. Though Reason will never govern the world, civilized states ought not plan to join the barbarians. In the best of all possible worlds, national and terror-group leaders could rid themselves of the notion that killing variously designated foes would confer immunity from mortality, but this is not yet the best of all possible worlds.