The massive hoaxes about Netanyahu (and the settlers) that become ‘truths’ in the anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist breeding ground that reigns supreme

Until now, the most reliable accounts of the period following the massacre of 7 October 2023 have centred on the strategic disagreement between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant – whose relationship with the Prime Minister was tumultuous – regarding the need to neutralise Hezbollah above all else, before attacking Gaza and Hamas. The other members of the security cabinet too – with the exception of Chief of the General Staff Herzi Halevi and the heads of civilian and military intelligence, from Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot to other politicians within the national unity sphere – shared Netanyahu’s position, which was backed by Jack Sullivan and Joe Biden, who feared a regional war.

Israel is a country of tragic, ongoing and, in its own way, fruitful strife; reading the reliable behind-the-scenes accounts of clashes at the highest levels and within the political system, it feels as though one is reliving Achilles’ wrath and his formidable quarrel with Agamemnon on a daily basis. Decisive, existential issues are savagely intertwined with acerbic personal disagreements, ruthlessly conducted political clashes at the highest levels, and visions of military tactics and strategy shaped by different schools of thought and inspired by different sources of information – all within a climate of camaraderie-fuelled hatred, a vigilant hatred that never ceases. A few days ago, Yonah Jeremy Bob and Elliot Kaufman of the Wall Street Journal explained why, and in what climate and with which factions, immediately after 7 October – during those traumatic days for all of Israel – it was decided to enter Gaza, evacuate the north which had been bombed by Nasrallah’s men, and postpone the confrontation with Iran’s proxies for a year, when, with the ‘pager operation’ (September 2024), Hezbollah was dealt a heavy blow and then almost wiped out in the famous campaign of strikes that eliminated their long-standing leader and served as a prelude to the war in the skies over Tehran – the twelve-day war involving the attack on nuclear sites.

So much for the news stories of any substance and backed up by solid evidence. Now, on the day the electoral lists were finalised for the vote at the end of next October, the newspaper representing the most hardline opposition to Netanyahu has revived a story from 7 October that borders on the fantastical, if not the grotesque – a story which even the New York Times refused to endorse, whilst Netanyahu has sued for defamation. According to this account, Israel’s head of government and commander-in-chief had known for a week that Hamas was going to strike, and that not only a phone call from the Emirates but also a boast by Yahya Sinwar should have put him on high alert. Sinwar is said to have declared defiantly that Israel needed to be made aware that they would be hit hard. And Netanyahu, in response, is said to have stayed in his slippers on the morning of the massacre, leaving the political and military leadership of his attacked country defenceless, uncertain and in a state of utter shock. While it is possible to believe anything, in the realm of conspiracy theories and QAnon, a modicum of caution is warranted before giving credence—as Francesco Battistini did in Il Corriere—to the notion of a head of government who, in his seaside villa, surrounded by Filipino servants, dawdles over breakfast and delays contacting the military leadership for hours while news of the pogrom emerges.

The fact is that what is happening in Israel is no longer an election campaign, but a judgement of God, a medieval ordeal. Bringing down Netanyahu is not a dramatic shift in the political landscape or in government; it is a test of the power of influence and attack that pro-Palestinian public opinion has gained during the ruthless war in Gaza and on other fronts. With the British government’s decision to boycott Israel – and it appears the Canadians and the French will follow suit – the strategy of stepping over Netanyahu’s political corpse to assert the diplomatic primacy of the two-state solution has been combined with the desperate need to regain electoral support amongst the vaguely and not-so-vaguely anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist circles that have dominated the average public mindset for many months now. This is not a conspiracy fuelled by a massive hoax; it is much more than that – it is a suicidal political course pursued by the ruling classes of half of Europe and a subculture. The Palestinian leaders did not want the two-state solution when it was proposed to them, and responded with waves of terrorism, from the intifadas to 7 October; and now we are expected to swallow the conventional wisdom that everyone wants to hear: that Israel, with its citizens and settlers, is the terrorist. It is indeed true, as Orwell said, that freedom is the freedom to say what people do not want to hear.