A Complicated Dilemma: A Reflection on October 7th

As a leader of Zionism in my country and a member of the left-leaning, progressive wing of the movement, one of the most complex dilemmas I have faced since the massacre on October 7th, perpetrated by Hamas, and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza, concerns not just my political stance but my relationship with my peers and colleagues in the wider progressive world. Outside the Jewish community and the Zionist spectrum, the reactions have been varied. Identifying as a social democrat and moving in academic and non-governmental organization circles, I have long aligned myself with people who share my values: justice, equity, human rights, environmental stewardship, and democratic governance. And on October 7th, when Hamas deliberately targeted and massacred innocent civilians, using sexual violence and torture as instruments of war, I found—initially at least—empathy and understanding from most of my progressive friends and colleagues.

However, as the days turned into weeks, and the Israeli offensive deepened, their sympathy began to wane. The collective memory of the atrocity of October 7th grew fainter with each passing day, while accusations of war crimes against Israel became more frequent and more severe. Suddenly, the lens through which many in the progressive community viewed the conflict shifted dramatically, and the nuance of defending Israel’s right to security was eclipsed by harsh condemnation. Needless to say, I felt betrayed and saddened by the lack of understanding of the nuances and complexities of a conflict that requires empathy for both sides, and instead simplistically painted Israel as the villain and the Palestinians (and even Hamas) as the victim.

Initially, defending Israel’s defensive operation seemed straightforward. "Israel has every right to enter Gaza and rescue its citizens," I would explain. "The Israel Defense Forces do everything within their power to avoid harming innocent civilians, but it is very difficult when Hamas hides in schools and hospitals" I would argue. These points remain true even today to a significant extent. The data Hamas releases is notoriously manipulated, a fact confirmed by statistics experts. And yes, the tragic deaths of civilians are often the result of Hamas's calculated use of human shields. But, over time, even as I reiterated these truths, the moral clarity I once had began to blur.

A year has passed since the operation began, and I find it increasingly difficult to justify some of Israel's actions and its leadership.

It is hard to continue defending a government that seems to lack a clear plan for the future of Gaza—one that includes replacing Hamas and rebuilding the territory. The absence of such a plan has left a power vacuum that will undoubtedly allow Hamas to regroup in areas that were supposedly "cleared." How do I explain that, despite Israeli forces controlling nearly all of Gaza’s territory, only a handful of hostages have been rescued?

It is equally difficult to justify why the government appears to be prolonging the war rather than prioritizing a ceasefire and securing the release of the remaining hostages. Each day the conflict drags on, those hostages continue to suffer, and more young Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians lose their lives. And yet, no significant progress is being made toward ending the war. To add insult to injury, many of the leaders of Hamas, like Yahya Sinwar—the very architects of the October 7th massacre—remain at large.

Third, how can I argue that Israel is doing everything it can to protect civilians when humanitarian aid convoys with foreign volunteers are mistakenly and carelessly bombed? And how can I reconcile the fact that our own hostages, miraculously escaping, have been mistakenly shot by the IDF, victims of a tragic "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality? These moments are not just tactical missteps; they represent a deeper conflict.

It is also utterly unacceptable for ministers to make openly racist statements, to advocate for ethnic cleansing, and to even suggest genocide. Such sentiments degrade the values that Israel stands for, embolden Israel’s enemies, and alienate its friends. That these ministers face no consequences is a stain on the nation.

Finally, the gravest failure, is Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to take responsibility. As prime minister, he is directly responsible for ensuring the security of Israel’s southern and northern regions. He made critical strategic decisions both before and after October 7th, and yet, he has steadfastly refused to take reasonability and be accountable to the Israeli people for his decisions.

And so, I am left with a complicated and painful dilemma: How can I continue to defend some of Israel’s actions in the face of such indifference from its prime minister and government? How can I argue that Israel respects and promotes human rights, even in the midst of such a difficult situation, when there is so much about its leadership that must be condemned? It is increasingly hard to reconcile to the world the support for Israel’s right to defend itself with the discomfort over the decisions and actions of its government.

It is a complicated dilemma, indeed...