Six months after October 7, Israel’s streets are once again filling up with angry protests.
Until now, the protests, which never reached the dimensions of the ones against the judicial overhaul plan last year because the country is still waging a war, could be divided into two categories.
One category, the far bigger group, was the relatives of hostages, demonstrating to make sure that the release of the hostages remained at the top of the nation’s agenda.
The nation was scarred by the capture of Air Force navigator Ron Arad in 1986 after his plane exploded while on a mission to attack a PLO target near Sidon. He was captured by the Shi’a Amal organization, which later handed him over to Hezbollah.
The defense establishment asked the Arad family to keep a low profile, told them the government was doing what it could, and advised them that raising the public profile of the case would only make those holding Arad stiffen their demands and make his release more difficult.
The Arad family heeded these pleas, the issue faded from public view, and Arad disappeared forever.
That trauma has motivated every family of every hostage taken since to take to the streets and to the airwaves to ensure that the same dreadful result does not befall their loved ones.
For the last half year, the families of the hostages held in Hamas captivity have held non-stop protests and vigils in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and around the country to keep the issue in the public eye and keep the faces of those kidnapped - Ya'akov Kirsh and Doron Steinbrecher, Ohad Ben Ami, Agam Berger and dozens of others - in the minds of the public and the government’s ministers.
From the very first days, the slogan adopted for the public campaign on behalf of the hostages was “Bring them Home.” Some argue that this was not the best choice of slogan, as it creates the impression that it is within the government’s power to do so at will and that if it would just do a little more and make a stronger effort, the hostages would come home.
Perhaps, this argument runs, a better slogan would have been “Let them Go,” a slogan that places the burden and the onus on those who cruelly kidnapped them: Hamas.
A change in messaging
Recently, some relatives of the hostages have said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could “bring them home” if he wanted and that, for various political reasons, he is not doing so.
This argument echoes the darkest days of the divisive judicial reform protests last year when people attributed the absolute worst motivations to their political opponents. One must think the absolute worst of Netanyahu to believe that he is letting the hostages languish in Hamas captivity and is prolonging the war, meaning more soldiers will die for political reasons.
It is this group of people within the camp protesting for the release of the hostage that, on Saturday night, merged their lane of protest with another lane: the anti-government lane.
Recently, this lane - this second category of protest calling for new elections and a new government - has swelled.
Unlike the protests aiming to keep the hostages on top of the country’s agenda, this is a different type of protest, one that taps into the seething anger present in this country since October 7.
That anger toward the political echelon was pretty much put on hold in public for several months while there was intense fighting in Gaza. But as the reservists were released from Gaza, as the intensity of the fighting has lowered, the argument that now - as the cannons are booming - is not the time to take to the streets and call for new elections has lost some of its relevance.
There is a precedent for this type of protest against the political leadership for military failures: In February 1974, just a few months after the Yom Kippur War, a reserve officer named Matti Ashkenazi began a solitary protest in front of the then-prime minister Golda Meir’s office, calling for her and then-defense minister Moshe Dayan to resign. This protest swelled, and by the end of June, both stepped down.
There are several differences between then and now, however, one being that the protests against Meir and Dayan started after the war, after the enemy was defeated. Today’s protests calling for the government to resign are taking place as the war is still being waged, albeit at a lower intensity.
But this difference can be explained by a simple fact: the Yom Kippur war lasted only 19 days, while the current one has been ongoing for 177, with no end in sight. It is unrealistic to believe that the volcanic anger caused by October 7 would not erupt against the government at some point as the war continues on.
Up until now, there were two different protest tracks: the hostage track, which won the sympathy of much of the country, and the track calling for new elections, which was a political demonstration with a clear political aim and narrower, though substantial, popular appeal.
On Saturday night in Tel Aviv, they merged, with the hostage families - or, rather, some of the hostage families - joining those calling for the toppling of the government. The hostage families, however, are not a homogeneous group, and there are many different opinions within the group regarding the best way to win the release of the hostages.
Some, like those who joined Saturday night, believe the best way is for Israel to show more flexibility, agree to Hamas’ terms, and deal with the consequences afterward. The complete dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, they argue, can be done after the hostages are released. The main thing is to release them now, even if the price is exorbitant. They believe Netanyahu is not being flexible enough.
Other families among the hostages believe the way to release the hostages is not for Israel to show flexibility in the face of Hamas’ demands but rather to exert maximum military pressure on Hamas to go into Rafah now, despite American pressure and world opinion, and bring Hamas to its knees - ensuring that Hamas will be the ones pleading for a deal.
Both viewpoints are legitimate.
The hostage families, however, do their cause no favor by being identified with one side of the political map.
The message to return the hostages is a strong one that resonates with nearly everyone in the country. However, when it is mixed with a message that says Netanyahu must go, it loses some of its strength because some of those who believe with all their hearts in the need for the hostages to be returned might not necessarily want to see the government brought down—at least not before the end of the war.
Why alienate them?
Both messages - Netanyahu must go because he is responsible for October 7 and bringing the hostages home - are powerful standing alone. The latter message, however, is muffled when mixed with the first.