As ballot day approaches for Israelis, observers and commentators around the world perk up their ears, make their predictions, and voice their opinions. Some of these opinions, however, tend to be louder than others.
Staunchly opposed to Israeli nationalist policy, the international “hacktivist” group Anonymous has carried out its now-annual take-down-Israel cyber operation, which they call #OpIsrael. Although it began a few years ago as a campaign to release the Palestinian territories from Israeli occupation, it has by now turned into a general attack on numerous Israeli websites. The operation, publicized though Twitter accounts such as @AnonOps and @AnonymousPress, began on February 24 and peaked on March 1, taking down thousands of websites, more than 700 of which are directly controlled by the Israeli government.
On top of these cyber attacks, the recent wave of anti-Semitic events in various European countries, especially in France, has further shaken Israel’s collective conscious. After the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, which culminated with the killing of four people held hostage in Paris’ Porte de Vincennes Jewish supermarket, and the desecration of various Jewish cemeteries in France and Germany in February, many Israelis feel that their culture is under siege. With ISIS forces operating not far from Israel’s border and Iran’s delicate nuclear negotiations just next-door, Israel faces pressure from every cardinal direction.
As Netanyahu now seeks confirmation for a renewed mandate, these mounting pressures play an important role in the outcome of the election. A resolutely conservative and nationalistic leader, Netanyahu has consistently pursued policies that closely adhere to his ideology, his strength being in national security. However, given the incredible number of internal variables at play, economics perhaps the most salient, the election’s outcome will depend on how other domestic issues interact with Israelis’ feeling perceptibly threatened.
In particular, the pressure from Anonymous and recent events in Europe will benefit Netanyahu if he manages to exploit them as matters of national security. He will win if he manages to convince Israelis that a strong threat must be addressed with nationalist strength, and that he is the only candidate capable of providing this strength. Conversely, the pressure will benefit opposition candidates if they present the growing external pressure as a failure of Netanyahu’s conservative policies. They will win if they manage to convince Israelis that Netanyahu’s nationalist approach has only polarized foreign actors and hence threatened national security. Interestingly, therefore, both sides of the political spectrum have an interest in exaggerating the proportion of these events and their potential threat; but each side will have opposite approaches to interpreting their causes and finding a solution to them, and ultimately the winner side will be the one presenting the most convincing interpretation.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.