Yossi Klein Halevi, an American-Israeli journalist, spoke to the Stony Brook community, recounting Israeli attitudes in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks at the Stony Brook Union on Thursday, Nov. 14.

Halevi began with an explanation of his views on the current political state of Israel, claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration is poisonous to Israeli democracy, and bemoaning the fact that, with the Oct. 7 attacks, the movement to remove Netanyahu from power has stalled.

“There is a widespread reluctance to change governments now, in the middle of a war [despite most of the Israeli public wanting to remove Netanyahu from power]. I think that’s misguided,” Halevi said. “I think that we can’t afford to have a government with no moral credibility, not only in the world, but for much of Israeli opinion.

Halevi then went on to claim that occupying Gaza again, or worse, conquering it, would destroy Israeli society as we know it.

“I can’t see Israel carrying this profoundly abnormal situation, which is profoundly antithetical to Israel as a Jewish state [and] as a democratic state. It threatens our most basic identity, continuing the occupation. So we [are stuck in a situation where we] can’t continue the occupation and we can’t end it,” Halevi said.

In light of Hamas being a hostile regime on their border, Palestinians would be removed by any means necessary, according to Halevi.

“If Hamas can massacre our civilians, then cross the border, go back into Gaza, and hide behind their civilians, hide in schools and mosques and hospitals, and say ‘You can’t get us’ because then you’ll be violating humanitarian concerns, you’ll be killing civilians,” Halevi said. “For me that was the question. ‘Do I play this round on their terms, or do I change the ground rules.’ And we changed the ground rules.”

Halevi then went on to say that the war extends far beyond Israel and Palestine, considering it a regional war between Israel and its Shiite neighbors that dispute Israel’s right to exist.

“I believe this war cannot end without Israel taking out the nuclear facilities in Iran,” Halevi said. “Ultimately, this is a war between Israel and Iran. It’s not between Israel and Palestinians, it’s not even Israel and Hezbollah. It’s Israel and Iran.”

Halevi explained that he had little faith in a two-state solution administered by only Israel and Palestine.

“On the Palestinian side, I’ve never believed that there was a majority for a two state solution that would end with a two state solution. Many Palestinians who I know, who I’ve spoken to will say yes to a two-state solution as a first stage, as an interim solution towards a one state. And, the one state will be created with an influx of descendants of Palestinian refugees to the state of Israel which will change the demographic balance. It will destroy the Jewish majority.” Halevi said.

Halevi believes that a two-state solution brought by a greater regional peace and overseen by Israel’s Arab allies would sidestep these pitfalls.

“My hope is that we bring the Saudis in, we bring the Gulf states in, and in that way, we can begin to oversee [the] transition to a demilitarized Palestinian state that will be jointly supervised by Israel and its Arab allies,” Halevi said.

An attendee asked what effects would the policy positions of President-elect Donald Trump have on Israeli politics and the possibility of Palestinian annexation.

Halevi responded that he views this question through two lenses: will this strengthen the Israeli-far right, and will Trump take action against Iran?

“On one hand, I welcome a much tougher line on Iran. I think we’re going to see that Trump takes everything personally and Iran tried to assassinate him. From an Israeli perspective that’s very good,” Halevi said. “The fact that Trump is considered so strongly pro-Israel could work in favor of restraining the far right.”

William Weisberger, an emeritus professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, asked about Israeli attitudes towards individual attacks against Jewish settlers in Palestine, and what form of Palestinian resistance would Israel be responsive to.

Halevi responded that any attacks on settlers are widely unpopular in Israel and that violence is not considered legitimate resistance.

“What I would consider legitimate resistance by the Palestinians against the occupation is a credible peace plan that they would present to Israelis like me and say, ‘Here we are ready to accept a Jewish state in more or less the 67 borders, we are ready to recognise, not just your existence, that you too are an indigenous people in this land and that you have the right to self-determination,’” Halevi said.

Gallya Lahav, a professor of political science at Stony Brook, asked about how to heal a worrying split between American and Israeli Jews, citing that a majority of Israelis would vote for Trump, and that American Jews voted for the Democrat party.

“The first step is that Israeli and American Jews need to understand that our interests do not always converge,” Halevi said. “That means that Israelis need to understand that if 75% of American Jews vote liberal, they are seeing in liberal America an essential part of their existence. Israel has been a country under siege from the first day of its existence. And our natural response to our confinement was the opposite. to create deterrence, to be the toughest kid on the block.”

Zavosh Mottahedeh, a Ph.D. candidate in computer science, asked how Israel would eradicate Hamas if the organization was founded on an ideology. Mottahedeh also asked why there wasn’t as much vitriol against Iran compared to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Halevi responded that Israel has eroded Hamas’ ability to govern in Palestine, neutralizing it as a threat.

“Even if the war were to end tomorrow, I suspect that we may have already inflicted enough damage on Hamas’ ability to govern. And to me that is what destroying Hamas means,” Halevi said. “The problem on the Israeli side, specifically the problem with this government, is that Netanyahu is not able to commit to a credible morning after strategy for Gaza.”

At the end of the discussion, Halevi reiterated that the ongoing war was the least bad option Israel had.

“When people tell us ‘land for peace,’ I just want to scream. Because that was never our choice, the choice was never occupation or peace. Our choice was occupation or no occupation,” Halevi said.