Survey data indicates overwhelming Israeli support for the conflict, as eliminationist language resurfaces and dissidents confront escalating intimidation and physical danger.
When asked whether he felt he ought to be concerned for his safety, Itamar Greenberg broke into laughter. The 19-year-old Israeli peace activist had moments earlier recounted being spat upon in a public street and revealed that he is currently the subject of a coordinated online harassment campaign.
"Yes!" he eventually admitted. "Rationally speaking, I probably should be. But I simply don't have the bandwidth to dwell on it."
Voices carrying Greenberg's conviction occupy an increasingly marginalised position within Israeli society, where the drumbeat for military escalation grows louder by the day, and the kind of eliminationist rhetoric long directed at Palestinians is now being repurposed — this time aimed squarely at Iran.
Official figures place the Israeli death toll from Iranian strikes at 11 confirmed fatalities since the United States and Israel jointly initiated military operations against Iran on February 28. The true casualty count, and the extent to which Iranian ballistic missiles have successfully breached the Iron Dome air defence system, remains shrouded in uncertainty.
Addressing journalists at the site of an Iranian missile impact in West Jerusalem shortly after the commencement of US-Israeli strikes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached for the same apocalyptic vocabulary that has defined his government's framing of operations in Gaza. Drawing a direct parallel between Iranians and Amalek — the ancient biblical adversary that Jewish scripture commands must be utterly annihilated — Netanyahu declared to assembled reporters: "In this week's Torah portion, we read, 'Remember what Amalek did to you.' We remember, and we act."
Tehran, for its part, asserts that it has conducted sustained strike operations across Israeli territory, claiming its missiles and drone payloads engaged military installations, symbolically significant infrastructure, and even Netanyahu's own office. Iranian authorities have characterised these operations as measured and strategically calibrated, rather than indiscriminate — framing them as a considered regional response to aggression. Iran has further claimed to have struck targets including Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion International Airport, and the port city of Haifa.
Israeli authorities have pushed back firmly against many of these assertions. Netanyahu's office categorically rejected Iranian claims of having struck his personal offices or endangered him, dismissing them as "fake news." Rigorous domestic media restrictions governing coverage of Iranian strikes inside Israel have rendered independent verification of either side's claims exceptionally difficult.
What emerges with considerably more clarity is that sustained Iranian strike activity appears to be intensifying rather than dampening Israeli public appetite for the conflict. A survey conducted last week by the Israel Democracy Institute revealed striking levels of public backing for the war effort, with 93 percent of Jewish-Israeli respondents endorsing the strikes on Iran, and 74 percent expressing support for Netanyahu — a figure remarkable given his historically polarising standing in domestic politics.
"Opposition to the war has essentially vanished from public discourse," Greenberg observed, painting a picture of a media and political landscape — with the notable exceptions of the left-wing Hadash party and anti-war organisations such as his own, Mesarvot — that has coalesced comprehensively behind the military campaign. "And the situation is becoming increasingly violent," he added.
"At a protest we held on Tuesday, police were already positioned and waiting for us. They beat and arrested protesters. I was subjected to an illegal strip-search," he recounted, characterising the treatment as a deliberate strategy of humiliation designed to deter dissent.
Such experiences are not new territory for Greenberg. Half a year ago, following his arrest during demonstrations against military operations in Gaza, prison guards reportedly threatened to carve a Star of David into his face — a chilling reminder, they implied, of where his loyalties were supposed to lie.
The coercive pressure emanating from the Israeli security establishment has not been confined to antiwar activists alone.
"The atmosphere has become deeply violent," Hadash party lawmaker Ofer Cassif told Al Jazeera. "When I step outside my door, the threat of a physical assault from far-right extremists genuinely concerns me more than any incoming missile," he stated.
Cassif and his Hadash colleagues have endured threats and physical confrontations throughout the duration of the Gaza conflict. During that period, however, criticism of the Netanyahu government's management of the hostage situation provided a degree of political cover, making opposition to the Gaza war comparatively more tenable in public life. The current climate surrounding the Iran conflict, Cassif warned, has become categorically more hostile.
"We are routinely accused of acting as apologists for the regime in Tehran," Cassif explained, describing the delegitimisation tactics deployed against those opposing the war.
"That characterisation is unequivocally false. We want to see that regime dismantled. But we refuse to allow Netanyahu to claim he is waging this war on behalf of the Iranian people — because he demonstrably is not. That isn't rhetorical posturing; it's historical fact. The Israeli leadership was just as complicit in propping up the Shah as Washington was, and he was every bit as brutal a dictator as the current theocracy," Cassif said, invoking the legacy of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who governed Iran prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Across the analytical community, observers of Israeli society describe a collective psychological state that increasingly resembles a population convinced it is engaged in something approaching a sacred conflict.
"They brought an antiwar activist onto one of the lighter current affairs programmes," noted political analyst Ori Goldberg, speaking from the Tel Aviv area, "and she was treated the way you'd treat someone who insists the earth is flat. The premise that anyone could rationally oppose this war has become almost literally unthinkable to mainstream audiences.
"Israel has evolved into a society that has lost its capacity for nuance, for genuine dialogue. It operates as though its very existence is contingent upon the absolute freedom to act without constraint. And should the international community attempt to impose any limits, the response is immediate: the world is anti-Semitic, and we face existential annihilation."