The Case for Nuance and Complexity in Israel's Polarized Politics
Now more than ever, Israelis must be empowered to form complex, non-sloganeering positions that may not fit superficially into existing frameworks. This is the key to breaking free from the simplistic, dichotomies and gridlock in which our discourse is trapped.
Photo by Tomer Neuberg/Flash90
Two major issues are tearing Israeli society apart as we approach Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year:
The first is the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. One side is convinced that the war must continue until the murderous terrorist organization Hamas is completely dismantled, while the opposing side passionately insists that the time has come to end the war and reach a comprehensive agreement that includes the release of the hostages.
The second issue is the judicial “reform” or “overhaul” (depending on one’s preferred language for this). Its supporters are relentless in their efforts to advance it in various ways, while its opponents are determined to block it and consign it to oblivion.
Curiously (or perhaps not so curiously) the Israeli public discourse tends to conflate these two issues, expecting participants to take sweeping, consistent positions on both, as though they were two sides of the same coin. From the right, one hears support both for continuing the war and for advancing the judicial overhaul; from the left, one hears calls both to end the war and to block the judicial overhaul, strengthening the institutional gatekeepers.
Importantly, both sides deliberately blur the two issues, attempting to fuse them into one. For example, at the Kaplan protests in Tel Aviv, as well as in Jerusalem, speakers argue that the same extremism of the right-wing government is leading both to the destruction of the judicial system and to Israel’s entanglement in Gaza, driven by messianic delusions. Conversely, government spokespeople promote a counter-narrative: they argue that total victory over Hamas can only be achieved if the Military Advocate General is replaced, the Attorney General dismissed, and the Supreme Court’s power neutralized. In other words, they pin the blame for the ongoing war in Gaza squarely on the shoulders of jurists and the opposition.
The impulse to adopt sweeping positions is understandable. It serves the most extreme and strident voices. This impulse generates a binary, simplistic, catchy discourse that paints society in black and white, divides us into the “children of light” and the “children of darkness,” and demands that everyone choose between two extremes. It leaves no room in the middle. Those who dare to voice intermediate positions are accused on both sides of playing into the other side's hand.
Yet this impulse has a deeper dimension. It allows us to imagine that the deadlock in the war with Hamas is nothing more than a reflection of the distorted worldview of our political rivals. For the left, the government’s inability to end the war through an agreement stems from the takeover of nationalist-messianic ideology, captive to the idea of endless war. For the right, the failure to achieve a decisive military victory is the result of deep infiltration of progressive, anti-nationalist ideas into Israel’s elite institutions, foremost among them the judicial system.
There is something seemingly comforting—almost wishful—in the thought that our external problems are merely the mirror image of our internal divisions. If only we could vanquish the demon within us—the social-political rival—we could also achieve decisive victories on the external fronts we face. But such wishful thinking collapses under the weight of reality. The social-political rival is not a demon to be destroyed but a counterpart with whom dialogue must be maintained. Equally important: our grave challenge with the terrorist organization in Gaza is not simply a reflection of one domestic worldview or another. Contrary to the prevailing binary perspective, the two issues of the war with Hamas and the struggle over the rule of law are not two sides of the same coin.
The greatest losers in this demand for across-the-board alignment are the moderates who seek nuance and find themselves unable to fit neatly into either camp. I encourage those on the moderate left to analyze matters from their own perspective; here, I will focus on the moderate right.
On the one hand, members of the moderate right are often hawkish regarding the war with Hamas, believing that the solution must be a military victory that fully topples the terrorist regime (combined with the creation of an Arab alternative to govern Gaza on the civilian basis). They certainly oppose a dangerous cessation of the war at this stage, when Hamas could remain in place and swiftly rebuild its terror capabilities.
On the other hand, many in the moderate right are horrified by the attempts to crush the judicial system. They support strengthening the rule of law and recognizes the decisive importance of democratic institutions such as an independent Supreme Court to balance the power of the elected branches of government. The moderate right believes that reforms to the judicial system are indeed needed, even significant ones to properly balance the branches of government—but seeks ways to repair and improve the system, not to destroy and dismantle it.
One reason for the moderate right’s inability to realize its considerable electoral potential is precisely that its leaders too often give in to the binary discourse, struggling to articulate a comprehensive, systematic manifesto of their own. The challenge before us is to create space in the public conversation for a worldview that combines strength in national-security positions with a commitment to the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
In the past, such a worldview carried real weight in Israeli public life and was represented by former Prime Minister Menachem Begin and his political disciples, but it has eroded over the years amid society’s growing radicalization. It must now be reintroduced into political and public discourse.
This space is as necessary to us as air to breathe. We must be empowered to form complex, non-sloganeering positions that do not fit quickly and superficially into existing frameworks. These positions may be less catchy in the age of TikTok and Instagram, but they are essential if we are to break free from the simplistic, suffocating dichotomies and gridlock in which we are trapped.
This article was published in the Times of Israel