Israel's Dangerous Pursuit of Victory Threatens National Unity

A dangerous concept of victory has taken root in Israel, where each political camp envisions a scenario where the opposing side ceases to interfere. This includes the judiciary stopping its interventions, the government ceasing to govern, the Haredi community abandoning its way of life, or secular Israelis accepting the majority's rules. Each faction holds its own image of a 'corrected' Israel, demanding that millions of Israelis change, remain silent, or disappear from public discourse. This approach transforms political rivals into an population that must be subdued, eroding the nation's capacity to maintain a shared society.

Election outcomes grant authority to govern but also impose responsibility towards those who lost. Protecting rights necessitates independent institutions, yet also requires understanding the society in which they operate. When each side uses its power to disregard the other, democracy devolves into a constant struggle for control over the rules of the game. Political leaders bear a special responsibility for this situation, as it is easier to rally support by identifying an internal enemy than to explain to voters that the other camp has legitimate interests and that compromise involves a price.

Politicians promising absolute victory foster unrealistic expectations in a fractured society. When these promises fail, they blame the next institution, turning failure into a reason to intensify conflict. However, those defending democracy must also examine their own assumptions. While individual rights are crucial, individuals exist within families, communities, and national traditions. Liberalism that dismisses these as obstacles struggles to gain trust, leaving opponents to claim ownership of belonging and alienating people whose rights should be central.

Conversely, communities cannot demand recognition of their identity while ignoring the freedoms of their members or others. Tradition does not justify coercion, and electoral power is not a tool to harm equality. Any arrangement respecting communities must also guarantee individual liberty, including for those who deviate, seek change, or choose to leave. Without this boundary, community recognition risks becoming a license to control individuals.

Professor Assaf Meydani, a researcher of policy and law at Tel Aviv-Yafo Academic College's School of Government and Society, proposes a 'liberal communitarian' approach for Israel. This involves consistent protection of basic rights alongside genuine recognition of collective identities. Such a concept could accommodate Judaism as a culture and tradition within the shared space, separating religious authority from political power, and also recognize the identity and belonging of Arab citizens of Israel. Civic partnership requires a space where people can belong to the state without erasing themselves.

The role of the court also needs examination within this framework. Israeli politics repeatedly brings disputes to the judiciary that it struggles to resolve. While court rulings provide legal decisions, their ability to build social consensus is limited. Judicial independence and rights protection must coexist with attention to social and cultural contexts. Elected officials also bear responsibility for building sustainable arrangements and should not hide behind confrontations with judges.

Meydani calls for a clear regulation of relations between branches of government and the powers of gatekeepers. Institutional rules must withstand changes in leadership, meaning those expanding powers today must be prepared to cede them to their rivals tomorrow. This test should accompany every proposed change: would we support it if it benefited the other side? A negative answer reveals a move designed to secure an advantage for a specific camp. Simultaneously, permanent mechanisms for public participation and dialogue are needed, along with enhanced civic education on living with disagreement. Israel's divisions will persist; the question is whether it will have the institutions and habits to manage them without constantly undermining the state's foundations. This requires leaders willing to explain compromise and a public willing to judge them on their ability to foster partnership. Israel's future depends on agreeing on the limits of power, especially when wielding it. The greatest responsibility lies with those who can win votes, legislation, or court cases; they must ask what will remain of the partnership afterward. Those promising to subdue an entire camp must explain how they intend to coexist with them the next day.