(Written by Roe Kenneth Portal, Economist) Betting markets currently give Netanyahu a 36% chance of becoming Israel's next prime minister - a fairly low probability for someone who has served almost continuously as Prime Minister since 2009 and who is now in a close race with opposition party leaders competing for the position. But that's the wrong question. Polymarket's bets, as of July 8th. Netanyahu, serving almost continuously as Prime minister since 2009, gets only 36% - but that's the wrong question. Israel is not a presidential system in which voters directly elect the prime minister, and a large share of supporters of the current governing coalition will not cast a ballot with Benjamin Netanyahu's name on it. Israel is a parliamentary democracy, based (more or less) on the British system, and Israelis vote for political parties, not a presidential candidate (meaning a numbered list of politicians, the first of whom will enter the Knesset in order, depending on how many votes the party receives under the national proportional representation system). The identity of the prime minister is based on who can secure the support of at least 61 members of the Knesset willing to recommend them to form a government. Yet even when we ask the right question, Israelis watching the news today are presented with two completely contradictory pictures of which coalition actually enjoys public support, with each side accusing the other of ideological bias and manipulated polling. On one side are two television networks that are broadly identified with the political right and the governing coalition. Channel 14 is closely associated with the Likud and often echoes the messaging of Netanyahu and the ultra-Orthodox parties, while Channel 15 (better known internationally as i24NEWS) is identified more broadly with the ideological right. Both consistently publish polls suggesting that the current coalition - and Likud in particular - has lost very little support since October 7. On the other side stand the rest of Israel's major broadcasters: Channel 12, the country's leading television network, often dismissed by government supporters as an "opposition channel," despite not being clearly identified with the left and despite several of its senior commentators subtly supporting the government; Channel 13, generally considered center-left and recently acquired by a group of liberal investors; and Israel's public broadcaster, KAN. None of these outlets - or the veteran pollsters working for them - has published a single poll in which the current coalition even comes close to reaching the 61-seat majority needed to form a government. At times, the gap between the "government channels" and the "opposition channels" reaches as many as ten Knesset seats or more. The same goes for the two newspapers that conduct regular polls, Maariv and Israel Hayom, both of which lean to the right. Expected Knesset seats for Israel's current coalition from 2023 through July 5, 2026, with each poll's predicted seat count for the current coalition represented as a dot, and trends grouped by the media outlet that published the poll. Following a sharp drop around October 7, projections strongly diverge: Channel 14 and i24NEWS show the coalition regaining a 61-seat majority, while the remaining five media outlets show it below 54 seats. Source: The Index (themadad.com/allpolls). The coalition's leading pollster, Shlomo Filber, began his career as one of Netanyahu's advisers, later became a state witness in Netanyahu's corruption trial, and was welcomed back into Netanyahu's political camp after his testimony weakened parts of the prosecution's case. According to him, the other pollsters all repeat the same methodological mistakes and simply do not know how to locate or accurately survey Netanyahu supporters or ultra-Orthodox voters. He is almost certainly wrong. Although Filber's polling was reasonably accurate in the last election, the differences between his surveys and those of other pollsters amounted to only a handful of seats. Today, the gap is simply too large to be explained by legitimate differences in weighting or sampling methodology. The more plausible explanation is that Filber himself is the outlier, not the veteran pollsters who have been forecasting Israeli elections with reasonable accuracy for decades. The bottom line, however, is this: even if the "opposition polls" are correct in showing that the current coalition has virtually no chance of forming another government after the election without recruiting additional parties from the opposition - which currently categorically refuse to join it and respond with open skepticism to Prime Minister Netanyahu's calls for a "broad government" - it does not mean that an alternative coalition is imminent. The previous government - the so-called "Government of Change" - was able to take office thanks to the participation of the Arab Islamist party Ra'am, a historic but deeply controversial development in Israeli politics. The partnership between Naftali Bennett's Yamina (literally, "Turning Right") on one side and Ra'am together with Labor and Meretz on the other produced an almost endless series of coalition crises, fueled by the opposition at the time, which ultimately brought the government down. Today, with the exception of The Democrats (the successor to Labor and Meretz), every Zionist opposition party declares that it will not sit with Ra'am, while the other Arab parties are unwilling in principle to join any Zionist-led coalition. Without Arab support, the opposition's chances of reaching the 61-seat threshold are slim, if not nonexistent. So where does that leave us? With two rival political blocs, neither of which has a realistic path to forming a stable governing coalition. With two competing sets of pollsters, one of which is almost certainly suffering from severe bias - and that is the one consumed by the coalition and its supporters. So what happens after Election Day? Polls conducted three months before an Israeli election are not especially informative. During this period, parties are frequently created, merged, split apart, or disappear altogether, shifting seats between blocs and adding or removing votes as they cross the electoral threshold (3.25%) or fail to do so. On top of that, normal sampling error alone can completely alter the picture. Still, if the political map in October resembles what today's polls suggest, several scenarios appear plausible. The first - and, in recent years, always a possibility - is continued political deadlock. If the parties in the anti-Netanyahu bloc maintain their refusal to form a coalition with either Netanyahu or the Arab parties, and the Likud refuses to abandon its "natural partners" - the ultra-Orthodox parties and the far right - then no member of the Knesset will be able to assemble a governing majority. Israel would once again head to another election, and potentially another after that, until either one side finally gains the upper hand by chance (that is, one of the small parties in the other bloc failing to cross the electoral threshold) or someone decides to break ranks. Gadi Eisenkot (left) and Naftali Bennet (right). Senior Likud officials have stated that they would refuse to serve under Naftali Bennett or Gadi Eisenkot as prime minister, even if either of them were to win more seats than Netanyahu. But that is not usually what happens. If the political history of the past decade teaches us anything, it is that Likud generally succeeds in persuading at least one centrist party to join its coalition, with promises that prove more or less credible. In the current Knesset, the obvious candidate is Benny Gantz, who has already entered governments with Netanyahu twice in the name of national unity - once during the COVID-19 pandemic and again immediately after the outbreak of the October 7 war. Under that scenario, the key question becomes whether that centrist party joins instead of the far-right or ultra-Orthodox parties - allowing it to moderate some of Likud's more populist impulses - or in addition to them, in which case it would likely serve as a fig leaf. Another possible outcome is a broad national unity government bringing together Likud with parties from the center and mainstream right, allowing it to govern without the ultra-Orthodox parties and the far right - as some in the center-left hope - and without Ra'am or the left-wing Democrats, as many on the center-right would prefer. The central obstacle to such a government is resolving the Gordian knot of who would serve as prime minister. Although Likud has previously governed without the ultra-Orthodox under sufficient political pressure, it is doubtful the party would agree to form such a coalition if Benjamin Netanyahu were not its head but rather "just" a senior minister (adding to that a Supreme Court ruling that prohibits him from serving as a minister because he is under indictment). Senior Likud officials have even stated that they would refuse to serve under Naftali Bennett or Gadi Eisenkot as prime minister, even if either of them were to win more seats than Netanyahu. Seven years ago, Israel went to the polls and the country entered a cycle of five elections in four years. Another election is approaching, but unless the political landscape changes dramatically, Israel's political chaos may only be getting started. --- If you liked our work, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here. For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

For years, President Donald Trump was treated by much of Israel's political right not merely as a geopolitical ally, but as a messiah. Netanyahu's supporters celebrated him as “the most pro-Israel president in American history,” repeated his claims about the 2020 elections without hesitation, drew comparisons between him and biblical figures, and referred to him as “Donald, Son of Fred.” His willingness to challenge long-standing diplomatic conventions, including meddling in Netanyahu’s criminal trial, made him a hero in pro-Netanyahu circles. This served their claims that Israel no longer needed bipartisan support in Washington, as they argued that the future belonged to a close alliance between the Israeli and American populist right, and particularly between their leaders. Knesset Speaker and Netanyahu ally Amir Ohana and President Trump, during Trump's address at the Knesset. His willingness to challenge long-standing diplomatic conventions, including meddling in Netanyahu’s criminal trial, made him a hero in pro-Netanyahu circles. Today, that same camp is turning on him. The catalyst is the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran. While details continue to emerge, the broad outlines are already clear: the agreement reportedly includes unfreezing assets, sanctions relief, renewed economic engagement with Tehran, and merely a framework for future negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, while Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has so far remained untouched. For many Israelis, this is deeply concerning, as Israelis are naturally fearful of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For Netanyahu's allies, however, it presents a unique political dilemma: the architect of these concessions is not a Democratic president whom they can easily portray as weak or hostile to Israel - the kind of president that Netanyahu benefits politically from fighting. It is Donald Trump, their hero. For years, Netanyahu has built his political identity around the claim that "only he can protect Israel from external pressure,". If Trump is no longer “Israel's greatest ally,” he can instead be recast as another source of pressure that "only Netanyahu" can resist. The result has been remarkable. The same political figures and media personalities who once praised Trump's every move are now depicting him as a dangerous adversary. The more moderate among them portray him as being "manipulated" and "deceived" by his advisors, from Vice President Vance to his son-in-law, Kushner. The more direct commentators, who spent years insisting that Trump alone understood the Middle East, are accusing him of abandoning Israel, surrendering American power for generations, and appeasing Iran. While anyone in their right mind should understand that the only answer to such a move by Trump is to renew bipartisanship, or at least broaden Israel’s support base, that is not the case among Netanyahu’s allies. This shift does not reflect a renewed appreciation for maintaining strong relationships across the American political spectrum, as many of them already believe that “the Democrats are lost.” It definitely does not mean they recognize that their strategy of tying Israel's interests to a single American political figure, let alone someone as controversial as Trump, was a mistake. Instead, their attempt to depict Trump as an enemy is intended to serve two familiar political purposes: deflecting criticism from Netanyahu, and reviving the good old-fashioned claim that “he alone can stand up to a U.S. president.” Netanyahu, on "60 Minutes". Netanyahu has built his political identity around the claim that only he can protect Israel from external pressure, due to the years he spent in the United States and his fluent English. For years, Netanyahu has built his political identity around the claim that "only he can protect Israel from external pressure," due to the years he spent in the United States and his fluent English. His supporters loved to draw comparisons between him and his rivals, depicting them as “weak” or “submissive,” usually highlighting their lack of diplomatic experience or heavily accented English as “proof” that they would not withstand the pressure, while “Netanyahu alone” possesses the experience, strength, and determination to stand firm. If Trump is no longer “Israel's greatest ally,” he can instead be recast as another source of pressure that "only Netanyahu" can resist. The message practically writes itself: it is hard to stand against “enemies” (as if Presidents Obama or Biden were enemies), and even harder to stand against friends, or former friends. Therefore, Netanyahu is the only leader capable of standing his ground. This is a risky strategy. While Trump’s popularity has taken a hit in Israeli public opinion, he still has a long record of support for Israel’s interests, and many people remain grateful to him for helping bring back the hostages, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and leading military strikes against Iran. However, most indications point to a difficult election campaign for Netanyahu, and with the possibility of losing the leverage of the Prime-Ministership regarding his trial, he needs to use every ace up his sleeve. This is the true reasoning behind Netanyahu’s allies sudden break with Trump: not an ideological reassessment, and definitely not an attempt to make amends for abandoning the Democrats. It is the preparation of a new political campaign, one in which even Donald Trump can be transformed from messiah to pariah if doing so helps reinforce the central argument on which Netanyahu's political survival depends. --- If you liked our work, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here. For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

When Israeli NGOs talk about Pride and LGBTQ+ rights, they are often accused of practicing Pinkwashing - hiding Israel's flaws behind the successes of the LGBTQ+ rights movement. While we loathe Pinkwashing and believe we must address Israel's flaws directly (as you'll see in the following lines), ignoring the hard-earned milestones of the Pride movement erases the lived experiences of hundreds of thousands of Israelis. As Pride Month begins, rainbow flags once again line the streets of countless communities across Israel. Pride celebrations are often moments of joy and solidarity, an opportunity to celebrate hard-won achievements and the remarkable progress that has been made over decades of activism toward a society that lives up to the promise enshrined in our Declaration of Independence: ensuring equality for all its citizens. Pride in Tel Aviv. Pride is more than just about celebrating victories, it is also about committing to finish the work that remains unfinished. Israel has much to be proud of. In a region where LGBTQ+ people often face severe discrimination, criminalization, and violence, Israel has emerged as one of the most LGBTQ+-friendly countries in the Middle East. Even in the face of anti-liberal forces in Israel, same-sex couples enjoy legal protections, and 74% of Israelis support full equality for LGBTQ+. LGBTQ+ Israelis serve openly in the military, participate fully in public life, and are represented in politics, media, culture, and business. Tel Aviv has become one of the world's leading Pride destinations, attracting visitors from across the globe. Israel, like every democracy, is a work in progress. The State of Israel was founded on a bold promise in the Declaration of Independence, yet it was never a declaration that the work had been completed, but a declaration of aspiration - a North Star, a statement of the society Israel seeks to become. These achievements did not happen by accident. They were won through the efforts of countless activists, grassroots leaders, lawmakers, and ordinary citizens who believed that Israeli democracy should live up to its promise of equality. But Pride is more than just about celebrating victories. It is also about recognizing that a long road for justice is still ahead. Despite significant progress, LGBTQ+ Israelis still do not enjoy full equality under the law. Israel remains one of the few liberal democracies without civil marriage. Same-sex couples who marry abroad can have their marriages recognized by the state, but they cannot marry in Israel itself. Let's be clear: this is not merely an LGBTQ+ issue; it reflects a broader failure to guarantee freedom of marriage for all Israelis, regardless of religion, denomination, or sexual orientation. Adoption rights remain uneven and complicated. Surrogacy, while more accessible than in the past, continues to involve legal and financial barriers that disproportionately affect LGBTQ+ families. Too many couples still face unnecessary obstacles when trying to build a family and secure equal recognition for their children. And, of course, beyond the legal sphere, social challenges remain. Homophobia and transphobia have not disappeared. LGBTQ+ youth continue to face bullying, with "homo" remaining one of the most commonly used slurs in schools. Many transgender Israelis still encounter barriers in employment, healthcare, and housing. The tragic history of violence against LGBTQ+ Israelis, as well as government attempts to undermine their rights, serves as a reminder that progress should never be taken for granted. Israel's Declaration of Independence committed the country to "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex." A declaration of aspiration - a North Star, a statement of the society Israel seeks to become. The struggle for equality is therefore not over. Pride Month should inspire us not only to celebrate how far we have come, but also to recommit ourselves to the work ahead. At LIBRAEL, we believe this lesson extends beyond LGBTQ+ rights. Israel, like every democracy, is a work in progress. The State of Israel was founded on a bold promise: the Declaration of Independence committed the country to "complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex." That's the premise of liberal Zionism. That is the spirit of Pride. It is the belief that progress is possible, that rights can be expanded, and that while imperfect countries may never become perfect, they can, through hard work, become better. That vision remains one of the most inspiring documents in Israel's history. Yet it was never a declaration that the work had been completed. It was a declaration of aspiration - a North Star, a statement of the society Israel seeks to become. Seventy-eight years later, we can point to extraordinary achievements. Israel has built a vibrant democracy, a dynamic economy, and a thriving civil society under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. But we must also be honest about the gaps that remain between our ideals and our reality: huge social and economic disparities between the center and the periphery, racism and marginalization toward Israeli Arabs, a lack of freedom of religion, and, of course, a long and twisted road toward peace. The answer is not giving up on the promise of Israel, a millennia-long dream for millions of Jews. It is believing that our country can do better and working to make it better. That's the premise of liberal Zionism. That is the spirit of Pride. It is the belief that progress is possible, that rights can be expanded, that societies can become more just, more equal, and more inclusive, and that while imperfect countries may never become perfect, they can, through hard work, become better. This Pride Month, we should celebrate the achievements of Israel's LGBTQ+ community and the many allies who helped make them possible. But we should also recognize that the journey is not complete. The task before us is to continue pushing Israel closer to the values we hold dear: peace, justice, and human rights. --- If you liked our work, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here. For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

A new POLITICO poll found what everybody should have realized by now: Israel is losing America. Not in the formal sense of a geopolitical rupture or a diplomatic crisis, but in something far more fundamental: the erosion of public consent for the relationship itself. There’s a broad discourse on whether this has to do solely with Israeli policies - meaning a mere change of government will do wonders - or whether it is deeply rooted in the new American society. We finally have an answer: 19% of Americans are supportive of Israel and approve of the Israeli government’s actions; 20% more are supportive of Israel but oppose the government’s actions; 23% disapprove of both Israel and its government; and a plurality don’t have a strong opinion or don’t know (19% each). On the good side, it means Israel has 58% of Americans it can win back (see below on how). On the bad side, 23% of Americans (including no less than 36% of Gen Z and 33% of Harris voters) seem to have a deeper opposition to Israel itself: that’s not something that mere wiser diplomacy or even policy changes can easily amend. 33% of Harris voters and 17% of Trump voters disapprove not just Israeli government, but Israel itself. This requires more than just wiser diplomacy and policy amends. Let’s be clear: contrary to what some alarmists would like to think, there is a sizable, reachable bloc of Americans - especially liberals - for whom the “problem” is not Jewish self‑determination or Israel’s existence, but the current actions and policies of Israel. That is ground that can be regained with diplomacy that actually speaks with critical voices (and does not dismiss them as “uninformed,” “brainwashed,” or “antisemitic”) combined with wiser policy choices: taking seriously nationalist violence in the West Bank; phasing out military aid; openly opposing further U.S. involvement in a war with Iran; and curbing the more extreme forces in our political system. But it would be self‑deception to pretend that policy changes alone, dramatic as they may be, will “fix” the problem. There is also a hardening minority - especially among younger and more progressive Americans - for whom the very idea of a nation‑state for the Jewish people is illegitimate. In POLITICO’s data, 23% of Americans say they "do not support either Israel or its government", a large minority that is essentially identical to the one that prefers some form of one‑state framework from the river to the sea, whether “a state of all its citizens” or a Palestinian state that replaces Israel (see graph below). Both of these outcomes mean that the only nation‑state of the Jewish people would cease to exist, taking away a millennia‑long aspiration of millions of people who were persecuted throughout those millennia. 23% of Americans - including 28% of Americans aged 18-24 and 33% of Americans aged 25-34 - support a bi-national state. It means taking away a millennia‑long aspiration of millions of people. That is not a debate about borders; it is a debate about whether the Jewish people have the right, like any other people (think of Ukrainians or Taiwanese), to collective self‑determination at all. No ceasefire solution or humanitarian gesture will solve that on its own, and Israel will have to present a credible liberal‑Zionist vision that justifies what we see as a self‑evident truth. That may be annoying or “not fair” (“why is Israel the only country that has to justify its existence?”), but we all know that sometimes life just isn’t fair. This is also proof that the comforting mantras from the government’s offices in Jerusalem and the IDF’s headquarters in Tel Aviv are hollow. For decades, Israel framed itself as a “model ally” and “the tip of the spear” against shared threats - at first Soviet expansion, then global terrorism, now Iran. That language still resonates with older, more conservative Americans (48% of Baby Boomers think the U.S. and Israel should work together against shared threats). But among younger Americans (18-34), 39% say the U.S. should distance itself from Israel even in the face of shared threats, and 39% of college‑educated Americans say the same. Meanwhile, 10% of Americans say flat‑out that the U.S. and Israel do not share common threats at all. While Israel does have shared threats and shared interests with the U.S., it seems that repeating the “head of the spear” claims often falls on deaf ears with some core demographics. 42% of Harris voters prefer the U.S. to distance itself from Israel, even in the face of shared threats. It means that strategy-focused, pro-Israel messages fall on deaf ears. The problem is not that Americans cannot imagine shared interests with Israel (41% of Americans believe our foreign‑policy objectives always or mostly align, compared to only 26% who don’t). It is that many are no longer willing to subordinate other values - human rights, peace, and justice - to those interests. We must also talk about the elephant in the room: AIPAC and the rest of the pro‑Israel lobbying groups. When 41% of Americans say special interests have too much influence on U.S. politics, and 40% say the same about foreign governments, a pro‑Israel strategy built around “AIPAC will handle it” is neither sustainable nor smart. The poll also found that no less than 38% of Americans who plan to vote Democrat in November oppose AIPAC’s activities (only 16% support them), meaning AIPAC’s hopes to remain bipartisan is simply doomed to fail. But what about the Republicans? They’ve still got Israel’s back, right? This is what Republicans (and their ideological allies in Israel) would like to believe. The truth is that even though the poll shows that most Republicans remain supportive of Israel, 35% of Trump voters and 37% of MAGA Republicans believe Israel committed genocide in Gaza - not that far from the 41% of the general public who believe that. Had we been advising the Prime Minister, we’d tell him to abandon his “put all the eggs in the Trump basket” strategy ASAP. More than third of Republicans believe Israel committed genocide in Gaza. The GOP is no longer a pro-Israel stronghold. So where does that leave Israel, if it wants to remain a true ally and not a political football, let alone a pariah state? First, we cannot rely just on Trump. We will forever be grateful to the President for releasing the hostages and ending the Gaza war. Almost all Israelis are. But Trump won’t be in office forever, and even within the GOP more and more Republicans are tired of Israel. On the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict, for example, 34% of MAGA supporters favor a binational one‑state solution (so much for “standing with the only Jewish state in the world”) and 26% favor continued Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza, while only 18% support a two‑state solution. That is not a “pro‑Israel” bloc in the sense of supporting a sustainable Jewish and democratic future; it is a bloc that likes Israeli hard power and defiance of international law. If Israel suffices with “American support” as mere “MAGA support,” it will not only lose the allies it needs for the long term, but will become - if it has not already - a pawn in Trump’s game. Israeli and American flags, on the hostage release day. Almost all Israelis are grateful to Trump for their release, but Trump will not be in office forever, and if Israel suffices with “American support” as mere “MAGA support,” it will lose the allies it needs for the long term. Both Israelis and Americans have a way to go. For Americans, especially liberals, this way includes reassuring Israeli fears and addressing their well‑earned skepticism about peace. It includes differentiating between policies and rhetoric that challenge the government (such as calling out nationalist violence) and moves that harm ordinary Israelis (such as blocking sales of defensive systems like Iron Dome). It also includes addressing the lack of trust many Israelis feel towards liberals in America - and while we at LIBRAEL fight tooth and nail to dismantle that lack of trust, it has to be backed with moves and gestures from Washington. And just as Americans will have to regain Israelis’ trust, we in Israel will have to regain American trust. On the policy side, there are clearly “low‑hanging fruits” that would rebuild liberal support: Phasing out military aid - Israel has a GDP larger than Norway; it makes no sense to receive U.S. taxpayers’ money, no matter how “strategic” or “beneficial” it is to America; Seriously addressing nationalist violence in the West Bank; Enabling a pro‑coexistence governing alternative in Gaza, contingent on deradicalization and counter‑insurgency efforts; and At least rhetorically expressing a desire to live in peace. On the identity side, Israel will have to talk less like a fortified garrison whose justification for existence depends on its technological or security value to America, and more like a shining city on a hill that is a real beacon of freedom in this region. This is a data‑driven diplomatic strategy: 30% of Americans still say the U.S. and Israel should work together against shared threats, but 31% say the U.S. should distance itself from Israel even in the face of such threats. If Israel wants to win back that second group, it will have to show not only that it fights the enemies in front of us, but that it lives up to the values behind us: ensuring freedom and equality to its citizens, and pursuing peace - without jeopardizing our security or our identity - with our neighbours. Israel is losing America, slowly and steadily, but not irreversibly. The same survey that shows deep anger and alienation also shows a huge potential: Americans who still think in terms of overlapping goals, who are open to supporting Israel but reject its current course, who want to see Israeli security and Jewish self‑determination balanced with Palestinian rights and regional peace. Even if those goals look ambitious, it is on us to pursue them. Persuasion cannot come from slogans about “model allies,” out‑of‑touch clichés like “only democracy in the Middle East,” or from leaning solely on a shrinking, aging base of unquestioning support. It must come from a different kind of Israeli message to America: we hear your concerns; we share your values; and we are willing to work hard alongside you so that our alliance will survive. This is what we at LIBRAEL are doing. --- If you liked our work, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here. For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

As Israel approaches a historic election - perhaps the most important in its history - and the far-right and ultra-Orthodox camp remains united behind Prime Minister Netanyahu, the landscape of the opposition is rapidly changing. A diverse set of parties, from center-right technocrats to Arab minority representatives, now compete to define what a post-Netanyahu Israel could look like - and, of course, to ensure that the post-Netanyahu era arrives at all. While all share some basic propositions - supporting universal military draft, establishing a national commission of inquiry, and rejecting the nationalist-messianic policies led by the far right - understanding the nuances between them is essential for analyzing the political moment and the challenges ahead. Together (BeYachad), led by Naftali Bennett & Yair Lapid: Center-Right Opposition Together positions itself firmly on the center-right, emphasizing “life itself” issues: effective governance, economic growth, education reform, mental-health services, effective policing, and rebuilding institutional trust. Their core message is competence - rooted in the achievements of the 2021–2022 “change government”, which Bennett and Lapid led and still view as proof they can deliver results. Bennet and Lapid. Led the "Change Government" in 2021-2022, and rely on it as proof they can deliver results. Strategically, Together aims to attract traditional right-leaning voters disillusioned with Netanyahu but still preferring hawkish governance - a group we identified two months ago as the “woke hawks.” They avoid left-wing branding, directly address Likud-disappointed voters, and explicitly oppose forming a coalition with the Arab parties, believing this protects their credibility among mainstream right-leaning Israelis. Their main weakness is pure mathematics: without Arab-party support, building a 61-seat coalition will be extremely difficult. This is exactly the point Likud uses against them, repeatedly claiming that “Bennett will build a government with the Arabs.” Forward! (Yashar!), led by Gadi Eisenkot: the Pragmatic, Down-to-Earth Candidate Forward is a centrist party built around the promise of effective, responsible government. Their campaign is the most aggressive in directly targeting Netanyahu’s failures - from governance breakdowns to the national disaster of October 7 to Likud’s seemingly careless approach toward Israeli casualties. The party’s resonance is strongly shaped by Eisenkot’s personal story: having lost his son during the Gaza war, he is widely seen as authentic, patriotic, and relatable, especially among traditionalist voters. Eisenkot. Having lost his son during the Gaza war, he is widely seen as authentic, patriotic, and relatable Their strategy focuses on responsible leadership, institutional reform, and competent governance, aiming to be the political home for voters who want results without polarization. Forward’s main weakness is that their platform remains vague, with “effectiveness” functioning as a catch-all rather than a detailed program. Eisenkot’s low-key, non-charismatic personality is a double-edged sword: it enhances his trustworthiness but may limit the party’s ability to inspire or mobilize large blocs of voters. Yisrael Beitenu, led by Avigdor Lieberman: Will Focus on Likud-Disappointed Voters Yisrael Beitenu continues to champion a blend of right-wing, security-minded realism and secularist populism, but this cycle they are expanding their appeal by directly targeting the Likud base - peripheral towns, traditionalist communities, moderate religious Zionists, and the Druze population. Lieberman stresses civil equality, ending religious coercion, and a hawkish, assertive national-security doctrine, relying heavily on his record as the only politician who publicly and consistently called to dismantle Hamas years before October 7. Lieberman. Relying on his record as the only politician who publicly and consistently called to dismantle Hamas years before October 7. The party’s strategy is also based on in economic neoliberalism, positioning itself as the authentic economic right that will not “bend” to the ultra-Orthodox, who overwhelmingly rely on state subsidies. The main vulnerability is Lieberman himself: his long record of dramatic statements that never materialized weakens his credibility, and his confrontational persona limits expansion beyond his core electorate. While he may successfully pull votes from Likud, it is unclear whether the Israeli public is ready for a prime minister with a heavy Russian accent. The Democrats, led by Yair Golan: The Last Lefties The Democrats are center-left, and are the only Zionist party openly advocating Jewish-Arab partnership and a two-state solution. However, they understand that these messages are challenging - to say the least - in post-October 7 Israel, so their campaign will foreground civilian issues: separation of religion and state, education reform, cost of living, and protection of democratic institutions. Yair Golan. His audience includes liberal centrists, former Labor voters, and Israelis who believe in shared society Their target audience includes liberal centrists, former Labor voters, and Israelis who believe in shared society - including many participants in the anti-judicial coup protests. Their primary weakness is the eroded status of “left,” “peace,” and “Arab partnership” branding in the Israeli public. The pro-peace camp has not recovered since October 7, and association with these themes risks alienating mainstream voters, especially younger voters who - unlike in the U.S. - increasingly lean right. Their challenge is to reframe Jewish-Arab partnership and peace-seeking as patriotic rather than naïve. The Arab Parties, the Joint List and Its Components: More Divided than United The Arab parties remain the primary voices for Israel’s Arab minority but face a difficult political landscape. Some factions will concentrate on bread-and-butter issues, particularly crime reduction, housing, and infrastructure. Others - particularly Balad, the more Palestinian-nationalist party - will emphasize Palestinian national issues, sometimes including inflammatory statements such as referring to IDF soldiers as war criminals. Left to right: Ahmed Tibi, Sami Abu-Shchada, Aymen Odeh, and Mansour Abbas, the leaders of the four Arab parties. They will have to overcome major political differences. Their strength is their ability to represent Arab constituencies that traditionally vote at lower rates than their share of the population (21%). A unified Joint List is expected to increase turnout significantly, which could meaningfully shift mandates within the opposition bloc. However, their major weakness is cohesion: the bloc consists of four distinct parties, ranging from the pragmatic Ra’am (led by Mansour Abbas, who essentially accepted Israel's Jewish character) to the hardline nationalist Balad. Maintaining a unified electoral front will be extremely challenging, and fragmentation risks lowering turnout. Conclusion At the bottom line, the main challenge for the opposition parties remains the same: ensuring that no vote goes to waste (as happened in the last election, when Meretz failed to cross the threshold) and achieving the majority needed to oust Netanyahu. That depends on whether these parties can inspire voters, cooperate with one another, and overcome their internal contradictions - not only to shape the next government, but to influence the broader recovery arc of Israel.

For many Democrats in the United States, the two-state solution remains the only moral and realistic path to ensuring peace, dignity and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians. After two decades in which the War on Terror - and now the war in Gaza - have failed to produce lasting stability, Democrats increasingly argue that force cannot be the only solution. Beyond the moral claims, they can easily - and quite accurately - argue that if Israel wants to remain the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people, it cannot both control millions of Palestinians (which challenges its democratic character) and avoid becoming a binational state (which would end its identity as the nation-state of the Jewish people). But in Israel, the same idea triggers concern, if not fear. Many Israelis view a potential Palestinian state not as a path to coexistence but as a strategic threat. We remember that the withdrawal from Gaza resulted not in peace, but in Hamas’s takeover, which many directly link to the October 7 attacks. We recall the Second Intifada, when exploding buses became a nightmarish routine, even though the Palestinian Authority’s leadership at the time spoke about coexistence. Now we look at the West Bank and a lot of Israelis, not just right-wingers, are understandably skeptical: can we trust the Palestinian leadership - even though Israel is partially responsible for its weakening? Can we withdraw and risk Hamas taking over the hills overlooking Tel Aviv? Senator Bernie Sanders. While we agree with some of his criticism, saying he is “not an expert on why Israel changed” reflects exactly the blind spot widening the gap between Israel and Democrats. In an interview on Pod Save America, Senator Bernie Sanders spoke at length about the trajectory Israel is headed in. While we agree with some of his criticism of how the Gaza war was handled and of the horrible nature of nationalist violence in the West Bank, he missed something crucial. Saying he is “not an expert on why Israel changed” reflects exactly the blind spot widening the gap between Israel and Democrats. Israelis changed because our lived experience changed. We endured years of attacks against civilians, watched every territorial withdrawal exploited by extremists - ISIS in Sinai, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza - and heard international actors repeatedly claim that “we didn’t do enough,” consistently underestimating our security concerns. This is not meant to justify a policy position, and definitely not to defend Israeli actions - but to highlight the reasons for "why Israel changed". We believe ignoring those reasons guarantees failure for any effort to promote peace. The American optimism that peace must prevail is noble, and it is true that there is no way to keep Israel both Jewish and democratic without some sort of partition of the land, but sometimes even noble ideals and hard truths cannot overcome fear. While we believe territorial concessions can be a legitimate policy step, Israeli skepticism about the deadly risks of such concessions is a lesson learned in blood, and should be addressed seriously. Naftali Bennet and Yair Lapid. Lapid joined Bennet because his voters believe there is no political horizon for a final-status agreement, no trust between the parties, and no domestic consensus on either side. Even a new government in Israel is not enough to change the nature of that gap. There is a reason that Yair Lapid, who as prime minister on the UN stage committed to the two-state solution, joined Naftali Bennett in a joint list in the coming elections: Lapid and his voters believe there is no political horizon for a final-status agreement, no trust between the parties, and no domestic consensus on either side. Even the Democrats, who openly support the two-state solution (the last Zionist party to do so), will run the coming campaign on civilian issues like the justice system, police reform, and church-and-state. Israelis must recognize that Democrats are not naïve (and definitely not ill-intended) for insisting on Palestinian dignity, and Democrats must recognize that when Israelis insist on security, our concerns are real and not politically motivated. So what do we do? How can we - the majority of Israelis, who want peace and theoretically are willing to take risks for it, but are not sure how to pursue it - commit to our alliance with liberals in America without creating the false impression that “once Netanyahu is gone, everything will be fine”? The hard truth is that there is no silver bullet, but there are a couple of steps. The mistake is assuming that a shouting match will close this gap - that if one side is "bold" enough or "morally clear" enough, the other will “open its eyes.” It won’t. Instead, both sides must acknowledge each other’s beliefs and fears without dismissing them. This means Israelis must recognize that Democrats are not naïve (and definitely not ill-intended) for insisting on Palestinian dignity, and Democrats must recognize that when Israelis insist on security, our concerns are real and not politically motivated. An Israeli-Democratic dialogue will have to be grounded in deep empathy - not just politeness, but actually putting ourselves in one another’s shoes - rather than insisting solely on “our truth.” But empathy is just the first step. Analytical understanding of why the other side thinks as it does is crucial: when Americans overlook “why Israel changed,” they cannot effectively promote their ideals because their arguments fall on deaf ears. When Israelis dismiss American insistence on liberal values like self-determination, we empower the claims of our enemies who insist that Israel is inherently evil. Bridging the gap may be impossible today. But addressing it - honestly, respectfully, without illusions - is the only way to keep the U.S.–Israel alliance strong while keeping the hope for a better future alive. When Americans overlook “why Israel changed,” they cannot effectively promote their ideals because their arguments fall on deaf ears. When Israelis dismiss American insistence on liberal values like self-determination, we empower the claims of our enemies who insist that Israel is inherently evil. If you liked our work, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here. For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

Tonight, as Israel moves from the grief of remembrance to the celebrations of independence, we cross the most fragile and sacred moment in our national calendar. The names we recite on Yom HaZikaron are more than names: they are our friends, our partners, our children, and our neighbors. Real people who were murdered, kidnapped, or fell in defense of our millennia-long dream: to be a free people in our homeland. Since the October 7 massacre, Israelis have carried unbelievable pain. Following the Holocaust, Israel’s very promise was “Never Again,” yet on that horrible day, we were once again defenseless against our enemies. 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, were murdered on that day alone, and hundreds more have died in the war since. 251 people were kidnapped to Gaza that day, and dozens returned in coffins. We honor our fallen not only with memory, but with responsibility. The question before us is not only what Israel has endured, but what Israel must become. LIBRAEL’s vision rests on four pillars that together shape not just a secure future, but a hopeful one. A military cemetery. The names we recite on Yom HaZikaron are more than names: they are our friends, our partners, our children, and our neighbors. 1. A Jewish Homeland The purpose of Zionism has always been fulfilling the right of the Jewish people to safety, self-determination, and dignity in our ancestral land: nothing more, nothing less. October 7 reminded us why that purpose exists to begin with. Our commitment to Israel as the Jewish homeland is not merely about Jewish safety and security: it is about Jewish life, culture, and identity, and about building a place that is home for all Jews - secular and religious, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, Ashkenazi and Sephardic. Safeguarding this homeland requires building a society that protects its Jewish character while guaranteeing full civic equality for all its citizens. A Jewish homeland grounded in Jewish values of justice, human rights, and respect for minorities is not only possible, but the only version that can endure. 2. A Liberal Democratic Regime Democracy rests on the belief that all people are created equal, directly connected to Jewish teachings about humanity being made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26). The past years have revealed what happens when populism, extremism, racism, and xenophobia threaten that foundation. Our fallen entrusted us with the responsibility to live lives worth living and to build a society worthy of their sacrifice. That society must be democratic, committed to that ideal. Democracy is first and foremost about free and fair elections, but it is equally about an independent judiciary, a free press, strong checks and balances, and equal rights for every citizen. A democratic Israel is not a “nice to have,” and definitely not a façade to build our global legitimacy on. It is the moral compass that prevents the abuse of power and ensures that when we go to war, it is only because all other options have failed. A destroyed home in Beit Shemesh, attacked by an Iranian missile. While we make mistakes and may have missed opportunities for peace, that does not mean our enemies are any less serious about their desire to see Israel wiped off the map. 3. Security Around and Within Our Borders Israel has real security needs. While we make mistakes and may have missed opportunities for peace, that does not mean our enemies are any less serious about their desire to see Israel wiped off the map by killing or displacing millions of Israelis. Many in Israel dismissed Hamas’s declarations and plans to breach the border and murder hundreds of civilians, mocking them as bravado - but that is exactly what Hamas did on October 7. To prevent a repeat, we must remain vigilant: closely monitoring our enemies and their intentions, building defense forces that are ready and capable, and defeating threats as they emerge and before they strike. However, vigilance is not bloodthirst, and an assertive approach is not aggression. Force should be used only when necessary and only for defensive purposes, in adherence to rules of engagement and international law. Security is not just the strength of our tanks or the speed of our fighter jets. True security also depends on economic cooperation with our allies and on smart, effective diplomacy. It also requires a cohesive society, which in turn demands responsible leadership capable of rising above petty politics. Pursuing peace is not naïve, it is a moral and strategic responsibility. A realistic, open-eyed, grounded pursuit of peace, without jeopardizing security, is the only path for a thriving society. 4. A Thriving, Prosperous, and Inclusive Society The Israel we fight for should be one where every citizen - Jewish and Arab, secular and religious, from Tel Aviv or the periphery - both shares in the burden and enjoys the success. This means an economy that works for everyone, grounded in free and fair competition and enabling social mobility. It means strong, effective public services, including a fair welfare system that provides opportunity for all and is sustained by the fair contribution of everyone. A society that excludes cannot thrive: it is not Jewish, not democratic, and ultimately doomed to fail. A society in which not everyone can take part in success and in which not everyone shares the burden is not worthy of our fallen. Protest outside the Knesset. The soldiers and civilians we mourn did not fall so that Israel might merely survive. They fell so that Israel might flourish - free, democratic, Jewish, secure, prosperous, and hopeful. A Liberal Vision from Grief to Responsibility On all days, and especially today, we carry the weight of one truth: Israel’s story has always been written in the tension between the trauma of our past and present and the hope for our future. The soldiers and civilians we mourn did not fall so that Israel might merely survive. They fell so that Israel might flourish - free, democratic, Jewish, secure, prosperous, and hopeful. Our task is to build an Israel worthy of their sacrifice. This is LIBRAEL’s mission: to champion a vision of Israel that binds Israel's interest with liberal values. A vision that binds Jewish self-determination with liberal democracy; strength with morality; security with humanity; pride with humility; and independence with peace. As we honor the fallen and embrace another year of sovereignty, may we commit ourselves to the Israel they dreamed of: rooted in justice, defended with courage, and guided by hope. --- If you liked our work, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here . For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here .

It looks like the Second Iran War is about to end, and since neither the Iranian nor Hezbollah threats have been removed, it is widely understood that a third war is only a matter of time. Hence, it makes perfect sense to learn the right lessons - ensuring that policymakers in both Israel and the United States do better next time. Wars have a way of stripping away illusions and exposing hard truths: the limits of power, the risks of poor planning, and the toxic effects of politics in the Situation Room. As liberals, we believe war is hell - yet we do not ignore the world as it is. Here are five clear-sighted lessons that can prevent the next crisis - or at least minimize its costs. Wars are exposing hard truths: the limits of power, the risks of poor planning, and the toxic effects of politics in the Situation Room. 1. If You Begin a War, Know How to End It “Exit strategy” isn’t a dirty phrase, and it is definitely not a sign of weakness or defeatism, as some government supporters claim. It is an acknowledgment of war’s nature: a tragic, last-resort tool to achieve political ends.  Wars should not be driven by hate, and are not meant to last forever. Leadership that enters a war without knowing how it should end is gambling with soldiers’ lives, citizens’ security, and long-term prosperity. While history teaches us that many wars begin without a clear endgame - from Vietnam to Iraq to Iron Swords - it is all the more important to learn from that history rather than repeat it. The early days of this war showed what happens when leaders make bold opening moves but cannot articulate the finish line: the war drags on, the human and economic costs rise, and both domestic and international support collapse. The Gaza War. History teaches us that many wars begin without a clear endgame, hence it is all the more important to learn from that history rather than repeat it. 2. Make Sure Everyone Understands Why You’re Fighting Nothing erodes support faster than a war whose purpose is unclear. Citizens grow anxious, allies grow skeptical, and adversaries grow bold. In this war, Israeli citizens were ready to make sacrifices - until it became clear that the stated objective of “toppling the regime,” however desirable, was not achievable. Israeli citizens were ready to make sacrifices - until it became clear that the stated objective of “toppling the regime” was not achievable. American citizens, meanwhile, opposed the war from the start, hearing confused and contradictory explanations: from “securing Iran’s oil,” to “removing the ballistic threat,” to “Israel dragged us into it.” Democracies win wars because they justify them. Government clarity is not just a matter of accountability, but a strategic asset. 3. Define a Realistic, Achievable Objective In an NGO management course I took, we were taught that objectives must be SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.  It seems that Israel’s and America’s leaders would benefit from that lesson - especially when it comes to the “A.” Amit Segal's Telegram post, declaring the war's objectives: "toppling the regime, destroying the nuclear weapons, destroying the missile threat" A war without an achievable objective is a recipe for failure. Wish lists do not work in reality. On the first day of the war, Israeli journalist and Netanyahu ally Amit Segal outlined three maximalist objectives: destroying Iran’s nuclear program, dismantling its missile capabilities, and toppling the regime. While all are desirable, they were never aligned with reality  - not with Israel’s or even America’s resources, not with the region’s economic dynamics (particularly Iran’s leverage over Hormuz), and not with Washington’s political timeline. When governments set objectives they cannot meet, they inevitably shift the goalposts mid-conflict - leaving citizens not just disappointed, but feeling misled. 4. Leave Politics Out Wars demand unity, not uniformity. Leaders must resist the urge to campaign from the Situation Room. Soldiers go to war should know they risk their lives for worthy goals. No matter what, wartime decisions - essentially life-and-death decisions - must never be made for partisan or personal gain. In the early days of the war, too many Israeli politicians and activists who support the government rushed to claim credit, trade compliments, mock their rivals, demand public gratitude, and praise Netanyahu and Trump.  This is not just ugly - it is dangerous. It risks further eroding Israel’s already fragile social cohesion, and that's true for any democracy under strain. Wars demand unity, not uniformity. Leaders must resist the urge to campaign from the Situation Room. Instead, they should project responsibility, publicly denounce petty politics, and seriously engage with the concerns  of their critics. 5. Don’t Drag Your Friends Into Your Fights While Iran is indeed a threat to the United States, it is a far greater and more immediate threat to Israel - and therefore primarily Israel’s responsibility to confront. For decades, Israel’s partnership with the United States has been strong and resilient, grounded in a core Israeli principle born from the lessons of the Holocaust: to defend itself, by itself. Netanyahu’s alleged attempt (as reported by the New York Times ) to draw the United States into this war may have yielded short-term gains, but it undermined that principle. LIBRAEL opposed American involvement from the outset:  American soldiers have never been expected to risk their lives for Israel. While Iran is indeed a threat to the United States, it is a far greater and more immediate threat to Israel - and therefore primarily Israel’s responsibility to confront. Israeli fighter jets and an American B52 bomber. What is the value of fighting shoulder to shoulder with Israel if Israel is perceived as the reason for entering the war in the first place? When allies feel maneuvered into conflicts they did not choose - and when opposition grows, as it did in the United States - they begin to question the partnership itself.  What is the value of fighting shoulder to shoulder with Israel if Israel is perceived as the reason for entering the war in the first place? America is Israel’s greatest strategic asset, a cornerstone of its national security - but only if Israel treats Washington as a true partner, not an automatic extension of its policies. Conclusion If this war has shown anything, it is that strategy matters. Power has limits, and ignoring them leads to crisis; over-submitting to them leads to paralysis. Israel must navigate between these two. The Second Iran War should serve as a wake-up call: we cannot afford to stumble from one war to another, hoping that tactical successes will compensate for the absence of strategic planning. The only way to honor those already paying the price of this war is to ensure we learn its lessons before the next one arrives. --- If you liked this article, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here.  For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

Originally published on Makor Rishon, by Rotem Oreg-Kalisky, founder and director of LIBRAEL. January 20, 2029. California Governor Gavin Newsom is sworn in as America's 48th president, with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer as his VP. Amid sweeping economic and social programs branded "fixing the damage of the Trump administration," the new president vows a full audit of U.S. alliances: who are our true like-minded allies - countries committed to human rights, democracy, and peaceful conflict resolution - and who are not? Israel must grasp that the Democratic Party has shifted. There is less and less patience for more and more policies of Israel. In Jerusalem, the chaos begins. Secretary of State Raphael Warnock - who as a senator repeatedly voted against military aid to Israel - is not returning calls. Treasury Secretary Elizabeth Warren, a hallmark of the progressive left, pledges to block "even a single dollar for maintaining apartheid in the West Bank." U.N. Ambassador Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declares she'll veto no ceasefire resolution if Israel-Gaza fighting flares anew. The government clings to Defense Secretary Josh Shapiro - a religious Jew, openly Zionist, former IDF volunteer - as its lifeline. But even he insists the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East is over, that Iran's threat neutralized, and Israel - fresh off a Trump-era aid deal - can handle its own challenges. This scenario is fictional for now. But it could happen, and Israel's public - and the next government - face two paths forward. Governor Newsom. He and most of the Democratic party are not hostile to Israel - but they are exhausted from backing Israeli policies that clash with their values. Path One: Panic, Anger, and Denial One response is pure panic: "How could this be? How did extremists hijack the Democratic Party - the party of Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, and Biden?" Conspiracy theories erupt fast: "Qatar poisoned their minds," "Muslims took over America like they did Europe," "Bibi spat on the Democrats, now they're settling the score," "Woke culture makes them hate anything national or traditional - Israel's just collateral," or "If we'd ended the occupation, none of this would have happened." Wails of mourning for the "great friend Trump" echo through Jerusalem's streets. Slogans like "We outlived Pharaoh, we'll outlived this" dominate news studios. Israel curls into a hedgehog - self-righteous, ideologically pure, pinning hopes on "in four years, you'll see, Marco Rubio will win." Path Two: Face Reality, Adapt Strategically The better path accepts hard truths, however inconvenient. Israel must grasp that the Democratic Party has shifted - weariness from endless wars, soaring cost of living, and debates on racial and social justice have pulled it leftward, including on Israel - especially as Israel is drifting to the right. There is less and less patience for more and more policies of Israel, from potential escalations across the Middle East to the ongoing presence in the West Bank. This means tough, often uncomfortable dialogues to preserve the partnership. Listen to criticism without exploding. Own our mistakes (and boy, we make mistakes) and actually working to make amends. And yes, it also means to make painful choices: which policy elements can we concede, adjust, or sacrifice? Like a chess grandmaster, Israel must decide - which of its policies are "pawns" to trade, and what is "the king" to defend at all costs. Fantasy Isn't Strategy Israelis Fantasizing about Marco Rubio or Pete Hegseth as Trump's natural heirs - writing Israel a blank check - is possible but far from certain. Especially since even Republicans aren't thrilled about endless wars. Vice President JD Vance, the more isolationist voice in the administration, stays relatively ambivalent on the Iran war - and for a good reason. If casualties mount and gas prices soar, turning it into a political stain, he'll distance himself fast. Israel enjoyed a golden age in U.S. politics: overwhelming, unconditional, bipartisan support. Demographics and ideology show it's ending. Israelis can scream "antisemites!", blame Qatar, nostalgically long for Clinton and Biden (and in my scenario, boy oh boy we'll miss Biden), or daydream "Marco would have fixed it all." But complaints don't build nations. Facing a theoretical Newsom administration - or any other Democratic administration, for that matter - clinging to "Our Historic Birthright" or our massive intelligence sharing or Iran War contributions won't suffice. Israel must deliver value in domains that matter to Democrats: technology, health, education, climate, inequality reduction. Shared values must evolve too: less Judeo-Christian heritage, more civil rights; less "security," more "peace"; less divine promise or historic right as Israel's justification, more "the only place the Jewish people - a historically persecuted minority - can live in peace and security." I Know This Democratic Party I've visited the offices of some of the names I mentioned. I meet their voters. I speak with the students interning with them, who may inherit their seats in a decade. Contrary to the scare stories, they don't "hate us" - not in the numbers Israelis fear, anyway. Today's Democratic mainstream, well-represented by Newsom and others, isn't structurally hostile to Israel. It doesn't see Israel's existence as original sin. It even gets Israel's real security needs. But it's exhausted from politically, economically, and militarily backing policies that clash with its values worldview. We can ignore this. Or we can learn to work with it. If you are liked this article, that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here. For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

At the core of liberalism stands the belief in every person’s right to determine their own life, their own destiny, and their own identity. Liberals don’t let others define them - and at LIBRAEL , we refuse to let others define who we are. In recent years, opponents of Israel have worked tirelessly to turn the word Zionism into something else entirely - a slur, an accusation, a stand-in for ideas that have nothing to do with its origins or its values. It would be like turning “progressive” into “someone who hates white people,” or “Christian” into “Islamophobe.” Some people - many of them Zionists - suggest we should stop using the word altogether. But abandoning it because others have tried to poison it would mean surrendering our identity, our history, and our future. We won’t do that. The Israeli Declaration of Independence. The U.S.-Israel alliance has never been merely strategic or interest-based, but an alliance of values and ideals. Liberal Zionism is not a new invention. It is rooted in the foundational writings of the Zionist movement’s earliest thinkers. Herzl was committed to liberal democracy, and Jabotinsky wrote extensively about the necessity of a Jewish–Arab alliance. These were not fringe ideas, nor idealism reserved for the naïve. They were the backbone of a political project that sought not only safety for Jews - safety denied to them for centuries - but a free society for everyone living in the newly formed country. The connection between Jewish patriotism and liberal democracy is not accidental. The Israeli Declaration of Independence and the American Declaration of Independence share core beliefs. Both documents are built on the same moral architecture: that all people are created equal, that liberty requires self-government, and that people have the right to shape their own destiny. This shared democratic DNA is exactly why the U.S.-Israel alliance has never been merely strategic or interest-based, but an alliance of values and ideals. But today, the most basic premise of Zionism - that the Jewish people, like any other people, are entitled to self-determination - is under attack. It is not disagreement over policy, nor criticism of government decisions, but rejection of the very idea that the Jewish people belong to the family of nations, entitled with the same rights. Denying the Jewish aspiration for self-determination is denying a fundamental aspect of being Jewish - and of being a free person. Temple Israel in Michigan. Liberal Zionism is worth fighting for, because Jewish self-determination remains at risk - whether you’re walking into a synagogue in Michigan or running to a bomb shelter in Tel Aviv. And that is precisely why we keep saying the word Zionism. Giving up on Zionism means accepting the abuse our ideological rivals are inflicting. It means caving in to the zeitgeist. Most importantly, it means ignoring the fact that we have yet to fulfill our mission: to live as a free people in our homeland. Zionism is a story of a people who built a society - deeply imperfect, yet sincerely striving - grounded in democratic ideals. To walk away from the word now would be to say that others get to decide what Zionism means. They don’t. Liberal Zionism - Zionism that comes at no one else’s expense, and that sees Palestinians as human beings equally entitled to freedom, security, and dignity - is worth fighting for, whether one is Jewish or not. It represents a vision of Israel that is secure and prosperous, Jewish and democratic, rooted in heritage and history, committed to democracy and diversity, and guided toward a better future. We uphold the word Zionism because it is ours. Because it carries the hopes of generations before us and the responsibilities to generations after us. Because Jewish self-determination remains at risk - whether you’re walking into a synagogue in Michigan or running to a bomb shelter in Tel Aviv. And because no one - not extremists seeking attention, not antisemites in disguise, not our loudest critics - gets to hijack our identity. --- If you are liked this article,  that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here . For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

Israeli politics is often described in familiar terms: left versus right, peace camp versus security camp, liberal Tel Avivians versus conservatives in the periphery. But these old categories are increasingly failing to capture the political reality on the ground. A new and rapidly growing political identity is emerging in Israel - one that does not fit comfortably into the traditional camps, as it blends liberal positions on social issues with risk-averse, even conservative, security positions. We call them the “Woke Hawks.” A Woke Hawk. They might might think of themselves as: “socially I’m on the left, security-wise I’m on the right.” Bluntly, these Israelis might think of themselves as: “socially I’m on the left, security-wise I’m on the right.” They believe deeply in liberal democracy, gender equality, and the rule of law. They are overwhelmingly supportive of LGBTQ+ rights. They likely see Israeli Arabs as equal citizens whose participation in society is not just possible but desirable. They marched in the streets to defend Israel’s judiciary. They fiercely oppose religious coercion and resent the growing political power of the ultra-Orthodox establishment. In their worldview, even as a Jewish state, Israel must remain a modern, liberal democracy, in which church and state are completely separate, and integrated into the Western world. And yet, when it comes to national security and foreign policy, they are anything but dovish. The “Woke Hawks” are deeply skeptical about the prospects for a Palestinian state, either “under current conditions” or at all - not necessarily because they long for a “Greater Israel” as promised by God, or because they see the Palestinians as inferior to Jews, but because of skepticism about Palestinian society’s willingness to accept Israel’s very existence. The trauma of October 7 convinced many of them that “buying silence” - the unofficial Netanyahu policy that led to October 7 - brought nothing but bloodshed. Instead, they support a proactive, assertive security doctrine that does not “contain” threats or delay them, but confronts them when they appear. The Woke Hawks would have preferred Israel to go to this war alone, with only “backstage” support from the U.S., instead of American troops being put on the line. This worldview also explains their strong support for confronting Iran. They see Iran - or more accurately, the Iranian regime - not just as another geopolitical rival, but as the central engine of instability and violence across the Middle East. If they support toppling the regime, it is not because they are unaware of the risks and costs, but because they refuse to accept another enemy committed to Israel’s destruction. Ideally, by the way, they would have preferred Israel to go to this war alone, with only “backstage” support from the U.S., instead of American troops being put on the line. In the old paradigm, this would seem to place the “Woke Hawks” within the political orbit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies. As Netanyahu has come to realize that his old policy of “containment” is not just strategically dangerous but also politically damaging, when it comes to the core security questions of the moment - Palestinian statehood, enforcing the ceasefire in Lebanon, and confronting Iran - his instincts and those of the Woke Hawks often align. But even post-October 7, Israeli politics is never just about foreign policy. For these voters, Netanyahu represents something else entirely: a total sellout who conceded everything to the religious segments of Israeli society. The judicial overhaul, which sparked the largest protest movement in Israel’s history, is seen by them as a direct threat to Israeli democracy. The growing concessions to ultra-Orthodox parties - on issues ranging from exemptions from military service (even during war) to funding religious institutions that do not teach math and English, thus keeping ultra-Orthodox communities unable to fully participate in the workforce - are viewed as a betrayal of the social contract that binds Israeli society together. They are also frustrated by Netanyahu, a secular Jew and relatively socially liberal himself, who never stood up against anti-gay legislation or gender-segregation initiatives from his coalition allies. If they reluctantly drift back to Netanyahu because of security concerns, the current coalition could retain power. But if their anger over democratic erosion and religious coercion proves stronger, they may rally behind opposition parties - particularly if those parties adopt a hawkish approach. To the “Woke Hawks,” these policies represent a form of internal retreat: a weakening of the very democratic and civic foundations that make Israel worth defending. This creates a profound political tension. On security issues, they feel little affinity with the traditional Israeli left, or even the center. On domestic issues, they cannot support the current coalition. As a result, many of them are politically homeless. And that is precisely why they may become the most important voting bloc in Israel’s next elections. If they reluctantly drift back to Netanyahu because of security concerns, the current coalition - or something close to it - could retain power. But if their anger over democratic erosion and religious coercion proves stronger, they may rally behind opposition parties - particularly if those parties adopt a hawkish approach. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman are possible options. In other words, the next election will not be decided only by the traditional battle between the liberals and the conservatives. It will hinge on a different question entirely: where will the Woke Hawks land? Their numbers are growing. Their identity is still forming. And their vote is up for grabs. In the coming election, they will not simply participate in the political contest. They will decide it. --- If you are liked this article,  that means you share our vision and values. You can help us live up to the urgent task we’ve taken upon ourselves by donating to LIBRAEL here . For tax-deductible donations in the United States, click here.

Originally published on Haaretz, by Rotem Oreg-Kalisky, founder and director of LIBRAEL. California Governor Gavin Newsom is considered a pro-Israel voice. He supported Israel’s right to defend itself and the continuation of American aid, visited Israel after October 7, and worked to revise educational materials criticized by California’s Jewish community as antisemitic. He has distanced himself from AIPAC and has occasionally criticized the Israeli government, but overall he has maintained the line of a liberal Zionist, in keeping with the Democratic Party’s tradition. Governor Newsom. His remarks are not on the fringe, nor is he drifting toward it. This is the new Democratic mainstream. That is why his statements in an interview with the hosts of the Pod Save America  podcast shocked the Zionist world, in Israel and abroad. From his willingness to reconsider military aid, to his remarks that annexation would turn Israel into an apartheid state, to his blunt opposition to a war with Iran - the interview struck many like a thunderbolt. His personal attacks on Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the accusation that Netanyahu is acting out of personal motives, should surprise no one. But Newsom is not just another Democratic governor, or even merely the governor of the largest state in the United States. According to every poll, he is also the leading contender to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in two years. His ability to voice such criticism of a key American strategic ally - and receive enthusiastic applause from the audience - shows that he does not fear backlash from his base. If anything, the opposite may be true. Playtime is over. The era that began taking shape in the 1990s - when Israel enjoyed a blank check and full backing across the American political spectrum, and any criticism was branded antisemitic - has ended. It is time to get used to it: open, fierce, criticism of Israel is no longer confined to the radical fringe. Within the Democratic Party, people are no longer willing to swallow every frog Israel serves them. “Reconsidering” military aid used to be a career-ending position; today it is the starting point of the conversation. The same goes for public opposition to a war with Iran. When Newsom asked whether American weapons had struck a girls’ school in Tehran - a claim made by the Iranian regime that has yet to be proven - people in Israel fumed about a “blood libel.” In the United States, certainly in liberal America, this is not only a legitimate question for a politician to ask - it is practically expected. The situation on the right is not particularly encouraging either. Senior members of the administration praise Israel for its performance in a war that the American public - even those who support Israel - has little interest in sending their sons and daughters to fight. Opposition rates change from poll to poll and generally are not yet too high, but as time goes on, casualties mount, and oil prices rise, public support will decline. The verbal missteps by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and House Speaker Mike Johnson (who can hardly be suspected of lacking Zionist sympathies) - saying, in essence, “we struck because Israel was about to strike, and Iran would have attacked us” - only poured fuel on the narrative that “Israel dragged us into this war.” It is doubtful that the president’s clarification 24 hours later repaired the damage. The peak of the disconnect came when Senator Lindsey Graham called on the president to send American troops to fight Hezbollah, as if Americans have children to spare for unnecessary wars. As for isolationist right-wing influencers like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, there is hardly anything left to say. There is no polite way to put it: playtime is over. The era that began taking shape in the 1990s - when Israel enjoyed a blank check and full backing across the American political spectrum, and any criticism was branded antisemitic - has ended. Newsom’s remarks are not on the fringe, nor is he drifting toward it. This is the new Democratic mainstream. On the right, politicians may still largely align themselves with Israel, but their voters - as reflected in influencers and social media - are increasingly inclined to see Israel as the cause of the problem rather than part of the solution. We can get angry all we want; we can instinctively cry “Antisemites!”; we can rely on a political center that barely exists; and we can grow nostalgic for bipartisan support for Israel that simply doesn’t exist anymore. “The Democratic Party is lost,” some say. Sometimes even, “America is lost.” Their conclusion is that Israel should “keep its head down and hope for the best” or “dig in against our enemies.” But this defeatism is a poor diplomatic strategy because it leaves the field empty. It is also anti-Zionist in the deepest sense of the word, because it refuses to take our fate into our own hands. There are many explanations for how we arrived here: “It’s Qatar,” “It’s the woke,” “It’s the occupation,” “It’s Bibi.” We can get angry at them all we want; we can instinctively cry “Antisemites!”; we can rely on a political center that barely exists; and we can grow nostalgic for bipartisan support for Israel that simply doesn’t exist anymore. Understanding the path that brought us to this moment is important. But far more important is a proactive, innovative approach that asks a different question: what do we do to fix it? Beyond civil society efforts to build relationships with liberal America - like the work LIBRAEL is doing - as we approach the election year we must also demand accountability from our elected officials: a clear assessment of the situation - and, above all, a plan for how they intend to repair it.