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.

Today marks four years since Russia launched its unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine - a war that threw the world into chaos and subjected millions of Ukrainians to unspeakable violence. On this grim anniversary, LIBRAEL stands in unwavering solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Their resilience, courage, and refusal to surrender their freedom embody the very ideals upon which liberal democracies are founded: that people should determine their own future. Ukrainian soldiers. Today marks four years since Russia launched its unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. For Israelis, the story of Ukraine is not theoretical but painfully familiar. Like Ukraine, Israel has faced unprovoked assaults by forces that deny its legitimacy, deliberately target civilians, and openly abuse international law. Both nations have endured intentional attacks on population centers, systematic crimes against humanity - including the torture and rape of civilians and the kidnapping of innocent children - in an attempt to erase their national identity. And in both cases, the aggressors cloaked their violence in information warfare, cynically claiming our own ideas of liberation, justice, and peace. Ukrainians fleeing missile strikes on Odesa or Kharkiv, seeking refuge underground while air-raid sirens wail, echo scenes Israelis know from Sderot, Netivot, Ofakim, and the communities devastated in the Gaza Envelope. Just as Russia and Hamas show total disregard for human life, neither spares its own people: Putin has sent hundreds of thousands of Russians into a meat grinder, and Hamas hides its fighters and weapons behind children and hospitals. Pro-Ukraine protest in Tel Aviv. Like Ukraine, Israel has faced unprovoked assaults by forces that deny its legitimacy, deliberately target civilians, and openly abuse international law. But the connection between Ukraine and Israel runs deeper than shared trauma. Both societies are living proof of the power of democratic values in regions threatened by authoritarianism. Ukraine has spent decades striving toward a freer, more open, more Western-oriented future - choosing democracy even at enormous cost. Israel, too, is a democracy forged in conflict and war. And in both countries, the struggle for the rule of law, human rights, the freedom of their citizens, and peace with their neighbors - is far from over. At a time when authoritarian regimes are growing more aggressive, democracies cannot afford moral ambiguity. Supporting Ukraine is not merely an act of compassion - it is a strategic necessity. If aggression is rewarded in Europe, it will spread to the Middle East and beyond. This is exactly why we also stand with Taiwan. If the world fails to draw a red line in one region, it erodes deterrence in all others. And if democracies hesitate to support one another, they send a message that our freedoms and independence are negotiable. They are not. Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. If aggression is rewarded in Europe, it will spread to the Middle East and beyond. LIBRAEL ’s mission is to build bridges between Israel and liberal America - communities that share a belief in democracy, human rights, justice, and peace. The Ukrainian people remind us what these values look like in practice: the bravery to resist tyranny, the clarity to distinguish between bully and victim, and the patriotism that fuels resistance come hell or high water. Four years on, Ukraine is still fighting for its right to exist. So is Israel. And the democratic world must stand with them - not by escalating war, and not by giving a blank check - but by holding firm to the principles that make peace possible. Solidarity is a choice. And today, as every day, we choose Ukraine. Slava Ukraini. Am Israel Chai. --- 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.

During one of our recent Pride and Progress workshops, a participant asked me a question that cuts right to the heart of our work: “When you say ‘liberal,’ what do you actually mean?” It’s a fair question. This word has been twisted, stretched, politically weaponized, and deliberately misinterpreted. In Israel and the U.S., “liberal” is often used either as a political insult, a tribal label, or a placeholder for “left-wing.” But that’s not what we mean - not even close. Two Meanings of “Liberal” When we talk about “liberal”, most people think of one of the following: The political meaning: the familiar partisan standpoint, committed to socially, economically, and internationally progressive policies. The philosophical meaning: the Lockean idea that every human being possesses inherent worth, natural rights, and moral dignity. While not rejecting the first camp, LIBRAEL stands firmly in the second camp. Because unlike political labels, philosophical liberalism isn’t fragile or contingent on the specific context, but rather is grounded in a clear, moral, self-evident truth: that all people are created equal. John Locke. Liberalism is not contingent on the specific political context, but rather is grounded in a clear, moral, self-evident truth: that all people are created equal. Liberalism as a Moral Compass: Israel, America, and Dr. King Our ideologically guiding light is not only philosophical texts, but also the shared DNA of the American and Israeli democratic projects - both far from complete. The American Declaration of Independence insists that all people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” and the Israeli Declaration of Independence promises “full social and political equality” and “freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.” Both documents defend the same core idea: people have inherent, intrinsic value, independent of social definitions or constructs. This belief is a moral compass that helps us navigate in a far-from-perfect reality toward a better future. This principle is echoed powerfully in the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who taught that a just society must judge individuals “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” King’s belief in the intrinsic value of every person is the beating heart of liberalism itself. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A just society must judge individuals “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Applying Liberalism to the Israeli-Palestinian Reality But LIBRAEL is not a think tank or a philosophy club. We are an Israeli NGO seeking to bend the moral arc of the universe - and that means these principles cannot remain in the theoretical realm for us. If you take people’s intrinsic value seriously - if you believe, as Dr. King believed, that every human life carries the same moral weight - you cannot approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict merely through geostrategic calculations and security concerns, legitimate as they are. A liberal worldview of the conflict is quite simple: both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people deserve to live in freedom, dignity, security, and opportunity, enjoying self-determination and having a say in how they are governed. Denying the right of one people to any of these rights is to deny the basic human value of that people; thus, it is inherently illiberal. Our Zionism - commitment to Israel’s existence as the secure, prosperous, democratic nation-state of the Jewish people - stems from our liberal approach, from the belief that Jews, like all people, should have a say in how they live and how they are governed. Liberal Zionism, as we define it, claims that Israel’s legitimacy is derived both from values - from the very same liberal principles - and from the millennia-long aspiration of the Jewish people for sovereignty. Liberal Zionism is not naïve. It is not necessarily left-wing. It is the understanding that nation-states can and should adhere to the liberal compass, and the belief that Israel’s future depends on staying true to the principles derived from that compass - protecting human and minority rights, maintaining separation of powers, and keeping a robust checks-and-balances system. The Israeli Declaration of Independence. Liberal Zionism understands that nation-states can and should adhere to the liberal compass, and the belief that Israel’s future depends on staying true to the principles derived from that compass. So, When We Say “Liberal”... We mean the liberalism of John Locke, of the founders of America and Israel, and of Dr. King - a liberalism grounded in promoting justice, protecting human rights, and pursuing peace. We mean a vision of Israel that is secure because it is democratic, prosperous because it is diverse, and a safe haven for Jews because it defends the rights of every person under its authority. If you've never encountered such definitions of liberal Zionism, or if you've never heard of a pro-Israel organization so deeply committed to liberal values, that's good. At LIBRAEL, we are not trying to blend in, we’re not hiding our values, and we’re not committed to old, out-of-touch, failing paradigms. We believe that in the new world we live in - post-October 7, with rising antisemitism and a total failure to achieve stability and peace - a new paradigm is needed like a breath of fresh air. --- 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.

Over the past weeks, we have witnessed a terrifying pattern: Jewish and Israeli lives targeted across continents, in places that should be safe. A Jewish home in California, decorated for Hanukkah. An Israeli professor at Brown University. A Jewish, openly Zionist scientist at MIT. A mass shooting at Bondi Beach in Australia that took the lives of 16 innocent people - and would have taken many more if not for the heroism of a Muslim bystander, Ahmed El-Ahmed, who showed us that courage and justice exist in every part of society. The mourning Jewish community in Bondi Beach. The writing was on the wall. These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a global wave of violence directed at Jews and Israelis - at homes, campuses, workplaces, and public spaces. It is critical to be clear about the source of this violence. These attacks are not the result of Israeli government policies, even when many of us as liberals oppose those policies. They are definitely not a response to Jews’ political views. They are the direct consequence of relentless, dehumanizing incitement - online, on campuses, in protests, in public discourse, and by far too many leaders - that normalizes hatred and legitimizes violence against Jews and Israelis, often disguised as being “pro-Palestine.” The writing was on the wall. When Jews are portrayed as villains scheming against society ( “Jews are the reason the minimum wage is too low,” as I recently saw in an Instagram video), when Israelis are stripped of their humanity ( “bloodthirsty monsters” ), when violence is justified ( “by all means” ) or excused as “resistance,” the outcome is tragically predictable. Across the United States and around the world, Jewish communities are being forced to increase security, question whether they can celebrate openly, and live with fear simply for being who they are. This is unacceptable. No minority - Jews included - should have to wonder whether their identity makes them a target. LIBRAEL stands in full solidarity with the victims, their families, and the Jewish and Israeli communities affected by these atrocious attacks. But solidarity is not enough. We demand action. Governments, institutions, platforms, and leaders around the world must take incitement seriously - before it turns into violence. This means: enforcing existing hate-speech laws, expanding protections for targeted communities, holding those who spread hatred accountable, and drawing firm red lines against rhetoric that glorifies or excuses harm. No ifs, no buts, no nothing. As we light the candles, we are reminded that it takes only a small light to dispel great darkness. In times like these, let our commitment to our communities, our values, and our identity be the light we so urgently need. With respect, Rotem Oreg-Kalisky Founder and Director, LIBRAEL

In the past week, the Trump administration released a National Security Strategy, the official document articulating the interests, objectives, means, and principles of the United States. Every administration must publish such a strategy according to American law, which makes us in Israel jealous - we would have wanted to see such a structured, principled document for Israel, regardless of the government forming it. So we wrote one ourselves. We reject the false choice between being a nation-state for the Jewish people and a liberal democracy in which all citizens are equal. We assert that our pursuit of peace, promotion of justice, and protection of human rights does not make us less Israeli - it makes us stronger Israelis. We tasked Perplexity with writing a similar strategy, given LIBRAEL’s vision for Israel as the democratic, secure, and prosperous nation-state of the Jewish people, and from the perspective of a liberal Zionist government that is committed to a vision in which the Palestinians live in freedom, security, and dignity. Naturally, this excerpt of a strategy is not perfect. Like every text created by AI, every sentence here can and should be debated. This is NOT our worldview or policy, but merely an example of the strategic planning process that can and should be done by any liberal Israeli government. This is what turned out: The National Security Strategy an AI would write. The Jerusalem Strategy: Securing Our Future Through Values The State of Israel stands at a defining crossroads. Emerging from the trauma and tragedy of the October 7 Massacre and the war that followed it, we have learned a painful but necessary truth: military might is a prerequisite for our existence, but it is not the sole guarantee of our future. For too long, we allowed petty politics and a short-sighted political system to dictate a de facto strategy, instead of having a strategy derived from our national values. We managed threats rather than solving them; we prioritized politics over people; and we allowed the erosion of our democratic soul in the name of a false stability. Today, we present the 2025 Israeli National Security Strategy, rooted in the conviction of a proud Liberal Zionism. Our vision is clear: Israel is, and must remain, the democratic, secure, and prosperous nation-state of the Jewish people. We reject the false choice between being a nation-state for the Jewish people and a liberal democracy in which all citizens are equal. We assert that our pursuit of peace, promotion of justice, and protection of human rights does not make us less Israeli - it makes us stronger Israelis. It is the secret weapon that preserves our alliance with the United States, secures our standing in the global economy, and binds our diverse society together, while being derived from our Jewish identity and tradition, c ommitted to the self-evident truth that God created all people in his image. A state that does not protect the rights of its minorities cannot, in the long run, protect the security of its majority. A state that allows extremists to hijack its flag cannot wave it proudly among the family of nations. True security is both the height of our walls and the strength of our military, as well as the depth of our moral conviction and our commitment to our identity. Strategic Analysis: The Strength of Democracy Israel possesses extraordinary assets. We are a technological superpower, a thriving economy, a culturally and demographically diverse mosaic, and possess a military force - the IDF - unmatched in the region. However, our strategic assessment identifies a critical internal weakness: the erosion of social solidarity and democratic norms. The polarization of recent years is a national security threat as potent as any Iranian missile. Our analysis suggests that our greatest opportunity lies in a regional realignment based on shared interests and shared progress. The crumbling of the Iranian axis offers us a chance to cement a regional alliance - not just as a military pact against Tehran and Hamas, but as an economic and technological partnership with the moderate Sunni world. However, this door will only open if we are willing to walk through it with integrity - which requires a courageous and just approach to the Palestinian issue. The threat is not only external but internal: the loss of hope, the growing rift between Ultra-Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews over burden-sharing issues, and the rise of Palestinian and Jewish extremism. The Foundation of Jewish–Democratic Resilience National security begins at home. The Strategy places the defense of Israel’s liberal democracy at the very top of our security agenda. Therefore, we declare that even with needed reforms to our checks-and-balances system, the independence of the Judiciary is a strategic asset, serving as the "Iron Dome" of our international legal standing and the guardian of our civil liberties. We commit to a fierce defense of the free press, the protection of minority rights, and the absolute equality of all citizens - Jews and Arabs alike - before the law. Crucially, to preserve the Zionist character of the state, we must ensure the separation of religion and state. A coercive public sphere alienates our own people and our Jewish brothers and sisters in the world. We envision an Israel where Jewish tradition is a source of inspiration, not legislation, and where the "Tribes of Israel" share the burden of service and the fruits of prosperity equally. Strengthening the Arab sector’s integration into the economy and society is not charity, and not even a security issue; it is the leading path to prosperity within Israel and to regional integration. Partnership with the Palestinian People For decades, we “managed” the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, hoping it would disappear. It did not, and it blew up in our face. This begins with a change in posture. We view the Palestinian Authority as deeply flawed yet necessary partner to be strengthened against Hamas and other radicals. We commit to the physical and social reconstruction of Gaza - including in desalination, energy, housing, welfare, and education - to reduce the incentives for terror and to remove the institutions that incite it. Simultaneously, the State of Israel will reassert its rule of law in Judea and Samaria by cracking down uncompromisingly on nationalist crime: these acts by Jewish extremists are not "Zionism"; they are a stain on all Israelis (and are rejected and appalled by most of us), an assault on the IDF, and a strategic liability that threatens our alliances. The monopoly on force belongs to the state alone, and its use will be reserved for security-related tasks alone. Core Strategic Interests Our policy is guided by ten core interests: Survival and Sovereignty: Ensuring the existence of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and the security and safety of all its people. Democratic Character: Safeguarding the rule of law, separation of powers, human rights, and free and fair elections. Liberal Zionism: Insisting on our core strategic and security demands while preserving the conditions for peace, justice, and freedom for the Palestinians. Regional Integration: Leveraging the Abraham Accords into deep economic, security, and technological relations with our neighbors, including a moderate Palestinian leadership. The U.S. Alliance: Strengthening our bond with the United States based on shared values and interests, both security and civilian. Prevention of Existential Threats: Preventing a nuclear Iran, a Turkish presence on our border, and Qatari influence on our global standing. Social Cohesion: Reducing inequality, creating opportunities, and integrating Ultra-Orthodox and Arab populations into the workforce and national service. Diaspora Connection: Rebuilding the bridge with World Jewry based on shared respect. International Legitimacy: Maintaining our global standing, alliances, and “soft power.” Economic Vitality: Ensuring a free, competitive, and inclusive economy that provides opportunity for everyone, especially given the massive changes in the workforce. Conclusion This strategy reflects a confident liberal Zionism. It is the confidence to seek peace because we are strong enough - and seeking peace with eyes wide open and feet on the ground. It is the confidence to critique ourselves because we believe in our righteous cause and in the promise to be better. We believe that “Justice, Justice, You Shall Pursue” is not just a biblical command, but a strategic doctrine, ranging from economic inequality within Israel to partnership with our neighbors when possible. --- 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.

(by Rotem Oreg-Kalisky, founder and director of LIBRAEL; the opinions expressed are his alone; originally published on Ha'aretz ) Let’s begin with a basic assumption: there is no Israel without America - at least not the Israel we want to live in. An Israel with a thriving economy, an advanced security establishment, and a vibrant democracy that enjoys international cooperation and a diplomatic umbrella - all of this would not be possible without the United States. Even in the 1950s, in Ben-Gurion’s 18 Points document, the first prime minister referred to the need for an alliance with a global power. In the decades since, a multifaceted alliance with the U.S. has taken shape, grounded in shared values of democracy, liberty, “unlimited possibilities,” and the Judeo-Christian tradition; shared interests such as ensuring the flow of goods through the Suez Canal, maintaining stable oil prices, and an intelligence, operational, and strategic partnership during the Cold War (and later, during the War on Terror); and the bond between the peoples, based on Israel’s image as “David surrounded by Goliaths,” the cultural and political power of American Jews, and the religious beliefs of evangelical Christians. Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Even in the 1950s he saw need for an alliance with a global power. But this is precisely where the problem lies: the U.S.-Israel alliance was created in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s - in a world that no longer exists, where the interests and values guiding both countries were different. America’s strategic priorities have shifted, and more and more Americans do not see the security value in giving nearly $4 billion each year to a regional power. While Israeli society, scarred by terror attacks and wars, has grown skeptical about peace, American society has lost its finest in Iraq and Afghanistan and has grown skeptical of wars. A whole generation of Americans is coming of age with no memory of 9/11 but with a very clear memory of the War on Terror and its costs. Young Jews, educated through “Israel education” that told them Israel could do no wrong and must always be defended, arrive on college campuses and social media and encounter the less glamorous side of the Israeli story. They feel they were lied to and exploited. Even young evangelicals are proving to be far more liberal than their parents. To all this, we must add the internal polarization within American society - a polarization unrelated to Israel or the conflict - expressed in growing distrust between the parties and their voters. Israel, facing all this, is still offering outdated merchandise from the 1980s: “bipartisanship.” When not flirting with the dangerous gamble that we should invest only in Republicans (there is no worse investment strategy than putting all your money into a single stock), Israel and its leaders - from across the political spectrum - talk about “restoring bipartisanship.” The delusion that we can somehow persuade, for example, Senators Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren - each convinced the other is destroying America - to set aside their differences and unite around Israel is exactly that: a delusion. Senators Tez Cruz (left) and Elizabeth Warren. The delusion we can get them to set aside their differences and unite around Israel is exactly that: a delusion. People used to describe the distribution of political views in society using a Gaussian bell curve: fringe on the right, fringe on the left, and most people scattered somewhere in the center. I want to propose a new thesis, based on things I heard in the offices of senior members of Congress during LIBRAEL ’s recent visit to Washington: today there are two bell curves in the U.S. - a Republican one and a Democratic one. The left edge of the Republican bell curve and the right edge of the Democratic bell curve meet in what we once called “the center,” but it is neither large nor popular. The right fringe of the Republican bell curve openly flirts with fascism and Nazism, and the left fringe of the Democratic bell curve embraces socialism and communism. At both extremes, Zionism is a dirty word, and “global elites” - we all know who that refers to - are the enemy. But within both bell curves there is a critical mass of voters and legislators who cannot be described as “moderates” or “centrists,” yet they are pragmatic. In both cases, this critical mass looks at Israel and says, with some justification, that things need to change. “The partnership with Israel is important,” senior Democratic congressional staff told me, “but we are not going back to October 6.” The Democratic bell curve (left) and the Republican bell curve (right). There is a critical mass in both curves, who cannot be described as “moderates” or “centrists,” yet they are pragmatic. Israel’s leadership must wake up. What good is it that working-level professionals in the Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry also see these dangerous trends and the shifting nature of American society, if they have no political or public backing to pursue the steps needed to adjust the partnership - an adjustment essential for preserving and strengthening the alliance? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City and his emergence as a symbol of the Democratic Party, along with the complete normalization of neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes across Republican networks, are alarm bells - warning not about any specific individual, but about a massive iceberg that the ship called “Israel” is heading straight toward. One can only hope that this time, someone will listen. --- 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.

(by Rotem Oreg-Kalisky, founder and director of LIBRAEL; the opinions expressed are his alone) “Why do Israelis love Donald Trump?” I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been asked that by American friends from the Democratic side. While some try to explain it in terms of policy - the pressure on the UN and the ICC, the Abraham Accords, the “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, or the release of hostages - I believe the truth runs deeper than geopolitics. Israelis feel that Trump is on their side emotionally. For a country surrounded by larger, mostly hostile neighbors, and for a people whose trauma is encoded in our cultural DNA, Trump’s popularity in Israel stems not from strategy but from sentiment. President Trump next to the Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana. Trump’s popularity in Israel stems not from strategy but from sentiment. Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, is often quoted as publicly disregarding the UN, and Israeli leaders have long thrived on the ethos of “standing against international pressure.” Let’s make it clear: Israelis do not support Trump because of his policies - certainly not his domestic ones. Deep coverage of U.S. domestic issues is scarce in Israel, so most people are not even aware of Trump’s anti-immigration policies or his battles with academia and the media. Among those who do follow U.S. news, their stance usually correlates with their own political perspective: conservative Israelis tend to favor Trump’s policies (as many of them, too, see academia, the media, and the justice system as liberal strongholds), while liberal Israelis usually disapprove of him, often drawing parallels to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s policies and leadership style. It’s not even about foreign policy. Just as most Americans do not fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of the Iran Nuclear Deal, most Israelis don’t either. Nothing changed in our day-to-day lives because of Trump’s recognition of the Golan Heights or his decision to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Even the Abraham Accords, important as they are, did not advance the kind of peace we dreamed of - peace with Israel’s real enemies, not with countries we never fought. That’s why it’s broader than policy. Given Israel’s geography and the Jewish people’s history, Israelis tend to be suspicious of the world. Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, is often quoted as publicly disregarding the UN, and Israeli leaders have long thrived on the ethos of “standing against international pressure.” The ability to say “no” to foreign leaders has been Netanyahu’s domestic political advantage for years. This is why the late Ambassador Martin Indyk wrote about President Obama that “he didn’t understand the Israelis either. He gave Israel aid and security cooperation to an extent and depth hitherto unknown in previous administrations… He didn’t understand that the Israelis need sympathy, an embrace.” Former President Biden and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Biden was extremely popular in Israel in the early weeks of the war. A university professor I spoke with recently - a leftist, anti-Netanyahu activist - said, “I am torn between my anger at him for destroying America’s academia and democracy, and my gratitude to him for ending the war and returning the hostages.” Another liberal activist said, “On the one hand, he is destroying his own country; on the other, he saved ours.” On top of that is the trauma of the last two years. The October 7 massacre and the brutal war that followed have shaken Israel’s confidence to its core, with the leadership failures that led to October 7 only making things worse. This is exactly why then-President Biden was extremely popular in the early weeks of the war: within two months, Biden’s approval among Israelis who wanted him reelected rose from 33% to 48%, while Trump - who mocked Israel’s leaders - dropped from 45% to 32%. It was not just about providing military aid or moving aircraft carriers to the region; it was about Biden’s recognition of Israel’s suffering, our pain and trauma, and his clear message that we were not alone. Biden enjoyed so much credibility in Israel that it enabled him to push Netanyahu to revoke the planned strike on Hezbollah on October 11, thus preventing the war from expanding, and to begin providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, against public demands to halt it. Before Biden or Trump, President Bill Clinton was a notable U.S. president who expressed deep empathy for Israelis. In his eulogy for Prime Minister Rabin, Clinton said, “Rabin was my friend and partner. I loved him and adored him.” Clinton’s unapologetic empathy made him widely popular in Israel and enabled him to push Israeli prime ministers - first Rabin, then Netanyahu - to make tough decisions. Much has changed since November 2023. As the war dragged on and the catastrophe in Gaza worsened, Israel lost much of its international support. Israelis began to feel isolated and misunderstood by much of the world, and the spike in antisemitic attacks only reinforced an already common belief that “the world is against us.” Celebrating the release of the hostages. Many Israelis who are politically moderate or even liberal still express ambivalent admiration for Trump. In this climate, Trump’s unapologetic tone offered the validation so many Israelis seek. He doesn’t lecture Israel about morality or demand “restraint.” Even as he pushed to end the war - forcing Netanyahu to do so under terms he had previously opposed - he did it while emphasizing Israel’s needs. Even among those who do not support him, Trump’s symbolic stand with Israel means something. When he calls Hamas “animals,” Israelis hear someone who understands their pain and anger. When Trump repeats that “we must never forget October 7,” it’s not about reminding us - as if any living Israeli could forget - but about addressing the deep concern that “the world has forgotten.” This is crucial: many Israelis who are politically moderate or even liberal still express ambivalent admiration for Trump. Again, it’s not because they endorse his domestic politics or his disregard for norms. It’s because they sense that, when it comes to us, he sees our pain. A university professor I spoke with recently - a leftist, anti-Netanyahu activist - said, “I am torn between my anger at him for destroying America’s academia and democracy, and my gratitude to him for ending the war and returning the hostages.” Another liberal activist said, “On the one hand, he is destroying his own country; on the other, he saved ours.” Of course, such loyalty carries dangers. Unquestioning affection for any foreign leader - especially one as polarizing and unpredictable as Trump - blurs the line between a strategic alliance and personal dependency. Israel’s long-term interests require bipartisan American support, not emotional attachment to one man or one party. But there’s a lesson here: if a foreign leader wants Israelis to trust them - trust that is necessary to make tough decisions - that trust can be earned through symbolic gestures, as long as they feel authentic. --- 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.

(by Adv. Ido Dembin, a board member of LIBRAEL; the opinions expressed are his alone) The No Kings protest movement in the United States and the ongoing pro-democracy protests in Israel both reflect powerful expressions of broad popular discontent with populist governments in their respective countries.   They are designed and motivated by a desire to defend liberal values, institutions, laws, and norms against perceived threats of authoritarianism, erosion of civil rights, and democratic backsliding.  These movements reveal striking parallels as well as important differences, and each offers insights into the evolving global struggle for democratic renewal. A pro-hostage release protest in Israel. The resilience of these movements shows that ordinary citizens remain democracy’s last line of defense. In both countries, the opposition remains scattered, ideologically diverse, and fragmented. In Israel, the opposition is divided between anti-Netanyahu right-wingers, centrists, and left-wingers, with each offering a starkly different vision. The Power of the Masses Both movements are remarkable for their size and resilience, demonstrating crucial civic awakening. While in Israel, the protest movement expanded after October 7, with up to 400,000 people gathering weekly and hundreds of thousands joining nationwide strikes, organizers in the US built vast coalitions, rallying over seven million participants in national days of action. Protests in both countries also involve wide-ranging coalitions, including trade unions, civil rights organizations, and grassroots activists, all empowered by social media and unified by the aspiration to sustain democratic norms under perceived threat. The Israeli pro-democracy movement has been active in various forms since at least 2019, building significant momentum following during 2023. Its persistence underscores deep-rooted democratic anxieties and a highly mobilized civil society. By contrast, the No Kings protests are a more recent phenomenon, first erupting prominently in mid-2025 as a response to President Trump’s policies, and escalating in scale, yet their leadership and structure remain emergent, underscoring the fledgling, experimental nature of this broad coalition. In both the US and Israel, the current governments widely considered as populist, far-right, and of authoritarian inclinations - while in both countries, the opposition remains scattered, ideologically diverse, and fragmented. In Israel, the opposition is divided between anti-Netanyahu right-wingers (most notably, the former Prime Minister Naftali Bennet), centrists, and left-wingers, with each offering a starkly different vision – and all consolidating mostly around the narrow vision of ousting Netanyahu and his far-right, illiberal government. The resilience of these movements - despite fragmentation, controversy, and the limits of protest - shows that ordinary citizens remain democracy’s last line of defense. Ideological, Not Partisan In the US, the “No Kings” protests represent a new phenomenon with no clearly dominant leadership yet, although progressive groups lead the coalition of over 200 organizations alongside centrists. Notably, both protests lack overt backing by clearly partisan organizations. Israeli protests comprise grassroots coalitions cutting across traditional party lines. Likewise, the No Kings movement, while supported by a coalition that includes progressive groups and unions, does not represent a single party or formal political force. This lack of partisan control is not necessarily a bad thing: it allows for a broad-based civic coalition; however, it also contributes to the diffusion of leadership and strategy, complicating the path to concrete political outcomes. That said, politicians such as Yair Lapid (Head of the Israeli parliamentary Opposition) and Yair Golan (who fought on October 7 and now heads the Democrats party) have participated and spoken at various rallies in Israel – and in the US, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and California Governor Gavin Newsom play leading roles in mobilizing opposition to Trump’s moves in their own states, and politicians such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez carry the progressive banner. Moreover, both movements have mobilized millions who see their governments as undermining essential democratic principles: In Israel, protesters rally weekly to oppose government overreach, advocate for judicial independence and maintaining the separation of powers, and until recently demand both a hostage deal and an end to the Gaza war, all while affirming the country's founding values of equality and the rule of law. In the US, No Kings protesters accuse President Trump of acting more like a monarch than an elected official, staging huge, peaceful demonstrations in hundreds of cities to vocalize a desire for accountable government and the defense of constitutional rights. Bridges of Activism Despite different political landscapes and points of contention (Trump’s policies and rhetoric in the US versus Israel’s opposition to judicial reform and calls for peace), both movements inspire and draw lessons from each other. Pro-democracy forces in Israel watch the US closely, understanding that American democratic stability influences international attitudes and lends moral support to resistance movements worldwide. Both movements also resonate internationally: “No Kings” protests spilled into twenty foreign countries, and the successes of Israel’s pro-democracy campaign are documented and exhibited worldwide by activist collectives, highlighting the interconnectedness of contemporary struggles for freedom and pluralism. Both movements also strategically employ powerful symbolism to underscore their democratic commitments: Israeli protesters have prominently displayed the Declaration of Independence (as Israel has no written constitution) in mass demonstrations, focusing on its commitment to ensuring “full social and political equality to all its citizens, regardless of religion, race, and sex”. American protesters have paraded with replicas of the Constitution, including huge banners of the U.S. Constitution. These displays emphasize that the struggle is about reclaiming a vision of democracy rooted in foundational texts, rather than merely opposing current administrations. No Kings protesters signing a banner of the U.S. Constitution. These displays emphasize that the struggle is about reclaiming a vision of democracy rooted in foundational texts, rather than merely opposing current administrations. Israeli protesters have prominently displayed the Declaration of Independence in mass demonstrations... ensuring “full social and political equality to all its citizens, regardless of religion, race, and sex”. American protesters have paraded with replicas of the Constitution. The Looming Shadow of the War A significant complication in the No Kings protests is the presence of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli elements, which, while distinct from the core anti-Trump cause, have found space within the broad coalition. This overlap arises partly because many progressive organizations and activists in the US integrate international human rights concerns, including support for Palestinian rights, with their domestic democratic activism – and because the Palestinian agenda has taken hold within the progressive camp not only in and of itself but as a symbol of political alignment. President Trump’s vocal support for Israel and his close personal alliance with Prime Minister Netanyahu definitely add to that. However, for now, these views remain a minority within the overall No Kings coalition. This, in turn, can potentially allow stronger cross-Atlantic cooperation with Israeli pro-democracy forces, which seek to maintain a focus on Israeli democratic reforms rather than conflating the protests with the broader, more contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anti-Israel protest. For now, these views remain a minority within the overall No Kings coalition. A Future for Democracy Both protests reveal democratic societies confronting far-right rule with innovative, grassroots mobilization anchored in a foundational commitment to democracy. Both movements confront fragmented oppositions and overlapping controversies, yet their growing momentum offers a hopeful, if complex, blueprint for renewal. For both, the journey ahead will demand transforming popular will into cohesive political power while navigating both internal divisions and cross-national solidarity challenges. The resilience and creativity of these movements will be pivotal in shaping the future of democracy across the Atlantic and beyond. The resilience of these movements - despite fragmentation, controversy, and the limits of protest - shows that ordinary citizens remain democracy’s last line of defense. Now is the time for those who believe in democratic renewal, on both sides of the Atlantic, to reach across borders, learn from one another’s strategies, and insist that foundational ideals cannot be abandoned to authoritarianism. By joining voices and strengthening ties, advocates for liberty and equality in the US, Israel, and beyond can help usher in a new era where the promise of democracy is not only defended but also reimagined and revitalized for a new generation. --- 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. Adv. Ido Dembin is an Israeli political activist. He is the former Executive Director of Molad, an Israeli liberal Zionist think tank. He is also known as a commentator and public intellectual, frequently writing and speaking about Israeli and American politics. Dembin’s work focuses on defending democracy in Israel, analyzing the country’s political shifts, and advocating for civil rights, alongside contemporary commentary on American politics, policy, and society. He has played a significant role in interpreting the Israeli protest movements against judicial reform and in promoting liberal democratic values within Israeli public discourse.​

After almost two horrible years of war, President Donald Trump’s 21-point plan for Gaza has put forth a bold - yet far from perfect - proposal to end the war. That does not mean Israel should say no. President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The plan calls for an immediate and complete ceasefire and the release of all remaining hostages within 72 hours of adoption. "Bringing the hostages home alone would relieve an entire nation, resurrecting the Israeli ethos of being a safe haven for Jews - an ethos broken on, and since, October 7." What’s In It Announced yesterday in a press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, following a meeting at the UN General Assembly with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, and Jordan, the plan calls for an immediate and complete ceasefire and the release of all remaining hostages within 72 hours of adoption. Hamas would be disarmed and removed from power. Governance in Gaza would be transferred to a professional technocratic governing board under former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, with deep involvement from a reformed Palestinian Authority. Public safety and Israel’s security would be ensured by an international Arab-and-Muslim stabilization force, and reconstruction would begin with Arab and international funding. For Israel, the most important gain is obvious: bringing the hostages home. That step alone would relieve an entire nation, resurrecting the Israeli ethos of being a safe haven for Jews - an ethos broken on, and since, October 7. On the Palestinian side, ending the war and flooding Gaza with long-overdue aid would stop the humanitarian crisis and save countless lives. In the long term, introducing a governing alternative led by Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims committed to stability is a good step for the Palestinians and the region, as it will allow physical reconstruction to turn Gaza from a permanent source of instability into a source of prosperity. Destruction in Gaza. Governing alternative led by Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims committed to stability is a good step for the Palestinians and the region. "Hamas enjoy at least some support from the population. A feasible long-term plan for the region must ensure that the institutions spreading Hamas’s ideology - including mosques, schools, and the welfare system - are replaced with institutions that promote coexistence." Where Is the Catch There is no such thing as “a perfect deal,” and even though this plan leans toward Israel’s interests - making it harder for Hamas to accept - Israel is still forced to make significant concessions. A major flaw has to do with Hamas remaining a force on the ground - not with fully functioning government or military capabilities, but still operational. Past experiences have shown that third-party forces are not eager to conduct counter-terrorism missions (UNIFIL in Lebanon, where Hezbollah grew into a full-scale military under its nose, is a notable example). The fact that President Trump guaranteed Israel freedom of operation in case of such a failure is positive, but it still falls short of fully addressing Israelis’ legitimate concern that a surviving Hamas will remain committed to harming us. Another flaw, more dangerous in the long run, concerns Gaza’s social reconstruction. Last year, LIBRAEL presented a four-pillar strategy for the day after in Gaza called "The Meatball Sub". While three of those pillars - counterinsurgency efforts, a governing alternative, and physical reconstruction - are met in President Trump’s plan, the social reconstruction element is missing. While it is not true that all Gazans support Hamas, we must acknowledge that Hamas are not outsiders to Gaza; they enjoy at least some support from the population. A feasible long-term plan for the region must ensure that the institutions spreading Hamas’s ideology - including mosques, schools, and the welfare system - are replaced with institutions that promote coexistence. So far, we have not seen anything in this plan that commits to such a move, e.g., dramatically reforming UNRWA. A Meatball Sub. While three of "The Meatball Sub" strategy's pillars - counterinsurgency efforts, a governing alternative, and physical reconstruction - are met in President Trump’s plan, the social reconstruction element is missing. Yet - We Must Say Yes Here is the uncomfortable truth: Israel cannot afford to reject this plan, especially once the United States has planned and promoted it. We’ve reached the point - months ago, in fact - where the war, which has cost us dearly in lives, resources, and international standing, is failing to deliver its legitimate objectives. We cannot dismantle Hamas more than we already have. We clearly cannot rescue the hostages through military operations. International patience for the war is long gone, and more and more political, economic, cultural, and eventually security pressure is being placed on us. Responding with defiance will lead Israel to be more isolated and hence less secure - not more. Israel’s objectives in implementing this plan must be clear: robust verification of disarmament, deep Israeli involvement in international stabilization efforts, clear U.S. guarantees for Israel’s right to self-defense, and an international commitment to social reconstruction. At the same time, it is on us to reject the hardliners who see any compromise as weakness and who believe, despite evidence, that mere military power can protect us. It is on us to enter negotiations in good faith (without compromising on our interests) and leverage this moment to expand peace: with Riyadh, with Islamabad, with Jakarta, and beyond. This is not weakness; it is strategic clarity. This is not conceding to pressure; it is leveraging hard-earned military gains to improve our standing. It will save countless lives - Israeli hostages, Israeli soldiers, and Palestinian civilians - and allow both peoples to start healing. Just as Israel once took risks for peace with Egypt and Jordan, including making severe concessions - risks that paid off with decades of quiet borders - we must again weigh diplomacy. Not with fantasies about peace in our lifetime, but with a clear-eyed, feet-on-the-ground vision that will protect Israel as the democratic, secure, and prosperous nation-state of the Jewish people, while providing the Palestinians with a path to live in freedom and security. The plan is flawed. It is risky. It may fail, as we all wait for Hamas to respond. But there is a reason a huge majority of Israelis, including many who vote for the coalition, support the deal. Israel must not let our fears - cemented in the atrocities of October 7 - hold us back from pursuing a better future for both peoples. Bold diplomacy, not endless war, is what will secure Israel’s future. --- 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.

(by Omer Bialer, an Israeli startup founder; The opinions expressed are his alone) My name is Omer Bialer. I am an Israeli, a Zionist, and a liberal. Growing up in Israel in the 1990s, I believed that we Israelis were the main obstacle to peace. I thought that if we simply gave the Palestinians land of their own, we could begin paving the way toward peace. That was why I supported Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. I believed in the equation "land = peace", and therefore I supported it - even though it was a traumatic experience for many Israelis. I thought the price would be worth paying if it led to peace. Israeli soldiers evacuating Jewish Israelis from Gaza settlements in 2005. Credit: Avigail Uzi. After the October 7th massacre, in which 1,163 people were murdered and 251 kidnapped - outright war crimes committed by Hamas - I was forced to re-examine my understanding of the conflict. How could it be that, nearly 20 years after Israel withdrew from Gaza and allowed the Palestinians to govern themselves, this was the outcome? Why had it not led to the peace I once imagined as a teenager? As Experience Shows, Giving Land Is Not Enough One thing I have come to realize is that achieving a peaceful resolution to the conflict is not only about Israel giving up land - it also requires a Palestinians leadership that’s willing to change. It means that their leadership will need to formally recognize Israel’s right to exist, both in words and in action. I understand today that while there were Palestinians who at least publicly accepted the idea of dividing the land, too many of them, including Hamas, still dream of claiming the entire land - “from the river to the sea” - which would mean catastrophe for millions of Israelis. This mindset has blocked multiple potential resolutions that were once on the table: The 1947 UN Partition Plan offered a two-state solution - we agreed, they refused ; The Clinton-Barak-Arafat proposal offered 90% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and additional territory in a land swap, and again - we agreed, they refused , as President Clinton himself has recently confirmed ; Eventually, we withdrew from Gaza without asking for anything in return. In 2005, Israel handed over the entire Gaza Strip - yet reality showed us that instead of focusing on building their own state, Hamas remained fixated on dismantling ours. President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak, and PA Chairman Arafat. The Blind Spot I Had as a Teenager Is Now the West’s Blind Spot Just as I once failed to recognize the Palestinian leadership’s constant refusal to accept the legitimacy of our state, many people in the West fail to see it as well. There remains a widespread belief, despite mounting evidence showing otherwise, that if only Israel gives up land, the conflict will be solved with a two-state solution. While there is a moral argument for ending Israel’s control over the Palestinians - “occupation corrupts,” as many say - Israelis also know from experience that morality alone does not guarantee security. The fact that ending this control in the West Bank might be moral in principle does not mean it is the right step to take in practice, especially when the alternative is ceding authority to a leadership such as Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, openly supports violence against civilians, carried out the October 7 massacre - and would like to carry it out again. For many Israelis, that makes the step not only uncertain, but profoundly dangerous. This is why I strongly criticize figures like Greta Thunberg. When she chants “From the river to the sea,” she reinforces the belief that compromise is unnecessary and that, if they simply persist, they will one day gain the entire land. When I hear those words, I hear a call to drive me and my family out of our homes, and obviously I cannot accept that. An anti-Israel protest. When I hear those words, I hear a call to drive me and my family out of our homes. Some Might Say I’m Delusional Some people in Israel will say that I’m delusional to believe the Palestinians could ever recognize Israel’s legitimacy to exist, and that any creation of a Palestinian state would, in effect, establish a terror state that would further endanger Israel. I understand that criticism, but I view it differently. Rather than assuming the Palestinians will never change and therefore not expecting any change from their society and leadership, I want to give them the opportunity and responsibility to prove that they can change. I see the Palestinians as human beings with responsibility and agency, and I expect them to act on it. My aim is to create a new equation, based on mutual recognition. An equation that does not say, “you will never get a state under any circumstances,” but instead says, “if you acknowledge our country’s right to exist, we will acknowledge yours.” A Fair Solution is in Our Own Interest A recent UN General Assembly vote on implementing a two-state solution was supported by 142 states, rejected by 10, and saw 12 abstentions. This leads me to believe that time is running out. If we do not clearly state our conditions - derived from our security concerns and the lessons we learned the hard way - for the establishment of a Palestinian state, we may find ourselves with one being imposed upon us, without any Palestinian recognition of our legitimacy in return. "Two peoples living on this land, and neither is going to magically disappear. Peace will not come simply because Israel gives up land." I used to think that finding a fair solution to the conflict was simply “the right thing to do.” Today, I believe it is in our own security interest to do so - if we want to repair our global reputation, preserve our Western alliances, maintain the Abraham Accords with our existing partners, and potentially build new ones - on top of the moral imperative of us as liberals, to pursue peace and justice. The conditions toward a sustainable solution I believe that a safe and peaceful future for both peoples depends on clear conditions being met by each side. For the Palestinians: Release all hostages. There are still 48 hostages being held in Gaza by Hamas, for over 700 days. Their freedom must be the first step. Formally acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. A public acknowledgment that Israel, as a democratic nation-state for the Jewish people, is a legitimate country with a right to exist is essential. Renounce all acts of terror. This means dismantling the PLO mechanism that finances terrorists who have killed Israelis, ending all incentives for terror attacks, and publicly denouncing such attacks. Dismantle Hamas. Hamas must relinquish its weapons and its rule over Gaza. A new leadership must be rebuilt - one capable of meeting these conditions - since we know by now that Hamas will never recognize Israel in any form. This is a complex requirement, because Hamas refuses to give up its weapons or control in Gaza, which means dismantling it might not be possible without war. Social reconstruction. Far too many institutions in the Palestinian society, including schools and mosques, are used to fuel hatred against Israelis and Jews; such institutions must be either replaced or significantly changed so that they promote coexistence. On our end, here are several imperatives that we must uphold: Vocally support a two-state solution, provided the above conditions are met. The Israeli government should state clearly that if and only if these conditions are fulfilled, Israel is open to a two-state solution. Meeting these conditions is critical, because without them, simply giving land will never be sufficient to end the conflict. Join the global discourse on the two-state solution and make the above conditions part of it. It is important to ensure the world will know that Israel also seeks to resolve the conflict - but only in a way that does not jeopardize its own safety. The international community must recognize that simply giving land will not be enough to end the conflict; certain conditions must also be met on the Palestinian side. Address objections at home. The public must be engaged in an honest discussion about the consequences of rejecting a two-state solution under any circumstances. This includes the potential impact on our alliances with the West, the future of the Abraham Accords, and our relationship with the United States. We must also recognize that we are losing the support of younger generations in the West - and will continue to lose them if we do not pursue a fair solution. In addition, arms deals and our long-term military strength could be jeopardized if Israel is left without meaningful alliances. All of these factors are at stake, and the Israeli public should be fully aware of them when considering a path forward. So to sum up: I do believe a peaceful future is possible, but I am no longer naive about the steps required to achieve it. To move toward that future, we must first acknowledge reality: there are two peoples living on this land, and neither is going to magically disappear. Peace will not come simply because Israel gives up land. The world must also recognize that it is equally the Palestinians’ responsibility to develop leadership that accepts Israel’s presence here and to abandon the idea of a single state “from the river to the sea.” As a first step toward that future, the world must understand this - just as we Israelis must understand it ourselves.

Although elections for the Knesset are not scheduled until October 2026, it currently seems that all political players in Israel (including coalition parties) understand that the current Knesset and government are unlikely to complete a full four-year term, and that early elections may only be a matter of time. This has led all parties currently represented in the Knesset to begin preparing for the upcoming election campaign. As a result, we are seeing parties in Israel, especially within the opposition bloc, reorganizing themselves. This is evident in the creation of the new “Democrats” party, a merger of the two left-wing parties Labor and Meretz, under the leadership of Yair Golan - a fierce critic of Netanyahu, former IDF Deputy Chief of General Staff who, on October 7, rushed to the Gaza border to rescue civilians. Yair Golan. Fierce critic of Netanyahu, rushed to the Gaza border to rescue civilians. At the same time, new parties are emerging and planning to run in the next elections. These could significantly impact the results and serve as kingmakers in determining who will form the next government. It is important to note that most of these parties identify with the anti-Netanyahu opposition bloc. However unlike the current coalition, which is relatively homogenous politically, the Israeli opposition includes center-right, centrist, and left-wing parties, united primarily by their opposition to Netanyahu and his government. In addition, each party leader in the anti-Netanyahu bloc sees themselves as a potential prime minister, making it difficult for the bloc to unite around a single candidate - even though Israeli elections are for parties rather than directly for the premiership. The new party expected to run in the upcoming elections and likely to be the most influential among them is a center-right party led by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. According to all current polls, Bennett is the only opposition candidate capable of winning more seats than Netanyahu’s Likud, making him the most realistic challenger to replace Netanyahu if he can form a government with opposition parties. However, given his right-wing ideology and his statements that he will not rely on Arab parties, it is possible that he could push for a unity government involving Netanyahu (and perhaps some of his allies) alongside elements of the anti-Netanyahu bloc. Naftali Bennett. The most realistic challenger to replace Netanyahu, but may form a coalition with him. Another major player in the upcoming elections is former IDF Chief of General Staff and MK Gadi Eisenkot, who this week (September 16) announced the formation of a new party Yashar! ("Forward"), that includes well-known figures from both the right and the left, though he has not yet presented a clear political platform. Unlike fellow former-general-turned-centrist-politician Benny Gantz, Eisenkot has made it clear that he will not sit in a government with Netanyahu. He is also considered a relatively reliable and likable leader, partly due to his personal tragedy: his son Gal was killed in Gaza while on a hostage-rescue mission. Until a few months ago, Eisenkot was part of Gantz’s National Unity Party, but after disagreements between them, he resigned from the Knesset. Nevertheless, Eisenkot has not ruled out joining forces with other opposition parties and is actively pushing for alliances so that the opposition enters the elections with only three or four parties, thereby minimizing wasted votes. A merger between Eisenkot and parties such as Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Democrats, or Bennett’s new party is entirely plausible. Gadi Eisenkot. Has not ruled out joining forces with other opposition parties. Beyond Bennett and Eisenkot, other figures are also establishing new parties. Although their chances of entering the Knesset in the upcoming elections are not particularly high, they could still influence the distribution of votes among the larger parties and thereby affect the final outcome. The first is Yoaz Hendel, who served as communications minister in the Bennett-Lapid government. Hendel is currently working to establish a party representing IDF reservists that would advocate for their interests, including a controversial demand to revoke voting rights from citizens who do not serve - a measure primarily aimed at reducing ultra-Orthodox influence in government. The “Reservists’ Party” is likely to lean to the right politically, though it is unclear whether it would agree to join a right-wing government that includes ultra-Orthodox parties, or with left-leaning parties like the Democrats. Another figure is former Mossad Chief Yossi Cohen, who announced his candidacy in the upcoming elections with a new center-right party. Although Cohen currently presents himself as an alternative to Likud, his close ties to Netanyahu and his long-standing association with Likud - where he was once considered Netanyahu’s potential successor - have led many Israelis to suspect that Cohen’s new party is essentially a Likud satellite. Some in the protest movement even refer to him as “Yossi Proxy,” believing the party is designed to prevent disillusioned coalition voters from drifting away. The last figure worth focusing on is Yonatan Shamriz, brother of the fallen hostage Alon Shamriz, who was killed in Gaza. Shamriz founded the movement “Kumu” (“Wake Up”), which presents itself as a movement for cultivating new leadership after October 7. Since then, it has been very active in protesting against the government, organizing an alternative ceremony to mark October 7, and campaigning for the return of the hostages. Although Shamriz has not officially announced a run for the Knesset, it very likely he will. Even if he decides to run, it is unclear whether he will establish a new party or join an existing one. After reviewing these players, who could prove decisive in the outcome of the upcoming elections, it is important to note that the proliferation of parties in the opposition bloc could be disastrous. Some of these parties may fail to cross the electoral threshold, thereby “wasting” opposition votes - as happened with Meretz in the previous elections.