How Israel’s Liberals Lost Touch with Democracy

Recent controversies, including the attempted dismissal of the Shin Bet chief and the government’s initiation of a no-confidence motion against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, have ignited dramatic claims that democracy itself is under threat. Such concerns might initially appear legitimate.

Yet beneath these accusations lies a deeper clash of civilizational visions. Critics of Israel’s judicial reforms rarely admit their actual goal. They aim to preserve self-perpetuating, institutionally captured organizations such as the Bar Association, which wield veto power over elected officials. While concerns about unchecked government authority might be understandable, critics obscure their deeper preference for elite institutions rather than genuine democratic accountability—echoing the biblical spies who recoiled at the strength required for sovereign life in their own land.

Historically, Israeli liberalism wasn’t always at odds with assertive Jewish particularism. Menachem Begin’s right-liberalism comfortably integrated universal democratic values with unapologetic Jewish sovereignty. Begin openly affirmed particularism without tension, demonstrating that liberal principles could coexist with Jewish national confidence. However, today’s dominant left-liberalism profoundly struggles with this synthesis, revealing deep discomfort with assertive Jewish sovereignty. This discomfort can be traced directly to contemporary political battles over judicial reform, highlighting a sharp divergence from Begin’s era. This divergence becomes particularly evident when examining how the judiciary, shaped by liberal ideology, actively constrains the expression of Jewish sovereignty.

The roots of today’s liberal anxiety trace back to the 1990s post-Zionist wave, which challenged Zionism’s legitimacy and sought a universalist redefinition of Israeli identity. Harsh realities—waves of terrorism, the failure of the Oslo Accords, and persistent international hostility—prompted Israelis to decisively reject post-Zionism, reaffirming Jewish particularism and national self-determination. The 2018 Nation-State Law marked the definitive repudiation of post-Zionist ideals. Despite ongoing liberal criticism, there is minimal public desire to retract this affirmation of Israel’s Jewish identity.

Liberalism comfortably tolerates Jewishness only when passive, symbolic, or victimized—conditions compatible with universalist ideals. However, liberalism recoils from Jewish assertiveness because it inherently disrupts universalist norms. Active expressions of Jewish particularism—such as secular Israeli high schoolers eagerly lining up to wrap tefillin at Chabad stands outside their schools—challenge liberalism’s expectation of a neutral, identity-less public sphere, revealing liberalism’s profound unease with a Jewish identity unmediated by universalist validation.

Critics claim to defend democratic norms, yet they overlook crucial differences between Israel’s judicial system and those of established Western democracies. In the US, Supreme Court appointments depend entirely on elected officials—the President and Senate. In contrast, Israel grants exceptional authority to unelected judges and bureaucrats who select their successors without accountability to voters. This arrangement explicitly constrains Jewish particularism within liberal universalist boundaries—echoing Balaam’s reluctant recognition of a nation destined to dwell apart.

Many protesters genuinely believe they are defending democracy, driven by sincere anxieties amplified by simplistic media portrayals and elite sloganeering. Critics of judicial reform regularly make vague accusations about “politicizing the judiciary” and undermining democratic values, while media narratives and influential liberal elites often obscure the true nature of these reforms.

Behind this rhetoric lies a deliberate campaign by institutional stakeholders—particularly in the media and elite legal circles—to frighten the public and preserve their institutional capture at the expense of democratic legitimacy. Many claims of the critics, despite their passionate rhetoric, rely heavily on vague, exaggerated slogans rather than substantive evidence.

A single clear example suffices to reveal the broader pattern. Consider how Israel selects its Supreme Court President: officially, the Judicial Selection Committee—comprising Supreme Court justices, cabinet ministers, Knesset members, and Israel Bar Association representatives—recommends candidates to the President of Israel. Traditionally, however, this process has been a mere formality, automatically favoring the court’s most senior justice, thus perpetuating an insulated circle of elite influence. Recent legal attempts by Justice Minister Yariv Levin to reform this seniority-based selection process—fully legal initiatives intended to introduce greater accountability—prompted hysterical push-back, with opponents claiming the reforms aimed to ‘destroy’ the judiciary. This exaggerated response vividly illustrates the judiciary’s entrenched resistance to external oversight, proving its authority to be effectively a closed-loop system.

This insistence on institutional self-preservation masks deeper anxieties. Critics fear losing entrenched privileges shielding liberal universalism from the assertive resurgence of Jewish civilization. Their dishonesty emerges starkly: former Prime Minister Ehud Barak advocates civil disobedience against democratic decisions; Supreme Court President Esther Hayut warns judicial reforms would “crush” democracy; protesters theatrically portray dystopian scenarios through “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes; commentators frequently depict traditional, religious, and nationalist communities as undermining democratic norms.

These reactions expose the anxiety among Israel’s Western-oriented elites about the nation’s divergence from Europe’s trajectory of civilizational decline. Europe’s liberal democracies face demographic stagnation, ideological fragmentation, and moral uncertainty. By contrast, Israel embodies confidence, purpose, and historical continuity. It subtly yet vividly manifests when tech entrepreneurs discuss Daf Yomi between investor pitches, when shofar blasts resonate through urban balconies during Jewish holidays, or cultural icons weave Jewish wisdom into popular culture. However, cultural vitality alone cannot guarantee security or sovereignty, emphasizing the critical importance of assertive governance in addressing broader national challenges.

These expressions heighten liberal unease. Events such as the Hamas attacks of October 7 underscore Israelis’ firm refusal to apologize for assertive governance. Yet the Supreme Court’s entrenched resistance to reforms also restricts the government’s ability to effectively exercise sovereignty and enforce security measures, particularly in Judea and Samaria and against internal sedition within the Arab sector. These limitations seriously hinder Israel’s capacity to respond decisively to persistent security threats. Former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak’s vote against Israel in a critical International Court of Justice case concerning Gaza aid vividly illustrates the troubling connection between liberal judicial ideology and weakened national security. The resurgence of Jewish civilization—families reclaiming historical lands, secular Israelis embracing traditional practices—unsettles liberal elites precisely because it boldly asserts a particularism universalist liberalism cannot comfortably accommodate.

Ultimately, Israel’s judicial crisis does not signal democracy’s end but the true beginning of national self-determination. Sovereignty neither seeks permission nor requires validation. Israel’s rising Jewish civilization, assertive and vibrant, embodies Netzach Yisrael—the eternity of Israel—and is unstoppable. The old liberal order has indeed lost the plot—and nothing will prevent Israel’s confident stride toward its destiny.