How polarized are Israelis? A call for nuance

Two major issues are tearing Israeli society apart as we approach Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. The first is the war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. One side is convinced that the war must continue until the murderous terrorist organization is completely dismantled, while the other insists it is time to end the war and reach a comprehensive agreement that includes the release of the hostages.

The second issue is the judicial “reform” or “overhaul” (depending on one’s preferred terminology). Supporters are relentless in their efforts to advance it, while opponents are equally determined to block it and consign it to oblivion.

Curiously – or perhaps not so curiously – Israeli public discourse tends to conflate these two issues, as though they were two sides of the same coin. From the right, one hears support for both continuing the war and advancing the judicial overhaul; from the left, one hears calls to end the war and block the judicial overhaul, thereby strengthening the institutional gatekeepers.

Both sides actively blur the distinction between the two struggles, trying to fuse them into a single battle. At the Kaplan protests in Tel Aviv and in Jerusalem, speakers argue that the same extremism driving the government to dismantle the judicial system is also entangling Israel in Gaza, propelled by messianic delusions. Conversely, government spokespeople claim that total victory over Hamas requires replacing the Military Advocate General, dismissing the Attorney General, and neutralizing the Supreme Court – essentially blaming jurists and the opposition for prolonging the war.

The impulse to adopt sweeping positions is understandable. It amplifies the loudest, most extreme voices. It produces a binary, simplistic, catchy discourse that divides society into the “children of light” and the “children of darkness,” leaving no room in the middle. Those who dare to voice intermediate positions are accused on both sides of aiding the enemy.

This impulse also offers a kind of psychological comfort. It allows us to imagine that the deadlock with Hamas is merely a reflection of our rivals’ distorted worldview. For the left, the government’s inability to end the war stems from its nationalist-messianic ideology. For the right, the failure to achieve decisive victory is due to the infiltration of progressive, anti-nationalist ideas into Israel’s elite institutions, especially the judiciary.

There is something deceptively reassuring in the notion that our external problems are merely the mirror image of our internal divisions. If only we could defeat our domestic adversaries, we tell ourselves, we could also achieve victory abroad. But this wishful thinking collapses under the weight of reality. The political rival is not a demon to be destroyed but a counterpart with whom dialogue must be maintained. And our conflict with Hamas is not simply a reflection of any single domestic worldview. Contrary to the prevailing binary perspective, the war in Gaza and the struggle over the rule of law are not two sides of the same coin.

The greatest casualties of this demand for across-the-board alignment are the moderates, who seek nuance but cannot fit neatly into either camp. I encourage those on the moderate left to analyze matters from their own perspective; here, I will focus on the moderate right.

On the one hand, members of the moderate right are often hawkish regarding the war with Hamas, believing the war must end with Hamas toppled and replaced by an alternative Arab authority to govern civilian life. They reject a premature ceasefire that would leave Hamas in place to quickly rebuild its capabilities.

On the other hand, many in the moderate right are horrified by efforts to crush the judicial system. They support the rule of law and recognize the decisive importance of democratic institutions such as an independent Supreme Court to balance the elected branches of government. They may favor reforms – sometimes even significant ones – but seek repair and improvement, not destruction.

One reason the moderate right has not realized its electoral potential is that its leaders too often succumb to the binary discourse, failing to articulate a comprehensive vision of their own. The challenge is to carve out space in the public conversation for a worldview that combines strength in national security with a commitment to the rule of law and judicial independence.

In the past, such a worldview had real weight in Israeli politics, embodied by former Prime Minister Menachem Begin and his disciples. But it has eroded amid growing radicalization. It must now be reintroduced.

This space is as vital as the air we breathe. We must be empowered to embrace complex, non-sloganeering positions that resist simplistic frameworks. These positions may be less catchy in the age of TikTok and Instagram, but they are essential if we are to escape the suffocating dichotomies and deadlock that now entrap us.