Israel at a Crossroads: Ben-Gurion’s Vision Today

Israel is strong, innovative, prosperous, and remarkably resilient. Yet beneath that strength lie deep disagreements over religion, military service, national identity, democracy, housing, the cost of living, and the very meaning of being an Israeli citizen.

The great challenge is not simply how to make Israel stronger, but how to keep Israelis connected to one another despite their differences.

Part of the answer lies in an old idea rooted in David Ben-Gurion’s vision for the state. Ben-Gurion’s vision now shifted toward national unity, shared civic responsibility, democratic values, equal opportunity, and the integration of Israel’s increasingly diverse communities. The goal was not to eliminate differences, but to build a society in which those differences could coexist within a shared commitment to the state and to one another.

The Haredi Service Question

Ben-Gurion understood that Jewish sovereignty required more than establishing a state. It required citizens willing to take responsibility for its future. Religious or secular, all were expected to serve in the IDF and help defend their homeland.

That principle became increasingly important as Israel confronted one of its most divisive challenges, Haredi military service, which raised fundamental questions of equality, religion, democracy, Jewish identity, and shared civic responsibility.

For many secular Israelis, the question was simple. If young men and women were called upon to serve, fight, and sometimes die, why should an entire sector remain outside national service?

For many Haredim, the answer was equally fundamental. Torah study was a religious responsibility, and many believed their spiritual contribution also served the Jewish people.

Both sides believed they were defending something essential.

Any lasting solution should allow Haredim to preserve their religious identity while establishing meaningful forms of national service and upholding the principle that citizenship carries responsibilities.

Religious Zionism has shaped Israel’s evolving understanding of the state. For many Religious Zionists, Israel is not merely a political institution but part of an ongoing Jewish national and religious process. Although they share religious traditions and prayer practices with Haredi Jews, their understanding of civic responsibility differs significantly. Many Religious Zionists serve among the IDF’s most committed fighters, and the war has cost them lives and left many wounded. For them, protecting Israel is an inherent expression of their religious and national duty, making the refusal of Haredi communities to enlist and share that responsibility increasingly difficult to justify. Under Ben-Gurion, military service was central to the vision of shared national responsibility, while meaningful alternatives through national and community service also offered ways to contribute to the state.

The High Cost of Living in Israel

One of Israel’s biggest challenges is the cost of living. Everyday expenses can rival those of New York, yet household incomes are often much lower. In New York, higher salaries and access to financing can make homeownership possible for some households, despite the high costs.

The consequences extend beyond economics. When people struggle to afford a home, support a family, and build a secure future, frustration inevitably grows.

Let’s hope future governments find meaningful solutions that ease these pressures, strengthen the economy, and make it more realistic for young Israelis to build their lives here. Israel should also strive to make Aliyah an achievable dream for Jews abroad, offering newcomers a genuine opportunity to put down roots and own a home.

Creating Affordable Housing

Home ownership is increasingly out of reach. Consider a second-hand, four-room apartment in central Tel Aviv priced at ₪4.5 million.

Even with 75% bank financing, buyers would need ₪1.125 million upfront, excluding taxes and transaction costs. The resulting ₪3.375 million mortgage, at an assumed annual interest rate of 4.5%, would cost approximately ₪18,760 per month over 25 years.

To keep that payment at 35% of household net income, a couple would need to earn approximately ₪54,000 a month after tax—a threshold that most young families cannot meet.

In the past, parents often stepped in to help their children overcome this obstacle, using the equity accumulated in their own homes to provide a down payment or other financial assistance. Today, that option is increasingly out of reach. As housing prices have risen beyond the means of many young families, the ability of parents to help their children buy a home has diminished. For many couples, the family wealth that once made homeownership possible is no longer available, leaving an entire generation struggling to find a way onto the property ladder.

The problem is structural. Working hard, building careers, and contributing to Israeli society no longer guarantee a realistic path to homeownership in the country’s most sought-after urban centers.

Israel needs a different approach, one that addresses the cost of land, expands housing supply, and creates accessible financing for first-time buyers. Rather than expecting young families to shoulder ever-larger mortgages, the government should explore how state-owned land and innovative financing mechanisms could make homes genuinely affordable.

If Israel wants young people to build their future here, it must make that future financially possible.

One answer may lie in Israel’s extensive holdings of state-owned land, particularly in the periphery. Rather than concentrating development in an increasingly unaffordable urban core, Israel could develop multiple master-planned communities modeled on successful approaches in the United States.

These would be more than housing projects. Each community would be designed as a complete, integrated environment, offering a range of affordable housing options, shopping centers, schools, parks, green spaces, and public services. Industrial and commercial zones could be incorporated to attract businesses and create local employment. In essence, each development would function as a small city, allowing families to live, work, and raise children in one connected community.

The question, of course, is how to finance such a vision.

The first advantage is that the state already owns much of the land. Rather than requiring young families to pay the full market cost of land and construction, the government could establish a program that makes state land available to eligible first-time buyers at little or no land cost. Long-term restrictions on resale and other safeguards could help ensure that the benefits reach the intended buyers rather than property speculators.

The second challenge is financing the homes themselves. One possibility worth exploring is a partnership involving the Israeli government, Israeli financial institutions, and Israel Bonds. Such a program could investigate whether bond-backed funding and government guarantees could support mortgages covering up to 90% of a home’s purchase price at subsidized interest rates for eligible first-time buyers. This would require careful financial modeling, appropriate risk-sharing arrangements, and a sustainable funding structure, but it offers a starting point for a serious national discussion.

The objective would be to reduce the upfront cash required to buy a home and make monthly mortgage payments more manageable for working families. Combined with minimal or zero upfront land costs, efficient construction, and coordinated infrastructure planning, this approach could make homeownership attainable for a generation that increasingly sees it as an impossible dream.

Building in Israel’s urban core will remain expensive because land, infrastructure, and existing demand drive up costs. A well-planned strategy for the periphery could provide a meaningful alternative, but only if communities are connected to employment centers through reliable public transportation and supported by schools, healthcare, and other essential services. Affordable housing cannot mean building homes in places where people have no realistic way of earning a living.

This is not simply a real estate issue. It is a question of national priorities and Israel’s long-term future.

Part of the answer lies in the founding principles articulated by David Ben-Gurion. Today, those principles must be renewed through national unity, shared civic responsibility, democratic values, equal opportunity, and the integration of Israel’s increasingly diverse communities. The goal is not to eliminate differences, but to build a society in which those differences can coexist within a shared commitment to the state and to one another. A country that asks its young people to defend their homeland must also make it possible for them to afford a home in it.