Israel’s Broken Social Contract

A social contract is an informal agreement among individuals to form a society and accept certain rules, laws, and governing institutions in exchange for protection, order, and the benefits of collective life. It is integral to democracies because such arrangements explicate ideas of citizenship, rights and responsibilities, the rule of law, and the legitimacy of political power. Although Israel has a set of pseudo-constitutional Basic Laws, it does not have a complete and ratified constitution, so where can we find the terms of its social contract?

One formative text is the country’s Declaration of Independence that stipulates, among other things, that the State of Israel “will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

If these words represent the Israeli social contract, clearly it has suffered a major blow and is deficient in all possible ways to the extent that the original deal is no longer viable. What was largely held together for 70 years has not adapted to the new realities of contemporary Israel, where opposing visions of identity, democracy, and national mission threaten to collapse the house down on its inhabitants.

The October 7 attack revealed more than a catastrophic security failure, just as the judicial overhaul or reform that preceded it uncovered more than a minor disagreement about the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee; both experiences illuminated a massive crisis of trust—in the government, in institutions, and one another. While part of this crisis originated spontaneously from longstanding fissures that were never fully addressed, a great deal of the current predicament is self-inflicted and purposefully fueled to divert attention away from the responsibility of the political leadership.

Today, some Israelis feel abandoned by a government they see as beholden to sectarian interests; others feel alienated by a system that does not recognize their values or lifestyles. The old model, in which the state was expected to provide security and basic services while asking citizens for loyalty and military service, has been eroded by a toxic political culture that privileges short-term survival over long-term vision, parochialism over Mamlakhtiyut.

A rewritten social contract would require a genuine collective commitment to reimagine the foundational and noble principles of Israeli society as well as its body politics. The renewed contract must rearticulate how Israel remains both a Jewish and democratic state, especially in a time when those two components are often perceived to be in tension. It would aim to foster a civic identity that unites diverse populations — secular and religious Jews, Arab citizens, Druze, and others — while still respecting cultural and religious distinctiveness. The social contract would need to reestablish a sense of mutual responsibility between the state and its citizens, including governmental transparency, accountability, and a reevaluation of overarching policy priorities. With increasing tensions over Haredi exemption from military service, a renewed contract might require either universal service (military or civil) or a more equitable distribution of national duties.

The contract should also move beyond formal equality toward real inclusion of Arabs in the national story, while grappling honestly with the ongoing conflict and questions of national identity. It must further elevate historically marginalized Jewish communities in shaping the national ethos and access to opportunity. The post-crisis contract would likely emphasize reducing economic disparities, especially between the center and periphery, and investing in education, healthcare, and housing. There’s a hunger now for a society that takes care of its most vulnerable, seen in the volunteerism and mutual aid that surged after the October 7 attack and can be used as a model.

A renewed contract would need to loosen the grip of the religious establishment over personal status issues (marriage, conversion, etc.), allow pluralistic Judaism to flourish, and protect the religious freedoms of all. Issues related to religion in the public sphere would be renegotiated with an eye toward balancing tradition and modernity in public life.

Whether through a formal constitution or a new Basic Law, the state may need to codify clearer boundaries of judicial review, executive power, and civil liberties to restore trust in government institutions. It would also require institutional reforms—restoring checks and balances among the different branches of government, considering term limits, protecting judicial independence, and investing in civic education to foster a sense of shared purpose and encourage an understanding of substantive democracy.

While Israel remains deeply divided over the future of the West Bank and the two-state solution in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 attack, and the ensuing war in Gaza, a renewed contract could focus on what kind of society Israelis want regardless of short-term military or diplomatic outcomes—aiming for a peace-oriented, secure, and morally grounded national stance that fosters idealistic pragmatism in foreign and security affairs.

Most of all, the process of rewriting the social contract must be inclusive and sincere, but with a clear commitment to democratic values and principles within the idiosyncrasies of a Jewish State. The effort must be participatory and dialogic, rooted in listening as much as in arguing, but without sacrificing the bedrock of Israel’s existence in the process or what David Ben-Gurion called the “democratic spirit”. At stake is not merely the future of Israel’s governance, but the very possibility of making sure that the country survives the current crisis. In this sense, the project of revising the Israeli social contract is not only a political imperative but also a moral and existential one.