Realism and Resolve: Why power is needed to defend liberal order

A central challenge for democracies today is preserving internal values of law, pluralism, and freedom while operating effectively in a world that often rejects those ideals. The Israeli experience epitomizes this tension: as a robust and vibrant democracy with a free society, it thrives amid a regional and global environment that grows increasingly hostile, antisemitic and cynical.

In 2005, German philosopher Hartmut Kliemt published a thoughtful essay on the friction between liberal democracies’ internal commitments to law and morality and the power-driven nature of global politics. Though aimed at a European audience, his insights apply powerfully to Israel’s geopolitical reality. Kliemt argued that liberal states must forge intellectual and political tools to stay true to their principles while surviving – and ideally shaping – an international system which is still dominated by rivalry and force. Drawing on Hobbesian realism (external anarchy) and Kantian idealism (internal rule of law), he proposed a framework for ethical power pursuit. In this article, I adapt these ideas to Israel’s context. As a free society encircled by regimes that deny its existence, Israel embodies a values-based realism: defending freedom demands power, and law requires enforcement. These principles aren’t just abstract – they’re vital for the Jewish state’s survival and for countering the global surge in antisemitism that erodes democratic norms.

Illusion of symmetry

Liberal democracies flourish when rules are respected, when governments are constrained by law, and when individuals enjoy protected rights. But the international arena is not governed by these same norms. It is an environment shaped by rivalry, deterrence, and raw power. Some states play by the rules; others treat them as tools to manipulate.

The international system and its institutions are fundamentally undermined by the chasm between their stated ideals and their actual practices. Formally, every UN member enjoys sovereign equality. But this legal principle masks a profound moral asymmetry. In reality, some states safeguard citizen freedoms while others suppress them. Certain states foster accountability and dialogue; others promote violence, death, and conquest. Diplomatic rhetoric, however, labels them all as ‘partners’ or ‘leaders’ with valid ‘positions.’

Israel faces this moral equivalence more acutely than most. When the IDF intercept weapons shipments to Hezbollah, critics decry sovereignty violations. When Israel counters rocket barrages from Gaza, calls for ‘restraint’ abound. Meanwhile, terrorist entities embedding in civilian zones or theocracies vowing genocide are often treated as legitimate actors. This is not mere hypocrisy – it is a refusal to distinguish between free societies and those waging war against them.

Israel’s security doctrine is a direct response to this disjuncture. Since its founding, Israel has faced implacable enemies who reject negotiation, distort diplomacy, and weaponize international law. Israel’s existence itself has been framed – not metaphorically, but literally – as a crime by regimes that deny the very legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty. Israel does not need to apologize for using power against enemies who deny its right to exist, who murder civilians, and who reject every principle of international civility. In fact, it is precisely because Israel is a liberal democracy that it has a moral obligation to defend its citizens – by force, when necessary.

Strategic necessities

The biggest hurdle for Israel and its allies is the persistent failure to differentiate liberal values from adversarial goals. Too often, Israel is judged as though it were no different from Hamas or Hezbollah – or even the Iranian regime itself. This false equivalence is not only factually wrong; it is morally indefensible. Democracies wield force to preserve life; totalitarians deploy it to extinguish lives. The IDF acts to shield kindergartens from rockets. Hamas fires those rockets from hospitals and schools. Israel’s actions undergo judicial scrutiny, media debate, and public accountability. Hezbollah reports only to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Yet, in UN forums, NGO analyses, and media coverage, Israel’s operations are scrutinized as potential war crimes, while foes are softened as ‘militants’ or ‘resistance.’ This inversion exemplifies Kliemt’s critique of naive legalism in a non-legal world.

International law does not apply symmetrically without a global enforcer or consensus on liberal norms. Tools like the Geneva Conventions are invoked selectively – often against democracies, seldom against tyrants. Conflicts are not equal, enemies vary, blind adherence to norms can be misguided. These are uncomfortable realities for those steeped in Western legal traditions, but they are ingrained in Israel’s history of survival.

The hard reality of asymmetry

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not simply a rival power. It is a regime where antisemitism is an official ideology, where martyrdom is glorified, and where the Holocaust is denied. It funds proxy warfare across the region, brutally suppresses its own population, and calls openly for Israel’s destruction. It is enriching uranium to near-weapons grade in violation of international agreements – and yet sits on UN committees and does business with democratic Europe.

To treat such a regime as a good-faith actor is delusional and perilous. Israel’s strategy of self-defense is not an abandonment of international norms. It is a recognition that law, for it to function, must be backed by the credible threat of enforcement. A world in which genocidal threats go unanswered is not a legal order. It is anarchy, dressed in diplomatic formalities.

The same applies to Hamas. No democracy would endure relentless rocket attacks on civilians without response, nor should Israel. The fact that Hamas systematically uses civilians as human shields – a clear war crime under every applicable standard – should not restrict Israel’s right of self-defense. On the contrary, it should sharpen our moral clarity: responsibility lies with those who initiate violence and use innocents as cover. While critics claim Israel’s actions perpetuate violence, Kliemt’s framework justifies them as essential for preserving internal freedoms amid external threats.

Internal freedom, external resolve

Liberalism is often mischaracterized as softness. But a genuine liberal democracy is not passive. It is morally principled, procedurally bound, and strategically alert. The test of such a society is whether it can defend its freedoms without surrendering them – whether it can resist its enemies without becoming like them.

This balancing act is difficult. Democratic publics, accustomed to internal norms of deliberation, often expect their governments to act with the same logic in the international arena. But international relations are not a courtroom. There is no neutral arbiter, no binding precedent, no global enforcer. Treaties are kept not because of signatures, but because of power and deterrence. Survival – political, moral, and physical – depends on clarity of purpose.

Israel has shown that this balance is possible. It remains a democracy with free elections, a functioning judiciary, a vibrant civil society, and open public debate – even as it faces existential threats. Arab citizens sit in its parliament, serve as judges, and participate in its public life. These are not cosmetic details. They are the foundation of Israel’s legitimacy as a liberal democracy.

Yet internal openness does not equate to external leniency. ‘Dialogue’ is not the answer to terror; accommodation will not counter genocidal intent. A surviving democracy must fight decisively, with no room for missteps. This tension is central to Israeli policy debates, where it manifests as Kliemt’s ‘power problem’: the theory that a nation’s domestic tolerance can impede its external assertiveness. However, in practice, public support for national security, rooted in a deep sense of moral imperative, empowers the state to overcome these internal hesitations.

International law and its limits

In much of the West, there remains a belief that international law can tame global politics. But as Kliemt notes, law without power is fragile. Treaties without enforcement are decorative. Peace is preserved not by declarations, but by deterrence – by the willingness to act.

International law has value, but it must not become a shield for regimes that violate its spirit while manipulating its language. When institutions fixate on Israeli measures while overlooking Iranian executions or Gaza’s persecution of LGBTQ individuals, credibility erodes. It turns law into cynical theater.

Israel proves that realism and legality are not opposites. A world that takes law seriously must be willing to confront those who threaten its foundations. Those who target civilians must be stopped. Those who seek nuclear weapons to annihilate others must be resisted. And those who hijack international institutions must be unmasked.

Moral clarity

One of the most insidious trends in global discourse is the attempt to blur all distinctions – to equate Israel with its enemies, to relativize violence, to pretend that all claims are equally valid. This is not liberalism. It is nihilism.

A liberal democracy cannot survive without moral clarity. It must be able to say: there is a difference between an army that uses precision strikes and gives advanced warnings to minimize civilian harm, even while its adversary embeds military assets in densely populated areas, and a group that fires rockets indiscriminately from schools and hospitals. There is a difference between a state whose military actions are subject to judicial review by an independent Supreme Court, and a regime that operates with total impunity. There is a difference between a nation that signs peace treaties and normalization accords with its neighbors, and an organization whose founding charter explicitly calls for that nation’s destruction. These differences matter. They are not nuances. They are the foundation of political ethics.

Israel, as a Jewish and democratic state, has every reason to articulate these differences with confidence. It does not need to flatter the illusions of those who would render all distinctions meaningless. Its legitimacy rests on its commitment to defend life, liberty, and dignity – not only for its Jewish citizens, but for all who live within its borders.

Strategic liberalism

The global order is changing. Illiberalism is rising. Liberal democracies are under pressure from without and from within. Israel stands at the intersection of these challenges – a small nation with a big moral role. It must continue to show that it is possible to be democratic without being naïve, and powerful without being authoritarian.

This demands military might, strategic insight, cohesion, vigilance, and truth-telling amid evasions. What is required is ‘strategic liberalism’: merging moral clarity with institutional fortitude, principles with foresight. Diplomacy alone suffices not; institutions aren’t impartial; power is indispensable.

Israel’s journey is arduous: a small democracy in peril, under constant scrutiny, and facing ancient hatreds in modern guises. But this struggle is also a testament to a successful resolution of a paradox: the capacity to be powerful without being authoritarian, and democratic without being naive. It demonstrates that a nation can uphold its internal Kantian principles – law, pluralism, and dignity – while successfully navigating a hostile, Hobbesian external environment. To defend Israel is therefore to champion the principle that a free society has a moral obligation to protect itself with resolve. This requires a commitment to embrace moral clarity, to reject false equivalencies, and to actively support the synthesis of law and the necessity of power. Am Yisrael Chai.