Israel Needs a Deep Social and Democratic Reckoning, Not Merely a New Government, to Escape Its Cycle of Crisis
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/dahlia-scheindlin. "After three disastrous years, Israel needs to rethink itself. A new government would be a start | Dahlia Scheindlin | The Guardian." October 21, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that voting out Netanyahu would be a good start but won't fix Israel's deeper problems. Israel's weakened commitment to democracy and its handling of Palestinians are rooted in a narrow social outlook, partly taught in schools. Only a long-term effort to change that outlook, which a new government could begin, can bring real healing and eventually Palestinian freedom.
Conclusion
Replacing Netanyahu with an opposition government is necessary but insufficient; Israel must undertake a fundamental reassessment of its social ethos, including civic education and democratic values, and begin a path toward Palestinian rights, for any real healing, democratic strengthening, and a different future to be possible.
Premises
- The opposition's main proposals (a state commission of inquiry into 7 October and ending the ultra-Orthodox military exemption) are important, but they and increased social and mental-health funding amount to damage limitation that would only help Israel cope with the next round of wars.
- The crises of 2023 and after stem from two unresolved, interconnected questions: what kind of democracy Israel should be, and what the future of the Palestinians is.
- Israel's commitment to democracy has always been flawed and ambiguous (no constitution, no explicit equality guarantee), and over the past 15 years this has become an assault on democratic institutions, especially the judiciary, which fell on fertile ground because democratic values have eroded, partly through education.
- Civic and history education has shifted toward a thin, majoritarian conception of democracy that emphasizes Jewish identity and state power and gives little attention to human rights, civil liberties, and equality, which helps explain support for hobbling the courts and the disappearance of Palestinian self-determination from the national agenda.
- Most Israelis came to see no contradiction between democracy at home and military occupation of Palestinians, and the current government has pursued the logical end of occupation (annexation, settlement expansion, ethnic cleansing), which required destroying the remaining checks on its power.
- Societal values can change: curricula can be rewritten and teachers, politicians, and religious leaders can embrace liberal democratic and universal values, under which the occupation would become an unsustainable affront to Israeli values.
- Netanyahu's victory or a stalemate would prevent any such change, whereas an opposition victory would at least open the way for this work to begin.
Assumptions
- Education and social ethos are major causal drivers of political attitudes toward democracy and the Palestinians, rather than mere reflections of security fears and political incentives.
- A government can meaningfully reshape national values and curricula within a democratic system, despite resistance from the right and an ordinary public shaped by fear.
- A thin majoritarian democracy is incompatible with the occupation's continuation once liberal democratic values are internalized.
- An opposition government, even one lacking vision, would be more willing than Netanyahu's to begin this process.
- Democracy at home and Palestinian rights are structurally linked, so one cannot be fully secured without the other.
- Measures such as an inquiry and conscription equity do not address root causes and thus cannot by themselves change Israel's trajectory.