A January 2024 survey taken post-October 7 regarding trends in Israeli society, published by Bar-Ilan University’s Menomadin Center for Jewish and Democratic Law, found that an increasing number of Israelis see a critical need for unity. The survey also found that a growing number of Israeli Arabs identify with their Israeliness, breaking from past findings.
The survey had a representative sample of 2,000 adults (1,600 Jewish and 400 Arab Israelis) and is part of an ongoing “in-depth Consensus Index examining multiple indicators of division and cohesion within Israeli society” according to a press release by the Menomadin Center. The study was conducted by Julia Elad-Strenger of Bar-Ilan’s Department of Political Studies; Prof. Shahar Lifshitz, director of the Menomadin Center; Prof. Yuval Feldman, BIU Faculty of Law; and Uri Aronson, deputy director of the Menomadin Center, with the participation of the Menomadin Center team: Adv. Elad Caplan; Adv. Hila Nadav Carmel; and Tzili Elitzur Nae.
According to the survey, 72% of participants believed that internal divisions in Israeli society increased the chances of the Hamas attack on October 7. A majority (52%) surveyed believe that an agreement between Right and Left is possible; between religious and secular (50%); and between Sephardim and Ashkenazim (71%). This contrasts to a similar survey in May 2023 which found only a minority of participants believing that compromise was possible (38% for a compromise between Right and Left; 39% between religious and secular).
The survey indicates a trend toward a desire for unity between different sectors of Israeli society, seemingly influenced by the events on and after October 7.
Additionally, the survey found the government to be the largest obstacle to unity in Israeli society. The government was compared to other major factors and players in Israeli society such as religious leadership, the Supreme Court, and the media.
Judicial overhaul and past election cycles
Prof. Shahar Lifshitz, head of the Menomadin Center for Jewish and Democratic Law at Bar-Ilan University, explained that the survey stemmed from past results and may signal a chance for change in the internal debate that threatens Israeli unity. As a former participant of the Deans Team during the judicial overhaul revolution, he quickly saw that while he disagreed with the stance of supporters of the proposed reforms, he saw room for compromise and consensus building. “I saw that not all the ideas for change are bad and to just reject all of them as a package deal doesn’t work; there was a need to have a consensus and a need to hear where they had a point.”
Lifshitz, along with other members of the Deans Team, tried to find an intermediate point and advised President Isaac Herzog about a document that would create a compromise. This became known as the President’s Proposal.
“We were very close to the point that 80 MKs would agree, but we failed,” he said.
Post-October 7, Lifshitz reflected in a religious tone on his past failure, and then referenced the Jewish sages of the Mishnaic, Toseftic and Talmudic eras and their message on the need for Jewish unity. “Chazal told us about the relationship between internal crisis and external disaster. This is what Chazal told us about the destruction of the Second Temple. It was clear to me that while there is also a rational explanation for the relationship between internal debate and external attack, it is also a deep gene of Israeli and Jewish society.
“As a result, for me the atmosphere of togetherness after October 7 – ‘Together we will win’ – was very important and powerful. At the same time, my intuition is that this slogan eventually became empty. Even if we get together, we can’t deny that on different issues we have key differences, and we must learn to compromise if we want to live together.”
An increasing need to find consensus
The survey and its results reflect, according to Lifshitz, a need to compromise for national security reasons. However, on the other hand, Israelis are stuck in their “group” position and express difficulty extracting themselves from their group position. Israeli society seemingly lacks “the muscle” to adhere to one’s opinion while compromising with others who disagree.
However, despite the majority result for a need for compromise, little has been brought to action, especially with the revival of the anti-government protests on one hand and the aggressiveness of the discourse of the government supporters on the other hand. “I believe, unfortunately, what we identified is more powerful today. Together we will win. Everyone talks about how together we are, but emotionally we didn’t change enough. Now everyone sees this, so I am sure if we fail to learn to live together now, the aspect of tension will be more powerful,” he said.
Utilizing his experience from years in the United States, studying for his post-doc at New York University and as a visiting professor at Columbia Law School, Lifshitz compared the polarization of Israeli society to the dynamic seen in the red/blue state divide in the United States. “What interests me is how various issues tied together groups of people in a combination that doesn’t seem to be related (i.e., abortion and economic liberalism). The other groups have no intellectual relationship to the other groups per se, yet are tied together… it is more akin to a football team against another football team,” he said.
However, there is hope in the form of a third group, which past surveys overlooked.
“We found that there is a third group that has a more fluid answer. They would look at the questions of political surveys and evaluate them based on merit, and it is important for them to find compromise and consensus,” Lifshitz continued. “In our original research, we didn’t pay attention to this group. We saw two groups, and that was it. At the same time, what we discovered is that Israel is not divided into two but rather into three. One group is traditional Judaism, and the second group is democratic liberals who perceive Judaism as a threat. There is a third group, however, that wants Israel to be democratic but also a Jewish state in a deep sense and believes we should make balances and compromises.”
He expressed the problem with the third group as one of leadership, as they are not as polarized as either of the original sectors. “Israel won’t be Israel and Judah but rather democratic and also a Jewish state.”
In his recommendations going forward, Lifshitz suggested the following to help groups reach compromise:
- Building the center as a unique group with its values and political power
- Paying much more attention to the emotional aspect. Even if they know they need to unify, they are so emotionally identifying with their group that it is hard to compromise. Each group needs to hear the other. Each side deals with so much suffering; however, this is where to begin. Like in South Africa, a reconciliation committee can be a place where everyone will tell his own story, his own pain. A place where people can be empathic to one another.
- The crafting of a constitution, to have a public domain where tyranny of the majority does not rule; everyone will know the rules of the game.
Perhaps the most surprising find in the survey was the desire of Arab Israelis to integrate into Israeli society post-October 7. Some 45% of Arab Israelis said they identify with Israel. Lifshitz reflected that Arab students were increasingly afraid of racist bias from Jewish staff and desired to fit into Israel. Additionally, while it was hard for them to deal with Gaza, which they regarded as a family relationship, they didn’t support Hamas and were rather “proud” to be good Israeli citizens.
“They were proud of Arab medical doctors and Arabs who saved Jews, reflected that some Arabs were also killed on October 7, and felt a sort of solidarity with the Jews,” he said.
Regarding the survey, Lifshitz explained, “We saw that unlike in other conflicts where they joined the Palestinian society, they tried to identify with Israeli society as a whole. However, despite the trend, we (the Jewish majority) did not recognize the gesture from the other side. This is a pity; it is an opportunity…an opportunity to create new cooperation between Arabs and Jews. It is a historical mistake to miss the opportunity.”
Lifshitz believes that the window of opportunity is closing; however, a desire from the Jewish side will likely be regarded positively. “We are both one society. It would be useful and helpful.”■