It is historically obvious that a national solidarity based on compromising fundamental truths in order to create a broad, but shallow and weak ‘middle of the road’ was not the type of solidarity that has sustained us in our existential struggle. There is another basis for that solidarity. Opinion.
The Israeli Right and Left do not mean the same thing when they speak about solidarity and unity
Introduction: I began writing this article a month ago when we found ourselves in the morass of national confusion and polarization over how to continue the war in Gaza and free our hostages.
The article is being finished while we are experiencing, a G-d given, renewed sense of confidence due to our very successful attack on the Iranian regime, although there may be a long road ahead.
Thus, the emotional background for reading the basic ideas of the article has very fortunately changed. But the basic questions, and tentative answers, remain very relevant.
A brief summary of the article’s basic ideas.
This article’s argues both a pessimistic and optimistic message on the possibility of attaining national solidarity
First, pessimistically, it will argue that, at first glance, national ‘unity, togetherness, and solidarity’ are almost impossible to achieve because these ‘words/slogans’ mean very different things to the Israeli Left and Right.
But, second, it will argue an optimistic message, that our seemingly inevitable, ‘built in, home grown’, national ‘ divisiveness/polarization is actually a source of national strength and resilience (when looked from a historical perspective).
The author will explain (contrary to most commentators) that our ideological polarization actually builds and strengthens our national fabric and nation building.
As will be explained, our country’s social fabric will not be strengthened by asking our four social-ideological sectors (secular-liberal, traditional-national religious, haredi, Israeli Arab) to compromise on thirty percent of their fundamental ideological truths in order to create some ‘moderate-soft-milk toast’ Israeli middle ground. This is the ‘unity-solidarity’ proposal most frequently argued by liberal-secularists.
On the contrary, our national social fabric will be strengthened by allowing each of the four social sectors to continue to educate and promote their fundamental social truths, and to live in socially distinct neighborhoods if they wish to. And solidarity will be created and maintained by each sector learning to respect, in civil matters, the distinct life style of the other social sectors, and learning to make the realistic social, economic and political compromises necessary for the ongoing survival growth of the Israeli state.
This understanding I believe is the ‘solidarity’ proposal of conservative Right.
Divine history and providence will put together the pieces of our conflicted Israeli, national puzzle
History, I believe, supports a conservative approach, that national resilience should be based on a ‘coalition’ of ideological truths, and not a compromise of ideological truths. For example, the historical truth of this conservative premise was shown during the period preceding 1948. The Israeli Jewish population was then divided into two ideological armed, underground, socio-political movements, of the ruling Left, socialist Labor-Haganah movement of Ben Gurion (that prioritized diplomacy and settlement), and the Right, capitalist oriented, Irgun-Etzel of Menachem Begin (that prioritized armed resistance to British colonialism). At the time, it seemed these two movements were perpetually on the edge of an internal, hateful civil war. But now, in 2025, it is evident that the ideological truths of each movement made a unique contribution to the establishing of the Jewish State.
Thus, the article’s ‘optimistic’ message is yes, over the last twenty months we have been frequently experiencing our national social life as being painful and confusing. But in the more long-term perspective, G-d’s wisdom and providence has given the Jewish people a long term, indestructible, spiritual, historical ‘covenantal unity’ that redeems our everyday political conflicts, and redemptively transforms our ideological conflicts into the eternal ‘building blocks’ of a unifying Jewish Destiny.
The Left and the Right’s differing understandings of how to create ‘national solidarity’:
1. The liberal, secular Left’s prescription for national solidarity: everyone should compromise (‘a little’) on their basic social-moral values and thus create a ‘moderate middle’.
The liberal, secular Left wants to create ‘unity and solidarity’ by creating a broad, moderate, ‘middle of the road’, native Israeli, social culture. To do this they are ‘asking’ everyone to compromise on thirty percent of the social values that they hold to be correct and true. The social cultural middle ground thus created will in turn create a sense of national ‘solidarity-unity’.
So, what can be ‘wrong’ with ‘this lovely ideal definition of unity and solidarity’ ?
The inherent weakness of this conception is that it is based on ‘moral relativism’. Moral relativism holds that that there are no fundamental-absolute social truths. Every individual thus has the ‘ right’ to define his particular social norms. And thus, every individual has the freedom to ‘compromise ‘ on his self-defined ‘truths’ in order to create a national solidarity based on compromise.
However, because liberal solidarity is based on the moral relativism of individual opinion it contains two ‘built in’ weaknesses.
One, the ‘original sin’ of a ‘solidarity’ based on the moral relativism of each individual is that it is inherently ‘broad, but shallow’, and thus easily ‘falls apart’. Liberal solidarity is subject to the relativistic ‘whims’ of the individual, is transient, and easily threatened by changing trends in public opinion.
Two, a ‘solidarity’ derived from liberal, moral relativism cannot build the strong, multi generational social institutions that promote intergenerational, strongly shared obligation and self sacrifice. Liberal solidarity cannot teach that one has a moral obligation to follow the previous absolute truths of former generations.
Thus, the social institutions based on individual moral relativism tend to be weak and unstable. Liberal solidarity creates shallow, transient social institutions. We see that liberal ‘solidarity’ also creates lonely, self-focused individuals, who in this generation are frequently socially isolated, and are very reluctant to commit to the long- term obligations such as marriage and parenting.
In summary, Israel is engaged in a ‘permanent’ ongoing existential struggle for survival, because this is, and will be, the historical destiny of the Jewish people. A ‘solidarity based liberal moral relativism and individualism is simply not strong enough to maintain the Jewish People through generations of existential struggle.
2. The conservative, religious Right’s prescription for national solidarity: loyalty to sectorial fundamental truths and social obligations. Solidarity will then be created by means of the pragmatic compromises of competing social sectors.
In contrast to liberalism, conservative- religious (Torah) social philosophy is based on the premise that individual man, must attach himself to social beliefs, prescribed ways of life, and social institutions that transcend his individual, self-focused ego. Only thus will he be able to give his life a deeper, more everlasting sense of meaning and worth, and to escape social loneliness and alienation.
Conservative social philosophy warns post-modern man that finding self-fulfillment in self-chosen, self-centered creativity is ultimately a ‘dead end’. Individual man simply does not have the social and emotional resources to, ‘on his own’, ‘redeem his life’ with a strong, permanent sense of ‘meaning and belonging’ that will transcend his self-centeredness. Left alone, post modern’s man’s life is vulnerable and frail. He is willing to accept social loneliness as the price of maintaining as sense of individual autonomy.
To avoid the social dangers of liberalism, conservatives dedicate themselves by building social institutions that will pass fundamental, absolute social truths, and a traditional, prescribed way of life, from generation to generation. They thus devote great effort to building multigenerational, two parent families, religious and educational institutions, and community self help services on ethnic and religious basis.
Given this philosophy they feel that they cannot accept a national solidarity based on compromising their fundamental, social truths as the liberals propose. Conservative-religious sectors, instead, propose a national solidarity based on a ‘coalition formula. Each social-religious-ethnic sector will retain social autonomy, but also learn to respect the autonomy of other sectors. Each sector will retain autonomy, and at the same time educate its members to an over-arching, historical commitment to the growth and development of Jewish life in the Jewish State in the Land of Israel. And to fulfill this commitment each sector will make the necessary ‘coalition’ contributions to Jewish State building.
Conclusion: The Jewish People’s historical development must be based on creating a ‘national solidarity’ that is based on divine, covenantal, fundamental truths.
More than three thousand years ago G-d promised Abrahm an eternal covenant with his descendants. But he also warned him that that in order to fulfill this covenant they will have to pay to the historical price of ‘standing alone’ on the world’s stage of history.
And such has been the case. Our Jewish historical existence is one long tale of lonely constant, unrelenting existential struggle. And, paradoxically, this lonely, always tenuous, divinely guided existential struggle has proven to be the genesis of both our national spiritual creativity, and the artistic-scientific gifts we have continuously given to the non-Jewish world.
And it should be historically obvious that a national solidarity based on ‘compromising fundamental truths in order to create a ‘broad, but shallow and weak ‘middle of the road’ was not the ‘ type of solidarity’ that has sustained us in our historical existential struggle. We have survived and have been creative because we have based our national solidarity on building the social-religious institutions (family, Torah centers, communal assistance) which have been based on the ‘deep but narrow’, ‘fundamental , absolute truths of the Torah’, and an uncompromising way of life of multigenerational self-sacrifice.
The proof of this analysis is to simply compare the state of Jewish life in America and Israel. The vast majority of American Jews profess liberal social values. They have chosen to sustain Jewish life by creating a way of life that is ‘broad but shallow, and feeble’ by compromising eternal Jewish with current and fleeting liberal social values. The result is an extremely high degree of intermarriage ( 70-80% ) and a Jewish community (except for the Orthodox) that is disappearing.
In contrast, Israel is day by day revealing depths of our national resilience and strength and creativity. One of the reasons is that the Israeli government encourages, through its educational and housing policies, allowing the various social sectors to create educational institutions, and small communities, in which uncompromising fundamental truths are passed on from generation to generation.
National Israeli solidarity must be built by letting ‘each sector’ go ‘deep but narrow’ in perpetuating their fundamental truths, together with a commitment to respect the way of life of the other sector, and a commitment to self-sacrifice so that we succeed in perpetuating Israel’s eternal, covenantal existence.On the contrary, our national social fabric will be strengthened by allowing each of the four social sectors to continue to educate and promote their fundamental social truths, and to live in socially distinct neighborhoods if they wish to. And solidarity will be created and maintained by each sector learning to respect, in civil matters, the distinct life style of the other social sectors, and learning to make the realistic social, economic and political compromises necessary for the ongoing survival growth of the Israeli state.
This understanding I believe is the ‘solidarity’ proposal of conservative Right.
Divine history and providence will put together the pieces of our conflicted Israeli, national puzzle
History, I believe, supports a conservative approach, that national resilience should be based on a ‘coalition’ of ideological truths, and not a compromise of ideological truths. For example, the historical truth of this conservative premise was shown during the period preceding 1948. The Israeli Jewish population was then divided into two ideological armed, underground, socio-political movements, of the ruling Left, socialist Labor-Haganah movement of Ben Gurion (that prioritized diplomacy and settlement), and the Right, capitalist oriented, Irgun-Etzel of Menachem Begin (that prioritized armed resistance to British colonialism). At the time, it seemed these two movements were perpetually on the edge of an internal, hateful civil war. But now, in 2025, it is evident that the ideological truths of each movement made a unique contribution to the establishing of the Jewish State.
Thus, the article’s ‘optimistic’ message is yes, over the last twenty months we have been frequently experiencing our national social life as being painful and confusing. But in the more long-term perspective, G-d’s wisdom and providence has given the Jewish people a long term, indestructible, spiritual, historical ‘covenantal unity’ that redeems our everyday political conflicts, and redemptively transforms our ideological conflicts into the eternal ‘building blocks’ of a unifying Jewish Destiny.
The Left and the Right’s differing understandings of how to create ‘national solidarity’:
1. The liberal, secular Left’s prescription for national solidarity: everyone should compromise (‘a little’) on their basic social-moral values and thus create a ‘moderate middle’.
The liberal, secular Left wants to create ‘unity and solidarity’ by creating a broad, moderate, ‘middle of the road’, native Israeli, social culture. To do this they are ‘asking’ everyone to compromise on thirty percent of the social values that they hold to be correct and true. The social cultural middle ground thus created will in turn create a sense of national ‘solidarity-unity’.
So, what can be ‘wrong’ with ‘this lovely ideal definition of unity and solidarity’ ?
The inherent weakness of this conception is that it is based on ‘moral relativism’. Moral relativism holds that that there are no fundamental-absolute social truths. Every individual thus has the ‘ right’ to define his particular social norms. And thus, every individual has the freedom to ‘compromise ‘ on his self-defined ‘truths’ in order to create a national solidarity based on compromise.
However, because liberal solidarity is based on the moral relativism of individual opinion it contains two ‘built in’ weaknesses.
One, the ‘original sin’ of a ‘solidarity’ based on the moral relativism of each individual is that it is inherently ‘broad, but shallow’, and thus easily ‘falls apart’. Liberal solidarity is subject to the relativistic ‘whims’ of the individual, is transient, and easily threatened by changing trends in public opinion.
Two, a ‘solidarity’ derived from liberal, moral relativism cannot build the strong, multi generational social institutions that promote intergenerational, strongly shared obligation and self sacrifice. Liberal solidarity cannot teach that one has a moral obligation to follow the previous absolute truths of former generations.
Thus, the social institutions based on individual moral relativism tend to be weak and unstable. Liberal solidarity creates shallow, transient social institutions. We see that liberal ‘solidarity’ also creates lonely, self-focused individuals, who in this generation are frequently socially isolated, and are very reluctant to commit to the long- term obligations such as marriage and parenting.
In summary, Israel is engaged in a ‘permanent’ ongoing existential struggle for survival, because this is, and will be, the historical destiny of the Jewish people. A ‘solidarity based liberal moral relativism and individualism is simply not strong enough to maintain the Jewish People through generations of existential struggle.
2. The conservative, religious Right’s prescription for national solidarity: loyalty to sectorial fundamental truths and social obligations. Solidarity will then be created by means of the pragmatic compromises of competing social sectors.
In contrast to liberalism, conservative- religious (Torah) social philosophy is based on the premise that individual man, must attach himself to social beliefs, prescribed ways of life, and social institutions that transcend his individual, self-focused ego. Only thus will he be able to give his life a deeper, more everlasting sense of meaning and worth, and to escape social loneliness and alienation.
Conservative social philosophy warns post-modern man that finding self-fulfillment in self-chosen, self-centered creativity is ultimately a ‘dead end’. Individual man simply does not have the social and emotional resources to, ‘on his own’, ‘redeem his life’ with a strong, permanent sense of ‘meaning and belonging’ that will transcend his self-centeredness. Left alone, post modern’s man’s life is vulnerable and frail. He is willing to accept social loneliness as the price of maintaining as sense of individual autonomy.
To avoid the social dangers of liberalism, conservatives dedicate themselves by building social institutions that will pass fundamental, absolute social truths, and a traditional, prescribed way of life, from generation to generation. They thus devote great effort to building multigenerational, two parent families, religious and educational institutions, and community self help services on ethnic and religious basis.
Given this philosophy they feel that they cannot accept a national solidarity based on compromising their fundamental, social truths as the liberals propose. Conservative-religious sectors, instead, propose a national solidarity based on a ‘coalition formula. Each social-religious-ethnic sector will retain social autonomy, but also learn to respect the autonomy of other sectors. Each sector will retain autonomy, and at the same time educate its members to an over-arching, historical commitment to the growth and development of Jewish life in the Jewish State in the Land of Israel. And to fulfill this commitment each sector will make the necessary ‘coalition’ contributions to Jewish State building.
Conclusion: The Jewish People’s historical development must be based on creating a ‘national solidarity’ that is based on divine, covenantal, fundamental truths.
More than three thousand years ago G-d promised Abrahm an eternal covenant with his descendants. But he also warned him that that in order to fulfill this covenant they will have to pay to the historical price of ‘standing alone’ on the world’s stage of history.
And such has been the case. Our Jewish historical existence is one long tale of lonely constant, unrelenting existential struggle. And, paradoxically, this lonely, always tenuous, divinely guided existential struggle has proven to be the genesis of both our national spiritual creativity, and the artistic-scientific gifts we have continuously given to the non-Jewish world.
And it should be historically obvious that a national solidarity based on ‘compromising fundamental truths in order to create a ‘broad, but shallow and weak ‘middle of the road’ was not the ‘ type of solidarity’ that has sustained us in our historical existential struggle. We have survived and have been creative because we have based our national solidarity on building the social-religious institutions (family, Torah centers, communal assistance) which have been based on the ‘deep but narrow’, ‘fundamental , absolute truths of the Torah’, and an uncompromising way of life of multigenerational self-sacrifice.
The proof of this analysis is to simply compare the state of Jewish life in America and Israel. The vast majority of American Jews profess liberal social values. They have chosen to sustain Jewish life by creating a way of life that is ‘broad but shallow, and feeble’ by compromising eternal Jewish with current and fleeting liberal social values. The result is an extremely high degree of intermarriage ( 70-80% ) and a Jewish community (except for the Orthodox) that is disappearing.
In contrast, Israel is day by day revealing depths of our national resilience and strength and creativity. One of the reasons is that the Israeli government encourages, through its educational and housing policies, allowing the various social sectors to create educational institutions, and small communities, in which uncompromising fundamental truths are passed on from generation to generation.
National Israeli solidarity must be built by letting ‘each sector’ go ‘deep but narrow’ in perpetuating their fundamental truths, together with a commitment to respect the way of life of the other sector, and a commitment to self-sacrifice so that we succeed in perpetuating Israel’s eternal, covenantal existence.
