What ‘right’ and ‘left’ mean in Israel today
In Israel, the traditional political labels of “right” and “left” are primarily defined by stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, territorial control, and national security, rather than economic or social policies common in Western democracies.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash
Historically rooted in economic and institutional divides, Israeli politics fundamentally shifted after 1967 and the Oslo Accords, with the left advocating for territorial compromise and separation from Palestinians, while the right solidified around opposition to a Palestinian state and support for settlements, a divide intensified by recent conflicts.
Imagine two teams playing a game in Israel, but unlike other countries where teams argue about how to share toys or what rules to play by, these teams mostly argue about who gets to live in certain parts of the playground and how to stay safe from each other. The "left" team thinks sharing some parts and having separate play areas might make everyone safer and happier, while the "right" team believes keeping all the playground and focusing on strong defenses is the only way to be secure, especially after some big fights.
Analysis
October 7, 2023
The October 7, 2023 attacks did not initiate the shift in Israeli politics but significantly accelerated an existing movement. This event made security and Jewish identity even more central to the political discourse than they had been in the years following the Oslo Accords. The attacks reinforced the right-wing narrative that territorial concessions do not reliably lead to peace, further solidifying their hardline stance on Palestinian national claims and territorial control.
For many Israeli voters, particularly those leaning right, the violence served as a stark reminder of perceived failures in past peace efforts. This perception has strengthened the conviction that a robust security posture and unwavering control over disputed territories are paramount. Consequently, the political landscape has become even more polarized around these core issues, making compromise appear riskier to a larger segment of the electorate.
Oslo Accords
The Oslo Accords in the 1990s marked a pivotal moment, clearly shifting Israeli politics to center on the territories and the Palestinians residing within them. Prior to this, the political divide had a stronger economic and institutional dimension, with the left associated with collectivist models and the right with market-friendly outlooks and Jewish historical claims.
Post-Oslo, the left became identified with the necessity of territorial compromise and some form of separation from Palestinians to maintain Israel's dual identity as both Jewish and democratic. Conversely, the right coalesced around opposing a Palestinian state and supporting settlements, arguing that withdrawal would exacerbate security threats. The subsequent Second Intifada further weakened the left's appeal among Jewish voters, as the violence was widely interpreted as a failure of the Oslo framework and the concept of land for peace.
Likud
Likud remains the primary political vehicle for the right-wing camp in Israel, embodying a blend of nationalism, skepticism towards Palestinian statehood, and a strong security posture. This party successfully draws a diverse voter base, including secular, traditional, and religious Jews, united by a shared nationalist identity rather than purely theological considerations. Likud's economic policies, while generally market-oriented, can comfortably accommodate subsidies and public employment when serving coalition needs or specific constituencies, demonstrating that economic ideology is secondary to national and security concerns.
To the right of Likud are parties like Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit, which integrate nationalism with a more explicit religious interpretation of the land. For these factions, settlement expansion transcends mere strategy, becoming a fulfillment of historical and religious claims. This perspective makes territorial compromise exceptionally difficult to frame as a technical or negotiable matter, further entrenching the right's position and contributing to ongoing confrontations with institutions like the Supreme Court and the security elite when their actions are perceived as obstructing the will of an elected right-wing majority.
Key points
- Israeli political labels 'right' and 'left' are primarily defined by stances on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, territory, and security, unlike Western democracies where economic issues dominate.
- The political divide shifted significantly after 1967 and the Oslo Accords, moving from economic concerns to questions of Palestinian statehood, settlements, and Israel's Jewish character.
- The 'left' generally advocates for territorial compromise and separation from Palestinians to preserve Israel's Jewish and democratic identity.
- The 'right' opposes a Palestinian state, supports settlements, and prioritizes security, viewing withdrawals as potential threats.
- Events like the Second Intifada and the October 7, 2023 attacks have further solidified the right-wing's hardline stance, making security and Jewish identity even more central to the political discourse.
The article suggests that the "Zionist centre and what remains of the Zionist left" are more open to political settlements or separation from Palestinians, and defend democratic institutions. If these perspectives gain traction, it could lead to renewed efforts for a two-state solution or other forms of separation, potentially fostering greater stability and preserving Israel's democratic character.
The analysis highlights a hardening of the right-wing stance, rejecting a Palestinian state and viewing settlements as national and religious projects, not bargaining chips. This entrenched position, intensified by events like October 7, suggests a continued cycle of conflict and makes territorial compromise increasingly difficult, potentially leading to prolonged instability and further erosion of prospects for a peaceful resolution.
