Project Head: Shmuel Rosner
Participants: Ghila Amati | Nadia Beider | Ariel Bendor | Eliran Carsenti | Shimrit Cohen-Barbi | Janan Danial | Dana Fahn-Luzon | Shlomo Fischer | Shuki Friedman | Avi Gil | Yehonatan Givati | Noa Israeli | Eli Kannai | Dov Maimon | Robert Neufeld | Tamir Pardo | Rivka Ravitz | Daniela Regev | Yael Ribner | Lipaz Rotkovsy | John Ruskay | Jonathan Saidel | Roy Schondorf | Amit Shoval | Noah Slepkov | Yedidia Stern | Shalom Salomon Wald | Haim Zicherman | Eldar Zilber
The Cohesion Gauge (known as the Community Bonds Gauge in previous assessments) was recalibrated this year in a significantly negative direction, mainly due to the impact judicial overhaul legislative efforts have had on sociopolitical polarization in Israel, the attitudes of Diaspora Jews regarding Israel, and on relations between politically polarized communities within the Jewish world. As the data show, there is a public perception that the social situation is “bad” (a majority of the Jewish public feels this way), and many Israelis think that the state is embroiled in one of the most serious crises, or in the most serious crisis, of its history (in March, 66% of respondents, in July … of respondents). This situation also affects Jews elsewhere in the world. For some, it manifests in internal debates that echo Israel’s internal political dispute. For others, it creates a sense of alienation from Israel, either because they believe that Israel is going through a process they find ideologically unacceptable, or because they have the impression that Israel itself is unstable, and they are starting to have doubts about the country’s long-term stability.
Other factors that have affected the Jewish people’s cohesion this year: growing legitimization of antisemitism (which strengthens the identity of Jews who are connected to the community, and alienates others), cast in sharp relief by the Kanye West affair (for more on this, see the chapter on Jewish people trends 2023, page 59); the intensified security threat to Israel, mainly connected to the advancement of Iran’s nuclear project (which is sparking concern among Jews regarding Israel’s ultimate fate); Jewish attacks on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, which affect how Diaspora Jews perceive Israel’s morality and its status as a country that adheres to the rule of law; the tense relations between the Israeli government/prime minister and the current U.S. administration (which most American Jews support); the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has consequences for the fate of Jewish communities in Ukraine and Russia; growing emphasis on the ultra-Orthodox challenge, both in Israel (budget debates the expiration of the Conscription Law, etc.) and in the Diaspora (core studies in ultra-Orthodox schools in New York).
Beyond a solution to the fundamental issues concerning the structure of the political system and to the rule of law, an effort should be made to end Israel’s sociopolitical crisis with a compromise, due to its dramatic impact on the cohesion of the Jewish people.
Explanation: The Israeli government seeks to change some of the customary arrangements currently in force regarding the balance of power between the judiciary and the other two branches of government. These changes are a matter of fierce dispute. Some see them as necessary measures that will enable the Israeli government to better control and implement policy; for others, they represent Israel’s deterioration into a state of dubious democracy. The issue of these governmental arrangements is of great importance, but no less important is the issue of social cohesion. Israel faces many challenges, external and internal, and a weakening of its social cohesion endangers its ability to cope with them. At the same time, it makes it harder for Jews in the rest of the world to identify with Israel, and to feel confident about its future. When both the decision-makers and their opponents formulate their positions on the judicial-political issue, they must consider not only those outcomes that directly pertain to Israel’s political structure, but also, and perhaps primarily, the consequences the political tension for social cohesion.
Global-Jewish cooperation must be increased to fight the normalization of antisemitic discourse, with a view toward consensus on definitional parameters, measurement, legislation, and action.
Explanation: This year, as in recent years, a significant number of antisemitic incidents were recorded, and there has been an evident normalization of antisemitic discourse on social media and in the public arena. Jewish organizations, and the government of Israel, must recognize that, after a decades-long post-Holocaust respite, antisemitism has once again become a major challenge that must be addressed in a continuous and systematic way. Meeting the challenge effectively, requires the broadest possible consensus on what antisemitism is, which elements are perpetrating and encouraging it, and how it should be opposed. It is not easy to achieve such consensus in an era of polarized discourse, but it must be strived for even if it entails concessions on certain matters of principle: disagreements between Jews on this issue undermine their ability to fight together and has an encouraging effect on those who want to spread antisemitism. Disagreements erode cohesion on an issue of paramount importance for the survival of the entire Jewish people.
