This comprehensive analysis examines the complex relationship between political culture and national leadership in Israel, exploring how the country's political framework influences national resilience and strategic capabilities. Through extensive focus group research across five key domains—security, education, economy, settlement policy, and political culture—this document reveals critical insights into the growing disconnection between Israel's leadership and its citizens. The findings highlight a political system increasingly characterized by sectoral interests, populism, and short-term thinking rather than strategic vision, particularly evident during periods of national crisis.

1. Political Culture as a Foundation of National Security

Political culture forms a cornerstone of national security, particularly in democratic societies like Israel. For years, critics have argued that Israel's political culture has struggled to advance the nation's strategic interests effectively. Some suggest the problem lies in the system itself, others point to leadership deficiencies, while many identify deeper issues such as partisan sectoralism, populism, and a fundamental misunderstanding of Israel's strategic challenges.

Israel has experienced a prolonged political stalemate between two main political blocs: center-left parties supported predominantly by populations in the "State of Tel Aviv" (greater Gush Dan metropolitan area), and right-wing parties drawing support from traditional and religious communities, largely Mizrahi Jews living in peripheral regions. This division reflects deep societal fractures that extend beyond mere policy disagreements.

Political support in Israel is primarily emotional, heavily influenced by family tradition and identity politics. When examining the characteristics of political discourse, three central areas dominate: security, economy, and religion-state relations. The security dimension typically exerts the greatest influence on Israeli society, especially during conflicts.

1990s Era - Security concerns began breaking the chronic political stalemate, with Ehud Barak winning the 1999 elections on promises of withdrawal from Lebanon.

2001 Elections - Ariel Sharon's victory following the Second Intifada, demonstrating security's influence on electoral outcomes.

2009 Elections - Benjamin Netanyahu's rise to power in the aftermath of the Second Lebanon War.

2019-2022 - Six general elections in three years, with political discourse centered around support or opposition to Netanyahu, reflecting deepening societal divisions.

In the last decade, political deadlock has become increasingly common, forcing Israel into six general elections between 2019-2022. This electoral cycle has been dominated by identity politics, particularly focused on support for or opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu. This division has taken on broader interpretations related to social tensions between liberal constituencies and traditional-national and ultra-Orthodox populations. The increasingly polarized social discourse has exacerbated political divisions, as if no other issue matters beyond the question of Netanyahu's leadership.

2. Research Methodology: Capturing Israeli Perspectives

This study utilized a qualitative approach centered on five focus groups, creating open dialogue on topics fundamental to Israel's national security. Each group included three to five participants with relevant backgrounds in the specific domain under discussion. Sessions lasted approximately one hour and were structured around two main questions, followed by free-flowing conversation.

Participants were asked to rate performance across value-based cross-sections in terms of "desired versus actual" and to answer a concluding question about expectations from national leadership, requiring a value-focused articulation of what is required from national-level politicians.

The "desired versus actual" metric allowed not only for performance rating but also understanding of agreements or disagreements among participants, represented by "waves" in the graph. The more dispersed the waves across the scale, the lower the agreement among participants. Conversely, waves closer to the average metric indicated greater consensus.

The focus groups featured a highly diverse mix: public sector officials, private sector executives, entrepreneurs, educators, security personnel, academics, legal professionals, settlers, and ordinary citizens from throughout Israel, representing varied political perspectives across the entire political spectrum.

This methodological approach allowed for deep exploration of citizens' perceptions regarding how the Israeli political system addresses national security challenges, providing valuable insights into the relationship between political culture and national resilience.

3. Security Domain Findings: Leadership During Crisis

The focus group discussions on security took place against the backdrop of the "Swords of Iron" war, generating animated discourse about political leadership during this critical period. Most participants reached consensus on the quality of national leadership's performance in this context, though assessments were mixed.

Decision-Making Clarity

"The political echelon set clear goals for the war this time, but we're stagnating because the political structure is problematic and creates difficulties" (referring to the level of cooperation between Benny Gantz and Benjamin Netanyahu).

Cabinet Dysfunction

"The behavior of some politicians in the cabinet is detached from reality—they make decisions and then leak criticism about those decisions, exposing 'dirt and mud,' each minister badmouths the other, and it's unclear how this contributes to public trust."

Information Integrity

"There is absolute recklessness—things come out of closed-door meetings, the leaks are irresponsible—this is no way to manage a war!"

Political Prioritization

"The feeling is that they're engaged in politics rather than winning the war. Everything is conducted 'outside,' and there's a sense of disorder and time-wasting, when in practice much time is being wasted."

The metrics indicate that trust in security capabilities and security leadership ranges from moderate to good. Notably, despite the severe military failure of October 7, 2023, the discourse focused less on the IDF and more on political leadership failures. The most prominent feature in the discussions was criticism of politicians' behavior outside cabinet meetings—the exposure of matters that should remain confidential, irresponsible statements, disloyalty, lack of personal example, and giving the public a sense of disagreement, stagnation, and decision-making ill-suited to the situation.

The desire for unity stood out prominently—participants expected not just a formal unified composition but genuine cooperation, loyalty, and uniformity. The more politicians expose divisive elements outside closed chambers, the more public esteem toward them declines, creating a perception that the system fails to deliver and undermines the security effort.

4. Education Domain: Vision Deficit and Systemic Challenges

The overall rating of metrics in the education domain ranged from medium to low, with notable lack of consensus around most parameters. The sector from which participants came, as well as center-periphery divides, significantly influenced perspectives. Three central parameters received particularly low ratings: educational vision, responsiveness to field needs, and performance of senior system officials.

The focus group highlighted the absence of educational vision in a system that has had 14 different education ministers since the early 2000s. As one participant noted: "There can be no educational vision. Since the early 2000s, Israel has had 14 education ministers—how can you create a long-term educational vision with a coherent process? It's impossible, and there's a lot of populism among ministers who take these positions, with many unfounded declarations."

Another significant criticism centered on resource allocation: "When you examine how much practically reaches the place where education is carried out (schools), there is a disturbing imbalance. This affects infrastructure, teaching quality, and basically everything."

The group also identified political interference as a major issue: "Politics is deeply embedded in the education system, and not in a positive sense. Each incoming minister sets an agenda that is not necessarily relevant, but rather comes from a place of appeasement—this severely damages the energy in the system."

Lack of Educational Vision

The absence of consistent long-term planning has pushed the system toward STEM subjects while abandoning social-national-cultural subjects. This imbalance fails to align with Israel's unique cultural identity and national needs.

Imbalanced Resource Allocation

Despite significant investment, resources are poorly distributed with excessive administrative overhead that doesn't reach classrooms. The system maintains too many non-essential roles while core educational functions remain underfunded.

Excessive Political Influence

Short ministerial tenures and politically motivated decisions create inconsistency. Each minister implements partisan agendas rather than evidence-based policies, leading to system instability and ineffectiveness.

In summarizing the discourse on national leadership and education, three key distinctions emerged: while the state's resource investment was recognized as generally appropriate, inconsistency and lack of educational vision have caused system instability and persistent ineffectiveness. These processes significantly damage the balance between social education and STEM education, resource investment and distribution according to required national priorities, with populism also playing a prominent role.

A system uninfluenced by national vision does not operate effectively, fails to look to the long term, and severely undermines the educational concept and the desire of quality people to be part of it.

5. Economic Domain: Private Excellence vs. Public Dysfunction

The discourse on national leadership and economic effectiveness was the richest among all focus groups, with mostly critical perspectives. Most parameters received low ratings, particularly regarding the national leadership's influence on the economic situation and priorities.

A striking contrast emerged between Israel's entrepreneurial private sector and its bureaucratic public sector. As one participant observed: "The level of entrepreneurship in Israel is high, but it has nothing to do with national leadership—it's about the private sector finding ways to overcome political and bureaucratic barriers. The private sector is extremely efficient compared to the politicians and what they lead, and this gives Israeli society credit points that translate into one of the highest entrepreneurial capabilities in the world."

The focus group identified several fundamental problems in economic governance, including the appointment of unqualified officials: "The central syndrome is that national leadership mostly appoints people lacking personal skills in these important areas. Politics dictates the execution personnel in an extreme way, and their connection to the field is completely sectoral. It gives a feeling that there's no one to rely on."

Participants expressed concern about the deterioration of economic governance: "Today we're declining at a rapid pace. The feeling is that everything is directed toward short-term political interests. Everything points to 'mediocrity.' How does this bring us closer to excellence? And this is also related to education."

The neglect of academic research and development was highlighted as particularly damaging: "In research and development, there's a serious disrespect for academic research institutions—they've been 'dried out' of resources for many years, which has led to academia also becoming political and unprofessional. The field of R&D is dramatic in terms of growth contexts, and it's not properly institutionalized, poorly handled."

6. Political Culture and Leadership Image: Crisis of Trust

In the domain of political culture, ratings were generally low, though some participants suggested that the difficult period might be leading people to excessively critical discourse stemming from despair and directed at politicians as if they were the central problem. Nevertheless, the discourse remained critical and incisive across most parameters.

Crisis of Integrity - Widespread perception that politicians lack basic honesty and are primarily motivated by self-interest rather than public service

Lack of Accountability - No effective systems for measuring performance or holding officials responsible for failures, leading to continued ineffective governance

Sectoral Politics - Decision-making based on narrow interests of specific constituencies rather than national priorities, resulting in fragmented policy approaches

Shallow Discourse - Political communication characterized by simplistic messaging, personal attacks, and avoidance of substantive policy discussions

Loyalty Over Competence

Appointments and promotions based on personal connections and political loyalty rather than qualifications and expertise

Selected statements from participants revealed the depth of dissatisfaction:

"Political culture in Israel is terrible. Populism is at the center, the feeling is that they're constantly engaged in appeasement. The discourse is shallow, characterized by lack of integrity, the main thing is to be re-elected—and no one is really interested in serving the public."

"Caring for associates and not for the mission is a serious problem. Substandard personal skills leading to poor performance and dysfunctional political culture. There's a general feeling of despair. They are the address, and it seems they don't really understand that, especially in an emergency."

The focus groups noted a culture of personal promotion over substance: "The connection to the field is appalling. They come to be photographed, not really to help, a culture of 'selfies.' This also connects to the brutalization and polarization of discourse—the political arena broadcasts disrespect and lack of appreciation, harm to the person and lack of objectivity—it's terrible! Shame has disappeared!"

In summary, the discourse on political culture brought forth many aspects that emerged in other discussion groups, centered on sectorialism, personal loyalty (above all), and skills unsuited to performing national missions. There was also a general lack of confidence in the mechanism, which participants viewed as having become irrelevant and not serving the public interest—speaking here about 'formatting' the system.

Settlement and National Leadership: Northern Border Crisis

The focus group on settlement policy concentrated on the situation in northern Israel, examining the priorities in handling the evacuated population and the general conduct of the system in this region. Overall ratings ranged from low to medium, with agreement on most parameters. Responsiveness to field needs stood out negatively, as did inter-ministerial cooperation—an issue that arose in other group discussions as well.

The residents of Israel's northern communities expressed profound concerns about security and governmental abandonment. As one participant stated: "There is a real fear for settlement. We understand that they're not really providing us with security. Many words and little content—I think we had a miracle here in the north. I have no idea why Hezbollah didn't invade, it's just luck. I have no faith in the government. Hezbollah's avoidance of invasion did not stem from their grim decisions."

Another participant highlighted the psychological impact of prolonged evacuation: "The fact that we are evacuated for such a long period causes people to lose faith in an extreme way. Also, no one is giving us a horizon. There are very high levels of despair about this, and the lack of trust is dramatic. Everything we were educated for has collapsed—the film that the state is 'going away' is running through the minds of many here."

The erosion of trust was particularly evident in this group: "We don't feel a real change in this context. It's worth noting that Ben Gvir's move with strengthening emergency squads and equipment really helped. It strengthened the sense of security. But it's little—there's still a lot to do."

Security Vacuum

Residents expressed fears that government has effectively abandoned the northern border, with one participant noting: "In the past, they told us there's a scenario where one or two settlements would be captured, and we'd need to manage for 48 hours until the army arrives. Does someone expect us to want to live in this reality?"

Loss of Trust

Extended evacuation without clear timelines or strategic plans has created a crisis of confidence. Many evacuees who relocated to central cities discovered the extent of peripheral neglect and now question returning.

Coordination Failures

"The level of inter-ministerial cooperation is very low, it's really shocking—there's no coordination, there are duplications, and this causes many ministries to not be expressed in influence, neither the ministry itself nor the systems under it."

Disconnect from Reality

"I sometimes read the existing plans and can't understand how they relate to the challenges we're facing. It seems as if someone built a generic plan for the north and south and throws it at us without getting into the required resolutions."

The summary of aspects arising in this group points to a severe feeling of loss of security, coupled with loss of trust. Participants, who live in the Galilee region, experience a sense of abandonment, and following the events of October 7 in the south, also a lack of confidence in the IDF's capabilities. This is intensified by the ineffective processes they feel from the national leadership. The situation in the north, in terms of the relationship between national leadership and residents, appears severe, and in several issues chronic—involving gaps that have existed for many years, which in the current period have brought the situation to the brink of collapse.

7. Theoretical Analysis: The Principal-Agent Dilemma

Beyond the clear and reality-bound aspiration for leadership with broad and long-term vision, it is appropriate to delve into the figures leading public policy planning and implementation—the ministerial echelon. In this context, it is worth exploring the public phenomenon known as the "principal-agent dilemma." This dilemma addresses the question of senior appointments in public service and the gap between political appointments and professional appointments.

In general, ministers in Israel over the past decade have frequently criticized professional ranks, dismissively calling them "clerks" and in some cases "deep state," as if the statesman pushes in one direction and the professionals in his ministry preserve their interests, which are often contrary to the minister's policy.

However, the appointment of an "agent" rather than a figure of a "principal" brings with it a problematic political culture that places personalization before profession. In many cases, national leadership has moved to an unbalanced place where the value of loyalty significantly outweighs the value of professionalism. This imbalance requires renewed thinking, as it is evident in ineffectiveness, inconsistency, a sense of distrust, and the marking of many decisions as politically corrupt.

Furthermore, the professional context is often completely eroded—the appointed minister has no suitable background, nor does the management system in his ministry. Without a professional skeleton under the statesman, priorities and decision-making may be extremely biased toward the political and self-interested sphere, without appropriate professional considerations. This leads to dysfunction and a widespread phenomenon of populism from leadership, supported by the "professional" echelon, which is actually "loyalist number 1" to leadership rather than to the profession.

Education Ministers Since 2000 - Frequent turnover preventing long-term planning

Years Average Ministerial Tenure - Insufficient time to implement meaningful reforms

Ministers with Relevant Experience - Nearly two-thirds lack background in their ministry's

domain

Elections in 3 Years (2019-2022) - Political instability undermining governance continuity

When personal loyalty to a person rather than to a profession is the driver, objectivity loses validity, affecting all parameters, especially the connection to the field and definition of priorities, measurement and evaluation of the ministerial system's performance, resource distribution according to national priorities, and appeasement as a concept, without civic courage to stand for the required professional truth or at least balance populist-biased decisions. This aspect continuously erodes anything objective, professional, and in-depth, especially in contexts of research and development—which are initially suspected of being "deep state."

It is impossible to absolve society in a democratic state from the above phenomena—ultimately, politicians are elected by the people, and in a parliamentary regime, they constitute the sovereign acting for the people. It is worth deeply considering why the people give credit to leadership that leads such a self-interested system, almost completely lacking professional considerations, or at least balancing considerations.

8. Conclusions: Rebuilding Trust in Israel's Political Leadership

The national leadership in Israel faces a significant effectiveness challenge, now more than ever. It is evident that the level of public trust toward the political echelon is low, with aspects of deep and troubling distrust. This research attempted to focus the challenges in political culture on several centers—in most, it is apparent that criticism is sharp, mainly dealing with a self-interested, sectoral political echelon, lacking skills, and with extreme loyalty to personal interest above collective and professional interest.

Integrity

Honesty and moral principles must be demonstrated consistently, both in words and actions. Leaders should maintain transparent decision-making processes and acknowledge mistakes.

Initiative

Proactive problem-solving and forward-thinking approaches are essential. Leadership should anticipate challenges rather than merely reacting to crises.

Responsibility

Accountability for decisions and their outcomes must be normalized. Politicians should face consequences for failures and be measured against objective performance standards.

Mutual Respect

Maintaining civil discourse even amid disagreement is crucial. Leaders should model respectful engagement that focuses on issues rather than personal attacks.

Cooperation

Cross-party collaboration on national priorities must supersede partisan interests. The ability to work effectively across ideological divides demonstrates true leadership.

Personal Example

Leaders must embody the values they espouse. Their behavior sets standards for public service and influences broader societal norms.

These phenomena are not solely the province of politicians—they are, after all, the people's choice, and Israeli society also bears responsibility. However, when discussing leadership, it requires a long-term vision led by execution personnel. This does not negate political interests, which will always exist, but requires balancing the phenomenon of personal appeasement. It is inconceivable that our governmental systems should be managed only through a political prism—professional echelons have a significant role in implementation, effectiveness, and consistency, and these are important aspects in a country experiencing general elections every two years on average.

The aspects analyzed in this research indicate, in summary, a low level of trust in national and political leadership in Israel. This reality is significant in the context of resilience, which relies on trust in governmental systems—hence the importance of the research findings, with emphasis on a period with existential implications for the State of Israel. According to the findings of this research, Israeli society desperately needs leadership that embodies a different political culture, centered on appropriate behavior, professional cooperation, suitable skills, responsibility, care, and mutual respect.