The Israeli public plays a key role in Israel’s national security. Israel can have the most advanced defense and weapons systems in the world and yet still be exposed if the home front loses faith in its leadership.
As a researcher at the Data Analytics Center of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), I have been tracking the unfolding of a broken-heart love story in our monthly public opinion surveys.
Our surveys point to one conclusion: Resilience can keep Israel functioning; but without trustworthy leadership and a steady moral compass, it cannot keep Israel whole.
Social tensions
Our most recent December survey illustrates the Israeli public’s state of mind. On one hand, after two exhausting years of war, still three-quarters of the public (75%) report high trust in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
At the same time, there is a real tremor inside the house – 83% say they are worried about Israel’s internal social tensions, and 63% say that social solidarity exists only to a small extent, or not at all. And when a society feels this shaky, it looks upward for reassurance that its leadership is faithfully acting on its behalf. However, only 23% of Israelis express high trust in the government, and only 32% express high trust in the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
This gap in trust between the military and the political leadership is part of a worrying trend that goes deeper than a lack of public support for the government. The public is signaling that it has lost trust in the motives of the political leadership.
This sentiment has been evident throughout the past year. In April, only 36% rejected the claim that Netanyahu was prolonging the war for political motives. Last month, only 37.5% believed that decisions of the political leadership on national security matters are based mainly on professional considerations rather than political or personal ones.
Asked about Netanyahu’s recent decision to name his military secretary, Maj. Gen. Roman Gofman, as Mossad director, only 33% believed it was made mainly out of security considerations and for the good of the state.
Political disappointment
There is a temptation, when politics disappoints, to cling to the one institution that still retains broad confidence – in this case, the IDF. But that would be another kind of blindness. The military is trusted, but it is not above criticism and is not insulated from the moral and political rot around it.
In addition, 51.5% of the public say they are dissatisfied with the IDF’s handling of Jewish nationalist violence in the West Bank. Perhaps most alarming is that an overwhelming 80.5% of respondents believe there is politicization in the IDF to some degree, driven by outside attempts to push the military toward political considerations rather than professional ones.
If this politicization continues to take root, it will corrode the trust that is necessary for Israelis’ resilience, leaving us with nothing to hold on to.
To enable a true process of repair, Israelis demand accountability surrounding the events leading up to October 7 and its aftermath. Some 57% of Israelis support establishing a state commission of inquiry, to be appointed by the president of the Supreme Court, rather than the current proposal promoted by the government – a committee appointed by politicians. Only 29% preferred a Knesset-appointed committee.
Commission of inquiry
A credible state commission would be less easily dismissed as political theater and more capable of establishing a factual narrative, clarifying responsibility, and restoring trust through healing.
But there is still the wound we discuss least honestly: the moral one. In July, only 35.5% of the Israeli public said they were troubled by Gaza’s humanitarian situation. Among Jewish respondents, concern was just 24%.
This is what willful narrowing of empathy looks like in data. Gaza is not a distant abstraction. The war has produced immense destruction and civilian suffering. But we are so immersed in the depths of our own horrifying trauma – October 7, the hostages, the funerals, the fear of the next front – that many do not look outward. But refusing to see does not keep us safe. It hardens us.
When trust collapses and the harsh reality of conflict narrows empathy, so does the public’s willingness to imagine political risk, even when the status quo is unsustainable.
In November 2025, only 39.5% supported resolving the conflict based on two states for two peoples. Among Jewish respondents, support dropped to 31%. This must change, but a society that does not trust its leaders cannot gamble on diplomacy, even when it craves quiet.
For Israelis to believe again in the prospects of peace, trust in leadership must be reestablished first. Only then can peace become something Israelis can imagine pursuing rather than mocking.
Israelis are not a hopeless public. Optimism is part of our national character. However, optimism cannot survive on temperament alone. It needs a reality worth believing in. Trust between the public and the leadership must be repaired, and it is time we open our moral eyes. Not because it is easy but because the alternative is to keep surviving while slowly losing what made survival meaningful.■
Abir Gitlin is a Neubauer Research Associate at the Institute for National Security Studies and PhD candidate in International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.