How many weddings do you have this month, and what are you going to wear?
Wedding season has begun in Israel, and for many young women, this is a recurring dilemma. Some will say we are making too much of it: “Just wear the same dress again.” That is reasonable advice in theory.
But when you have a wedding almost every week, it is not always so simple. By the fourth wedding in the same month, even the sincerest environmental ideal begins to collide with social reality.
And honestly, clothing is not only functional. A new outfit can give us confidence in social situations that do not always feel comfortable.
The point is not that everyone needs a new dress for every event. Re-wearing clothes should be part of the solution. But when the wedding season brings one event after another, it is understandable that women want more than one option.
The real problem is that the most affordable choices are often the least ethical ones.
In Israel, that price gap is difficult to ignore. A dress in a mainstream store can easily cost more than NIS 200, while local brands often charge NIS 500 or more. Meanwhile, ultra-fast-fashion platforms offer dresses for less than NIS 50.
That price gap helps explain why shoppers turn to retailers criticized for pollution, poor labor conditions, and constant overproduction. Fast fashion is built on producing clothing cheaply, at enormous scale and speed, to keep up with changing trends.
Ultra-fast-fashion platforms push this model even further, making it easier than ever to treat clothing as disposable.
The price at checkout does not reflect the garment’s full cost. The rest is paid through polluted water, carbon emissions, textile waste, and poor labor conditions.
It is easy to blame the person clicking “buy.” Public debate treats fast fashion mainly as a failure of individual responsibility, telling consumers to buy less, shop ethically, and vote with their wallets. But it is harder to ask why the market makes that choice so attractive.
When an ethical dress costs several times more than a similar one online, the market has already shaped the decision. Most consumers are not choosing between what is right and wrong, but between what reflects their values and what fits their budget.
The price we see is political
That is especially clear in Israel’s recent debate over personal imports. Orders worth up to $75 are currently exempt from value-added tax. Earlier this month, the Knesset voted to revoke a revised order that would have raised the threshold to $130. It was the second such decision.
In February, the Knesset revoked an earlier order that sought to raise the exemption to $150.
The Knesset was right to reject the change. Yet the debate focused mainly on lowering prices, increasing competition, and protecting local retailers. It largely ignored the environmental and labor costs hidden behind ultra-cheap products.
The desire to reduce prices is understandable. Israelis face a genuine cost-of-living crisis, and affordable clothing is not a luxury.
But making imports cheaper without asking how those prices are achieved is not a complete consumer policy. It allows companies to pass part of the cost on to workers, communities, and the environment.
Other countries have begun to place more responsibility on the fashion industry. California requires apparel and textile producers to fund the collection, repair, reuse, and recycling of apparel and textiles.
In France, lawmakers have advanced proposals to impose environmental penalties on ultra-fast-fashion companies and restrict their advertising.
Israel should adopt a similar approach. Large producers and online platforms should help fund textile-waste management. They should also provide clearer information about their products’ environmental impact and durability.
This could also strengthen responsible local businesses, which currently struggle to compete with imported clothing whose low prices do not reflect their full environmental and social costs.
The obvious objection is that regulation could make affordable clothing more expensive. That risk is real, and a blunt tax would punish consumers with the fewest alternatives.
Policy should therefore target the business models that rely on extreme volumes and disposability, while supporting affordable alternatives such as repair services, clothing exchanges, and second-hand markets.
Governments intervene in markets to protect banks, agriculture, defense industries, and strategic companies. They should not remain passive when an industry leaves its costs to workers, communities, and the environment.
Consumers cannot shop their way out of a market designed to reward overproduction. If the government wants Israelis to buy more responsibly, it must create a market in which the ethical choice is also a realistic one.
Until then, spare us the lecture at the next wedding.
The writer is a Law and Government student at Reichman University and a Fellow in the Argov Fellows Program in Leadership and Diplomacy.