Between Concern and Indifference: The Israeli Public and the Crumbling World Order

By Asif Efrat

In recent years, world order has been undergoing a process of erosion and disintegration. The rules-based system that the United States has led since World War II rested on several principles: respect for international borders and a prohibition on conquering foreign territory; promotion of democracy and human rights; cooperation through international organizations; and free trade. Yet the U.S. government under President Trump is undermining these principles — demanding Greenland for itself, ignoring human rights violations around the world and violating fundamental rights within U.S. territory itself, withdrawing from international organizations, and imposing high tariffs. In doing so, the United States is reinforcing the ongoing efforts of Russia and China to destabilize the world order – efforts manifested, for instance, in Russia's attempt to seize Ukraine and China's threat to take over Taiwan.

The erosion of the world order and the changing of global rules of the game could affect every country, including Israel. What do Israelis think about the transformations in world order? Are they worried, or perhaps, pleased by the changes? We examined these questions through a survey conducted by the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University on February 9–11, 2026. The survey included a representative sample of 812 respondents.

The survey reveals that Israelis are divided in assessing the implications of global shifts for Israel. This may not be entirely surprising. As the world stands at the threshold of a new era in which familiar rules are collapsing, there is significant uncertainty: it is difficult to evaluate what the emerging order will look like and how Israel will be affected. Yet, even under conditions of uncertainty, we identify a familiar fault line: right-wing voters are less worried and more optimistic than center-left voters. Only 28% of right-wing voters are concerned about the changes unfolding on the international stage, compared to 60% of center-left voters who feel worried. This gap is similar to those we see today on a range of issues – such as assessments of Israel's overall situation: right-wing voters hold a more positive view of the country's condition than center-left voters. Thus, right-wing voters are more optimistic than center-left voters about the state of affairs around them — in Israel and in the world.
This gap between the political camps may reflect different worldviews regarding Israel's place in the world and the importance of the international order for it. Center-left voters attach greater importance to Israel's ties with the world, and are therefore troubled by the erosion of international norms and institutions; right-wing voters, by contrast, tend toward a "a people that dwells alone" outlook and minimize the significance of international changes for Israel.

We then asked respondents specifically about several shifts in the world order: whether they are good for Israel, bad for Israel, or have no effect on it.
The weakening of institutions that promote free trade is the development that most concerns Israelis (51% believe that harm to free trade is bad for Israel, compared to only 11% who see it as a positive development). It appears that most Israelis understand that free trade benefits the Israeli economy, and its weakening would harm the country. This is a clear, pragmatic calculation, free of ideological baggage.

But when it comes to changes in values, Israelis are less concerned. Only 44% of the public think that the weakening of human rights is bad for Israel; only 30% believe that the weakening of the prohibition on conquering a foreign state could harm Israel; and a similarly low share of Israelis are worried about the weakening of international organizations. Here too, we identify a notable gap between right-wing voters (less concerned) and center-left voters (more concerned). In fact, a higher share of right-wing voters (47%) believe that the weakening of international organizations is good for Israel, compared to only 18% who see it as a bad thing. This perception may stem from Israel's experience with organizations such as the UN, which are seen as hostile to or biased against Israel. By this logic, if international organizations are not on our side anyway, perhaps it is better for them to be weak.

In sum, the survey reveals an Israeli public that does not clearly know what to think about the emerging world order. On one hand, there is broad recognition of the value of free trade and economic institutions. On the other hand, there is deep skepticism – especially among the right-wing public – about the value of international organizations and human rights norms. This public skepticism may feed and reinforce the current government's hostility toward international institutions and the liberal values they promote.

But the skeptical perception is shortsighted. Israel, as a small democratic state in the turbulent Middle East, is more dependent on a rules-based international order than most countries. For example, the weakening of the prohibition on territorial conquest (which only 30% see as bad for Israel) may confer a short-term tactical advantage, but in the long run it invites regional instability that Israel will be forced to contend with. A world where "might makes right" is not necessarily a world in which Israel will flourish.
The danger is that Israel will find itself supporting the destruction of international rules and institutions that it will actually need in the future. Rather than seeing the weakening of the world order as a threat, part of the public shows indifference or even views it as an opportunity – a perception that could prove to be a profound strategic mistake when Israel finds itself alone in a world without rules.

Prof. Asif Efrat is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University.