War as a Lever for Political Change: What Reforms Do Israelis Want in the Shadow of War?

By Prof. Asif Efrat

Wars have military and security consequences, but they sometimes have dramatic repercussions in the domestic political arena as well. In the wake of the difficult experience of war, the public can change its political worldview or conclude that existing governance arrangements are not working. This understanding can awaken a desire for significant political change.
Today we ask: two and a half years after the outbreak of the October 7 war, with Israel finding itself in violent conflicts whose end is nowhere in sight, what governmental changes would Israelis like to see in the country? The Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University examined this question through a survey conducted on March 22–24, 2026 among a representative sample of 810 respondents.

We first asked whether changes in the structure and functioning of governance in Israel are indeed warranted in light of the ongoing state of war. A significant proportion of Israelis believe that such changes are required – both among coalition supporters (49%) and among opposition supporters (62%). But the two camps are deeply divided over the content and nature of those changes. This divide was revealed through an open-ended question in which respondents were asked to indicate, in their own words, what changes to governance arrangements they would like to see.

Among coalition supporters, the security challenges demand that the government be empowered and freed from unnecessary constraints – first and foremost the constraints imposed by the Supreme Court. In other words, judicial reform is the remedy for the country’s serious problems. Responses along these lines were the most common among coalition supporters: “Stop the situation where the Supreme Court runs the country – the Supreme Court has no legitimate authority”; “The government must be allowed to implement its policies without the Supreme Court obstructing its path”; “Work toward balancing the branches of government by reducing the court’s power and diversifying its opinions and justices”; and “Stop the absurdity of the court running the country.”

Other coalition supporters expressed interest in a more assertive security policy, unconstrained by legal limitations. For example, they proposed “increased deterrence of enemies”; “being tougher in punishing terrorists and their families”; “firing the Attorney General and everyone who makes life harder for soldiers”; “reducing the military prosecution’s power to influence military operations”; and reform of “a justice system that does not stand behind the state, the soldiers, and those who serve it, while standing behind terrorists.”

It should be remembered, of course, that right-wing voters supported weakening the court even before the war. But the security challenges now serve them as justification for the campaign against a justice system that allegedly obstructs the achievement of victory and security.
Another group among coalition supporters calls for harsher treatment of Arab citizens of Israel and their political representatives: “Do not allow Arab citizens of Israel to participate in elections”; “Expel all Arabs or put them in labor camps”; “Ban Arab parties, especially anti-Zionist ones”; and “Remove the terrorists from the Knesset.”

Alongside these anti-democratic and anti-liberal proposals, some coalition supporters suggested substantive changes to the system of governance, such as a transition to a presidential system, changing the electoral system, raising the electoral threshold, strengthening the Knesset, and limiting the prime minister’s term in office.

Among opposition supporters the picture is different. Many expressed a desire to hold elections and replace the government. But beyond elections, opposition supporters raised substantive ideas for governmental reform, such as enacting a constitution, limiting the prime minister’s tenure, changing the electoral system (for example, a semi-open ballot or regional elections), and separating religion and state. While coalition supporters want to strengthen the government and weaken the Supreme Court, opposition supporters believe the opposite is needed. They call for oversight of the government, giving more power to the Knesset and the Supreme Court, and maintaining checks and balances.

Another recurring demand among opposition voters is the conscription of ultra-Orthodox men and the promotion of equality in the burden of service. Arab respondents expressed their wish for equality among the country’s citizens and protection of minority rights.

In sum, both coalition and opposition supporters express a shared sentiment: the status quo is not working and requires change — “a restart of everything,” as one respondent put it. There are also certain points of convergence between the camps, such as support for limiting the prime minister’s tenure and changing the electoral system. But beyond that, coalition and opposition supporters are deeply divided on how to address Israel’s problems in the difficult security reality.
The contrast between the two camps is not merely a political dispute; it is a dispute over the very nature of democracy. Coalition supporters view the elected government as the supreme authority, and for them the oversight institutions — foremost among them the Supreme Court — are an illegitimate barrier to the will of the majority. Opposition supporters, by contrast, see precisely those same institutions as necessary safeguards against tyranny. The question of how to treat the Arab minority — denial of rights or equality of rights — is also contested.
Will the ongoing war force the two camps to find common ground and agree on the rules of the game? History teaches us that major crises may create unexpected consensus, but sometimes they deepen the rifts. Israel now stands at a crossroads — and the reality of war will shape not only its external borders, but also its internal character.

Prof. Asif Efrat is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University.