The Choice Between Complicity and Change

The decision to attack Iran was both long anticipated and yet still caught many by surprise. So it’s no wonder that much of the conversation among those engaged in these issues shifted toward Iran.

But while attention turned in that direction, the other crises did not end, pause, or improve. 50 hostages remain held captive in Gaza. Israeli air assaults on Gaza were described by Palestinians as among the most devastating since the war began. The controversial US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, tasked with delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza, has not only struggled operationally to reach residents across the Strip, but has also become the site of violence, often deadly, against those waiting in line for assistance.

In Israel, the Knesset is moving forward with a motion to impeach Palestinian Member of Knesset Ayman Odeh for a tweet in which he expressed happiness that both Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners were released in the most recent hostage deal. He didn’t equate the two groups, only his feelings of joy at lives being returned to their families.

Whether or not one agrees with his sentiment, and it’s important to remember that many of the Palestinian prisoners released were held in administrative detention without charge, impeaching a parliamentarian over such a statement is not only absurd, but a blatant assault on democracy. Especially when far more incendiary and violent rhetoric has been used by Jewish members of Knesset before and after October 7.

Beyond the disturbing nature of the impeachment attempt itself is the fact that even opposition leaders have largely backed it, aligning themselves with Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners. Is it any wonder, then, that no political party is seen as a credible opposition, when at key moments, they echo the ideology of those in power?

It should also come as no surprise that efforts to defend and strengthen democracy have largely stalled, despite the hundreds of thousands of protesters who have taken to the streets over the past two years. Without a true political opposition that can stand firm for democracy at the most crucial moments, the voice of the people, no matter how loud, cannot translate into the political power needed to unseat authoritarianism.

It may feel like we are repeating ourselves week after week, month after month, as we call for diplomacy, democracy, and a long-term strategy that ensures safety for both Israelis and Palestinians. But this repetition is not a lack of imagination, it is a rallying cry. A cry to recognize how far the Overton window has shifted in both Israeli society and pro-Israel discourse in the diaspora. So much so that the attempted impeachment of Ayman Odeh is not just unopposed, it is often actively supported.

There are two futures Israel and its supporters can choose, and the dividing line is not between left and right. It is between a vision rooted in democracy, international cooperation, and peace, and a path of authoritarianism, ethnic cleansing, and permanent conflict. No one should be under the illusion that an ever-deepening occupation will bring security. It guarantees only unending violence and instability.

Following Canada’s announcement of sanctions against extremist Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, a move we’ve long advocated, the institutional Jewish world was largely silent. That silence speaks volumes. For many of us, it is disheartening, though not surprising, to see the hawkish of our communal leaders remain quiet rather than condemn those who distort Jewish values, Zionism, and the very idea of a Jewish state. But their silence also signals recognition: even within the Jewish community, these figures are widely unpopular and their actions indefensible.

So where does that leave us?

We see, even if only implicitly, that our institutions do not want to appear as if they support authoritarianism, the erosion of democracy, or messianic extremism. Yet they remain unable, or unwilling, to say so out loud.

For decades, they positioned themselves as representing the consensus view of the Jewish community on Israel. But that was only true so long as Israel aligned with the values we hold dear: democracy, international law, a liberal world order, and meaningful engagement with allies.

Now, as it becomes painfully clear that Israel is moving in the opposite direction, it is the voices calling for change, voices championing diplomacy over endless war, regional integration over isolation, and peace over militarism, that must be the true "mainstream". Not because we expect unanimity within our community, nor do we demand it, but because standing by our values requires nothing less.

Our survival cannot come at the expense of our humanity. Our fears about the future cannot justify the hardening of our hearts. And our vision for Israel cannot be narrowed by the false claim that there are no other options.

The Israel we purport to support, the Israel that we fight for, is not a fight in which we engage only during the safety of times of peace, the fight for democracy cannot only be among Jews, and it is in the moments in which we are made most uncomfortable that the fight is most crucial.

There may be no great moral reckoning after this war. More likely, there will be justifications and denial. But each of us will still have a choice: to make excuses, or to make change.