Back From The Edge: Rebuilding Israel’s future

Sir Mick Davis

I see before me Israelis, Jews and Arabs, Palestinians, Jews of the Diaspora, rabbis, activists, philanthropists, leaders – all united by a shared commitment to a secure, just and sustainable future for Israel and its Palestinian neighbours.

But while these are fraught and uncertain times; what I know for certain is this: I am here because I love Israel. Not as an abstraction. Not as a slogan. But as a living, breathing society—full of genius and trauma; courage and contradiction; holiness and heartbreak.

And no matter what inspired you to join me and Mike, I truly thank you for being here.

Together, we will be confronting some of the hardest questions that Israel, all Israelis and the Jewish people have faced in generations.  

Friends, Pirkei Avot tells us that speaking before someone who is wiser than you is a sign of an uncultured man. So, I feel some trepidation speaking to an audience as wise as this one. But Mike Prashker, my partner in co-founding The London Initiative, insists that on the opening evening of these retreats – and this is the third – I should set the scene for the two days which lie ahead.

But let me say, in this general election year, what this speech is not:

It is not an endorsement of any political party.

But it is also not a retreat into neutrality. Because in the face of a moral and strategic crisis, neutrality is not neutral. It is drift. It is indifference. And as Eli Wiesel said the opposite of love is not hate; it is indifference. 

And if you are in this room tonight, it is because you are not indifferent and you recognise your agency.

And this year, 2026, is a year in which change is possible.

I will ascertain why change is necessary and what it will take for a liberal-democratic coalition to win, govern and rebuild.

We do not seek a government of the left, right, or centre; simply a government composed of politicians who respect the immutable values of liberal democracy. A government that will strengthen democratic institutions, not destroy them; serve all its citizens fairly, not neglect and drive a wedge between some of them, and be courageous, and honest in pursuit of secure peace.

We are living through a chaotic, unstable and dangerous moment when the rules-based international order is in flux.

Democracies are being battered from two directions at once.

From the outside: by autocratic powers and violent actors: Russia and Iran foremost among them.

And from the inside: by the erosion of confidence in democracy itself—where institutions are attacked as obstacles, judges as enemies, journalists as traitors, and truth as optional.

In the United States—Israel's indispensable ally—the political atmosphere has become more transactional, more polarised, more volatile.

And the Middle East – as always, remains a theatre where miscalculation is punished brutally.

Some will tell us that in this dangerous, chaotic world we need to be the tough guys. But bluster is not strength.

BLUSTER DID NOT KEEP ISRAEL SAFE ON OCTOBER 7.

Israel cannot afford to be isolated. Its security depends on alliances and Israel's moral legitimacy depends on being recognisable as a mature liberal democracy that strives for fairness and extends its hand for peace.

If Israel is perceived to be abandoning those things, it will not only continue to lose friends abroad. It will lose friends at home. It will lose its own children. And it will lose future generations of Diaspora Jews who will cease to be inspired by the Zionist project.

In a world of rising antisemitism, Israel's liberal-democratic legitimacy is not a luxury—it is a strategic shield for Jews everywhere. When Israel embodies its founding values, it strengthens our moral standing and our safety.

Israel’s direction of travel is not a public relations issue. -- It is an existential issue of national resilience.

And that brings me back to 2026. An election year. A YEAR OF OPTIONALITY.

Polling tells us that a change in government is possible—Netanyahu's bloc often polls below 61 seats. But possible is not the same as probable. Possibility must be converted into probability then into victory, and then into governance.

It is not about replacing a leader but about changing direction.

The problem we face is not only a question of personnel but the danger of a new “normal” in which democracy is eroded, fairness abandoned and talk of peace treated as treason.

That is the cliff edge we have been hurtling towards.

Here at The London Initiative, we embrace three fundamental propositions that we believe are essential to bring us back from the edge. We refer to these propositions as “The Triangle” of:

1. Mature liberal democracy

2. Societal fairness for all Israel’s citizens, and

3. The pursuit of secure peace with the Palestinians

We believe that the pursuit of any of these, requires the pursuit of all of them.

The Triangle is not a left-wing project.

It is not a diaspora fantasy.

It is not a “luxury belief”.

The triangle is Israel's operating system.

It is the vision embedded in Israel's Declaration of Independence—the foundational promise that Israel would be BOTH the nation-state of the Jewish people AND a state that ensures full social and political equality of all its inhabitants; that extends its hand for peace.

Sometimes, when I find myself getting too political, I reach for our Jewish texts not for diversion but for guidance. And this triangle – democracy, fairness, peace – is not in conflict with our Jewish values but central to them.

First, democracy—mature liberal democracy.

"Tzedek, tzedek tirdof"—"Justice, justice you shall pursue that you may live and inherit the land."

Our sages ask: why "justice" twice?

Because justice is not only an outcome, but a method. Not only what we pursue, but how we pursue it. It is an expression of the integrity of the system, as well as its outcomes.

A society that weakens its guardrails weakens itself. Israel is strong, thank God, but strength without justice is brittle. And brittle things break—often suddenly.

Israeli public perception of democracy is stark: 94% of left-wing voters, 71% of centrist voters, and even 38% of right-wing voters fear that democracy is in danger.

When half the country believes the system is imperilled, democracy becomes unstable resulting in ongoing trauma – not the promised inheritance.

Second, societal fairness.

Isaiah teaches: "The work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance forever."

Fairness is not merely moral, but strategic. It produces security, resilience, confidence, peace of mind.

But Israel’s fairness is fraying:

• Nearly 30% of Israeli children live in poverty—the highest in the OECD.

• The unequal sharing of burdens—especially in connection with military service—is a lit fuse under social cohesion.

• And by 2065, the Haredi community is projected to be 33% of Israel's population yet most Haredi boys do not study core curriculum subjects.

Israel’s success is built on a relatively small, highly skilled workforce. If that workforce shrinks while the population grows, the economic and social consequences will be severe.

Meanwhile an Arab citizen of Israel is over seventeen times more likely to be murdered than a Jewish citizen. Last week, in less than 24 hours between Wednesday and Thursday, five Arab citizens were murdered: in Yarka in the Western Galilee, Haifa, Lod, and Shaqib al Salam and Yarka in the Negev.

When a state cannot or will not protect all its citizens equally, it suffers from a moral stain and is a strategic failure.

And I want to pay tribute to the leaders of Arab civil society who have organised to demand action, including several members of TLI. We need to support those efforts and harness the opportunity for partnership like never before.

Third, peace—secure peace.

You cannot "manage" a conflict forever without paying a cumulative price—in blood, in budget, in legitimacy, and in the moral fibre of your society.

In Pirkei Avot we are told: "Be of the disciples of Aaron—loving peace and pursuing peace."

This does not mean loving peace in theory while pursuing dominance in practice. It means loving peace and pursuing peace!

Peace—secure peace—is the long-term architecture for security.

Secure peace is not trust—it is architecture: verified, enforced, and built on deterrence. It is not faith in our neighbours’ goodwill but confidence in structures that protect our interests.

The current trajectory is clear: settlement expansion, outpost proliferation, settler violence enabled by the state, and political rhetoric that treats annexation as destiny.

Nearly 512,000 Israeli citizens now live in the West Bank, in over 250 outposts. The years 2023-2025 saw a upward spike in new illegal outposts and settler violence.

Last week Israel’s Security Cabinet approved measures that will significantly expand Israeli civilian authority in the West Bank, effectively creating de facto annexation without formal legislation. The international community views this as a major escalation that violates international law, threatens the two-state solution, and risks broader regional instability.

So should we!

Annexation, the current drumbeat, is not pro-Israel nor Zionism. It is profoundly anti-Zionist because it will spell the end of the Jewish and democratic state. 

Taking peace off the agenda threatens Israel’s democracy and its standing in the world.

US favourable view toward Israel has fallen to 57%—the lowest in two decades. Among young adults, it dropped from 64% in 2023 to 38% in 2024. Tech sector investment—which represents 15% of Israel's GDP and 50% of exports—has declined 40-45% from peak levels.

All of these issues are concerning on their own. Together, they create a system-level risk.

And system level risk requires system level solutions.

That is why The London Initiative insists that these issues cannot be disentangled:  hence the Triangle. They are connected and interdependent.

You cannot sustain democracy while ruling indefinitely over another people without rights.

You cannot sustain fairness while diverting political capital and budgets into permanent conflict management.

You cannot sustain the pursuit of peace without a society that trusts its institutions and believes burdens are shared.

Democracy. Fairness. Peace. Together—or not at all.

Now, I speak tonight as someone who was last year diagnosed with an unusual medical condition. Along with my partner Mike Prashker, I was diagnosed by an amateur clinician with…"Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome"… On steroids.

I’ve been called worse. In Australia, when I was running an international mining company, I was variously described as a corporate vulture, a deal-hungry alligator and a commercial bandit, the last of which I understand is a compliment in that part of the world.

But if you care deeply about Israel’s democracy, social cohesion, security and place in the world – it is not deranged to be concerned. It is deranged not to be!

Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated Israeli politics since his return to power in 2009.

Under his leadership, the Overton Window—the range of ideas considered legitimate in mainstream discourse—has not just moved to the right – it has been dislocated. 

Now some of that is down to things that go beyond him: the trauma of terrorism; the collapse of trust in failed processes; regional instability; the failures of Palestinian leadership; the rise of religious-nationalist politics; the fragmentation of the centre-left. And in the last two and a half years the sheer barbarism unleashed by Hamas.

But Netanyahu has played a decisive role, by intensifying these waves in three main ways.

First, by making "conflict management" a doctrine - the idea that Israel could normalise with the region while indefinitely ignoring the Palestinians. Undermining the PA while delivering suitcases of Qatari cash to Hamas.

Second, by turning coalition politics into identity politics—exploiting cultural divides, delegitimising opponents as traitors, and portraying democratic gatekeepers as “enemies of the people”.

Third, by normalising the previously abnormal—bringing in Kahanists from the margins to make them the bedrock of his power.

In 2009, Netanyahu spoke of a demilitarised Palestinian state. By 2015 he ruled it out and by 2024, the Knesset passed—by 68 votes to 9—a resolution opposing Palestinian statehood.

We have allowed Netanyahu to dictate what constitutes acceptable discourse.

We have allowed him to declare as taboo a statement of the glaringly obvious: that without a plan to resolve the conflict, Israel cannot be secure and cannot remain both Jewish and democratic.

Democracy is under attack. From the nation-state law of 2018 to the judicial coup that continues to this day.

For the first time in 50 years V-Dem has downgraded Israel from a "liberal democracy" to an "electoral democracy".

But we also need to understand how Netanyahu has connected with the public. And for that we need to understand something fundamental about how voters make decisions.

Let me share with you a proposition that comes from decades of political research:

Voters make their choice not on policies, issues, or leadership attributes, but for the perceived personal psycho-social consequences that stem from these policies, issues, and attributes.

Put simply: Voters do not vote for policies. They vote for what those policies mean for their lives.

They do vote on how issues make them feel—safe or threatened, included or excluded, hopeful or despairing.

They do not vote for leadership attributes, but for leaders they believe are most likely to enable their hopes and navigate their risks.

People vote with their heads, yes. But also with their hearts, fears and hopes, their sense of belonging, and their need for peace of mind.

People do not vote for Netanyahu because they think he is a great human being.

A few weeks ago, I spoke with a reservist, a son of a close family friend, a Mizrachi family: he, in his mid-forties, with three children, living in the south. He had just come back from yet another cycle of milu’im. He said to me: "I don't vote Likud because I admire Netanyahu. I vote because I want my kids to sleep, because I don't trust the alternatives to keep us safe, and because I'm tired of being spoken about like I'm a problem."

That is not a policy argument. That is a life argument.

People vote for Netanyahu because they believe he is best able to allow them to realise their values, maximise their opportunities and manage risks.

What does that mean?

Security and peace of mind: "Only I can protect you.” For voters who feel existentially threatened, that is an emotional anchor.

Belonging and identity: "You are the real Israel. They look down on you. I see you." That is the politics of dignity.

Certainty in uncertainty: In a region of chaos, he sells continuity. For voters overwhelmed by complexity, that is not about strategy. It is about reducing anxiety.

Control: he promises he will not be pushed around—not by the Americans, not by the Europeans, not by the courts, not by the media. For voters who feel Israel is under siege, that is not about constitutional theory. It is about agency and self-respect.

We know his promises but here is the critical question: what has Netanyahu’s approach actually delivered?

It promised security—yet Israel suffered the greatest security failure in its history on October 7, 2023.

It promised stability—yet Israeli politics has been in near-constant crisis.

It promised international respect—yet Israel's legitimacy has been battered, and its isolation has grown.

And perhaps most corrosively, it promised that Israel could indefinitely avoid a hard choice. But the hard choice does not disappear when you avoid it. It reappears in worse form.

Tonight, I want to ask: what is our task—those of us who want a different Israel?

Our task is not to say, "Netanyahu is bad for Israel."

And our task is not to list better policies.

Our task is to tell a different story. To give a different answer to: "What will this mean for my life, my family, my security, my children's future?"

Because politics is not a policy paper but a contest of meaning!

The centre and the left have too often ceded the ground to the right—and then wondered why the right dictates the narrative.

They have allowed the right to define what it means to be "pro-Israel."; what it means to be "strong"; what it means to be "realistic."

And then, too often, they have responded by either negating Netanyahu—"we are not him"—or by imitating Netanyahu—"we are him, but nicer."

Neither works.

Negation is not an alternative vision, and voters will choose the real thing over the imitation.

If you fight on your opponent's terrain, use your opponent's language, you lose—because you validate their frame.

So, what does it mean to build an alternative?

It means to say clearly, confidently, repeatedly, what you stand for.

A sustainable new political paradigm in 2026 is only possible if we translate the triangle – democracy, fairness, secure peace – into the language of psycho-social consequence.

We cannot speak in the language of policy papers and think tank reports.

We need to speak in the language of people’s lives.

Democracy, in the language of life, is:

• "My life is not at the mercy of unrestrained power."

• "The system protects my rights—whether I am religious or secular, Jewish or Arab, rich or poor."

• “My vote matters.”

• "My children will inherit a stable society where the rules apply to everyone."

Fairness, in the language of life is:

• "My family can get ahead if we work hard."

• "The burden is shared—everyone contributes, everyone is protected."

• "The cost of living does not crush us."

• "The state protects all citizens from violence and crime."

Secure peace, in the language of life, is:

• "Peace of mind—I can plan for the future."

• "My children will not spend their entire lives in uniform."

• "A stronger Israel with stronger allies—not isolated, not alone."

To put these propositions back on the map, voters need to feel that they are a path to:

Security.

Belonging.

Pride.

A better future for their children.

That is the emotional architecture.

Here is the crucial reframe the liberal-democratic camp must own:

Security can be framed in two ways.

One way is fear: "Only force. Only forever war. Only me. We are alone. We are Sparta. "

The other is resilience: "Strength, yes. Deterrence, yes. But also, alliances, legitimacy, social cohesion, economic vitality, a political horizon."

One is short-term. One is long-term.

One makes Israel brittle. One makes Israel resilient.

A liberal-democratic coalition must be the home of strategic security. And it must say so - clearly, confidently, repeatedly.

And there is the test of whether we truly mean "resilience" and "belonging":

Do we mean them for every citizen?

I turn to the toughest issue in the room: Arab political partnership.

Let me be direct. If we believe in Israel as both Jewish and democratic—then the political inclusion of Arab citizens is not optional. It is essential. 

The Arabs of Israel are not guests. They are citizens.

They are part of the people of Israel—Arab Palestinian citizens who have lived on this land for generations, who pay taxes, study, work, build, heal, and contribute to society.

To our Arab-Israeli partners and friends here tonight: we are not speaking about you - we are speaking with you, and we are committed to your full safety, equality, and political legitimacy as citizens.

If the State of Israel is to be faithful to its Declaration of Independence, it must treat political partnership as legitimate.

That is a moral case.

But the political case is just as stark. It is basic arithmetic.

The liberal democratic camp cannot get to 61 seats without partners. To exclude Arab parties in advance of any election is not only a moral stain. It is an act of monumental self-sabotage.

For opposition parties to state that they will not form a coalition with Arab parties suppresses the Arab vote – which is exactly what Netanyahu wants!

When the right says: “you rely on Arabs” and your response is to say “no we don’t” you are accepting a framing that condemns you to defeat. It is wishful thinking to believe that if you reject Arab votes, you will attract right-wing votes.

The correct framing must be: we govern together as Israelis – equal citizens whose votes count equally.

Successful leadership doesn’t pander to the attitudes of its opponents – it asserts its own.

Leadership matters.

Arab citizens want to participate: 77.8% of Arab citizens support an Arab party joining the next governing coalition. Do not waste that opportunity.

Of course, partnership has responsibilities on both sides.

Arab parties must be constructive, committed to the coalition’s integrity and unequivocally against violence and terror. They must speak not only for grievance, but for governance and come to terms with with the reality that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. 

And Jewish parties must stop treating Arab citizens as either a security problem or an electoral instrument—and start treating them as partners and celebrate them as full citizens  in a shared future. Because a coalition that excludes 20% of the citizenry in advance is not a national coalition. It is a sectoral coalition.

And Israel needs national leadership.

So far, I've argued why change is necessary. Now I want to talk about how change becomes victory—and then governance. In other words, I’ve laid out the diagnosis; let me now turn to strategy.

What would a serious, non-partisan strategy look like for a liberal democratic coalition to win the 2026 election and then govern effectively?

I will suggest five practical steps - and to make them memorable, I will sum them up in five words: Narrative. Security. Institutions. Fairness. Partnership.

Step 1 (Narrative): Build a purpose-led narrative—stop fighting on Netanyahu's terrain.

Define the election as a choice between two futures.

Not "Bibi or not Bibi."

But: "A resilient Israel" versus "a brittle Israel."

"A confident Israel with allies" versus "an isolated Israel with enemies and critics."

"A shared society" versus "a fractured society."

Use the language of outcomes: peace of mind, pride, belonging, and a future for children.

Step 2 (Security): Own "security"— redefine it.

The liberal-democratic camp must be the camp of security professionals, institutional competence, and strategic realism.

Say: "We will be relentless against terror. We will be uncompromising against Iran and its proxies. We will protect Israelis. But we will also build the political architecture that makes perpetual war less likely. And we will rebuild Israel’s strategic map: deepening regional alliances, protecting the Abraham Accords, and refusing the fantasy that the Palestinian issue does not need to be confronted and properly, safely and fairly resolved.  

Align with Israel's senior retired security leadership—many of whom are adamant that peace is the ultimate security.

Step 3 (Institutions): Make democracy tangible—democracy as protection for ordinary people.

Democracy messaging must be translated into life-language:

"A government that can do anything to anyone is not strength. It is danger."

"Independent courts protect the soldier, the businessperson, the religious citizen, and the minority."

"Democracy means my vote matters, my voice counts, and power is constrained by justice."

Democracy is not left. Democracy is Israel.

Step 4 (Fairness): Put fairness at the centre—shared burden, shared opportunity, shared protection.

Focus on fairness commitments that signal seriousness:

A credible shared-burden framework: military service or national civic service for all; incentivise work not dependence.

Education quality and the core curriculum: Young people must be equipped to contribute – this is national survival.

Cost of living: with interventions on housing, childcare, productivity, competition policy.

A national emergency plan on violence in Arab communities: incorporating policing, prosecution, economic opportunity, and partnership.

Step 5 (Partnership): Make forming the coalition workable—do not pre-exclude Arab parties.

Do not rule out partnerships in advance. That is how you lose before you begin.

Set principles for partnership: commitment to democracy; commitment to non-violence; commitment to shared society; commitment to responsible governance.

Build the legitimacy of partnership through repetition, leadership courage, and leadership signalling.

When leaders treat Arab partnership as legitimate, voter attitudes shift faster than many assume.

So, what can we, The London Initiative, do as we work to strengthen the partnership between citizens of Israel and world Jewry.

I will suggest three commitments for The London Initiative network—practical, disciplined, measurable. We are a partnership. Diaspora members are not here to tell Israelis what to do. They wish to partner with like-minded Israelis to enlarge the space of the possible – and to do our part, unapologetically, as family.

First: End the institutional silence.

Every major Jewish institution that claims to love Israel should be able to say, publicly, that it stands for Israel's Declaration of Independence— for democracy, fairness, peace.

That is not criticism of Israel. That is affirmation of Zionism.

When 80% of British Jews disapprove of Netanyahu's leadership, when 78% remain attached to Israel but 70% endorse the right to criticise Israeli government policy, when younger American Jews are questioning their relationship with Israel—this is not a PR problem. This is a values crisis.

And a values crisis calls for moral leadership.

Why has Diaspora Institutional leadership been silent on the anti-Zionist measures approved last week by the Security Cabinet?

To our communal leaders: silence is not unity.  Silence is complicity.

Second: Invest in the Triangle strategically.

Targeted, serious investment in:

• Organisations defending democratic institutions and the rule of law.

• Initiatives tackling societal unfairness: education quality, shared burden, Arab community safety, cost of living.

• Work that is security-informed and politically literate but that keeps a credible peace horizon alive.

Find them.

FUND THEM.

Third: Shift the Overton Window by disciplined language and repetition.

Do not be bullied by labels. Do not accept the false binary of "support Israel" versus "criticise Israel."

We support Israel by supporting the values that make Israel legitimate and resilient.

Say it.

Repeat it.

NORMALISE IT.

The right has been extraordinarily effective at shifting the window through repetition. We must do the same—but for our values.

Friends, know this. In Israel and around the Jewish world we are not a minority. We are not marginal even if we have been silenced and battered into thinking we are.

We have agency and we have a responsibility.

We cannot promise that 2026 will deliver what we hope. And if 2026 does not deliver change, we do not fold – we continue to build: stronger institutions, stronger partnerships, stronger language, and stronger infrastructure for the next opportunity.

Change will come and we can be its agent, but no matter what, we must stay the course.

But I do believe this: change will not happen by accident.

Drifting off the cliff edge is not fate. Drift is a choice.

So let us choose.

Let us choose democracy—because power must be restrained by justice.

Let us choose fairness—because cohesion is the foundation of resilience.

Let us choose secure peace—because Israeli children deserve something better than endless mobilisation and communal dissonance and Jewish children in the Diaspora deserve an identity built on more than hasbara talking points.

Let us choose partnership—between all Israelis, world Jewry, and our allies—because none of this can be done alone.

Let us speak in the language of voters' lives and offer consequences worth choosing.

History teaches us that public opinion and reality can shift—sometimes rapidly. In 1973, most Israelis doubted Egypt's interest in peace. By 1977, after Sadat's visit, the vast majority were convinced. A peace treaty was signed in 1979. What was impossible became inevitable—because leaders had courage and because people were ready for a different future. Not because it was easy. But because it was necessary.

We must have the moral clarity to remember that Israel's strength has never been only its hard power—though hard power is essential — but the moral necessity of its existence, and the prophetic calling of its soul.

If I lose this Israel, I lose my identity, my sense of meaning, and I lose my soul.

That is too much to bear.

That is why I join with you tonight in this existential odyssey.

CHAZAK, CHAZAK, V'NITCHAZEK—BE STRONG, BE STRONG, AND LET US STRENGTHEN ONE ANOTHER.

The above is adapted from a speech by Sir Mick Davis to The London Initiative Retreat, February 15, 2026

Next Article

Previous Article