Being both liberal and pro-Israel, I sometimes feel like the only Jew on Christmas. The situation between Israel and its neighbors violates the traditional ethical and political boundaries within which I’m accustomed to understanding politics. Israel seems to have an impossible balance to strike. Israelis have the right to be free from fear of rocket attacks and suicide bombings; Palestinians have the right to live peacefully without being used as human shields by terrorists.
One key advantage of a democratic government is that such conflicts can be addressed by people of various opinions, and a consensus can be reached that benefits the most people. In theory, the fact that Israelis pack the Knesset with a multitude of parties and ideologies should promote better compromises that have positive impacts on the majority of Israelis. Without getting into the gory details of the real-world functionality of Israeli politics, we can content ourselves knowing that good compromises are far too infrequent occurrences.
If good government is made from compromise, then it seems the likelihood of bad government increases when fewer ideologies take part in the process. When a large percentage of people with similar views stop participating, their opinions no longer weigh as strongly into the debate; opposing ideologies then have disproportionate influence on policy. As Israeli liberals steadily lose their influence on politics, Israel begins to look, at least externally, disproportionately conservative and uncompromising.
One factor funneling liberals away from the Israeli political process is non-profit and NGO involvement. It’s easy to see why frustrated politicians would turn to this world. Many of these groups advocate exceedingly controversial positions. Proposals of Israel losing its identity as a Jewish state might be laughed out of the Knesset, but there are certainly independent groups that would entertain such notions.
If liberals turn their attention too far away from politics, they’re going to find that they have done more harm than good. NGOs are great places to kick around ideas, find issues that concern people, identify societal necessities, and pressure the government to enact certain policies. These groups have no actual decision-making power, however. This means that liberal views, even moderate ones (that don’t include Israel losing its Jewish identity, for instance), can be grouped together and excluded from policy discussions. While it’s great for NGOs to be able to find smarter, higher-quality candidates to produce policy papers, it’s of equal importance that people of varying ideologies get to debate and vote on policy measures.
It may be easier for left-leaning Israelis to feel at home in a non-profit or NGO environment, and the work that these groups do is important. However, NGO involvement from the left is not enough. If they really want Israel’s actions to contain liberal values, then lefties need to stand up and fight at the polls and in the halls of government. Otherwise, a useful and important ideology might end up in the gutter with the rest of the radicals.
Categories: 
I think maybe you have that backwards and the Israeli left is turning to NGOs because the Israeli voters won’t give them a foothold in the Knesset any more.
I admit that, since Israel is a democracy, my argument is kind of “chicken & egg” with your point. However, the continued existence of those NGOs indicates that there is a wide array of support for various leftist issues; particularly given that many of these groups operate as grassroots NPOs, I would be surprised if liberal ideology is significantly less prevalent among citizens.