For years, the “lites” were considered the “successful child” of the Religious Zionist sector—the ones who integrated into the heart of Israeli society and its economic elite. But since Bennett and Shaked’s abandonment in 2019, a broad segment of Religious Zionism finds itself in a deep leadership crisis. While Smotrich is racking up achievements on the ground, the “rich brother” is still searching for a political home somewhere between Liberman and Eisenkot.
Religious Zionism is typically divided into two main groups: the “lite-bourgeois” on one hand, and the “Torah-nationalist” on the other. For most of the sector, this division isn’t just theoretical—it’s present within families, among friends, and in residential neighborhoods. But in recent years, it seems that specifically the “successful brother,” that bourgeois and established stream, is at the height of a political midlife crisis. This is an identity and leadership vertigo that began with Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked’s desertion in 2019, and has only intensified since.
Over the past decade, a charged and emotion-laden battle has been waged between these two camps. On one side stands the camp identified with Bezalel Smotrich, and on the other, the one formerly identified with Bennett. This is a fight where “no prisoners are taken,” and the hatred and resentment in it burn beneath the surface. While the prevailing perception was that the lites are the “successful child” of the family, at least regarding personal career and integration into Israeli society, the political and ideological results present a completely opposite picture.
For a decade now, Bezalel Smotrich—who “took over” the sectoral brand abandoned by Bennett—has been working systematically and diligently to realize Religious Zionism’s flagship goals. Looking at his activity summary, he presents dramatic achievements: significant membership in the war cabinet facing seven fronts, a historic leap forward in advancing sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, and responsible economic management during a prolonged war period. Alongside this, the sector’s institutions—the preparatory academies, yeshivas, and national service—have become the “beloved sons” of Israeli society as a whole thanks to their enormous sacrifice on the battlefield.
In contrast to the consolidated sectoral success, the bourgeois brother finds himself in confusion. While individuals within this group heroically bear the burden of the national stretcher, as a political group they’ve lost their way. Since the formation of the “Change Government” in 2021, they’ve been left without a real political home. This instability creates restlessness, anger, and outward blame, similar to a classic teenager’s behavior. For a moment they hoped Bennett’s courtship would bring relief, but discovered his intention was to pull them into his new political home rather than return to foundational values.
Reality is slapping those who hoped for a Bennett comeback in the face. After his union with Lapid—one step too far for most of the sector—his political brand has weakened, and heading into the next elections he may become a passing episode. Thus that “wandering soul” of the sector finds itself in another round of searching: Will it be Liberman? Eisenkot? Maybe the combination of Hendel and Tropper? All are perceived as distant relatives, but they aren’t “the real thing” this public thirsts for.
The sobering up, it seems, will come sooner or later. It will grow from within, from the disappointments and the required process of sectoral maturation. It’s still unclear where this journey will lead them: to a warm family reunion within the right? To a deeper understanding of Israeli society’s complexity? Or perhaps to a true partnership with the traditional-Mizrahi camp, still perceived as hard to digest for descendants of the European sector? Meanwhile, all that’s left for us is to embrace them and wait for their return home.
