LikudEdit

Likud is a major political party in Israel that has played a defining role in the country’s governance since its emergence in the 1970s. Born out of a consolidation of right-leaning nationalist currents, including the historic Herut movement and the Liberal Party (Israel), Likud built a platform around national security, Jewish self-government, and a market-oriented economy. Over the decades, it has produced several prime ministers and has often been the principal alternative to more left-leaning coalitions, arguing that a strong state and a robust economy provide the best foundation for peace and prosperity.

The party’s core identity centers on a belief in a secure, sovereign Jewish state with decisive leadership, an emphasis on deterrence and military strength, and a pragmatic approach to economic policy that favors entrepreneurship, competition, and fiscal discipline. Its supporters contend that security needs, not compromises in principle, must guide decisions about borders, settlements, and diplomacy. In domestic politics, Likud has framed itself as the vehicle for national resilience, administrative efficiency, and a political culture that rewards achievement and accountability.

Origins and development

Likud crystallized as a political entity in 1973 through the unification of right-leaning factions, most notably Herut and the Liberal Party (Israel), along with other nationalist voices. The new banner represented a coherent alternative to the long-dominant labor movement and its social-democratic model. The name Likud, often interpreted as “consolidation” or “unity,” signaled a commitment to a strong, centralized leadership that could unite disparate strands of national sentiment around the defense of Israeli sovereignty and the advancement of a free-market economy.

Under leaders such as Menachem Begin and later Yitzhak Shamir, Likud established itself as the chief champion of security-centric policy and a more privatized, efficiency-minded approach to governance. The party’s institutional evolution included absorbing a spectrum of right-of-center opinions—from nationalist hawkishness to liberal-conservative economic thought—while maintaining a core emphasis on Jewish self-determination and a realist approach to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Leadership, organization, and influence

Likud has been led by several influential figures who helped shape Israeli politics. The long tenure of Benjamin Netanyahu as party leader and prime minister cemented Likud as the dominant force on the right for a generation, characterized by a focus on deterrence, alliance-building with major partners such as the United States for security and economic cooperation, and a cautious approach to peace negotiations that prioritizes Israel’s security needs. Other prominent figures include Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, who steered the party through pivotal moments in the peace process and in Israel’s strategic posture.

The party’s organizational strength rests on a broad base that includes working-class voters, business communities favoring deregulation and growth, and segments of the religious and nationalist communities who view strong leadership as essential to safeguarding the country’s future. In the Knesset, Likud has often formed governments either alone or in coalition with like-minded parties, influencing policymaking across security, diplomacy, and economics.

Ideology and policy stance

  • Security and sovereignty: Likud’s program prioritizes a robust security posture, deterrence against threats, and the maintenance of defensible borders. Its supporters argue that a decisive, unapologetic posture on defense and counterterrorism is essential to national survival and regional stability. Jerusalem and the status of Jerusalem as a capital are treated as non-negotiable questions tied to national identity and security.
  • Settlement policy and the land question: The party has consistently supported the expansion of Jewish communities in the West Bank and other areas beyond pre-1967 lines as a matter of historical rights and security strategy. Proponents argue that settlement activity reinforces security by creating facts on the ground that protect Israeli communities and deter existential threats.
  • Economy and governance: Likud favors market-oriented reforms, private sector growth, competition, and fiscal prudence. Its stance emphasizes reducing unnecessary regulation, encouraging entrepreneurship, and keeping the state’s supervisory role focused on national-security and macroeconomic stability.
  • Diplomacy and international relationships: A key component is a close alliance with the United States and other partners, built on shared security interests, intelligence cooperation, and economic ties. The party argues that a strong American-Israeli partnership is foundational to Israel’s security and international standing.
  • Two-state considerations and diplomacy: In practice, Likud has often been skeptical about the immediacy or feasibility of a full 1967 lines-based two-state solution, arguing that any diplomatic framework must ensure Israel’s security, demographic parity, and Christian-js world?—and that agreements require concessions and incentives to be credible. Views inside the party have varied over time, with some leaders signaling flexibility in pursuit of practical peace steps under strict security guarantees.

Domestic policy and social issues

Likud has treated economic growth and efficiency as central to national strength, arguing that a healthier economy underpins a strong defense and a stable society. Reform-minded members advocate for governance that minimizes red tape, improves public services through competition, and curbs wasteful spending. On social policy, the party has typically emphasized national unity, immigration and population growth, and the idea that a secure state can sustain a diverse society while preserving a cohesive national identity.

The party’s approach to civil liberties and the judiciary has been framed by a belief that elected representatives should have a strong say in governance and that institutions should be calibrated to prevent political overreach. Critics on the other side of the political spectrum have argued this approach risks curbing minority protections and judicial independence; supporters respond that balance requires preventing activist interpretations from driving policy away from the will of the electorate.

Security, diplomacy, and regional strategy

In the realm of security and foreign policy, Likud’s record emphasizes deterrence, resilience, and the ability to make hard choices in uncertain regional conditions. The party has pursued deterrent defense, strong border control, and readiness to confront threats before they materialize. In diplomacy, the party stresses the importance of maintaining strategic alliances and a credible security doctrine that can sustain peace through strength.

Controversies and debates surrounding these positions have been intense. Critics argue that settlement expansion complicates peace prospects and risks long-term stability; supporters contend that a secure, defensible framework is a prerequisite for any viable peace process and that negotiated arrangements must be built on credible security guarantees.

The party has also faced internal and external debates about governance and accountability. Proposals associated with reforming the judiciary or recalibrating the balance between independent institutions and elected branches have sparked disputes about democratic norms and checks and balances. Proponents claim these reforms restore accountability and prevent unelected judges from overriding the will of the people, while opponents warn of risks to civil liberties and minority protections. In parallel, Benjamin Netanyahu and other leaders have faced legal challenges, which supporters frame as politically motivated attacks, while critics describe them as evidence of corruption or rule-of-law concerns that deserve full judicial scrutiny.

Controversies and debates

  • Settlement policy versus peace prospects: Critics argue that continued settlement growth undermines the viability of a negotiated two-state framework, while supporters contend that security needs and historical rights justify measured expansion and strong negotiating leverage.
  • Judicial reform and democratic norms: Debates over the scope of judicial review and the balance of power between branches have divided opinion. Proponents claim reforms are necessary to restore proper checks and balances and prevent the judiciary from inserting policy bias into governance; opponents warn of threats to minority rights and judicial independence.
  • Leadership and legal accountability: The legal investigations involving senior figures, including those connected to the party, have stirred controversy about political bias and the rule of law. Supporters argue that accountability applies across the political spectrum and is essential for integrity in government, while critics view the prosecutions as politically motivated or as undermining stable governance.
  • Security strategy and regional posture: The party’s emphasis on deterrence and aggressive defense planning has shaped debates about how best to deter threats while pursuing peace. Critics contend that excessive rigidity can preclude diplomacy, whereas proponents insist that security clarity is a prerequisite for any durable peace agreement.

See also