Here's what Daniel sent us this week. He writes: his family spent six weeks under Iranian ballistic missile fire in Jerusalem — nightly shelter runs with a toddler, constant sirens, work essentially impossible. He supported the war's stated aims: eliminating Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile capability. He found the military execution genuinely impressive. But the ceasefire that came on April eighth left those aims largely unmet. Iran still holds its enriched uranium stockpile. US intelligence assesses Iran can recover its underground launchers and fire thousands of missiles. Israel wasn't even part of the negotiations. And four hours after the ceasefire was announced, Jerusalem issued parking tickets. Meanwhile, the government passed a record budget during active missile fire that funneled billions to Haredi institutions. Daniel's question cuts to the bone: is this poor wartime governance, or is it something more structural — a rupture in the social contract between citizens and the state?
That last detail — the parking tickets — is doing a lot of philosophical work, isn't it. The state's coercive apparatus running at full efficiency the moment the guns go quiet, while the protective apparatus was absent for six weeks. That asymmetry is the lived experience of what Locke and Rousseau were actually worried about.
And before we get into the philosophy — because I know you've been waiting to get into the philosophy — by the way, today's episode is being written by Claude Sonnet four point six, so if the social contract arguments are unusually well-structured, blame the model — let's just sit with the factual record for a second. Because the gap between what was declared and what was achieved is genuinely striking.
It really is. So Netanyahu, after the June twenty twenty-five twelve-day war, said Israel had achieved a "historic victory that will stand for generations" and had removed two existential threats: annihilation by nuclear weapons and by twenty thousand ballistic missiles. Trump said US strikes had "totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear program and set it back decades. He compared the bunker-buster bombs to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Eight months later, the conflict resumed.
Which rather undermines the "obliterated" framing.
Somewhat, yes. And then after the six-week war that just ended — Operation Roaring Lion, forty days of active conflict — Netanyahu says "we have succeeded in crushing the nuclear program and crushing the missile program." But what does the actual intelligence picture look like? Iran retains roughly four hundred and forty kilograms of uranium enriched to sixty percent purity. That's a short technical step from weapons-grade. US intelligence assesses Iran can recover underground launchers and fire thousands of missiles. Iran destroyed about two hundred of Iran's estimated four hundred and seventy ballistic missile launchers, with another eighty deemed inoperable — but Iranian bulldozers were repairing entrances to underground missile storage facilities within days of the ceasefire.
So the headline is: they degraded the capability, they didn't eliminate it. Which was the stated goal.
And Shira Efron at RAND put it precisely: "whether seventy or eighty percent of capabilities have been degraded, there hasn't been a discernible difference for those sheltering over the last five weeks." Which is the point Daniel is making from lived experience. The degradation percentage is a number that exists in briefing rooms. The siren is the number that exists in your shelter at two in the morning with a toddler.
And here's the thing that I think gets underreported in the western coverage. Israel was sidelined from the actual ceasefire negotiations. Pakistan brokered it between the US and Iran. Lapid's line on this is worth quoting directly: "Israel wasn't even part of the discussions when decisions were made concerning our national security." That's not a minor procedural complaint. That's a country discovering it's a junior partner in a war fought on its behalf, or at least nominally so.
Lapid went further than that. He called it "the greatest political disaster in all of our history." Now, Lapid is opposition, so you have to factor in the political incentive to overstate. But the structural substance of what he's describing is real. The ceasefire terms — Iran's ten-point peace plan leaked to Al Jazeera — include acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment program, lifting all sanctions, withdrawal of US combat forces from regional bases, full compensation for war damages, and control over the Strait of Hormuz. None of which Israel agreed to. Netanyahu's office said the ceasefire doesn't include Lebanon, contradicting Pakistan's claim that it did. So you have immediate ambiguity about the scope of the deal, and Israel wasn't in the room when it was made.
I want to push on the Lapid framing slightly though, because there's a counterargument worth taking seriously. The counterargument is: Iran's regime is damaged, its military leadership was decimated — Khamenei was killed, though his son Mojtaba took over — its missile production facilities were hit, and even if the capability wasn't eliminated, the cost imposed on Iran was enormous. Is it possible that "degraded but not eliminated" is actually the realistic ceiling for what airpower can achieve against a dispersed underground program, and the failure is in how the goals were communicated rather than in the execution itself?
That's the Yossi Kuperwasser argument from the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security — he tried to distinguish "achievable goals" from "wishful goals." And look, there's something to it. Fordow is buried under ninety meters of rock. Even the fourteen bunker-buster bombs the B-2s dropped in June twenty twenty-five didn't fully destroy it. There are physical limits to what you can do from the air. The problem is that distinction was never communicated to the public before the war. Citizens were told "obliterated." Citizens were not told "significantly degraded within the constraints of what airpower can physically achieve against a hardened dispersed underground program." Those are very different propositions, and you can only consent to sacrifice based on the proposition you were actually given.
Which is where the social contract theory becomes more than just academic framing. Hobbes's core argument in Leviathan is that citizens surrender rights to a sovereign in exchange for protection and order. The sovereign's legitimacy rests entirely on delivering security. But there's a mechanism question Hobbes doesn't fully resolve: what happens when the sovereign delivers security theater — the appearance of protection — rather than actual protection?
And that's where Locke becomes more useful than Hobbes for this case. Locke's government derives authority from consent and exists to protect citizens' life, health, liberty, and possessions. When it fails at that or serves factional interests instead, citizens have the right — Locke says even the obligation — to resist. The thousands who protested in Tel Aviv on April eleventh, exceeding the court-ordered limit of a thousand people, are doing exactly what Locke describes. What's philosophically interesting is that the High Court's decision to limit those protests during wartime raises its own question: does the social contract suspend civil liberties during wartime, or does wartime make civil liberties more important?
I'd argue more important, because the government's accountability to citizens is highest precisely when it's asking the most from them.
Rousseau's version of the social contract requires reciprocal duties — the sovereign is committed to the good of individuals who constitute it, and individuals are committed to the good of the whole. The "general will" must serve all citizens, not factional interests. A wartime budget that cuts education, health, and transportation while increasing Haredi institutional funding from four point one billion to five point one seven billion shekels — including an eight hundred million shekel addition inserted at midnight that opposition MKs accidentally voted for — that's a budget serving factional coalition interests, not the general will. In Rousseau's terms, it's a corruption of the contract.
The midnight eight hundred million is genuinely extraordinary. You're voting on a budget during a war, from a fortified auditorium, while sirens are going off, and someone inserts a quarter of a billion dollars for religious institutions at midnight and the opposition accidentally votes for it. That's not a governance failure. That's governance as a contact sport.
And Rawls gives you the cleanest test. Behind the veil of ignorance — where you don't know your position in society — would you design a system where draft-exempt men receive increased state funding while reservists leaving their families fight a war? No rational person behind that veil chooses that arrangement. The Rawlsian test fails completely.
Let's talk about the shelter data, because I think it anchors the abstract philosophy in something concrete and damning. Israel's State Comptroller reported that more than a third of the population — three point two million civilians — lacks access to standard-approved shelters or safe rooms. Nearly half a million students attend schools without adequate protection. And only zero point five percent of public shelters are in Palestinian cities and communities — approximately thirty shelters for more than two million Palestinian citizens of Israel.
And the Comptroller, Matanyahu Englman, said his office had already warned senior officials about this after the June twenty twenty-five war. So this wasn't a surprise. The gap was known, documented, and not addressed. That's the difference between incompetence and structural failure. Incompetence is not knowing there's a problem. Structural failure is knowing and choosing not to fix it because fixing it doesn't serve the political coalition that keeps you in power.
Netanyahu visited Arad, one of the cities struck by missiles, and he arrived with a movable safe room. Which was removed shortly after he left. An Arad resident told Ynet: "Why couldn't they just leave it?" That detail is almost too on-the-nose to be real, but it is real, and it captures something precise about the relationship between the state and its peripheral citizens. The protection travels with the politician. It doesn't stay with the people.
Here's the historical comparison that I think reframes this most sharply. In November nineteen forty-two, in the middle of World War Two, William Beveridge published his report on social insurance. Britain was losing the war, or at least not clearly winning it. And the government commissioned and published a document promising comprehensive social insurance from cradle to grave — unemployment insurance, healthcare, old age pensions — as a reciprocal obligation to citizens who were sacrificing. It was overwhelmingly popular. It became the foundation of the modern welfare state.
So wartime sacrifice, in that case, expanded the social contract.
Expanded it explicitly. The sacrifice was the occasion for the expansion. And in two thousand twenty-six Israel, wartime sacrifice is being used to contract the social contract — cutting civilian services while expanding sectarian funding. That's not just a different policy choice. It's a structural inversion of the Beveridge logic. And there's a lesson in what happened next: Churchill led Britain to victory and was swept from power in a landslide in nineteen forty-five. The British public voted for Labour's promise to implement Beveridge. Military success doesn't automatically translate to political legitimacy if the social contract is perceived as broken.
Which is a useful data point for people who assume that Netanyahu's "we won" narrative will be electorally sufficient.
The Vietnam parallel is also worth naming here. The US Army War College has a paper arguing that the Vietnam War "shifted the balance of power in the social contract between citizen and state, in favor of the citizen." When you have a draft — an explicit demand that citizens give their bodies to the state — you create an explicit reciprocal obligation. The state demands military service; in return, it owes citizens a just cause and competent leadership. The Israeli case has the same structure, but with an added asymmetry: a large population is exempt from the draft while receiving state funding. So you have two tiers of citizenship with inverted relationships to the contract.
Let me steelman the government's position for a moment, because I think the episode is more useful if we don't just validate the frustration — which is completely understandable — without testing the counterargument. The counterargument goes something like this: Israel faces genuine existential threats. The coalition Netanyahu holds together is the only one that can maintain a governing majority. Governing in a coalition means giving coalition partners what they need to stay. The Haredi funding is the price of the coalition, the coalition is the price of the government, and the government is the mechanism by which the war is fought. So the budget isn't a betrayal of the social contract — it's the political cost of maintaining the state's capacity to act.
I've heard that argument and I think it fails on two grounds. The first is empirical: the budget was passed specifically to avoid early elections, not because it was the minimum necessary to maintain the coalition's support for the war. Mairav Zonszein at the International Crisis Group put it plainly — "the minute the war began as a joint US-Israeli operation, that was already the victory Netanyahu needed and wanted." The war serves Netanyahu's political survival; the budget also serves Netanyahu's political survival. These aren't trade-offs. They're parallel instruments of the same political project.
And the second ground?
The second is philosophical. Even if you accept that coalition maintenance requires sectarian funding, the social contract argument isn't just about resources. It's about the asymmetry of obligation. The state demands sacrifice from citizens who shelter under fire. It demands that reservists leave their families and livelihoods. It does not demand equivalent sacrifice from the coalition partners who receive the funding. Liberman's line captures this exactly: "On a day when the State of Israel is at war, when our soldiers are on the front lines, and reservists are leaving behind families and livelihoods, the government chooses to pass a misleading, sectarian budget." The coalition maintenance argument doesn't address the asymmetry — it just names it.
Daniel's point about the universality of this tension is worth taking seriously too, because I think there's a risk of treating this as uniquely Israeli dysfunction when the pattern is actually quite common. False victory narratives: Vietnam's "light at the end of the tunnel," Iraq's "Mission Accomplished." Civilian neglect during wartime: governments consistently underinvest in civilian protection while overinvesting in military hardware. Political exploitation of wartime emergencies to pass legislation that would otherwise face resistance.
What makes the Israeli case distinctive isn't the pattern — you're right, the pattern is universal — it's the visibility of the asymmetry. The mandatory draft makes the reciprocal obligation explicit in a way that volunteer militaries don't. The existence of a large draft-exempt population makes the asymmetry immediately legible. And the repetition of the victory narrative within a single year — June twenty twenty-five to April twenty twenty-six — makes the falseness of it undeniable in a way that longer gaps between conflicts might obscure. When you declare "obliterated" in June and are back at war by February, you've given citizens a very short timeline to notice the gap between the claim and the reality.
Elana Kaminka, the Israeli-American activist whose son was killed on October seventh, wrote something after the April eighth ceasefire that I think is worth sitting with. She wrote: "Eight months ago, we were told that Israel had obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities in a feat of biblical proportions. Six weeks ago we were told that Iran's uranium and ballistic missiles were again an existential threat. Today, the enriched uranium is all still there. The missile launchers are obviously still functional and have ammunition, as we all experienced firsthand. And now, poof — we're supposed to forget the last six weeks and go back to our lives." The "poof" is doing real work there. That's the demand that citizens absorb the gap between narrative and reality and not ask for an accounting.
And the demand for resilience is related to that. Governments invoke civilian resilience as a virtue — but resilience is not a substitute for governance. The state takes credit for citizens' resilience while avoiding accountability for its own failures. Lapid's formulation is precise: "The army did everything they asked of it, the public displayed incredible resilience, but Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and did not meet any of the goals he himself set." The army performed. The civilians performed. The political leadership didn't. The resilience narrative flips the accountability — it makes the citizens' performance the story and the government's failure the background.
So what does the social contract actually demand in wartime, in practical terms? Because I think the philosophical framework is clarifying, but Daniel's question is also a practical one. What should a government do differently?
At minimum, three things. First, honest accounting of war aims — what is actually achievable, not what is rhetorically satisfying. If airpower can degrade Iran's missile capability by seventy to eighty percent but cannot eliminate it, say that before the war, not after. Citizens can consent to sacrifice for achievable goals. They cannot meaningfully consent to sacrifice for goals that were never achievable.
Second?
Second, proportional distribution of burden. If the state demands military service from some citizens, it cannot simultaneously exempt other citizens and fund their institutions from the same budget. The Rawlsian test is useful here: design the system from behind the veil of ignorance. No one would choose the current arrangement.
And third?
Third, and this is the most basic Hobbesian point — the protective function has to actually function. Three point two million people without adequate shelter access is not a resource constraint in a country that just passed an eight hundred and fifty billion shekel budget. It's a priority choice. The state chose to protect its coalition partners' funding before it chose to protect its citizens' physical safety. That's a social contract failure in the most literal sense.
The parking ticket is the symbol of all three failures simultaneously. Four hours after the ceasefire, the enforcement apparatus is running perfectly. The protection apparatus was missing for six weeks. The honest accounting was absent throughout. And the burden was distributed to the people sheltering, not to the people whose funding was increased.
Danny Citrinowicz at the Institute for National Security Studies put the strategic risk plainly: "The regime is still firmly in power. Its missile capabilities are damaged but still intact. It still holds roughly four hundred and forty kilograms of uranium enriched to sixty percent. We risk emerging from this war worse off than when it began." That's not opposition spin. That's an Israeli security establishment analyst looking at the same facts and reaching a conclusion that directly contradicts the government's narrative.
And Trita Parsi's point about US credibility is worth noting: "Trump's failed use of force has blunted the credibility of American military threats. The United States is no longer in a position to dictate terms." If that assessment is correct, the strategic cost extends well beyond Israel's immediate situation.
The US-Iran talks in Islamabad ended after twenty-one hours with no deal, with JD Vance saying Iran refused to disavow the nuclear program. So the ceasefire is fragile, the strategic situation is unresolved, and the social contract question isn't going away — because the conditions that produced it haven't changed.
So what do we actually take away from this? For listeners who are thinking about this not just as an Israeli story but as a framework for evaluating their own governments.
The core diagnostic question is the asymmetry question. Does the state's coercive apparatus — taxes, fines, conscription, enforcement — function with the same efficiency as its protective and supportive apparatus? If there's a consistent gap — the state is always present when it wants something from you, absent when you need something from it — that asymmetry is the social contract failure, regardless of what country you're in.
And the victory narrative question. When a government declares success, what were the stated goals before the conflict, and how does the outcome compare to those specific goals — not to a revised version of the goals introduced after the fact?
Rawls's veil of ignorance is actually a useful everyday tool here. When evaluating a wartime budget, ask: if I didn't know whether I would be a reservist, a Haredi student, a citizen in the southern periphery, or a Tel Aviv professional — would I choose this distribution of burdens and benefits? If the answer is no, the contract is failing someone, and the question is who and why.
I think Daniel's frustration is completely legitimate, and the evidence supports the structural reading rather than the mere incompetence reading. This isn't a government that tried to fulfill the social contract and fell short. It's a government that made explicit choices about whose obligations it would honor and whose it wouldn't, while the sirens were going off.
And the Beveridge point is worth ending on. In nineteen forty-two, Britain used the worst moment of the war as an occasion to make a promise to its citizens about the future. That promise — even made in the middle of the conflict, even before victory was certain — changed the relationship between citizens and state in a way that lasted for decades. The question for Israel, and for any democracy navigating the same tension, is whether the government sees wartime sacrifice as an occasion for that kind of reciprocal commitment, or as cover for the opposite.
Thanks to our producer Hilbert Flumingtop for keeping the whole operation running. Big thanks to Modal for providing the GPU credits that power this show. This has been My Weird Prompts. If you're enjoying the show, a quick review on your podcast app genuinely helps us reach new listeners. Until next time.
Take care.
