Protests at Sohlberg Residence Expected and Part of Pattern

The scenes outside Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg home proved unsettling yet expected.

Following the High Court recent decisions on haredi military enlistment, demonstrators assembled near the justice residence and converted policy disputes into direct personal challenges.

These events drew broad criticism, as they rightly should. Judges must remain free from intimidation at their residences, and democratic systems cannot operate when officials face mob tactics.

What unfolded near Sohlberg residence forms part of a wider and more troubling pattern across Israeli society: the growing acceptance of selective compliance with rules.

Increasingly, people, groups, and political movements from various backgrounds adopt the view that regulations apply only when they match personal convictions, priorities, or notions of fairness.

This pattern spans multiple communities. Specific circumstances vary. Political ties differ. Complaints differ. Yet the core message stays the same: rules hold weight solely when they advance one own agenda.

Disregard for Established Authority

Over recent years Israelis have observed roads obstructed by activists who believed their cause warranted the interference. Unauthorized settlements have appeared despite official state positions. Haredi demonstrators have resisted enlistment calls and questioned court authority.

Criminal networks in Arab areas have shown open disregard for state power. Leaders have frequently denounced violations by opponents while overlooking similar acts that benefit their own side.

Every instance comes with its own rationale. Every group maintains its situation stands apart. Every breach is framed as a special case.

Countries seldom decline due to one isolated breach. They decline when such breaches turn routine.

The risk stems not only from the acts themselves but from the atmosphere they foster. A democratic system relies on agreement that conflicts are settled via institutions rather than force. Citizens may demonstrate, question, unite, and push for change. They may not independently choose which rules govern them.

When this foundation weakens, effects reach well past any single dispute.

Judicial bodies appear as political players to those unhappy with outcomes. Law enforcement turns into barriers instead of upholders of shared standards. Military duty shifts into a load for some and a voluntary choice for others.

Authority itself moves from a framework of law toward bargaining among rival factions, each seeking special allowances based on its own sense of right.

The outcome is not liberty. It is division.

Israel faces heightened exposure to this process given its makeup of distinct communities. Religious and nonreligious. Jewish and Arab. Progressive and conservative. Longtime residents and recent arrivals. The nation remarkable variety counts as an asset, yet it demands one vital element for unity: common respect for shared procedures.

Absent that respect, group identity starts to supplant national belonging.

Israel Confronts Internal and External Pressures Together

This risk stands out sharply at present. Israel continues a drawn-out regional conflict. The challenge from Iran persists. Hezbollah stays positioned along the northern frontier. War repercussions still affect daily life throughout society. Global attention remains sharp, and internal strains stay elevated.

In these circumstances, social unity serves as more than a benefit. It functions as a key resource.

Israel adversaries need no total collapse of institutions. They need only that citizens doubt whether those institutions serve all equally.

This explains why the events near Sohlberg home carry weight. They do not mark a singular emergency but illustrate a national tendency that has grown over time. The demonstration reflected a symptom rather than the root cause.

Discussion of military service will proceed, and it must. Democracies exist to manage strong differences on matters of policy, identity, and duty. The enlistment question ranks among the most significant facing the nation, and vigorous debate remains both natural and valid.

Yet a vital line separates debating a decision from declaring that decision no longer counts.

The moment every community asserts authority to pick which rules bind and which may be ignored, citizenship turns into group affiliation, and the state shrinks to little more than rival special cases.

A state cannot endure when each community sets itself as the ultimate authority.