Israel's Druze Show Why Loyalty Must Outlast an Election

The Israeli Druze tradition of service carries a pointed lesson: commitment to a country can survive political disappointment, fierce disagreement, and demands for change.

An election decides who governs the country. It should not decide whether the country still deserves your commitment. That distinction is what I admire about the longstanding Israeli Druze tradition of service: allegiance to Israel reaches beyond the politicians temporarily leading it. Making national belonging conditional on your preferred party winning sets a considerably lower standard.

A shared country, with different political views

The Druze are a religious minority with a distinct monotheistic faith whose members speak Arabic. Their communities span several countries, including Syria and Lebanon, with different political histories and allegiances. Even within Israel and the Golan Heights, identities differ: many Golan Druze have historically identified as Syrian. The tradition discussed here concerns Israeli Druze civic life, particularly the communities of the Galilee and Carmel.

It is a tradition, not a claim that every individual thinks alike. Admiration becomes meaningless when it turns people into symbols and ignores their disagreements.

According to the Israel Defense Forces, compulsory service for Druze men began in 1956 following requests from community leaders. Across subsequent changes of government, that institutional relationship endured. Its significance lies in the responsibility assumed for the country and its people, rather than support for any particular coalition.

Service has names and consequences

Consider Lt. Col. Salman Habaka, from Yanuh-Jat, commander of the 188th Armored Brigade's 53rd Battalion. He fought Hamas terrorists at Kibbutz Be'eri on October 7, 2023. The IDF later documented his assistance to Golani troops during fighting in northern Gaza. He was killed there on November 2, aged 33. These are concrete acts of responsibility, carrying consequences no campaign slogan can capture.

Public service also continues beyond the battlefield. Dr. Salman Zarka completed 25 years in the IDF Medical Corps before becoming director of Ziv Medical Center in Safed in 2014, the first Druze physician to head an Israeli hospital. His career connected military medicine with civilian healthcare.

Political participation provides another expression of belonging. Gadeer Kamal-Mreeh entered the Knesset in April 2019 as its first Druze woman. The Jewish Agency records her work on women's advancement, internal affairs, and efforts against crime in Arab society. She subsequently became its first Druze emissary, serving in Washington.

Defending citizens, treating patients, legislating, and representing Israel abroad are different ways of accepting a stake in the same future.

Disagreement can express belonging

The clearest demonstration that allegiance does not require political agreement came on August 4, 2018. Tens of thousands gathered in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square for a protest led by the Druze against the Nation-State Law. Reuters described demonstrators carrying Israeli and Druze flags while demanding that the legislation be rescinded.

The objection was substantial. Druze critics believed the law failed to recognize their equal place in the country. Spiritual leader Sheikh Muafak Tarif told the rally: "Despite our unlimited loyalty to the state, the state doesn't consider us equals."

That statement joined loyalty and grievance in a single sentence. The demand was for the state to honor a relationship its citizens already took seriously.

To my mind, this strengthens the case for enduring commitment. Citizens can challenge legislation, organize demonstrations, and demand different leaders precisely because they regard the country as theirs. Loyalty that permits no criticism would give politicians an authority over national identity they have never earned.

The obligation runs both ways. A state should answer its citizens' grievances with fairness and practical action. Admiration for Druze service cannot substitute for taking Druze concerns seriously.

When belonging becomes conditional

In an October 20, 2026 report, Srugim described a Gali Israel radio exchange in which retired pilot Guy Poran said he could not continue living in Israel if Benjamin Netanyahu remained prime minister after everything the country had experienced. Poran also explicitly said he would accept the election result, explaining his position through personal suffering and disagreement with the country's direction.

His service is not erased by that statement. Nor does considering emigration automatically make someone disloyal. Families move for security, work, health, and countless personal reasons; Israelis abroad can retain profound commitments to their homeland.

The criticism concerns the proposition that political defeat should end one's willingness to share the country's future. When someone publicly makes staying dependent on their side winning, they give the opposing government extraordinary power over their own belonging.

A losing ballot does not cancel citizenship, responsibility, or the ability to organize for change.

The responsibility after the vote

What deserves admiration in the Israeli Druze example is the capacity to combine contribution with disagreement. It offers a demanding standard for everyone: remain invested, insist on fair treatment, and keep building the country even when its leadership disappoints you.

That standard applies across political camps. Winning an election grants authority to govern, not ownership of Israel. Losing leaves citizens with a voice, a stake, and work to do.

Governments hold office. Israel remains home.