Israeli politicians react following a vote to dissolve the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, before the end of its term, at the Knesset, in Jerusalem, May 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun

For centuries, status was largely measured by wealth, power, and position. The person with the largest house, the greatest fortune, or the most impressive title was considered important. Then came the internet, followed by social media, and gradually another currency began competing with money: attention.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon has escaped the world of influencers and entered advocacy, journalism, and politics.

I see it within the pro-Israel advocacy community as well. Advocacy should be about Israel, the historical record, fighting antisemitism, challenging misinformation, and explaining an extraordinarily complicated country to audiences whose understanding of international affairs is based on short videos.

Yet advocacy can also become a competition for visibility. When this happens, the cause becomes the background while the advocate becomes the product.

That is dangerous because once attention becomes the objective, moderation becomes commercially unattractive. Algorithms reward emotion, confrontation, and outrage, which means that the person making the strongest claim frequently receives more attention than the person making the most persuasive or important one.

The same mechanism has entered politics, including Israeli politics.

As another Israeli election approaches, politicians understand perfectly well that nuanced policy rarely becomes viral content. Saying that a difficult security question requires careful consideration of military, diplomatic, economic, and humanitarian consequences will probably never generate the attention produced by a spectacular declaration.

Consequently, political discourse increasingly resembles the world of social media influencers. One politician must sound tougher than another, while somebody else needs an even more dramatic proposal, and an issue that received relatively little attention yesterday can suddenly become an existential national priority when polling or political circumstances change.

This is not exclusively an Israeli phenomenon. Politics across Europe, America, and elsewhere has increasingly become personalized and and instead been optimized for social media, with politicians developing personal brands and algorithms that reward confrontation.

However, Israel can afford this transformation less than most countries.

Israel exists in one of the world’s most dangerous geopolitical environments. Decisions taken by its leaders can determine whether soldiers return home, whether civilians are protected, whether hostages survive, whether alliances remain intact, and whether another regional confrontation begins. Governing Israel therefore cannot become another competition for engagement.

There is nothing wrong with ambition, achievement, or recognition. Human ambition has produced extraordinary progress, and Israel itself demonstrates what creativity, intelligence, and determination can accomplish. The problem begins when recognition becomes the objective rather than the consequence of doing something worthwhile.

Imagine a system in which leaders on both the right and left measured their decisions primarily against the national interest, rather than polling, positions, personal survival, or applause. It would be one that would benefit the state of Israel the most.

Sabine Sterk is CEO of the NGO Time To Stand Up For Israel.