When the Council of Ministers approved the reasons for the draft law amending the Social Security Law of 2026, this was nothing but a reflection of long-term calculations for a moment of mature institutional awareness, a moment in which the state realizes that the most dangerous thing it may face is not momentary objection, but rather postponing crucial decisions until they turn into crises that are difficult to resolve. Social Security, in its deep essence, is not just a law that regulates the relationship between the worker and the retirement fund, but rather a basic pillar of the social contract, and any defect in it accumulates silently until it becomes a direct threat. For both social and financial stability.

We must be aware of citizens’ concerns regarding any amendment to the social security system, and hence the amendment came with a gradual and carefully calculated approach, to ensure the protection of the acquired rights of every citizen, and to achieve sustainability for the system in the long term, away from any emotion or improvised decision. Therefore, reading the project as an attempt to reduce rights is superficial and does not reach the essence, as the philosophy of the amendment is based on protecting rights from slow erosion, an erosion that the current generation does not feel, but suddenly collapses in front of the next generation. The difference between a state that reforms quietly and a state that awakens to A sudden crisis, not in intentions, but in the courage to make difficult decisions before it turns into a crisis that has no cure.

The project came to restore things to normal, to rearrange the relationship between work and retirement within a rational logic that is compatible with the transformations of the era. The rise in average lifespan, the change in work patterns, and the expansion of the non-traditional economy are all facts that cannot be dealt with by laws developed for a different era and labor market. Continuing to ignore these facts is not protecting rights, but rather an adventure that risks the future of society.

Strengthening the independence of the General Institution for Social Security goes beyond the administrative dimension to the strategic national dimension, through managing the insured’s funds within strict governance and an approach based on actuarial studies and not on instantaneous reactions, sending a double message to “the subscriber” that his funds are managed responsibly, and to “the state” that one of its most important sovereign funds is immune from improvisation. This shift in decision-making distinguishes real reform from formal modification, and lays the foundation for a clear and sustainable future.

Regulating retirement, one of the most sensitive issues, was treated with caution without sliding into populism or conflict. Restoring obligatory retirement to its position as an asset, and confining early retirement within a strictly exceptional framework, is not a devaluation of the value of the worker, but rather an acknowledgment of the value of work itself. Societies are not built with a broad exit from the production market, and their insurance systems are not protected when the exception turns into a rule. However, the text of the project is clear in protecting acquired rights, stressing that whoever built his life on the previous rules will not be left behind. Halfway.

Raising the old age was also a model for gradual reform: no shock, no confusion, but sufficient time to adapt. The raising is not immediate, but rather gradual and calculated, almost imperceptible for those on the verge of retirement, while it is logically compatible with those who still have long years ahead of them in the labor market. This is not a forced prolongation, but rather a necessary alignment between the years of giving and the years of benefit.

On the social level, the project sends a message no less strong than its financial message, which is that sustainability is inseparable from justice. Raising the minimum retirement salaries, expanding the umbrella of protection to include modern work patterns, and reorganizing voluntary enrollment are all indicators that reform was not built with rigid numbers, but rather with human logic, which stands at the heart of any successful social protection system. Strong social security is not just a balance in the books of accounts, but rather preserving the dignity of those who have spent their lives working.

In the face of evasion and manipulation, the project chose the language of a confident state, not the language of blind deterrence. The penalties are strict, but they are accompanied by a window for correction without fines, realizing that the goal is not punishment for its own sake, but rather to return everyone to the umbrella of the law, protect rights, and establish a culture of conscious commitment, not based on fear.

It remains for me to say: The draft law amending the Social Security Law of 2026 does not ask people to trust it emotionally, but rather calls on them to read it with a cold mind and an alert conscience. It is a project that does not claim perfection, but is moving forward with courage towards gradual reform that preserves rights, preserves the system, and places the long-term interest of society above the temptation of immediate comfort, in a time when difficult decisions are often postponed. This project proves that the state that thinks about the future does not fear it, but rather prepares for it rationally. And responsibility.

I swear to God, the success.