What Is Israel?
The state of Israel is a small country—about the size of New Jersey—in the Middle East. It borders the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The country also borders, and occupies parts of, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Israel is home to 8 million people, 75% of whom are Jewish. Its capital is Tel Aviv, but its most famed city is Jerusalem: the holiest place on Earth.
Israel is often described as “the only democracy in the Middle East.” The country has very strong diplomatic relations with the international faces of democracy, the US and the UK. It is also a member of democratic international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Democratic Roots
The state of Israel has been internationally recognized as a democracy since its independence from British Mandate, in 1948. However, when taking into account the continued oppression of Arab minority groups, such as the Palestinians, it is debatable whether Israel was ever a democracy at all.
Modern-day Israel—as opposed to Biblical Israel—was, put bluntly, “[established] by a European power…[in regards to] a non-European territory…in a flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory.” On November 2, 1917, toward the end of World War I, following the fall of the Ottoman Empire and Britain’s subsequent inheritance of the territory of Palestine, Britain published the Balfour Declaration. The declaration was, in short, a letter of intent to turn the territory of Palestine into “a national home for the Jewish people.” At that time, 90% of the population was Arab (i.e., Palestinian) and, understandably, did not want to give up their homeland to foreigners.
As Jewish immigration increased—first gradually and then abruptly, following the Holocaust—Palestinian-Jewish tensions grew. By 1948, when Israel—or rather Ben-Gurion, the chairman of the Jewish Agency, and the first Prime Minister of Israel—declared independence from Britain mandate and was accepted into the United Nations as a democratic state, Palestinians made up only two-thirds of the population. Following a period of ethnic cleansing, known as the Nakba (the Catastrophe), Palestinians became a minority. Today they make up only 25% of the population of Israel.
Is Israel a Democracy?
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World, Polity’s IV Project dataset, and the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicator (WGI) Israel’s democracy is not eroding; but it is flawed. Since 1948, Israel—the government and the citizens—has formally and informally, legally and illegally, discriminated against Palestinians inside and outside of Israel.
EIU Democracy Index
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index ranks countries based on their level of democracy. Countries are ranked as full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, or authoritarian regimes based on their electoral process and pluralism, political participation, the functioning of government, political culture, and civil liberties. EIU has ranked Israel as a flawed democracy since their first report, in 2006. Over the past ten years, Israel has averaged a 5.6 (out of 10) for civil liberties, a whole two points lower than their average overall score. In 2014, civil liberties dipped by almost one whole point. The drop was likely due to Operation Protective Edge, which reinforced anti-Palestinian sentiments in Israel and led to acts of discrimination, such as job firings, against Palestinian-Israelis.
Freedom House: Freedom in the World
Freedom House rates regimes as free, partly free, or not free based on civil liberties and political rights. Freedom House has ranked Israel as free with remarkably impressive scores in civil and political rights since 1998—although it should be noted that the scores do not take into account Palestinian-controlled, Israeli-occupied territories (i.e., Gaza and the West Bank). In 2006, Freedom House lowered the civil liberties score from 3 to 2 (out of 7, where 1 is the best and 7 is the worst) due to “a marked decrease in terrorist attacks” and a “surge of civic activism” advocating for the withdrawal of IDF from Gaza in 2005.
Polity IV Project
According to Polity IV Project, from 1948 to 1966, Israel held competitive elections featuring an institutionalized electorate, meaning political parties that competed for political power with “little use of coercion.” In 1967, following the Six-Day War, Polity temporarily downgraded Israel’s electorate to a transitional electorate with “limited conflict/coercion.” In 1981, following “the most tense and violent [election] in Israel’s history,” Israel’s elections were permanently downgraded to restricted elections and its electorate to a factional/restricted electorate.
The World Bank: WGI
Israel has never scored well on the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators’ (WGI) stability and (lack of) terrorism category. On a scale of -2.5 to 2.5, Israel continuously received between -0.5 and -1.5. However, in 2003, the World Bank upgraded Israel to a 1.52, a 2.98-point jump on a 5-point scale. The improvement coincided with the Road Map to Peace proposal to stop the expansion of Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, end IDF occupation in Gaza and the West Bank, and ultimately create a Palestinian state. However, within a year, Israeli settlement expanded, IDF occupation continued, and any hope for a timely two-state solution quickly faded along with safety and security. In 2009, Israel saw another dip in (lack of) violence in 2009, coinciding with Operation Cast Lead.
Israeli Ethnocracy
Israel’s struggle with democracy can be attributed to three factors: ethnic tensions between Jews and Palestinians, partisan polarization between Zionists and liberals, and pro-Zionist support from international leaders of the democratic world (i.e., the UK and the US).
As mentioned earlier, Israel was created by foreigners, for foreigners. It makes sense, then, that Israel sees such strained relations between immigrants (i.e., Jews) and natives (i.e. Palestinians). In 2016, the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) published a report on the “Attitudes of Arab Citizens of Israel” conducted by the Guttman Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research. The report found that “more than two-thirds of the Arab respondents (compared with half of the Jewish respondents) stated that the level of tension between Jews and Arabs was the strongest of all tensions between groups in Israeli society” and that “the broadest consensus within Arab society in Israel, one that transcends all internal divisions and agreements” is discrimination against Arabs. These tensions can also be seen in attitudes toward institutions (i.e., political parties, the Knesset, and the government), where “the level of trust of the Arab public…is even lower than that of the Jewish public,” which the Guttman Center team points out “is itself is disturbingly low.” Finally, the report revealed a wide disparity between Jews’ and Arabs’ sense of belonging to Israel: only half of Arab-Israeli citizens reported feeling “proud to be Israeli” and “among younger and more educated respondents, a relatively small share reported feeling proud to be Israeli,” suggesting a generational decrease in sense of belonging.
Israel has also seen strained relations between Zionists, whose prioritize ethnocracy over democracy, and liberals, who prioritize democracy over ethnocracy. This is particularly concerning because of the historical and contemporary pervasiveness of Zionism in Israel and Zionism’s incompatibility with liberal democracy. The tensions between Zionists and liberals is quantified by low public support for democratic values, revealed in the IDI’s 2010 report on “Democratic Values in Practice.” The Guttman Center team reported that only 20% of respondents think that being a democratic state is more important than being a Jewish one— 43% think they are equally important and 31% think being Jewish is more important. Additionally, 46% think “there should be legal penalties for persons who speak out against Zionism” and 50% think non-Zionist parties should be allowed to participate in elections. Furthermore, “86% believe that critical decisions for the state should be taken by a Jewish majority” and 62% believe that “as long as Israel is in a state of conflict with the Palestinians, the views of Arab citizens of Israel on foreign affairs and security issues should not be taken into account.” Finally, 49% do not “support full equality of rights between Jews and Arabs.”
Not only has the UK and US, and other international leaders of the democratic world, been complicit in Israel’s violation of Palestinians’ rights, but they have been vital to it. Israel’s Western allies’ unabating political and economic support for the state and active marginalization of Palestinian persecution by the state has allowed Israel to continue blatantly disregarding democratic norms and practices while still holding onto the title of a democracy and enjoying the benefits that come with it.
Ethnocratic Erosion
However, Israel is not doomed to be an ethnocracy forever. After the second Gaza war, popular newspapers began publishing pieces with titles like “Israel’s Charade of Democracy,” “The ‘Only Democracy in the Middle East’? Hardly,” and “Israel Cannot Be Both Jewish and Democratic.” Independent journalists publishing articles with headlines like: “a democracy doesn’t deny millions their civil rights, plunder their land and resources, and deprive them of independence and of a say in their future,” and “Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. In fact, it’s not a democracy at all.” If awareness is the first step to recovery, the dissemination of pro-Palestinian voices is a beacon of hope for Israeli democracy.
*Photo by Paul Joseph, “Palestine,” Creative Commons Zero license.
Great post. The history was informative and your analysis of ethnocracy was great. I’ve always struggled with whether state can be both a democracy and a X-State (Jewish-State; Muslims State; Christian State, etc.). I suppose it is conceptually possible, but your argument regarding ethnocracy (second point) suggests not. By elevating one group (belief, social group, religion) to the status of “State endorsed,” seems to preclude notions of equality or fairness. For that reason, I’ve always been skeptical of the notion that Israel was a democracy.
Another interesting point that was not brought up is the history of “Zionism.” Early on, my understanding is this term referred to socialistic bi-national state, rather than a Jewish State. Too bad this notion was overtaken by the Zionism we see today.
An interesting post, I think that the part of this discussion I find to be most concerning are the polling data from the Guttman Center, referenced towards the end of this post. The situation with Israel is precarious because on one hand it was created for the sole purpose of being a refuge and home for the Jewish people, but on the other hand it encroached on a territory already inhabited by a religious population and instead of compromising, only conflict has ensued. The polling data reflected in this post causes concern because this reflects how the people of Israel currently feel, and many of these feelings are aggressively anti-Arab and pro-Jew. This is more of a problem than if the feelings had been anti-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. Basing political beliefs around an ethnic identity is more problematic than basing political beliefs around a national identity because politics are directly related to a nation, not a religion. There is inherent conflict between religious groups, and the fact that these religions are also in political conflict only amplifies negative views of the other group. If Israel wants to identify as a democratic nation, the pursuit of democratic ideals needs to be at the forefront of their political actions. However, time and again they show that their true intention is to further their religious and ethnic goals. I also find it concerning that most of the referenced organizations which rank democracies are only giving Israel good marks when they ignore certain time periods or locations. A country can’t just be democratic part-time or in certain places, and I think it’s clear that when the animosity towards Palestinians is included in analyses, Israel fails to make the cut of being a proper democracy. This then begs the question as to why countries such as the US and the UK persist in supporting such an anti-democratic government. If we truly are simply trying to encourage the ideals and practices of democracies across the globe, perhaps we should reconsider our unwavering support. The only way Israel will shift from an ethnocratic nation to a democratic nation is if it is given the proper push, and it is up to the Western nations who preach about the importance of democratic values to give that push.
It has been really interesting to learn more about Israel and the state of their democracy. With the country in the news so often, I honestly regret that I do not know more about the governmental structure.
Hearing you speak in class, I am surprised you did not write about the country’s unwritten constitution and how that may affect potential/is affecting backsliding. If there is no formal constitution, is the state not at risk for the abuse of power and erosion of checks and balances. Considering you have brought that up in class a few times, I would have liked to have read more about it.
The tension between ethnocracy and democracy is one that definitely seems to be the primary one feeding into religious and ethnic tensions. Considering, the scale of the issue, I would be interested in knowing what the percentage breakdown of Zionists, versus democracy supporters are in Israeli society.
However, you seem very optimistic about the future of Israel’s democracy based upon the current media coverage and criticism of ant-democratic factions. Seeing how media can be systematically delegitimized or taken control of, the level of optimism seems perhaps a little too much. Plus, if Israel is not technically a democracy, as some of the articles that you link state, how can it recover if it was never one at all? In that case, it would not be a case of reversing democratic erosion, but rather the country would have to undergo a process of democratization.
This is a comprehensive look at democracy and ethnocracy in Israel. As someone who is currently writing their research paper on democratic erosion in Israel, it was nice to stumble upon this piece. From my research, I have come to very similar conclusions as this article regarding the domestic issues facing Israeli-Arabs, though with slight differences in research. I had not come across the surveys mentioned above, but find them to be intriguing and a good point of reference when gauging the general public opinion on issues. Having done a large amount of research regarding this issue as well, I feel there could be more information included regarding pre-Netanyahu and post-Netanyahu. The coalition he put together and the people he appointed to positions of power have said many things and attempted to pass legislation that tells us more about erosion from within the government. The next few years are going to be very interesting, especially with the recent resignations by members of the government in the face of regional policy failures.
Just like mentioned above, this is a great summary of how Israel and their current regime is established. A rather brilliant compilation of the most important context when it comes to ethnic demographics and political turmoil that has recently started. I do think that due to the UN chartering the borders for Israel based on historical evidence was something that was bound to stir up the conflict. With Palestinians being nomads but settling down in the are of present Israel, UN has not ensured that Israeli government will be fair and equal to the minorities.
Ethnocracy was bound to happen due to stripped national identity of the Jewish people and rebuilding the country from the start since 1949. I am not justifying the atrocities being committed from Israeli side to Palestinians, yet I can understand how hard the new Israeli population is feeling when they try to create a new mentality. With the recent development of ethnic Jewish people from Eastern Europe moving to Israel, the community embraces the shades of so many cultures which is an obvious recipe for a potential conflict. Due to the issue of minorities arising, populism is also bound to happen from such environment. Just like Benjamin Netanyahu predicted back in December, populism in Israel is on teh rise and now is getting stronger than ever.
It would be amazing to see more data-driven research on the ethnocratic erosion, your last section, once you mentioned that awareness that ethnocracy is the issue and now people are more involved in understanding what’s going on in their community, it would be incredibly useful to see more results of that in order to determine whether it is, in fact, the first step to solving the issue.
I visited Israel fairly recently, and was excited to learn more about the country. Your post was very informative and clearly outlined the differences between an ethnocracy and a democracy. Israel is a tough nut to crack, because there is more to the narrative behind the conflict between Arabs/Palestinians and the Jews, who claim rights to the country. The state of Israel has only really been a state since the British mandate that you described, and even then it is hard to define it as such because of continuous border disputes and questions about Israeli claims to sovereignty (especially in Jerusalem); however, the geographic area on which Israel currently rests has been disputed by a variety of ethnic groups for centuries. While Israel was largely inhabited by Palestinians at the close of WWII, I do think it is important to remember that the Arab-Israeli conflict did not start at that point in time, and consider how that plays into the current conflict. I don’t think the Palestinians are currently being treated ethically and that a compromise must be reached to ensure true democracy, and I’m interested to see whether it will ever be resolved.
The issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations is certainly an important topic that needs to be discussed. What I appreciate about how you discussed this issue is that you presented a substantial amount of information, from a large number of sources, in order to provide some context for readers. For example, the section in which you provide different perspectives from databases such as Freedom House does manages to provide information to readers who otherwise would likely not have known so.
Despite this effort to inform readers, I would argue that there is a clear bias in favor of Palestinians that ruins the potential for a truly great article. Throughout this article there is a clear sense that Palestine should be seen as an innocent victim when in fact the situation is far more complex. For example, although some radical Zionists may be in favor of a state that holds Jews superior to others, the fact is that true Zionists wish only for a homeland where Jews, who have always been victims of discrimination throughout the globe, may seek refuge from those who seek their destruction. Likewise, there is no mention of the transgressions committed by Palestinians, such as the terror promulgated by Hamas. To be clear, both sides are guilty of injustice, but this article gives no account of injustice from Palestine. In order for your research to provide a more well-rounded account of the conflict, I would suggest referring to Vice’s documentaries on the situation in Israel.
Hamas: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522
Vice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zAQG_5DG6A
Thank you Max Mapes for your research on the percentages of Israel’s ratings in institutions like the Economist Intelligence Unit’s (EIU) Democracy Index, Freedom House’s Freedom in the World, Polity’s IV Project dataset, to analyze how strong Israel’s democracy is on an international level. I do agree with Mr. Salvatore Ragonese and his comment stated, “I would argue that there is a clear bias in favor of Palestinians that ruins the potential for a truly great article. Throughout this article, there is a clear sense that Palestine should be seen as an innocent victim, when in fact the situation is far more complex.” This article/ blog post clearly favored the Palestinians and disregarded the historical context of the Jewish people and in fact their indegenous narrative to Israel that dated before the Arab settlers. Since 1948, after the establishment of the one and only Jewish State of Israel, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been a controversial topic on the frontlines of regional issues in the Middle East. Palestinians are the peoples who identify themselves as the righteous owners of Israeli land due to a misunderstanding of historical facts of the native and indegenous peoples of Israel. The word ‘Palestine’ itself is a Hebrew word meaning invader or conqueror that was used to call Greek invaders, dating back before the Roman Empire. The British colonizers and former Ottoman Empire called the Kingdom of Judea, Palestine, to increase Jewish oppression. Palestine was not a region claimed to Arab settlers, it was just a temporary name given to the land of Jews to mock the invasions of Greeks and Romans that were eventually defeated. People at the time either identified as Jew or Arab, in the Palestine region. Arabs were a minority in Palestine that made up only 10% of the population. These Arabs settlers were tribal migrants from the Arabian Peninsula who settled in these lands in 1880 with Jewish natives who had lived there more than 2,000 years ago. In 1920, the British created a Mandate of Palestine; however, this was not appointed to Arabs, it was a specification of the land of what is now the Jewish State of Israel. The Arab League led opposition to a Jewish State in the Middle East, forcefully kicking Jews out of their own countries and using violent military mechanisms to diminish the presence of a Jewish State. Immigration in 1933 was intensive and Jewish settlers came back to their lands from Europe, after World War I and from Arab countries. The conflict between Arabs and Jews began twenty years after the establishment of Isreali sovereignty in 1967, when Israel claimed Jerusalem to be their capital. Furthermore, Arabs identified themselves as Palestininians to create an opportunity to deceit the international community, claiming they were the peoples of Palestine. Since 1967, these Arab Palestinians have claimed the right to self-determination and an internationally recognized State of Palestine which is, of course, a right that should not be denied for any peoples. With several clashes between Israeli militia and Palestinian Hamas, the international community has paid closer attention to the conflict. Therefore, I disagree with your statement “Israel was created by foreigners, for foreigners.” The Jewish people are not foreigners of their land, most Jews simply returned to the land after facing oppression and injustice against their religion and ethnicity in Arab countries and in Europe.
This article mostly addressed the Israeli/Palestinian conflcit and Isreal’s domestic affairs with the Palestinian issues in Gaza and the West Bank. You mention the weakening of Israel’s democracy in 2009, when the Isreali Defense Forces expanded their settlements and the two-state solution motive was completely disregarded with violence and clashes between the two peoples. It is significant to mention the rhetoric of a nation’s sovereignty and security. Hamas in Gaza has frequently used violence, corruption, and terrorist tactics to degenerate the stability of the state of Israel, and even its own existence in the Middle East. Hamas has in-largely flared tensions into Israel and disrupted both Israelis and Arabs identified as Palestinian. They have been funded millions of dollars by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, the United States, and even Israel, yet Hamas has, “Spent it on weapons to terrorize Israelis, instead of spending it on hospitals, water, schools and the many other things so desperately needed in Gaza.” Hamas has inflicted ever-greater restrictions on Gaza to become prosperous with economic growth and substantial opportunities to build prosperous energy sectors in natural gas and solar. Hamas has utillery failed to any basic functions of a government, which has vastly caused the collapse of the Gaza Strip. Their acceptance to Iranian influence of an outrage of violence and terror promoted the untrust of the Palestinians on an international stage. Hamas has launched several attacks into Israel since the establishment of Hamas de-facto in 2006 to 2014 and are still an ongoing threat in the region. Israel has struggled with obtaining the democratic and also ethnic ideals to their sovereign nation due to these increased tensions along the borders. In response to your article is why the IDF moved into Gaza in 2009. In juxtaposition to the idea of democratic erosion, I would suggest the concept that Israel is a very unique country, yet with religious and ethnic tensions, Israel responds to terrorism from their shared borders with Lebnanon, Egypt, ande specially in Gaza, where Hamas has been incapable of leadership. As well as the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, where Mahmoud Abbas has been serving for 15 years, under a 4 year term. It is transparent that the capacity of the Palestinian leadership fails to lead the people in their right to self-determination in a diplomatic and peaceful manner.
Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has urged the Palestinians to resume peace-negotiations, but they have said talks are impossible, while Israel is building settlements on land they want for a future state. Hamas and the Palestinian leaderships, “Inflammatory rhetoric was said, by a senior Hamas official on 12 July urging Palestinians to “attack every Jew on the globe by way of slaughter and killing.” [6]. Israel’s security was challenged and directly responded to secure their borders from attacks by Hamas. Hamas’s knowledge of the capability of Israel’s military was known, yet still decided to fluctuate clashes between the two.
More recently, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has made efforts in obtaining his position as Prime Minister and postponing the formation of a new government with his reasoning of emergency efforts dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 19, he opposed other political parties who were attempting to create a new government and delayed the process to remain in power. Gantz, the White party and the cabinet have encouraged PM Netanyahu in dividing cabinet posts of the Likud party. Both parties have different ways in handling the economic crisis due to the coronavirus pandemic. Benjamin Netanyahu asked for the coalition and unity of the government after an unprecedented year of political deadlock. “Mr. Netanyahu will serve as prime minister for 18 months, during which time Mr. Gantz will serve as his deputy. The roles will rotate after that.” This agreement and dispute over cabinet posts is a sign of democratic backsliding in holding fair elections in Israel. The process of either leader is that PM Netanyahu and Mr. Gantz are both willing to continue the annexation of the Jordan Valley for the sake of Israel’s security. This remains a controversial movement; moreover, this process weakens Israel’s determination to uphold human rights, yet seemingly the conflict on both sides makes it more complex to come to a solution. Even though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set back the new government, he has reasonably addressed the concerns of the cabinet and resumed to the rotation of leadership. Netanyahu has also become a supporter of immigration to the Falash Mura and greeted the first group of migrants of 316 at the airport. This is a good sign of democracy.
To better examine democracy and institutions in Israel, one must also incorporate the government’s functions in holding competitive elections in near cycles, the rights and equality of Israeli citizens, and ensuring political participation remains present. In the USAID research, “Unwelcome Change: Understanding, Evaluating, and Extending Theories of Democratic Backsliding,” the evaluation of democracy is derived of six theory families: (1) political leaders, (2) political culture, (3) political institutions, (4) political economy, (5) social structure and political coalitions, and (6) international factors. The following is my rating on these six theories of democratic backsliding, given the information provided, on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is the weakening of democracy and 5 is the strength of democracy in Israel.
(1) political leaders 4/5
(2) political culture 3/5
(3) political institutions 4/5
(4) political economy 4/5
(5) social structure and political coalitions 4/5
(6) international factors 4/5
Given the research I made on Israel’s democracy and this scale, Israel is at 23/30, which is fairly still strong, especially for a nation in the Middle East, where their religion and ethnicity is distinctive to their neighbors. Israel remains strong in checking the balance of their individual sets of norms for the Jewish narrative, as well as their democratic upholdings. Israel’s on and off deals with the Palestinians frustrates their democracy, but overall Israel’s democracy is at the dawn of what may descend or with stand with the formation of a new government in 18 months.
To my mind Israel is definitely challenged with the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, but under Donald Trump’s administration, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made peace agreements with Gulf nations, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, under the Abraham Accord. It is time for the Palestinian authority to diminish their extreme violent tactics and return to the negotating table, where diplomacy and the political process will benefit both the Isrealies and the Palestinians. It is fair to say Israel’s democracy is flawed, yet not democratically eroding. Through international affairs with foreign nations, Israel has become a trustworthy nation with values, economic and business ties, as well as domestically remaining democratically influenced by their incorporation of both religious and democratic principles.
References:
Mapes, M., 2020. Israel: Democracy Or Ethnocracy?. [online] Democratic-erosion.com. Available at: [Accessed 5 December 2020].
Greenblatt, J., 2018. Does Hamas Have The Courage To Admit Failure?. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: [Accessed 29 September 2020].
Release, P., 2019. Settlement Building, Proposal To Annex Palestinian Land Among Factors Threatening Middle East Peace, Delegates Tell Security Council Amid Calls For Solutions | Meetings Coverage And Press Releases. [online] United Nations. Available at: [Accessed 29 September 2020].
Hendrix, S., 2020. Israel Halted Annexation Plans, But Palestinians Are Not Ready To Restore Ties. [online] The Washington Post. Available at: [Accessed 29 September 2020].
Israel: Democracy or Ethnocracy
Well thought out blog.
I agree that Israel is not a free democracy; when one part of a political peoplehood is dominated by another, the definition of democracy is not met. Arab Israelis suffer a weak ambiguous national identity tied to citizenship. Arabs of Israel were from those families who remained in the state after the 1948 (Nakba) War. Even today, some Arab citizens sense they are living in an imposed colonial-settler project. Many feel they were permitted to remain behind to serve the interests of the Zionist settlers. Those left behind were a fragile minority. Although Arab Israelis are authentic citizens of the State of Israel, they struggle to see themselves as part of an Israeli people. Citizenship for Arab Israelis is not comparable to national identity. Although citizenship-ness adds to an identity, it does not necessarily equate with the spirit of national identity. Arab Israelis who live in conditions where services are unequal, opportunities are limited, and security is poor feel a sense of subjugation. Subjugation leads to a sense of alienation, which leads to issues of trust and worth. Where respect for diversity is lacking, a national identity is impossible to cultivate. Where one overarching identity is missing, democracy is missing. I think it’s time for Israel to construct a true constitution. The 2018 Basic Law stands in as a constitution but annulled some of the earlier rights for non-Jewish citizens. As well, Israel must desegregate the state-controlled schools and provide equal funding for all children. And finally, it’s time to allow Arab Israelis to participate in mandatory military service or some other type of mandatory service that is tied to later employment opportunities (many of the top jobs in Israel are based on military service). If Jewish-ness and Arab-ness cannot be amalgamated, there is no hope for a common identity. Without membership in an Israeli collective, “hearts and minds” will wander elsewhere. If loyalty and identity reside outside the State, external allegiances may lead to security issues. Perhaps with a few changes at the polls, Israel can get back to liberal ideals and free democracy.
Zachary Klein
American University
Wonderful post. I think something that gets left out often in studies analyzing the strength of the democracy and freedom within a country is its treatment of ethnic groups and minorities rather than the strength of its electoral systems. While Israel is regularly touted as one of the strongest (and only “true”) democracy in the Middle East, it is far from being the most perfect.
While its electoral systems may be strong and fair, it would be irresponsible for any measurement of democracy calculator to leave out the kinds of rhetoric that its elected officials thrive on. For example, Israel’s current new prime minister, Naftali Bennet, stated in the past that “I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that.” He also refused to meet with the current leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, because Abbas was pursuing charges against IDF soldiers in the Hague for war crimes. Statements such as these, and the general opinions that more Zionist leaders like Naftali Bennet bear a lot of resemblance to usual populist rhetoric styles such as painting an “other” to rally the populace against; which in this case is the native Arab Palestinian population within Israel’s borders and within its occupied territories. The treatment of these minorities as well – with restrictions on movement, speech, and a lower general respect for their civil liberties and rights as opposed to Israelis is also important to point out when determining the strength of Israel’s democracy.
Many Palestinians are not given a respected right to property, which the well-documented and criticized settler program of Israel has shown. They are also restricted heavily on their movement, regularly having to go through multiple security checkpoints just to travel to another town. There is also the lack of right of return for many Palestinians in diaspora, with tens of thousands across the globe having no ability to legally return to their homeland. A great post, and it was nice to see an assessment made on this country’s democracy from a different standpoint.
Bennets Comments: https://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-says-he-wont-meet-mahmoud-abbas-palestinian-state-a-terrible-mistake/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-rap-bennett-over-alleged-kill-arabs-remarks/