“From the river to the sea”
Depending on who says or hears this most infamous, iconic, hostile, or even beautiful slogan, it can produce several interpretations. It refers to the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, encompassing the territories of Israel and Palestine. A pro-Palestinian activist may interpret it as referring to the reclamation of lost lands, a Zionist may hear a call for a unified state under Jewish Israeli sovereignty, or advocates for a secular democratic state may envision one state governed by the rule of law. These interpretations emerge from narratives that are weaponized and reclaimed to shape identities and policy preferences. Such narratives compete for primacy and recognition as truthful representations of reality. In the case of Israel, this competition has exacerbated democratic erosion.
To understand why and how this occurs, the concept of historical path dependence can first be applied. It is a model explaining how past decisions and events shape societies through ingrained beliefs and values. For Israel’s founders and Zionists, the Holocaust provided a powerful impetus for creating a Jewish state. It reinforced the belief that no other solution than statehood could provide protection from persecution. This was supplemented by the narrative of historical ethnic attachment and exile from the land, illustrated in the Declaration of Israeli Independence. The declaration uses the Jewish calendar year, reflecting this historical identity despite the population’s ethnic and religious diversity.
The attachment to this belief was not isolated to its foundations; rather, its foundations have continuously dictated the security agenda and framing of potential threats. This is observed in executive leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu, who routinely invokes existential threats rooted in the historical memory of the Holocaust. In effect, the narrative is weaponized to weaken interethnic bonds and accentuate an us-versus-them dichotomy. This enables political elites to reduce absolute rights through an agreement with the majority, potentially at the expense of the minority. Minority citizens may also be disproportionately blamed for the actions of militant groups. This aligns with Levitsky & Ziblatt’s conception of democratic erosion as an implicit weakening of standards and institutions under the pretense of national security. Israel is particularly vulnerable because of its constitutional system, which lacks the degree of entrenchment and clear structure found in codified constitutions.
However, these domestic tensions cannot be understood in isolation from Israel’s broader regional environment. A factor to consider is the Jewish-Arab divide, examined through the civilizational model developed by Samuel Huntington. It argues that global politics is primarily shaped by cultural rather than ideological differences. Within this model, conflicts erupt along what are called fault lines, where more than two civilizations meet. If we count just its borders, Israel contends with five Arab nations, whose majority populations belong to fundamentally different cultural and religious traditions. This regional environment can contribute to internal polarization but also myriad security threats, including those beyond the realm of traditional warfare. Such conditions do not create fertile ground for a healthy democracy but can instead encourage the emergence of populist narratives. However, relying solely on large cultural models to predict hostilities is rather short-sighted.
Regional insecurity is not the only external influence on Israel’s political development. Its close ties to Western powers create incentives to maintain democratic institutions. This became especially important after the Cold War, when liberal democracy was increasingly viewed by Western elites as the default political regime. Israel’s historically dependent relationship with the United States best illustrates this connection. Western support remains essential for Israel’s strategic interests. In turn, Israel has cultivated a narrative of enduring democratic freedoms in an otherwise autocratic region. But can this stand up to evaluation when weighed against the factors mentioned previously? According to Freedom House, Israel scores 73/100 for global freedom, making it a “Free” country, despite systemic disparities affecting Arab and other ethnic and religious minorities. Polity IV classified Israel as a consolidated democracy with a score of +10 in its 2010 assessment. What is apparent from these classifications is that they value the mechanical functions of whether democracy is practiced, rather than considering if greater freedoms are available under a more maximalist conception. To put it simply, there seems to be a lack of concern for the ethical aspect of the regime.
Taking into account these disparities within Israel’s democracy, the source of international pressures directed towards the regime becomes clearer. Beyond Zionist narratives justifying legitimacy, the Palestinian perspective must also be considered, as Arabs make up around 20% of Israel’s population. There are many to potentially single out, with the most subversive of these narratives being the claims characterizing Israeli establishment and development as a form of settler colonization. This invalidates Israel as a manifestation of self-determination by arguing that its development denied another people the same rights. Global audiences have increasingly engaged with such narratives, and they have intensified after the responses to the October 7th attacks. The event can be seen as the catalyst for increased scrutiny of Israel under international law, specifically over civilian casualties and the humanitarian consequences of its military operations. According to Neta Crawford, more than 10% of Gaza’s population has been killed or injured over two years.
These competing narratives have worsened existing partisan polarization, culminating in a compounding effect. Peripheral groups resist, prompting an Israeli military response. The resulting grievances attract local and international attention, reinforcing perceptions of an existential threat through appeals to historical experiences. These perceptions, in turn, inflame fears of persecution, genocide, and similar threats for individuals of Jewish descent. Even seemingly neutral narratives, such as the portrayal of Israel as a lasting democracy, become controversial. This happens as Israel’s secular identity and its majoritarian tendencies invite accusations of hypocrisy. It must be noted that the process does not always follow the same sequence, and not every stage necessarily occurs, as it is a generalization of a broader conflict.
This compounding effect also extends beyond Israel’s domestic politics through its military relationship with the United States. American military aid enables Israel to sustain its operations in the Levant. This creates a perception that the United States holds partial responsibility. As the global hegemon, the United States attracts substantial attention and criticism, causing the actions of both states to become associated with one another. Consequently, Israel’s democratic appeal to the West has weakened. This is illustrated by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s comments calling for Israel to be removed from international sports competitions.
In conclusion, narratives surrounding Israel’s existence and security have accumulated through historical path dependence, particularly through the Holocaust and subsequent conflicts. They shape political identity and perceptions of existential threat, intensifying polarization. Under conditions of military insecurity, this polarization can normalize exceptional security measures and weaken institutional constraints. These developments then reinforce the narratives that produced them. The effect is not the immediate collapse of democracy, but a form of democratic erosion that is more apparent under maximalist than minimalist conceptions of democracy. Going forward, the international community must remain aware of the ethical implications of the Israeli regime while recognizing how competing narratives develop, persist, and potentially become destructive.
Thank you for sharing about the multifaceted view of “the holy lands” and depicting the role the media and institutions have in creating conflicting narratives. It was amazing to see a freedom house statistical analysis of a state be contrasted with the actions and legal frameworks the state actually takes part in. It really strengthened the argument that even narrative shaped on evidence are not neutral because data is often times collected with implicit bias or in isolation of important factors. I hope to use this example to strengthen my media literacy and analyze sources proactively to ensure propaganda and biased narratives are not being shared as evidence.