Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch, Suffolk University
(THE CONVERSATION) — In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of U.S. Congress on July 24, 2024, the nation he leads continues its slide away from democracy.
Even before Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the country was engulfed by an intense debate over government-led reforms aimed at limiting judicial power, which sparked massive and sustained public protests for months.
Following that debate, for the first time, a leading democracy index demoted Israel’s classification from a “liberal democracy” to an “electoral democracy.” The new classification noted the erosion in judicial and legislative constraints on the government, along with less protection of civil liberties.
Israel is not alone in finding its democracy under threat: A recent report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance finds that the global state of democracy has been declining for the past six years.
Democracy is associated with three key elements: leadership, institutions and citizens’ values. When they appear to be deteriorating, a democracy is said to be backsliding.
Historians and social scientists have found that a country’s democracy tends to get weaker during a prolonged war. For instance, citizens may lose faith in civilian institutions, like the courts, the police and the military. And militaristic values, such as support for the use of force, and political extremism often become more widespread in society.
Shortly after Oct. 7, there were some modest expectations that the attack would lead to less internal political partisanship and perhaps reverse course on Israel’s democratic decline. But as the war against Hamas has continued, the country’s democracy has continued to weaken.
—————
Israel’s democratic backsliding
Most assessments of Israel’s democratic decline tend to focus on Netanyahu’s criminal trial for corruption, which is ongoing, and his government’s efforts to strip the judiciary of its power to review and restrict government actions.
But there are longer-term trends of illiberal legislative initiatives, limitations on civil society organizations and the erosion of underlying democratic values that have been more significant.
For instance, in 2018 the country’s parliament, the Knesset, passed a law declaring that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and omitting the principle of civic equality for the 21% of the population that is non-Jewish.
Also concerning is the growing share of the population, especially among the young, that supports these exclusionary policies. According to a 2016 report, nearly 40% of Israelis aged 15 to 24 believed that political rights should be withheld from Arab citizens.
Another example is the 2016 NGO Transparency Law, which requires human rights and other groups that receive half their funding from abroad to disclose the sources, increasing the administrative burden on these organizations.
Moreover, each of these factors are happening in the context of Israel’s continued occupation of and control over the Palestinian people and territories. Netanyahu’s populist rhetoric and leadership style have long focused on the conflict between Arabs and Jews. He uses language that highlights threats posed to Israelis and to the state by Palestinians both within and outside Israel, such as his 2015 election day “warning” that “the Arabs are voting in droves.”
Not surprisingly, the war has amplified this rhetoric.
Similarly, and as the examples above illustrate, attempts to undermine democratic institutions and values have often centered on Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, both within Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
—————
Limits on free speech
Since the war began, the situation has only gotten worse as the coalition government has introduced several pieces of legislation limiting civil rights, most especially freedom of speech.
For instance, a law passed in April allows the government to suspend the operations of a foreign news outlet in Israel if the prime minister or the minister of communication determines it poses a security threat. Using this law, Israel shut down Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based television channel, in May. And when The Associated Press provided media services to Al Jazeera, the Israeli government seized the AP’s equipment. Although the equipment was returned following widespread outcry, including from the White House, this illustrates the impact on freedom of the press of this law.
A June legislative proposal would require the dismissal of academic professors who allegedly incite or support terrorism. The bill would impose a punishment without a trial for an offense that is vaguely defined and without due process. Critics argue it could be used to silence the opposition.
Another law, currently awaiting a ruling from Israel’s high court over its constitutionality, would give the far right national security minister broad powers over policing. Critics fear that it could be used to crack down on people who protest government policy.
This direct ministerial intervention in police affairs has already had a chilling effect on free speech, as people say they have refrained from joining public protests over fears of police violence. What is more, this legislation appears to politicize the police, which is supposed to be an independent institution in a democracy.
—————
Illiberal sentiment
Even before the war began, a growing share of Jewish citizens of Israel believed they should have more rights than non-Jewish citizens, and wanted a strong leader not easily swayed by media or public opinion.
The shock of the surprise attack and the brutality of Hamas’ actions unleashed a surge in militarism and illiberal sentiment. In the first month of the war, for example, there were 18,000 calls for Gaza to be “flattened,” “erased” or “destroyed” in Hebrew posts on the social media platform X, The New York Times reported, citing FakeReporter, an Israeli group that monitors disinformation and hate speech.
This sentiment hasn’t subsided, as the fighting has progressed and Israelis in general have united around the war and its aims. A February 2024 poll found that two-thirds of Jewish Israelis oppose humanitarian aid to Gaza, while 42% say Israel shouldn’t follow international humanitarian laws or abide by the international laws of war.
While Israeli protests and global media coverage focus on Netanyahu and claims that he is prolonging the war to remain in power, I believe the main risks to Israeli democracy are the increasing restrictions on freedom of speech and growing illiberal sentiment among Israelis. These, I fear, will outlive Netanyahu and the war.
Even before Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the country was engulfed by an intense debate over government-led reforms aimed at limiting judicial power, which sparked massive and sustained public protests for months.
Following that debate, for the first time, a leading democracy index demoted Israel’s classification from a “liberal democracy” to an “electoral democracy.” The new classification noted the erosion in judicial and legislative constraints on the government, along with less protection of civil liberties.
Israel is not alone in finding its democracy under threat: A recent report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance finds that the global state of democracy has been declining for the past six years.
Democracy is associated with three key elements: leadership, institutions and citizens’ values. When they appear to be deteriorating, a democracy is said to be backsliding.
Historians and social scientists have found that a country’s democracy tends to get weaker during a prolonged war. For instance, citizens may lose faith in civilian institutions, like the courts, the police and the military. And militaristic values, such as support for the use of force, and political extremism often become more widespread in society.
Shortly after Oct. 7, there were some modest expectations that the attack would lead to less internal political partisanship and perhaps reverse course on Israel’s democratic decline. But as the war against Hamas has continued, the country’s democracy has continued to weaken.
—————
Israel’s democratic backsliding
Most assessments of Israel’s democratic decline tend to focus on Netanyahu’s criminal trial for corruption, which is ongoing, and his government’s efforts to strip the judiciary of its power to review and restrict government actions.
But there are longer-term trends of illiberal legislative initiatives, limitations on civil society organizations and the erosion of underlying democratic values that have been more significant.
For instance, in 2018 the country’s parliament, the Knesset, passed a law declaring that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and omitting the principle of civic equality for the 21% of the population that is non-Jewish.
Also concerning is the growing share of the population, especially among the young, that supports these exclusionary policies. According to a 2016 report, nearly 40% of Israelis aged 15 to 24 believed that political rights should be withheld from Arab citizens.
Another example is the 2016 NGO Transparency Law, which requires human rights and other groups that receive half their funding from abroad to disclose the sources, increasing the administrative burden on these organizations.
Moreover, each of these factors are happening in the context of Israel’s continued occupation of and control over the Palestinian people and territories. Netanyahu’s populist rhetoric and leadership style have long focused on the conflict between Arabs and Jews. He uses language that highlights threats posed to Israelis and to the state by Palestinians both within and outside Israel, such as his 2015 election day “warning” that “the Arabs are voting in droves.”
Not surprisingly, the war has amplified this rhetoric.
Similarly, and as the examples above illustrate, attempts to undermine democratic institutions and values have often centered on Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, both within Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
—————
Limits on free speech
Since the war began, the situation has only gotten worse as the coalition government has introduced several pieces of legislation limiting civil rights, most especially freedom of speech.
For instance, a law passed in April allows the government to suspend the operations of a foreign news outlet in Israel if the prime minister or the minister of communication determines it poses a security threat. Using this law, Israel shut down Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based television channel, in May. And when The Associated Press provided media services to Al Jazeera, the Israeli government seized the AP’s equipment. Although the equipment was returned following widespread outcry, including from the White House, this illustrates the impact on freedom of the press of this law.
A June legislative proposal would require the dismissal of academic professors who allegedly incite or support terrorism. The bill would impose a punishment without a trial for an offense that is vaguely defined and without due process. Critics argue it could be used to silence the opposition.
Another law, currently awaiting a ruling from Israel’s high court over its constitutionality, would give the far right national security minister broad powers over policing. Critics fear that it could be used to crack down on people who protest government policy.
This direct ministerial intervention in police affairs has already had a chilling effect on free speech, as people say they have refrained from joining public protests over fears of police violence. What is more, this legislation appears to politicize the police, which is supposed to be an independent institution in a democracy.
—————
Illiberal sentiment
Even before the war began, a growing share of Jewish citizens of Israel believed they should have more rights than non-Jewish citizens, and wanted a strong leader not easily swayed by media or public opinion.
The shock of the surprise attack and the brutality of Hamas’ actions unleashed a surge in militarism and illiberal sentiment. In the first month of the war, for example, there were 18,000 calls for Gaza to be “flattened,” “erased” or “destroyed” in Hebrew posts on the social media platform X, The New York Times reported, citing FakeReporter, an Israeli group that monitors disinformation and hate speech.
This sentiment hasn’t subsided, as the fighting has progressed and Israelis in general have united around the war and its aims. A February 2024 poll found that two-thirds of Jewish Israelis oppose humanitarian aid to Gaza, while 42% say Israel shouldn’t follow international humanitarian laws or abide by the international laws of war.
While Israeli protests and global media coverage focus on Netanyahu and claims that he is prolonging the war to remain in power, I believe the main risks to Israeli democracy are the increasing restrictions on freedom of speech and growing illiberal sentiment among Israelis. These, I fear, will outlive Netanyahu and the war.
