Since its foundation in 1948, many have lauded Israel as the cornerstone of democracy in Western Asia – a region characterized by long-standing authoritarian rule. Israel exhibits several elements of a robust democracy: a solid electoral framework, a multiparty system, and freedom of the press. However, its standing as a legitimate democracy is threatened by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing policies, targeting of independent institutions, and military occupation of Palestinian territories. 

The state of Israeli democracy is undermined by its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza – a critical driver of the erosion of democratic institutions, internal division, and the deterioration of the rule of law. Quantitative analysis reveals a significant political divergence between Israel’s internationally recognized borders and occupied territories, resulting in a split rule. 

Israel’s Democratic Fortitude

Israel has a solid democracy on paper, scoring 74/100 on the Freedom House scale based on political rights and civil liberties indicators. Furthermore, it ranks 38th globally on the 2024 Global State of Democracy Report (GSoD), with high rates of participation and representation measured by its elections, civil society, and free political parties. It is the only Middle Eastern state to score highly across most democratic performance indices, with strong judicial independence–the extent to which courts operate free from undue government influence– relative to the region. 

January 1st, 2024, saw a landmark victory for Israeli democracy. The Supreme Court overturned the Israeli Parliament’s (Knesset) proposal to abolish the “reasonableness” doctrine – a vital tool used to challenge policies the Court considers arbitrary or discriminatory. Initially passed by the Knesset in July 2023, the legislation sought to limit the Court’s ability to place checks and balances on executive power, eroding the rule of law by allowing the government absolute power to pass policies under the umbrella of “basic law.” 

The Knesset’s proposal represented a bold attempt by Netanyahu’s regime to erode national mechanisms of institutional accountability and justice, raising domestic concern over prospects for individual rights and equality. Mass demonstrations that followed the Knesset’s proposal shifted public support in favour of the Court.

Justices overwhelmingly ruled to maintain their right in principle to intervene when the Knesset exceeds its constitutive powers. Restoring the doctrine was critical to defending fundamental democratic principles of the rule of law and upholding “the core characteristics of Israel as a democratic state.” The political mobilization of demonstrators and the Court alike demonstrated Israel’s democratic resilience in response to the threat of the centralization of Israeli law.

Nationalist Threats to Democracy

Since returning to power in 2009, Netanyahu has shifted towards anti-democratic, nationalist, and illiberal policies, targeting independent institutions such as civil society organizations, the media, the police, and the judiciary. The sixth Netanyahu government established in 2022 has further “magnified political crises and divisions” by forming coalitions with ultra-nationalist and religious groups. 

Netanyahu’s fundamentally undemocratic attempts at constraining the Supreme Court derive from right-wing nationalist views advocating for a greater emphasis on Jewish identity in Israeli policy, which the far-right argues the Court is driving Israel away from. The Court has been steadfast in thwarting the government’s attempts to move beyond occupation toward de jure annexation of Palestinian territory – an idea promoted by Israel’s right-wing Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich. Public and judicial resistance remains crucial in safeguarding Israeli democracy, as Netanyahu’s right-wing “territorial-maximalist” agenda continues to generate domestic political turmoil.

Limitations in Measuring Israel’s Democracy

While statistical evaluations indicate strengths in Israel’s democracy, they also highlight several underlying faults. Israel’s cumulative Freedom House score is high; however, it scores poorly in minority political rights and electoral opportunities, safeguards against corruption, freedom for non-governmental organizations and other human rights groups, and equal economic opportunity. The drop in Israel’s GSoD rule of law index from an all-time high of 0.77 in 2009 to 0.67 in 2023 reflects the erosion of democratic governance, exacerbated by Netanyahu’s right-wing shift and persistent military campaign.

These quantitative measures of democracy–both positive and negative–crucially do not account for the territory Israel occupies in the West Bank and Gaza, focusing solely on its internationally recognized borders. Despite the Court’s resilience in mitigating democratic backsliding within Israeli borders, its ability to protect individual rights outside of those borders is constrained by the lack of a written constitution. Though Israel exercises sovereignty over the occupied West Bank, Palestinians living there are not granted rights and protection under Israeli law, meaning they lack legal pathways to challenge discrimination.

As a result, Israel’s democracy is characterized by split rule: democratic governance within recognized borders and a militaristic nationalist regime across Palestinian territory. This stark contrast is evident when comparing Israel’s Freedom House score of 74/100 to the West Bank’s score of 22/100. The unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory continues to harm Israel’s status as a legitimate democracy, as it undermines the essential democratic principle of self-determination and violates international law on racial segregation and apartheid under the mandate of the International Court of Justice.

Occupation and Democratic Stalemate
The domestic political stalemate is deeply entrenched in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. Israel’s continued military mobilization is a monumental barrier to achieving political stability and a driver of Israel’s democratic deterioration under Netanyahu. The issue of maintaining Israeli democracy and working towards a two-state solution to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict are intrinsically linked. Israel’s prospects as a legitimate and stable democracy hinge on its ability to remedy internal political divides and bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Refusing to demand an end to the conflict leaves Israeli democracy and domestic politics in a vulnerable state.

Edited by Jane Malek

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.

Featured image by Alisdare Hickson