Israeli Democracy Evaporates While Gaza Burns

by Mitchell Plitnick

At what point is it legitimate and even necessary to dismiss the will of the people in the interest of peace and justice? This is a vexing question when it comes to Israel.

The latest edition of the Peace Index, produced by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), reflects some disturbing findings about the extent to which any effort to change Israel’s policies and actions in the Gaza Strip specifically, and in the Occupied Territories more broadly, is not merely a matter of changing the government’s actions. It necessitates rejecting the will of the Israeli people. Given the vast dichotomy between the respective weights carried by the wills of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, this is a real problem.

For much of the world, the Israel-Palestine conflict is not viewed as a struggle by an occupied and dispossessed people against their occupation. Rather, it is seen as a two-sided conflict between two peoples over a single piece of land. The two formulations are important — one frames the conflict in terms of an imbalance of power, the other does not, and the balance-seeking view is the predominant form of understanding the conflict, especially in terms of diplomacy and mainstream Western discourse. This may not be the case among the general global populace, but it is certainly true in the offices of Washington, Brussels and even the United Nations.

A Sharp Right Turn

The Peace Index’s findings show there is no longer a rightward tilt in Israel — now there is a massive turn in that direction. The numbers are too stark to be written off as the responses of people involved in a conflict which, however one-sided, still involves most of the country rushing to bomb shelters, sometimes multiple times per day. There is something far more fundamental going on here.

There are splits among the Jewish and Arab publics in Israel, as one would expect. There is a good deal there worth exploring, but let’s be realistic: the views of the non-Jewish public — Palestinian or Druze, Christian or Muslim — mean virtually nothing in Israel, nor are they considered much in the halls of the “international community.” So we’re looking at Israeli Jews, whose views are the only ones that carry weight, a fact that says a lot about Israel and how it is viewed in and of itself.

When asked about political identification, “34% of Israeli Jews self-identified as part of the right, 28% as moderate right, 22% as center, 9% as moderate left, and 3% as left.” Crucially, the question specifically related to foreign policy, which is generally understood as related to the Palestinians, the Arab world, and Iran. As in the Jewish Diaspora, many Israeli Jews hold extreme right-wing views on those issues but are very liberal on social and domestic ones.

Let us also recall what the so-called “center” amounts to in Israel. It advocates militarism, completely supported Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent actions in Gaza, and largely identifies, in terms of the current government, with Yesh Atid, whose leader, Yair Lapid, kicked off his campaign for the Knesset in a settlement and has stated that Israel should not compromise at all on Jerusalem. That’s the “center” in Israel, and it is as good a barometer as you can ask for in assessing how far right the country has shifted.

Much of the world has ignored the facts of how the current violence in Gaza started, and has come to a consensus that Israel was justified in taking some action in Gaza. But that same consensus, even including Washington, has expressed grave concern about the massive number of civilian casualties in Gaza and the numerous incidents of Israel obviously targeting civilians and civilian sites.

But in Israel, the story is very different. From the Peace Index: “Only 6% of the entire Jewish public sees the IDF as having used too much firepower during the operation. The rest of those with an opinion on the matter are almost evenly split between 48% who regard the use of firepower as appropriate and 45% who think the IDF made too little use of it.” That is an astounding consensus in any country. When 93% of any population votes in one vein on a controversial question, one generally suspects the source of the polling, but the IDI’s reputation for honesty is quite solid.

Quieting the Debate

It has long been an article of faith that discussion of the occupation and Israel’s policies is much stronger in Israel. Many supporters of Israel’s policies frequently cite Israel’s “vibrant democracy” in its defense. Even US critics of Israeli policy often plead the case that matters are debated far more openly in Israel than they are here.

That, however, is changing fast. The discourse in the US has certainly widened, at least in the media, where critics of Israeli policies are seen much more frequently in high profile publications — up to and including the New York Times — than ever before. In Israel, however, things are going in the other direction.

Many will look at the Israeli daily Ha’aretz and think the debate is as vibrant as ever, but they’d be misled. Ha’aretz is read more by activists and interested parties outside of Israel than it is in Israel itself. Always a newspaper of the elite, Ha’aretz is now thoroughly marginalized by mainstream Israelis. Instead, Israelis read the more sensationalist, right-of-center papers like Yediot Ahoronot or Ma’ariv. Sheldon Adelson’s far-right tabloid Yisrael Ha’yom has also garnered a large market share.

The result can be seen in the response to the Peace Index question of “…whether, during a military operation, one should or should not limit freedom of expression in the country as far as expressing criticism of the campaign is concerned (not with regard to the illegal disclosure of military secrets).” Here a majority (58%) of the Jewish public favored limiting freedom of expression under such circumstances while only 39% thought freedom of expression should not be limited.

Indeed, during the recent fighting, mobs of right-wing Jewish Brownshirts (there just isn’t anything else to call them) were routinely attacking Arabs and peace protests all around the country. The demonstrations even spread to personal events when right-wingers protested at a wedding between a Jewish woman who had converted to Islam and a Muslim man (had she not converted, the couple could not be legally married in Israel). This is not the Israel of even five or six years ago, but one that has been shaped by increasing tendencies toward the fascist politics of Avigdor Lieberman and Naftali Bennett, and which is being shaped by racism, militarism and xenophobia. Readers can draw the obvious historical comparisons.

Which brings us back to the question we are most concerned with: Can the will of the people in what is at least a structural democracy simply be ignored? The answer is a resounding “YES!” At some point, justice must take hold. Democracy is not simply mob rule, or even majority rule. Most mid-19th century southerners did not want to give up slavery. Jim Crow laws were not put to a vote, but had they been in, say, 1950, would they have been voted down? We don’t know because that’s not how such matters are decided.

The wanton destruction Israel is wreaking in Gaza right now, its blatant declarations that it will never relinquish control of most of the West Bank, and its adamant refusal to recognize that Palestinians, whether citizens or not, are entitled to the same basic human, civil and, yes, national rights as anyone else, all make outside interference imperative. The will of the Israeli people is moving further and further away from not only any possibility of peace, but any glimmer of hope that a Palestinian who lives anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea will ever have any hope of a decent life. That’s exactly when outsiders must intervene, whether the populace of the dominant state likes it or not.

Right-wing Israelis demonstrating at Rabin Square in Tel Aviv in support of Israel’s military offensive in the Gaza Strip, while left-wing Israelis rally nearby, July 26, 2014. Credit: Tomer Neuberg/Flash 90

Mitchell Plitnick

Mitchell Plitnick is a political analyst and writer. His previous positions include vice president at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, director of the US Office of B’Tselem: The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, and co-director of Jewish Voice for Peace. His writing has appeared in Ha’aretz, the New Republic, the Jordan Times, Middle East Report, the San Francisco Chronicle, +972 Magazine, Outlook, and other outlets. He was a columnist for Tikkun Magazine, Zeek Magazine and Souciant. He has spoken all over the country on Middle East politics, and has regularly offered commentary in a wide range of radio and television outlets including PBS News Hour, the O’Reilly Factor, i24 (Israel), Pacifica Radio, CNBC Asia and many other outlets, as well as at his own blog, Rethinking Foreign Policy, at You can find him on Twitter @MJPlitnick.



  1. You have not said what form the external intervention should take.
    Can you elaborate?

  2. Very good post Mr Plitnick, this is the direction that the Israeli/Palestinian conundrum must face, especially from the U.S. I’m afraid though, that it’s going to take a huge increase in the death toll before anything will happen. Changing the mindset, at least for many, perhaps too many, may be impossible. History repeating itself, the young U.S./Indian wars, South Africa Apartheid, Colonialism in any shape, call it what you may. Unless/until that mindset changes, this will continue to fester, until one day, one or more Nuclear bombs explode in Israeli cities, then it’s all bets are off.

  3. One might argue that democracy” in Israel is significantly flawed, and the flaws in Israeli democracy tend to undermine national security interests of the American people. Due to continuing growth of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

  4. Israel is not a democracy and never was. there is no such a thing as Jewish and democratic. That is an oxymoron term. The non-Jewish citizens of Israel do not have the same rights as the Jews. so it can’t be a democracy.

  5. The propaganda machine can influence public opinion profoundly. Internally the propaganda machine is arguing convincingly that now is the time of patriotism , loyalty and unity and any left wing or “liberal ” argument ,giving any right to the Palestinians ,is treason or at least siding with the enemies. Thus, the result of any opinion pole would, obviously, side with the right wings and extremists.
    As you mentioned, there are times that exited public opinion can not be considered a good excuse for cruel and inhuman actions or inactions. Another example is the effect of Nazi propaganda on German people and the criminal acts of the Nazis, backed by majority of the people.
    As for world public opinion, Israelis(Government or the people),don’t give a damn what other people think of them and their actions, except for the American public opinion , which they know they have more than enough influential friends in the media sector in the US, to tune the public opinion harmonious with any action that Israeli politicians might take against the Palestinian.
    They also know that the world’s most powerful government , economically,militarily and politically gives them unconditional support, thanks to AIPAC ,IJF, and other powerful lobbies.
    If the internal propaganda machine successfully nurture radical opinions and the politicians enjoy the economic, military and political support of the US, the Palestinian – Israeli conflict is never going to arrive at an honourable and just conclusion .
    That is one side of the problem.
    The other side is also coming to the conclusion that there will never be a peaceful solution to the problem and they will have to prepare themselves and their friend for a long term bloody conflict in which they will have to earn every bit of their claims by forcing the Israelis to submit . This way the Palestinians will win a slow but sure and persistent support not only among Muslim youth but among people of every religion,no religion, nationality and political opinion in the world. The sort of support the Jews enjoyed after WW II, which they are losing gradually , the impoverished exploited people enjoyed, the people in communist countries enjoyed…..
    We already see fairly comfortable educated young men from all over the world, even from Europe and the US, joining the radical groups in the ME , not alway on the basis of their religious convictions but on their support for the oppressed.
    This way Israel will have to confront an enlarging and strengthening opposing front of intellectual and and practical worriers, which I am afraid, might lead to a disaster.

Comments are closed.