Israel is turning into a dictatorship

The State of Israel, once heralded as the Middle East’s only functioning democracy, finds itself at a dangerous crossroads. Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s current government, a series of unprecedented actions and legislative proposals have emerged that collectively suggest an alarming drift toward authoritarian rule. The erosion of democratic institutions, the systematic undermining of judicial oversight, and the brazen manipulation of national security for personal political gain paint a disturbing picture of a democracy under siege from within.

The Power Grab: Legislation to Control Security Apparatus

The first and perhaps most blatant indication of this authoritarian trajectory is the coalition’s attempt to introduce sweeping new legislation that would fundamentally alter the balance of power in Israel’s security establishment. The proposed legislation would give the coalition the right to fire the attorney general, the head of the IDF, the head of the Mossad and the head of the Internal Security during the first 100 days of their assuming their positions. This unprecedented power grab would effectively place Israel’s most critical security institutions under direct political control, removing the traditional independence these agencies have maintained to protect the state’s interests above partisan politics.

This legislative assault on institutional independence extends beyond mere bureaucratic reshuffling. The attempt by the coalition to fire the current attorney general and the decision by the Supreme Court to allow the procedure to do so to continue represents a direct challenge to the rule of law. Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara has consistently opposed Netanyahu’s attempts to circumvent legal procedures, particularly in his efforts to dismiss security chiefs without proper justification.

The government’s systematic targeting of security leadership became even more apparent with Netanyahu’s firing of Ronen Bar, the head of the Shin Bet internal security service, citing a crisis of confidence sparked by the failures to prevent Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks. However, the timing of this dismissal, coinciding with ongoing investigations into the Prime Minister’s Office, raises serious questions about the true motives behind this unprecedented action.

Military Manipulation: Extending Service While Exempting Allies

Simultaneously, the coalition has attempted to pressure the IDF Chief of Staff to extend mandatory military service from three to four years for regular soldiers—a burden that would fall disproportionately on secular and non-ultra-Orthodox populations. This move comes while the government simultaneously pursues legislation to permanently exempt the Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community from military service entirely.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ultra-Orthodox coalition partners have been pushing for the passage of legislation enshrining military exemptions for yeshiva students and other members of the Haredi community, after the High Court ruled in June last year that the dispensations, in place for decades, were illegal. This creates a two-tiered system where some citizens bear an increasingly heavy burden of national defense while others are granted permanent exemption based solely on religious affiliation.

Currently, approximately 80,000 Haredi men between the ages of 18 and 24 are eligible for military service and have not enlisted. The IDF has sent out 18,915 initial draft orders to members of the Haredi community in several waves since July 2024, but according to Lt. Avigdor Dickstein, head of the Haredi branch of the IDF’s Personnel Directorate, only 232 of those who have received orders have enlisted.

This selective enforcement of civic duty while demanding increased sacrifice from others reveals the government’s willingness to manipulate national service obligations for political gain, undermining the fundamental principle of equality before the law.

The Qatargate Scandal: Foreign Influence and Government Response

Perhaps most damaging to Netanyahu’s democratic credentials is the emergence of the so-called “Qatargate” scandal and the government’s response to the criminal charges filed against key advisers. The scandal first came to light months ago when Eli Feldstein, Netanyahu’s former military spokesperson, was initially arrested along with IDF reservist Ari Rosenfeld for leaking classified documents to a German tabloid. Subsequently, both Feldstein and Jonathan Urich, Netanyahu’s senior media adviser, were arrested in March 2025 as part of an investigation into ties between the Israeli prime minister’s office and Qatari officials.

Jonathan Urich, Netanyahu’s senior media adviser, and Eli Feldstein, his military spokesperson, were arrested as part of an investigation into ties between the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office and Qatari officials. The two officials were arrested on suspicion of contact with a foreign agent, money laundering, accepting bribes, fraud, and breach of trust.

The government’s response to these serious allegations has been particularly troubling. Netanyahu released a video in which he said that he was “amazed, I mean, I understood that there was a political investigation here, but I didn’t know to what extent. They are holding Jonathan Urich and Eli Feldstein hostage”. This inflammatory rhetoric, comparing arrested officials to hostages held by Hamas, demonstrates a willingness to weaponize even the most sacred national traumas for political purposes.

Netanyahu has slammed the probe as a political witch hunt and accused police of holding his advisers as “hostages”—wording that angered many in Israel because Hamas is still holding dozens captive inside Gaza. Such language reveals not only poor judgment but a dangerous tendency to undermine law enforcement institutions when they investigate government misconduct.

The scandal has reached a new level of institutional crisis as of July 14, 2025, when Prime Minister Netanyahu officially came out against his own attorney general’s decision to charge Jonathan Urich, further escalating the confrontation between the executive branch and the justice system. This unprecedented public opposition to his own attorney general’s prosecutorial decisions represents another step in Netanyahu’s systematic campaign to delegitimize law enforcement when it threatens his political interests.

The New York Times Revelations: War for Political Survival

The most damning evidence of Netanyahu’s authoritarian tendencies emerged from an explosive New York Times investigation that revealed how the prime minister deliberately prolonged the Gaza war to serve his personal political interests. Speaking with over 100 officials, the wide-scale probe by the New York Times alleges that Netanyahu made decisions during the war that were meant to serve his own personal political interest.

In April 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly shelved a Gaza truce deal that would have secured the release of at least 30 hostages due to a threat by far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to bring down the government. The Times investigation revealed that when Biden administration officials confronted Netanyahu with polling data showing majority Israeli support for a hostage deal, “Not 50% of my voters,” Netanyahu responded, according to the Times’ sources.

This callous calculation—prioritizing the preferences of a political base over the lives of hostages and the will of the broader population—represents perhaps the clearest evidence of how democratic accountability has been subverted for personal political survival.

Running Out the Clock: The Hostage Negotiation Charade

Netanyahu’s strategy of prolonging the war has extended to his approach to hostage negotiations, where he appears to be implementing a deliberate strategy to “run out the clock” until the Knesset’s summer recess. US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff recently told families of hostages held in Gaza that he disagrees with Israel’s approach to the war in the Strip, and believes reaching a new ceasefire and hostage release deal is the correct next step to take.

According to Channel 12, Witkoff told the families that the US “wants to return the hostages, but Israel is not ready to end the war.” “Israel is prolonging the war, even though we do not see where further progress can be made,” Witkoff said. This assessment from America’s top Middle East envoy confirms what many have suspected: Netanyahu is deliberately dragging out negotiations to serve his political calendar rather than urgently pursuing the return of Israeli citizens held captive.

Bergman’s Unchallenged Facts: The Silence Speaks Volumes

The credibility of the New York Times investigation has been bolstered by respected Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s observation that Netanyahu and his supporters have failed to refute any of the specific factual claims made in the report. Bergman’s comment on Channel 12 about how not one fact presented in the NYT article has been successfully challenged by Netanyahu or his defenders speaks to the devastating accuracy of the investigation’s findings.

This silence in the face of such serious allegations is itself revealing. In a healthy democracy, leaders accused of such grave misconduct would either provide compelling counter-evidence or face immediate political consequences. Netanyahu’s inability to meaningfully dispute the Times’ findings while continuing in office represents a breakdown of normal democratic accountability mechanisms.

The Continuing Hostage Crisis: Failed Leadership

Palestinian terror groups are still holding 50 of the hostages who were abducted from southern Israel on October 7, when Hamas-led terrorists burst into the country, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and triggering the war. Hamas is also holding the body of an IDF soldier killed in Gaza in 2014. Netanyahu’s failure to secure the release of these hostages, despite multiple opportunities and international pressure, has become emblematic of his broader failures as a leader.

Adding insult to injury, respected peace negotiator Gershon Baskin has publicly stated that Hamas is ready to give up the hostages now and leave Gaza for an end to the war. This revelation makes Netanyahu’s continued prolonging of the conflict even more unconscionable, as it suggests that a resolution that would bring the hostages home and end the war is achievable—if only the Prime Minister were willing to prioritize their lives over his political survival.

The prime minister’s decision to prioritize his political survival over the lives of hostages represents perhaps the starkest example of how authoritarian tendencies have corrupted his decision-making process. Democratic leaders serve the people; dictators expect the people to serve them.

The Witkoff Factor: Questions of Honest Brokerage

The background of Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, raises additional concerns about the integrity of hostage negotiations. Witkoff said that he and Trump did not attempt to make changes to the cease-fire and hostage-release deal originally put forth by the prior administration, yet many other conservatives have been deeply skeptical of Qatar’s influence and role in the negotiations, viewing the country as a supporter of Hamas.

Witkoff’s business ties in the region and his apparent close relationship with Qatari officials raise questions about whether he can serve as an honest broker in negotiations where Qatar plays a central mediating role. “Oh my gosh, Qatar was enormously helpful in this [cease-fire agreement]. Sheikh Mohammed [bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, the Qatari prime minister], his communication skills with Hamas were indispensable here,” Witkoff said. Such effusive praise for a country widely viewed as a Hamas supporter raises serious questions about the neutrality of the mediation process.

Media Manipulation: Avoiding the Israeli Public

A hallmark of authoritarian leadership is the avoidance of direct accountability to the people. Netanyahu has increasingly demonstrated this tendency by refusing to engage directly with the Israeli public through domestic media, instead preferring to appear on friendly international outlets like Fox News where he faces less challenging questions about his conduct.

This media strategy allows Netanyahu to shape international narratives while avoiding the hard questions that Israeli journalists might pose about his handling of the war, the hostage crisis, or the various scandals engulfing his administration. Democratic leaders face their constituents; authoritarian leaders hide from them.

The Assault on Democratic Institutions

The cumulative effect of these actions represents a systematic assault on Israel’s democratic institutions. The targeting of the attorney general, the firing of the Shin Bet chief during an active investigation, the manipulation of military service obligations for political gain, the prolonging of war for personal benefit, and the avoidance of domestic media accountability all point to a leader who views democratic constraints as obstacles to be overcome rather than legitimate checks on power.

Political tensions are surging in Israel after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has moved to fire top security and legal officials. The fact that tens of thousands of Israelis have joined anti-government protests in recent days and that a former Supreme Court chief justice has warned of civil war demonstrates the gravity of the current crisis.

The alarm has been sounded at the highest levels of Israel’s former legal establishment. Former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who was appointed by Netanyahu himself in 2016, recently declared that Israel is now “on the brink of dictatorship.” “We have turned into a country that is on the brink of dictatorship. This is how I define it,” Mandelblit said during an Israeli radio interview, pointing to legislation that would give the coalition control over the Judicial Selection Committee and other measures designed to neutralize judicial oversight. This stark warning from someone who served as the country’s chief legal officer and was personally selected by Netanyahu carries particular weight, as it represents an assessment from within the highest echelons of the Israeli establishment itself.

The Opposition’s Fatal Weakness: Protecting Turf While Democracy Burns

Perhaps equally alarming as Netanyahu’s authoritarian march is the stunning weakness and ineffectiveness of Israel’s opposition since the coalition retook power in 2022. Rather than uniting against the existential threat to Israeli democracy, opposition parties have been busy fighting amongst themselves, seemingly more preoccupied with protecting their own political turf and job security than with protecting the country as it free falls into dictatorship.

The opposition’s response to this democratic crisis has been woefully inadequate. Instead of calling for the kind of decisive action that might actually halt the authoritarian slide—such as a general strike that would include shutting down Ben Gurion Airport and bringing the country’s economy to a standstill—opposition leaders have engaged in petty squabbles and tactical maneuvering that serves their narrow partisan interests while the foundations of Israeli democracy crumble beneath their feet.

Even Arnon Bar-David, head of the powerful Histadrut labor federation, has been paralyzed by political calculation rather than principle. Despite being acutely aware that Israel is being led in a dangerous direction, Bar-David has been afraid to buck his own membership and call for the kind of mass action that could force a change in government direction. This failure of labor leadership at such a critical moment represents a betrayal of the historical role unions have played in protecting democratic societies from authoritarian takeover.

The opposition’s fractured response has allowed Netanyahu to implement his authoritarian agenda with minimal resistance. While protesters have taken to the streets, their political representatives have failed to provide the kind of unified, uncompromising leadership that the moment demands. This institutional failure of the opposition has effectively enabled the very democratic breakdown they claim to oppose.

Settler Expansion: The Religious Right’s Territorial Ambitions

Under the influence of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, Israeli settlement activity in Judea and Samaria has reached all-time highs, with the majority being composed of religious settlers who believe all of Greater Israel has been ordained by God as belonging to the Jewish people. This religious nationalist ideology dismisses both demographic realities and the long-established rights of Palestinians, creating an unsustainable situation that threatens any possibility of a negotiated resolution to the conflict.

The expansion of settlements under this government represents more than just a shift in policy—it reflects a fundamental rejection of the two-state solution and an embrace of a messianic vision that sees territorial compromise as religiously forbidden. This ideological framework makes peaceful coexistence increasingly impossible and pushes Israel toward a future defined by permanent conflict and demographic challenge.

The unchecked influence of these religious nationalist ministers has effectively captured Israeli policy on one of the most sensitive and important issues facing the country. Their ability to drive settlement expansion despite international condemnation and obvious long-term strategic risks demonstrates how extremist ideologies have gained unprecedented influence over government decision-making.

Immigration as Demographic Engineering: Importing the Right Wing

Under Netanyahu’s current government, Israel’s Aliyah Shlichim (immigration emissaries) and immigration policies have reflected the composition and ideological direction of the coalition, with the result that the majority of immigrants coming from the United States have been religious and right-wing. This represents a subtle but significant form of demographic engineering that could reshape Israel’s political landscape for generations to come.

By prioritizing the immigration of populations that align with the coalition’s religious nationalist agenda, the government is effectively importing voters who will support its authoritarian and expansionist policies. This strategic approach to immigration policy demonstrates how even seemingly technical governmental functions can be weaponized to serve narrow political ends.

The demographic shift extends beyond American immigrants. Jews coming from Ukraine and Russia are also likely to lean right-wing due to their lived experiences outside of Israel in societies where democratic institutions were weak, corrupt, or non-existent. Having experienced the failures of post-Soviet governance and witnessed the chaos that can accompany democratic transitions, these immigrants are not likely to view democracy as the panacea for what ails a society. Their skepticism toward democratic processes and institutions, born from bitter experience with dysfunctional governance, makes them natural constituents for leaders who promise strong, decisive action over deliberative democratic consensus-building.

The long-term implications of this immigration strategy are profound. As these new immigrants integrate into Israeli society and become eligible to vote, they will likely reinforce the political trends that brought Netanyahu’s coalition to power. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where authoritarian policies are supported by populations specifically selected for their ideological compatibility with those very policies, or whose life experiences have predisposed them to skepticism about democratic governance.

The transformation of immigration policy into a tool of political engineering represents another example of how democratic institutions and processes are being corrupted to serve the narrow interests of those in power rather than the broader needs of Israeli society.

The International Implications

Netanyahu’s authoritarian drift carries profound international consequences that extend far beyond symbolic condemnation. The economic implications alone are staggering—trade relationships, particularly with Europe, could suffer significantly as democratic nations increasingly view Israel as drifting away from shared values. European Union policies already demonstrate growing scrutiny of Israeli conduct, and a full authoritarian transformation would likely trigger comprehensive economic sanctions and trade restrictions that could devastate Israel’s export-dependent economy.

Military aid relationships face equally serious jeopardy. While the current Republican administration in Washington may overlook democratic backsliding, American politics are cyclical. Should Democrats regain control of Congress or the presidency in future elections, Netanyahu’s authoritarian trajectory could trigger substantial cuts to the billions in annual military aid that underpin Israel’s security apparatus. The precedent of aid being tied to democratic governance exists in numerous other contexts, and Israel would not be immune to such conditionality.

Perhaps most critically, the diplomatic protection Israel has long enjoyed in international forums hangs in the balance. The United States’ veto power in the UN Security Council has shielded Israel from numerous resolutions and sanctions over the decades. A fully authoritarian Israel would strain even the strongest bilateral relationships, potentially leading to American abstentions or even support for international censure. Without this diplomatic cover, Israel would face unprecedented international isolation and legal accountability.

Conclusion: Democracy in Crisis

The evidence is overwhelming: Israel under Netanyahu’s current leadership is experiencing a systematic erosion of democratic norms and institutions. The proposed legislation to control security agencies, the manipulation of military service obligations, the prolonging of war for political gain, the response to the Qatargate scandal, the failure to secure hostage releases, the questions surrounding the neutrality of mediators, and the avoidance of domestic media accountability all point to a leader who has abandoned democratic principles in favor of authoritarian tactics.

The trajectory is clear and dangerous. Unless Israeli citizens and institutions can successfully resist these authoritarian encroachments, the state risks completing its transformation from a vibrant democracy into something far more sinister. The warning signs are all present; the question that remains is whether the Israeli people will act decisively to preserve their democratic inheritance before it is too late.

History will judge harshly those who stood by while democracy was dismantled piece by piece. The time for action is now, before the institutions necessary to preserve freedom are so weakened that they cannot fulfill their constitutional role as guardians of the people’s sovereignty. Israel’s democracy hangs in the balance, and the choices made in the coming months will determine whether it survives or becomes another cautionary tale of how democracies die—not through external conquest, but through internal betrayal by those entrusted with their protection.

—

Endnotes

1. Associated Press, “Legal showdown looms in Israel as Netanyahu moves to oust top officials,” March 23, 2025.

2. PBS NewsHour, “Netanyahu sparks uproar in push to fire Israel’s domestic security chief,” March 17, 2025.

3. Times of Israel, “Haredi parties to boycott government votes over failure to pass IDF exemption law,” accessed July 2025.

4. Atlantic Council, “Heaven can’t wait: Are Israel’s Haredi parties about to bring Netanyahu down?” March 14, 2024.

5. Middle East Eye, “Israel’s ‘Qatargate’ scandal deepens with arrest of Netanyahu aides,” April 2, 2025.

6. Time Magazine, “‘Qatargate’ Scandal Rocks Israeli PM Netanyahu’s Office,” April 3, 2025.

7. Haaretz, “NYT: Personal Political Interests Dominated Netanyahu’s Decision-making on Gaza War,” July 11, 2025.

8. New York Times, “How Netanyahu Prolonged the War in Gaza to Stay in Power,” July 11, 2025.

9. Times of Israel, “Witkoff said to tell hostage families Israel pointlessly extending war, US urging deal,” accessed July 2025.

10. Times of Israel, “Ex-AG Mandelblit: Overhaul legislation has Israel ‘on brink of dictatorship’,” accessed July 2025.

11. Jewish Insider, “Trump Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff says he’s open to ‘dialogue’ with Hamas, praises Qatar,” January 24, 2025.

12. NBC News, “Steve Witkoff: Trump’s man in the room for Gaza negotiations,” January 19, 2025.

13. Israel Democracy Institute, “Development of the Haredi Exemption Law,” March 7, 2024.

14. Times of Israel, “Netanyahu in talks on new IDF draft law that would lower age for Haredi exemption,” accessed July 2025.

15. Wikipedia, “Qatari connection affair,” accessed July 2025.

16. Washington Post, “Top Netanyahu aide arrested amid allegations of Qatar financial ties,” April 1, 2025.