Israel’s Ethnonationalist Crisis
A careful examination of the election results, which are now beginning to emerge, and of how they are interpreted can teach us not only about the nature of political discourse and the character of Israeli society, but above all about the future that awaits Israel and the region as a whole.
A straightforward reading of the election results points to a clear defeat for the pro-Netanyahu bloc and an overwhelming victory for its opponents, who call themselves the “Change Bloc.” According to the emerging results, 65 of the 120 seats in Israel’s Knesset belong to the bloc opposing Netanyahu. At first glance, the voters’ verdict is clear: opposition to Netanyahu and his policies, alongside a desire to strengthen liberal democracy and the rule of law and to heal social divisions after four years of a corrupt, polarizing, and divisive government. Accordingly, any government that fails to reflect the majority’s verdict would undermine a fundamental principle of the democratic system and disregard the will of the voters.
In Israel, however, election results are customarily interpreted from a national, and at times explicitly nationalist, perspective that distorts their true meaning. Such an interpretation, which does not take Arab voters’ ballots into account when determining the composition of the government, exposes the limits of Israeli democracy and its distorted character. Viewed through a national lens, the results reveal that the pro-Netanyahu bloc won a majority among Jewish voters, while the opposing bloc’s victory, made possible by support from the Arab parties, disappears as though it had never existed.
The parties that, unjustifiably, call themselves the “Change Bloc” also participate in this discourse, which is regarded as a fundamental principle of Israeli politics. Throughout the election campaign, these parties explicitly declared their refusal to consider any possibility of Jewish-Arab political partnership. It follows that the change proposed by Netanyahu’s opponents amounts to replacing the prime minister without changing Israel’s political norms or its attitude toward the Arab minority. The paradox of the Change Bloc parties’ adherence to nationalist discourse is evident not only in their indifference to the danger that a minority of approximately two million people may lose hope of improving their lives through democratic means, but also in their willingness to relinquish their own victory.
It is therefore clear that while the pro-Netanyahu bloc won a majority among Jewish voters, albeit a narrow one, the triumph of right-wing politics is unequivocal. The Change Bloc includes clearly right-wing parties that oppose not only Jewish-Arab partnership and the establishment of equality as a constitutional principle, but also categorically reject the two-state solution. Some have explicitly declared their commitment to continuing the settlement enterprise and deepening Israeli control over the Palestinian territories. Their failure should therefore come as no surprise: when the promise of change is reduced to a matter of personalities, accompanied by a commitment to maintaining the same policies, the genuine prospects for substantial change are revealed to be extremely limited.
At its core, the election result reflects the society that casts the votes. The nature of political discourse reveals a society that has adopted a right-wing nationalist worldview, with a substantial segment of the population rejecting even the remaining vestiges of Israel’s democratic character. For these segments of society, Israel’s distancing from the West is a precondition for casting off an alien value system that limits the possibility of exercising Jewish sovereignty over Palestinian territory. This trend, which currently appears to be an inevitable historical process, will profoundly transform Israel’s character and its standing in the world: from an advanced country that sees itself as part of the liberal democracies of the West into a state that places religious nationalism and territorial sovereignty above the universal values of equality, human rights, and the rule of law.
In contrast to the strength of the right, the election results expose the weakness of Israel’s liberal current. If we were to count the elected representatives who have expressed support for a two-state solution and declared their commitment to liberal democracy, we would be hard-pressed to find a dozen. The election results, and certainly the way they are interpreted, reveal just how faint the hope is that a new Frederik de Klerk might emerge from within Israeli society. The possibility of change in Israel that could herald a new future for the entire region is, in effect, virtually nonexistent.
Yet Israel does not exist in a bubble, and changing its policies is in the broader interest of the international community as a whole. Under these circumstances, Western pressure is the principal force, if not the only one, capable of saving Israel from itself. Western leaders must make clear that excluding parties representing the Arab minority from any role in shaping the composition of the next government because of their national identity violates the principle of political equality. They must also make clear that continued discrimination and violations of basic civil rights will have consequences for relations with Israel. Individual sanctions should be considered against politicians who employ racist and discriminatory rhetoric, call for the “encouragement of Palestinian emigration” from Gaza – a euphemism for “encouraging expulsion” – or promote annexation and further settlement expansion. The West must closely monitor the treatment of Israel’s Arab minority, since respect for its rights is an indispensable condition for any change in Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. It must also ensure that every visit to Israel by a senior Western official includes a meeting with representatives of the Arab leadership and with civil society actors who promote civic equality and human rights.
This also points to the need to define the limits of criticism. A cultural boycott of Israel, which primarily harms the liberal current whose weakness has been exposed by the election results, is a boon to the nationalist right, which already rejects Western culture. One need only hear the delight with which right-wing politicians greeted the European Broadcasting Union’s announcement that Israel might be excluded from the Eurovision Song Contest to understand how cultural isolation can fuel nationalist propaganda. This does not mean that the West should refrain from taking action. Rather, it must distinguish between targeted pressure on those responsible for human rights violations and for perpetuating the occupation and discrimination against Arab citizens, on the one hand, and sweeping measures that risk strengthening precisely the forces it seeks to weaken, on the other.
The true test of Israeli democracy is not merely who forms the government, but whether Israel is capable of recognizing all its citizens as equal partners, Palestinians as holders of national rights, and political compromise as a precondition for a safer and more just future. Without such a change, Israel risks continuing to perform the outward rituals of democracy while moving ever further away from its substantive content – until the gap between its self-image and its political reality becomes impossible to bridge.
