Israeli leaders, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, frequently trot out the specious claim that their country is the Middle East’s only democracy, and for decades, US politicians have reflexively amplified that claim without examination.
Some, like former US president Barack Obama, have gone further, to laud Israel as the region’s only true democracy.
Both assertions are easily disproved. The pedantic argument is that there are other democracies in the region, and two of them — Turkey and Lebanon — have been around longer than Israel has existed as a modern nation. The more pertinent point might be that, notwithstanding Obama’s presidential plaudits, a state that reduces 20 percent of its population to second-class status is not a true democracy.
However, events of the past few months have demonstrated that Israeli society, distinct from the Israeli state, has strong democratic credentials. The massive rallies against Netanyahu’s plan to neuter the country’s judicial system have been popular, peaceful and persistent, and now it looks like they have been productive.
In a prime-time address, Netanyahu said that he would pause his push for parliamentary approval of the legislation, saying: “I am not ready to divide the nation.”
Netanyahu’s coalition, in office since December last year, has been seeking to rein in the Israeli Supreme Court, which has historically blocked right-wing goals, such as settlement-building in the occupied West Bank and exempting the Orthodox from military service. The prime minister wants to make the judiciary more answerable to the executive, and is using his coalition’s slender majority to ram through far-reaching legislation.
A law approved last week stipulates that only the Knesset and Cabinet can declare the prime minister unfit and remove him from office. (Netanyahu is under trial for corruption.)
Protests against these changes have swelled in the past few weeks, drawing hundreds of thousands. Inevitably, the rallies have drawn comparisons with the Arab Spring protests of 2011, with the implication that Israelis are learning from, rather than setting an example for, others in the region.
However, democracy, as the Middle East has shown many times, is about more than elections and protests. It is also about institutions that push back against the autocratic ambitions of leaders.
Here, too, Israel has passed the tests: From civic groups to labor unions, all manner of institutions have come out against Netanyahu’s plans. Israeli embassies and consulates were shut on Monday as diplomats joined other government workers in a general strike.
Perhaps most remarkable of all, large sections of the military establishment have openly opposed the judicial “reforms.”
This brings to mind the role played by the Tunisian military and civic bodies in sustaining the protests that brought down the dictatorship in 2011.
Israel’s business community, less dependent on state patronage than its Arab counterparts, has been bolder in speaking out against any changes that weaken the independence of the country’s judiciary. Their argument that this would be bad for business has been echoed by international credit rating organizations, which warn of a negative effect to the economy.
“Stronger fiscal and debt metrics may not be sufficient to offset weakening institutions if the content of the judicial reforms and the way they are passed point to such weakening,” Moody’s said in a report, adding that capital inflows to the technology sector, a critical part of the economy, could be especially vulnerable.
Other tests are likely to come — of vigilance and stamina. Even if the judicial overhaul is set aside for now, Netanyahu might return to it, whether for reasons of self-preservation, to forestall judicial action on the corruption charges against him or under pressure from the far-right elements of his governing coalition. When that happens, the demonstrators and Israeli institutions would need to show that their ardor for an independent judiciary is undiminished.
However, the ultimate test for any democracy is freedom for all citizens. Conspicuously absent from the demonstrations are Palestinians, who have good reason to feel they have no dog in this particular fight. Few of those Israeli individuals or institutions that are taking a stance against the judicial overhaul have protested against the injustices visited on Palestinians.
Until that changes, Israeli society will have no more claim to represent “true” democracy than the Israeli state.
Bobby Ghosh is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering foreign affairs. Previously, he was editor-in-chief at the Hindustan Times, managing editor at Quartz and international editor at Time.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS