ISRAEL’S ELECTION: the collapse of six long-standing narratives
Israel’s recent election has been interpreted by critics as more than a routine democratic exercise. They argue that the results challenged a series of assumptions that have shaped international perceptions of Israel for decades. In their view, the election not only exposed the preferences of a governing coalition but also revealed the deeper social, political, and ideological realities and preferences within Israeli society.
The significance of the election, they contend, lies in what it uncovered about public opinion, democracy, civil liberties, religion, militarisation, and relations between Jewish and Palestinian populations.
- It challenged the “IT’S ONLY NETANYAHU” narrative
For years, many observers in the West argued that Israel’s most controversial policies, particularly regarding Palestinians and the genocide in Gaza, were largely the product of Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership and policies. The assumption was that a change in leadership would produce a substantially different political direction.
The election results, however, are cited by critics as evidence that support for many of Benjamin Netanyahu’s positions extends far beyond a single leader. Parties advocating strong security policies, a hard line toward Palestinians, and continued military measures received substantial support across the political spectrum. This support was not confined to Netanyahu’s Likud Party. Significant backing for the continuation of the war effort and a robust security posture could also be found among major opposition figures and parties, including those led by former military chiefs such as Gadi Eisenkot. Critics therefore argue that the election revealed a broader societal consensus on key questions of security, military policy, and relations with the Palestinians, suggesting that these positions are rooted in widely held public convictions rather than in Netanyahu’s leadership alone.
- It challenged the “ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST” narrative
Israel is widely recognised for holding competitive elections, maintaining multiple political parties, operating an independent judiciary, and sustaining a vibrant press. In his appeal to Western support for Israel, Mr. Netanyahu would often refer to Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East”
Yet critics argue that evaluating Israel solely through these institutional characteristics overlooks the realities faced by millions of Palestinians living under Israeli control.
A democracy for only a selected group of people is no democracy at all
Freedom House’s latest assessment gives Israel a score of 73/ 100, lower than countries such as South Africa, which scores 81/ 100. Within Israel itself, Freedom House scores political rights at 34/40 and civil liberties at 39/60.
However, the picture changes dramatically in territories under Israeli control. The West Bank scores 22/100 and is classified as “Not Free,” while Gaza scores just 2/100, among the lowest ratings in the world.
Critics argue that democratic legitimacy cannot be measured solely by the voting rights of Israeli citizens while excluding the millions of Palestinians whose lives are profoundly affected by Israeli policy, but who cannot participate in Israeli elections. Since 1967, Israel has maintained control over the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and, in varying forms, Gaza. Although international democracy indexes generally assess Israel within its internationally recognised borders, opponents argue that separating Israel’s democratic institutions from its occupation creates a distorted picture.
- It challenged the “FREEDOM OF SPEECH” narrative
Israel has long been viewed as one of the Middle East’s strongest defenders of free expression. Critics, however, argue that the political climate surrounding the Gaza war has exposed significant limitations.
According to Reporters Without Borders, Israel now ranks 116th/ 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index, with a score of 46.46, placing it alongside countries in the SAHEL such as Mali, Burundi, and Niger. The organisation reports that since the beginning of the Gaza war in October 2023, media plurality and editorial independence have come under increasing pressure.
The article highlights claims that nearly 220 journalists have been killed during military operations in Gaza, including approximately 70 reportedly killed in connection with their professional work. It also points to growing restrictions on protests, disciplinary actions against students and academics, criminal investigations, and broader pressures facing individuals who publicly challenge official narratives during wartime.
Supporters of such measures often argue that they are necessary to protect national security in a time of conflict. Critics counter that genuine freedom of expression must include protection for dissenting voices, especially during war. In their view, the election took place in an atmosphere where some forms of criticism had become increasingly difficult to express publicly.
- It challenged the “FREEDOM OF RELIGION” narrative
Israel frequently presents itself as a beacon of hope in the Middle East that protects religious freedom for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other faith communities. Critics argue, however, that the growing influence of religious nationalist parties raises concerns about equal treatment among different religious groups.
The critics cite research from the Pew Research Center indicating that Israel experiences “very high” levels of both government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion, placing it in a category comparable to Syria on those specific measures.
Areas of concern highlighted by critics include restrictions surrounding access to certain holy sites, reports of attacks against Christian clergy and Christian property by Jewish extremists, claims of discrimination from Muslim communities, and the increasing influence of religious identity on public policy.
From this perspective, religious freedom is not simply the ability to worship freely but also the question of whether all religious communities enjoy equal status, equal protection, and equal access to opportunities within society.
- It challenged the “ONLY STABILISING FORCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST” narrative
The election also renewed debate about Israel’s military role in the region.
According to the Global Militarization Index, Israel ranks #1 as the most militarised country in the world, a ranking that considers military expenditure, troop numbers, and weaponry relative to population and economic size. The country also appears among the world’s least peaceful states in the Global Peace Index because of ongoing conflict, militarisation, and security tensions.
Israel is also believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East. Although it has never officially acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons, SIPRI estimates that Israel maintains an arsenal of approximately 90 nuclear warheads, supported by air, land, and sea-based delivery systems. This places Israel among the world’s nine nuclear powers and gives it a strategic military capability unmatched by any other state in the region.
Critics argue that these facts sit uneasily alongside portrayals of Israel as primarily a stabilising influence in the Middle East. They point to military operations conducted in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere as evidence that Israel has become one of the region’s most militarily active states.
The election, they suggest, demonstrated continued public support for security policies that rely heavily on military power and deterrence.
- It challenged the “NON-APARTHEID” narrative
Perhaps the most profound critique concerns citizenship, representation, and equality.
Palestinian citizens of Israel, who constitute about 21 percent of the population, reportedly turned out in very high numbers during the election, with participation estimated at around 80 percent of eligible voters. Their political parties secured approximately 19 seats in the 120-member Knesset, potentially giving them significant influence in coalition negotiations.
Yet critics argue that Palestinian political participation is frequently treated differently from Jewish political participation, with some politicians questioning the legitimacy of Arab electoral influence.
Beyond Israel’s recognized citizenry, critics highlight the millions of non-citizens living under Israeli authority. Israel has roughly 10 million citizens, but there are also approximately 350,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem, around 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank, approximately 2 million Palestinians in Gaza, and about 20,000 Syrian Druze in the Golan Heights who are not Israeli citizens. Meanwhile, approximately 700,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank enjoy full citizenship rights and voting privileges.
Critics therefore argue that within areas under Israeli control, approximately 10 million people possess full political rights, while roughly 5.5 million people do not, simply because they are ethnically different.. In this interpretation, only about 70 percent of the population living under Israeli sovereignty or effective control enjoys full voting rights.
The article further notes that the International Court of Justice described aspects of Israel’s administration in the occupied territories as constituting “systemic discrimination” based on race, religion, or ethnic origin. It also references reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, and Al-Haq, which have used the term “apartheid” to describe the system.
CONCLUSION
Taken together, critics argue that the election did more than determine a government. It challenged six prominent narratives: that controversial policies are driven only by Netanyahu, that Israel’s democratic credentials are uncomplicated, that freedom of speech remains fully protected, that religious equality is firmly established, that Israel functions primarily as a force for regional stability, and that its political system is free of ethnic hierarchy. In their view, the election exposed underlying realities that are societal rather than merely political, raising broader questions about democracy, equality, citizenship, and power across all territories under Israeli control.