Democraticwashing: the Israeli case

By Nitzan Perelman

The democraticwashing strategy consists of projecting a democratic image to mask an anti-democratic reality. Its objective is to strengthen the national and/or international legitimacy of a State by relying on the moral image of liberal democracy. In the case of the State of Israel, often presented by its leaders as "the only democracy in the Middle East", this strategy is used to conceal a reality contrary to democratic principles: military occupation, colonization, supremacism Jewish and currently, a genocidal war in Gaza.

This text is based on an article that I published in English in February 2024 in the journal Democratization

Under my leadership, Israel will never accept any attempt by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to undermine its fundamental right to defend itself. The threat against IDF soldiers and public figures in Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and the only Jewish state in the world, is scandalous. We will not give in. Israel will pursue victory in our just war against the abominable terrorists who seek to destroy us. […] Although the Tribunal's decisions will not affect Israel's actions, they will set a dangerous precedent that will threaten the soldiers and public figures of any democracy fighting criminal terrorism and dangerous aggression.

This is what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published on his Twitter account on April 26, 2024 when he learned that the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, plans to ask the judges of the Court to issue an arrest warrant against him, a request actually made on May 20. In his predictable condemnation of the Court, Netanyahu uses the word "democracy" twice: once to describe Israel as "the only democracy in the Middle East", an omnipresent motto in Israeli public debate, which aims to present the Israeli regime as superior and more progressive than neighboring states; another time to place Israel among the world's "democracies", more precisely by positioning it within the "free world". This is then an effort to legitimize Israel's actions in Gaza, described as those of a simple democracy fighting against terrorism. In both cases, the objective is clear: Netanyahu insists on characterizing the State of Israel as a democracy to legitimize the actions of his army in Gaza and delegitimize any international criticism of them.

Instrumentalize democracy

The strategic use of the concept of "democracy" to justify actions contrary to its principles, such as attacks on the fundamental individual freedoms of Palestinians in Gaza, such as their right to life and dignity, represents what I call the democraticwashing. This discursive strategy specifically aims to present a democratic facade of a State which nevertheless does not correspond to reality or which acts in contradiction with it, with the aim of gaining national and/or international political legitimacy.

Like all terms ending in "-washing", I define the concept of democraticwashing by drawing inspiration from the 17th century verb "to whitewash": the act of making something bad acceptable by masking reality. It represents a disparity, a dichotomy between a discourse and the reality it claims to represent. In the case of democraticwashing, it is a question of identifying the gap between a symbolic and discursive adherence to a specific conception of democracy and the actions and ideas that this discourse promotes, going against this same conception.

In the case of the State of Israel, the dominant conception is that of "liberal democracy", for two main reasons: firstly, it prevails in the political scene and Israeli civil society secondly, it is used to obtain legitimacy with the international community, particularly Western states. Thus, democraticwashing could be identified in Israeli political discourse whenever democratic principles, or simply the term "democracy", are invoked to legitimize an action or idea that contravenes the liberal conception of democracy.

Practice democraticwashing

This article does not claim to be exhaustive, which is why I will present part of my empirical study relating to the parliamentary debates around the nation-state law promulgated in 2018.

The nation-state law declares that only the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in Israel, transforming the exclusive creation of Jewish settlements into a "national value" and removing the status of Arabic as an official language alongside the Hebrew, even though 20% of the population in Israel is Palestinian. It violates several rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, notably Article 13, and violates the principle of equality as well as the right to self-determination of all peoples, guaranteed by international law.

Although the majority of its clauses are already part of Israeli law, the nation-state law represents a major moment in deepening systemic discrimination of non-Jewish citizens by formalizing the supremacy of one group of citizens - the Jews - and their exclusive possession of the State. Indeed, according to a survey published in 2022 by the Israel Institute of Democracy (IID), 59% of Arab citizens affirmed that this law had profoundly influenced their sense of belonging to the country. However, it is presented by its defenders, right-wing and far-right parties, not only as a democratic law, but also as a measure strengthening democracy. How is it possible ? Let us analyze some of the democratic arguments put forward:

1. Jews represent a minority in the world and must benefit from the rights reserved for minorities

Some defenders of the law argue that it was enacted in the name of minority rights, an important democratic principle. According to them, Jews constitute a minority in the world and, as such, they deserve, through minority rights, to have a state that belongs to them, represents them and protects them. However, this argument distorts the true meaning of these rights, which aim to protect groups of people who are distinguished from the majority of the population in a given state due to characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, language or culture.

In July 2018, Amir Ohana, Likud MP and at the time chairman of the committee that developed the law, explained this idea during a parliamentary session:

When you compare the demands of Arabs to those of Jews to be saved, it is like comparing the demand of someone who has an appetite to that of someone who is starving." There is no no compatibility between the Arab minority living in Israel, which has always been and always will be a significant minority here, and the Jewish minority living in the space around us, a minority of six million Jews in a world where there is a billion and 400 million Muslims. A small country is surrounded by 21 nation-states of the Arab people, al-Uma al-Arabiya, who share the same language, the same culture, the same religion. We don't have all that. We only have a small house. “We will not consent to become homeless. It is the demand of the hungry against that of the greedy and satiated.

Ohana argues that, unlike "Arabs", "Jews" constitute a small "hungry" minority who should have the same rights as Muslims, "satisfied" and "with everything they need". In this context, he deliberately confuses the terms "Arabs" and "Muslims" and does not mention the term "Palestinian", thus ignoring their national demands. It also places the “Arab minority” in the country and the “Jewish minority” in the world on the same level to express the idea that the rights granted to the first minority must also be granted to the second.

2. Jewish citizens constitute the majority in Israel and this law respects majority rule

Ironically, an argument contrary to precedent is put forward in the same parliamentary session to justify the democratic nature of the law: if Jews represent the majority in the State of Israel, then a law aimed at strengthening the Jewish character of the State only follows the principle of the majority, fundamental in democracy. This argument is presented without considering the opposition to this law even within the Jewish majority.

Avi Dichter, also a member of Likud and one of the initiators of the law, explains:

This law guarantees the status of the majority without harming the rights of the minority. A famous American jurist said: “Just as a country has the right to protect its territory, it also has the right to protect its culture and language. » Since Israel's case is unique, the state must take unique measures. The Arab minority in Israel is in no way comparable to the French minority in Canada, despite the comparisons made.

He presents this law as a way of “protecting” the Jewish majority against the “Arab minority”, asserting that it cannot be compared to the French minority in Canada. He thus insinuates the risks it represents. Another Likud MP, Anat Berko, expresses this idea more explicitly:

Although proponents of political correctness will be enthusiastic about enshrining minority rights in law, we must not forget that Israel was born as a Jewish state in the United Nations Declaration and in the Declaration of independence. Is it possible that the State of Israel will be emptied of its nature as a Jewish State? We will work to promote human rights equally. We remember that there are also minorities in the country, and God forbid we deprive them. But there is a red line that cannot be crossed, and that is the Jewish character of the state. […] Today we know that not only minorities need protection!

By mentioning “the protection” that the majority deserves, Berko appeals to the democratic principle of the protection of minorities while reversing its meaning and presenting it as obvious. Now the majority cannot only easily express its will and impose it, but also needs “protection” from the State to do so.

3. Equality exists de facto, so there is no need to enshrine it in law

While critics of the nation-state law argue that it violates the principle of equality and call for explicit inclusion of the principle in the text, supporters of the law reject this demand. They insist that equality is self-evident in "the only democracy in the Middle East" and does not need to be enshrined in law: "Absolute equality will prevail within the nation, end of the discussion. [...] Everyone is in favor of preserving equality,” says a member of the far-right party Le Foyer Juif; “Equality is one of the founding values of this State. How can you think that we have erased equality by promulgating this law? It's ridiculous ! Nobody discriminates against Arabs - look! It is the third largest party in the Israeli Parliament,” says a Likud MP. It is worth mentioning here that the presence of Palestinian deputies is often put forward by Zionist parliamentarians to prove the democratic character of the state, thus deliberately ignoring the systemic discrimination of Palestinian citizens and especially the differences in laws between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. -Jews of the state.

4. “The more Jewish the state, the more democratic it is”

The final democratic argument mobilized to justify the anti-democratic nation-state law is more difficult to grasp. This argument is based on a 2016 statement by the then Minister of Justice, member of the Jewish Home party, Ayelet Shaked in an article published in a conservative right magazine. By calling for the strengthening of the Jewish character of the State and the reduction of the Supreme Court’s room for maneuver, she asserts: “The more Jewish the State, the more democratic it is.” His idea involves not only an assimilation between the “Jewish” and the “democratic”, but also the justification of his demand to increase the ethnic character of the State by the fact that this would strengthen its democratic character.

This same idea was put forward in discussions of the nation-state when a member of the nationalist organization Im Tirtzu declared at a meeting of the committee responsible for the law: "It is thanks to the combination between the Jewish and the democratic that the State of Israel ensures human rights and the rights of the citizen, and that it is more stable and secure than all the countries of the Middle East and Africa combined! » He thus maintains that the Jewish character of the State is the basis of its “democratic behavior”, namely the “protection of human rights”. Therefore, according to him, the nation-state law, which reinforces this Jewish character, is inherently democratic and beneficial for democracy.

If most of the people cited in this article belong to the Israeli right, it is because it is its members who mainly initiate and promote the law under discussion. However, this observation is specific to the example treated in this article. In reality, the discursive strategy of democraticwashing characterizes Israeli political discourse, whether right or left, as well as that of all Israeli governments since the founding of the state. In this context, military occupation, colonization, apartheid and today the war of a genocidal nature waged in the Gaza Strip are all dressed in democratic colors. The main difference lies in the fact that the more the government tends to the right, the more the phenomenon of democraticwashing becomes manifest and easily identifiable.