A Study of the Israeli Regime: Between Democracy and Apartheid

Prof. Gal Ariely

For a long time, and especially in recent years, there has been a heated debate about the nature of the Israeli regime. On one hand, some see Israel as a liberal democracy, and even a thriving liberal democracy, despite operating under difficult conditions. For example, the vision of the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility, which publishes this post, is based on the desire to ensure the existence of liberal democracy in Israel. On the other hand, there are those who reject the very definition of Israel as a democracy and characterize its regime as an apartheid regime or some other non-democratic format. For example, international human rights organizations have recently argued in various reports that Israel is an apartheid regime. Beyond the disagreement reflected in these opposing definitions, much research has been devoted to debating what the correct definition of the Israeli regime is. Thus, Israel has been defined as an ethnic democracy, a hybrid regime, an ethnocracy, a "Herrenvolk democracy," and numerous other definitions. These opposing perspectives on the regime are not just theoretical disputes. Ultimately, the classification of the regime has broad political implications. Defining a state as a democracy or a non-democracy can have far-reaching impacts on its internal and external legitimacy. Classifying Israel as a democracy can thus be seen as enhancing its regime’s legitimacy; conversely, defining it as a non-democracy can cast doubt on its legitimacy and even point to a need for radical regime change.

My book, "Israel’s Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid," does not offer a solution to this debate by proposing a definition for the regime or by characterizing the Israeli regime as democratic or not. In fact, the book argues that there is no way to definitively resolve the disagreement over the classification of the Israeli regime. This is because the dispute over the definition of the regime reflects an even deeper disagreement regarding two more fundamental questions. First, how, if at all, do we define and conceptualize democracy? Second, how, if at all, should Israel’s borders be considered as a factor in the discussion about its regime?

In the book, I explain, among other things, that the first question—how democracy is defined—predetermines how the Israeli case will be classified. Those who see Israel as a democracy from the outset generally adopt a narrower definition of democracy, for example, one that includes elections and political competition. Conversely, those who doubt Israel’s democratic nature tend to propose broader definitions, for instance, those that include elements of inclusion and equality, focusing on the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel, where this is the main criterion for determining whether the Israeli regime is democratic or not.

Additionally, the second fundamental question—how to determine the borders of the State of Israel (whether Israel itself within the formal sovereign borders [the 1949 borders, the Green Line], or alternatively Israel/Palestine—the area under current Israeli control between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the territories/Judea and Samaria [the 1967 borders])—is also important for determining the regime type. Those who define Israel as a democracy refer to 'Israel proper' based on the assumption that Israeli politics takes place only within the 1949 borders. Others consider the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the occupied territories, and argue that the Israeli regime applies to Israel/Palestine as a whole. When this entire territory is the unit of analysis, it is difficult to claim that Israel is a democracy, even by the narrowest or most minimal definitions. The October 2023 war and Israeli policy of deepening her grips in the West Benk further intensify the debate about the regime borders. 

As an alternative to the ongoing debate about defining the Israeli regime, the book offers a different perspective on the topic. It argues that the conflicting classifications of Israel reveal the inherent limitations of "democracy" as an analytical concept. These limitations call into question any attempt to propose a closed and comprehensive definition of the regime. Therefore, as an alternative to an overall definition of the regime, it is argued that the focus should shift to a non-aggregated examination of the levels of democracy across different dimensions, in accordance with the prevailing approach in current regime research. This shift from a "closed" definition of the regime to a non-aggregated examination of the levels of democracy across different dimensions sharpens the analysis by allowing the exploration of both "thin" and "thick" components of the regime. The book focuses on three dimensions: (a) Political competition—the arrangements for conducting competition for power; (b) Protection—protection of citizens against arbitrary actions by the state; (c) Inclusion—the extent to which the entire population is allowed to participate in competition and receive "protection" (as described in the previous section) equally. The levels of democracy in these dimensions serve to outline the contours of the Israeli regime.

The book further argues that answers regarding the borders of the regime—that is, the classifications of the Israeli regime as existing in "Israel proper," or as "Israel/Palestine"—predetermine its characterization as a democracy, a "reduced" democracy, or a non-democratic state. As an alternative to the dichotomous division between Israel proper and Israel/Palestine as the standard units of analysis, a split analysis is suggested, dividing the Israeli regime into different areas of control in different periods. The book describes three spatial-temporal domains: the 1949 borders (1949–2021); Israel and the occupied territories (1967–1994); and Israel and parts of the occupied territories (1994–2021). This split analysis shows that beyond the analytical weakness of the concept of democracy itself, the question of the regime's borders challenges the ability to offer a definition of the regime.

In conclusion, the book does not offer an answer to the question of how the Israeli regime should be labeled. Instead, it presents a different approach to the discussion of the regime, based on analyzing different regime dimensions and areas of control and influence. This approach is reflected in the discussion of key factors shaping the regime—the conflict and the power of the state. The book argues that the level of democracy of the regime across different dimensions and areas of control has been shaped by the conflict. However, despite the conflict and the potential for instability, the Israeli regime has remained relatively stable overall. The main change in the regime has been in its areas of control. The power of the state is proposed in the book as a possible explanation for this relative stability.
 

---
Gal Ariely teaches in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
This post is based on the following book:
Ariely, Gal. 2021. Israel’s Regime Untangled: Between Democracy and Apartheid. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/israels-regime-untangled/945A8FB1ED60EE6F5F6B1C352FEED8B1