Israel’s upcoming election will not determine the fate of its democracy, but it will bring the crisis surrounding the country’s political identity into sharper focus.
According to Atlas Diplomacy, an article entitled “Israel’s Last Chance to Save Itself,” written by Assaf Gavron and published in The Atlantic, examines Israel’s political and social divisions, the government’s confrontation with independent institutions, and the dispute over the role of the attorney general. The article explores the country’s democratic crisis and the uncertainty surrounding the future of its political identity. The following is a summary of the article.
Israel is facing deep political and social divisions, amid growing disagreements over the nature of democracy, the limits of government authority, and the independence of oversight institutions. This crisis extends beyond competition between political parties or changes in government. Rather, it raises a fundamental question about the country’s political structure and future: Will Israel continue to be governed on the basis of democratic institutions and constraints on political power, or will it move toward greater concentration of authority in the hands of the government and the weakening of independent institutions?
One of the principal figures at the center of this confrontation is Gali Baharav-Miara, Israel’s attorney general, who has come under pressure from the government and its supporters. From the perspective of the governing right-wing camp, she is an unelected official who has obstructed the implementation of the elected coalition’s political agenda by intervening in government decisions. By contrast, segments of Israel’s liberal society regard her as one of the last institutional safeguards against unchecked concentrations of power and the erosion of democratic mechanisms.
This dispute has also become visible in public spaces and even in the everyday lives of citizens. In Tel Aviv, where the attorney general resides, her opponents hold nightly demonstrations calling for her dismissal, while her supporters organize separate rallies in defense of her continued tenure. The presence of security personnel around her home and the transformation of her residence into a focal point of political protests demonstrate that the dispute over judicial independence and the limits of government authority has moved beyond formal institutions and become a tangible manifestation of social polarization.
Meanwhile, right-wing activists have contributed to escalating the confrontational atmosphere by targeting prominent government opponents. One example is Mordechai David, a right-wing activist known for filming his confrontations with prominent critics of the government. In response, supporters of the attorney general have organized demonstrations and adopted symbolic expressions of solidarity to emphasize the importance of preserving the independence of oversight institutions. These two camps represent competing interpretations of democracy: the first emphasizes the right of an elected government to implement its political agenda, while the second regards institutional constraints on government authority as an essential prerequisite for democracy.
Nevertheless, Israel’s current crisis predates the recent disputes. In the country’s liberal and secular circles, almost every election has been described as the last opportunity to prevent political collapse and preserve Israel’s democratic character. The electoral victories of Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon, as well as Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated returns to power, have each been accompanied by concerns about the country’s future. Some citizens have even considered emigration in response to election results.
Despite these concerns, everyday life in Israeli society has continued after each election. Following periods of political disappointment, citizens have returned to their ordinary routines: going to work, visiting cafés, and resuming their social activities. This continuity, however, does not indicate that structural crises have been resolved or political divisions have diminished. Rather, it reflects the coexistence of two realities within Israeli society: the continuation of everyday life and the accumulation of profound concerns about the future of the political system.
The fundamental point is that no single election, even one that results in a change in the composition of the government or parliament, can independently determine the future of Israel’s political identity. Elections may alter the balance of power among political factions, but disputes over judicial independence, government powers, the role of oversight institutions, and civil rights are likely to remain unresolved.
Ultimately, Israel’s challenge is not simply a choice between different governments; it concerns competing definitions of the state itself and the principles that should underpin its governance. One political camp regards electoral majority rule as the foundation of political legitimacy, while the other emphasizes the necessity of maintaining institutional constraints to prevent the concentration of power. The persistence of this divide indicates that even after electoral contests have ended, the fundamental struggle over the future of Israeli democracy and the country’s political identity will continue./ Source
