A lot may be riding on the outcome of Tuesday's elections, but there is one thing that will not be decided: whether or not Israel will remain a democratic state. Regardless of whether it is the incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party or Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid's Blue and White party that will lead the country, the Jewish state is not about to begin to slide into authoritarianism. The rule of law, a free press and an independent judiciary are not at stake here.
But that is precisely what many commentators in both the United States and Israel are warning may happen. Much of the discussion about these elections, in which Netanyahu is seeking his fourth consecutive and fifth overall term in office, has centered on the notion that another win for him will mark the end of the country's democratic system.
With the Israeli Left and its platform advocating land-for-peace schemes aimed at resolving the conflict with the Palestinians once and for all largely discredited in the eyes of a majority of Israelis, it's perhaps understandable that many people have more than war and peace on their minds. Or at least that's the way Netanyahu's critics are framing the election in large measure because they know that if the outcome were based solely on his performance, there would be little doubt he'd win.
So instead, they're trying to turn the vote for the Knesset into a referendum on Netanyahu's character.
While Netanyahu is used to being demonized by the Left, this time around he's also being skewered by some of the more respected voices in Jewish life, like author and journalist Yossi Klein Halevi, historian Gil Troy and New York Times columnist Bret Stephens – all strong supporters of the Jewish state. These are people who cannot be accused of seeking to undermine Israel or engage in efforts to cover up or ignore the intransigence of the Palestinians, the usual theme of Netanyahu's detractors who seek to delegitimize him so as to help delegitimize Israel itself.
Nevertheless, each of these figures seems convinced that Netanyahu must be defeated because another term in office would mark a step into the abyss that the country's democracy can't afford to pay.
For Stephens, Netanyahu has become indistinguishable from the kind of sectarian and "ideological tribalism" that is a greater threat to the Jewish state than its external enemies. According to Troy, Netanyahu is the embodiment of a "culture of corruption," as well as one of "polarization and demonization that keeps crossing once-agreed-upon red lines." Halevi decries Netanyahu's depiction of the courts, the police and the media as "co-conspirators" in a plot to get him. Halevi also worries that Netanyahu is closing off the possibility of a two-state solution by flirting with the annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria and that this will also ultimately doom Israeli democracy because it will mean a choice between a binational state and apartheid.
If this apocalyptic talk sounds familiar, it should. Since it became clear that he would be indicted on what I and many Israelis think are rather flimsy corruption charges, Netanyahu's foes have begun to sound a lot like some of the Democrats who predicted that the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States would herald the end of American freedom and usher in a rerun of the last years of the Weimar Republic, if not the dawn of a new age of authoritarianism.
But just as those predictions proved to be ridiculous – whatever your thoughts are about Trump's behavior and his policies, a free press, free elections, independent courts and the Constitution continue to flourish – the same is true of the rhetoric that holds another Netanyahu government will spell Israel's doom.
Let us concede that while a lot of this anti-Netanyahu hysteria is rooted in partisanship, as is the case with his friend in the White House, some of this can be blamed on the prime minister himself.
After 10 consecutive years in office, the Israeli public is right to be tired of Netanyahu, his querulous family and the hangers-on in his government. Governments that go on forever tend to breed a sense of entitlement that results in trouble of one sort or another.
It's also true that Netanyahu – as ruthless a partisan warrior as he is a skillful economic manager and diplomat –has invited criticism with his too-clever-by-half maneuver that saw him encourage a merger between Habayit Hayehudi and the far-right Otzma Yehudit party in order to enhance his chances of winning the election.
But if Netanyahu's complaints about the left-leaning Supreme Court, the largely left-wing media and the police have resonated with many Israelis, it's because they know that these institutions have been politicized. They also think the charges against him do not rise to the level of misbehavior that should be required in order to carry out what is for all intents and purposes a legal coup against an elected government.
Should Netanyahu try to legislate immunity for himself in the next Knesset, as some of his critics fear, that would change the discussion. But until then there is no reason to buy into the accusations of authoritarianism being thrown at him.
Nor does his talk of applying Israeli law to some of the settlements, coupled with his vow not to uproot settlers, put an end to hope for peace. Should the Palestinians ever decide to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, they'll find Israel's leaders ready to make a deal. Until then, making it clear that, as with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, Israel has no plans to give up land it would keep even as part of a theoretical two-state solution doesn't foreclose any options in the future.
While left-wing pundits keep reiterating that Israeli democracy is in grave danger, what that really means is that they are disappointed that the refusal of the Palestinians to make peace has shifted Israeli politics to the right and put in power a leader they despise.
Some of Netanyahu's mainstream critics have romanticized Gantz and the Blue and White party as a throwback to the idealism of Israel's past. A more dispassionate analysis requires examining the idea that a chorus line of former generals, with one ex-journalist, Lapid, as their sidekick, largely mimicking his policy proposals is a better guarantee of democracy than a seasoned practitioner like Netanyahu.
In the event Netanyahu forms the next government, Israeli democracy will be just as messy, nasty, bitter and contentious as it has been for the last 70 years. But, as proved to be the case with Trump, democratic rule will not end. Israel's voters will make their decision based on what they think is best for the country. Everyone else has a right to complain about the outcome, but that itself will be an expression of democracy, not its downfall.
This article is reprinted with permission from JNS.org.
