Erosion of Democratic Values and Identity
Demographic and Democratic Dilemma: The conflict’s continuation poses a fundamental identity crisis for Israel. Israel is built on being both a Jewish state and a democratic state – a balance that the unresolved Palestinian issue is making increasingly difficult to maintain. As long as millions of Palestinians live under Israeli rule (directly or indirectly) without full rights, Israel’s democracy is put into question. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak delivered a stark warning: “As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.”[1] In other words, without a two-state solution or some resolution, Israel faces a lose-lose choice: either integrate the Palestinians and eventually lose the Jewish majority (becoming “non-Jewish”), or keep them disenfranchised and institutionalize a form of apartheid (becoming “non-democratic”). This is not just a theoretical concern – it’s a trajectory that many Israeli and international observers see unfolding over the coming decades if nothing changes. Already, influential organizations and figures globally have begun applying the “apartheid” label to the situation, with serious reputational and legal ramifications. For Israelis who value their country as a democracy, this prospect is extremely harmful: it means the very nature of the state they love could be altered beyond recognition by the weight of the conflict.
Strain on Democratic Norms: Prolonged conflict has a corrosive effect on a nation’s democratic norms and civil liberties. The requirements of security often demand measures that are at odds with absolute liberal ideals – curfews, checkpoints, surveillance, detention without trial (administrative detentions) – and while Israel maintains a vibrant democracy inside the Green Line, the occupational reality in the territories has at times seeped back into Israel proper. For example, the need to quash terrorism led to broad surveillance powers and emergency regulations that, while aimed at terrorists, can also be misused against dissenters. There is also the impact on the political climate: continuous conflict tends to empower hardline voices and marginalize dovish or conciliatory perspectives. Over time, Israeli politics has indeed shifted rightward, partly under the pressure of endless security fears. This can be seen in the growing influence of ultra-nationalist and religious parties who often prioritize land over liberal values. When the public is afraid, they may be more willing to tolerate anti-democratic actions in exchange for promises of security. Thus, things like attacks on judicial independence or free press find a more receptive audience if framed as necessary to fight internal or external enemies. The recent internal battles over the judiciary (in 2023) are an example of how divided and mistrustful Israeli society has become – a division aggravated by the conflict narrative that casts some fellow citizens as disloyal if they question military policies. In summary, democracy within Israel is not immune to the effects of perpetual war; the longer the conflict drags on, the more at risk freedoms and checks-and-balances can become under the pressures of securitization and nationalism.
Moral Erosion and Public Discourse: Living in a state of conflict for so long can also erode the moral high ground and values that many Israelis hold dear. Israelis have prided themselves on having “the most moral army in the world” and a vibrant egalitarian society. But incidents that inevitably occur in a conflict (excessive force, innocent casualties, youths policing civilians at checkpoints, etc.) create moral injuries not just for the soldiers involved but for society as a whole. Over decades, a kind of numbness or desensitization can set in. Actions that would have been shocking in 1967 or 1987 become routine by 2025 simply because the occupation has lasted so long. This normalization of harsh realities is harmful to Israel’s soul. As acclaimed author David Grossman has argued, the occupation/constant war “is eating away at Israel’s character.”[2] Many Israelis fear that ruling over another people against their will – something Israel has now done for two generations – corrupts the nation’s ethical compass. Signs of this include increased racism or dehumanizing rhetoric towards Arabs, a coarsening of public discourse (where calls to “flatten Gaza” or “expel Palestinians” get openly aired), and the dampening of empathy. Indeed, even the term “death to Arabs” – once taboo – is sometimes heard at the margins of rallies. Such attitudes are not representative of all Israelis, but the fact they exist at all indicates a slippage in values caused by the endless conflict. This moral erosion also affects Israel’s global image and its support among Jews in the diaspora. When young liberal Jews abroad see footage of IDF raids or settler violence on Palestinians, some become disillusioned with Israel, weakening that important bond. Israeli leaders from Herzl to Ben-Gurion envisioned a state that is both strong and just; the longer the conflict grinds on, the harder it is to uphold the “just” part, which in turn threatens the ideological foundations of Israel as a light among nations.
Losing the “Qualitative Edge”: An often overlooked aspect is how democratic values tie into Israel’s strategic advantages. Israel doesn’t just have stronger weapons; it has had the edge of a vibrant economy, innovative academia, and broad international support – all products of being a relatively free and open society. If perpetual conflict causes Israel to become more isolated and less democratic, it could undermine those strengths. An Israeli think-tank noted that isolation from Western countries will erode Israel’s liberal democratic values, and that loss could also mean losing the state’s qualitative edge over its enemies.[3] This is a profound point: Israel’s enemies (like Iran or extremist groups) often lack democracy and free economies, and that has been to Israel’s advantage. If Israel were to drift in that direction by forsaking its own democratic principles, it might forfeit the ingenuity, legitimacy, and unity that have been key to its security. Furthermore, internal cohesion is a pillar of national strength – and we see under conflict how that cohesion is tested: The Israeli public is increasingly polarized between those prioritizing security at all costs and those warning of moral decay. The very definition of Zionism and patriotism is contested in ugly ways (witness the vitriolic debates over soldiers refusing reserve duty in protest of government policies, etc.). Thus, the long-term consequence of never-ending conflict is that it could reshape Israel into something its founders wouldn’t recognize – a nation more closed, divided, and morally fatigued. Preserving a Jewish and democratic Israel for the next 75 years likely hinges on ending the conflict that so threatens both elements of that identity. As long as the conflict persists, Israelis will face not only external dangers, but the internal danger of becoming the very thing they fear – a nation that survived the external wars but lost itself from within.
Data and Sources
- Ehud Barak warned that without a two-state solution, Israel risks becoming an apartheid state.[1]
- David Grossman has expressed concerns that prolonged occupation is eroding Israel's character.[2]
- The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) has highlighted the risks of Israel's isolation from Western democracies and the erosion of liberal democratic values.[3]
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Photo: Disorders in Lod, May 2021.
