The coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently advancing a series of bills, the vast majority of which deal with the electoral process in Israel – raising a troubling question: Is the current government trying to ensure its survival by severely damaging Israeli democracy? This is not a far-fetched possibility if we remember that, shortly after the government was formed almost two years ago, it came out in support of an Israeli citizen who petitioned the Central Elections Committee and, citing a sophistic argument centering on the month of Cheshvan in the Jewish lunar calendar, argued that the current government should serve a five-year term instead of the legally specified four years.

Justice Noam Sohlberg, the chair of the committee, rejected that outlandish petition, but there are other schemes afoot to fortify the ruling coalition’s position. Indeed, it is already taking measures to ensure its victory in the next election – in part by enfeebling the media and the state-run education system, so that the public is not exposed to critical opinions or views such positions as illegitimate, and in part by introducing legislation to change the electoral laws in Israel. Chief among these bills is an amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset which would “expand the justifications for preventing [a candidate] from participating in the election.” The amendment was proposed by coalition whip MK Ophir Katz (Likud) and is currently making rapid progress through the Knesset committee that Katz chairs.

Under the guise of fighting terror, the proposed amendment would make it easier to disqualify Arab parties and candidates from running for election, thereby redistributing the 120 Knesset seats anew. According to estimates, this would give the coalition an additional five to seven seats in the Knesset. Another proposal currently on the table, which would give the state greater powers to remove members of local and regional councils from their positions for expressing support for terrorism, was submitted by MK Hanoch Milwidsky (Likud). The bill was approved in its preliminary reading in parliament in late November. In this case, too, the political mechanism would be given greater control over the disqualification process.

The crisscross between the national and the municipal arenas is not a coincidence. The moment that one bill is passed, it makes it easier for the next one to garner approval – and simply discussing both of them plants these ideas in the Israeli people’s consciousness. “This is a modus operandi,” says Prof. Tamar Hostovsky Brandes, an expert in international and constitutional law at the Ono Academic College and a senior research fellow at the Institute for Israeli Thought. “What is happening is that people are being prepared for concepts that were once considered absurd but which are now being tossed into the public discourse in order to test people’s reactions to them. If they are part of the discourse for long enough, most of them will eventually find their way into the mainstream.”

MK Waleed El Hawashla (United Arab List) describes how it works in practice. “Arab Knesset members are not terror supporters. We know who supports terror and it is not the Arab parties. But that does not prevent the coalition from standing at the Knesset podium and declaring that we are all terror supporters. This kind of talk prepares the ground so that when legislation is introduced against us, it will be seen as legitimate by the public. Ofir Katz wants to determine the outcome of the next election. That’s all he’s interested in. They can see the polls and they are not stupid; they realize that they will not have enough seats to form a government. In 2015, Netanyahu said that ‘the Arabs are coming to the polling stations in droves’ – and now he is looking for ways to disqualify Arab parties and candidates and lower the turnout among Arab voters.”

Prof. Yaniv Roznai, vice dean of the Reichman University Law School, shares this assessment. “There already is a counterterrorism law,” he says. “The bill in question is not designed to fight terrorism, it’s a tool of voter suppression which could change the political map. It is not the only way, but it offers the coalition its best chance of remaining in power after the next election, in light of the most recent polls. So, it is not changing the electoral rules; there will be an election, but the coalition will have a better chance of winning it. And if the High Court of Justice overturns some of the disqualifications, the coalition will accuse its justices of being terrorist sympathizers – giving even more validity to the judicial overhaul. As far as the coalition is concerned, it’s a win-win situation.”

“There already is a counterterrorism law. The bill in question is not designed to fight terrorism, it’s a tool of voter suppression which could change the political map", says Prof. Roznai

‘Terrorism isn’t the story here’

The amendment put forward by coalition whip MK Katz seeks to add more reasons, as stipulated in Clause 7a of the Basic Law: The Knesset, to disqualify a party or a candidate from running in the election. Katz wants to ensure that even a one-time expression of solidarity with a lone terrorist is enough to disqualify a candidate or an entire party. Would, for example, an expression of solidarity with Ahed Tamimi, a Palestinian woman who, as a young girl, slapped an Israeli soldier, be considered justification for disqualification? According to the law, disqualification is only applicable for ongoing support for armed struggle, a terrorist organization, or an enemy state – and not an individual.

According to the proposed amendment, the Central Elections Committee will no longer need the approval of the High Court to disqualify a candidate. The High Court, meanwhile, will serve only as an appellate court, limiting its scope for intervention to merely technical matters. This means that the decision on what constitutes support for or solidarity with terrorism will be left in the hands of a body that is political in its composition and is made up of representatives of the parties already in the Knesset – in accordance with the relative size of the party.

The wording of the proposed amendment also ensures that disqualification on the grounds of supporting terrorism is not applicable in the case of Jewish terrorism, since it only relates to acts carried out against Israeli citizens. Acts of terror against anyone else – Palestinians, for example – are not included. Unsurprisingly, the coalition is not seeking to expand the existing clause that allowed the Central Elections Committee to disqualify candidates and lists on the grounds of incitement to racism, which led in the past to the disqualification of right-wing extremists.

“The story here is not terrorism,” says Prof. Adam Shinar from Reichman University Law School. “After all, if members of the coalition were so concerned about terrorism, they would draft the law in such a way as to ensure that there are no terror-supporting Knesset members – irrespective of who the victim is or where the attack takes place. They are not bothered by the fact that MK Limor Son Har-Melekh supports Amiram Ben Oliel, who murdered the Dawabsheh family, or by Itamar Ben-Gvir’s conviction for supporting a terrorist organization. This law is being tailored to sow despair among Arab citizens of Israel, so that they think there is no point in them even going out to cast a vote. If this is indeed the trend, then Arab voters – who already suffer from underrepresentation in the Knesset – will have even less of a voice and the coalition parties will gain seats.”

It is possible, of course, that Arab citizens of Israel will be less motivated to participate in elections if these amendments pass, but the opposite is also feasible: the new legislation could fuel an understanding that they still have something left to fight for. “Arab society in Israel is split between those who believe that elections are still an important means of influence and those who say that their boundary has been crossed and there is nothing left to fight for,” says MK Aida Touma-Suleiman (Hadash-United Arab List), who has served in the Knesset since 2015. “Young people are experiencing increased repression and alienation since the outbreak of the war. They are losing hope that there is anyone with whom they can build a future here. It will be less important for them to vote and we have to persuade them that anyone who wants to live here must fight. It is a mistake to think that we are just fighting for representation for the Arab population in the Knesset. This is also a battle against the implementation of a dictatorship. Gantz, Lapid and Bennett – any party that has aspirations to replace the current government must realize this and must join our struggle.”

And are they?

“This bill exposes the approach of most of the Israeli public toward the Arab population. A lot of the Jews who are fighting against it are doing so for instrumental reasons. They see the Arab population as the tipping point that could turn the election their way and they are afraid that this legislation will discourage Arabs from voting. I do not like that. I would prefer them to fight against the legislation because they understand that this is how a democracy should function – but I do not have much hope. For now, it matters to me that they are part of the struggle.”

Katz’s bill was originally brought before the Knesset is January 2023 but was not advanced until a few weeks ago, in late October, when members of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation were told – just a few hours before the start of Shabbat – that it had been added to the agenda for their next meeting on Sunday. Two committee sessions to discuss the bill were held during November, as part of its preparations for the first reading of the bill in the Knesset. Last week, a further session was planned, but it was cancelled as Katz decided to accompany Benjamin Netanyahu as the prime minister testified in his ongoing corruption trial.

“We are all ready to submit our objections and to influence the discussion,” says Touma-Suleiman. “If they disqualify an entire party, our response will differ from our response to the disqualification of an individual candidate.When they raised the electoral threshold, our response was to set up a joint list, which secured 15 seats in the Knesset. Now, too, we won’t agree to slink away into some hole and disappear from political life. Maybe we will do something that will surprise everyone again. Wait and see.”

Are you talking about another joint list or joining forces with a Jewish party?

“All options are on the table. We still have not decided what our best option is. The United Arab List consistently emphasized the importance of its members running as an independent party. However, they are now discussing the possibility of a tactical merger. What matters most is conveying to the public that, even if the law passes, we remain relevant to the political struggle”’.

"When they raised the electoral threshold, our response was to set up a joint list, which secured 15 seats in the Knesset. Now, too, we won’t agree to slink away into some hole and disappear from political life. Maybe we will do something that will surprise everyone again. Wait and see."

Disqualify, deny, delay and disbar

Members of the Political Scientists for a Democratic Israel forum point to another bill which goes even further than the coalition whip’s proposal and seeks to revoke the High Court of Justice’s authority to intervene in decisions by the Central Elections Committee when it comes to approving or disqualifying candidates and parties.

According to the existing law, decisions made by the Central Elections Committee must be ratified by the High Court of Justice, which has a history of overturning the disqualification of parties. A bill submitted by MK Nissim Vaturi (Likud) proposes that decisions by the committee, on which coalition parties have a majority, will be “final, conclusive and indisputable.” This would give the committee the unfettered freedom to limit the right to vote and to be elected. If it is passed, along with the expansion of justifications for disqualification, “Israeli democracy will find itself two moves away from checkmate,” members of the forum are warning.

Two additional proposals aimed at reducing the presence of left-wing and Arab representatives in the Knesset were jointly submitted by MKs Eliyahu Revivo and Boaz Bismuth (Likud). These proposals seek to disqualify anyone who calls for a boycott of Israel from running in elections. And if not to disqualify them, then at least to deny funding to such a party.

These bills are based on the Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott – commonly known as the Anti-Boycott Law – which includes “territory under Israeli control” in its definitions. So, any Knesset member or party calling for a boycott of products manufactured in the West Bank settlements in protest at the occupation, or anyone advocating for a boycott to pressure Israel into ending the war in Gaza and securing the release of the hostages would run the risk of state-approved sanctions.

Moreover, the amendments to the Basic Laws on the government and the Knesset which were submitted by Revivo and Dudi Amsalem (who withdrew his sponsorship after being appointed minister) seek to perpetuate the Likud’s grip on power. The amendments propose that the head of the largest party be tasked with forming the government, that failure to pass the state budget in the Knesset would not automatically mean dissolving parliament and that dissolving parliament in the first year of its tenure would require a special majority of 70 MKs, rather than 60 as is the case today.

“It’s another effort to perpetuate their rule,” says Shinar. “Assuming, of course, that Likud is the largest party according to the polls in the run-up to the election, then they will advance this bill at lightning speed. In that case, even if the parties that make up the right-wing bloc do not have the 61 seats needed to form a coalition, the president will first have to task the leader of the largest party with forming the government. If that party does manage to form a minority government, the opposition will not be able to topple it during its first year. Even if it fails to pass the state budget, that’s not a problem.

“The combination of all these populistic moves is almost dictatorial,” says Shinar when asked about all the proposed legislation on the table. “The people currently in power are saying to themselves that they will not let anyone replace them. It’s antidemocratic because the whole idea of democracy is not just that elections are held, but that there is a chance that the election will lead to a change in the ruling party. In other words, there is a fair chance that the minority will become the majority.”

There are two more bills which add to this trend. The first is the proposal by MK Almog Cohen (Otzma Yehudit) to lengthen the cooling-off period for former defense officials before they are allowed to end politics, from three years to five. This could benefit a party that is running on a ticket of governmental continuity, which would be delighted not to have to compete with any new forces that may emerge, The second is a bill drafted by MK Galit Distel Atbaryan which would outlaw industrial action by unions in the 30 days before municipal or general elections, which would improve the image of the ruling party. Most people do not know which body is responsible for the piles of garbage that accumulate during strikes or who is to blame when they miss work because a strike by teachers means that their children do not have school. As far as they are concerned, the government is to blame – and the government would prefer it if, in the run-up to an election, voters believe that everything is fine and that nobody is suffering.

"Part of the Hungarian playbook was to give massive funding to media outlets that supported the government while annulling funding to outlets critical of the government," says Prof. Hostovsky Brandes

‘In Israel, human rights have been politicized’

Formal legislation is only part of the overall picture. “Efforts to perpetuate the regime are not limited just to the direct effort to change the rules of the electoral process,” says Roznai. “Changes to the media and to freedom of expression, in education and in the cultural arena, are a very significant part of this perpetuation. Funding, like refusing to fund, is critically important; the easements that Channel 14 has enjoyed in exchange for broadcasting government propaganda as a matter of routine, along with efforts to close a state-run broadcaster that presents opinions that are critical of the government, are just examples. And this is before we even think about last-minute initiatives. Remember how Likud tried to install surveillance cameras at polling stations in Arab communities in 2019? Now, we could see rapid response teams from the Ministry of National Security patrolling in the area of certain voting stations, deterring people from casting their votes. Efforts to change the voting patterns in Arab communities are always taking on different forms.”

Apart from Ofir Katz’s proposal to expand the grounds for disqualification, few of these bills have progressed. Are we perhaps being alarmists?

“Not all of the bills are indeed being advanced, but if Katz’s proposal is approved – that’s a game changer. These proposals show the direction and even if only some of them are enacted, it will have an impact. Moreover, a significant number of the bills that were submitted in the first weeks of this government’s tenure and which were not advanced are going through the committee stage during the Knesset’s winter session.”

Prof. Hostovsky Brandes adds that she is “not reassured by people telling me that these bills are at a very preliminary stage. Partly because things can happen here at a supercharged speed and partly because if the High Court’s ability to exercise judicial review is undermined, there is a very high chance that they will become law.”

Do you see similarities with what happened in Hungary?

“The Hungarian electoral system is different from Israel’s, but in both countries, the government identified a weakness in the electoral system and took advantage of it. By undermining the media, for example. Part of the Hungarian playbook was to give massive funding to media outlets that supported the government while annulling funding to outlets critical of the government. This had a direct impact on the fairness of the election since the public was only exposed to pro-regime opinions and did not have the opportunity to be exposed to critical positions. In Israel, the undermining of the media is mistakenly perceived as a separate issue from efforts to change the electoral system. They are one and the same issue.”

What is the primary Israeli weakness when it comes to the struggle for free and fair elections?

“That the delegitimization of Arab parties and the Arab population is not sufficiently opposed by the liberal camp. The struggle focused on protecting institutions like the High Court of Justice and the attorney general, rather than on safeguarding democratic principles like equality and freedom of expression. This weakness was exacerbated by the events of October 7, because of the understandable fear of terrorism. The right identified this weakness and is also using it in the context of changing the electoral system and harming Arab parties. Anyone who comes out in support of freedom of expression even for infuriating opinions is tarred as unpatriotic. Supporting minority rights is seen as extremist or disloyal to the state; opposing the war is portrayed as supporting terror. People took to the streets to protest the annulment of the reasonableness clause but won’t protest over the significant infringement of the Arab population’s freedom of expression.”

Is it possible that more Israeli people have simply shifted to the right?

“Victor Obran claims that he merely represents the will of the Hungarian people – and that is true in the sense that the election was not rigged. But even if the results of the elections were accurate, the question is what caused them. Even now, the state is saying that it does not have to fund critical views, as it tried to close the state-run broadcaster and to revoke advertising payments from government ministries in Haaretz newspaper. The order to cancel all civil servants’ subscriptions to Haaretz is even more serious in my opinion, despite the fact that it makes more money from government advertising.”

Why?

“Because it is preventing civil servants from being exposed to positions that the newspaper publishes – opinions that are important to their decision-making process. It is also delegitimizing the positions themselves. These are measures that are being taken long before the polling stations open as part of the erosion of democracy. There are elections even in countries where democracy has been eroded, countries like Hungary. Even countries where the consensus is that they are not democratic at all – Russia, for example – hold elections.

“The question is whether the next elections in Israel will be held in conditions that are sufficiently free and competitive, not whether we will be allowed to go to the polling station and cast our vote. People imagine a coup by force and are looking for the critical moment – the moment that the Knesset passes a law saying there will be no more elections. That won’t happen, but if people think that as long as elections are not banned nothing dramatic is happening – they are making a big mistake.”