Democracy Should Not Become a Means of Erasing Israel

Israel should protect its citizens' democratic rights while firmly opposing political projects that would replace the Jewish state. Defending our homeland should require no apology.

When a political movement wants Palestine in place of Israel, we should describe that objective plainly. It wants to replace our country.

"From the river to the sea."

When those words mean the end of Jewish sovereignty, they demand something far greater than a change of government, a different security policy or a new border agreement. They demand that the Jewish people give up their national home.

We should take that demand seriously enough to oppose it directly.

Israel has the right to remain Israel. Its democracy should have the confidence to defend that principle.

A country they would no longer call Israel

A political movement seeking to replace Israel should explain what would remain after its program was implemented.

Would the Jewish people retain national independence? Would they control their own security? Would their future depend on promises made by political forces that had just dismantled their sovereignty?

The answers matter more than the language used to present the proposal.

Calling a project democratic does not establish that it would protect freedom. A movement seeking to reshape a country it does not even want to call Israel owes its citizens a clear account of the intended result.

For me, the starting point is straightforward: Jewish sovereignty is worth defending. I would not exchange it for assurances that life under a replacement state would somehow be safer or freer.

Democratic rights do not place political agendas beyond criticism

Arab citizens participate in Israel's democratic institutions and have every right to argue for their communities' interests. Their representatives' political programs deserve the same scrutiny as everyone else's.

That includes scrutiny of any demand to dismantle Israel's Jewish national identity.

A minority's right to representation does not make every objective advanced in its name acceptable. Nor does winning seats turn a party's entire platform into a public obligation.

Smaller parties can exercise considerable influence in a parliamentary system. That influence is legitimate, but the demands attached to it remain open to challenge. Voters deserve to know whether a party seeks practical improvements within Israel or fundamental changes that would end Jewish sovereignty.

The test should be its stated program and conduct. A political position should be confronted directly, with its consequences made clear.

Defending our Jewish homeland is not fascism

We should not accept the suggestion that defending our sovereign Jewish homeland, or insisting on our right to protect it, is inherently "fascist."

That accusation needs an argument behind it.

Specific policies can be criticized. Government decisions can be challenged. None of that requires us to accept that Jewish national independence is itself illegitimate.

Those who demand respect for their own national aspirations should explain why Jewish aspirations deserve less. They should also explain how their proposed political order would protect dissent, religious freedom and the security of people who reject their ideology.

The scrutiny cannot stop at the slogan.

A movement promising liberation should be judged by the freedoms it would actually preserve. A movement promising democracy should explain what would prevent its leaders from imposing their beliefs on everyone else.

The destination matters

Jihadist movements seeking power through terrorism or religious coercion deserve unequivocal opposition. Invoking religion cannot excuse attacks on civilians, intimidation or the destruction of political freedom.

Using democratic institutions to establish coercive rule would betray the people whose votes made that power possible.

That isn't democracy.

Israel should defend itself against such political projects through its democratic institutions, with clear arguments and scrutiny of the people seeking authority.

We can protect equal citizenship while refusing to surrender Jewish national independence. We can defend political freedom while challenging movements that would use power to destroy it.

Our country does not become less legitimate because someone wants to replace it with Palestine.

We have the right to defend our homeland, to preserve its sovereignty and to insist that its future remains the future of Israel.