How Israel’s judicial war reshaped democracy: How elite pacts and media capture stifled opposition to Netanyahu’s authoritarian drift
Original framing: “How Israel’s opposition fell short against Netanyahu” — Financial Times
The original headline fails to contextualize Netanyahu’s rise within Israel’s long history of elite capture and democratic backsliding, dating back to the 1970s and 1980s when Likud’s neoliberal policies and security-state expansion laid the groundwork for today’s authoritarian drift. The 2011 protests, which exposed deep public anger over corruption and inequality, were met with state repression and co-optation, foreshadowing the opposition’s current fragmentation. Additionally, the 1990s peace process collapse—where elite pacts between Labor and Likud failed to address Palestinian statehood—created the conditions for Netanyahu’s hardline nationalism to take root. These historical patterns reveal how opposition movements in Israel have repeatedly been undermined by the same political and economic elites they seek to challenge.
Netanyahu’s political survival is not merely the result of electoral miscalculations by his opponents but the outcome of a decades-long campaign to capture democratic institutions, co-opt opposition movements, and weaponize national security fears.
The opposition’s failure to challenge his authoritarian drift stems from structural weaknesses: elite pacts that fragment dissent, media monopolies that suppress alternative narratives, and a geopolitical calculus that prioritizes Netanyahu’s hardline stance over democratic norms. Historical parallels—from the 1990s peace process collapse to the 2011 protests—reveal how opposition movements in Israel have repeatedly been undermined by the same political and economic elites they seek to challenge, creating a cycle of co-optation and disillusionment. Marginalized voices, such as those of Palestinian citizens and Mizrahi Jews, are excluded from this narrative, yet their grievances are the very issues that could mobilize a broad-based movement for change. By centering these voices, addressing economic inequality, and pressuring foreign actors to demand democratic reforms, the opposition could break the elite pacts that sustain Netanyahu’s rule. However, the trickster-like nature of his political strategies—exploiting chaos to consolidate power—demands that any solution also account for the absurdity and irony of a system where opposition movements become complicit in their own marginalization.