and cultural power (Domínguez 1989). For mar-
ginalized groups within Israel, the state’s embrace
of democracy affords possible redress of civil dis-
crimination; democracy and civil society are per-
ceived as more flexible than Judaism or Zionism,
which emphasize heritage.
Within academic and popular debates, scholars,
politicians, and citizens regularly use the terms
“Zionism,” “Jewish,” and “democracy,” yet an
overview of the terms illustrates that few shared
meanings surface beyond the basic recognition that
these terms belong to specific discourses related to
Israel’s existence. Moreover, individuals often
obfuscate the ways in which normative ideas of the
state drive descriptive analyses. Uneven and incon-
sistent democracy ideologies have real consequences
for structurally marginalized groups – especially
women and Palestinian citizens – when translated
into policy. In the case of divorce and the absence of
civil marriage in Israel, women receive different
legal consideration in the civil and religious courts
(Adelman 1997) or, with Palestinian femicides
(honor killings), women find themselves subject to
codes that further victimize the woman and stig-
matize Palestinians (Faier 2004).
Israel is not a liberal democracy; its legislative,
judicial, military, and religious bodies codify and
institutionalize its Jewish character and Zionist
underpinnings. State symbols reinforce the central-
ity of “Jewish” as a defining feature: the flag (Star of
David) and national anthem (HaTikvah, The Hope)
signify Jewish meanings and further distance non-
Jews from the state. Falah (1996) argues that state
land planning policies act in counter democratic
ways by seeking to establish Jewish demographic
dominance and, thus, Jewish ideological and phys-
ical boundaries in predominantly Palestinian areas.
Consequently, many Israelis and non-Israelis
question whether Israel can be both Jewish and
democratic. Some contend that as Zionism and
democracy are fundamentally incommensurate,
only a one-state solution ensures equality for all cit-
izens. Post-Zionists share a similar stance by reject-
ing Zionism as a political organizing philosophy and
calling for democratization. However, this litera-
ture stresses differing goals and processes because,
as Silberstein (1999) illustrates, post-Zionism has
metamorphosed from early assertions that the
establishment of Israel fulfilled Zionist ideals to
current wide-ranging critiques directed at state
institutions, the distribution of power, and political
processes.
Recent debates in the journal Israel Studieshigh-
light ongoing concerns about how best to describe
Israel’s political ideologies and practices. Accord-96 democracy ideologies
ing to Smooha (1990), Israel is an ethnic democracy
that grants elevated status to Jews but does not pro-
hibit the simultaneous realization of national and
civil rights by Palestinian citizens. Ghanem, Rou-
hana, and Yiftachel (1998) reject Smooha’s argu-
ment, stating instead that Israel’s classification
should be as an ethnocracy because of the inclusion
of religion within the political structure of the state.
Others maintain that while the absence of religion
is not a precondition of democracy, the meaning of
“democracy” or “the Jewish State” is disputed and
riddled with inconsistency, misinterpretation, and
uneven application (Gavison 1999).
What is striking about Israel’s democracy de-
bates is the diminished role gender plays as an
issue theoretically linked to political ideologies, dis-
courses, and practices (Kimmerling 2001). Although
women (Jewish) serve in the military, run in parlia-
mentary elections, and participate fully in daily life,
the paucity of material that addresses gender and
democracy as referential raises the question as to
whether national conflict in Israel supersedes gen-
dered issues (see Chatty and Rabo 1997 for other
Middle Eastern contexts). Available literature and
ethnographic data suggest that despite popularized
discourses of gender equality in Israel, women face
discrimination daily (Swirski and Safir 1991), find
themselves challenged when they diverge from
expected gendered life trajectories (Sa’ar 2001),
and experience state and society through masculin-
ist and nationalist contexts (Espanioly 1994).
In addressing gaps in democratic process, the
women’s movement focuses on the interrelation-
ship between the political and the personal. Through
its non-governmental organizations (NGOs), co-
existence activities, peace groups, networks, and
other groups, the women’s movement offers oppor-
tunities for critiquing the status quo, organizing
community action, and seeking alternative forms of
social and/or political organization. For example,
the organization Isha L’Isha (Woman to Woman)
Haifa Feminist Center runs a media watch program
that examines the impact of negative stereotypes on
both the perception of women and their experi-
ences. Women in Black and other women’s peace
groups have sought to locate their resistance within
gendered discourses that draw from ideas of demo-
cracy and equality but do not replicate them (Shadmi
2000, Sharoni 1995). Magno (2002) examines the
obstacles and possibilities for women’s NGOs to
produce social and political capital while Faier
(2004) explores attempts by Palestinian female
NGO activists to gender citizenship and national-
ism in the face of risk and uncertainty.
Deep and established division among Israeli