The argument is not new: there is no moral equivalence between, on the one hand, Israel, the only democracy and only liberal regime in the Middle East and, on the other hand, its neighbors or Hamas and Hezbollah. It must therefore be supported without reservation. Implicit is this supposed connection between democracy and moral superiority. But in its relations with external actors, does a democracy behave, simply by virtue of its nature, in a manner more consistent with the precepts of morality than a dictatorship or an autocracy, or even a terrorist organization? Let’s look at the issue from the perspective of human rights and the rule of law, two concepts believed to be part of the very nature of democracy.
The war crimes of the Russian army in Boutcha, Ukraine, in February 2022, the use of chemical weapons against civilians by Saddam Hussein in Iraqi Kurdistan in March 1988, then by the Syrian army against his opponents in mid-2010s, this is enough to illustrate the nature of dictatorial regimes and their contempt for human life. But hey, this is predictable behavior, you might say, on the part of regimes like those of Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad. Either. But what are we facing?
In My Lai, Vietnam, on March 16, 1968, American soldiers coldly shot down hundreds of Vietnamese civilians, men, women, children and infants. This war crime remained virtually unpunished. In Indochina and then in Algeria, France is increasing its abuses against civilians. In Chile, in September 1973, the United States sponsored the replacement of a democratically elected government with a dictatorship; massive violations of human rights ensue. On March 20, 2003, they declared war on Iraq on the basis of a lie, a war which would have left 500,000 to a million dead. The prime architect of this mess, George W. Bush, has never been worried and never will be. Do these reminders shock you? However, they only express reality.
What about the rule of law? The concept is flexible as desired. Vladimir Putin has had many of his opponents or critics assassinated or imprisoned. Every year, Xi Jinping wipes out many of those who dare to question his infinite wisdom. Once again, what else can we expect from these autocrats? But does Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo also mean something to you? Torture and detention without trial were the norm there. What about the administrative detention of Palestinians in the West Bank? B’Tselem is categorical: it is used massively, with the complicity of the legal system. And the practice of targeted assassinations, who deprives themselves of it today? Certainly not Israel. It seems that even India, the world’s largest democracy, has gotten in on the action. Since September 2001, the United States has also been waging a war on terrorism in which it does not hesitate to free itself from the rules of international law that it considers cumbersome.
Democratic regimes are therefore morally superior? Their practices, however, tell us something else. And this is not a question of falling into relativism; Few citizens of a liberal democracy would like to live under the yoke of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un or the ayatollahs. But when we look at the way in which liberal democracies act in their relationships with external actors, we hardly find any connection between their nature and their practices. Does Israel then deserve unreserved support simply because of its democratic political regime? There may be legitimate reasons to support it, but the moral superiority supposedly derived from its democratic nature is not one of them.