The Israel-Hamas War is repeatedly testing the boundaries of freedom of speech and protest in Israel. Attempts to restrict freedom of expression began even before October 7, 2023, as part of the judicial overhaul promoted by the government.
However, the war provides an excellent pretext for the government to act against those who criticize it and its policies, call for an end to the war, or express sympathy for the suffering of the population in Gaza.
Last month’s “letters protest” – a series of public petitions by various groups whose signatories demand an end to the war – constitutes an interesting test case for the boundaries of freedom of speech during wartime.
The letter that launched the protest – “The Pilots’ Letter” – was published in the media as an advertisement signed by approximately 950 reserve and retired aircrew fighters. The signatories demanded “the return of the hostages home without delay, even at the cost of immediately ceasing the war.” The letter also claimed that “the war primarily serves political and personal interests, not security interests.” Therefore, the signatories called for Israeli citizens “to mobilize for action, everywhere and in every way.”
It should be noted that the letter did not call for refusal to serve, disruption of order, or violent protest, but only for mobilization to stop the war.
Air Force says pilots' protest goes beyond freedom of speech
However, Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Tomer Bar responded to the letter severely, claiming it exceeded the boundaries of freedom of speech. Bar determined that there was no place for such a letter during wartime and that the reserve soldiers who signed it would not be able to continue serving in the IDF. The letter was followed by letters from other groups of veterans and reservists, such as the tank crew-men, or work-affiliated groups, such as university professors.
The Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University examined the public’s position on freedom of speech and the pilots’ letter through a survey of a representative sample of 1,490 respondents. The survey was conducted from April 21-27.
The survey findings show that a majority of the Israeli public (67%) agrees with the demand expressed in the letter – returning all hostages even at the cost of stopping the war. As expected, the responses show a significant gap between political camps. Opposition voters support stopping the war for the return of hostages by a large majority of 88%. In comparison, only 41% of coalition voters expressed support.
WHILE THE public supports the primary demand expressed in the letter, Israelis are divided regarding its legitimacy. Only 52% of the public believe it is appropriate to publicly criticize the government’s management of the war and demand an end to the war.
Support for public criticism of the government is particularly low among coalition voters.
As mentioned above, 41% of coalition voters expressed principled agreement with the demand to end the war for the hostages’ return. Still, only 19% of them think public protest expressing this demand is legitimate, while 68% believe it is illegitimate. Additionally, 74% of coalition voters agree with the air force commander’s decision to impose sanctions on the letter’s signatories and end their IDF service. We see, therefore, that for most coalition voters, criticism of the government and demands for policy change – ending the war – fall outside the legitimate boundaries of freedom of speech.
It should be noted that even a minority among opposition voters have reservations about the public criticism expressed in the pilots’ letter: 15% of them felt the letter was illegitimate; 20% agreed with the sanction imposed by Bar.
The public’s sentiments regarding the pilots’ letter join other data showing diminishing tolerance for expressions of criticism and protest against the government during wartime.
However, precisely during wartime, it is vital that the public voice its opinion and criticize the government, certainly when that government is conducting a prolonged campaign that exacts enormous costs without a clear objective. But even when criticism is voiced moderately – without challenging government authority and threats – it is perceived as illegitimate by most coalition voters and even by a small minority of opposition voters.
Freedom of speech and the public oversight of government it enables are essential components of democracy. We must fight to preserve this right in order to influence the course of the current war and to be able to influence and restrain any future government. Criticism is sometimes uncomfortable. But democracy relies on every person’s right to speak their mind aloud – even if it challenges the state’s actions, especially during wartime.
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University.