Apartheid ethnostates could never be considered democratic, of course. Though if we think in terms of imperialism, this also indicts virtually every so-called democracy. France's control over several African countries, for example. They don't get to vote for their de facto "president" yet France controls their currency, debts, exports, etc. While not identical to apartheid, the idea of an ethnic supremacist culture ruling over people who had no explicit say in who rules is the status quo for the imperial core.

It's important to not think of Netanyahu as a singular force for evil as if he is somehow separate from "Israeli" society. His unpopularity since October 7 comes not from displeasure over genocide or any other violence done to Palestinians - when that ramps up, his ratings improve - but because the wider "Israeli" public actually wants more blood, more domination, to restore their sense of complete superiority and security.

"Israeli" media is constantly censored. Haartez is being newly targeted by censors because they didn't back down on publishing basic facts about "Israeli" forces firing on concertgoers on October 7. These are not unpopular moves. A supermajority of "Israelis", for example, believe media should be censored so as to not show Palestinians in a sympathetic light.