On a hot July night in the year 64, most of Rome was burnt to the ground. Incendium Magnum Romae – the Great Fire of Rome – they called it. The man who ordered it was none other than Emperor Nero, whom most of you probably know as Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, a young, cruel, ruthless and eminently despised emperor. He first blamed “the Christians,” but contemporary evidence and later historians, particularly Tacitus, directly attributed the fire to Nero, who wanted to bypass the Roman Senate’s objections and remodel Rome in his oversized egomaniacal image.
Today, people associate the fire with the myth of Nero “fiddling while Rome burns.” It’s a myth, first because there were no violins in 64 C.E. Rome. Those instruments were only developed in the 11th century. Second, it was perpetuated by historians who loathed Nero and retrospectively described him as even worse than he was. What Nero probably did instead was sing. He had an inclination and reputation for lyrics, and so the idea of a man burning his own capital while humming is conceivable.
Are we making an analogy here between Nero and Benjamin Netanyahu? Of course not. Obviously, both have waged a war on their own country, institutions, and checks and balances, but of course we’re not comparing.
On April 13, 1655, French King Louis XIV perhaps said “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the state”) in front of the Parliament of Paris. It is considered an apocryphal statement, since there is no record in the parliamentary register. But the attribution, even if spurious, reflected the zeitgeist of what contemporaries thought of the Sun King – an absolute monarchist with nothing but disdain for a parliament of political checks and balances. “I am the state” evinces the primacy of royal authority in the context of Louis defying parliament, which contested his royal edicts.
Are we comparing Louis XIV to Benjamin Netanyahu? Of course not. Does he consider himself the embodiment of Israel, which would be destroyed without his presence? Sure, but we’re not into imprecise historical analogies.
The years 64 and 1655 are not 2022, but if you have followed Mr. Netanyahu’s increasingly radicalized political patterns of behavior over the past five to six years, you cannot avoid the conclusion that he is displaying disconcerting signs of both Nero and Louis XIV.
Between the World Cup in Qatar, the potentially escalating war in Ukraine, inflation, recession and energy shortages, the U.S. midterms, demonstrations in Iran, protests in China and North Korean ballistic missile tests, the world is understandably and justifiably not paying attention to the governing coalition that is taking shape in Israel.
Some are just too bored and jaded with another Israeli election and have heard the name “Netanyahu” ad nauseam. Israel’s detractors are gloatingly looking forward to feeling vindicated by the formation of a racist, nationalist, homophobic, anti-liberal, intolerant and ultra-religious government.
What is really at stake here is not Israel’s image or whatever satisfaction anti-Israel critics are perhaps experiencing, but Israeli democracy itself.
Israel is currently – and excuse the melodrama here – in the midst of a hostile takeover from far-right and religious elements. They will comprehensively assault the judiciary, the constitution, the political system, the education system, law enforcement and the free press.
But do not dismiss or explain this away as political greed from a far right intoxicated by a somewhat unexpected electoral achievement. The person behind it, masterminding, encouraging, mentoring, justifying and condoning the illiberal revolutions, is Mr. Netanyahu, not his acolytes.
The earlier versions of Netanyahu had respect for the rule of law, decorum, boundaries, and checks and balances. In fact, until he was indicted on three separate charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust in 2019, Netanyahu opposed major constitutional changes. He supported a law that would prohibit any prime minister standing trial from being eligible for election; he supported term limits; and he resisted major constricting reforms in the judiciary.
Netanyahu was never a liberal democrat. He was always a populist, an anti-elite elitist who flirted with semi-authoritarianism but never actually acted on it. On the spectrum stretching from Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln on one end, and Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán on the other, Netanyahu was and remains very much closer to the latter.
Still, he maintained decorum until two things happened: an unexpected win in the 2015 general election, which unleashed the Louis XIV in him; and the 2019 indictments and subsequent trial, which may have revealed his inner Nero.
This hostile takeover will have many dimensions: church and state; LGBTQ rights; women’s equality; the Arab population within Israel; and relations with the Palestinians. But a major facilitating factor is one that also exists in Europe and the United States – the diminishing and evaporation of center-right political parties (which Likud was, pre-Netanyahu), and their merger with radical right-wing parties.
This political process is expressed in ideology and policy, not necessarily numbers. The center-right abdicated its position and was swallowed by the extreme right. This happened in France, Italy, Sweden, the United States (the Republican Party) and now Israel.
In Netanyahu’s case, the movement toward semi-authoritarianism was even more pronounced. In recent years, he has waged a full-scale war against his own country. Against the “excesses of democracy,” against elites, against the judicial system, the police, the gatekeepers, the media, checks and balances, due processes – and all while contending that his legal problems are the result of a “deep state” cabal out to get him. If you’re American and all this sounds familiar to you, you’re right.
Once Netanyahu positioned his own party this way, the road to being co-opted by the far right was smoothly paved.
All of this will have inevitable consequences for Israel’s foreign policy and relations. The new government is pledging to legalize settlements, take steps toward annexation of most of the West Bank, legislate arguably undemocratic laws, legislate anti-LGBTQ laws, implement administrative measures that broaden and deepen religious monopoly over life, normalize corruption and espouse aggressive belligerency toward the Palestinians. Under these conditions, how will Israel’s Supreme Court continue to be Israel’s most marketable flag?
Under these conditions, how will Israel defend itself in international forums, be it the United Nations or the International Criminal Court in The Hague?
Under these conditions, how attentive will the world be to Israel’s argument that “occupation” is a temporary and not a permanent state of affairs? How willing will they be to listen to Israel on Iran?
The government is perfectly legitimate and the new coalition will enjoy a 64-56 majority in the Knesset. But the electoral results were a 50 percent-50 percent split between the two blocs. You would expect a measure of restraint, an attempt to avoid majoritarian rule. Judging by how Netanyahu is building the coalition, he could care less about such things.
He is intent on one thing only: extricating himself from his legal predicament. The rest can burn.