Less Corrupt, but More Extreme: Israel's Right Is Just as Dangerous as Netanyahu - Opinion - Haaretz.com
A friend whose wisdom I appreciate wrote to me that he has a gut feeling that Shas will resign from the government, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition will soon crash. I replied, "From your mouth to God's ears." But then, when I thought about it a little, I had an unpleasant surprise.
Who will replace Netanyahu, I wondered. After all, there are some people in the opposition who are no less extremist on the diplomatic issue than Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich – like MKs Gideon Sa'ar and Avigdor Lieberman, for example.
At least in the present context, the camp dubbed "anti-Bibi" is very large and, according to the polls, even without the Arab MKs, it has a good chance of forming a future government. But the truth is that a respectable percentage of this camp is strongly in Bibi's camp in terms of ideology – in favor of Greater Israel, a continuation of the war and espousing the use of force.
- In Israel's time of need, Gantz defected and Smotrich betrayed his voters
- Is anyone trying to save Israel from Netanyahu, isolation and endless war?
- In the absence of true opposition, only a bereavement protest can save Israel
Therefore, with upside-down logic, Bibi's disappearance would help his ideological camp to expand. Without him, the camp may become less corrupt, but more extreme. In effect, we don't have to wait until Bibi leaves politics. MK Ahmad Tibi said last week from the Knesset dais, "Over 80 percent of the votes are coordinated between the opposition and the coalition; at 8 or 9 P.M. this general assembly empties out by consensus."
A similar situation can be felt on the street. On Jerusalem Day two weeks ago, thousands of Jewish fanatics marketed their anti-Arab and anti-democratic merchandise at the top of their lungs, some even violently. On the other hand, what a bummer, the vast majority of the opposition camp was absent. I expected all the standard bearers of democracy to arise and stand up to this murky wave, and use this opportunity to do away with the heavy burden called "Jerusalem Reunification Day" – a reunification that subjects 400,000 Palestinians to the hegemony of the Jewish state.
Anyone with eyes in his head knows that those who danced and sang horrific songs in front of Arab homes are the same fascist troops who are trying with all their might to sink the ship of opponents of the judicial overhaul. (TP-With American Conservative and Libertarian allies!) Those who sing "May your village burn" are enemies of those protesting on Tel Aviv's Kaplan Street as well as enemies of the families of the hostages. Not only that – you can sense the connection between the attack against the Arabs in East Jerusalem and the police attack against the demonstrators on Kaplan.
The problem here is that the masses who took to the streets forgot to compose a platform, and their ship is loaded with outdated ideology, "a dunam here and a dunam there," "our ancestral land" and so on, and if the ship's passengers don't toss this damaging cargo overboard now, they'll find themselves in the depths of the ocean; their ship is going to sink in Smotrich's ocean.
In Smotrich's ocean there's no mercy. In this ocean you can sacrifice the hostages for the sake of Greater Israel; in this murky ocean October 7 is an opportunity to realize the messianic vision – "First of all, have a happy holiday," was how National Missions Minister Orit Strock greeted the ministers on October 7.
The problem with the protest is that it's both – both democracy and militarism. Both against Bibi and in favor of his camp's slogans. And if there's anything that destroys a protest, any protest, it's the "both" syndrome. It may have worked at the beginning, but later you have to switch to a clear platform, and mainly to present the philosophy of the protest, or part of it, regarding the day after. Without that, it will dissolve and lose its right to exist.
Netanyahu has managed to focus the discussion on an important but marginal issue: "sharing the [military] burden," and on this issue you should read the article by Yagil Levy in Sunday's Haaretz Hebrew edition. Well, it's a "poor man's discussion" because the crucial struggle is over "the day after."
If we find the right formula, the issue of the "burden" will seem miniscule. But when it comes to a discussion of "the day after" you won't hear even whispers from most of the experts. At the moment the only voice being heard is Smotrich's terrible philosophy, in other words, another 100 years of bloody conflict. At least.