+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Likud vs Likud: How Revisionist Zionism conquered Israeli politics

Israel’s elections have been billed as a clash of the titans between Netanyahu and Gantz. But no matter who wins, the real victory goes to Vladimir Jabotinsky, the grandfather of the Likud.

President Reuven Rivlin meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz at his official residence in Jerusalem on September 23, 2019. (Haim Zach/GPO)

President Reuven Rivlin meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz at his official residence in Jerusalem on September 23, 2019. (Haim Zach/GPO)

In what should be regarded as a historic photograph taken last Monday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the head of the Likud party, and Benny Gantz, the head of the Blue and White party, sat gripping one another’s hands for the camera with President Reuven Rivlin, who was arbitrating their meeting in his Jerusalem office. Rivlin, himself a former Likud member, was urging the two leaders to form a national unity government following last week’s election results, which saw their parties win a combined total of 65 Knesset seats out of 120 (32 and 33 seats, respectively).

The irony is that, despite their bitter rivalry during the election campaigns, the platforms of Likud and Blue and White are almost identical. Their main sticking point revolves around who should become prime minister; indeed, had Gantz not made Netanyahu’s personal overthrow a centerpiece of his campaign, he could have been a natural coalition partner. With talks at an impasse, Rivlin on Wednesday appointed Netanyahu — whose 55-seat bloc is just slightly ahead of Gantz’s 54 — to create a government; if he fails, the task will be reassigned to Gantz.

The narcissism of small differences in what has become the biggest battle in Israeli politics is not an accident. The meeting in Rivlin’s office was decades in the making, and marks a resounding victory for the legacy of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky — the founder of Revisionist Zionism, commander of the Irgun militia, and grandfather of the Likud.

Jabotinsky may have been furious that the fate of the Jewish state has been held hostage to an individualized battle between ideological twins. But the fact that the two parties are nearly indistinguishable from each other, and now account for over half of the political echelon, attests to the Likud’s profound transformation of Israeli state and society.

When it broke the Labor party’s hegemony in 1977, the Likud encouraged Israelis to believe that they no longer had to hide behind discursive façades to pursue Jewish sovereignty throughout ‘Greater Israel.’ “Our habit,” wrote Jabotinsky in an essay in 1911, “of constantly and zealously answering to any rabble has already done us a lot of harm and will do much more. We do not have to apologize for anything.” Armed with a clear and unrepentant ideology, the Likud gradually produced a new generation of leaders that supplanted the old guard of Labor Zionists. And as the years passed, the latter found it difficult to resolve the contradictions of their fragile philosophy, or to mitigate their anxiety over foreign scrutiny.

While Israel’s four Likud prime ministers — Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, and Netanyahu – were chief inheritors of Jabotinsky’s teachings, his influence soon rippled across the political spectrum. By the previous Knesset of 2015-2019, nearly every major Jewish party from far-right to center-left was led by a former senior member of Likud. These include Avigdor Liberman (Yisrael Beitenu), Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home), Moshe Kahlon (Kulanu), and Tzipi Livni (Hatnuah). Those who entered politics through other parties — like Isaac Herzog (Labor), his successor Avi Gabbay, and Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) — did everything they could to sound like the Likud.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in front of a picture of Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jerusalem, May 12, 2002. (Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in front of a picture of Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jerusalem, May 12, 2002. (Flash90)

It was Netanyahu’s tenure, however, that solidified the right’s usurpation of the political landscape. Since returning to office in 2009, “King Bibi” proved that Israel could maintain draconian rule over Palestinians in the occupied territories, while providing stability and prosperity for Israeli citizens. Knowing that the U.S. and E.U. would do little to punish his deviations from the “peace process,” Netanyahu stretched the boundaries of Israel’s political norms to fulfill the right’s maximalist ambitions (and his own personal ventures).

The past decade thus disproved the adage, still wearily repeated by the Zionist left and the international community, that Israel couldn’t survive without ending the occupation and adhering to democratic principles. In fact, Israel has thrived by doing the opposite. Even Israelis who disapproved of Netanyahu’s ideology, or begrudged his corruption scandals, couldn’t deny that the right’s policies had gifted them with a high degree of command over their lives — and over their occupied Palestinian subjects — at relatively little cost.

The right’s persistence paid off. The groundwork has been laid for the formal annexation of West Bank settlements and the enshrinement of Jewish supremacy between the river and the sea, bolstered by the passing of the Jewish Nation-State Law last year. Today, the limited international pressure that once dogged Israeli leaders has been replaced by the open support of the likes of Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbàn, and Jair Bolsanaro. With the “status quo” so advantageous, why would Israelis opt for something different?

It’s no wonder, then, that Blue and White is essentially a replica of the Likud: it offers Israelis continuity, but without the personal drama and demagoguery of Netanyahu. That’s why, for many Palestinians, the prospect of Netanyahu’s defeat stirs much dread instead of hope. For all his worsening policies, the prime minister has been a major asset to the Palestinian cause. His blatant rhetoric and alliances with fascists at home and abroad have boosted awareness of Israel’s practices, splintered its ties with American Jews, and catalyzed grassroots action for Palestinian rights.

Many now fear that a Gantz victory would merely convince the world that Israel has “returned” to more progressive politics, and thus would alleviate the pressure that’s been building over the past decade. But there is no going back to a “pre-Netanyahu” era. The Likud hasn’t only dominated Israeli political thought: it has facilitated and mainstreamed the rise of parties and movements that are even more nationalistic, religious, and racist than itself.

These right-wing actors regularly clash and compete with one another; but now, in a historical coup, they have upended the opposition and absorbed the Zionist left — which never was a bastion of democratic politics — into their Revisionist world. Without consequences for their descent into the far-right, Israeli leaders across the board have every reason to ignore any “rabble” against the supremacist vision that Jabotinsky preached for. Until those consequences come: welcome to Likud Nation.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Joel

      What really weakened the Labor Party, and the Israeli left in general, has far more to do with Palestinian Arab behavior than anything else. When the response to the Oslo accords and the withdrawal from Gaza was terror and more terror, Israelis, including myself (a former member of the Labor Party and a former HaAretz reader) woke up and said “we tried peace negotiations. We did the experiment. It failed. We learned the lesson.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        You learned “the lesson” alright. You learned it all too well:

        ‘The first cliche we confronted was that “Barak was ready to give everything at Camp David,” formulated by Ehud Barak and his advisers after that failed summit. The “mother of all cliches,” if you will.

        We discovered that Tal Zilberstein, one of the “no-partner archbishops,” who is as far from the radical left as East is from West, already declared in the fascinating 2010 film by Uri Rosenwaks, “Dor Shalem Darash Shalom”: “I was part of the ‘no-partner’ campaign, and it’s one of the things I regret most, because I think it was a mendacious campaign … It was too successful, it became a Frankenstein monster … Ten years later, there are still people who say, ‘We gave them everything at Camp David and got nothing!’ That is a flagrant lie.”

        Eldad Yaniv, another retired “archbishop” who is currently head of the National Left movement – in addition to belonging to the civil-political forum being described here – has made similar remarks in these pages [“Left standing,” Haaretz Magazine, Nov. 26, 2010]: “I was one of the people behind this false and miserable spin. It may have been justified to a certain extent, to stir the Palestinians to revive the negotiations, but it’s false.” And, “I was a cynical person … I didn’t really understand what a destructive impact it could have.”

        Yaniv and other former Barak advisers expressed themselves similarly at meetings of the forum that was coalescing in Ramat Gan. “I remember Haim Ramon running up to me shortly after Ehud’s ‘no partner’ speech and shouting, ‘What are you people doing? Have you gone mad?” Yaniv said. “We told him to stop talking nonsense, it was just local spin meant to solve a momentary problem. He was right and we were wrong.”‘
        https://www.haaretz.com/1.5141952

        Reply to Comment
    2. Bruce Gould

      @Joel: “However, one would have thought that, at least after the 1993 Oslo accords, there would be a halt, if not reduction, in Israeli colonization. In fact, in the years that followed, the number of settlers doubled – including a 50 per cent rise to 147,000 settlers between 1993 and 1996..” – page 68, “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide”, Ben White

      “The most extreme example came on 5 October 1995, as the Knesset was about to vote on the Oslo B accord. Tens of thousands of protesters flooded Zion Square in Jerusalem…screaming “Death To Rabin!” and burning images of the prime minister, some modified to depict him in a German SS uniform…A question began to be discussed in religious circles that would previously have been unthinkable. Is it permissible, in accordance with Jewish religious law, to kill the prime minister of Israel?” – page 187, “War Over Peace: One Hundred Years of Israel’s Militaristic Nationalism”, Uri Ben-Eliezer.

      Reply to Comment
      • Rivka Koen

        Religious Zionism is a monstrosity. The only rodfim were the people having that discussion in the first place, and if someone had shot them down as halacha demands, a murder would have been prevented.

        Reply to Comment
    3. Frank Adam

      Part of the anti-socialist rebellion is a result of the MAD nuclear stand off and the end of the Cold War. As it became clear that Mutually Assured Destruction worked and there was not going to be a nuclear war nor a big mass army war, the rulers of the West realised they did not need to pet the workforce to make sure it would be healthy to work and fight another war and reached out for economics to justify ditching the post 1945 welfare consensus. We now have a 19th century “What we have we hold,” know nothings who have forgotten what it is to be human and the need …”to promote the general welfare,” to have a contented and so safe and internal peace in society.
      Fortunately the internal contradictions of capitalism require an educated workforce and government promotion of R & D and public infrastructures in health, education and transport to the point that even the US ageed to these being public duties before WW I and opened the appropriate departments.
      As for the factionalism of Israeli politics raising the Knesset threshhold from 1% to 3,25% has been the best thing that has happened and perhaps it should be raised to 5% as in Germany. Also introduce the Alternative – AV – or Australian Vote by which the VOTER marks their second choice on the ballot. Then if their first vote faction does not cross the threshold their vote is transferred to the 2nd or AV list. Finally if an MK leaves their faction then they should have to leave the Knesset. Between these three tweaks the vanity of small differences crowd should find their wings clipped. Then more discipline should appear to take forward PUBLIC policy instead of private careers.

      Reply to Comment