Comments on: Mr (Greater) Israel: Is this the new face of the Israeli right?

By: Sara Hirschhorn

Sara Hirschhorn — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:31:55 +0000

Yes, I think the Mizrachi bloc will mostly return to Shas this election cycle, especially when they've witnessed the internal racism amongst the settler community – I'm thinking the incidents with the schools — since the past election cycle, whether they really like their choice of leaders (Deri?) there either. although i'm not particuarly convinced that they will find a place in new centrist parties or the traditional left — which is also a bastion of the Askhenazi elite. however, i agree with you that identity politics is a crude tool and that many people think beyond the categories of appeals to their own narrow interests

By: Svietka Rivilis

Svietka Rivilis — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:11:52 +0000

Sara Hirschhorn -first of all-would have been nice to have a pic of the dude. Second of all, is ultra-nationalist as opposed to mildly nationalist, or anti-nationalist-u seem to be using this term negatively (maybe just my perception).

Also, most of settlers (numerical fact) r actually hilonim. Building an argument based on "friend of mine has friends who r…." is well…strange
in same breath i could be saying thatI m not religious (yet fanatical, ultra–nationalist-ultra-zionist settler) but do believe in greater isr. and do not see a need to "justify" keeping it. The trick is in the numbers-by annexing jewish settlements from judea and samaria-u would be "annexing" less than 100,000 arabs–so in practicality-there is no danger to democracy.

there will never be a center in isr-at least not long term (as various such parties have dissipated right after being created)-isr r too opinionated and take strong sides-center parties usually try to be parve-that's just not in our make up:)

By: Vanessa Coriat

Vanessa Coriat — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:42:16 +0000

funny, I actually see the far/extreme/ultranationalists- right as elitists ashkenazim of all economical backgrounds looking to keep their grip on the money and power. It's also been my experience that more and more sephardics that I meet who said that they 'were' right-wing are moving more to the center- left than to the right because they feel that its the Ashkenazies who are keeping the power to themselves creating wars and ruining the country's socialist mythos. The Likud-Beyteynu move only reinforced that perception, as well as the many news articles that talk about the Green zone settleres that happen to have very Ashkenazy names or orgins.
I for one am Sephardic and apparently I may be one of the exceptions of your academic study cause I'm pretty moderate center/center, no right or left extremes for me, thankyouverymuch.
No doubt that many sephardic may identify with the nationalistic aspirations and many indeed are looking for a right-wing option, especially the non-Anglos, to their old Likud house now that it has been overtaken by the 'whites'.
But I give more credit to people's intelligence and common sense, or at least I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and think that they'd look for a way to make their national aspirations work for them while working towards a government that offers accessible housing, better educational and health system, better job opportunities for all, before letting their 'racist' resentments play out, in either extreme, at election time.

By: Doug Kraft

Doug Kraft — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:26:39 +0000

After reading this article, and all your posts, I am sure glad Israel has a simple political system, easily understood by a 61 year old Jew from America working on Aliyah…….and I thought things were confusing here. I realize your discussions are way over my head, but I had hoped for relief from the bickering and polarization we have grown to love so much here in the US. I hope I can live long enough to find my place politically in Israel. I appreciate all the comments from you readers. Life is good…may Hashem bless you all.

By: Doug Kraft

Doug Kraft — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:26:39 +0000

By: Ehud Neor

Ehud Neor — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:47:01 +0000

Maximalist Zionist was tongue-in-cheek. I like imagined community, I think, but still, when you apply it to (whatever we are calling them), it seems a euphemism for extremism not-necessarily-religious. If you were to tell me that, for example, Oslo-radicals and Two-State fanatics of the left, far left, and fringe left also make up an imagined community, then the term would make more sense to me. It certainly would be more empowered and might lead to enhanced enquiry.

By: Sara Hirschhorn

Sara Hirschhorn — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:46:06 +0000

i didn't really go into it the article — because i thought it was too wonky and boring — but some part my academic work focuses on (re)definining this phenomenon theoretically. most of the scholarly literature focuses on fundamentalism — which as you can see in this article, doesn't work for me. but exactly as you are saying when we use terms like "ultra-nationalism" we need to define what is ultra about it (just like with "radical right" we need to define what is radical and what is right, although i prefer ultra-nationalism to that framework.) i kinda did a cut and dirty paraphrase of a great article by the late charles liebman that really influences my academic work, who argues that israeli ultra-nationalism can be be plotted on three axis — territorial (maximalism), ethnonational (exclusionary), and cultural (religious state). there is also a good article by jonathan ryhold that tries to distinguish "right" from "ultra-right". i like maximalist zionist, but i think we need to be clear — and i refer back to liebman — about what precisely we are being maximal about. but the advantage of all these terms is they don't rely on religious or even any branch of zionism — and allow for a much broader "imagined community" of folks that fit into this camp…i think it's really dangerous and misleading for academia and the chattering class to limit the definition to fanatic or fundamentalist — those are both wrong (in terms of who these people actually are and their beliefs) and unhelpful (because those terms are not good explanations for this behavior.)

By: Ehud Neor

Ehud Neor — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:20:10 +0000

You certainly took the wind out of my sail. Anyway, "mobilize" is a proper, honest term for describing this, and makes it easier to concede the point to you (meaning agree with you). Still, what does the "ultra" in ultra-nationalist mean. Is there no Right or Far-Right anymore? I get the feeling that anyone who doesn't agree with Oslo or a two-state solution is automatically labelled a fanatic. I understand that a term like "maximalist Zionist" will never fly, but in general the jargon has come to dictate the framework of discussion, preventing that discussion from becoming fruitful.

By: Sara Hirschhorn

Sara Hirschhorn — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:43:15 +0000

I praise (or recognize) the right in Israel understands identity politics — we have the exact opposite problem in the United States. I do not suggest that these disenfranchised groups are sheep — but I do argue that the ultra-nationalist coalition is in a better position (and has better appeals) to mobilize them than the left — and even the center. This is certainly not new — as I wrote in the article — this is practically as old as Zionism itself and in the realm of electoral politics, can easily be traced to Begin if not before.

By: Ehud Neor

Ehud Neor — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:20:33 +0000

"The nationalist right — especially its ultra-nationalist coalition — are keen to exploit disenfranchised constituencies" sooo…you are praising the right. And you are correct. "Disenfranchised constituencies" (as hard to type as it is to say, let alone dream-up) are surely deserving of representation. The ultra-super-duper-fanatically extreme nationalist expansionist Kahane-loving Arab-hating gun-toting check-point-causing (whew! Have I forgotten anything? Oh yes: over-sized-knitted-kipa-wearing) right, has decided to represent them. You say "exploit." I suppose that's a not-so-brand-new Brandeis way of seeing things.

By: Ehud Neor

Ehud Neor — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:20:33 +0000

By: Herbert Kaine

Herbert Kaine — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 04:19:41 +0000

Olmert, Livni, Mofaz, the best that the opposition can come up with. Not much better than the average Egyptian politician. No wonder they are rejected by the Israeli electorate

By: Sara Hirschhorn

Sara Hirschhorn — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:02:52 +0000

Hmm, your comments suggest another blogpost to me, but b'kitzur, I guess I would argue a lot has happened since 2006 – 2 failed wars, endless rockets, the Arab spring, international opprobrium, and a lasting peace nowhere in sight on the international/regional front, and domestically, socially protests, increasing corruption/abuse of power (think olmert, katsav etc.), and a generally feeling that the left is only for a white affluent elite amongst many other things. i don't think ultra-nationalist politics is the only outlet — i think we'll see the resurgence of Shas and other identity politics retrenchment in this election? — but I think the atmosphere is rife for ultra-nationalist leaders that could exploit this restiveness and disatisfaction. to me, the middle has fallen out for the near-term, despite all these new parties (which i think will just get the increasingly small center-left, rather than center-right vote despite all kinds of grandiose predictions for electoral seeps). i just don't think there is anything convincing enough — or good enough leaders — who make moderation appealing. it's interesting what your friend said — and i may certainly be proven wrong! but i hope to continue the conversation!

By: Sarah Goldberg

Sarah Goldberg — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:15:21 +0000

whoa paul, what you just said – super interesting and probably controversial…

By: Paul Gross

Paul Gross — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:39:24 +0000

Very interesting thank you.

I actually noted the opposite tred a few years which has perhaps simply reversed. In 2006 the Likud slumped to 12 seats in the Knesset and Kadima won handily. Many on the secular right adopted a pragmatic (albeit reluctant) acceptance that Greater Israel was untenable in the long-term. A good friend of mine who was one of those people told me that she felt some of her friends had become religious because only through messianic Gush Emunim-style religious Zioinism could they continue to justify keeping all of the land at the risk of Israel losing its democratic character.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on why this trend might have reversed itself.