Bibi’s Political Communication Lacks Ideological Power

On Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a tweet condemning the violent riot that occurred in the Palestinian town of Jit in Samaria. Dozens of masked Jews descended on the village and caused extensive damage. Palestinian reports claim a man was even killed. The IDF has indicated that they are taking this allegation seriously, and working to verify the claim. 

This event is clearly beyond the pale. The damage it does, to the social fabric in Israel, to the fragile peace in the Judea and Samaria region, to Israel’s international standing, and most importantly to the life and limb of innocent Arab bystanders is profound. The only appropriate response is unequivocal condemnation. While appearing on some level as punitive, what PM Netanyahu communicated was a highly-qualified statement. 

His tweet reads as such; “I take seriously the riots that took place this evening in Jit, that included injury to life and property by Israelis who entered the village. Those who engage in the fight against terrorism are the IDF and security forces, and no one other than them. Those responsible for all illegal actions will be caught and prosecuted.”

https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1824176296059953333

This statement is a master class in political communication. On the one hand, it has few kind words for the violent malcontents. Yet it coddles the ideology and movement that brought to bear such tragedy. “Those who engage in the fight against terrorism” is a shocking attempt to cut a healthy middle between those who believe that unsanctioned violence along ethnic lines is a legitimate tool of political struggle, and those who find it abhorrent. It is a statement that cheapens the just and moral efforts of Israeli security forces by equating their mission with that of wanton violence. It also strokes the ego of those who imagine themselves as vigilantes but are only simple criminals.

The Prime Minister is a politically fastidious man. Since the beginning of the war, he’s avoided speaking extemporaneously to the Israeli public and the press. His statements are hardly accidental, and represent a legalistically and rhetorically cultivated expression of non-accountability. It cannot be considered accidental when his words imply that the behavior of the rioters, at least in their minds, is part of the sacred mission of fighting terrorism. 

It is specifically this non-commitment that powers Netanyahu’s survival in office. He is the absolute and solitary elder statesman of Israeli politics, as well as the most identifiable figure on the political right. No figure is better equipped to police the boundaries of acceptable political rhetoric. With his back politically against the wall for the last five years, perhaps no one else has as much as Netanyahu does to lose. Ironically, by flatly refusing to lash himself to any stern, the Prime Minister has shown he can seemingly weather any storm.

By remaining wily Netanyahu does his nation a disservice. Similar to Israel’s second longest-serving prime minister, David Ben Gurion, Netanyahu has elected to cede some kind of power for the sake of flexibility. Ben Gurion ceded institutional robustness to remain diplomatically, militarily, and politically effective throughout the early years of the state. Netanyahu has ceded what is known as “ideological power” to retain the flexibility needed to glue together disparate and troubled coalitions that keep him in the driver’s seat.

“Ideological power” is, according to Sociologist Steven Lukes, the most subversive form of power. Beneath “decision-making power,” with its trappings of brute strength and authoritativeness, and “non-decision-making power,” the ability to stifle and strike down the grievances of one’s opponents, there exists “ideological power.” It is the ability to quiet the thrum before it forms. To marginalize and penalize thoughts and actions that the powerful deem to be outside the acceptable. It has historically been used to sideline the fascists, beat down the Reds, and laugh down the ridiculous bigots. It is a power so diffuse, yet so pervasive, that it controls the edges of the acceptable, though we are often totally unaware of it.

Funnily enough, it is very difficult to know who, in a successful liberal democracy, possesses such institutional power. Yet it is exceedingly simple to point out who doesn’t– either by observing the helpless chirp of those who cry out in moral outrage, or as in Mr. Netanyahu’s case by seeing the utter failure to marginalize the clearest and most egregious instances of unacceptable behavior.

In the silent battle of political wills between the ascendant illiberal right-wing and the religious right-wing coalition, the Prime Minister has revealed himself to be feckless; either unwilling or believing himself unable to marginalize xenophobic thugs and their ilk. To say he is dependent on them politically is to restate the obvious. To say that he is kowtowing to them is to make clear that the Prime Minister is not their leader, but their meal ticket. 

Whichever cat has got Mr. Netanyahu’s tongue, his statement regarding the riot in Jit displays an extraordinary lack of leadership. The only visible figure in the natural party of coalition some fifty years running refuses to wield his power and has, as he has done time and again, refused to marginalize hateful speech and action. From the balcony at Zion Square to the present day, Mr. Prime Minister can’t help but embrace any voices that promise him support in exchange for pounds of Jewish flesh, safety, and legitimacy.