Netanyahu and the Rise of Neo-Kahanism
In his utopian novel Altneuland, Theodor Herzl depicted a fictional election in the future ‘New Society’. Among the candidates was a certain Dr. Geyer, a religious fanatic and racial nationalist described as a ‘demagogue who spouts slogans designed to flatter the masses’. Herzl’s protagonist, Professor Steineck, issued a warning that remains chillingly relevant today: ‘You must preserve that which makes us a great nation: freedom of thought, tolerance, and the love of mankind… If you elect a representative like Geyer, you are unworthy of our Holy Land’.
This unequivocal rejection of ethno-nationalist racism was once a foundational pillar of the Zionist movement and specifically of the Likud. Today, however, as the ‘Geyers’ of our time – embodied by Itamar Ben-Gvir and his Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party – ascend to the highest echelons of power, it is clear that this legacy has been systematically dismantled.
The history of the Likud is marked by an uncompromising struggle against the toxic ideology of Meir Kahane. In June 1980, Prime Minister Menachem Begin – the forefather of the Likud – did not hesitate to place Kahane under administrative detention for six months to prevent a planned terrorist attack against Palestinians. ‘This man’, Begin asserted, ‘could have caused a disaster’. From his cell, Kahane accused Begin of ‘betraying the ideals of the Right’ to please the Americans – a hollow rhetoric echoed today by Kahane’s political heirs against Begin’s successors.
This stance continued under Yitzhak Shamir, who famously walked out of the Knesset plenum every time Kahane rose to speak, signaling utter revulsion toward his doctrine. It was Likud stalwarts like Micha Reiser and Dan Meridor who led the legislative charge to restrict Kahane’s movements and eventually disqualify him from running for the Knesset. Meridor, who compiled the evidence of Kahane’s racism for the Central Elections Committee, recalled years later: ‘We set the boundaries of legitimate discourse. For decades, the public accepted that Ben-Gvir and his ilk were beyond the pale – the fringe of the fringes’.
The contrast between this historical integrity and the current reality is staggering. Today, the relationship between the leader of the Likud and Kahane’s successor is characterized not by revulsion, but by ‘love’ and warm embraces. This is not merely a tactical shift; it is a profound ideological rupture.
Limor Livnat, a pillar of the movement for half a century, captured this betrayal in her poignant resignation: ‘Likud is no longer the home I had… it has turned into a cult. The straw that broke my back was Netanyahu’s decision to bring a Kahanist and homophobe like Ben-Gvir into his coalition. People told me it was just a minor surplus-vote agreement. I replied: It is fundamental’.
While some argue that Netanyahu is merely reflecting a broader radicalization in Israeli society, the legitimization of Kahanism – transforming it from a shunned fringe into a governing partner – is the act of one man. Netanyahu alone granted the heirs of Meir Kahane the ‘kosher certification’ that integrated them into the heart of the Israeli consensus.
The exodus of veterans like Livnat and Meridor proves that the Likud has not just deviated from its path; it has become a fundamentally different entity. What remains of its glorious heritage is a hollowed-out name – five letters, L-I-K-U-D, and nothing more. The movement has transitioned from a national-liberal party to a nationalist-clericalist faction.
Whatever history’s verdict on Benjamin Netanyahu’s legacy may be, one fact remains indisputable: he is the architect who shattered the moral boundaries of Israeli politics, turning the demagogues Herzl once warned against into the masters of the house.
