The dream of the time after Netanyahu, and the Israel that never was

The news in Israel is that Benjamin Netanyahu was tapped by President Rivlin, to have a chance at setting up a government coalition, after the fourth election in two years. 

Netanyahu’s chances of success seem weak, since he only got the backing of 52 lawmakers, where the necessary count is 61 seats for a viable majority coalition in the parliament. But the other camp, which can mostly be regarded as the ‘not Netanyahu camp’, only came up with 45 recommendations by parliament members for centrist Yair Lapid. Netanyahu’s former party member Gideon Sa’ar, who broke off in December as the ‘liberal’ alternative (although being on Netanyahu’s right ideologically), refused to recommend Lapid because he is too leftist for him, and Sa’ar would of course not recommend Netanyahu either, God forbid.

But Naftali Bennett’s party Yamina, which is on the right of both Netanyahu and Sa’ar, did recommend Lapid with its seven seats. Lapid reportedly reached an agreement with Bennett for a rotating prime ministership between the two of them.

Thus, once again, this ridiculous political picture appears: the alternative to Netanyahu is not based on ideology as such, and the ‘just not Netanyahu’ idea cuts across the political spectrum.

One could plausibly argue that the attempt to replace Netanyahu is beyond or above politics. It is supposedly about morals. Because Netanyahu is on trial for corruption even as these negotiations take place. In handing over the mandate to form a government to Netanyahu, President Rivlin expressed his reluctance, and confessed a “moral and ethical” conundrum:

This is not an easy decision on a moral and ethical basis, in my mind. And I fear for my country. But I am doing what is required of me as president of the State of Israel, according to the law and to the ruling of the court, and realizing the will of the sovereign – the Israeli people… I know the position held by many, that the president should not give the role to a candidate that is facing criminal charges. But according to the law and the decision of the courts, a prime minister can continue in his role even when he is facing charges.

Rivlin is an officially apolitical figure, so he was loading this idea of moral and ethical dilemma regarding Netanyahu as something that goes beyond politics. He gave that speech without Netanyahu at his side, as is generally the custom when a president gives the nod to a politician to form a coalition.

So there was a sense being communicated symbolically, that the country is in a severe moral crisis.

I would agree that the country is in moral crisis. In fact, I would say that it has always been there. And since Netanyahu has not always been prime minister, the question becomes, how much of this moral crisis is really to do with Netanyahu, and how much of that moral crisis would simply be prolonged by people who might replace Netanyahu – like Lapid, or Bennett, or for argument’s sake Sa’ar.

Israel is a settler-colonial Apartheid state and this is a central aspect of Israel throughout its Zionist political spectrum. Obnoxious commentators such as Thomas Friedman of the New York Times may opine that “The Arab-Israel conflict for Israel… has largely disappeared”. Friedman might be right in terms of it being a matter of Israeli denial; but he himself is engrossed in that denial, he is not admonishing against it.

The Palestinian issue is still the most central issue regarding Israel, because Apartheid should always be addressed first, being a Crime Against Humanity. But even left-Zionist politicians are saying ala Friedman that it doesn’t need to be central. Recently, Yair Golan of Meretz said, “We have enough on the agenda of health and economy, it’s not necessary to be busy currently with separation from the Palestinians or peace agreements.” 

The Meretz party is the furthest left on the Zionist political spectrum, and Golan is number 3 on the Meretz list of parliamentarians, and he’s the retired major general who as army Deputy Chief of Staff warned of “revolting processes” in Israeli society, akin to those in Nazi Germany. In his 2016 speech on Holocaust Memorial Day he said:

If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance it’s the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then – 70, 80 and 90 years ago – and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016. 

For me, Golan is merely a reflection of these revolting processes. Because he doesn’t see his Zionism as part of that distressing picture. That fascism didn’t start today, and it wasn’t merely an attribute of the Zionist right.

The separate regimes delusion

Nathan Thrall’s essay The Separate Regimes Delusion, published in the London Review of Books, is one of his two masterpieces of recent times (his monumental essay A Day in the Life of Abed Salama, in the New York Review of Books, is another).

In the Separate Regimes Delusion, Thrall calls out Israel’s single Apartheid regime – the political system that the Israeli human rights NGO B’Tselem appraised as “a regime of Jewish supremacy from the river to the sea” – and points out that an illusion of two separate regimes – one in ‘Israel proper’ and one in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, is a delusion that is upheld by Zionists, notably left-Zionists, in order to maintain the sense that Israel is after all a democracy ‘here’, even if not ‘there’.

The issue of here versus there – the occupation – has for some time been a real distinction between the Zionist right and the Zionist left. The left wanted to talk about it. But it is a disappearing discussion. Even Labor don’t really bother with it.

Noa Landau of Haaretz wrote recently, just before the elections:

If Meretz is not in the next Knesset, there will be no more representation for the Zionist left that recognizes the reality of the occupation and its implications, at a time when the proceedings in The Hague are likely to ramp up the [Israeli] persecution of anyone who dares to argue that there is a basis for investigating suspected war crimes in the territories. This would be the real effect of Meretz’s disappearance.

Meretz did not disappear after all (they actually got a surprising 6 seats), but as mentioned, their leaders are in disagreement as to whether the occupation needs to be talked about.

Israel is thus moving into a phase where the occupation ceases to be an issue in itself. It just becomes an issue among so many other issues. In an ironic way, this is natural to the Zionist way. Zionism has always worked on the basis of gaining hold of territory, mostly illegally, and then holding out until the issue dissipates and becomes normalized as a fait accompli. This is how it has worked since the very start.

In this sense, there was never a bubbling plural democracy in Israel– it was always a single, oppressive, Apartheid state. The left-right debate in Israel was always effectively Zionist (the Palestinian parties were always let out of governance), and it has generally been about the speed of colonization, not how to end it. 

The time after Netanyahu

Many seem to see Netanyahu as an illiberal, corrupt, anti-democratic leader. And by God he is. But we must also see, that he is part of a regime that itself is illiberal, corrupt and anti-democratic. It’s always been the case. Who is the new hope? Gideon Sa’ar who is even to the right of Netanyahu? Naftali Bennett who is even to the right of Sa’ar? Or Yair Lapid, who is to their left, alas with the “principle” which says “maximum Jews on maximum land with maximum security and with minimum Palestinians”? 

See, all of these people are quintessentially Zionist. Some are more polite, some more crass. But they are all colonizers, and settler-colonizers at that, which is why settlements, transfer and ethnic cleansing are so important to them. These are centrally Zionist values.

The desperation to see oneself as liberal pushes Israelis (and liberal Zionist supporters in the U.S.) to see hope where there is none. After Netanyahu everything will be better. After Netanyahu there will be democracy.

No, democracy will not come from a Prime Minister Bennett or Lapid – only more status quo and worse. It will not come from Meretz either. None of these parties want to abolish Zionism, it is central to them. And Zionism is the Apartheid spoken of before, and it’s arguably worse than the South African version.

So, there is no light at the end of the Netanyahu rule. That’s not where hope is. There may be 5th elections soon (probably in early October), or there may be 400 elections. But as long as the Zionist status quo reigns supreme, there will not be democracy. There will be Apartheid.

Maybe that sounds radical nowadays. Similar statements for abolishing South African Apartheid were seen as radical in 1970’s and 1980’s, and now we think they were the only sensible statements, not Ronald Reagan’s “constructive engagement”.

Netanyahu is a face of Israeli Apartheid – but he is certainly not its only face – and that is what we really need to face.