On January 18, 1923, Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky resigned as a member of the Zionist Organization’s executive council. In doing so, he created the political right wing in Zionist and Israel politics.
He was annoyed that his negotiations with agents of the Ukrainian military commander Symon Petliura had been misrepresented, as his purpose was solely to assure the security and defense of the Jews in the areas of pogroms.
He was also angry that Dr. Chaim Weizmann agreed to Winston Churchill’s interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, set forth in the June 1922 White Paper. The loss of Transjordan and the introduction of the “economic capacity” measure signified to Jabotinsky the weakening of the Mandate’s purpose.
He wished to advance changes in the Palestine administration, whose officials he deemed anti-Zionist, and to create a firmer Zionist attitude toward the British government. He sought, too, a more unyielding stance toward the Arabs after the 1920 and 1921 riots. “England has not fulfilled its Mandate” was his rallying cry.
Shortly thereafter, Jabotinsky’s camp was ostracized. Throughout the Mandate period, immigration rights, settlement land allowances, and employment opportunities of members of Betar were severely curtailed. During the period of the revolt against England’s White Paper administration during the 1940s, members of the Irgun were kidnapped by Palmah cadres, subjected to violence. Many dozens were handed over to the British during the “saison” period. And then, on June 22, 1948, there was the Altalena affair off Tel Aviv’s beachfront, which started at Kfar Vitkin two days earlier, when Irgun members were fired upon and killed.
The shunning, turning the Zionist Right into the ultimate “other,” politically, socially, and economically, set in motion a psychological mindset among Israel’s cultural elite. On the one side were the halutzim, the Palmahniks, the socialists, all those symbolized in the line of Haim Guri’s poem-turned-song “Camaraderie”: “those of the elegant forelock, the handsome.” On the other were the sourpuss bourgeoisie, ignorant immigrants from Arab lands, and terrorists of the motley crew led by a “fascist.”
Throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, the Histadrut’s hegemonic domination not only of Israel’s economy but its theater, movies, and book publishing, and the media’s labeling of Begin as the ultimate extremist, largely denied members of the right-wing senior jobs as well as senior positions in the government bureaucracy or advancement in many other sectors. The various forms of exclusion eventually became potent political and social leverage.
The Israeli Right vs the remnants of the Ashkenazi, secular, and liberal elites
In today’s Israel, despite the Likud victory in 1977 and government coalition dominance since, a perceived assumed privilege by the remnants of the Ashkenazi, secular, and liberal elites is seen by the right-wing camp. It is found, it is claimed, in the behavior of the media, the judicial system, and academia as an echo of those earlier times.
The predominance of military veterans in the various protest movements against the Likud-led governments since Amir Haskel’s 2016 initiative leading to the 2020 Balfour Street demonstrations, exploiting their ranks and service, grates their sensitivities. The High Court for Justice also provides fodder, extending its self-assumed privilege to act as a semi-legislator body.
Particular antipathy is directed to the State Attorney’s Office ever since the various corruption charges were brought against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has only increased, not only as the courtroom testimonies have shown how weak their cases are (one of the original four was withdrawn and in another, the judges already indicated its criminal unsubstantiality).
But there’s a deeper aversion that exists, the one directed at the state’s attorney-general and the military advocate-general.
Both are seen as principled contrary to the government, seeking to insert sticks into the spokes of its wheels at every opportunity. For example, only a year after being asked by the Knesset speaker to investigate MK Gilad Kariv’s suspected illegal leaking of a subcommittee deliberation has Gali Baharav-Miara responded that her office has begun to do so.
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s requests that her office investigate cabinet leaks months ago have been ignored and overlooked. On the other hand, within days of a television report that Sara Netanyahu organized protests at her Caesarea neighbors’ house via an aide, a questionable “crime,” Baharav-Miara’s office announced it had instructed the police to investigate.
In another instance, Maj.-Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, the military advocate-general, has yet to deal with the leaking of what has been shown to be a faked video clip of a supposed forcible rape of a Nukhba prisoner at the Sde Teiman detention center. As it could only have originated in a very small number of people, all within the system, it is baffling that no investigation has developed.
The damage caused by the clip’s presentation by Channel 12’s Guy Peleg, especially as regards Israel’s “human rights crimes,” was enormous. But no one seems to be moved to pursue the leakers. The clip affected in a negative fashion Israel’s ability to protect the hostages from Hamas anger and the international tribunal. And yet not a peep from them to get at the bottom of the matter.
Add to this the detainment and interrogation of leakers Eli Feldstein and Ari Rosenfeld, on the other hand, and the unexplained delay of more than a year in the case of the suspected-but-forgotten spy who infiltrated top-secret consultations at the Southern Command base. Are double standards at work?
The media-orchestrated attention focused on Israel’s government, and its head, as the sole elements responsible for the lack of the release of Israel’s hostages who were taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023, also irked. From US President Joe Biden to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and on down, all insist Hamas is the guilty party in the negotiations’ failure. Nevertheless, talk show hosts and interviewers all concentrate their questions to their guests on Netanyahu and what he has done or hasn’t done.
Is it really only the right wing that has been irked? And if so, why?
The writer is a researcher, analyst, and commentator on political, cultural, and media issues.