Have the Sweden Democrats changed? Here is a question that may seem familiar to the Israeli voter as well. Maybe the party has changed, maybe the voters have changed. Either way, a party that was illegitimate, and 20 years ago received half a percent of the votes, became legitimate.
At least in the eyes of her voters: about a fifth of all voters. And to make sure there was no doubt, they went to the polls with their eyes open. They knew who they were voting for. They knew that the party had neo-Nazi roots. They knew – and handed him the appropriate note. The leader of the party, Jimmy Oxon, stated that his party became legitimate, acceptable, after it moderated its policies and expelled radical members from the party. But repeated revelations about Democratic activists spreading Russian propaganda have caused many to question his claim.
For a long time, not many people were so interested in such a remote country – Sweden. A week ago, dramatic elections. This week – a mysterious sabotage of an energy pipeline. In the background – war in Ukraine, request to join NATO, influx of immigrants, social unrest.
In Italy too, a party with a fascist past won the elections this week. A line can also be drawn from Italy to Israel. In the end, as Matthias Ferrarsi wrote this week in the “New York Times” newspaper, the warnings along the lines of “the end of democracy” failed to convince the voters. Ferrarsi is the sub-editor of a small progressive newspaper in Rome. It is worth paying attention to what he said: the center and left parties warned the public that George Maloney, the winner of the elections, would be a “tyrant”, who would put an end to democracy. This warning, he wrote, “was not convincing.”
- When does the fast start and when is it allowed to eat? Yom Kippur entry and exit times
Maloney was a member of the party of Silvio Berlusconi, the right-wing tycoon, from whom similar warnings were heard in the past. Which means that every aging leader who has gone out of fashion has a successor, often more radical than him. Those who breathed a sigh of relief when they got the impression that Berlusconi’s future was behind them, woke up in the morning with a fresher, more biting version. There are already those who wonder if this will also happen when Donald Trump steps down from the stage in the USA, or when Benjamin Netanyahu steps down from the stage in Israel. Successors will come, and contrary to the expectations of their opponents, they will not necessarily be more moderate, or more relaxed, or stately, or all the other things That the opponents would like. They can also be less moderate, less relaxed, less stately. One can already imagine this moment when frustrated voters, in the center and on the left, will express longing for Netanyahu. Just as today they express longing for Menachem Begin, who in their eyes was also a danger to democracy.
There are reasons for the voters’ verdict – and they cannot be swept under the carpet, even when they shout that democracy is in danger. Here, this is also an important lesson for Israel: voters who feel in danger, turn to deal with the danger to themselves first, and only then the danger to democracy. And the voters in Sweden, Italy, and other European countries, feel danger. Maybe also in Israel.
For several years now quite a few smart Jews have been racking their brains trying to understand why anti-Semitism is returning. Some of them woke up from an illusion that would never come back, some had no such illusion, and yet they wondered about the timing. Why the sudden return? There are various reasons for this. And while the Jews debate whether the phenomenon is more serious in the progressive left or the radical right, the answer is both. And the answer to the first question – why now? – is because enough time has passed. It will soon be 80 years since the end of World War II, and there are only a few shocked witnesses left who have sworn never again. 80 years from now, and new generations of Europeans, Americans and Arabs look at the Jews without a living memory of what was, only of what is.
Sometimes a simple explanation is more appropriate than a complex one. Why aren’t the Swedes scared of a party with a neo-Nazi past? Why aren’t the Italians scared of a leader with a neo-fascist past? For the same reason that so many are no longer frightened by hatred of Jews. Time heals wounds – and that’s good. But also forgets the reasons for the wounds – which is less good.
Those who lived during Mussolini’s regime would probably prefer not to return to power a leader who flirted with his ideology. However, the majority of voters in Italy did not live during Mussolini’s time, were not burned by the threats of World War, did not swear “never again”. Their Mussolini is a cardboard figure from history. A little fascinating, a little ridiculous, a little irrelevant. Mostly – irrelevant.
So they are, so are the Swedes, and so are we sometimes. Time not only heals, it also purifies. Time allows an extreme party in Sweden and an extreme leader in Italy to gain legitimacy that they could not get 50 or 30 or 20 years ago.
Who is legitimate?
Italian fascism was born with two great anxieties in the background – the anxiety about communism and the war. There were “red years” in Italy, when the young communist revolution seemed to be advancing, and the black years of fascism came in response. There were also “red years” from the blood of the Europeans, which was spilled in the First World War. A war of aging generals, whose rule the Italians no longer wanted. The fascist movement was a movement of young Italians. Today’s Italy is a country without young people. The median age is 47 (ours is about 30). A country without children, which has elected a leader who supports birth. A country of adults, who want to see more children around them, but there is no one to ask.
European right-wing leaders were quick to congratulate the Italians and the Swedes on the successful election. So is Viktor Orban, in Hungary, so is Mateusz Morawiecki, in Poland. For Israel it poses a dilemma, another dilemma, of relations. A government led by Yair Lapid is committed to a kind of confiscation of these regimes and leaders. Lapid did everything in his power to spoil relations with Poland, and the Foreign Ministry under his leadership is loyal to the doctrine of staying away from “any contact with representatives of extreme right-wing parties.” A year ago, Israel’s ambassador to Sweden announced that they would impeach the party that was, in fact, the big winner in the elections. Israel continues to live under the illusion that it has the power to give or take away legitimacy, to sprinkle a dash of kosher on a European leader. You should note that in this matter too, time takes its toll.
The radical right-wing parties in Europe mostly adopt a language of support for Israel, and avoid blatant anti-Semitism. why? Partly because the Jews are no longer important in Europe. They are few and weak. The harsh language, the racism, the disgust, is directed towards other, larger minorities. It is easy to pay in Jewish currency – we are not anti-Semitic – to allow the positions on other issues: Muslim immigration, Western culture, nationalism. Supporters of center and left parties in Europe, the US and Israel look at the new right with understandable shock.
However, in an attempt to fight him, they repeat the same mistake from the past: denunciation, disdain, condescension – everything that strengthens him and his supporters. All of these seem like they can delegitimize the new right, and maybe they really can, for a while. Just as David Ben-Gurion succeeded in denying the legitimacy of the Harut movement.
But legitimacy, its granting and denial, is an elusive matter. A large majority can deny it to a small minority. A moderate majority can deny it to a small minority.
But when the minority grows, the power of the eroding majority to give or take away legitimacy simply disappears. Almost at once he disappeared. legitimization? Who are you to ask for legitimacy? Are we not legit? You are not legit! A fifth of Swedes chose a party. No matter what Israel thinks about its legitimacy. A quarter of Italians chose the leader of a party with a fascist past. No matter how much the left, Israeli or otherwise, is shocked by this.
Ben Gvir and Kahana
Now to us. And no – this is not a comparison. Still, you have to pay attention to the lines of imagination. Mainly in questions concerning the distance of time, the level of shock and the power to give legitimacy.
Here: What do you think of Itamar Ben Gabir? Seemingly, a strange question. You don’t have an opinion on most companies and members of the Knesset. Not a firm opinion. Try and see: what do you think of Tatiana Mazarsky, Michael Malchiali, Yaakov Tesler or Ofir Katz? At best, you will know who they are. Or maybe it’s the bad case. Ben Gabir is not like all members of the Knesset. He is one of the most prominent, one of the most talked about. Some will say: they are spoken too much. And he stars in the election campaign. A star on the right, whose party seems (in polls) to rise to heights it has long since forgotten. A star in the center left, which serves as a warning sign for what may happen if and when “the block” achieves its goal.
Is Ben Gvir as important as he thinks? Not sure. Is Ben Gavir as dangerous as others think? It’s not safe either. He knows how to arouse interest, assert himself on what he knows, control – not sure. Never faced such a test. Perhaps he will discover that it is easier, and more pleasant, to shout from the outside, than to win and try to realize from the inside.
Be that as it may, in the meantime he undoubtedly enjoys the ongoing debates on the question of whether he has “changed”, whether he is being overexposed, whether Netanyahu will really adopt him as minister, perhaps for internal security. Many unanswered questions. But here is one that has an answer: there is no point in trying to scare the right-wing bloc with warnings about Ben Gvir. The right-wing bloc – those who decided to vote for one of the parties that support the government led by Netanyahu – is not afraid. The right-wing bloc – rightly or wrongly, that can be debated – awarded Ben Gabir with legitimacy.
Furthermore, anyone who wants to undermine Ben Gvir’s legitimacy will not benefit himself if he shouts that Ben Gvir is “like Kahana” or mentions that Ben Gvir hung a picture “of Baruch Goldstein”. Why won’t it help? Because the right-wing bloc knows these claims. Ben Gvir’s legitimacy does not stem from ignorance. This is legitimacy with a clear mind. As pleasure? Have fun. Not that the entire right-wing bloc supports Kahana’s positions. However, when his supporters are asked what they think of Meir Kahana, it turns out that most of them – and this is already a qualified answer that can be seen in the numbers – “are not excited”. And to be precise: they choose the answer “I heard about him and don’t understand what they are excited about”.
Want to be shocked? your right We did not come to educate, we came to present data. Last week we presented a questionnaire, in collaboration with here news, about Ben Gabir. Among other things we asked: Ben Gabir was an admirer of Rabbi Meir Kahana. What do you think of Rabbi Meir Kahana? We offered to choose from five answers: I haven’t heard of him; I heard about him and don’t understand what they are excited about; I heard about him and I think he was a hero; I heard about him and I think he was dangerous; Do not know. And of course, the goal was not to examine what the public thinks of Rabbi Kahana. He’s long dead, he’s not up for anything. The memory of him is rather dim. By the way, in the last two years, several interesting books have been written about him, mainly in English. He was undoubtedly an unusual character. However, in the volatile political life of Israel, those who are no longer in the scene quickly become nothing more than a pale shadow of what they were.
So the goal was not to examine what people think of Kahana, but whether the claim that Ben Gvir continues Kahana’s ideology might have an effect on someone, perhaps alienate someone from him. And there is an answer to that. The answer is no. How do we know? We crossed this question with another question: When you think of Itamar Ben Gabir, which of the following positions is closest to yours? There were four possible answers to this question: I have no idea who it is; I heard about him, but don’t exactly know who he is; I know who he is and agree with most or a significant part of his positions; I know who he is and oppose most of his positions.
There is hardly anyone in Israel who has not heard of Ben Gvir, or who does not have an opinion about Ben Gvir. There are those in Israel who agree with a significant part of his positions and those who oppose a significant part of his positions. These are two camps. To a large extent, the camps overlap with supporters and opponents of the Netanyahu bloc. Of course, it is not that all supporters of the Netanyahu bloc would vote for Ben Gabir. However, their degree of disapproval of him is not great. A large majority of Likud voters who responded to our questionnaire say that Ben Gvir is “good or excellent” for Israel.
And what happens when they are reminded of Ben Gabir’s connection to the priest? Look at the graph: it shows a simple thing: those who agree with a significant part of Ben Gvir’s positions are not moved by Kahana (and a small part of them even sympathize with Kahana and “think he is a hero”). Those who do not agree with a significant part of Ben Gabir’s positions think that Kahane is “dangerous” (96%).
Do you support Ben Gvir’s positions? (Photo: Maariv Online)Why is it interesting? Because it shows how pointless it is to shout “Kahana” in the hope of convincing the supporters of the Netanyahu bloc that the alliance with Ben Gabir is problematic, or dangerous, or immoral. One side shouts “Kahana” and expects a shock. The other side is not shocked. As pleasure? Have fun. Not excited about being happy. And to add another layer of color to the picture, which essentially tells the same story, we will also mention Baruch Goldstein, the killer from the Cave of the Dead. Ben Gvir hung a picture of Goldstein in his living room. Later he removed it. Why did you hang? Why the pot? Does the removal mean that it has really changed? All this belongs to a debate that can continue to be held. One thing you should know about this debate: it will not move supporters of the Netanyahu bloc from their position that joining Ben Gabir is a reasonable thing to do.
We asked this: allegations were made against Ben Gabir because he hung a picture of Baruch Goldstein in his home. What do you think about this? And here are the possible answers: I don’t know who Baruch Goldstein is; I heard about Goldstein and it doesn’t seem relevant to me; I heard about Goldstein, and hanging a picture of him is shocking; I would also hang a picture of Goldstein at home; Do not know.
How would you answer this question? It probably depends, to a large extent, on what you think of Ben Gvir in general. If you support a significant part of his positions, most of you will say that “Goldstein is irrelevant”. If you oppose Ben Gabir and his positions, almost all of you will say that hanging the picture is a “shocking” act (98%). Of course, saying “irrelevant” does not mean that I would also hang a picture of Goldstein. This is said much less than Ben Gabir’s supporters (although, even a fifth is not a little!). There are also some of Ben Gvir’s supporters who agree that the photo is shocking (16% of the respondents are Ben Gvir supporters). However, the general picture regarding Goldstein is similar overall to the general picture regarding Kahana. It will be very difficult to move supporters of the right-wing bloc from their course by mentioning one or the other.
Does this mean that the center-left will stop talking about Kahana and Goldstein? Does that mean he should stop talking about them? Not necessarily. However, it is useful to formulate expectations well when talking about these two – and Ben Gvir. If the expectations are that with the help of such rhetoric it will be possible to move some supporters of the Netanyahu bloc towards the center-left, it seems that they do not have much to rely on. On the other hand, if it is rhetoric aimed at awakening the center-left, warning it, threatening it, raising its level of vigilance – it may be useful.