About
- Idan Yaron
- Feb 28
- 10 min read
Updated: Sep 25
The "Center for the Study of the Extreme Right in Israel," which I lead, is the result of a research into the activists of the Kahanist movement, the Hilltop Youth movement, and the Ginsburghist movement (led by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh). While my research primarily focused on the West Bank, it also extended across the entire country.
Photography: Idan Yaron (Artist: Oren Fischer)
Methodology: My expertise lies in social anthropology. Accordingly, I focus on contemporary cultures, and conduct fieldwork, striving to grasp events in their broadest context to understand their interconnections and interdependencies.
The primary research method I use is participant observation – a technique where I not only observe but actively participate in the group's activities. This approach allows me to experience events from "within," gaining insights from the perspective of those being studied. Throughout this process, I engage in conversations, document findings, and maintain a critical, professional perspective.
Mission: The website aims to enhance public understanding of the movements, groups, and individuals that constitute Israel's extreme right. It seeks to document, interpret, and analyze their activities while addressing their broader implications.
My own insights are drawn from fieldwork, based on participant observation, following deep penetration into these social groups for over a decade.
Why Is This Important? Anthropology helps us understand how people think and act in both distant and familiar societies. Through this lens, we not only learn about "others" but also gain deeper insights into "ourselves" – as rational individuals striving to broaden our understanding of the world.
In today's world – particularly in Israel and the broader Western society – such knowledge is vital for any citizen concerned with the well-being and future of society and the state.
How Can We Help? The website will serve as a comprehensive information hub for anyone seeking to understand the extreme right – both in general and within Israel specifically. It will offer detailed, in-depth, and logical analytical framework, to provide clear insights into this critical field.
Dr. Idan Yaron
Ph.D. in sociology and social anthropology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Current position: Independent sociologist and social anthropologist.
Major specialization: Far – extreme and radical – right in Israel.
Other specializations: military (and police) studies; applied anthropology – education and schools; cultural studies – literature, art cinema.
Relevant Publications (English)
Books
The Shkolnic Saga – The True Story: Ideological Murder of a Tied Terrorist. Haifa: Pardes, 2017 (Hebrew).
Articles in Collections and Journals
Reportages and Articles in the Press
Haaretz (Weekend) Supplement:
"How I Found Myself Inside a Settler Pogrom"' 2.8.2024.
Nexus: A Review of Middle Eastern Religion and Politics:
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Its Interpretative Keys", 16.4.2024
"Hilltop Youth: The Rebbelion Infrastructure", 1.8.2o24
Additional Publications – Books (Hebrew)
The Toilet in the Symbolic Sphere. Tel Aviv: Resling, 2005; Snapshots from the Life of a Secondary School (with Yoram Harpaz), Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim-The MOFET institute, in press; Behind the Sight: A Multi-Disciplinary Study of Sniping. Ben Shemen: Modan Publishing House, 2016; War Casualties: Killing-Wounding on the Battlefield. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2017; Military Law and Ethics. Jerusalem: Carmel, 2018; Israeli High-Schoolers' Trips to Nazi Death Camps in Poland. Tel Aviv: Steimatzky, 2019.
Basic Concepts Used in the Site
It is a well-documented phenomenon that the more deeply and comprehensively an expert understands the subject of their research, the more challenging it becomes for them to articulate a clear and concise definition. As a result, many reference books devote extensive, and at times exhaustive, discussions to fundamental concepts, only to conclude that these concepts remain "vague," "controversial," or "not amenable to simple definition."
Despite this inherent difficulty, and with the aim of providing greater clarity for the reader, I have made a deliberate effort in this project to offer more precise definitions. However, this approach comes at the cost of leaving broad interpretative margins regarding the phenomena under review and the concepts associated with them.
Right – Left
Understanding certain socio-political worldviews can help clarify the current socio-political landscape and guide our aspirations for the future.
The terms "right" and "left" are among the oldest distinctions used to analyze political-party competition. Their origins trace back to the French National Assembly of July 1789 – a transitional body between the Estates-General and the National Assembly. Representatives who favored preservation (conservatives) sat to the president's right, while those advocating for change (progressives or liberals) sat to his left.
I align with the Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio, who observed that "right" and "left" are opposing terms used for over two centuries to represent the ideological and movement-based divides in political thought and action.
Simplifying political conflicts into these two opposing groups seems particularly useful. This distinction often underscores toxic divisions, with many citizens in countries like the United States and Israel perceiving politics as a binary struggle between "sides." If one had to ask a single question about an individual's political views, it might be: "Do you identify with the left or the right?" Political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists often debate the merit of this question, underscoring its significance as a core orientation in Western politics.
The persistent influence of the right-left distinction in Western political discourse attests to its utility. Some scholars even argue that if such a distinction did not exist, it would have to be invented. This is because ideological worldviews enable individuals to integrate a broad array of direct and indirect responses to societal issues – some overtly political, others not – into cohesive models that align with their personalities. These models encompass cognitive, emotional, and behavioral structures, extending into lifestyles. Ideology, in this sense, reflects and reinforces individuals' stability preferences and relative coherence, whether latent or explicit.
As opposing terms, right and left generally exclude each other. However, they are more than mere ideologies. Reducing them to purely ideological constructs would oversimplify their complexity. Instead, they encompass opposing programs addressing numerous societal challenges, influencing everyday political activity. These oppositions extend beyond ideas to include interests and judgments about society's direction.
In Bobbio's conception, right and left do not represent fixed systems of ideas but rather an axis that evolves across generations. They are not moral absolutes but analytical categories. Importantly, these terms are relative, not absolute; they are socially constructed and contextualized within the "political space." They are not intrinsic properties of politics but rather typologies reflective of specific historical and cultural contexts. Analysts must recognize that reality always surpasses abstract categories.
Despite critiques from various perspectives, the terms "right" and "left" remain integral to political terminology. Today, in the United States, Britain, and many other democratic countries, the distinction between liberals and conservatives is perhaps more visible than ever. This sharp division, symbolized in the U.S. by "blue" and "red," threatens to unravel the democratic fabric itself.
The Conservative-Right Camp – The Liberal-Left Camp
In the United States, bipartisan definitions create two polarized camps with distinct myths: the "conservative camp" (aligned with the "right") and the "liberal camp" (aligned with the "left"). These differences are rooted in culture, stemming from enduring value systems shaped over long periods and reflecting divergent experiences of what America is and should be. Each camp holds a unique understanding of who qualifies as an American, a distinct reading of American history, and a contrasting vision for the nation's future.
These camps represent two systems of moral choices – polar worldviews diverging on fundamental concepts of right and wrong.
One of the central themes in modern political thought is "change." The conservative-right camp fundamentally differs from the liberal-left camp on this issue. The conservative-right prioritizes preserving the "status quo" from a historical perspective, opposing socio-political changes. By contrast, the liberal-left is seen as embracing change, subscribing to the belief in "progress" – the idea that history is defined by human advancement driven by the accumulation of knowledge and wisdom.
Additionally, and essentially, the conservative-right camp strives to "break equality," while the liberal-left camp strives to "establish equality."
The conservative-right camp – is often characterized by "absolutism" or "fundamentalism" – a militant and uncompromising validation of certain principles or truths. Adherents tend to emphasize discipline and rigidity, focusing more on the group, particularly the nation, rather than the individual. Continuity is prioritized above all else. Conservatives regard tradition as an absolute good, believing it provides a means to control and predict the future through established and recognized patterns. They emphasize action over deliberation, viewing each individual in relation to an external absolute act rather than as an independent social agent.
Conservatives stress the right to life and the recognition of God. The conservative-right camp values loyalty (e.g., protecting the flag from desecration), authority (e.g., safeguarding family and tradition), and holiness (e.g., rejecting materialism in favor of spiritual faith).
This camp seeks to revive or realize past political and moral ideals in the present. Modern conservatism is rooted in preserving a defined culture perceived to be disappearing, with efforts focused on maintaining and cultivating it. Its strength comes from a sense of belonging to a continuous and established social order. Conservatives advocate a return to ancient moral traditions, honoring the wisdom of the founding fathers and viewing society as a spiritual entity. This stance directly opposes the liberal super-values of progress and relativism.
The conservative-right camp, particularly its far-right elements, is often marked by exclusivity or xenophobia – a wariness of outsiders. This perspective tends to be anti-democratic, uniting its adherents around several shared principles: Emphasis on historical and social continuity; Perception of tradition as an absolute good; Support for an established and familiar social order; Rejection of universalism in favor of particularism; Focus on the collective, especially the nation; Sharp distinction between "friend" and "enemy;" Belief in action as superior to speech; Definition of individuals by their relationship to external absolute acts.
In its religious form, the conservative-right stresses the need to recognize God, asserting that divine-will shapes society and consciousness. This perspective sees society as part of an eternal chain of rights and duties connecting the living with the dead. The camp is skeptical of abstract thinking, often viewing rational arguments as insufficient. It considers political problems fundamentally religious and moral, treating politics as the art of understanding and implementing justice that transcends human nature.
The Liberal-Left Camp – is characterized by "relativism" – the belief that absolutes are either inaccessible or misleading. Adherents focus on social responsibility, individual freedoms, and human rights. Unlike conservatives, liberals prioritize the individual over the group or nation, emphasizing adaptability and the ability to change. Tradition is often questioned as it is seen as stifling innovation and progress. Liberals value discourse over rigid conclusions, defining individuals through their relationships with others rather than through external absolutes.
Liberals emphasize choice and advocate for the separation of religion and state. The liberal-left camp is often skeptical of loyalty, authority, and holiness, sometimes struggling to see how these elements align with morality. Instead, liberals are deeply attuned to human suffering and are committed to advancing social justice.
The liberal-left camp is future-oriented and inclusive, striving to recognize the intrinsic value of each individual. Its members prioritize personal freedoms and often challenge established systems in pursuit of equality and justice.
Far Right
The "far right" remains an underexplored phenomenon, with limited understanding among academics, policymakers, and the public. Within this framework, a distinction can be made between two ideal types of far-right movements, as explained below.
Radical Movements – Extremist Movements
According to the German Constitutional Court:
Radical movements – accept free democratic elections as a legitimate process and operate within the framework of the constitution. As such, they are permitted.
Extreme movements – aim, either openly or covertly, to undermine the liberal democratic order or actively dismantle it from the ground up. Consequently, they are prohibited.
Expanding the Distinction Between Radical and Extremist Movements
The Argentine historian Federico Finchelstein posited that the primary distinction between radical and extremist movements lies in two dimensions: Attitude towards breaking the law and using violence; Attitude towards liberal democracy.
Radical right movements – represent a form of "pathological normality." While they accept the essence of democracy, they oppose the liberal super-values underpinning it. These movements undermine the rule of law and, in particular, challenge the authority of the judiciary. They emphasize the centrality of the executive branch, often at the expense of the legislative branch, thereby weakening the separation of powers. However, they do not seek to abolish these structures entirely. Radical right movements typically combine low levels of physical violence with high levels of verbal aggression.
Extreme right movements – embody a form of "normal pathology." These movements reject the essence of democracy outright and oppose liberal values. They frequently disregard state laws and seek to fundamentally alter them. In practice, they advocate violence as a means to achieve their ideological goals, placing absolute value on political violence and a philosophy of action.
Political Regimes
This distinction between radical and extremist movements facilitates the classification of two ideal types of regimes:
Regimes associated with the "left" – characterized by an emphasis on "change" or "progress."
Regimes associated with the "right" – resist change, defend the status quo, and often aim to restore elements of the "Ancien Régime."
A more refined distinction differentiates between liberal-democratic regimes and dictatorial or totalitarian regimes. The latter term, which emerged during the 1920s and 1930s in Fascist Italy, conveys a broader and more extreme meaning than dictatorship. It describes a system where civil freedoms are restricted to enforce obedience to authority, with minimal constraints on that authority.
The three major manifestations of totalitarian ideology, each positioned themselves as alternatives to the political culture shaped by Enlightenment ideals and liberal democracy: Fascism – centered on the concept of the nation; Nazism – prioritized the national race; Communism – advocated for a total revolution in the name of the proletariat.
Recently, a hybrid ideology known as populist-authoritarianism has emerged. This ideology places the "people" at the center in opposition to a ruling "elite" perceived as corrupt. While distinct from totalitarianism, it requires careful observation and analysis.
Authoritarian regimes are frequently associated with the far right, particularly the radical right. Unlike totalitarian regimes, which strive for absolute control and are typically categorized as far-right, authoritarian regimes demand submission to leaders' power but stop short of achieving total dominance. Citizens in authoritarian regimes are often allowed freedom of movement, private property ownership, and professional autonomy.
Authoritarian leaders, however, frequently manipulate laws to consolidate power and are generally difficult to replace through democratic elections. The key issue with authoritarian leadership lies in its self-serving nature: leaders seek to entrench their power to impose their personal will rather than to promote the public good with the consent of the governed.
Further Subdivisions: It is possible to subdivide basic categories of regimes into various subcategories: Within democratic regimes, distinctions can be made between republics and monarchies. Republics can be further divided into presidential, semi-presidential, and parliamentary systems. Monarchies are primarily parliamentary, though some fall into a unique category of semi-monarchies. Similarly, totalitarian or dictatorial regimes can be divided into absolute monarchies, military regimes, and oligarchies. However, for the present purposes, these finer distinctions are unnecessary.
