Search Results

Major General (Res.) Giora Eiland supports Trump's plan.   Is This surprising?   You are Invited to read My original article here on "The Gaza Division – The Generals' Position." Permission: Activstills.org

Khirbet Zanuta is a Palestinian shepherd community located in the southwest of the Hebron Mountains. The village was home to approximately 250 residents, who, like other shepherd communities in the West Bank, originally lived in natural caves reinforced with stone entrances. However, by the 1980s, as the caves began to collapse, the residents were forced to abandon them and construct stone houses with tin and tarpaulin roofs. The village is situated along Highway 60, west of the Meitar junction ( Construction of the Shoket interchange between Highway 31 and Highway 60, including bridge and road building) . The construction of this road divided the village into two parts, further complicating life for its inhabitants.   According to a report by the Association for Civil Rights (September 2017), in 2007, the Civil Administration issued demolition orders for most of the houses in the village. The state's justification was that these structures had been built illegally, without permits. However, in reality, the residents had no means of obtaining building permits. Like most Palestinian villages located in Area C, Khirbet Zanuta lacks a master plan, making it legally impossible for residents to receive building approvals.   The Civil Administration further argued that the village did not warrant urban planning due to its small population size, the presence of an archaeological site in the area (which includes the remains of a mosque, previously used for overnight stays), and the relatively large distance between the village and the nearest town. Despite these claims, most of the village's residents were born and raised there, while others came from the nearby town of Ad-Dhahiriya , settling in Khirbet Zanuta when they began raising sheep.   In 2017, legal proceedings in the High Court of Justice (HCJ) led to the state announcing that the Supreme Planning Council would hold a hearing to examine the possibility of legally recognizing and preserving the village through planning measures. As a result, the judge closed the petition, temporarily freezing the Civil Administration's demolition orders until the regularization process was completed.   Despite this legal respite, in December 2018, the Regavim movement petitioned the District Court, demanding the demolition of a newly built school in the village. However, this demand was ultimately not enforced, allowing the school to remain standing.   In the following years, legal battles concerning the village's future and the rights of its residents continued without resolution.   In early February 2022, the human rights organization Machsom Watch reported an incident in which Hilltop Youth attacked the village shepherds and attempted to seize their flock. The Israeli army, despite observing the attack from a distance, did not intervene until the settlers themselves called for military assistance. When the soldiers finally arrived, they responded not by stopping the assailants, but by throwing a stun grenade at the flock. In the chaos that followed, settlers' dogs attacked and killed three sheep. Following the incident, Israeli police arrested three Palestinian shepherds, while one of the settlers was also briefly taken for questioning but was immediately released.   In late July 2024, in response to two petitions filed before the High Court of Justice (HCJ 8117/23 and HCJ 8242/23), residents of several Palestinian villages in the southern Hebron Hills – including Khirbet Zanuta and another village – claimed they were not receiving adequate protection from law enforcement authorities despite ongoing harassment and violence directed against them and their property.   The petitioners requested that the court order the Israeli military and police to ensure their protection and facilitate their return to their homes, after they had been forcibly displaced due to repeated attacks and ongoing threats. They contended that law enforcement agencies were failing to uphold their legal obligations, exposing them to constant danger and, in some cases, forcing them to abandon their homes altogether.   During the court hearing, a senior officer from the Hebron Police acknowledged that violent, nationalistically motivated attacks do occur in the area and admitted that there were suspicions that Israeli soldiers had been involved in some of these incidents.   After hearing arguments from both sides, the judges reaffirmed the duty of Israeli military and police forces operating in the West Bank to protect all residents from violence and unlawful actions. The court emphasized that this obligation stems both from international law, which applies to the area, and from the fundamental principles of the rule of law.   The court further noted that repeated physical attacks on residents and their property are a serious matter that requires an effective response from law enforcement agencies. The judges stressed that authorities must act decisively to prevent such attacks and ensure the safety of all individuals under their jurisdiction.   The court reaffirmed that: "The picture that emerges from the petitioners' claims is, to say the least, disturbing. In fact, even from the respondents' statements, it is evident that the response provided is incomplete – despite their claim that all possible measures were taken. It is important to emphasize that the petitioners are protected residents who are entitled to an adequate response from the authorities in the region, particularly in relation to allegations of repeated violence against them. Accordingly, it is the duty of law enforcement agencies in the area to ensure the safety of the petitioners and maintain public order, even amid the complex circumstances of the current period and despite any operational limitations."   In November 2023, the Kerem Navot volunteer association reported that the residents of Khirbet Zanuta had been partially or fully expelled over recent years due to violence from settlers and the military.   According to testimony from B'Tselem, since the outbreak of war following the October 7, 2023 massacre, residents had been subjected to continuous harassment and threats from armed settlers, and, at times, even soldiers, who demanded that they leave the area. Armed settlers repeatedly arrived in the village, threatening to harm the residents if they refused to vacate their homes.   Between October 12 and October 27, 2023, a series of violent assaults took place: October 12 – Armed settlers arrived in two vehicles, targeted three homes, physically attacked residents using their hands and weapons, destroyed solar panels, vandalized a car door, and left; October 23 – Two settlers entered the home of a family, shoved the mother, emptied two water tanks, and departed; October 24 – Settlers attacked the community, stoned residents, shattered solar panels and house windows, and emptied additional water tanks; October 27 – Four masked settlers drove into the village and harassed residents sitting near their homes, demanding that they stop filming. They then threw a stun grenade at the residents, forcing them to retreat indoors.   Following these relentless assaults, approximately 200 residents of Khirbet Zanuta abandoned their homes. This village was one of about 25 communities expelled under the cover of war in Gaza.   Immediately after the residents fled, settlers descended upon the village and systematically demolished it: Trees were cut down; Every house was razed to the ground; The school was completely destroyed (a five-grade school completed in 2014).   With their homes and community obliterated, the residents filed an urgent petition to the High Court of Justice in an attempt to reclaim their land.   In July 2024, the state declared before the court that it would allow the displaced residents to return to the ruins of their village. However, due to repeated bureaucratic delays, it was not until late August 2024 that dozens of residents returned to Khirbet Zanuta.   Upon their return, they began efforts to restore the village: Some brought their flocks of sheep back; Others inspected water wells and fruit trees; Residents worked to remove metal poles and concrete blocks placed by settlers to block village roads They planned to bring women and children back after a few weeks, once some form of shelter was established.   However, the scene in the village was grim: No buildings remained intact; No trees for shade; No roofs to provide shelter; No school for children.   Every attempt to rebuild – even placing a single stone – was immediately met with a harsh response from the Israeli military and police. Even shade cloths were confiscated, deemed "illegal construction."   Since their return, the residents of Khirbet Zanuta have been subjected to constant surveillance by settlers, particularly those from the Meitarim  (an outpost established in 2021 by Yinon Levi). The settlers: Flew drones over the village; Circled the area non-stop; Entered the destroyed houses to prevent any reconstruction.   Beyond settler interference, the Israeli Civil Administration formally prohibited residents from rebuilding their homes. The head of the Civil Administration's infrastructure branch informed the villagers that they had 30 days to evacuate, citing a 2007 legal petition as justification. Additionally, a High Court judge referenced a 2017 petition, stating: "If no resolution is found, the demolition orders will be reinstated with a 30-day notice."   Despite the passing of seven years, during which no formal planning measures were enacted, and no demolition orders were carried out, the deadline expired, and the final remaining fragments of the village were cleared away.   By October 2024, reports confirmed that Khirbet Zanuta was completely destroyed and abandoned: The school was partially burned; Its windows were shattered; The walls were covered in Hebrew graffiti; The houses were ransacked, with broken walls and burned roofs.   Several former residents attempted to return and restore the ruins, but IDF soldiers and violent settlers from the nearby outpost blocked them at every turn.   Due to their continued inability to return to their village – despite the court's ruling permitting them to do so – the displaced residents of Khirbet Zanuta filed a lawsuit for contempt of court with the Supreme Court. Their claim was that the state had failed to comply with the ruling.   As evidence, they attached documentation of settler violence, detailing approximately 100 recorded incidents of attacks, including settlers entering their land – and even their homes. They further alleged that the police ignored their calls for help, and when a patrol vehicle was dispatched, no indictments were ever filed against the perpetrators.   Compounding their plight, the Civil Administration formally notified the residents that their homes had been built illegally and ordered them to relocate to an area approximately three kilometers away.   In early January 2025, during a hearing on the enforcement of laws against settler violence in the southern Hebron Hills, including Khirbet Zanuta, Justice Dafna Barak-Erez opened the session with a stark acknowledgment: "We are in a crisis situation. What is happening to the lives of these people? This is not a normal case of enforcement, but rather enforcement that was carried out illegally. You have plans, but in the meantime, there are people with nowhere to live." Acting Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit further criticized the police, stating unequivocally that they "do not enforce settler violence." He pointedly remarked: "Not a single indictment has been filed. We see settlers inside the residents’ own homes."   In February 2025, the High Court of Justice ruled in favor of the expelled residents, ordering the state to allow them to return to Khirbet Zanuta. The ruling explicitly stated: "The police and the army must ensure that settlers are removed from the village and its lands in a continuous manner and with due diligence." Furthermore, the judges mandated that the state permit residents to rebuild the homes and structures that had been destroyed by settlers after the residents’ forced departure.   Following the court's decision, the head of the Mount Hebron Regional Council strongly condemned the ruling, calling it a "delusion." He argued that: "The High Court is encouraging illegal settlement and construction at an archaeological site, while destroying precious finds that are thousands of years old – all due to the Civil Administration’s failure to enforce the law."   Courtesy of B'Tselem organization In light of the ongoing struggle, one can only hope – as is customary in these lands –that we shall "let the sons return to their borders" – and "they shall learn no war anymore."

The MSC is tasked with ensuring the security of a community during both routine and emergency situations, until the arrival of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) or Israel Police units. The MSC serves as the primary liaison between regional security agencies, emergency response bodies, and the community and its residents.   The MSC is administratively subordinated to the regional council or the emergency and security supervisor within the local authority. Professionally, he reports to the commander of the regional brigade in whose jurisdiction the community is located.   In areas under the authority of the IDF, which acts as the substitution of the sovereign – such as the West Bank – the MSC operates alongside the military and security forces responsible for protecting the community where he resides. He is responsible for managing the local security system, overseeing the rapid-response squad under his command, and coordinating efforts with IDF officials within his sector.   The rapid-response squad is a specially trained unit composed of local residents. It is designed to act immediately in the event of a security incident, providing an initial reaction until additional IDF or Israel Police forces arrive. Once official forces are on the scene, the squad assists them in their operations. The activities of these squads in the West Bank are governed by legal frameworks, including the Civil Defense Law (1951), the Order Concerning the Regulation of Guarding in Localities (1961), and the Police Ordinance (1971).   The salaries of the MSCs are currently financed by the Ministry of Defense. They carry out their duties under the authority of an official letter of appointment issued by the commander of the relevant regional brigade.   The MSC has a diverse set of responsibilities, including: Managing the rapid-response squad: Recruiting, training, and overseeing local volunteers that serve as a community security force. These squads operate both during routine periods and emergency situations to maintain security within and around the community; Liaison with Security Forces: Coordinating security activities with official security forces, including the IDF, Israel Police, and Border Guard. This coordination involves transmitting reports about suspicious activities, managing emergency situations, and overseeing joint operations with security forces in the field; Threat Identification and Response: The MSC is responsible for identifying potential security threats such as illegal intrusions, terrorist activities, and other risks. When a threat arises, the MSC must mobilize the rapid-response squad, and coordinate the response with relevant security authorities; Maintenance of Security Measures: Overseeing the maintenance and operation of security infrastructure, including security fences, surveillance cameras, alarm systems, weaponry, protective equipment, and other technological security assets; Routine and Emergency Operations: In routine situations, the MSC ensures the upkeep of security systems and conducts training exercises. In emergencies, he is responsible for activating the community's entire security framework to protect residents and property.   The MSC occupies a unique position. He is not a soldier or a police officer, but rather a civilian, typically a resident of the community where he is employed. Though he acts on behalf of a civilian entity (the regional council) he receives training from military institutions, specifically the IDF Central Command and the Judea and Samaria Division. Additionally, the MSC receives weaponry and vehicles from the IDF and operates by authorities granted to him by the military commander.   In a 2013 testimony provided to Breaking the Silence, a reserve soldier remarked: "The reality in [the area] is that there is no formal law – only a law dictated by personalities. The personality of the security officer greatly influences conduct. Some officers are highly tolerant, having lived in the area for a long time and established strong relationships with the local population. Others wield immense influence, essentially defining the boundaries of their own district. In many cases, these officers are the eyes and ears of security forces. Each officer governs his designated area much like a 'sheriff' in his own jurisdiction."   The American Experience with Sheriffs The comparison to the American sheriff is not coincidental. Numerous studies conducted in recent years regarding sheriffs in the U.S. paint a complex and, at times, concerning picture.   A sheriff (derived from the Old English term "shire-reeve," meaning "county law enforcer") is an official responsible for maintaining law and order within a designated jurisdiction. In the U.S., there are over 3,000 sheriffs with broad patrol authority. However, the scope of a sheriff's role varies significantly across different regions.   Generally, a sheriff provides security and enforces law within his county. However, in normal circumstances, a county sheriff loses authority once outside his jurisdiction and cannot enforce laws in another district unless explicitly authorized by the responsible official in that area.   One of the most debated aspects of sheriff authority is the broad discretionary power they possess. Sheriffs function as bureaucrats with the legal capacity to use force, detain individuals, and even take lethal action – often with limited oversight or checks on their power. Their autonomy can sometimes lead to abuses of power, with certain sheriffs using their position to advance specific religious, political, or ideological agendas.   Studies have highlighted concerns regarding the lack of accountability in sheriff departments, which can foster an environment where misconduct, favoritism, and even criminal behavior may occur. Some sheriffs have been known to engage in unethical or unlawful activities, reinforcing concerns about the broad and largely unchecked power they wield.   The historical development of the sheriff's office is closely intertwined with the expansion of colonialism. The position first emerged in 1634 with the arrival of British colonialists in America. Sheriffs played a pivotal role in facilitating the imperial expansion of the U.S. west of the Mississippi River (which originates in northern Minnesota and flows south to the Gulf of Mexico). As the U.S. extended its territory westward, sheriffs often served as the primary, and sometimes sole, law enforcement officials. In many instances, sheriffs in frontier regions were the only representatives of law enforcement, overseeing settlers who frequently engaged in violent confrontations with marginalized groups, including Black Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, and others. This "legal" violence took many forms, including arrests, shootings, and the extrajudicial killings of non-white residents.   Two concerning trends emerge from this history: first, the systematic harm inflicted upon marginalized minorities in these regions; and second, the collaboration between sheriffs and far-right elements, forming a consolidated and often unaccountable entity. Sheriffs who harbor prejudices against certain populations may implement punitive policies that exacerbate inequality and reinforce white supremacy. This is often facilitated by alliances with radical and extremist vigilante groups, who are granted unofficial sanctions to operate in these areas to further these objectives. Sheriffs frequently benefit from having operatives at their disposal who can be mobilized for violent, racist responses – swift, cost-effective, and persistent.   Overall, the role of sheriffs in the expansion of the U.S. often promoted communal violence, encouraged vigilantism, and reinforced white supremacy, particularly in communities across the so-called "Wild West."   The Role of MSCs in the West Bank The role of MSCs in the West Bank extends beyond that of their counterparts within the Green Line. In these territories, MSCs operate under a military order that grants them broader powers – including the authority to detain individuals, conduct searches, make arrests, and seize objects deemed suspicious.   MSCs serve as intermediaries between settlers and security forces. Because they have often lived in these areas for years, they are viewed as authoritative figures by the security establishment, while IDF commanders and soldiers rotate frequently. Consequently, the descriptions of events as relayed by MSCs – shaped by their own vested interests – often dictate the security forces' understanding of the situation on the ground and influence their operational responses.   In 2009, the jurisdiction of MSCs in the West Bank was expanded, allowing them to operate beyond the settlement area into designated "security zones" surrounding communities. These zones frequently include illegal outposts, further extending their reach and operational scope.   As of July 2024, the conditions for MSCs throughout the country have been significantly upgraded. Following an increase in Israeli government aid to communities in the West Bank, the salaries of IDF civilian employees – including MSCs – were raised substantially. This financial boost enabled communities to establish dozens of new positions, hire additional personnel, and expand the number of substitute roles in all communities. Furthermore, a new training and exercise program was approved to maintain MSC's operational readiness, complete with certification and authorization protocols. Concurrently, ongoing procurement of advanced combat equipment was approved, including personal weapons, departmental firearms, night vision devices, armored vehicles, advanced communications systems, personal protective gear, and specialized tactical uniforms.   Case Studies Talmon – November 2010: In late November 2010, Brigadier General of Binyamin ordered the dismissal of the MSC in Talmon (a settlement northwest of Ramallah, adjacent to the Talmonim bloc). The dismissal was issued "for professional reasons" after the MSC opened fire at Arabs approaching the settlement fence, shooting at their feet instead of issuing a warning shot into the air. One of the individuals sustained minor injuries from shrapnel and required medical attention. (In another incident, the same MSC actively prevented Civil Administration inspectors from entering the settlement during the "construction freeze" period, obstructing enforcement efforts related to settlement expansion).   Following the incident, the chairman of the Binyamin Residents' Committee stated: "This is a person who performed his duty professionally against someone who approached the settlement in a dangerous manner. The Binyamin Brigade Commander should have commended MSC Talmon for his performance in protecting the residents of the settlement."   Dozens of MSCs demanded that the dismissal of MSC Talmon be reconsidered and that he be reinstated. According to them: "It is well known and publicized that the role of the MSC has no equal. On the one hand, he is an ordinary citizen; on the other hand, he is an army officer in charge of security, managing military arsenal, traveling in a semi-military vehicle, and carrying significant responsibilities. In this role, we are exposed to fire at all times and from every possible direction." As a result, they claim, "we are alone in the field, and no one wants or is willing to stand behind us."   Kochav Yaakov – Late June 2012: The deputy MSC of Kochav Yaakov, a settlement in Binyamin, was subjected to prolonged police questioning, during which his weapon was confiscated, and he was released on bail. The reason for the investigation was his firing into the air during an attempted infiltration by an Arab individual. Upon receiving alerts about unauthorized contact with the settlement fence, the deputy MSC arrived first at the scene and identified the intruder. When the intruder resisted his efforts to detain him, the deputy MSC fired a warning shot into the air before overpowering him and handing him over to the military forces that later arrived.   Talmon – Mid-December 2019: In mid-May 2019, MSC Talmon (Y.A.) was recognized as the outstanding officer of the Judea and Samaria Division and received official commendation for his service.   However, in mid-December of that year, an incident took place in the village of Al-Janiya, adjacent to Talmon, where a local resident, while in a barber shop, heard gunshots and children screaming. When he stepped outside to check the situation, he observed the MSC Talmon firing his M-16 rifle into the village from about 200 meters away. Minutes later, the MSC entered the barber shop, grabbed the resident, and dragged him towards the main road leading to the settlement. Simultaneously, he fired three more warning shots into the air. When a bystander watched the scene from his home, the officer yelled at him to go inside and fired three additional shots in his direction. The officer then escorted the detained resident towards a group of soldiers at the village's edge and left him there. Returning with another armed civilian, both men fired additional shots into the village, some of which hit houses and caused damage. The detained resident's father, witnessing the events, confronted the MSC and demanded an explanation. In response, the MSC and his companion pointed their weapons at the father and another family member, threatening them. The father requested that the MSC leave the village, emphasizing that he had no authority there and that this was not the first time he had entered unlawfully.   Although soldiers were present and witnessed the incident, they did not intervene, even when the father requested that the officer in charge remove the MSC from the area and release his son. Eventually, the MSC returned to the detained individual, demanded his ID card, verbally berating both him and his father. Only after prolonged tension did he return the ID and order the soldiers to release him.   A village resident filed a complaint through the organization Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights. Initially, the case was closed due to the "absence of a criminal offense," but following an appeal and subsequent journalistic investigation, it was reported that an internal military review determined that "the MSC's actions stemmed from a clear operational need." However, certain operational flaws were identified, leading to his reprimand by the brigade commander.   Anatot – November 2021 The MSC of Anatot, a community northeast of Jerusalem, fired his weapon after a Palestinian shepherd approached the settlement fence. The gunfire resulted in the killing of one of the shepherd's sheep. The MSC initially denied shooting, later claimed he fired into the air, and eventually alleged that Bedouins were attempting to sabotage the fence. However, the police confiscated his weapon and suspended him pending the conclusion of the investigation.   Havat Gilad – Mid-March 2022: The MSC of Havat Gilad – an outpost in Samaria near Highway 60 – was charged with obstructing an investigation after discarding evidence related to a "Price Tag" incident. The court extended his detention by two days to allow further inquiry.   Following the arrest, all MSCs in the Samaria Brigade declared a work strike until further notice. Their argument was that the MSC had mistaken three Jewish individuals for intruders, leading to an unnecessary chase. However, during the same period, Arab vehicles in the nearby village of Imatin had their tires punctured, and Hebrew graffiti was sprayed on walls, indicating a coordinated extremist action.   Har Bracha – Late October 2022: The IDF website reported that, following an initial investigation, the MSC of Har Bracha – a settlement and religious community in Samaria, on the Gerizim ridge south of Nablus – took part in a clash between settlers and Palestinians near the village of Burin, without military forces present. His stated intention was to "disperse the conflict that had arisen."   The investigation revealed that the MSC provided a settler with means for dispersing demonstrations – a tear gas grenade – and authorized its use. This act was deemed a breach of his official duties, leading to a decision to refer him for to an investigation. The brigade commander decided on the temporary suspension of the MSC until the investigation concludes. He was also investigated by the police.   Gush Shilo – Mid-November 2022: The commander of the Judea and Samaria Division, along with the Binyamin Brigade commander, decided to dismiss the MSC of the Shilo settlements. During his dismissal, he was informed that he had been "obstructing the activities of the Jewish division in the Shin Bet and the Spatial Unit of the Israel Police in the West Bank, in countering nationalist crime in the region and collaborating with the Hilltop Youth."   The conclusion drawn from the investigation was that he was "not suitable for collaboration with security officials."   Shavei Shomron – Late April 2024: It was reported that a MSC detained an Arab-Israeli driver from Taibeh near Shavei Shomron – a religious community and settlement in northern Samaria, affiliated with the Amana movement.   "The driver did not respond to his calls and attempted to escape. The MSC pursued the vehicle until the driver broke through a checkpoint and moved towards the MSC, who then responded by firing and injuring the driver." The driver was wounded by multiple bullets and was transported to a hospital for medical treatment.   The IDF issued a statement clarifying that the MSC had fired upon an Israeli vehicle that did not pose a security threat. An initial investigation determined that the MSC exceeded his authority and violated IDF orders and regulations concerning the use of force.   Yitzhar – June 2024: A MSC in Yitzhar – a settlement in Samaria south of Nablus – shot a Palestinian, moderately injuring him with two bullets. The Palestinian was reportedly armed with a knife, yet according to IDF soldiers present, he did not pose an immediate threat. The MSC acted independently, contrary to commanders' orders. After an investigation, the IDF determined that "no procedural violations were found in the MSC's actions."   In late August 2024, the U.S. State Department announced sanctions against the MSC, citing allegations of violence against Palestinians. The statement emphasized that "although his role is akin to that of a security and law enforcement officer, he engaged in activities beyond his authority."   In February 2024, the MSC allegedly led a group of armed settlers in establishing unauthorized checkpoints and patrols, targeting Palestinians.   Following the imposition of sanctions, the Yesh Din organization released a statement: "For years, we have documented evidence of his unlawful actions. However, many victims refrain from lodging complaints due to the MSC's unchecked power in the region."   Conclusions General: The ambiguous status of MSCs in the West Bank, which has persisted for years, has granted them considerable authority and influence, often blurring the boundaries of legitimate security work. Over time, their actions have taken on an increasingly radical, ideological, and extremist character, aimed at imposing a doctrine of "Jewish supremacy" over the region and its inhabitants.   In June 2014, the Yesh Din organization published a report titled "The Wild Space," which detailed an ongoing territorial conflict in the West Bank. The report described: "An ongoing territorial struggle is unfolding between settlers – who seek to expand their control and annex as much land as possible – and Palestinian farmers and herders attempting to cultivate their lands." The situation has deteriorated over the past decade, particularly in the aftermath of the October 7 massacre and the subsequent Swords of Iron War.   The report of Yesh Din concluded that the delegation of policing and law enforcement powers to a group motivated by religious, political, or ideological interests is especially problematic in occupied territories, where the consequences of unregulated authority are particularly severe. The settlements themselves were established in blatant violation of international law and involve massive and cumulative land appropriation. The granting of such extensive powers to an interest group that openly and explicitly rejects international law is indicative of the chaos within the Israeli government in all matters relating to law enforcement in the West Bank.   The conclusion of the report, published about a decade ago, remains largely valid today: "The activities of the special forces and alert units not only fail to promote public order and the rule of law in the West Bank, but actually undermine them, thereby harming the State of Israel’s ability to fulfill its obligation under international law to protect Palestinian property and lives."   The right-wing strongly condemned the statement by the Yesh Din organization, which claimed that the MSCs selectively ignore disturbances caused by Jewish settlers while acting only against Arabs. However, reality on the ground proves otherwise. A senior security official in the region commented: "Sometimes it's like Wild West."   By law, the subordinate sovereign [IDF Central Commander] is responsible for ensuring the "welfare and benefit of the population" in the region – including both Arabs and Jews. However, MSC Talmon stated in 2019 (following the incident mentioned above): "We are not Phalangists. What guides us is the protection of the Jewish residents who live within the settlement, not the Arabs in the nearby villages –I am not supposed to be a neutral party."   It is important to emphasize that MSCs do not have the authority to issue orders or instructions to IDF soldiers (as was clearly demonstrated in the Talmon case – mid-December 2019).   The two key risk trends associated with the role of the sheriff in the U.S. seem to apply similarly to the MSCs in the West Bank: First, harming marginalized minorities in the region; Second, Joining forces with far-right elements and cooperating with them to the point of forming a single entity.   Harm to Marginalized Minorities in the Region: MSCs are among the most influential figures in thףe ongoing struggles between Jews and Arabs in the West Bank. Although they are emissaries of the military – meaning they are subject to military jurisdiction and granted policing powers – they are appointed by the settlements and perceive themselves as representatives of the interests of the settler movement.   This conflict of interest, combined with the lack of a clear definition of their powers and weak oversight of their actions, creates daily sources of friction and conflict –whether through deliberate action or negligence.   Harm to Arabs is often carried out by MSCs, who make problematic use of the weapons and equipment entrusted to them by the Israeli military. As seen in multiple cases, MSCs have exceeded their authority and have interpreted rules of engagement in ways that are contrary to official orders issued to Israel's security forces.(This was evident in numerous incidents, including: Talmon – late November 2010; Kochav Yaakov – late June 2012; Talmon – mid-December 2019; Anatot – November 2021; Har Bracha – late October 2022; Shavei Shomron – late April 2024; Yitzhar – June 2024).   Cooperation with Extreme Right-Wing Elements: MSCs maintain close ties with Hilltop Youth and farm settlers, who use sheep, cattle, and camels as tools for taking over large areas of land. MSCs actively collaborate with these groups in their struggles against Palestinian communities. These groups engage in harassment, destruction of public and private property, rioting (including arson), and in some instances, even acts of lethal violence.   Certain cases raise serious concerns about the dual loyalties of MSCs, calling into question their adherence to the rule of law (One clear example is Gilead Farm – mid-March 2022, while another explicit case of collusion with extremist right-wing settlers was uncovered in Gush Shilo – mid-November 2022). Despite this, left-wing activists argue that such collaboration is far more widespread than reported.   Opposition to left-wing activists stems from two key factors: Their assistance to Palestinian residents of the area; Their exposure of illegal settler activities and the role of MSCs in these actions.   For example, in May 2015, activists documented: "Numerous cases of Israeli soldiers and police standing idly by as Israeli civilians – including MSCs, who operate under military command and are equipped with military weapons – engage in violent attacks, throwing stones, beating Palestinian farmers, and attacking activists themselves." Permission: Activstills.org

"The awl came out of the sack." According to the original form of this expression in Celtic culture, "Three things cannot be hidden: a straw in a shoe, an awl in a sack, and a whore in a crowd."   In its modern Israeli adaptation, we also cannot hide an  IDF Caterpillar D9  armored bulldozer (nicknamed Doobi , teddy bear), operating in the service of the Combat Engineering Corps.   Right-wing elements in the media and among the settler communities in the West Bank have unintentionally helped confirm the notion that extensive, unauthorized initiatives – contrary to the IDF's stated doctrine – are serving far-right interests, leading to widespread destruction (and possibly even unlawful killings) throughout the Gaza Strip.   Media personality Yinon Magal, host of the "Patriots" program on Channel 14, published a letter he received, stating the following: "Hey Yinon, You should know that the destruction of Gaza by the IDF is not the result of a prearranged military plan, nor is it based on explicit orders from division or battalion commanders. As an IDF platoon commander who fought in every city in Gaza until last week, I can tell you that everything is entirely driven by the soldiers on the ground – men who are simply determined to win and who understand Arabic. The closest we can come to securing victory and returning the land to Israel is by making the enemy lose all hope. Thank God, the higher military echelons recognized this strategic advantage and allowed us to capitalize on it. We are eager to return and finish the job – this time, until true victory is achieved. Come on, IDF! Over ten thousand houses!"     There is no need for much explanation, but one was given nonetheless by the "Fighting for Life" headquarters, which operates in the West Bank: "It is precisely ordinary soldiers – soldiers from the field – who have managed to understand what truly brings victory. Initiative by soldiers in the field, initiative by each of us in whatever way we can contribute. What the people of Israel need is faith, initiative, and victory."   It is no coincidence that, following the ceasefire, the United States partially lifted the arms embargo on Israel – which included approximately 70 D-9 bulldozers, described as "an essential tool in the fight."   It is certainly possible that these new bulldozers could be transferred directly into the hands of the "militia," which actively promote "Jewish supremacy" in all its glory, throughout the region. In Accordance with Section 27A of the Copyright Law

From the place where we are right flowers will never grow in the spring.   The place where we are right is hard and trampled like a yard.   But doubts and loves dig up the world like a mole, a plough.   And a whisper will be heard in the place where the ruined house once stood (Yehuda Amichai, 1962) In Accorfance with Section 27A of the Copyright Law

Certain personalities in Israel seem to embody, more than any other, a phallic  personality structure (from Greek and Latin, "to swell"), thus posing a significant threat to both the society and the state.   The American psychiatrist of Jewish origin, Edmund Jacobson – known for developing the first scientifically based relaxation therapies – explained that some individuals derive self-confidence primarily by satisfying their inherent phallic desire for omnipotence . Since true omnipotence is unattainable, their self-esteem inevitably falls short of expectations. As a result, they develop an obsessive drive to prove their worth.   While ego is essential for progress and achievement, an unchecked ego can override reason, morality, and concern for others. Historically, an inflated phallic ego has contributed to the downfall of civilizations, empires, societies, organizations, and leaders.   People with an inflated ego exhibit grandiosity  – manipulative tendencies, and an insatiable thirst for power. These traits are often accompanied by an exaggerated sense of self-importance, a feeling of superiority, and an expectation of special privileges.   When an inflated ego becomes deeply ingrained in one's identity, it fosters overconfidence in personal abilities – even when lacking the necessary capabilities and skills – leading to an overestimation of accomplishments and social contributions. This distortion of self-perception affects decision-making, often resulting in reckless behavior or excessive risk-taking. Individuals with such an ego may overreact to situations or engage in impulsive actions without proper calculation.   An inflated ego manifests in a constant need for admiration and validation, an unwillingness to listen to others, an inability to accept criticism, and an insatiable drive for competition. Even trivial situations are perceived as a "zero-sum game," where any loss – no matter how minor – is seen as a personal failure.   A lack of empathy is another hallmark of this trait, leading to difficulties in both personal and professional relationships. Arrogance and an absence of compassion create barriers to meaningful connections and constructive collaboration.   When a person with this personality structure ascends to a position of power – armed with excessive ambition but lacking the substance to justify it – the cost is borne by all. Ultimately, the greatest responsibility lies with those who enabled such a figure to attain influence, for, as the saying goes, " Nullum crimen sine culpa  (there is no crime without guilt." Photography: Idan Yaron

I propose that a crucial key to understanding this debate, as well as the ideological divide between the right and left, lies in their distinct and increasingly confrontational conceptions of masculinity and femininity.   To illustrate this, I turn to one of the foundational texts of Israeli culture: The Seventh Day: Soldiers' Talk about the Six-Day War , originally published in the wake of the Six-Day War (October 1967).   The Yiddish poet and essayist Y.H. Biletsky remarked, "I am not aware of a document in world literature as profoundly human and fascinating as the testimony contained in The Seventh Day ." Similarly, The Palmach [the underground army of the Jewish community during the period of the British Mandate for Palestine] veteran and writer Haim Gouri described it as "the most important document to date about this war," noting that the collection records "a series of discussions that may shape the soul of an entire generation." Holocaust survivor and French-American Jewish writer Elie Wiesel also praised the work, calling it "a very, very great book... a tremendous, monumental testimony... The spirit of the Israeli warrior finds in these pages a sublime expression unlike anything seen before."   In its revised and expanded edition (April 2018), The Seventh Day  included a canonical text documenting a conversation that took place at the Mercaz HaRav  yeshiva – the first higher religious Zionist yeshiva in the Land of Israel, which played a pivotal role in the history of religious Zionism and reached the height of its influence under Rabbi Zvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook. This meeting, conducted in Jerusalem in August 1967, lasted five hours and followed the same format as other discussions in The Seventh Day  series, with interviewers intervening only in footnotes. The participants were six yeshiva students, all in their twenties, who later became prominent figures.   One of them, Yoel Bin-Nun – later a founder of the Yeshiva Har Etzion , a scholar of Jewish thought, and a Bible lecturer – stated, "The profound experience of the Six-Day War pushed these two ideological circles in opposite directions." The editor of the conversation, Yuval Shahar, observed that it "laid bare the moment of divergence and the ever-widening gap between the camps." He even argued that "this chasm is impossible and should not be bridged. Rather, it must be continuously exposed to reveal the depth of the crisis and to strive for resolution." I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.   The writer and intellectual Amos Oz later reflected on the impact of this conversation with the Mercaz HaRav  students: "What pained us the most was not the foreign and unfamiliar language they used, but their total indifference to our moral distress... The people of Israel entered the Six-Day War based on a national consensus that it was a war of existential defense – nothing more. But in the war's aftermath, this consensus was shattered, and suddenly the land was filled with new songs, new appetites, and the sound of the shofar. This shocked us, tormented us, and presented us with a moral dilemma... The indifference of the yeshiva students seemed to us – harsh though it may be to say – clumsy, smug, and arrogant... intoxicated with power, consumed by messianic rhetoric, inhuman, ethnocentric, 'redemptive,' apocalyptic, and, in a word – inhuman, and not even Jewish."   Giora Mosinzon of Kibbutz Na'an, who participated in the conversation, reached a similar conclusion: "A fundamental moral disagreement emerged here... I believe that our attitude toward Arabs as human beings must be humane." The spirit of The Seventh Day  also resonated in the speech of then-Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin at Mount Scopus immediately after the Six-Day War (late June 1967): "We are witnessing... a strange phenomenon among the group of fighters. They cannot rejoice wholeheartedly. A shadow of sorrow and astonishment tempers their celebrations, and some do not celebrate at all. These frontline fighters saw not only the glory of victory but also its price – comrades falling beside them, drenched in their own blood. And I know that the terrible price paid by the enemy deeply moved many of them. Perhaps the Jewish people were never educated or accustomed to feeling the joy of conquest and victory."   Rabin's words contrast starkly with the now-common misinterpretation of Proverbs 11:10 – "When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy" – as well as the distortion of Proverbs 24:17, which originally sought to promote virtue and ethical conduct: "Do not rejoice when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice."   The Seventh Day  remains etched in the collective memory of the general public – and particularly within the national-religious community – as a reflection of the archetype of those who "shoot and cry" – the "beautiful souls" tormented by the moral implications of war. But such voices seem to be fading. In their place, we hear the loud and triumphant cheers of "heroes," "victors," and, above all, "avengers and vigilantes."   The secular-humanist left appears to have overlooked a fundamental truth: "Every war is an invitation to masculinity." Christopher Isherwood, the Anglo-American writer, noted in the late 1920s that English writers of his generation felt ashamed for having missed WWI because, for them, war was a test of courage, maturity, and skill – a moment that posed the question: "Are you a real man?"   Masculinity, as a construct, derives its meaning from its perceived opposite: femininity. Men learn what is considered "natural" male behavior by defining themselves in contrast to women – through fantasies, differentiation, and reinforcement of distinctions. In Western mental frameworks, as well as in the language that expresses them, "man" is the reference point, the norm. The "woman," in contrast, is defined in relation to him, often as a deviation from this norm. In this linguistic and cultural paradigm, "woman" is frequently framed in negative terms – as the opposite of man, as the absence of masculine attributes, as something lacking. This dynamic, and the way it manifests in the ideological conflict shaping Israeli society today, remains a central and unresolved tension in our national discourse.   More precisely, we are confronted with two distinct forms of masculinity: the "masculine man" versus the "feminine man" – or, in other words, "hegemonic masculinity" versus an "alternative masculinity," which has seemingly undergone a process of "feminization." As a result, two contrasting sets of images – "masculinity" on one side and "femininity" on the other – have emerged, serving as tools in cultural discourse to define, characterize, and, at times, criticize different perspectives.   "Masculinity" has also been closely tied to the concept of "heroism." Without "masculinity," heroism is presumed to be absent – particularly in the battlefield, where it is considered essential. In the national era, "heroism" became synonymous with "virility" and violence. As the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu articulated, "the condition of man in the sense of ‘masculine’ (vir) requires ‘heroism’ (virtus)." However, this courage is frequently associated with an underlying fear – "fear of the feminine, and above all within oneself"; "fear of disgrace in the eyes of society and of being relegated to the typically feminine category of the 'weak,' the 'faint-hearted,' the 'indulgent,' the 'homosexual,' and so forth." Heroic masculinity becomes an imperative for men, one that is often enforced – sometimes violently – by both men and women. Consequently, men are expected to endure the harsh realities of war without complaint, without "wailing like women."   The opposing perspectives on masculinity and femininity can be symbolically represented by punctuation marks: an exclamation mark ("masculine" – !) and a question mark ("feminine" – ?). The religious-nationalist right frequently attributes to the secular-humanist left an excess of "feminine" and "degrading" question marks. This alleged phenomenon manifests in "spiritual emptiness," "embarrassment," "searching," "doubt," and "wonder," which stand in opposition to resolute, monist beliefs.   A subsequent conversation between the two ideological circles, held in 1975 – seven years after the first – highlighted this dichotomy even further. In this discussion, "the members of Gush Emunim presented themselves as confident leadership with a cohesive worldview and decisive action, whereas their counterparts from the [secular-humanist left] continued to wrestle with defining their own direction."   At its core, this divide reflects the dominance of one Jewish ideological stream and the concurrent decline of what has been termed "The Spirit of the IDF" (in the broad, not solely institutional, sense). The prevailing national ideology that developed in modern Europe maintained that "the man is active, and the woman is passive, and these roles should not be confused." Many European thinkers and cultural figures at the turn of the twentieth century perceived the Jewish diaspora man as feminine, thereby linking Jewish identity with femininity. Over the past centuries, influenced by European nationalist movements that sought to revive Hellenistic ideals of the body, Zionist leaders aimed to shape a new generation of Jews – modern and secular – with muscular and athletic physiques. This vision sharply contrasted with the traditional religious consciousness and the perceived weak, feminine body of the diaspora Jew. Alongside this new body came a shift toward assertive masculine behavior, which was expressed in various arenas, including politics and the military.   Accordingly, within Jewish national consciousness, Galut  (Exile) was often associated with passivity (femininity), whereas "revival" was equated with activism (masculinity).   In contrast to the ideological positions of early Zionist thinkers and the national-religious right, the secular-humanist left is frequently portrayed as embodying feminine passivity, whereas the national-religious right is seen as exemplifying masculine activism. This discourse largely echoes the ideological divide of the 1930s, when the secular-humanist left advocated for havlaga  (restraint) while the national-religious right championed tguva  (reaction). The restraint approach was rooted in universalism, pacifism, non-activism, and individualism, whereas the reactionary stance emphasized particularism, militarism, activism, and collectivism.   Berl Katznelson, one of the key intellectuals of the Zionist labor movement, provided perhaps the most famous defense of restraint: "It means keeping our weapons pure. We learn the ways of war, we carry arms, we stand against those who rise against us. But we do not wish for our weapons to be stained with innocent blood. Restraint is both a political and moral principle, drawn from our history and our reality, from our character and the conditions of our struggle. Had we abandoned this principle and taken a different path, we would have lost the struggle long ago. If we had engaged in counterfeit heroism under the guise of true heroism, we would have disgraced ourselves and paid a dire price."   In contrast to the restraint embraced by the secular-humanist left, the right-wing camp adhered to a vastly different perspective, positioning itself as the proponent of bold, militant activism.   The national-religious movement often tended to react or break the principle of restraint. Ze'ev Jabotinsky, in a speech in Warsaw (1938), declared: "In the Land of Israel, breaking the restraint is a necessity. Necessary!"   Rabbi Zvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook, in my understanding, served as a crucial link between the proponents of "reaction" at that time and the religious-national leadership that followed, which openly advocated this approach. He encouraged his students, individually, to participate in active initiatives driven by their deep love for the people and the land. His associations with Lehi [The Fighters for the Freedom of Israel – a Zionist paramilitary organization aimed to evict the British authorities from Palestine ny use of violence, allowing the formation of a Jewish state] members, his identification with the Etzel [The Irgum  – National Military Organization in the Land of Israel – operating at the same period], and his active support for its operations further underscore his role in this ideological shift.   In the last decade, the approach of "restraint" has been identified with the broader concepts of "deterrence" or "containment," and leaders – both secular and religious – from the right-wing camp have publicly opposed it. The ideological divergence between the religious-nationalist right and the secular-humanist left became evident in the controversy surrounding the non-appointment of Brigadier General Ofer Winter to a senior position in the IDF's combat division.   Winter became widely known for a "combat page" he issued during Operation Protective Edge (July 9, 2014). In this document, Colonel Winter wrote: "History has chosen us to be at the forefront of the battle against the terrorist enemy in Gaza, who insults, slanders, and blasphemes the God of Israel's armies." Addressing his soldiers, he expressed his trust in their ability to "act in the spirit of Israeli warriors who lead from the front." He further invoked divine guidance, stating: "I lift my eyes to heaven and cry out with you: 'Hear,  O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.' May the Lord, the God of Israel, guide us to success as we march and stand in defense of your people Israel against those who desecrate your name. In the name of IDF fighters, and particularly the brigade's soldiers and commanders, may the divine promise be fulfilled: 'For the Lord your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemy to give you victory,' and we say, Amen." Winter concluded with the phrase: "Together, and only together, will we prevail" – a statement that has since been widely embraced as a slogan by the Israeli right (both religious and national) in contemporary times.   From the perspective of the religious-nationalist right, contemporary Israeli society is called to transition from what is perceived as "diasporic femininity" (exemplified by "the old Jew," who restrains) to "Israeli masculinity" (embodied by "the new Jew," who reacts) – a man defined as a "hero" with traditionally masculine attributes. Conversely, the secular-humanist left advocates for a shift in the opposite direction, embracing the figure of an "anti-hero" characterized by feminine traits. While the national-religious right seeks to promote the "masculinization" or at least the "de-feminization" of Israeli society, the secular-humanist left encourages its "feminization."   It is crucial to note that, in traditional discourse, feminization is often equated with a decline in legitimacy, status, and value. A common social tactic employed by men is to delegitimize their opponents by portraying them as "feminine," under the assumption that de-masculinization inevitably results in diminished status, esteem, and influence within a patriarchal society.   From a right-wing religious-nationalist perspective, Theodor Herzl's aspiration to "cure the mental afflictions of the melancholic and effeminate Jewish man" has not resonated well with certain sectors of the Jewish-Israeli population. As the American-Israeli Jewish philosopher and historian Daniel Boyarin observed, the secular-humanist Jewish man remains emblematic of eydlkayt  (a Yiddish term denoting gentleness). Unlike the honor and power-oriented values of non-Jewish cultures, the Jewish diaspora fostered a model of masculinity grounded in spiritual and moral superiority. Within the context of the modern Israeli state, however, the rabbinic distinction of "we are still the strong ones" has taken hold – allowing for both intellectual humility in scholarly study and unwavering resolve in military service.   The national-religious right has arguably preserved the Zionist notion of "muscle Judaism," a concept first articulated by Zionist thinker and movement founder Max Nordau. Ironically, this same movement has actively challenged the exclusive focus on the image of the "wise scholar." Religion and state journalist Yair Sheleg has succinctly captured this ethos, stating: "The national-religious man is the last in Israeli society who still aspires to realize the classical masculine ideal."   It is important to recognize that participation in armed defense has long been a defining characteristic of the national-religious right, dating back to the Yishuv period. Their involvement in WWII, underground resistance movements, and later service in the IDF were all seen as integral aspects of their identity. This emphasis on strength and power became a key element in shaping the new man of the national-religious right.   Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, whose teachings continue to influence the Mercaz HaRav  yeshiva, strongly advocated for activism and the cultivation of physical heroism. Through his concept of the "revealed end," he integrated the ethos of action into his broader religious framework. He called upon the Jewish people to abandon the passivity of exile and to embrace proactive engagement across various spheres of life. In his view, such activism was not merely desirable but essential, forming an inseparable part of Israel’s religious-messianic destiny.   In his book Orot , published after his return to the Land of Israel following WWI, he wrote: "Due to the great need for the strengthening of holiness in these latter days by the Assembly of Israel, physical heroism must also rise with great force. And it is incumbent upon true worshippers of God to refine the inner essence of heroism, sanctifying it with spiritual valor."   The Jewish-American moral psychologist and philosopher Carol Gilligan identified two primary perspectives shaping moral discourse: "justice" and "care." In her early research, she posited a gender-based distinction between these approaches: "Men typically focus on justice, grounding their moral arguments in abstract principles within a universal, objective, rational, and logically structured legal system. In contrast, women often prioritize specific, concrete moral concerns, emphasizing contextual nuances and emotional responsiveness. They exhibit a desire to avoid harm, even at the cost of self-sacrifice."   From this vantage point, it is clear that the secular-humanist left tends to embody a "feminine morality" centered on care and empathy, whereas the national-religious right manifests a "masculine morality" grounded in principles of justice and duty.   Amram Ysrael (Givat Haim), who facilitated the discussion with the students of Mercaz HaRav , remarked: "There is something in religion and in the religious person's sensibilities that makes it easier for him to identify with the national mission... The sacrifice and commitment of the individual for the sake of the collective and its mission seem unequivocal to them. Thus, even an enemy is perceived by them in a much simpler way. For them, the enemy belongs to another group that their emotions do not engage with. The general mission demands that the enemy be placed beyond the realm of mercy during the phase of combat."   Israelis are often considered "merciful, compassionate people," yet this trait appears to characterize Jews from the secular-humanist left more than those from the national-religious right. Recently, there has been a growing perception that when this phrase is used by the national-religious right, it often signals an attempt to overcome what is seen as an oppressive and overly soft characteristic.   Rabbi Shlomo Aviner (head of Ateret Yerushalayim, formerly Ateret Cohanim, Yeshiva and a prominent student of Rabbi Kook the son) articulated a distinction between men and women regarding their intellectual and emotional capacities: "For the most part, intellectual talent is greater in men, while emotional talent is greater in women." He elaborated that "the intellect [which characterizes the 'man' who 'gives'] conquers and acts, whereas emotion [which characterizes the 'woman' who 'receives'] reacts and is impressionable. Intellect charts its course in this world, proving, educating, and constructing new realities. Emotion, on the other hand, experiences the world, marveling, surrendering, and absorbing its profound impressions. This is a fundamental difference. Intellect is the eye with which we act upon the world, whereas emotion processes and responds to external stimuli."   This worldview delineates activity, intellect, spirit, and soul as belonging to the "masculine" domain, whereas passivity, emotionality, matter, and body are classified as "feminine." Such distinctions also inform attitudes toward hostages held by Hamas and other terrorist organizations – including the elderly, women, and children – who one might expect to be spared from harm.   My argument is that the ideological narratives of the right and the left reflect different understandings of masculinity – or, in the terms of sociologist Raewyn Connell, different "masculinities." This concept recognizes that masculinity is not singular but is instead constructed through intersections of gender, class, and race. Moreover, both masculinity and femininity are fluid categories that assume various forms – without necessitating the "conversion surgeries" that some view as alarming.   The more "feminine" and "emotional" discourse has historically characterized the secular-humanist left. For example, Shmuel Gordon (kibbutz Mishmar HaEmek) reflected in collection: "I took this war in a deeply emotional way." In contrast, Yoel Bin-Nun stated: "During the war… during the battles – I felt impermeability… I said: kill… everyone you see – kill." The representatives of Mercaz HaRav     Students of M ercaz HaRav  who effectively embodied the national-religious right, exhibited what Amos Oz described as a masculinity that was "clumsy, smug, and arrogant, drunk on power."   As Pierre Bourdieu noted, "the masculine morality of honor manifests in an upright posture, a direct gaze, and assertive action" – aligning more with an exclamation mark (!) than a question mark (?). The national-religious right has long feared that the State of Israel is veering away from "masculine morality" and becoming "soft," "lax," and "feminine" – in essence, a "Sissy Land."   The word Komemiyut  (sovereignty) appears only once in the Bible: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enable you to walk with heads held right [ Komemiyut ]" (Leviticus 26:13). Rashi interprets this as "walking with an upright stature, unafraid of any mortal." It was explained: "This is a generation whose exile forced it to bow its head. This is a generation that was blessed with statehood, and this establishment lifted its head – not in a historical context, but in its own immediate experience. Exile had pressed it down, while freedom exalted it."   Thus, "sovereign-less" interpreted as "impotence." "Uprising" signifies "honor" as opposed to "humiliation." The massacre of October 7 was perceived as the antithesis of heroic Israeli masculinity, symbolizing national disgrace and humiliation. From the right-wing perspective, this "failure" (widely referred to on the right as "the conception") signified a process of "de-masculinization" or "feminization" of the once-dominant Israeli elite – the pioneering settlers and kibbutzim, many of whom perished in the Gaza envelope in a tragic and perhaps divinely orchestrated event.   Unlike the Six-Day War, the Yom Kippur War – and, similarly, Swords of Iron War, which also began with a devastating surprise attack – did not align neatly with the ideological framework of right-wing religious nationalism. Among national-religious rabbis, a fervent desire emerged to restore national sovereignty – masculine, unyielding, and impenetrable – which had been trampled upon in that war, just as it was shattered on Simchat Torah  [a Jewish holiday that celebrates and marks the conclusion of the annual cycle of public Torah readings] by an unspeakably brutal and humiliating massacre.   Gershon Shafat (a student of the Mercaz HaRav  who participated in the dialogue at the time, and later a public figure, one of the leaders of Gush Emunim and the founders of Kibbutz Ein Tzurim, and a member of the Knesset on behalf of the Tehya  Party, headed by Yuval Ne'eman) testified that we emerged from this war "beaten and humiliated." He emphasized the importance of "national honor," asserting that "in the face of the war, this honor was lost." Consequently, there arose an urgent need to restore, at least symbolically if not actually, the potency of national identity.   In the framework of a book about the fighters from the yeshiva schools (1986), Rabbi Shimon Gershon Rosenberg – known as HaRav Shagar, Rosh Yeshiva Siach Yitzchak in Jerusalem, and a thinker with neo-Hasidic and post-modern characteristics, then from the Yeshiva of the Western Wal – stated: "I think there is a profound question mark on this entire issue, and people have not examined it deeply, have not contemplated it, have not grasped the answers to that shadow of faith. That is to say, on the part of faith – faith does not weaken. On the contrary, it grows much stronger, precisely by the power of its shadow." At the end of Shagar's words, there is a clear phallic element, echoing the words of the Italian philosopher and semiotician Umberto Eco: "Since a life of constant war and heroism is difficult, the fascist directs his desire for power into sexual spheres. Since sexuality is also a complex game, he tends to play with weapons as a substitute for the phallus." Rabbi Shagar referenced an idea from Rabbi Nachman of Breslov: "He who goes out with a weapons [sexual instrument] in his hand, he who goes out with a lulav  [a closed frond if the date palm tree, and one of the four species used during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot , in addition to hadass  (myrtle), aravah  (willow) and etrog  (citron)] in his hand, this is the sign that he has won in the law. Rabbi Nachman asks: He who wins the war, lays down his weapons – why does he need to continue carrying his weapon, his spear? What purpose does it serve?" And he answers [for the attention of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu]: "The complete victory over Amalek is impossible... We will always be at war. Our victory lies in not surrendering, in continuing to hold the weapon. Continuing to hold the lulav  and etrog  and not breaking in the middle."   These words align with the slogan displayed on the Eastern Wall of the Hebron Yeshiva: "May the praised of God be in their mouths and a double-edge sword in their hands ." Similarly, the opening of Rabbi Yehuda Amital's book H ama'alot Mima'amakim  [Out of the Depths]  includes the passage: "They are all sword-wielding, learned in war, from whom they learned – from the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, 'The Lord is a man of war.'"   A striking example is the iconic (phallic) victory image of Yossi Ben Hanan, the operations officer of the 7th Brigade, standing in the waters of the Suez Canal after the Six-Day War. Published on the cover of Life Magazine  (June 23, 1967), the image of the rifle – specifically, the legendary Kalashnikov – has often been perceived as an erotic object, symbolizing masculine dominance and power. Soldiers often see it as an extension of their own masculinity.   An additional and perhaps even more crucial point is highlighted in the film Sins of War  (1989), which echoes a famous scene from Full Metal Jacket  (1987). The film contains the following monologue: "this is my rifle [points at the weapon], this is my gun [grabs the penis]. This [the rifle] is for fighting, and this [the penis] is for fun." To support this ideological construct – standing firm without breaking or yielding – the national-religious right mobilized its strength and influence. Especially after the perceived "weaknesses" of the Yom Kippur War, there was a notable increase in national-religious individuals enlisting in the IDF's regular combat units. To encourage this trend and reinforce the identity of those enlisting for full-time service, "Torah-based pre-military preparatory schools" were established.   As a result of these and other measures, the proportion of national-religious soldiers in the IDF's combat units rose significantly. Military service became an even more defining element in the spiritual and social identity of religious-Zionist youth. The wearers of knitted kippahs became an increasingly visible part of the IDF's command structure, with a growing presence in elite units and officer positions. Thus, the phenomenon known as the "exchange of elites" gradually emerged, in which knitted-kippah wearers replaced members of kibbutzim and working settlements in their traditional role as "pioneers before the camp."   A hint of this ideological transformation can be seen in the words of Gad Ofaz (kibbutz Ayelet HaShahar), quoted in the collection: "The military kibbutznik type is not the Spartan type. He is not one for whom the army and war are a way of life. But he is someone who proves himself in fields where his capabilities shine. Instead of channeling energy into political, spiritual, or artistic pursuits, nearly all energy has been directed toward practical fields. And there is no small danger in this... If those sitting here truly realize, as a result of the war and other developments, that the time has come to cultivate a different character, to strive toward other ideals and missions – then there is an important achievement in that. Just as the kibbutz member has proven himself in military and economic fields, there is no doubt he can prove himself in other areas as well."   The new "Spartans" – like their ancient predecessors, renowned for their disciplined warrior lifestyle – are, in contemporary times, represented by members of the national-religious right. These individuals have increasingly entrenched themselves in militant positions and militaristic ideologies, which cultivate military values in both civilian and military spheres. In matters of war, territorial occupation, and national sovereignty, the ideological chasm between the national-religious right and its counterparts appears immense.   The national-religious right has embedded the militaristic ethos into the image of the "new man" that it has sought to construct. Physical strength and military prowess have become defining traits of the new religious Zionist identity.   Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook exhorted every soldier to recognize "his vital belonging to the army of the King of the Worlds, his historical and ideal role in the supreme leadership mission of the Book of Our Generations." In his view, Israeli militarism is "divine militarism." In the chapter "War" of his seminal work Orot , which became a canonical text shaping the religious-nationalist perception of warfare, the Rabbi articulated a vision in which war deepens the intrinsic value of each people, allowing their national essence to manifest fully. He wrote: " When there is a great war in the world, the power of the Mashiach awakens." War, in his interpretation, advances history toward its ultimate divine purpose:   "And afterwards, with the cessation of war, the world is refreshed with a new spirit, and the footsteps of the Messiah become even more apparent. " War is welcomed, especially when it's purpose for the Jewish people is to bring the light of God into the world."   Rabbi Zvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook extended his analysis beyond contemporary conflicts, applying it retroactively to wars throughout Jewish history. A scholar in Jewish thought has noted that "the Rabbi's statements about the sanctity of the army and weapons, the admiration of military power, and the deification of Israeli militarism have aroused much criticism, prompting attempts by his students to refine his views." The Rabbi saw Israel's wars as integral steps in the redemptive process, framing them as Milḥemet mitzvah  (religious war or war of obligation) . This position is based on the Ramban [ Moses ben Nachman] , who enumerated the biblical commandment to settle the Land of Israel, and the Rambam [ Moses ben Maimon] , who classified three types of obligatory wars: the war against the Seven Nations [that, according to the Bible, lived in the Land of Canaan prior to the arrival of the Israelites, the war against Amalek [the enemy nation of the Israelites, and wars fought in defense of Israel].   The echoes of quasi-fascist undertones in the worldview of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook are hard to ignore. After Israe's wars, the Rabbi framed them as divine acts of "breaking the yoke of the Gentiles from our necks." The Six-Day War, in particular, led him to view military engagement as not only a sign of national revival and redemption but also as evidence of divine intervention in historical processes. He saw the return of the people of Israel to military strength as an expression of the redemption taking shape in contemporary times.   One of the foundational principles of this worldview is the belief that historical events reflect divine providence, requiring active interpretation and response. In this framework, the Rabbi's redemptive lens serves as a means to assimilate nationalist resurgence, grounding it within a theological and historical context that justifies state actions through a spiritual rationale.   Rabbis from the same school of thought similarly derived their ideological positions from concrete conflicts between Israel and its neighbors. For instance, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner reiterated the Rabbi's view, asserting: "Every war is a stage in the redemption of Israel. Redemption unfolds in stages – war after war. Every war that has befallen us, whether before the state's establishment or after, whether before the conquest of Jerusalem or after, is a step in Israel's redemption."   Rabbi Oded Walensky of the Yeshivat Har HaMor , a disciple of Rabbi Zvi Ysrael Tau, expanded on this theme: "With the onset of the 'revealed end' in recent generations, as the nation gradually awakens from its diasporic slumber and reclaims its place in the Land of Israel, these forgotten and lost foundations are slowly returning. They are being reestablished, growing, and perfected. For it is the Lord our God who gives us the power to do good, and this power continues to increase through divine intervention. The miracle of salvation manifests in strengthening our wisdom and military might, propelling us toward ultimate victory over the forces that seek to undermine our existence. The recent wars and battles, as part of His divine plan, represent the progressive realization of our collective redemption. We come, in a way that astonishes the heart of every thinker, to 'direct, clear, and open contact with the 'spirit of heroism and the will to fight' that appears to us, both in great and small difficulties, and conquers us with its melodies.'   In contrast, it appears that the secular-humanist left is advocating for the "demilitarization" of Israeli society – a gradual process in which societal structures and values become less dependent on military ideals and the validation of influence through martial approval.   War, which demands "unity," has recently blurred the distinctions between different ideological circles. However, rhetoric about unity is one thing, and faith is another. Avraham Shapira, who organized the "Fighters' Dialogue," firmly articulated the profound gap in worldviews between the two camps: "There is an abyss here... that cannot be bridged at all." Rabbi Aviner was even more explicit: "We are much more connected to the state and far more loyal than those who are devoid of Torah, because we belong to this country through its divine holiness... The entire Zionist awakening began with the power of the Holy Torah, and only later did this movement expand and spread to the entire Israeli nation, including those devoid of Torah... This means that we do not join the secularists in the act of holy faith; rather, we come from within, from the core of Judaism and sacred belief, to construct the edifice of the House of Israel and establish the Land of Life. And although our brothers, who have strayed and become corrupt in their opinions and actions, have accomplished much and built much, the grand work of establishing the ideal state according to Torah and illuminating the inner light of God's Torah in the process of building the land remains an enormous task."   Rabbi Yigal Ariel (former rabbi of Nob in the Golan Heights, head of the Golan Seminary, and founder of the Hispin  yeshiva high school, formerly a student at the Mercaz HaRav  yeshiva) wrote unequivocally that "[during the Six-Day War] the beginning of the psychological rift between these two parts of the public was marked – a rift that deepened and turned into an abyss after the Yom Kippur War... [the secular-humanist left] adopted for itself the vision of peace and morality; [the religious-national right] – the land and its redemption. This rift has been threatening the unity of the people for a generation. The two camps neutralize each other and risk causing us to lose both the land and our hopes for peace."   His observation appears just as relevant today, if not more so. The divide reached its peak with the establishment of the thirty-seventh government – a "full-fledged right-wing government" – led by Benjamin Netanyahu, which later became known as the "Netanyahu-Ben-Gvir" government. The stark and polarizing differences in views and opinions that characterize contemporary discourse in Israel seem to converge on a singular, symbolic issue: the "national phallus."   In broad circles of Israeli society, an urgent need has emerged – especially in the aftermath of the "Black Sabbath" of October 7, 2023 – to restore, at least symbolically if not tangibly, the potency of the national phallus. This restoration necessitates attributes such as "firm standing," "uprightness," "rigidity," and "potency" – all of which are embodied in prominent phallic symbols. The concept of the "phallus" has long been employed in broader cultural contexts, particularly within nationalist movements, which often perceive aspirations for harmony among nations and the pursuit of peace as expressions of feminine softness or weakness. Instead, they frame the phallus as a symbol of life's continuity, an active force of creation, and the conduit of cosmic energy. One is left to wonder: Are we, in our time, on the verge of witnessing a full-blown and resolute erection? Photography: Idan Yaron

" I don’t care a damn if the Israeli press defines me as a Nazi or a fascist. " (Rabbi Meir Kahane)   " They called us ' fascists ,'  although fascism is not the worst thing in the world. " (David Ben-Dor, one of the leaders of the Kahanist movement)   This discussion will explore the extent to which the Kahanist movement aligns with the concept of "fascism," drawing on key theories and thinkers in the field, as well as internal testimonies from former members of the movement.   The thesis I put forward is that Kahanism should be recognized as an "extreme" and "fascist" movement, a contemporary iteration of historical fascist movements.   Fascism should not be viewed as a phenomenon confined to one country, one historical period, or a single political event. It should not be narrowly identified with the specific configurations of European parties in the 20th century. Instead, fascism is best understood as a supra-historical concept, one that transcends its original era and fits within a broader framework of political movements that reflect its essential features. This approach allows us to analyze fascism as an evolving, dynamic phenomenon that shifts and adapts over time. Ultimately, the practical question is: Does viewing a new political formation through the lens of "fascism" help us understand it? In the case of Kahanism, I argue that such an analysis does indeed illuminate the movement's ideology, leadership structure, and the mentality of its followers – its "true believers."   The Rejection of Equality One of the defining characteristics of far-right extremism – and particularly fascist movements – is their opposition to equality. The rejection of equality, or its "breaking," becomes even more pronounced in the case of radical right-wing and ultra-nationalist movements.   Rabbi Meir Kahane explicitly denied the principle of equality, stating: "The equality of Jews and non-Jews is nothing but blasphemy, repugnant to God ' s Torah and embracing the abomination of the Gentiles."   For Kahane, there was no value in equality or integration within Judaism – on the contrary, he considered it forbidden. He argued: "In Judaism, there is no equality in matters of holiness. In everything that God did, He chose one to be supreme and holy."   This belief was evident in his political rhetoric as well. Appearing before the Israeli Central Elections Committee during discussions on whether to disqualify his party, he dismissed Israel's Declaration of Independence as a "schizophrenic document."  He reiterated his well-known view that a Jewish State of Israel and equal rights for Arabs were inherently irreconcilable: "Equal rights for all and a Jewish state cannot coexist."   Kahane decried those who "falsify and distort the Torah" by embracing foreign influences and universalist ideals. In his sermon " Beloved Israel, " he accused such individuals of fleeing from the concept of Israel as a chosen people and bowing to the "idol" of equality.   Just three days before his assassination, Kahane published an article titled "The Special Halakhic Status of the Palestinians."  In it, he wrote: "For many years, I have pointed to the clear halakhic status of non-Jews in the Land of Israel, which stands in stark contrast to Western democracy, a system that advocates total and complete equality among all human beings, regardless of their ethnic, national, or religious background. For years, I have argued that non-Jews have, at most, the status of a  Ger toshav ('resident alien') – assuming that this status still applies in an era when the Jubilee is no longer observed."   Kahane was unambiguous in his belief that humans are not born equal – and that Jews are inherently superior to non-Jews. He wrote: "One of the fundamental beliefs of Western culture is that all human beings are born equal. The Western secular democratic worldview is founded on this principle. However, the Western idea of equality is contrary to human nature. Neither scientists nor ideologists will be able to change this nature. Only the path of Torah is adapted to human nature."   Although the difference between Jews and non-Jews is not visible to the eye, he insisted that it was an absolute truth – one that God Himself had revealed: "We, as Jews, believe and know that outward appearance is not everything. Internally, God has informed us that there is a fundamental and absolute difference between Israel and the Gentiles."   The Kahanist movement fiercely opposed universalist interpretations of Judaism – particularly those that emphasized the idea that "every man is created in the image of God." This principle, central to modern religious Zionism, was seen by Kahane's followers as an attempt to blur the inherent differences between Jews and non-Jews.   In a Knesset speech on May 27, 1986, Kahane confronted this issue directly: "In Judaism, without a doubt, in the Gemara  [an essential component of the Talmud' comprising a collection of rabbinical analyses and commentaries on the Mishnah , there is no question that man was created in the image of God. There is no dispute about that. But from here to standing up and saying that the status of a non-Jew in Hala k ha  [the collective body of Jewish religious laws, that are derived from the Written and Oral Torah]  is equal to the status of a Jew? This is a lie. It's a ruled law ."   The Kahanist movement argued that attempts to present Judaism as a universalist, "progressive" faith – one that conforms to modern values of human equality and anti-racism – were nothing more than distortions of Jewish tradition. They insisted that: "The blurring of boundaries and differences in this matter is an attempt to portray a 'beautiful Judaism'  – a Judaism that is compatible with Western culture. Against this trend, original Judaism and its core ideas must be sharply reinforced. Every Jew who accepts the Torah as the word of God from Sinai understands that it is impossible to make compromises or amendments to it. Any attempt to circumvent or ignore the fundamental differences between Israel and the Gentiles will ultimately fail."   In a Knesset speech on January 29, 1985, titled "The Place of the Arab in the Jewish State,"  Kahane laid out his position with brutal clarity: "It is impossible for an Arab to have equal rights in a state that is defined in the Declaration of Independence as a Jewish state. As long as the Arab citizen must sing Nefesh yeudi ho'miyah [The Jewish soul yearns] in the National Anthem of Israel, Hatikvah [The Hope] – he is not equal to the Jew. As long as Independence Day symbolizes the defeat of the Arabs, he will not be able to celebrate it. As long as a Jew may be willing to let an Arab be a major in the IDF but not Chief of Staff  – let alone Prime Minister  – the Arab will not be able to feel at home. As long as the Law of Return [which gives Jews and their spouses the right to relocate to Israel and require Israeli citizenship] applies only to Jews, the Arab cannot feel that this state is his. As long as a Jewish member of Knesset refuses to accept the Arab ' s right to be a majority here, you are certainly despising him when you try to convince him that he is an equal citizen like us."   This explicit rejection of Arab citizenship – on legal, religious, and ideological grounds – lays bare the core fascist elements of the Kahanist movement: supremacism, ethnic purity, eternal mobilization, and the rejection of democracy in favor of religious authoritarianism.   The movement's vision is not merely far-right – it is, in every essential way, a fascist ideology adapted to a religious framework.   Benjamin Ze'ev Kahane, son of Rabbi Meir Kahane – the founder and leader of the Kahana Hai movement, who resided in Kfar Tapuach and was murdered along with his wife in a shooting attack – frequently quoted his father, emphasizing his belief that equality had become a false idol in modern times. He wrote: "The issue of equality has, in our era and in the hands of those who worship foreign culture, become a golden calf  – an idol of lies. But God, the Almighty, rejects the notion of natural equality and equal status for every idea, every people, and every individual. He establishes definitions: good and evil, holy and profane, sacred and most sacred. And according to these distinctions, He sets hierarchical classes for everything."   In his article titled "Equality in Judaism – Without Extremism" Benjamin Ze'ev Kahane elaborated on this belief, arguing that foreign cultures and religions misinterpret the concept of equality in an extreme and misguided way. In contrast, he claimed that only the Torah, as the word of God, presents the correct and absolute truth:  "As with many other concepts that foreign cultures or religions have misinterpreted and distorted in extreme ways, so too have they misunderstood the concept of equality and social hierarchy. They present approaches that are foreign and strange when compared to the Torah ' s outlook  – the only truth, the word of God. Only in it will we find the proper and correct structure of things, without tilting towards falsehood. One of the fundamental principles of the Torah is that it is the Torah of Israel, a definition that strikes at the heart of those who advocate for equality, as it sharply distinguishes between Jew and Gentile."   Benjamin Ze'ev Kahane further clarified: "Whoever denies this natural inequality and claims that there is no difference between one person ,  and another ,  must also deny the superiority of the people of Israel, and ultimately, the supremacy of God."   He reinforced his father's teaching, quoting from Jewish sources: " Who is called Adam? This is the Torah ' s Adam because he perishes in a tent (Parashat Para). Rabbi Shimon B ar Yochai says: ' You (Israel) are called Adam, but the nations of the world are not called Adam. '  It has been explained that Gentiles do not possess the perfect image of Adam, only a crude external form. Only Israel embodies the perfect image of God, reflected in their divine election and virtues. "   The State – Liberal Democracy Extremist movements, unlike radical movements, do not merely challenge democracy while striving to preserve it; they seek to undermine and destroy it entirely. This principle was at the core of Rabbi Meir Kahane's political thought.   For Kahane, the ultimate purpose of the Jewish state was not democracy but the establishment of a Torah-centered state of holiness. He argued that Israeli nationalism was fundamentally different from secular nationalism and that the Jewish nation was inseparable from its religious mission: "The divine election at Sinai defined the people of Israel as a nation-religion. Its nationality is its religion, and its religion is its nationality  – a nationalism meant to elevate the world. Israeli nationalism is fundamentally distinct from secular nationalism, which creates a meaningless and unjustified separation. The people of Israel are a special people  – a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. This is not a racial or nationalistic advantage but a mission: to live according to the Torah to fulfill a sublime destiny and serve as a light unto the nations. Obeying God's commandments is the sole purpose of the chosen people of Israel, and the only reason for their very existence."   According to the Kahanist ideology, liberal democracy is fundamentally opposed to Torah Judaism – concept for concept. At the heart of this opposition lies a clash over the ultimate authority: "God, the God of Israel, is King of all the  earth and everything in it. The end of history will come only when all nations bow before Him. Liberal democracy, which upholds the supremacy of human reasoning, is in complete contradiction to Torah Judaism, which requires that man bow before the King of Kings. If liberal democracy has triumphed, it means that Torah Judaism has been defeated. And there is no greater challenge than this."   Rabbi Kahane was uncompromising in his view that democracy was incompatible with Torah law: "Democracy? The Torah does not tolerate such nonsense. It is impossible for desolation, destruction, wickedness, and abomination to be deemed acceptable simply because a majority of fools, ignorant people, or evildoers have declared it so."   He dismissed concepts such as political freedom, rule of law, and democracy in Israel as manipulative tools of power: "Democracy in Israel? Rule of law? Political freedom? What nonsense. These are empty slogans, thrown around everywhere, designed only to consolidate power and suppress any genuine opposition. Not democracy, not freedom, not justice, not law  – only power. Their own power."   Kahane believed that Western democracy and Jewish nationalism were fundamentally irreconcilable: "Democracy and equality between Jews and non-Jews are nothing but blasphemy  – an abomination to the Torah of God, an embrace of Gentile corruption. This is a contradiction, an irreconcilable gap between a Jewish state and a Western democracy. And yet, this clear and obvious truth has been turned into a monster  – a nightmare."   Kahane rejected the idea of a Jewish and democratic state as inherently self-contradictory. He argued that a Jewish state must be ruled exclusively by Jews, and any system that allowed non-Jews to hold power was not truly Jewish. He warned: "There are those who wait passively for the Messiah, but we will bring the Messiah through acts of self-sacrifice and sanctification of God, soon in our days, Amen."   For Kahane, the battle was between faithful Jews who wanted to establish an authentic Jewish state and secular 'Hellenists' who sought to destroy the Torah: "We must choose :  either a Jewish state or a Western-style democratic state. Anyone who chooses democracy is anti-Zionist, an enemy of the people, and a traitor to the state."   Rabbi Kahane also championed authoritarian governance, rooted in the concept of Torah law. He questioned whether the Torah specifically mandated a monarchy, ultimately concluding that it did: "There is room to examine whether the Torah explicitly commands that there should be a king  – that is, a single government. It seems clear that this is indeed the case. [God has decreed] that there be one leader, who will be able to rule and compel the people to follow a single path. Only in this way can the nation and the state be saved from the lawlessness that inevitably arises from divided leadership."   Kahane was among the first to publicly challenge the Israeli Declaration of Independence, viewing it as inherently contradictory and schizophrenic. He argued that its attempt to define Israel as both Jewish and democratic was an illusion: "The phrase 'Jewish and democratic' is empty of meaning. It is an intoxicating drug that  obscures the senses. It is the opposite of reality. Democracy has granted legitimacy to abominations and crimes, stripping the world of its sacred order. Instead of recognizing that the world belongs to the Lord of all the earth  – God, blessed be He  – democracy has handed it over to the ignorant masses. Through its warped decree that 'the majority will decide,' democracy has declared war on the Creator, turning the world into a playground for greed, selfishness, and immorality."   The Kahanist ideology draws a clear distinction between the government (regime) and the state itself. It holds that the regime is merely an external framework, while the state must be ruled in accordance with Torah law.   The Kahanist movement sharply opposes the Kookist approach (which was founded by Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook and his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook). The Kookist school, widely embraced by students of Mercaz HaRav [The Center of the Rabbi, a national-religious yeshiva, founded in 1924 by Kook the father), equates the government with the state, arguing that despite its flaws and transgressions, it remains " holy " and must not be challenged. Kahanism, by contrast, rejects this notion, separating the government from the state and accusing Israel's secular leadership of abandoning its sacred obligations to Jewish law and the historical mission of the Land of Israel.   Rabbi Meir Kahane argued that even in the absence of an immediate Arab threat to the State of Israel, a far greater existential question loomed: "The real struggle is not external but internal  – between Jews themselves. The true question is not whether Israel will survive but rather: Will it be a Jewish state? Or will it be a secular, Westernized entity that mimics foreign cultures?"   For Kahane, the Jewish concept of government was crystal clear: "The government exists to serve the state; the state exists to serve the people; the people exist to serve God."   Thus, the Kahanist ideology ultimately envisions a reformed State of Israel, one that would shed the "filthy garments" of secular democracy and replace them with the "royal garments" of the proper Torah-based regime."   Rabbi Kahane's stance on democracy was deeply contradictory. He embraced democracy when it protected his freedom of speech but rejected it entirely when viewed through a Jewish-Halakhic lens.   As someone who grew up in the United States, Kahane appreciated certain aspects of American democracy, particularly the constitutional right to free speech. He acknowledged that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevented government suppression of speech. However, he was also aware that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that speech could be restricted if it posed a clear and present danger, incited violence, or constituted "hate speech."   Kahane spoke positively of his American experience: "America was good to the Jews, and the Jews were good to America. A country founded on principles of democracy and freedom offered unprecedented opportunities to people devoted to these ideals."   Yet, when democracy was analyzed through a religious-Jewish lens, he outright rejected it. From the Knesset podium, he declared: "I am loyal to the laws of the state, but the Torah is above them. I believe that the State of Israel is the hand of God, the fruit of His grace, and a sanctification of His name after the horrors of the Holocaust  – an unparalleled desecration of Heaven. But my supreme loyalty, and the supreme loyalty of every Jew on earth, must be to the God of Israel and the commandments of the Torah. And if, God forbid, there is a conflict between the law of man and the law of God, the Torah must be the supreme authority. The law will strike the mountain, but the Torah of God is eternal and pure."   Kahane firmly rejected the idea that a secular democratic system could coexist with a Jewish state. He argued that appointing non-religious or non-God-fearing individuals to positions of power was strictly forbidden. He based his stance on the teachings of Maimonides ( Hilchot Melachim 1:7 , 8), who wrote: " If a prophet appoints a king from any other tribe of Israel and that king follows the path of Torah and mitzvot and fights the wars of God, he is considered as a king, and all the commandments associated with the monarchy apply to h im… Under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge."   Rabbi Yosef (Yossi) Dayan, Mexican-Israeli Orthodox Rabbi, who dwells in the settlement of Psagot, and had been a close associate of Kahane – credited Kahane, in a conversation with me, with exposing the inherent contradiction between the Jewish and democratic definitions of the state. According to Dayan, Kahane argued that the term Jewish  applied not only to the character of the state but also to its rule. If power was not exclusively in the hands of Jews, then the state was not Jewish. Thus, the slogan "Jewish and democratic" was meaningless: "It is a deception, an intoxicating drug that bewilders the senses. It is a contradiction in terms  – one word and its opposite."  Dayan frequently cited lines from the poet Uri Zvi Greenberg: " Your Rabbis taught: There is one truth for the nations: / Blood for blood – but it is not a truth for Jews. / And I say: There is one truth and not two."   Kahane, in line with this view, opposed the Israeli political system outright: "I am a Jew and a Zionist who will do everything, with God ' s help, to ensure that this state remains Jewish and Zionist, not a democracy modeled after the West. We must admit, without guilt or hesitation, that there is indeed a fundamental contradiction  between a Jewish state and Western democracy. And we must choose  – without compromise  – a Jewish state."   Attitude towards Violence In a 1981 interview, before his election to the Knesset, Rabbi Kahane was asked about his willingness to resort to violence. His response was unambiguous: "Journalist: ' [Would you go as far as necessary in using violence to achieve your goals?] ' –Kahane: ' Yes... If things don ' t go my way, I believe that not only do I have the right to act against those who oppose me, but I have an obligation to do so. '" The interviewer pressed him further: "Journalist: ' Is the only difference between you and the Nazi Party in the United States that they are wrong, and you are right? ' – Kahane: ' Yes. I can ' t put it any better. '"   Analysis through Major Theories and Concepts of Fascism Umberto Eco:  the Italian philosopher and semiotician, identified 14 common features of "Eternal Fascism." According to Eco, it is sufficient for even one of these traits to exist for fascism to emerge, though many of them often coexist in extremist ideologies.   Kahanism venerates tradition with a fervor akin to worship, treating it as an untouchable relic cast in iron. Its leaders view traditionalism as a torch meant not to illuminate but to burn bridges to modernity, rejecting the Enlightenment like a cursed book never to be opened. In their world, rational thought is not just suspect – it is an outright enemy, an affliction to be purged. Action for action's sake is their gospel, a relentless drumbeat drowning out contemplation, as if thinking itself were a sin. To dissent is to betray. Yet within this rigid dogma, an odd paradox exists – devotees are granted a peculiar latitude, a measure of freedom, so long as they remain shackled within the ideological cage. At the core of this movement pulses an unrelenting fear of the "other," a constant vigil against invaders, against foreign tides that threaten to wash away their carefully drawn borders. It is a doctrine marinated in racism – by its very definition, a creed that constructs identity through exclusion, erecting walls rather than bridges. The gravitational pull of this movement is strongest among those left behind by the promises of progress. It speaks most compellingly to the frustrated, the disillusioned, those seeking a banner under which to march and a cause that validates their grievances. The downtrodden and the overlooked find solace here, forging unity in a narrow, rigid vision of Jewish nationalism. They are instilled with a siege mentality, convinced they are a fortress under perpetual attack. The enemy is everywhere – external, foreign, prowling beyond the gates – but also within, lurking in the souls of their own people who have strayed from the path, forgotten their sacred identity. A paradox reigns supreme: their foes are seen as formidable, omnipresent, and dangerous, yet, with divine favor, ultimate victory is preordained. For the Kahanist true believer, existence is not meant for quiet living, but for eternal battle. To seek peace is to embrace weakness, to extend a hand is to court betrayal. The world is an arena of conflict, and to fight is to live. They are not merely believers; they are warriors, cast in the mold of legend, raised with the belief that they are the chosen among the chosen, the elite of the elite. Heroism is their creed, not a rare spark but an expected blaze. Yet this heroism is intertwined with a morbid fascination – death is not a misfortune but an aspiration, martyrdom the highest form of fulfillment. And when the game of war grows weary, when the drumbeats of battle become monotonous, the hunger for dominance seeks new expressions. Power must manifest somewhere, and so it often shifts to the battlefield of gender, feeding a deep-seated machismo. In the Kahanist theater, masculinity is a weapon to be brandished, a posture to be upheld. And where taboos shackle the expression of raw dominance, the warrior finds another outlet – his weapons. The gun, the blade, the ostentatious display of force become his symbols, his phallic assertions, drawn theatrically at the slightest provocation, whether real or imagined. Individuality in this world is a mirage. Rights belong not to individuals but to the collective, a singular, unyielding entity whose supposed will must be deciphered and decreed by the leader – a self-appointed prophet of destiny. And just as Orwell envisioned in his grim prophecy, language itself is twisted into a tool of control. Kahanism speaks in a dialect of distortion, where words cease to mean what they once did, where truth is bent, reshaped, and ultimately sacrificed at the altar of ideology.   Zeev Sternhell:  The debate over whether Kahanism qualifies as fascism has been long-standing. One of the most vocal critics of Kahanism was Professor Zeev Sternhell, a renowned historian and expert on fascism, whose scholarship earned him numerous international honors.   In an interview, Sternhell unequivocally classified Kahanism as a Jewish version of Nazism: "Kahane is a Nazi of a Jewish variety... The great danger is that the conformist majority, blinded by slogans of 'security' and 'unity,' is unable to resist the revolutionary fervor of the right. Fascism cannot be stopped by rational reasoning or discussions. It can only be stopped by force... In my opinion, there are greater disasters than civil war  – such as the destruction of democratic culture. A society can emerge stronger from civil war."   Rabbi Meir Kahane responded with fury, accusing Sternhell of arrogance, elitism, and hypocrisy: "Sternhell ' s arrogance and his contempt for 'the majority' are among the clearest hallmarks of fascism. He   represents the quintessential leftist fascist in Israel – the intellectual who believes he alone understands the truth.   He and the left consider themselves entitled to rebel, while the ignorant masses must be led like sheep. Unable to debate   with Kahane or the right, they resort to blood libels , labeling us ' fascists '  to avoid intellectual confrontation. This is the true face of fascism , the true face of Jew hating Jews , the true face of frightened, assimilated Hellenists , who fear any genuine discussion and debate . They are liars, deceivers, and murderers , ready to use force against Jews while falsely accusing the right of seeking civil war."   Elsewhere, Kahane railed against “the haters of Israel”, describing them in starkly dehumanizing terms: "There are haters  – deep, primal, internal haters  – whose spiritual rot is a stench emanating from the depths of their souls. These are the real fascists , the real murderers ."   Ehud Sprinzak:  Another leading expert on the radical right, Ehud Sprinzak, concluded that Kahanism had evolved into an entity bearing striking similarities to historical fascist movements. He classified it as "a fascist movement in every sense of the word." Sprinzak warned that because Kahane and his movement entered the Knesset, many people mistakenly believed that the movement had "moderated" and become a conventional, law-abiding political entity. This, he argued, was a dangerous illusion.   In reality, Kahanism held deep contempt for the law, its members operating outside the legal framework whenever it suited their goals. Sprinzak identified two key principles of Kahanist ideology: "Illegalism" – The belief that one must disregard legal norms and take the law into one’s own hands; "Illegitimacy" – The belief that liberal democracy is inherently flawed and must be abolished. Rabbi Meir Kahane, arrested over 60 times on various charges, embodied both illegalism and illegitimacy. He saw lawbreaking not as a crime but as a revolutionary necessity. He declared: "When revolution is accepted as a legitimate concept , even celebrated, in a world that pays mere lip service to ' law and order ' – this is a development worth noting."  Kahane understood that successful revolutions require only a small, committed minority: "We will never succeed in bringing the majority of the people to revolt  – but we don ' t need to. A committed minority is enough."  His son, Benjamin Ze'ev, carried forward this revolutionary mindset, telling his followers:  "The decision to delegitimize the system  means legitimizing anarchy and revolution . This is not something I am calling for  – it is simply the logical consequence of events . F rightened and desperate people, deprived of their democratic choice, will eventually take their fate into their own hands – to save themselves and their children. This is the reality that the Knesset and the High Court of Justice have created  in the Jewish state."  Benjamin Ze'ev further insisted:  "The main thing is adherence to the truth , walking the straight and uncompromising path , until the revolution."   In a brief pamphlet published by the Kach movement, one can find the words of Rabbi Kahane on the subject of "Law and Order in Israel." It is important to note the distinction that can be made between "law" and "order." "Law" is typically enforced from above by state authorities who are authorized to do so, as opposed to vigilante elements. In contrast, "order" manifests itself less overtly and generally exists because people choose to behave in a manner that does not require external enforcement but rather relies on self-discipline."   The words in the pamphlet continue to echo in the speeches and writings of the leaders of the Kahanist movement to this day. They link the argument of "illegitimacy" with the very core of what they consider "illegitimacy": "The main function of the government is to maintain internal order and protect the people from external enemies so that the Jew can fulfill his duties to heaven in peace. The duty to respect and obey the natural government is clear, to the extent that the government itself respects and obeys the Torah, the constitution, the kingdom of heaven, which is the supreme authority both for the Jewish people and for the government elected by them. The duty to listen, obey, and respect the authorities of the government depends on whether, in the specific case under consideration, the government adheres to the law of the Torah and the needs of the people."   According to this perspective, the "illegitimacy" of the government stems from its inability to maintain law and order; however, the issue extends beyond this concern. The fundamental argument is that the regime is not legitimate because it is not based exclusively on the law of the Torah, but rather on considerations beyond it, including the general needs of the people. Rabbi Kahane further clarified: "When the police ask a Jew to break the law, the Jew must ignore the illegal order. When the government refuses to allow a Jew to obey a legal obligation, he must disobey the government. For the sake of the people of Israel and the State of Israel, law and order must be upheld, because no opposition to the law of the Torah is possible."   In advocating for the desired change, Rabbi Kahane – at the very least implicitly – called for acts of violence or terrorism. In the collection Visionary and Leader, we find his declaration: "The body or soul of a Jew is in danger. There is no restriction in the world that stands before us. There is no prohibition in the world that ties our hands!”   Primo Levi:  The Holocaust survivor and renowned writer, went as far as to state in his book This Is What Auschwitz Was Like (Heb.): "All regimes that deny, in law or in fact, basic equality between people and their equal rights should be called 'fascist.'"   As previously demonstrated, the Kahanist movement actively works to dismantle the principle of equality in both society and the state. It systematically seeks to undermine the rights of non-Jews, making its alignment with fascist ideologies an undeniable reality.   Internal Testimonies Several former Kahanist members who later distanced themselves from the movement have recognized its fascist traits (in a conversation with me).   One former student from the Jewish Idea Yeshiva in Kfar Tapuach recalled: " Kahane ' s public rallies resembled the incendiary, shallow, and repulsive incitement of fascist leaders  – stirring the mob into a frenzy, harnessing it to serve his ambitions. Rabbi Kahane emerged as a leader of squares filled with hatred. "   A fellow student at the same yeshiva added that the movement displayed a distinct affinity for fascist aesthetics and symbolism: " The movement had a clear admiration for fascist imagery  – structured marches, flags, aggressive slogans, and even hand salutes. The attraction to fascism was, in part, a psychological response to the perception of Jewish existential weakness. " He concluded with an unequivocal assessment: "Did the fascist spirit cast a spell on the movement's leaders and influence their utopian vision? The answer is absolutely yes. The aspiration was always monarchical-authoritarian leadership. Rabbi Kahane aspired to power, intending to trample on the Arabs and the leftists. The result was a fusion of religious fundamentalism with Jewish jihad. The prevailing perception was that all problems could be solved by force – by mobilizing the weaker sectors of the population to ‘deal’ with external and internal enemies. At a public rally in Hadera, Kahane shouted, ' Fascism will not pass! ' Then he turned to us and said, ' The leftists are more dangerous. One day, I will deal with them. ' I asked myself: Is the rabbi a leader of the Jewish people or the leader of a gang? " The movement’s rhetoric and methods, in his view, bore all the hallmarks of classic fascism.   As Hannah Arendt wrote in her analysis of autocracy: " What was attractive was not their skill in the art of lying, but their ability to organize the masses into a collective unity that would support their lies through impressive displays of pomp. "   Conclusive Assessment Kahanism is portrayed as a distinct "fascist" movement. As is customary in this ideology, the Kahanist sub-genre is based on the idea of an organically united nation, embodied in the belief of "strength through unity." The individual is deemed worthless in himself, and individual identity must be completely absorbed into the group or social movement. The "new man" born within the movement is envisioned as a hero, driven by duty, honor, and self-sacrifice – ready to give his life for the glory of the nation and to obey the supreme leader without question. The well-being of the collective body – the nation or race – is clearly placed before the well-being of the individual.   Values such as nationalism (in the liberal sense), progress, freedom, and equality take on a new meaning in the name of struggle, leadership, heroism, and a war of conquest. The worldview (Weltanschauung) is explicitly anti-rational, anti-liberal, and anti-conservative. The Kahanist doctrine adopts an extreme version of chauvinistic nationalism, advocating territorial expansion. It shows no respect for other nations and insists on the superiority of one nation over them. The movement embodies a sense of messianic or fanatical destiny – the expectation of national renewal and the rebirth of national pride, encapsulated in the idea of "national greatness." It fuses myths of a glorious past with an image of a future characterized by revival and awakening. In practice, national revival is seen as inseparable from the exercise of power over other nations – through expansion, war, and conquest. Influenced by social Darwinism and a belief in national and racial superiority, Kahanist nationalism is clearly associated with militarism and imperialism.   The Kahanist doctrine, like its fascist counterpart, fosters a monistic belief in a single value system (most clearly represented by Rabbi Kahane himself) and a single source of truth (the rabbi's writings and pronouncements). The basic assumption of the Kahanist doctrine is that social and political conclusions can be drawn from the idea that there are fundamental differences inherent in various races – namely, between Jews, Gentiles in general, and Arabs in particular. In essence, politics is viewed as being heavily determined by genetics.   Kahanism is also a fundamentally religious movement. It is a religious-political ideology characterized by dogmatism – a subtype of "closed-mindedness" that involves an unwillingness to engage with, or even seriously consider, relevant alternatives to its already established beliefs.   Looking retrospectively, the Kahanist doctrine is defined by its rejection of the distinction between religion and politics. In this framework, politics is, in effect, religion. This means that the Kahanist doctrine is not confined to the personal or private sphere but is understood as the organizing principle of public existence – including law, public behavior, and governance. The ultimate aspiration is the establishment of a Halachic or Torah-based state. In place of the existing secular system, a new order must be established – one in which all aspects of life are governed by ultimate religious principles. The power of fundamentalism lies in its ability to mobilize believers and generate vigorous, militant, and sometimes violent political activity. One result of such mobilization is the willingness of activists to engage in illegal political actions and the use of violence. The justification provided for such activities is that they are carried out in accordance with the will of God, with the intention of eradicating evil from the world – an ideology rooted in revolutionary and apocalyptic foundations.   The choice offered by Rabbi Kahane to the people of Israel is framed as a war: "A war between those who seek to live like all the Gentiles and among the Gentiles, the nations of the world, embracing their culture, their concepts, their values, and their abominations – and those who recognize their uniqueness and their chosen status, embracing the holiness of a separate, distinct, isolated, and different people, living apart from all the rest, without defilement or contact with the abomination of a culture conceived in impurity and born in the abomination of their desecration. This is the war – a war of ideas: the Gentile and the Jew, the unclean and the holy. This is the war, while everything else is nothing but its natural manifestations and consequences."   Rabbi Kahane addressed "every pupil and every student (and, in fact, every decent Jew)," explaining that Kahanism "sees the struggle for the state as twofold: an external struggle against an enemy who seeks to physically eliminate us; and an internal struggle against the ideology of the Hellenists and the assimilated, who seek to turn the Jewish people into a people like all other nations" – with all the spiritual destruction and racism that entails." Presented to the author by Mike Gusovsky

Motion of the Kach Faction, presented to express no confidence in the government due to its unwillingness to accept the idea of the transfer  of Arabs from the Land of Israel (November 23, 1987).   MK. Rabbi Meir Kahane: "I stand firm in my beliefs. The Kach movement stands firm in its beliefs. We have held these convictions steadfastly and will not let go. We have persevered [since 1972], acting consistently despite arrests, releases, slander, harassment, and threats. And we continued. Today, everyone acknowledges the problem. What was once whispered is now openly discussed. This marks the triumph of the Kach movement, which remained resolute despite opposition. The public discourse has fundamentally changed. The same people who, not long ago, hesitated to utter terms like 'removal of Arabs' or 'transfer' are no longer afraid. This change signifies a victory over falsehoods. The claim that removing Arabs constitutes racism has been rejected. Today, the majority of the public and government no longer oppose the removal of Arabs on moral grounds. The debate has shifted to practicality – whether it is possible to carry out such a measure. I assert that it is possible. This represents a profound intellectual and spiritual transformation. This is the victory of the Kach movement."   Response to President Donald Trump's Transfer Initiative (January 2025) Itamar Ben-Gvir: "I welcome the initiative to transfer residents from Gaza. Over the past year, we have repeatedly advocated encouraging voluntary emigration. The Israeli government should act immediately to implement measures to facilitate this."   Bezalel Smotrich: "The concept of assisting them in finding new places to begin a better life is a constructive idea. They could establish a new and prosperous future elsewhere. I will work with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to ensure an operational plan is developed and implemented as soon as possible."   In Accorfance with Section 27A of the Copyright Law Twelfth Knesset: Bill by MK Michael Bar-Zohar [on behalf of the Alignment and Labor Party] – "Law Prohibiting Preaching to Transfer (5751-1991)" Definition:"In this law, 'transfer' refers to the relocation or deportation of a group, population, or parts thereof to another country, based on race, color, or national-ethnic origin." Bill: "Anyone who advocates for transfer or publishes material with the intention of inciting such actions is liable to a penalty of five years in prison." Explanatory Notes: "The path of racism, which had previously infiltrated the Knesset, was blocked by the law prohibiting incitement to racism. However, this pernicious ideology has resurfaced under the guise of the 'transfer concept.' This concept violates the values that Judaism and its teachings have imparted to the world, and which are reaffirmed in the Declaration of Independence. It is imperative to prevent such destructive rhetoric from gaining ground in Israeli society."

The rise of fundamentalist, "messianic" religious nationalism threatens to engulf the liberal democratic foundations of the state. This unfolding spectacle of horrors evokes the haunting imagery of Kaputt  (1944), the autobiographical novel by Italian journalist Curzio Malaparte. The title itself – Kaputt , meaning ruined, broken, or destroyed – serves as a powerful condemnation of fascism. It encapsulates both the catastrophic ambitions of fascist regimes and the shattered state of Europe in the aftermath of World War II.   A similar sense of impending ruin – caput  – weighs heavily on thinkers and researchers who examine the state of Israeli society and regime. The Israeli social psychologist Eran Halperin, for instance, writes in his book Marginal Warning : "I never imagined, even in my wildest dreams, that some of the leading instigators of hatred and racism would become normalized, let alone accepted and influential figures in Israeli politics. I could not have conceived that those once confined to the fringes of public discourse would now occupy its very center, shaping the mainstream of Israeli society and politics."   Reflecting on this, I recall that when I first began my deep engagement with the far-right a decade ago, it was still considered a marginal phenomenon. Many dismissed its emergence as mere "sleepwalking." Yet, in recent years, this movement has gained significant governmental legitimacy, solidifying its place at the heart of political power. This shift became possible only after the so-called "gatekeepers" – those institutions and individuals traditionally responsible for preventing extremist elements from entering the political system – were weakened or ceased to function altogether.   Halperin concluded with a stark warning, expressing his shock at how " the same hatemongers, and the social and political culture they have fostered, have turned Israel into a low-functioning society – a society teetering on the brink of internal disintegration."   Such societies, characterized by instability and eroding social trust, struggle to maintain cohesion. Without mutual cooperation among citizens, they become increasingly unbalanced, their shared values and collective identity fading into ambiguity. In this vacuum, hostility festers, manifesting in acute conflicts between opposing factions and groups.   To those very instigators of division and discord, I pose the question: " Are you for us or for our enemies?" (Joshua 5:13). I stand with those critics who view Malaparte's Kaputt  not merely as a war memoir, but as a sophisticated and chilling warning – a work designed to heighten awareness of Europe's moral and ethical collapse. If the current trajectory persists, it is undeniable that we, too, are walking a disturbingly similar path. Book cover

The writer, translator, editor, and essayist Shulamith Hareven proposed a distinction between "Messiah" and "Knesset," as metaphors for two opposing worldviews. The first sees the sanctity of "the wholeness of the land" as paramount, regarding the present era as the time of the Messiah and elevating this belief above all other values. The second prioritizes the establishment and preservation of a democratic and secure Jewish state, grounded in the rule of law.   The writer and educator Yizhar Smilansky (known as S. Yizhar) warned of a strain of Zionism rooted in perpetual conflict, stating: "There are Zionists whose worldview is founded on the infinite presence of the enemy: there will always be an enemy, and we will always fight him. These are Zionists of eternal fear, of eternal mobilization, of perpetual emergency, and of unending despair over any hope for good neighborliness and peace. The cemeteries await the hour of their reign." To them, "the myth of the eternal enemy" is not just an idea but the very foundation of reality. Any attempt to challenge this principle is perceived as betrayal, a weakening of national morale, and de facto chauvinism. Their worldview is built on a rigid binary – either them or us. In their eyes, the land cannot sustain both peoples together, and only force can decide between them.   Avraham Stern (Yair) – the founder and first commander of the Zionist paramilitary militant organization Lehi (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), who derived his alias from Eleazar ben Yair, a leader of the Great Revolt against the Romans and the commander of the zealots at Masada (first century) – envisioned a future steeped in war and conquest: "Many more will fight with us in our land until we impose our rule over the Gentiles and conquer new territories. For generations to come, the children of Israel will be sent to Beit Rabban [a term used in classical Jewish texts for a school where children encountered the wisdom of the Sages] to master the craft of the sword. For many generations, the Hebrew kingdom will remain a military encampment in the desert of the Arabian East."   Photography: David Rubinger (The National Library of Israel) It seems that today we are witnessing the dawn of a new era, one in which "Messiah" and "Knesset" are no longer separate but have merged, to a significant extent, into one. This fusion is a sure recipe for eternal fear, the reign of the sword, unending mobilization, and the loss of hope – a future trapped in perpetual despair.

Violence  – both its perception and, more critically, its application – serves as a defining characteristic that distinguishes radical movements from extremist ones. The role of violence, along with its lasting consequences – including repression, expulsion, and extermination – shapes the global experiences of various far-right movements, influencing their ideologies, political actions, and regimes.   Violence is a fundamental historical element in understanding extremism, not only as an ideology but also as a movement and as a regime. Extremism, by its very nature, is inseparable from extreme violence. Within extremist movements, peace  – whether internal or external – is regarded as a contemptible notion, often dismissed as weakness or betrayal.   For historical far-right movements, violence was not merely a tool; it was the very foundation of their policies and actions. These movements embodied violence at their core, fostering aggressive, militant, and hyper-masculine forces. Violence was not just an instrument of power but was often revered as a sacred, purifying force. The Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio asserted that "violence is the ideology of fascism [as an extremist movement]." This underscores the integral role that violence played in shaping and sustaining extremist ideologies.   Extremist violence was frequently justified as a necessary measure to prevent perceived national catastrophe. Such movements thrived on the notion of existential threats, often fabricating elaborate conspiracies to incite fear and urgency among their followers. This sense of impending annihilation allowed fascist movements to adopt radical and intolerant measures, arguing that the use of state military force should be expansive and permissive rather than restrained. In their worldview, violence was not just justified – it was an imperative.   Importantly, violence does not necessarily originate from individuals with pathological tendencies. Hannah Arendt, in her analysis of Adolf Eichmann, introduced the concept of the banality of evil , highlighting how individuals who commit heinous acts are often ordinary people rather than the inhuman monsters we imagine them to be. In this context, the perpetrators of violence and terrorism within far-right movements are not aberrations but rather products of a political and social environment that normalizes and legitimizes violent action.   Within far-right movements, violent political subcultures  can emerge, fostering the perception that violence is a legitimate and even essential component of the political process. In such environments, violence is not merely tolerated – it becomes ingrained in the movement’s identity, reinforcing its ideological rigidity and perpetuating cycles of aggression. Photography: Idan Yaron