ISSN 2330-717X

The Israeli Right’s Hypocritical Criticism Of PM’s Extremist Coalition – OpEd


Immediately after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forged an alliance with the fringe political group Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power), widespread outrage ensued. The anger did not emanate only from the center, left and Arab parties, but from some on the right as well. Even the pro-Israel lobby in the US, known for its hawkish political views, spoke out against the sinister union.

“The views of Otzma Yehudit are reprehensible,” the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) tweeted. “They do not reflect the core values that are the very foundation of the state of Israel.”

But what if they do? And what if Otzma Yehudit is merely a different political articulation of mainstream Israeli views, reflecting the very “core values” that even AIPAC has been blindly defending since its inception in 1953?

Prior to the alliance between Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party, Rafi Peretz’s far-right Jewish Home, and Otzma Yehudit, which was struck on Feb. 20, Israel was hardly a liberal democracy that shunned racism and embraced political pluralism. Indeed, it must be understood that the inclusion of Otzma Yehudit in Israel’s mainstream political scene is consistent with the moral corruption of Israeli politics as a whole.

To protest the alliance between Netanyahu and the fanatical leaders of Otzma Yehudit is to suggest that mainstream Israeli politicians don’t represent the very chauvinistic, racist and violent ideals that the extremist party has championed since its formation in 2012.

Otzma Yehudit was formed by followers of the late Brooklyn-born Rabbi Meir Kahane, who advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and led his followers in many violent incursions against Palestinian Arab communities in Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Kahane’s Kach party, banned in Israel four years after it first entered the Knesset in 1984, was even then not rejected solely for its “racist policies,” as many in the media are now suggesting. The party operated outside the confines of the Israeli government agenda, thus it was forced out, but its violent ideas have persisted in the Knesset until this day. If racism against Palestinians was truly a Kach-championed political anomaly, how is one to explain the racist “nation-state” law, which defines Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” — elevating everything Jewish and degrading everything Palestinian?

The law is hardly different from Otzma Yehudit’s own constitution, which defines Israel as a “Jewish state in its character, its national symbols and its legal values.” It also defines Hebrew as Israel’s “only official language.” This suggests that, since the days of Kahane, it is Israeli society that has drawn closer to the views of Jewish extremists, not the other way around.

Kahane was assassinated in 1990 but his ideas lived on, expanding along with Jewish settlements to finally capture mainstream imagination. The outrage against the Netanyahu-Otzma Yehudit alliance is likely motivated by a slight degree of fear that the ugly face of Zionism has been fully exposed to the world.

As for AIPAC, it is clear that no amount of carefully worded diplomatic language will suffice to explain why the Israeli government is to be populated by people who follow the ideals of a party that has been listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department since 1994.

Netanyahu is desperate and, as history has taught us, when the Israeli PM is in a political jam, he will stoop to any level to free himself. Ahead of the last general election in 2015, Netanyahu made a final appeal to his supporters: “Arab voters are heading to the polling stations in droves,” he said, resorting to his typical style of fear-mongering. Unsurprisingly, he won.

Netanyahu is more desperate now than ever. His opponents in the center are merging their parties into a new list, Kahol Lavan (Blue and White), which has the potential to unseat him on April 9. Worse, the Israeli attorney general last week resolved to indict Netanyahu for “bribery and fraud.” A poll published the following day found that two-thirds of Israelis think that Netanyahu should resign if indicted.

Netanyahu’s opportunistic past is more than enough to explain his decision to reach out to Otzma Yehudit, but what is truly mind-boggling is the outrage at a political move that seems perfectly fit for Israel’s mainstream politics.

Even if Israel’s Central Election Committee resolves to bar Otzma Yehudit from participating in the upcoming elections, little will change in terms of the values and ideals the party stands for; principles that, in one way or another, also define Jewish Home, the New Right, Likud and others.

Otzma Yehudit’s platform calls for a war against the “enemies of Israel” that must “be total and without negotiation, concession or compromise.” But isn’t this essentially the same view as Ayelet Shaked, the justice minister in Netanyahu’s coalition and now one of the leaders of the newly formed New Right party? In 2014, just before Israel unleashed its most destructive military campaign on the besieged Gaza Strip, Shaked declared the need for a total war. “Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation… This is a war between two peoples. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people.” More than 2,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli war that followed her declaration, and over 11,000 were wounded.

Why the outrage, then, when the fringe party’s mission to “restore the sovereignty and ownership over the Temple Mount (Al-Haram Al-Sharif)” — meaning Al-Aqsa Mosque — is consistent with the views of most Israelis, religious and secular alike? Knesset members have made that call repeatedly, often from Al-Haram Al-Sharif itself, while surrounded by scores of soldiers and armed Jewish settlers.

As for the confiscation of Palestinian lands and the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements, as Otzma Yehudit advocates; that, too, is a common ideal that most Israeli political groups, spanning the right and left, brazenly champion.

AIPAC is not only being hypocritical when suggesting that Otzma Yehudit violates the “core values that are the very foundation of the state of Israel,” it is being purposely deceptive too. In fact, Otzma Yehudit’s platform only reinforces the existing “core values” of Israel — the same values that AIPAC itself champions without the slightest regard for human rights, international law and the principles of true democratic values. 

Click here to have Eurasia Review's newsletter delivered via RSS, as an email newsletter, via mobile or on your personal news page.

Ramzy Baroud

Ramzy Baroud ( is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of His book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *