"I will establish a stately government, not monarchy," Benny Gantz declared, exhausting one of the more prominent pieces of imagery he employed in his inaugural speech. It didn't end with a clever catchphrase. "No Israeli leader is a king," he hammered home, adding for good measure: "There already was a king who said 'I am the state.'" And just in case the loaded association happened to go over anyone's head, Gantz beat the point across by attributing "behaviors befitting the French royal palace" to Netanyahu and his associates.
Such hyperbole isn't rare in political discourse, and it could have been ignored. But the comparison of Netanyahu to a king and his government to a monarchy goes far beyond rhetorical embellishment. It conjures a customary aspect of the demonization of Netanyahu and injects it into the political discourse. For a while now, the spin doctors and publicists have depicted Netanyahu as a "caesar" and his family as his noble court in caricatures and satirical shows. When he isn't "caesar," he is a different sort of tyrant: Napoleon, Ceaușescu, Mussolini, even Hitler.
But when this bleeds into the campaign rhetoric of a political rival, particularly one who purports to represent a "clean" and "positive" campaign and has vowed to uphold "respectful discourse," patience wears thin.
Firstly, and because only a person ignorant of rudimentary history can equate the prime minister of a democratic country, strong as he may be, to the absolute tyranny of King Louis XIV ("I am the state") in France; and because only an irresponsible speech can posit such an analogy without realizing the implication: All of us (or sadly, most of us) know how and why the French monarchy came to an end. The comparison isn't only preposterous, it is virulent; which is a particularly incendiary combination.
The comparison between Netanyahu and a monarchy is mostly baffling when it comes from the mouth of a former general. Not that I have a problem, in theory, with former generals joining politics (well, maybe a small problem). But I do find it difficult to listen to moral preaching about the dangers to democracy, especially from them. Must we remind ourselves from what sort of nondemocratic institution the former IDF chief wants to leap into the prime minister's office? Do we need to explain the significance of an entire career – spanning all of one's adult life, essentially – in a rigidly hierarchical system, where "things get done" only by commands?
I believe Gantz understands the fundamental difference between civilian and military life but who exactly is he trying to educate about democracy? A prime minister who has repeatedly run for re-election within his own party, and then several times in nationwide elections; who lost some of those campaigns and served as leader of the opposition, and who won most of them and has served as prime minister with the clear support of the public?
This boorish comparison is an outrage because it implies that Netanyahu's supporters are merely his "subjects." It is a vulgar insult to the intellectual and analytical autonomy of Likud voters. And while it isn't an original insult, its crudeness is always somewhat a surprise.
Well, esteemed commander Gantz, I am not a subject. My support for Netanyahu is cognizant and sober; I have applied my own sound judgment and world view. I don't need you charging up the hill to rescue me from the tyrant's clutches or from myself. Tether your steed, Don Gantzo, elections are nigh upon us, there is no need for an officers' revolution.
