It's not for nothing that a seemingly innocuous statement by outgoing State Attorney Shai Nitzan went viral. "I'm taken care of at Haaretz," he told senior state prosecutors, explaining why he instead chose to grant his retirement interview to Israel Hayom. "Convincing the convinced is no big deal," he told them.
The natural inclination is to tie his comment to the warm embrace he is certain to receive from the remnants of Israel's journalistic monolith. We watched as numerous legal reporters rallied in defense of the State Attorney's Office, and while certain investigative reporters defamed the enemies of the justice system. Justice Minister Amir Ohana is, at present, their primary target on the front lines of this battle.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
But we need to look at things a little more deeply. Nitzan isn't referring to the empathetic coverage he routinely receives from the gatekeepers, who are ready to shield and fight for him when the need arises. The semantics are significant here. Haaretz represents the Left, and has a more elitist orientation, while Israel Hayom is a popular right-wing outlet at its core. To say "I'm taken care of at Haaretz" means one thing: "I'm taken care of on the Left." And this is precisely where we must pause to take a closer look.
This isn't a new phenomenon, but the brazenness of it is always a bit jarring. The Israeli Left, although it perceives itself as a subversive, anti-establishment force, ultimately carries dominants genes of dependence on establishment power. It doesn't just give in to power; it identifies itself as part of the power structure.
It is a symbiotic relationship and is entirely familiar to those keeping tabs on this unique mutation; for example when it comes to dual loyalties to the army, or to be more exact, to the generals. The Israeli Left readily evokes the "cultural militarism" theorized by late sociologist Baruch Kimmerling, while grading books and films based on how "bravely" they "dismantle the Israeli military ethos." But when push comes to shove politically, the Left instantaneously drops its anti-militarism to romanticize and fawn over former generals. These generals hail from the highest echelons of the defense establishment, and every election season they are routinely dispatched to media outlets to convey their "concerns." If an acute need arises, these good 'ol boys are ready in a pinch to speak at an "emergency" rally against Netanyahu, who they call a "danger to Israel's security."
What's good for these "defense experts" now applies to the "legal experts" as well. The message is appropriately wrapped in the rhetoric of urgency meant to fan public panic around the "threat to democracy." At the end of the day, however, this is simply akin to snapping to attention, berets firmly on their heads, behind Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber. That is to say: "Your problems are our problems – your struggle is our struggle." It's hard to believe how quickly and how efficiently this instinct is activated; the Left flocks to establishment power like a moth to a flame, decrying the threat against the establishment as a threat against "us." It is symbiosis in action.
But this isn't a betrayal of principles; because when the gloves come off these principles essentially lose all meaning, which is precisely what we are witnessing now. The clamoring for Benny Gantz and the fantasy that his Blue and White party will spearhead a revolution doesn't arouse cognitive dissonance. One member of his party is the leading theorist behind the controversial nation-state law, whom they tearfully protested against. They recoiled from the outstretched hand of Ayman Odeh the moment there were no more cameras around. And if they get the chance, they will apparently reduce Gaza to rubble – so they have more statistics to use in their next propaganda campaign.
You can't find a leftist capable of explaining the policy positions their parties intend to implement in the coming years. These positions don't matter because they have no meaning; what's important on the fundamental level is preserving the symbiosis with the power centers. And Blue and White, by definition, is a party of "our people," mainly because it is "against those other people." Occasionally, unintentionally, they blurt out that it's the "whites" against the "blacks," which they promptly disregard as "fake news" brazenly misconstrued by those very darker-skinned folk.
The Right is entering this election tired, perhaps too tired. Some people on the Right, specifically those who look for which side of the bread is going to be buttered, have already cut bait. But despite the callous racism, and despite the awful criminalization of support for Likud and Netanyahu, the nationalist camp needs to approach this election with its head held high: It isn't predicated on negative self-perception ("us or them"), rather positive. It has a worldview, which it is capable of explaining and to which it is loyal. Essentially, it is the deepest popular social force in Israel today, and it has something to tell the outdated establishment clinging to its pre-1977 hegemony.
Simply look at those who jump to defend the establishment, and understand who wants to reform the power structure and who wants to preserve it. The Left has become a reactionary force, the protector of the old guard, while the Right is imagining a new future.
