Despite the slogans on "the weak", worshiping the centers of power is an essential part of the left's identity. And why did Shi Nitzan's incidental statement on "Israel today" become viral? • Opinion

• Jerusalem right-wing demonstration // Photo: Tzahi Miriam

1. Not without reason, the outgoing State Attorney Shai Nitzan's comment went viral. "In Haaretz, I am orderly," explained to the State Attorney's Office the reason he chose to give his retirement interview precisely to "Israel today." "It's not a wisdom to convince the convinced," he explained.

The natural tendency is to tie things to the safe embrace that Nitzan is expected to receive from the remnants of the monolithic era in Israeli media. It is enough to see the forms of reporting of some court papers that have been used as a defense battery before the prosecution's trenches, or the denial services provided by other investigations to the enemies of the system. Minister Ohana is currently a target for preliminary commando action.

But things need to be seen in a slightly deeper view. Nitzan does not mean only the empathic services he is entitled to from consciousness institutes, which have long been on a full vest, are true to his command. The semantics are significant here. "Ha'aretz" is a representative of the left, with a more elitist orientation, just as "Israel today" is a signifier of the popular right in its spirit. To say "in the Haaretz newspaper I'm tidy," means, "On the left I'm tidy." And this should be delayed a bit.

Protest against Netanyahu // Photo: Gideon Markovich

2. This is not a new phenomenon, it is simply surprising every time, in its boldness. The Israeli left, despite its subversive, defiant, and anti-establishment self-concept, ultimately has dominant genes of "dependency-on-service" relationship with the centers of power in establishment systems. He does not simply devote himself to power, he recognizes himself as part of it.

These are symbiotic relationships, and they are familiar to those who follow this particular mutation, for example in the dual relation to the military, and more specifically, to the generals. Our left amazes the sociologist Baruch Kimmerling's thesis on "cultural militarism" and distributes scores for literary and cinematic works based on their "courage" to "dismantle" the Israeli military ethos. But when a political order day comes, we retreat in one of anti-militarism to romantic worship of the so-called "shabashim." The intention is for the senior security team to leave the service, and sends a selection of its members every evening to a "concerned" interview on a prestigious debriefing program or on a common weekend supplement. If there is an urgent need, the good guys, with their sticks, come to speak in an "emergency" demonstration against Netanyahu, which is defined as "a danger to Israel's security."

This is exactly the same norm of "suspending the values" that urged them to admire Ehud Barak who "sees Netanyahu the white in the eyes." After the election, quite a few left-wingers could actually be seen using "salute" to describe their deep appreciation for "number one soldier." It is also the same norm that drives them with boyish admiration for the Blue and White Generals trio. Yair Lapid, this from the "greedy" speech, whose name and party even used synonyms for "mediocre" in criticism, is widely appreciated for retreating to the "fighter", who will lead to the prime minister's ultra-militaristic party, which is devoid of even women's democracy. Her senior is ultimately generic. One must understand that despite the slogans on the "weak", worshiping the centers of power and the perception of the symbiotic relationship with the "tops" in the state systems, they are an essential part of the left's definition of identity.

3. What is true of the "securityists" is now taking place in front of the "jurists". It is properly wrapped in an emergency rhetoric aimed at sparking public panic around the "threat to democracy", but in the end it stands in threes with its cap on its head in front of Dina Zilber, saying: "Your trouble - our trouble, your struggle - our struggle". It's hard to believe how fast and how effective this instinct is; Without delay, in spite of a powerful focus, the threat of which is actually an "on us" threat. Symbiosis in action.

You have to be really uneducated in Marxist literature to go back like a parrot to the phrase "protecting the gatekeepers of democracy" without understanding the irony of the revolutionary lexicon. They seek to protect the gatekeepers of hegemony, while at first glance it seems like a betrayal of the most profound, foundational values ​​of their ideological teachings. It is also the only way to understand how, along with anti-militarism, identity politics has been completely abandoned. The greatest enemies of the Israeli left, after Netanyahu, are personalities such as Miri Regev, David Bitten and Amir Ohana. The left screams like crazy to move a civilian-civilian government out of the world and replace it with a pro-hegemonic elite government. Political racism is also not ashamed to hang on the porch like a flag: Netanyahu's support can still be written in a newspaper that reflects tribal irrationality, protesters for whom it is permitted to tweet that they do not visit the museum. And it comes from the depths of the so-called "social left."

4. But it is not a betrayal of values, because there is no real meaning to the values ​​in real time, just as we see now. The aftermath of Benny Gantz ("Yitzhak Rabin," according to one of the commentators), and the fantasy that his party will lead a revolution, do not cause cognitive dissonance: in his party sits the chief theorist of the national law, against whom they set out to demonstrate tears, Aiman's outstretched hand as they disgusted as soon as That the photographer has left the room, and if they have a chance, they will probably be devastated - so there are more numbers to push for the next election propaganda. You won't be able to find a single leftist who can explain the positions of the party they intend to authorize to manage matters over the next few years, and in what way it launches into the so-called "social left daily" agenda - because it just doesn't matter. There are no meaningful attitudes; What is important at the deep level is the preservation of symbiosis with the centers of power. And white and blue is basically the "our people" party, mainly because it is "against them." Sometimes they were also unknowingly blurted out that it was "white" versus "black," but it was a cheeky "Pike News" by blacks to interpret it.

The right comes to the next election tired, maybe too tired. Parts of it, which tend to look in the direction of which side of the slice is approaching the knife with butter, are already signing a deal. But despite the blatant political racism, and despite the horrendous criminalization of support for Likud and Netanyahu, the national camp should go head to head in this election campaign: it is not built on a negative identity ("we are not them") but on a positive identity. He has a worldview, he knows how to justify it, and he is loyal to her. In fact, it is the deepest social power today that is vibrant in Israel, and it has something to say to the old-fashioned establishment that preserves the hegemony of the '77 survivors. Just look at who the first ones are in defense of the mechanisms, and you will understand who is striving for power relations reforms, and who has an interest in preserving them. The left has become a reactionary force, the old regime defender, while the right imagines a new future.

Now choose a party.