The Other "Right Wing"

Israel, at least at the level of its ruling elites - legal, media, academia - is staunchly, dogmatically liberal-democratic. From a country brought up on the socialist ethos, the Marxist dialectic and social solidarity, we have become permeated with concepts such as 'the rights discourse' and privatization. Individual rights and freedom and free enterprise as well as their radical offshoots such as anti-nationalism/clericalism/militarism are by now so ingrained in elite discussions that they are practically articles of faith. Even arguments for socialist policies are framed within the context of expanded indivdual rights. Many on the 'right' see this as the victory of the 'left' (read Mapainicks/Labor etc). Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, a testament to the complete ideological victory of the civilian/liberal/progressive Right Wing of Israeli politics.

What? That can't be! After all, the 'right' is the Likud, the Etzelnicks, the Greater Land of Israel messianic types! To which I will reply, rubbish and poppycock. Contrary to the simplistic dichotomy of left/right common in most discussions of Israel, both the so-called right and left are divided amongst themselves on quite a number of issues. A good example on the left was the difference between MAPAI's ambivalent-to-hostile attitude towards the USSR as compared with MAPAM and more left-wing parties. The split in the right is far less known outside Israel, and that is the topic I wish to discuss.

Yes, the right includes the Revisionists, Herut, Begin and the various land of Israel parties. However, ever since the establishment of the Zionist movement, and especially the Yishuv during the British Mandate, there existed alongside this ideological wing another form of 'right wing' (Indeed Gahal/the Likud was a merger of most of both wings). They came under different names and titles over the years - 'civilian parties', 'liberals', 'General Zionists', 'Progressives' and the like. Some leaned more towards MAPAI, others had sympathies towards Revisionist and later Herut, still more tried to straddle the line. They were perpetually splitting into factions, frustrated at their complete inability to wrest control from the dominant 'leftists' (sound familiar?). They had two newspapers which best espoused their views - Haboker and, you guessed it, Haaretz.

Unlike left-wing parties, which first built institutions and organizations and then went out to expand their ranks, by the 'civilians' it worked the other way around. This right wing never posessed an ideologue on the level of Berl Katznelson, Zeev Jabotinsky or Rav Kook. Their party leadership and organization was often weak and fractured; their positions on many issues 'moderate' but often vague and undefined. Yet they remained a force to be reckoned with, because of their powerful economic and cultural voting base, until eventually their positions became absolutely supreme.

So what was the force behind this right wing? The electoral base of the 'civilians' came, then as now, primarily from what is now called 'the State of Tel Aviv' area - the urban populace living in the vicinity and satellite cities of the First Hebrew City. These were the shopkeepers, the petty bourgeois and the well-to-do. Industrialists and farmers, lawyers and bankers, they not only represented a large section of the population, but also a disproportionate percentage of its national wealth. In municipal elections they either won or always represented a serious challenge to MAPAI. In national elections, they never came that close, because their image as representing the 'fat cats' did not endear them to the rest of the populace.

Elections are not the only measure of success, however. People who talk of the MAPAI 'Worker's Stream' of education's tend to forget that during the Mandatory period, the 'general stream' of the 'civilians' educated half the Yishuv's children. It is unlikely this situation changed, at least ideologically, for those who learned in the State of Israel in greater Gush Dan. As more and more of the veteran Ashkenazi (and Mizrahi) population moved towards white-collar jobs and became lawyers, judges and reporters, the influence of the 'civilian' position grew until it became the dominant position.

So what did/does the 'civilian right wing' believe in? Many will use the nebulous term 'moderation', but this is an optical illusion. They were 'moderate' on issues that didn't threaten their core beliefs, much like the Mafdal on security pre-'67. When it came to those issues, such as the Mafdal regarding 'Who is a Jew', they were no less militant than anyone else. So what were those issues?

1) Individual freedom and rights - especially, but not only free enterprise and free markets. One of the few consistent themes of 'civilian' policy was removal of restrctions on trade, currency exchange etc. As their most famous slogan went - Tnu Lichyot Ba'aretz Hazot (roughly: Make this country liveable)!

2) Balanced Budgets - the fight against spending and what seemed like has a long history dating from Tel Aviv's municipal policy against deficit spending. This 'rational' dogma led, among other things to Haaretz's war against unrestrained aliya, culminating in Amos Elon's openly racist dispatches from Morocco as documented by Avi Picard (Israel 10: 117-143).

Over time, other principles crept in, such as a rigidly 'civilian' identity anathema to the concept of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state. The concept of a constituion also eventually became an article of faith. The attitude of the early civilians towards Jewish religion - both on the ideological level and as a societal and political issue is a lacunae that demands to be filled. Suffice to say that I highly doubt the present open contempt and disdain of the 'civilian' Haaretz towards Judaism came out of nowhere, or simply because of their anti-occupation stance.

So there you have it. We are a country dominated by a center-right liberal-cosmopolitan ideology masking itself as left-wing because of a dovish stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 'civilians' have earned their victory fair and square; Tel Aviv has left both Jerusalem and Degania eating its dust. Whether we are better off because of it, is another matter entirely.