Israel's Deeper Crisis: Comparisons of Nazism Trigger Uncomfortable Thoughts

Linking the behaviour of modern Israel to that of Nazi Germany, Yair Golan, Israel's deputy commander of the military, set off a firestorm in an unparalleled speech last week, violating the highest taboo in Israeli culture. His comments took place amid a sombre occasion commemorating Holocaust Memorial Day, a day meant to honour the memories of millions of Jews lost under the Nazi government. But Golan moved the emphasis inside, cautioning that Israel now displayed the "revolting processes" that had occurred in Europe.

Particularly in political and military spheres, his remarks—which many interpreted as a veiled critique of Israel's present course—shook the nation. Especially, Golan's demand for "national soul-searching" over Israel's treatment of Palestinians connected with people. "There is nothing easier than hating the stranger, nothing easier than to stir fears and intimidate," he declared. Still, the reaction started not long after.

Quickly demanding a correction, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the comparison was "outrageous." Under great pressure, Golan soon backtracked, asserting his statements had been misinterpreted. Still, there had been damage done. Many in Israel's political class, especially from the far-right, were enraged. Leader of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party Naftali Bennett said that Golan's remarks could result in the ridiculous and dangerous conclusion wherein Israeli troops might be equated with Nazis. Citing concerns over the international ramifications such a declaration could generate, Culture Minister Miri Regev insisted Golan should quit.

Many Israelis find great offence in the idea that Israel, a nation rebuilt from the Holocaust, could be anywhere compared to the government that killed millions of Jews. Still, this is not unprecedented in Israeli history nor the first time similar analogies have been used. Critics like as Golan draw attention to a concerning trend in Israeli politics and society: the growing dominance of the settler movement and an ever more authoritarian political culture.

A modest and subtle change has occurred since the 1967 takeover of Palestinian territory. Not long after the occupation started, eminent Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz cautioned that Israel would become victim to what he termed "Judeo-Nazism," a word that startled the public but connected with a rising number of Israelis who saw the moral consequences of invading another people. Though not on the magnitude of the Holocaust, more recently leaders like Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset, have claimed that Israel is veering towards a militarised, exclusionary state akin to 1930s Germany.

Though usually underprivileged, these voices of opposition challenge the essence of Israel. Golan's speech captures underlying military and political establishment concerns even if it generated political upheaval. Among the senior officials, Golan among others worries that the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) are losing their moral compass. Events like the recent execution of a wounded Palestinian by Israeli soldier Elor Azaria have exposed the military's rising radicalisation among its soldiers. Large sections of the Israeli population praised Azaria as a hero, which raised questions about the IDF's growing politicisation and dominance under religious radicals connected with the settler movement.

Ben Gurion University political scientist Neve Gordon observed that Golan's remarks revealed a fundamental weakness in Israeli politics. "Every camp engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict wants to claim sole ownership of victimhood," Gordon added. "Golan's offence was to dare to identify Israelis as the oppressive agents." And in a society where national identity is based on the remembrance of the Holocaust, such comparisons will inevitably elicit powerful emotions.

Indeed, Netanyahu's government has promoted a story of ongoing victimisation, characterising Israel's actions as a required reaction to ongoing dangers. Netanyahu utilised his platform on Holocaust Memorial Day to warn of persistent anti-Semitism and threats from the Muslim world, therefore emphasising Israel's particular vulnerabilities rather than any universal lessons of the Holocaust. This language appeals to ingrained anxieties in Israeli culture but does not inspire thought about Israel's treatment of Palestinians or its progressively harsh practices in the seized areas.

These tendencies have been compounded by the settler movement's rising impact inside the military and governmental systems. Many senior military leaders today identify with far-right religious beliefs that support the growth of colonies and the deployment of military might against Palestinians. This has resulted in a militarised culture in which nationalist and religious demands progressively take front stage above moral considerations.

Although Golan soon turned around, his remarks should act as a wake-up call to everyone worried about the direction Israeli democracy is headed. Though awkward, the parallels he made might compel Israelis to face a developing dilemma in their national identity—one that puts the lessons of the Holocaust against the reality of occupation and systemic discrimination front and first. "There is nothing easier than to behave like an animal and to act sanctimoniously," Golan observed in his lecture. The issue is whether Israelis will pay his warning or keep following a road of self-righteous denial.