The Left’s Suicide Note: How 50 Years of Arrogance and the 'Holocaust Paradox' Created the Unbeatable Netanyahu

To understand the endurance of Benjamin Netanyahu, one must look past the superficial chatter about his "Media Poison Machine." The machine is merely a tool; the soil in which it grows was fertilized decades ago.

The story of Netanyahu’s rise is not a story of political wizardry, but a historical saga that begins with the ashes of Europe and ends with the strategic suicide of the Israeli Left.

The Holocaust Paradox and the Death of Opposition

The root of the current political reality lies in what can be termed the "Holocaust Paradox."

The destruction of European Jewry did two contradictory things simultaneously: it eliminated the internal opposition to David Ben-Gurion’s Labor-Zionism, but it also wiped out the internal opposition to Menachem Begin within the Revisionist movement.

In the newly founded Israel, this created a demographic vacuum.

Mapai (Labor) inherited Zionism totally on the eve of the 1948 independence war. But instead of an ideological Zionist reserve that was murdered in the Shoah, the state absorbed a traditional, religious reserve, primarily from Islamic countries, that Ben-Gurion molded into the ethos of Mamlachtiyut (Statism).

Meanwhile, in the Herut (beitar) movement, the elimination of Begin's rivals (like the murdered Abraham Stern in Palestine and the decimated Revisionists in Europe) allowed a man who was arguably less impressive than Ze'ev Jabotinsky to claim exclusive leadership. The Holocaust granted Begin absolute moral status within his party, just as it granted Ben-Gurion absolute governance within the zionist movement.

The Father Figures and the Step-Parents:

Ben-Gurion became the "Father" of millions. But fathers eventually die. When Ben-Gurion left, he was replaced by Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir, figures seen by the rising "Second tier Israel" as cold, and less charismatic "step-parents."

By the early 1970s, the public that had been educated on Ben-Gurion’s statism, but lacked the Zionist-socialist ideology behind it, began searching for a replacement father. This was particularly true for North African immigrants who felt the sting of cultural alienation more sharply than other groups. They didn't want labor-zionism; they wanted charisma and respect.

Initially, they looked to Moshe Dayan. But when Dayan "fell" after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the mantle passed to the Likud, built by the ten fingers of Ariel Sharon.

The Shift from Heroism to Victimhood

Here lies the genius of Menachem Begin, a shift Netanyahu would later perfect. Begin together with Sharon re-build Herut, into "Likud", a new make for the old Beitar/Revisionist political body - uniting center-right moderates with old-school Beitar underground warriors, opening itself to the Jews who yearned a new charismatic leadership post 1973.

This unification, created by Sharon (who as a young officer was loved by Ben-Gurion) transformed the Zionist discourse. It moved the dial from a language of Heroism and Conquest (the ethos of the Sabra/Palmach) to a language of Victimhood and Dispossession - yet it did so with high-ranking Zionist generals who accompanied the shtetel looking begin.

This language was based on a mutual experience of alienation, Begin representing the feeling of Beitar/Herut/Eztel/Lechi who felt like their role in the establishment of Israel has always been intentionally marginalized. And the jews from North Africa, who felt deprivileged in comparison to the Mapai voting block.

In fact, it became a coalition of the marginalized.

The Likud began to assemble a coalition of charismatic generals (Weizman, Yaffe) and intellectuals, making the party palatable to the old elite. Yet, the Likud lacked one thing: action. They hadn't built the country. To solve this, Ariel Sharon brought in Gush Emunim (the settler movement).

The role of Gush Emunim was to act as a "Right-wing Palmach" - a serving elite that provided the pioneering cover for Begin’s rhetoric of grievance.

This alliance allowed a vast voting bloc, which sought a home that was both "Statist" and "Traditional," to feel proud of, and to belong to.

They rejected the tennis courts of Yitzhak Rabin and the intellectualism of Shimon Peres in favor of a movement that validated their feelings of exclusion.

The Great Test of 1979: Charisma Over Ideology

The true nature of the Likud voter was revealed in 1979. Menachem Begin, the hawk of hawks, ceded the entire Sinai Peninsula and recognized the "Palestinian people." He betrayed every ideological principle he had preached for 40 years.

And his public? They remained silent.

The world understood then what the Left fails to understand now: This bloc is non-ideological. They will buy anything, even land concessions, if it is sold with a coating of charismatic leadership and anti-elitist grievance. Begin proved that the "Second Israel" was not driven by Greater Israel ideology, but by identity politics and a disdain for the Kibbutz swimming pools.

The Vacuum and the Rise of Netanyahu

Enter Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the early 1980s, the Likud’s charismatic giants vanished. Begin collapsed into depression after Lebanon; Sharon was politically exiled; Dayan died. A vacuum formed. Yitzhak Shamir, a Ex-Mossad agent, was less charismatic, and more resembled Eshkol in the eyes of the public, he could not fill Ben-Gurion’s or Begin’s shoes.

Netanyahu, a young diplomat in Washington, saw the opening. He possessed the perfect resume (MIT, Sayeret Matkal) and the legacy of his brother Yoni, the hero of Entebbe.

When asked why he joined the Likud, a party his brother was not naturally aligned with, Netanyahu reportedly said: "Because after the Lebanon crisis, there is no one there."

He knew the Likud base didn't need a builder; they needed a presenter.

They needed someone to channel the hostility toward the old Mapai elites.

The Strategic Suicide of the Left

While Netanyahu was positioning himself, the Israeli Left committed a fatal error.

From 1978 to 1993, the Labor movement abandoned its ethos of settlement and security, drifting toward a liberal, pacifist discourse.

They allowed themselves to be branded not just as "privileged," but as "Post-Zionist."

This was the ammunition Netanyahu needed.

He didn't need to build settlements (and indeed, he built far fewer than Rabin or Peres); he just needed to point at the Left and say: "They have forgotten what it means to be Jews."

The Unspoken Deal: Bibi and the Supreme Court

Perhaps the most cynical aspect of Netanyahu’s rule is his symbiotic relationship with the judicial system.

Israel Prize winner and one of the leading public intellectuals in Israel, Daniel Friedman, hints to a tacit, unspoken "deal" formed in the mid-90s, symbolized by the rise of Aharon Barak’s judicial activism.

The logic was simple: Let the Left keep the courts, the media, and the culture. Let them be the "Gatekeepers."

This allows Netanyahu to maintain the "Right" as the perpetual victim, the underdog fighting the "Deep State." Netanyahu effectively outsourced the management of the state to the jurists, while he kept the Treasury and the Defense. He created the perfect enemy. Every failure to build, every concession (like Hebron), every frozen settlement could be blamed on the "Leftist Bagatz" (High Court).

The Tragedy of Religious Zionism

The biggest dupes in this historical drama are the Religious Zionists (the knitted kippot). Historically the partners of Labor in building the land, they were pushed away by Rabin in the 70s and embraced by the Likud. But it is a blind embrace. Facts do not matter to this sector anymore. It does not matter that Rabin built four times more settlements than Netanyahu. It does not matter that Netanyahu empowered the very judicial system they despise. It does not matter that he has failed to achieve decisive victories in war. Because the Left has branded them enemies, they cling to Netanyahu, prioritizing "Sociology" (tribal belonging) over "Ideology" (actual policy results).

So, how did Bibi rise to greatness? Not by magic.

He rose on the shoulders of a Right-wing base that prioritizes charisma over substance, a base born from the demographic shifts of the 1940s and 1950s.

He was sustained by a Left-wing elite that, in its arrogance, abandoned its Zionist roots and refused to offer a genuine patriotic alternative.

The "Media Poison Machine" he created in Israel isn't the engine; it's just the exhaust pipe.

The engine is a 50-year history of a Right that looks for a King, and a Left that forgot how to be a Kingdom.