Left Versus Right

Outside the settlements, what today is called the right is actually left.

By DAVID MARGOLESE
"Nous devons cesser d'avoir peur". Le leitmotiv de Naftali Bennett (photo credit: GUR DOTAN)
"Nous devons cesser d'avoir peur". Le leitmotiv de Naftali Bennett
(photo credit: GUR DOTAN)
It's election time in Israel. And as I listen to the voices around me, I notice that almost every conversation about how we as a nation should behave, begins and ends with what the United States will allow us to do.
I also notice that these voices are rather laid back in their attitudes toward the various candidates different approaches.
And finally, I notice that that these voices have a pretty uniform view. A view that essentially comes down to this. That we must in the end acquiesce to the demands of our ally, the United States, and create a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Not because we want to. Not because it's the right thing to do. But because there is no alternative.
As to left versus right, the only right wing party, Bayit Yehudi, is not even seen as right. Outside the settlements, it is for the most part seen as extremist and branded with the moniker 'far right'. Although an extremely impressive figure, most people in this country see Bayit Yehudi's leader, Natfali Bennett, as radical and unsophisticated.
Outside the settlements, what today is called the right is actually left. Both left and the so called right parties lead to a Palestinian state. If you want a Palestinian state quicker, vote left. If you want it slower, vote right. Or vote neither, and vote for an economic reform or social justice party who will join either bloc. In this Alice In Wonderland world where left is left, and right is left, it really is all the same.
But here's the thing. There's an objective reality out there. And it could be that the real right are actually, well, right in their vision. Splitting Israel in two and creating a sovereign Arab state on top of Tel Aviv, that abuts what is either going to effectively be Iran or Islamic State, versus taking control of all of Israel and providing citizenship to some Palestinians who wish to live in a Jewish state and sponsoring others who wish to leave, are such opposing concepts that one of them is going to be found to be right and the other wrong.
In this vein, the most recent conversation among our people, as well as the nations of the world, looms large. Have we so quickly forgotten the debate only a few short years ago, when we differed over how to respond to another country's national aspirations. Germany had democratically elected a government whose platform after World War One was "Total victory or total ruin". Germany was not run by some fringe, extremist dictator, but by a majority government elected on a platform of (a) persecuting and purging Germany of Jews and others to restore the Aryan race, and (b) attacking other countries to create a German empire for the Aryan race to rule over (by the way, speaking of the concept of Aryan, which means "noble race" -- the word "Iran" means "Land of the Ayrans" who the Nazi's believed they were descended from). Many German Jews were 'left' on the subject of the Nazi government, believing they could weather the storm and live with such a government.
The nations of the world, led by the regional superpower, England, were also left. England's government believed that where peoples had grievances, by removing the source of these grievances, a country would become less aggressive. Even when Germany continued to conquer and expand, virtually all countries of the world favored concessions to Germany in order to prevent war.
Meanwhile, the Jewish 'right' in Germany recognized that history was once again repeating itself -- that no peace was possible for them with the German government. They urged emigration, and over half of Germany's Jewish population fled before it was too late. One third of them went to Israel, while the other half of Germany's Jews of course, were almost all murdered.  
As for the nations of the world, after World War One, they had no political right wing movements, let alone governments. Except for a man named Winston Churchill. Deemed the equivalent of 'far right', he led the opposition in England's parliament and was seen as a war monger, radical, retrograde, and primitive.
A short time ago, the right proved to be right, as in correct, both within and without the Jewish people.
The writer is the co-founder and former CEO of Sirius XM Radio, America's largest radio broadcaster. Nominated by Harvard Business School as Entrepreneur of the Year, and inducted into NASA's Space Technology Hall of Fame, he now lives in Israel with his wife and family.