Veteran Israeli journalist and author Yisrael Medad has drawn a historical thread through Israel’s current political turbulence, linking today’s visceral opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ideological battles stretching back nearly a century.
In a powerful opinion piece published by JNS, Medad, a former director of educational programming at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center, suggests that the ongoing unrest and social fissures witnessed across Israel—including verbal attacks, violent protests, and stark societal polarization—are rooted in foundational disputes within Zionism itself.
A graduate of Yeshiva University who made aliyah in 1970, Medad has spent decades documenting Israel’s evolving media, political, and cultural landscape. Now residing in Shilo with his wife and five children, he serves on the executive board of Israel’s Media Watch and has contributed to renowned publications such as The Los Angeles Times, The Jerusalem Post, and the International Herald Tribune.
Not Just Politics
“Observers may be puzzled by the level of antagonism toward Netanyahu,” Medad writes, “but this is not merely about policy disagreements.” He cites flare gun attacks on the Prime Minister’s residence and the discovery of weapons at the home of a prominent protest leader as signs of a deeper crisis.
According to Medad, the political discourse has crossed into what he calls “a shrill, derogatory and ultimately dangerous” territory, with roots reaching back to the ideological rift between Labor Zionists led by David Ben-Gurion and Revisionist Zionists under Ze’ev Jabotinsky.
He argues that beneath the claims of authoritarianism and extremism leveled against the Likud party lies an unresolved struggle over the soul and structure of the Zionist project—one that began decades before the establishment of the state.
Historical Echoes from 1933
Medad revisits a lesser-known but symbolically potent moment in Zionist history: the Passover parade of 1933. On April 17 of that year, Betar youth marched down Tel Aviv’s Allenby Road only to be assaulted by stone-throwers, some targeting 8- to 12-year-old participants. The violence, stoked by Mapai-aligned institutions, led to widespread media condemnation of Betar and sparked a campaign portraying the group as fascist, based merely on the brown hues of their uniforms.
“The attacks weren’t spontaneous,” Medad emphasizes. Flyers were prepared in advance, and militant rhetoric had already permeated the ranks of the Histadrut, the powerful socialist labor union.
This period, he argues, foreshadowed future episodes of internal Jewish conflict—such as the Palmach’s controversial “Saison” operation against the Irgun and the 1948 shelling of the Altalena ship by Ben-Gurion’s forces.
The Roots of First and Second Israel
At the heart of Medad’s reflection lies a broader socio-political analysis: the entrenched division between what has come to be known as “First Israel” and “Second Israel.”
The former, he explains, consists of the Ashkenazi elite—descendants of early European pioneers who built institutions like the Histadrut and dominated the kibbutz and political scenes. The latter includes Jews from Middle Eastern countries—Sepharadim and Mizrachim—who arrived post-independence and found themselves marginalized in jobs, politics, and housing.
The Histadrut’s “red booklet” became symbolic of inclusion or exclusion. Without it, newcomers struggled to access opportunities, a system Medad describes as a “multi-institutional controlling complex.”
This schism, first identified in the 1950s and popularized in the 1970s, laid the groundwork for Likud’s 1977 rise to power and remains embedded in contemporary politics.
Zionism’s Original Argument
Medad references Jabotinsky’s 1925 essay “The Left”, which critiqued Labor Zionism’s emphasis on economic and agricultural development over the political goal of establishing a Jewish majority and sovereignty.
To Jabotinsky, the left’s incrementalist vision threatened the ultimate objective: Jewish statehood. He feared the emergence of a privileged ideological caste that would marginalize dissenters—an outcome Medad believes came to pass.
“Jabotinsky dreaded that the left wing would assume a privileged, overlordly stature. And it did. And they were,” Medad asserts.
Netanyahu and the Modern Continuation
Drawing a line from these ideological disputes to the present, Medad suggests that the animosity toward Netanyahu is not just about governance but about who holds power in the Zionist narrative.
“In a reality where the pecking order was defined long ago,” he writes, “today’s populist movements threaten the elite’s grip—and the backlash is fierce.”
As Israeli society wrestles with judicial reforms, security dilemmas, and cultural realignments, Medad’s perspective offers a sobering reminder: today’s unrest may be less about Netanyahu the man and more about a century-long reckoning within Zionism itself.
Editor’s Note:
The terms First Israel and Second Israel are often used to describe the enduring socio-economic divide in Israeli society. First Israel generally refers to veteran Ashkenazi Jews from Europe, while Second Israel denotes Jews of Middle Eastern or North African origin who arrived after 1948 and have historically faced systemic marginalization.
