Eternal fascism

By the way, statements of this kind are a clear example of liberal silencing. They are trying to silence the fascists with false propaganda and demagogy, the essence of which is that fascism is demagogic and that it silences opponents and does not listen to them. Unbelievable.

Thanks for the answer.
Maybe I also have logical errors in thinking or biases, but these are my impressions-

1. How is this essay a gag, if they did not specify steps to be taken there, if some of the characteristics are seen?
The article only lists the characteristics of pre-fascism according to Eco's best understanding, and asks people to remain aware of them. There is no detail there on steps to be taken against those who express these characteristics.
Is mentioning unflattering or worrying characteristics a gag?

2. It is clear to me that some of these characteristics can also describe the extreme left, such as communism or the radical progressivism seen in the United States. But in Israel it still seems that most of the characteristics describe the right.
In connection with characteristic 9, haven't we heard from various figures on the right that we are in a time of miracle, in an eternal war, and that those who fall have fallen for the sanctification of God, and that they do not fall but rather transcend?

In my opinion, there is a difference between going to war because that is what must be done to defend, and going to war for the sanctification of God or for the sanctity of the land.

We can go further back, to the song of the Hatzel anthem:
“Unknown soldiers we have fallen, without measure,
And terror and death have surrounded us.
We have all enlisted for all life:
A message that liberates the emptiness of death….”

If I didn't know, I would think it was a translation of a song by some Islamic terrorist movement.

3. Eco does not claim in the essay that each of the 14 phenomena characterizes or leads to fascism in itself. It is possible that some of the characteristics in themselves are innocent. But the combination of several of them can herald fascism, and it should be noted, that's all.

Are you sure you read what I said?

1. This essay (as mentioned, only according to the summary) is a clear gag, because it has no argument but only stereotypes. Gagging is not only imprisonment but also denial of legitimacy and prevention of substantive discussion. This is the gagging that is prevalent in our districts, because it is the one that is possible in a democratic country.
Especially when most of these characteristics do not characterize fascism in any way. Their conclusions are incorrect and some characterize other perceptions and some are just banal prerequisites like a pulse. From this it is even clearer that their purpose is only gagging, that is, to demonize instead of having a discussion.

2. These characteristics describe any group that holds any ideology. But in the prevailing leftist propaganda, every position and every ideology are fascism (except their own, of course). Indeed, in Israel, these characteristics distinguish the right because it is the one that holds the ideology. As soon as you find a left that holds an ideology, you will find the same characteristics there too.

You brought here statements from various figures on the right that we are in a time of miracle, in an eternal war, and that those who fall fell for the sake of the holiness of God, and that they do not fall but rather rise. What did you learn from this? How does this relate to fascism? This is leftist propaganda that uses ”messianism” as a basis for demonization, just as Eco does with fascism. My thoughts are edited by David Zini.

The fact that in your eyes there is a difference between going to war because it is what needs to be done to defend, and going to war for the sake of the holiness of God or the sanctity of the land, is excellent. But what does that have to do with fascism? You only claim that you do not believe in their ideology, but you are willing to fight for your ideologies. And if you do not, it only means that you have no ideology at all and not that you are not a fascist.
The cheap use of fascism after the Holocaust is about silencing. Just like the use of messianism in recent Israeli discourse (which has no basis).

The strange use (and I express myself very gently) that you made of Yair's song "Unknown Soldiers" expresses exactly the same gagging that I'm talking about. You've become so used to this trend-setting discourse that you don't even notice that you're gagging here. Show me a child who has passed the third grade who would understand from this song that there is value in war in any form (which you attribute, unjustly, to fascism), or that it is support for terrorism. Do you really think that if the British had given us a state, Etzel would have continued to fight just because he wanted to fight or because he saw value in fighting for the sake of fighting? And again, you can argue that Yair was a terrorist, but this song doesn't say that in any way.
After all, the Haganah did the same thing (in their own way). They too fought to establish a state and not to physically protect life. Is that also fascism? So everyone who fights for something other than saving lives in the narrow sense is a fascist? You can criticize the Etzel, and you can say that the Haganah were more right in your opinion, and that's perfectly fine. But when it comes to the actual war for the purpose of establishing a state and not just Haganah, there is no real difference between them. And this is even if we adopt the incorrect thesis that fascism sees war as a value in itself.
An Islamic terrorist movement advocates indiscriminate fighting. Where did you see that in Yair's poem? That he also advocates fighting? Islamists also wear pants and eat.

This fake intellectualism of Eco's is a political agenda, in fact propaganda, disguised as thought.

Wasn't the struggle to establish the Jewish state a struggle to protect the lives of Jews who suffered under the rule of the Gentiles?
That is, a practical solution to a real hardship, not an ideological one (which stems from a divine promise).

The Lehi, and other parts of the right, believed in the eternal right of the Jewish people to all of the Land of Israel, and that conquest by war is a "land conquered with blood". Rabbi Kashtiel from the Mechina in my father's home claims that we had a duty to conquer Gaza (and other territories beyond it), even if the residents of Gaza "only offered us flowers". There are also rabbis in the army who preach the same idea to soldiers.
In Yair's song, I see part of a death cult, which in my eyes is horrifying.

I will say that these are just my impressions, as someone who grew up in a different education. I do not claim to be an expert on the processes that societies go through until they reach a full-fledged fascist regime.

Absolutely not. The Jews in the US live perfectly fine without a state. There was an offer in Uganda and they didn't accept it. It was a war to establish a state, and saving lives is on the sidelines and usually mainly propaganda that came to support the need to establish a state. Think of all the wars in the world that are fought for interests, starting with the US in Kuwait (the first Gulf War), or in Vietnam or Korea, of course all the colonialism of all Western countries, and many more. It is possible to oppose one war or another, and even hold the position (which is unfounded in my opinion) that no war is justified unless it comes to saving lives. But from here to accusations of fascism the distance is enormous, and this is the gagging I was talking about.
Even the quotes you cited from those rabbis who are really not my cup of tea, are no different in essence from the entire Zionist movement. The conquest of the land, and the whole question is only what land is to be conquered. Today it is less fashionable and therefore they are accused of fascism, but such statements in themselves are not really fascism. And of course, just because some esoteric rabbi makes a statement that sounds fascist (even if it really was fascist), does that mean that there is a rise in fascism in Israel?
In the margins, I will add that the emergence of such attitudes and references usually comes in the wake of real distress. In Israel it is a reaction to Palestinian violence and terrorism, and in the West it is a reaction to their overly liberal attitude towards immigrants. When you understand this, you see that the attitude that accuses these ideas of fascism is the one that causes their emergence. It is better to discuss these ideas in a matter-of-fact manner, to criticize them on a matter-of-fact basis, to say that despite Palestinian violence it is wrong to generalize and give problematic treatment to all Palestinians or to occupy all the territories under their control. This can be debated and should be done. But the accusations of fascism, instead of raising substantive claims, are what provoke these ”fascist” reactions. As someone who opposes them myself, I find myself repeatedly frustrated by my ”partners” in opinion on the left, as they shoot the fight against these views in the foot. Similar feelings arise in me regarding the struggles against Bibi and his government. The indiscriminate slurs about everything the government does, shoot balanced criticism in the foot and strengthen the support of the base.

Okay, I understand the problematic you're talking about in the approach expressed in the article.
But in your opinion, is there no value in creating general characteristics for phenomena? To identify patterns?
That is, one should not generalize but rather examine each case and each statement in their entirety in a sterile manner?

As a committed theorist who is constantly trying to characterize and define phenomena and to come to terms with them, I clearly see great value in trying to define phenomena. But what has appeared here is not a correct definition, and its tendency is evident. Precisely because I believe this is an important and necessary action, I rebel against those who do it improperly.

For example, a characteristic like you wrote in column 5:
” A right-wing perspective starts from a collectivist starting point. The ontology (theory of being) of the right is that collectives, such as nations, for example, are entities that exist and operate in the world. This is the basis for the right-wing political perspective (which sees the Land of Israel as an asset of our nation). Therefore, the right is also more national. Whereas the left-wing worldview puts the individual at the center.”

That is, it can be characterized by a way of thinking, but without bias regarding the dangers that any way of thinking (right-wing or left-wing) may lead to?

indeed

Another question that may be unrelated -
In your opinion, did Leibovitz sin by demonizing nationalism in Israel when he coined the phrase Judeo-Nazis?

In principle yes, but for him it's not even demonization. Just empty propaganda with derogatory epithets that have no connection to reality. Pure nonsense.

When you read an article, what makes you consider it credible and what makes you see it as biased?
What critical tools do you use?

Too general a question. The principle is that I don't care what the writer's intentions are. I care what he wrote. When the arguments are biased, it's a sign of bias. We check whether the conclusions follow from the premises and also why these premises were chosen. If they are not derived from the premises or if the premises were chosen in a way that blatantly leads to a conclusion without apparent justification. If this happens once, it could be a mistake. We all make mistakes. But if the arguments are stupid, and especially if the writer is an intelligent person, and if it is systematic and not a one-time stumble, the obvious conclusion is that there is bias here, intentional or not.

thanks