By the way, statements of this kind are a clear example of liberal silencing. They try to silence the fascists with false propaganda and demagoguery, the main point of which is that fascism is demagogic and silences its opponents and doesn’t listen to them. Unbelievable.

Thank you for the answer.
Maybe I also have logical failures in my thinking or biases, but these are my impressions—

1. How is this essay silencing people, if they didn’t spell out any steps to be taken if one sees some of these characteristics?
The article only details the characteristics of proto-fascism according to Eco’s best understanding, and asks people to remain alert to them. There is no detail there at all about steps that should be taken against someone who expresses these characteristics.
Is pointing out unflattering or worrying characteristics a form of silencing?

2. It’s clear to me that some of these characteristics can also describe the far left, such as communism or radical progressivism as seen in the United States. But in Israel it still seems that most of the characteristics describe the right in particular.
Regarding characteristic 9, haven’t we heard various figures on the right say that we are in a time of miracle, in an eternal war, and that the fallen died for the sanctification of God’s name, and that they do not fall but are elevated?

To my mind there is a difference between going out to war because that’s what must be done in order to defend ourselves, and going out to war for the sanctification of God’s name or the holiness of the land.

You can go further back, to the Irgun anthem:
“We are anonymous soldiers, without uniforms,
And around us are terror and the shadow of death.
All of us have been enlisted for life:
Only death releases us from the ranks….”

If I didn’t know better, I would think this was a translation of a song of some Islamic terror movement.

3. Eco does not claim in the essay that each of the 14 phenomena, by itself, characterizes or leads to fascism. It may be that some of the characteristics by themselves are innocent. But a combination of several of them can herald fascism, and one should pay attention to that, that’s all.

Are you sure you read what I wrote?

1. This essay (again, only based on the summary) is a clear case of silencing, because it contains no argument at all, only stereotypes. Silencing is not only putting people in prison, but also denying legitimacy and preventing substantive discussion. That is the prevalent kind of silencing in our districts, because it is the kind possible in a democratic state.
In particular when almost all of these characteristics do not characterize fascism in any way. Some of them are false, some characterize other outlooks too, and some are just banal prerequisites like a heartbeat. That makes it even clearer that their whole purpose is just silencing—that is, demonization instead of discussion.

2. These characteristics describe any group that holds any ideology. But in standard left-wing propaganda, every position and every ideology is fascism (except theirs, of course). And indeed in Israel these characteristics single out the right because it is the side that holds an ideology. Once you find a left that holds an ideology, you’ll find the same characteristics there too.

You brought statements from various figures on the right that we are in a miraculous time, in an eternal war, and that the fallen died for the sanctification of God’s name, and that they do not fall but are elevated. What did you learn from that? How does that relate to fascism? It is left-wing propaganda that uses “messianism” as a basis for demonization exactly the way Eco does with fascism. See the entry David Zini.

The fact that in your eyes there is a difference between going to war because that’s what needs to be done to defend ourselves, and going to war for the sanctification of God’s name or the holiness of the land—that’s fine. But what does that have to do with fascism? You’re only arguing that you don’t believe in their ideology, but you are willing to fight for your ideologies. And if you’re not, that only means you have no ideology at all, not that you aren’t fascist.
The cheapening use of fascism after the Holocaust is about silencing. Exactly like the use of “messianism” in recent Israeli discourse (which is baseless).

The bizarre use you made of Yair’s song “Anonymous Soldiers” (and I am putting it very mildly) expresses exactly the same silencing I’m talking about. You’ve become so accustomed to this tendentious discourse that you don’t even notice that you are silencing people here. Show me a child past third grade who would understand from this song that there is value in war as such (which you wrongly attribute to fascism), or that this is support for terrorism. Do you really think that if the British had given us a state, the Irgun would have kept fighting just because it felt like fighting, or because it saw value in fighting for fighting’s sake? And again, you can argue that Yair was a terrorist, but this song does not say that in any way.
After all, the Haganah did the same thing too (in their own way). They also fought to establish a state and not for the physical defense of life. Is that fascism too? So anyone who fights for something other than saving lives in the narrow sense is a fascist? You may have criticism of the Irgun, and you may say that in your view the Haganah were more justified, and that’s perfectly fine. But regarding the very fact of fighting for the goal of establishing a state and not only for defense, there is no real difference between them. And that is so even if one adopts the incorrect thesis that fascism sees war in itself as a value.
An Islamic terror movement advocates indiscriminate fighting. Where did you see that in Yair’s song? In the fact that he too advocates fighting? Islamists also wear pants and eat.

This fake intellectualism in the style of Eco is a political agenda—in effect, propaganda—in the guise of thought.

Wasn’t the struggle to establish the Jewish state a struggle to protect the lives of Jews who suffered under gentile rule?
That is, a practical solution to a real distress, and not an ideological one (stemming from a divine promise).

Lehi, and other parts of the right, believed in the eternal right of the people of Israel to the whole Land of Israel, and conquest through war—”a land is conquered by blood.” Rabbi Kashtiel from the pre-military academy in Eli argues that we had an obligation to conquer Gaza (and other territories beyond it), even if the residents of Gaza “had 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 cult of death, which to me is horrifying.

I’ll say that these are only my impressions, as someone who grew up with a different education. I don’t claim to be an expert on the processes societies go through before they reach a full fascist regime.

Not at all. Jews in the United States live just fine without a state. There was a proposal in Uganda and they didn’t accept it. It was a war to establish a state, and saving lives is marginal and usually mostly propaganda used to support the need to establish a state. Think of all the wars in the world that are fought for interests, starting with the U.S. in Kuwait (the First Gulf War), or in Vietnam or Korea, of course all the colonialism of all the Western countries, and many more. One can oppose this or that war, and even hold the view (which in my opinion is absurd) that no war is justified unless it comes to save lives. But from there to accusations of fascism the distance is enormous, and that is the silencing I was talking about.
Even the quotations you brought from those rabbis, who are very far from my cup of tea, are not essentially different from the entire Zionist movement. Conquering the land—and the whole question is only what is the land that is to be conquered. Today it’s less fashionable, so they are accused of fascism, but such statements in themselves are absolutely not fascism. And of course the fact that one or another such esoteric rabbi says something that sounds fascist (even if it really were fascist), does that mean there is a rise of fascism in Israel?
At the margins of my remarks I would add that the awakening of such approaches and attitudes usually comes in the wake of real distress. In Israel it is a response to Palestinian violence and terrorism, and in the West it is a response to an overly liberal attitude toward immigrants. When one understands that, one sees that the approach that accuses these ideas of fascism is the very thing that causes them to awaken. It is better to discuss these ideas substantively, criticize them on substantive grounds, to say that despite the Palestinian violence it is wrong to generalize and give all Palestinians problematic treatment, or to conquer all the territories under their control. One can argue about that, and it is proper to do so. But accusations of fascism, instead of raising substantive arguments, are what arouse these “fascist” reactions. As someone who opposes them myself, I repeatedly find myself frustrated by my “partners” on the left, because they are shooting the struggle against these views in the foot. Similar feelings arise in me regarding the struggles against Bibi and his government. The indiscriminate attacks on everything the government does shoot balanced criticism in the foot and strengthen the support of the base.

Okay, I understood the problematic aspect you’re talking about in the approach expressed in the article.
But in your view is there no value in creating general characteristics for phenomena? In identifying patterns?
That is, one should not generalize, but rather examine each case and each statement on its own in a sterile way?

As a devoted theoretician who is constantly engaged in trying to characterize and define phenomena and get to their meaning, of course I see great value in trying to define phenomena. But what appeared here is not a correct definition, and its tendentiousness is obvious. Precisely because in my view this is an important and necessary activity, I protest against those who do it improperly.

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

That is, one can characterize according to a form of thinking, but without tendentiousness regarding the dangers that each form of thinking (right-wing or left-wing) may lead to?

Indeed.

One more question that may not be related—
In your opinion, did Leibowitz sin by demonizing nationalism in Israel when he coined the expression “Judeo-Nazis”?

In principle yes, but with him it isn’t even demonization. Just empty propaganda with pejorative labels that have no connection to reality. Mere nonsense.

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

Too general a question. The principle is that I’m not interested in the writer’s intentions. I’m interested in what he wrote. When the arguments are biased, that’s a sign of tendentiousness. One checks whether the conclusions follow from the premises, and also why those premises were chosen. If the conclusions do not derive from the premises, or if the premises were chosen in a way that blatantly leads to the conclusion without apparent justification. If it happens once, that could be a mistake. We all make mistakes. But if the arguments are stupid, especially if the writer is an intelligent person, and if it’s systematic and not a one-time slip, the required conclusion is that there is bias here, whether intentional or not.

Thank you