However, the Israeli groups who support Netanyahu and object to the “Crime Minister” campaign can be defined as “long-distance nationalists.” This term was coined in 1992 by Benedict Anderson who explored the origins of nationalism and had argued that exile groups can have nationalist positions regarding conflicts in the home country even if they live abroad.
In that sense, the long-distance Israeli nationalists not only contest the right to demonstrate abroad. In fact, this group is also accusing the demonstrators who support the campaign against Netanyahu, asserting that it is better not to “wash your dirty laundry” in public.
Those accusations are pointless for three main reasons.
First, this so-called dirty washing discourse is typical for people who have abusing partners in marriages (or in any abusive relationship) and feel anxious and ashamed about revealing their “secret” in public. Yet, the fact is that Netanyahu’s three pending indictments are not a secret to the world media that needs to be concealed. In the era of social media and endless news outlets, those local non-Israelis, who wish to know what the political stagnation is in Israel, do not need to bother getting themselves to Times Square in NYC, Dam Square in Amsterdam, or the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. They can just follow Netanyahu’s account on Twitter and Facebook and read the online newspapers of The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, or Haaretz.
Second, many of the long-distance nationalists use a classic relativist argument asserting that Israel is not like China, North Korea, Turkey, and Russia. While this is mostly true, I argue that Israel, unfortunately, is definitely on the nefarious track to become authoritarian. Recent examples that illustrate my claim include the arrest of protesters for no reason, invitations for police investigation of those who Tweeted against the first lady and police violence directly aimed at those who are protesting against Netanyahu. Those indicators clearly emphasize that Israel is on its path of becoming an authoritarian state.
Third, when a diaspora group of a dictatorial state demonstrates abroad against the homeland dictator, they are not perceived as protesting against their state, but only against the dictator. Demonstrations mostly receive public support in their host country. This principle should be applied to any support from the Israeli Diaspora to the Crime Minister campaign as Netanyahu and Israel are not one entity. So demonstrating against him is definitely not a criticism against the state of Israel. On the contrary, it illustrates a great concern to the country’s future.
These set of assertions by the long-distance Israeli nationalists sound just like any other political activities of diasporic groups of other nationalities. Not surprisingly, therefore, the number of protesters in support of Netanyahu is significantly larger overseas than in Israel.
The answer to this conundrum stems from the fact that it is easier to hold a nationalist position about a conflict in the home country when one’s civil rights are protected as citizen/resident of a hosting country, which in many cases, is a liberal democracy.
Moreover, the rivalry in the Israeli Diaspora concerning the protests abroad can be also examined as part of the global struggle between two worldviews, which crosses political boundaries – between those who support liberal-democracy and those who adopt authoritarian populist positions.
In conclusion, supporting the Crime Minister campaign is not a “shaming” act against the State of Israel in a foreign land or a campaign against world Jewry. Israelis should perceive themselves as belonging to a number of civic and political communities – both in Israel and in the country in which they live – because active citizenship is of general benefit to all.
The writer specializes in the diplomatic history of the Middle East during the Cold War and his research focuses on Israel’s foreign policy from 1948 to the present.