Debate on Mizrahi Identity and Power in Israel

A heated debate between Dr. Avishai Ben-Chaim and lawyer Barak Cohen at Beit Radical explored the complex relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu, the Mizrahi community, and the concept of "First Israel" versus "Second Israel." The discussion evolved into a sharp internal Mizrahi debate about who holds power in Israel today, questioning whether the Mizrahi public still faces Ashkenazi hegemony or if, after years of Likud and Shas rule, they are now complicit in it.

Cohen criticized Ben-Chaim's interpretation of Mizrahim who disagree with his theories, accusing him of labeling them as servants of Ashkenazim. Cohen argued that the concept of "Second Israel" is outdated, asserting that Mizrahim have been powerful and partners in hegemony for the past 15 years. He contended that when the government is aligned with the Mizrahi public, racism becomes acceptable, particularly towards Arabs, with power and hegemony being the primary concerns.

Ben-Chaim presented a contrasting view, stating that the Mizrahi vote for Netanyahu was not a sign of being "suckers" but rather that "Second Israel" used Netanyahu and Begin more than they used "Second Israel." He claimed Netanyahu has undergone a "traditionalization" process, influenced by the Mizrahi public to use religious expressions. Ben-Chaim emphasized that political power, particularly through Shas and the Likud, has forced older power centers to be more inclusive and has been instrumental in the advancement of Mizrahim in various fields.

Cohen launched a strong attack on Netanyahu, accusing him of being a "lying swindler" since 1996, prioritizing symbolic gestures over improving education and the economy in the periphery. Cohen argued that true Mizrahi political power should manifest in investments in education and culture, not just in the Prime Minister's religious rhetoric. He questioned why Netanyahu, despite receiving strong Mizrahi support, appoints mostly Ashkenazim to key ministerial positions.

Ben-Chaim, referencing Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, argued that political voting is the source of Mizrahi rights and that Rabbi Yosef encouraged the Sephardi public to believe in themselves and embrace their identity as a moderate force preventing national division. He also invoked a parable about Napoleon to stress self-belief.

The debate intensified when discussing Shas. Cohen vehemently criticized the party and its chairman, Arie Deri, accusing them of nepotism and using Shas as a tool to silence Mizrahim, adopting rhetoric akin to the far-right Kahanists. Ben-Chaim countered that the original Shas offered a moderate alternative, suggesting that the current hegemony suppressed it and paved the way for figures like Ben-Gvir. He argued that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef channeled the energies of Mizrahi-leaning Kahanists into a more moderate movement, which was then crushed by the hegemony.

Ultimately, the debate revealed a deep ideological rift. While both Ben-Chaim and Cohen claim to represent Mizrahi interests, they reach opposing conclusions. Ben-Chaim believes voting for the Likud and Shas has empowered the Mizrahi public to break free from old hegemony, whereas Cohen argues that after years of political power, the focus should shift from symbolic gains to tangible improvements in education, culture, and opportunities for the Mizrahi community.