"I don’t care a damn if the Israeli press defines me as a Nazi or a fascist."
(Rabbi Meir Kahane)
"They called us 'fascists,' although fascism is not the worst thing in the world."
(David Ben-Dor, one of the leaders of the Kahanist movement)
This discussion will explore the extent to which the Kahanist movement aligns with the concept of "fascism," drawing on key theories and thinkers in the field, as well as internal testimonies from former members of the movement.
The thesis I put forward is that Kahanism should be recognized as an "extreme" and "fascist" movement, a contemporary iteration of historical fascist movements.
Fascism should not be viewed as a phenomenon confined to one country, one historical period, or a single political event. It should not be narrowly identified with the specific configurations of European parties in the 20th century. Instead, fascism is best understood as a supra-historical concept, one that transcends its original era and fits within a broader framework of political movements that reflect its essential features. This approach allows us to analyze fascism as an evolving, dynamic phenomenon that shifts and adapts over time. Ultimately, the practical question is: Does viewing a new political formation through the lens of "fascism" help us understand it? In the case of Kahanism, I argue that such an analysis does indeed illuminate the movement's ideology, leadership structure, and the mentality of its followers – its "true believers."
The Rejection of Equality
One of the defining characteristics of far-right extremism – and particularly fascist movements – is their opposition to equality. The rejection of equality, or its "breaking," becomes even more pronounced in the case of radical right-wing and ultra-nationalist movements.
Rabbi Meir Kahane explicitly denied the principle of equality, stating: "The equality of Jews and non-Jews is nothing but blasphemy, repugnant to God's Torah and embracing the abomination of the Gentiles."
For Kahane, there was no value in equality or integration within Judaism – on the contrary, he considered it forbidden. He argued: "In Judaism, there is no equality in matters of holiness. In everything that God did, He chose one to be supreme and holy."
This belief was evident in his political rhetoric as well. Appearing before the Israeli Central Elections Committee during discussions on whether to disqualify his party, he dismissed Israel's Declaration of Independence as a "schizophrenic document." He reiterated his well-known view that a Jewish State of Israel and equal rights for Arabs were inherently irreconcilable: "Equal rights for all and a Jewish state cannot coexist."
Kahane decried those who "falsify and distort the Torah" by embracing foreign influences and universalist ideals. In his sermon "Beloved Israel," he accused such individuals of fleeing from the concept of Israel as a chosen people and bowing to the "idol" of equality.
Just three days before his assassination, Kahane published an article titled "The Special Halakhic Status of the Palestinians." In it, he wrote: "For many years, I have pointed to the clear halakhic status of non-Jews in the Land of Israel, which stands in stark contrast to Western democracy, a system that advocates total and complete equality among all human beings, regardless of their ethnic, national, or religious background. For years, I have argued that non-Jews have, at most, the status of a Ger toshav ('resident alien') – assuming that this status still applies in an era when the Jubilee is no longer observed."
Kahane was unambiguous in his belief that humans are not born equal – and that Jews are inherently superior to non-Jews. He wrote: "One of the fundamental beliefs of Western culture is that all human beings are born equal. The Western secular democratic worldview is founded on this principle. However, the Western idea of equality is contrary to human nature. Neither scientists nor ideologists will be able to change this nature. Only the path of Torah is adapted to human nature."
Although the difference between Jews and non-Jews is not visible to the eye, he insisted that it was an absolute truth – one that God Himself had revealed: "We, as Jews, believe and know that outward appearance is not everything. Internally, God has informed us that there is a fundamental and absolute difference between Israel and the Gentiles."
The Kahanist movement fiercely opposed universalist interpretations of Judaism – particularly those that emphasized the idea that "every man is created in the image of God." This principle, central to modern religious Zionism, was seen by Kahane's followers as an attempt to blur the inherent differences between Jews and non-Jews.
In a Knesset speech on May 27, 1986, Kahane confronted this issue directly: "In Judaism, without a doubt, in the Gemara [an essential component of the Talmud' comprising a collection of rabbinical analyses and commentaries on the Mishnah, there is no question that man was created in the image of God. There is no dispute about that. But from here to standing up and saying that the status of a non-Jew in Halakha [the collective body of Jewish religious laws, that are derived from the Written and Oral Torah] is equal to the status of a Jew? This is a lie. It's a ruled law."
The Kahanist movement argued that attempts to present Judaism as a universalist, "progressive" faith – one that conforms to modern values of human equality and anti-racism – were nothing more than distortions of Jewish tradition. They insisted that: "The blurring of boundaries and differences in this matter is an attempt to portray a 'beautiful Judaism' – a Judaism that is compatible with Western culture. Against this trend, original Judaism and its core ideas must be sharply reinforced. Every Jew who accepts the Torah as the word of God from Sinai understands that it is impossible to make compromises or amendments to it. Any attempt to circumvent or ignore the fundamental differences between Israel and the Gentiles will ultimately fail."
In a Knesset speech on January 29, 1985, titled "The Place of the Arab in the Jewish State," Kahane laid out his position with brutal clarity: "It is impossible for an Arab to have equal rights in a state that is defined in the Declaration of Independence as a Jewish state. As long as the Arab citizen must sing Nefesh yeudi ho'miyah [The Jewish soul yearns] in the National Anthem of Israel, Hatikvah [The Hope] – he is not equal to the Jew. As long as Independence Day symbolizes the defeat of the Arabs, he will not be able to celebrate it. As long as a Jew may be willing to let an Arab be a major in the IDF but not Chief of Staff – let alone Prime Minister – the Arab will not be able to feel at home. As long as the Law of Return [which gives Jews and their spouses the right to relocate to Israel and require Israeli citizenship] applies only to Jews, the Arab cannot feel that this state is his. As long as a Jewish member of Knesset refuses to accept the Arab's right to be a majority here, you are certainly despising him when you try to convince him that he is an equal citizen like us."
This explicit rejection of Arab citizenship – on legal, religious, and ideological grounds – lays bare the core fascist elements of the Kahanist movement: supremacism, ethnic purity, eternal mobilization, and the rejection of democracy in favor of religious authoritarianism.
The movement's vision is not merely far-right – it is, in every essential way, a fascist ideology adapted to a religious framework.
Benjamin Ze'ev Kahane, son of Rabbi Meir Kahane – the founder and leader of the Kahana Hai movement, who resided in Kfar Tapuach and was murdered along with his wife in a shooting attack – frequently quoted his father, emphasizing his belief that equality had become a false idol in modern times. He wrote: "The issue of equality has, in our era and in the hands of those who worship foreign culture, become a golden calf – an idol of lies. But God, the Almighty, rejects the notion of natural equality and equal status for every idea, every people, and every individual. He establishes definitions: good and evil, holy and profane, sacred and most sacred. And according to these distinctions, He sets hierarchical classes for everything."
In his article titled "Equality in Judaism – Without Extremism" Benjamin Ze'ev Kahane elaborated on this belief, arguing that foreign cultures and religions misinterpret the concept of equality in an extreme and misguided way. In contrast, he claimed that only the Torah, as the word of God, presents the correct and absolute truth: "As with many other concepts that foreign cultures or religions have misinterpreted and distorted in extreme ways, so too have they misunderstood the concept of equality and social hierarchy. They present approaches that are foreign and strange when compared to the Torah's outlook – the only truth, the word of God. Only in it will we find the proper and correct structure of things, without tilting towards falsehood. One of the fundamental principles of the Torah is that it is the Torah of Israel, a definition that strikes at the heart of those who advocate for equality, as it sharply distinguishes between Jew and Gentile."
Benjamin Ze'ev Kahane further clarified: "Whoever denies this natural inequality and claims that there is no difference between one person, and another, must also deny the superiority of the people of Israel, and ultimately, the supremacy of God."
He reinforced his father's teaching, quoting from Jewish sources: "Who is called Adam? This is the Torah's Adam because he perishes in a tent (Parashat Para). Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai says: 'You (Israel) are called Adam, but the nations of the world are not called Adam.' It has been explained that Gentiles do not possess the perfect image of Adam, only a crude external form. Only Israel embodies the perfect image of God, reflected in their divine election and virtues."
The State – Liberal Democracy
Extremist movements, unlike radical movements, do not merely challenge democracy while striving to preserve it; they seek to undermine and destroy it entirely. This principle was at the core of Rabbi Meir Kahane's political thought.
For Kahane, the ultimate purpose of the Jewish state was not democracy but the establishment of a Torah-centered state of holiness. He argued that Israeli nationalism was fundamentally different from secular nationalism and that the Jewish nation was inseparable from its religious mission: "The divine election at Sinai defined the people of Israel as a nation-religion. Its nationality is its religion, and its religion is its nationality – a nationalism meant to elevate the world. Israeli nationalism is fundamentally distinct from secular nationalism, which creates a meaningless and unjustified separation. The people of Israel are a special people – a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. This is not a racial or nationalistic advantage but a mission: to live according to the Torah to fulfill a sublime destiny and serve as a light unto the nations. Obeying God's commandments is the sole purpose of the chosen people of Israel, and the only reason for their very existence."
According to the Kahanist ideology, liberal democracy is fundamentally opposed to Torah Judaism – concept for concept. At the heart of this opposition lies a clash over the ultimate authority: "God, the God of Israel, is King of all the earth and everything in it. The end of history will come only when all nations bow before Him. Liberal democracy, which upholds the supremacy of human reasoning, is in complete contradiction to Torah Judaism, which requires that man bow before the King of Kings. If liberal democracy has triumphed, it means that Torah Judaism has been defeated. And there is no greater challenge than this."
Rabbi Kahane was uncompromising in his view that democracy was incompatible with Torah law: "Democracy? The Torah does not tolerate such nonsense. It is impossible for desolation, destruction, wickedness, and abomination to be deemed acceptable simply because a majority of fools, ignorant people, or evildoers have declared it so."
He dismissed concepts such as political freedom, rule of law, and democracy in Israel as manipulative tools of power: "Democracy in Israel? Rule of law? Political freedom? What nonsense. These are empty slogans, thrown around everywhere, designed only to consolidate power and suppress any genuine opposition. Not democracy, not freedom, not justice, not law – only power. Their own power."
Kahane believed that Western democracy and Jewish nationalism were fundamentally irreconcilable: "Democracy and equality between Jews and non-Jews are nothing but blasphemy – an abomination to the Torah of God, an embrace of Gentile corruption. This is a contradiction, an irreconcilable gap between a Jewish state and a Western democracy. And yet, this clear and obvious truth has been turned into a monster – a nightmare."
Kahane rejected the idea of a Jewish and democratic state as inherently self-contradictory. He argued that a Jewish state must be ruled exclusively by Jews, and any system that allowed non-Jews to hold power was not truly Jewish. He warned: "There are those who wait passively for the Messiah, but we will bring the Messiah through acts of self-sacrifice and sanctification of God, soon in our days, Amen."
For Kahane, the battle was between faithful Jews who wanted to establish an authentic Jewish state and secular 'Hellenists' who sought to destroy the Torah: "We must choose: either a Jewish state or a Western-style democratic state. Anyone who chooses democracy is anti-Zionist, an enemy of the people, and a traitor to the state."
Rabbi Kahane also championed authoritarian governance, rooted in the concept of Torah law. He questioned whether the Torah specifically mandated a monarchy, ultimately concluding that it did: "There is room to examine whether the Torah explicitly commands that there should be a king – that is, a single government. It seems clear that this is indeed the case. [God has decreed] that there be one leader, who will be able to rule and compel the people to follow a single path. Only in this way can the nation and the state be saved from the lawlessness that inevitably arises from divided leadership."
Kahane was among the first to publicly challenge the Israeli Declaration of Independence, viewing it as inherently contradictory and schizophrenic. He argued that its attempt to define Israel as both Jewish and democratic was an illusion: "The phrase 'Jewish and democratic' is empty of meaning. It is an intoxicating drug that obscures the senses. It is the opposite of reality. Democracy has granted legitimacy to abominations and crimes, stripping the world of its sacred order. Instead of recognizing that the world belongs to the Lord of all the earth – God, blessed be He – democracy has handed it over to the ignorant masses. Through its warped decree that 'the majority will decide,' democracy has declared war on the Creator, turning the world into a playground for greed, selfishness, and immorality."
The Kahanist ideology draws a clear distinction between the government (regime) and the state itself. It holds that the regime is merely an external framework, while the state must be ruled in accordance with Torah law.
The Kahanist movement sharply opposes the Kookist approach (which was founded by Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook and his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda HaCohen Kook). The Kookist school, widely embraced by students of Mercaz HaRav [The Center of the Rabbi, a national-religious yeshiva, founded in 1924 by Kook the father), equates the government with the state, arguing that despite its flaws and transgressions, it remains "holy" and must not be challenged. Kahanism, by contrast, rejects this notion, separating the government from the state and accusing Israel's secular leadership of abandoning its sacred obligations to Jewish law and the historical mission of the Land of Israel.
Rabbi Meir Kahane argued that even in the absence of an immediate Arab threat to the State of Israel, a far greater existential question loomed: "The real struggle is not external but internal – between Jews themselves. The true question is not whether Israel will survive but rather: Will it be a Jewish state? Or will it be a secular, Westernized entity that mimics foreign cultures?"
For Kahane, the Jewish concept of government was crystal clear: "The government exists to serve the state; the state exists to serve the people; the people exist to serve God."
Thus, the Kahanist ideology ultimately envisions a reformed State of Israel, one that would shed the "filthy garments" of secular democracy and replace them with the "royal garments" of the proper Torah-based regime."
Rabbi Kahane's stance on democracy was deeply contradictory. He embraced democracy when it protected his freedom of speech but rejected it entirely when viewed through a Jewish-Halakhic lens.
As someone who grew up in the United States, Kahane appreciated certain aspects of American democracy, particularly the constitutional right to free speech. He acknowledged that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevented government suppression of speech. However, he was also aware that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that speech could be restricted if it posed a clear and present danger, incited violence, or constituted "hate speech."
Kahane spoke positively of his American experience: "America was good to the Jews, and the Jews were good to America. A country founded on principles of democracy and freedom offered unprecedented opportunities to people devoted to these ideals."
Yet, when democracy was analyzed through a religious-Jewish lens, he outright rejected it. From the Knesset podium, he declared: "I am loyal to the laws of the state, but the Torah is above them. I believe that the State of Israel is the hand of God, the fruit of His grace, and a sanctification of His name after the horrors of the Holocaust – an unparalleled desecration of Heaven. But my supreme loyalty, and the supreme loyalty of every Jew on earth, must be to the God of Israel and the commandments of the Torah. And if, God forbid, there is a conflict between the law of man and the law of God, the Torah must be the supreme authority. The law will strike the mountain, but the Torah of God is eternal and pure."
Kahane firmly rejected the idea that a secular democratic system could coexist with a Jewish state. He argued that appointing non-religious or non-God-fearing individuals to positions of power was strictly forbidden. He based his stance on the teachings of Maimonides (Hilchot Melachim 1:7, 8), who wrote: "If a prophet appoints a king from any other tribe of Israel and that king follows the path of Torah and mitzvot and fights the wars of God, he is considered as a king, and all the commandments associated with the monarchy apply to him… Under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge."
Rabbi Yosef (Yossi) Dayan, Mexican-Israeli Orthodox Rabbi, who dwells in the settlement of Psagot, and had been a close associate of Kahane – credited Kahane, in a conversation with me, with exposing the inherent contradiction between the Jewish and democratic definitions of the state. According to Dayan, Kahane argued that the term Jewish applied not only to the character of the state but also to its rule. If power was not exclusively in the hands of Jews, then the state was not Jewish. Thus, the slogan "Jewish and democratic" was meaningless: "It is a deception, an intoxicating drug that bewilders the senses. It is a contradiction in terms – one word and its opposite." Dayan frequently cited lines from the poet Uri Zvi Greenberg: "Your Rabbis taught: There is one truth for the nations: / Blood for blood – but it is not a truth for Jews. / And I say: There is one truth and not two."
Kahane, in line with this view, opposed the Israeli political system outright: "I am a Jew and a Zionist who will do everything, with God's help, to ensure that this state remains Jewish and Zionist, not a democracy modeled after the West. We must admit, without guilt or hesitation, that there is indeed a fundamental contradiction between a Jewish state and Western democracy. And we must choose – without compromise – a Jewish state."
Attitude towards Violence
In a 1981 interview, before his election to the Knesset, Rabbi Kahane was asked about his willingness to resort to violence. His response was unambiguous: "Journalist: '[Would you go as far as necessary in using violence to achieve your goals?]' –Kahane: 'Yes... If things don't go my way, I believe that not only do I have the right to act against those who oppose me, but I have an obligation to do so.'" The interviewer pressed him further: "Journalist: 'Is the only difference between you and the Nazi Party in the United States that they are wrong, and you are right?' – Kahane: 'Yes. I can't put it any better.'"
Analysis through Major Theories and Concepts of Fascism
Umberto Eco: the Italian philosopher and semiotician, identified 14 common features of "Eternal Fascism." According to Eco, it is sufficient for even one of these traits to exist for fascism to emerge, though many of them often coexist in extremist ideologies.
Kahanism venerates tradition with a fervor akin to worship, treating it as an untouchable relic cast in iron. Its leaders view traditionalism as a torch meant not to illuminate but to burn bridges to modernity, rejecting the Enlightenment like a cursed book never to be opened. In their world, rational thought is not just suspect – it is an outright enemy, an affliction to be purged. Action for action's sake is their gospel, a relentless drumbeat drowning out contemplation, as if thinking itself were a sin. To dissent is to betray. Yet within this rigid dogma, an odd paradox exists – devotees are granted a peculiar latitude, a measure of freedom, so long as they remain shackled within the ideological cage. At the core of this movement pulses an unrelenting fear of the "other," a constant vigil against invaders, against foreign tides that threaten to wash away their carefully drawn borders. It is a doctrine marinated in racism – by its very definition, a creed that constructs identity through exclusion, erecting walls rather than bridges. The gravitational pull of this movement is strongest among those left behind by the promises of progress. It speaks most compellingly to the frustrated, the disillusioned, those seeking a banner under which to march and a cause that validates their grievances. The downtrodden and the overlooked find solace here, forging unity in a narrow, rigid vision of Jewish nationalism. They are instilled with a siege mentality, convinced they are a fortress under perpetual attack. The enemy is everywhere – external, foreign, prowling beyond the gates – but also within, lurking in the souls of their own people who have strayed from the path, forgotten their sacred identity. A paradox reigns supreme: their foes are seen as formidable, omnipresent, and dangerous, yet, with divine favor, ultimate victory is preordained. For the Kahanist true believer, existence is not meant for quiet living, but for eternal battle. To seek peace is to embrace weakness, to extend a hand is to court betrayal. The world is an arena of conflict, and to fight is to live. They are not merely believers; they are warriors, cast in the mold of legend, raised with the belief that they are the chosen among the chosen, the elite of the elite. Heroism is their creed, not a rare spark but an expected blaze. Yet this heroism is intertwined with a morbid fascination – death is not a misfortune but an aspiration, martyrdom the highest form of fulfillment.
And when the game of war grows weary, when the drumbeats of battle become monotonous, the hunger for dominance seeks new expressions. Power must manifest somewhere, and so it often shifts to the battlefield of gender, feeding a deep-seated machismo. In the Kahanist theater, masculinity is a weapon to be brandished, a posture to be upheld. And where taboos shackle the expression of raw dominance, the warrior finds another outlet – his weapons. The gun, the blade, the ostentatious display of force become his symbols, his phallic assertions, drawn theatrically at the slightest provocation, whether real or imagined. Individuality in this world is a mirage. Rights belong not to individuals but to the collective, a singular, unyielding entity whose supposed will must be deciphered and decreed by the leader – a self-appointed prophet of destiny. And just as Orwell envisioned in his grim prophecy, language itself is twisted into a tool of control. Kahanism speaks in a dialect of distortion, where words cease to mean what they once did, where truth is bent, reshaped, and ultimately sacrificed at the altar of ideology.
Zeev Sternhell: The debate over whether Kahanism qualifies as fascism has been long-standing. One of the most vocal critics of Kahanism was Professor Zeev Sternhell, a renowned historian and expert on fascism, whose scholarship earned him numerous international honors.
In an interview, Sternhell unequivocally classified Kahanism as a Jewish version of Nazism: "Kahane is a Nazi of a Jewish variety... The great danger is that the conformist majority, blinded by slogans of 'security' and 'unity,' is unable to resist the revolutionary fervor of the right. Fascism cannot be stopped by rational reasoning or discussions. It can only be stopped by force... In my opinion, there are greater disasters than civil war – such as the destruction of democratic culture. A society can emerge stronger from civil war."
Rabbi Meir Kahane responded with fury, accusing Sternhell of arrogance, elitism, and hypocrisy: "Sternhell's arrogance and his contempt for 'the majority' are among the clearest hallmarks of fascism. He represents the quintessential leftist fascist in Israel – the intellectual who believes he alone understands the truth. He and the left consider themselves entitled to rebel, while the ignorant masses must be led like sheep. Unable to debate with Kahane or the right, they resort to blood libels, labeling us 'fascists' to avoid intellectual confrontation. This is the true face of fascism, the true face of Jew hating Jews, the true face of frightened, assimilated Hellenists, who fear any genuine discussion and debate. They are liars, deceivers, and murderers, ready to use force against Jews while falsely accusing the right of seeking civil war."
Elsewhere, Kahane railed against “the haters of Israel”, describing them in starkly dehumanizing terms: "There are haters – deep, primal, internal haters – whose spiritual rot is a stench emanating from the depths of their souls. These are the real fascists, the real murderers."
Ehud Sprinzak: Another leading expert on the radical right, Ehud Sprinzak, concluded that Kahanism had evolved into an entity bearing striking similarities to historical fascist movements. He classified it as "a fascist movement in every sense of the word." Sprinzak warned that because Kahane and his movement entered the Knesset, many people mistakenly believed that the movement had "moderated" and become a conventional, law-abiding political entity. This, he argued, was a dangerous illusion.
In reality, Kahanism held deep contempt for the law, its members operating outside the legal framework whenever it suited their goals. Sprinzak identified two key principles of Kahanist ideology: "Illegalism" – The belief that one must disregard legal norms and take the law into one’s own hands; "Illegitimacy" – The belief that liberal democracy is inherently flawed and must be abolished. Rabbi Meir Kahane, arrested over 60 times on various charges, embodied both illegalism and illegitimacy.
He saw lawbreaking not as a crime but as a revolutionary necessity. He declared: "When revolution is accepted as a legitimate concept, even celebrated, in a world that pays mere lip service to 'law and order' – this is a development worth noting." Kahane understood that successful revolutions require only a small, committed minority: "We will never succeed in bringing the majority of the people to revolt – but we don't need to. A committed minority is enough." His son, Benjamin Ze'ev, carried forward this revolutionary mindset, telling his followers: "The decision to delegitimize the system means legitimizing anarchy and revolution. This is not something I am calling for – it is simply the logical consequence of events. Frightened and desperate people, deprived of their democratic choice, will eventually take their fate into their own hands – to save themselves and their children. This is the reality that the Knesset and the High Court of Justice have created in the Jewish state." Benjamin Ze'ev further insisted: "The main thing is adherence to the truth, walking the straight and uncompromising path, until the revolution."
In a brief pamphlet published by the Kach movement, one can find the words of Rabbi Kahane on the subject of "Law and Order in Israel." It is important to note the distinction that can be made between "law" and "order." "Law" is typically enforced from above by state authorities who are authorized to do so, as opposed to vigilante elements. In contrast, "order" manifests itself less overtly and generally exists because people choose to behave in a manner that does not require external enforcement but rather relies on self-discipline."
The words in the pamphlet continue to echo in the speeches and writings of the leaders of the Kahanist movement to this day. They link the argument of "illegitimacy" with the very core of what they consider "illegitimacy": "The main function of the government is to maintain internal order and protect the people from external enemies so that the Jew can fulfill his duties to heaven in peace. The duty to respect and obey the natural government is clear, to the extent that the government itself respects and obeys the Torah, the constitution, the kingdom of heaven, which is the supreme authority both for the Jewish people and for the government elected by them. The duty to listen, obey, and respect the authorities of the government depends on whether, in the specific case under consideration, the government adheres to the law of the Torah and the needs of the people."
According to this perspective, the "illegitimacy" of the government stems from its inability to maintain law and order; however, the issue extends beyond this concern. The fundamental argument is that the regime is not legitimate because it is not based exclusively on the law of the Torah, but rather on considerations beyond it, including the general needs of the people. Rabbi Kahane further clarified: "When the police ask a Jew to break the law, the Jew must ignore the illegal order. When the government refuses to allow a Jew to obey a legal obligation, he must disobey the government. For the sake of the people of Israel and the State of Israel, law and order must be upheld, because no opposition to the law of the Torah is possible."
In advocating for the desired change, Rabbi Kahane – at the very least implicitly – called for acts of violence or terrorism. In the collection Visionary and Leader, we find his declaration: "The body or soul of a Jew is in danger. There is no restriction in the world that stands before us. There is no prohibition in the world that ties our hands!”
Primo Levi: The Holocaust survivor and renowned writer, went as far as to state in his book This Is What Auschwitz Was Like (Heb.): "All regimes that deny, in law or in fact, basic equality between people and their equal rights should be called 'fascist.'"
As previously demonstrated, the Kahanist movement actively works to dismantle the principle of equality in both society and the state. It systematically seeks to undermine the rights of non-Jews, making its alignment with fascist ideologies an undeniable reality.
Internal Testimonies
Several former Kahanist members who later distanced themselves from the movement have recognized its fascist traits (in a conversation with me).
One former student from the Jewish Idea Yeshiva in Kfar Tapuach recalled: "Kahane's public rallies resembled the incendiary, shallow, and repulsive incitement of fascist leaders – stirring the mob into a frenzy, harnessing it to serve his ambitions. Rabbi Kahane emerged as a leader of squares filled with hatred."
A fellow student at the same yeshiva added that the movement displayed a distinct affinity for fascist aesthetics and symbolism: "The movement had a clear admiration for fascist imagery – structured marches, flags, aggressive slogans, and even hand salutes. The attraction to fascism was, in part, a psychological response to the perception of Jewish existential weakness." He concluded with an unequivocal assessment: "Did the fascist spirit cast a spell on the movement's leaders and influence their utopian vision? The answer is absolutely yes. The aspiration was always monarchical-authoritarian leadership. Rabbi Kahane aspired to power, intending to trample on the Arabs and the leftists. The result was a fusion of religious fundamentalism with Jewish jihad. The prevailing perception was that all problems could be solved by force – by mobilizing the weaker sectors of the population to ‘deal’ with external and internal enemies. At a public rally in Hadera, Kahane shouted, 'Fascism will not pass!' Then he turned to us and said, 'The leftists are more dangerous. One day, I will deal with them.' I asked myself: Is the rabbi a leader of the Jewish people or the leader of a gang?" The movement’s rhetoric and methods, in his view, bore all the hallmarks of classic fascism.
As Hannah Arendt wrote in her analysis of autocracy: "What was attractive was not their skill in the art of lying, but their ability to organize the masses into a collective unity that would support their lies through impressive displays of pomp."
Conclusive Assessment
Kahanism is portrayed as a distinct "fascist" movement. As is customary in this ideology, the Kahanist sub-genre is based on the idea of an organically united nation, embodied in the belief of "strength through unity." The individual is deemed worthless in himself, and individual identity must be completely absorbed into the group or social movement. The "new man" born within the movement is envisioned as a hero, driven by duty, honor, and self-sacrifice – ready to give his life for the glory of the nation and to obey the supreme leader without question. The well-being of the collective body – the nation or race – is clearly placed before the well-being of the individual.
Values such as nationalism (in the liberal sense), progress, freedom, and equality take on a new meaning in the name of struggle, leadership, heroism, and a war of conquest. The worldview (Weltanschauung) is explicitly anti-rational, anti-liberal, and anti-conservative. The Kahanist doctrine adopts an extreme version of chauvinistic nationalism, advocating territorial expansion. It shows no respect for other nations and insists on the superiority of one nation over them. The movement embodies a sense of messianic or fanatical destiny – the expectation of national renewal and the rebirth of national pride, encapsulated in the idea of "national greatness." It fuses myths of a glorious past with an image of a future characterized by revival and awakening. In practice, national revival is seen as inseparable from the exercise of power over other nations – through expansion, war, and conquest. Influenced by social Darwinism and a belief in national and racial superiority, Kahanist nationalism is clearly associated with militarism and imperialism.
The Kahanist doctrine, like its fascist counterpart, fosters a monistic belief in a single value system (most clearly represented by Rabbi Kahane himself) and a single source of truth (the rabbi's writings and pronouncements). The basic assumption of the Kahanist doctrine is that social and political conclusions can be drawn from the idea that there are fundamental differences inherent in various races – namely, between Jews, Gentiles in general, and Arabs in particular. In essence, politics is viewed as being heavily determined by genetics.
Kahanism is also a fundamentally religious movement. It is a religious-political ideology characterized by dogmatism – a subtype of "closed-mindedness" that involves an unwillingness to engage with, or even seriously consider, relevant alternatives to its already established beliefs.
Looking retrospectively, the Kahanist doctrine is defined by its rejection of the distinction between religion and politics. In this framework, politics is, in effect, religion. This means that the Kahanist doctrine is not confined to the personal or private sphere but is understood as the organizing principle of public existence – including law, public behavior, and governance. The ultimate aspiration is the establishment of a Halachic or Torah-based state. In place of the existing secular system, a new order must be established – one in which all aspects of life are governed by ultimate religious principles. The power of fundamentalism lies in its ability to mobilize believers and generate vigorous, militant, and sometimes violent political activity. One result of such mobilization is the willingness of activists to engage in illegal political actions and the use of violence. The justification provided for such activities is that they are carried out in accordance with the will of God, with the intention of eradicating evil from the world – an ideology rooted in revolutionary and apocalyptic foundations.
The choice offered by Rabbi Kahane to the people of Israel is framed as a war: "A war between those who seek to live like all the Gentiles and among the Gentiles, the nations of the world, embracing their culture, their concepts, their values, and their abominations – and those who recognize their uniqueness and their chosen status, embracing the holiness of a separate, distinct, isolated, and different people, living apart from all the rest, without defilement or contact with the abomination of a culture conceived in impurity and born in the abomination of their desecration. This is the war – a war of ideas: the Gentile and the Jew, the unclean and the holy. This is the war, while everything else is nothing but its natural manifestations and consequences."
Rabbi Kahane addressed "every pupil and every student (and, in fact, every decent Jew)," explaining that Kahanism "sees the struggle for the state as twofold: an external struggle against an enemy who seeks to physically eliminate us; and an internal struggle against the ideology of the Hellenists and the assimilated, who seek to turn the Jewish people into a people like all other nations" – with all the spiritual destruction and racism that entails."
