• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

How is Israel Going to Retaliate Against Hamas? Part 3

“They” (who constantly attack Israel) are not all on team Hamas, then?
There are on Team Hamas, yes. However, their reasons are different. Some of them hate Israel, whilst others have fallen for Hamas propaganda. The end result, though, is the same: a pretence of condemning Hamas, whilst fully supporting them, and utterly condemning Israel. If others see in black and white, and I comment on this, it's not me that's thinking in binary terms.
 
In post #1395, I noted that both Oron Shaul and Hadar Goldin weren't included in the list of 'hostages' but news is breaking now that IDF has recovered the body of Shaul, a soldier who was killed in the 2014 Israel-Hamas war, in a special forces operation.

 
There are on Team Hamas, yes. However, their reasons are different. Some of them hate Israel, whilst others have fallen for Hamas propaganda. The end result, though, is the same: a pretence of condemning Hamas, whilst fully supporting them, and utterly condemning Israel. If others see in black and white, and I comment on this, it's not me that's thinking in binary terms.
So I am on team Hamas also, then. Very interesting.

And yes, you are thinking in binary terms.
 
How am I thinking in binary terms? Just throwing out an assertion like that makes it neither clear nor true. Care to explain?
Because you claim that anybody who “attacks” Israel is on team Hamas, even when they attack Hamas. And you define “attack” so loosely that even people who express their support for Israel’s existence (like I do) are “attacking” Israel. You demonstrate clearly that there is no middle ground for you.

This is despite your own claimed criticism of Israel’s actions on the West Bank, which should likewise be an “attack”, so that you should also reckon yourself on Team Hamas.
 
One of my friends figures I’m disrespectful of Israel because I refer to Netanyahu as Bibi sometimes, and he figures that it’s supposed to be belittling. It’s a habit I got into via chatting a lot with my bestie in Jerusalem. I mean, I don’t respect the guy, but I’m not trying to call him names either.
 
Last edited:
One of my friends figures I’m disrespectful of Israel because I refer to Netanyahu as Bibi sometimes, and he figures that it’s supposed to be belittling.
I don’t know the story behind this, but I thought that his friends also called him Bibi.
 
I suspect there are some here who would attack Israel merely for being Jewish even if Hamas had never existed. Hamas is merely a convenient focal point.
I don't think they do it specifically for anti-Semitic reasons, but because Palestinians are considered to have a higher position on the Oppression Olympics podium.
 
I figured out you were posting towards the pro Hamas end of the spectrum months ago.
At least you recognise that there is a spectrum.

But you are right: I think that there is a limit on how many tens of thousands you can kill in order to avenge the death of a thousand, and I don’t think Israel is safer because of it (but I do think that Israel is safer because of the events in Syria, and the attack on Hisbollah - an attack that was much more proportional than the attempted obliteration of Gaza).

But one question pops up to me: how would you describe a middle position on the spectrum? Surely not someone who never questions Israel’s actions in Gaza?
 
So I am on team Hamas also, then. Very interesting.
steenkh: It would be helpful if, instead of only saying what you're not, you would actually say what you are. That would then clear up any misunderstanding about your position on this matter.
So, how about we do one of those magazine-style surveys? A few quick questions, and it's sorted.
Here we go:
Are You a Member of Team Hamas?
1. Do you recognise Israel's right to exist?
(Yes, I know you already have, but if you answer 'yes', it will really annoy hlafordlaes, which is a result in itself! :LOL:)
2. Do you think terrorist actions against Israel are justified? (Like Hercules56 does).
3. Do you think that Hamas wants peace, and will (or already has) recognise the state of Israel? (Like planigale does).
4. Not counting the extremist elements, do you think that Israel as a whole wants to remain within its current borders, and co-exist peacefully with its neighbours?
5. Do you acknowledge that Hamas uses human shields, and do you condemn this practice?
There you go. Care to play?
 
Are You a Member of Team Hamas?
1. Do you recognise Israel's right to exist?
Yes.
2. Do you think terrorist actions against Israel are justified? (Like Hercules56 does).
No. I don’t think terrorist actions anywhere in the world are justified - I don’t subscribe to the concept that freedom fighters are somehow exempt. But my definition of “terrorism” only includes attacks on random civilians in order to, well, terrorise. There are plenty of other attacks that I condemn, but they are not necessarily terrorist attacks.
3. Do you think that Hamas wants peace, and will (or already has) recognise the state of Israel? (Like planigale does).
No. I think Hamas’ raison d’etre at present is to lead a continuous war against Israel. But I am open to the possibility that Hamas could change with age, or new leadership.
4. Not counting the extremist elements, do you think that Israel as a whole wants to remain within its current borders, and co-exist peacefully with its neighbours?
That is a difficult question. I would like to say yes, but why has Israeli voters consistently voted parties into the government that support extremist policies? Maybe there is a difference between what Israel ‘wants’ and what Israel ‘accepts’.
5. Do you acknowledge that Hamas uses human shields, and do you condemn this practice?
I don’t know if they still do, but it is documented that they have done, and I condemn the practice.

You have framed your questions so that they only explore one side of the conflict, so that there is no point in asking you the same questions. But you could answer the question I asked theprestige: if you are not thinking in binary terms, how would you describe a middle position?
Other relevant questions are how many civilian casualties are acceptable to destroy Hamas? 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 etc. (this is regardless of how many are actually killed).
 
Yeah, ‘not counting extremists’ works a lot better when extremists don’t have much governmental influence. The extremists are the problem. I’ve seen the protests in Israel by Israelis who are upset about the extremists, so I know the country don’t have trouble mustering a few football fields worth of people who will show up to demonstrate that they don’t want those extremists in power, and I can only sympathise, as I know a lot of good people in a few other countries I could mention that are frustrated by how much reach the extremists in their own political systems get.

And I will roundly criticize Israel the same way I’ll roundly criticize MY country. In neither case does that mean I hate the country I’m criticizing, and so of course I find that implication both obnoxious and a bit insulting. The fact that people who DO hate those countries will also criticize them and you’re sooo jaded about all the haters, still doesn’t mean criticism = hate. Or maybe I’m just equally jaded from having to listen to right wing pundits tell me that I hate my country and that everyone else in the parties I end up voting for hate their country and want to destroy it, all day long. In a very similar way, it makes me assume anyone telling me I hate a country just wants to convince others (and indeed themselves) to ignore me or question my motives.
 
Last edited:
OK, so now HAMAS is urging a return to 'martyrdom' attacks (suicide bombings and shootings).

There will be more difficult days ahead.
Including on America's streets.

Where's Waldo?
The path to peace is as varied as the path to destruction my friend, sometimes they are used interchangeably
 
Good. Expect a blast of heated rhetoric from hlafordlaes at any moment!
No. I don’t think terrorist actions anywhere in the world are justified - I don’t subscribe to the concept that freedom fighters are somehow exempt. But my definition of “terrorism” only includes attacks on random civilians in order to, well, terrorise. There are plenty of other attacks that I condemn, but they are not necessarily terrorist attacks.
Good.
No. I think Hamas’ raison d’etre at present is to lead a continuous war against Israel. But I am open to the possibility that Hamas could change with age, or new leadership.
I do not hare your optimism about Hamas, but I applaud your answer.
That is a difficult question. I would like to say yes, but why has Israeli voters consistently voted parties into the government that support extremist policies? Maybe there is a difference between what Israel ‘wants’ and what Israel ‘accepts’.

Israel has proportional representation. This system inevitably favours extremists, and also facilitates their inclusion in governments. This does not mean that the majority of Israelis support their views.
I don’t know if they still do, but it is documented that they have done, and I condemn the practice.
Good.
Congratulations! You are officially not a member of Team Hamas! You are under no obligation to lie, ignore evidence, twist the words of others or squirm in your attempts to excuse and/or jutify acts of terrorism.
You have framed your questions so that they only explore one side of the conflict,

Of course. I was asking questions to determine whether you could be considered a Hamas apologist. I used positions and views expressed by pro-Hamas members here to determine this. I even referenced those members, so you could see what I was doing.
Team Hamas only sees one side of the conflict. Asking questions to see if your views chime with theirs is inevitably going to be a one-sided business, because their views are one-sided.
so that there is no point in asking you the same questions. But you could answer the question I asked theprestige: if you are not thinking in binary terms, how would you describe a middle position?

My own position is a middle position. I have described this, in detail, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, till I am sick to the back teeth of saying it. The problem is that Team Hamas ignores what I've said, or flat-out lies about my views, to give a false impression of my stance. and their propaganda is all-pervasive on these threads.
Would you like me to repeat my views again?
Other relevant questions are how many civilian casualties are acceptable to destroy Hamas? 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 etc. (this is regardless of how many are actually killed).
These questions are not relevant to the members of Team Hamas. One Palestinian civilian casualty is too many for them. On the flip-side, they are quite comfortable with large numbers of Israeli civilian casualties, because they somehow 'deserve it'.
 
Israel has proportional representation. This system inevitably favours extremists, and also facilitates their inclusion in governments. This does not mean that the majority of Israelis support their views.
Usually, proportional representation, excludes extremists, because it tends to make anti-extremist parties cooperate to keep extremists out. In Israel's case, Likud has chosen to give extremists a huge influence, and the voters have not punished Likud for this: Likud's voters knew that extremist parties who be given influence, so it was accepted, rather than accepting that Likud would not be in the government. As I said, maybe a majority does not wanted to support extremists, but the majority certainly accepted that the extremists would be given power.
My own position is a middle position. I have described this, in detail, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, till I am sick to the back teeth of saying it.
I have also stated that I am in a middle position, but I can't write anything critical of Israel without automatically being put into Team Hamas. Nobody has put you into Team Hamas. How come?
 
Good. Expect a blast of heated rhetoric from hlafordlaes at any moment!
You are overdue, aren't you? "You" meaning bigoted Jewish supremacists, of course.

Judaism, as a body of teachings, is clearly tribal and ethno-religiously supremacist. No escaping that: "chosen people", "promised land", and since 1948, "the right to exist" ...on someone else's legal and sovereign property, and today, the right to "defend itself" by killing civilians en masse. In a word, Israeli Judaism is genocidal by design, declaring today that its opponents are "human animals".

The most difficult part of establishing that genocide is taking place concerns intent. In that regard, Israel's attempts to silence TikTok (via AIPAC-fed cronies), a media where evidence of genocidal awareness and intent among the IDF rank and file abounds, are most telling. Then we have the official pronouncements made by senior government and military officials, and, of course, the physical evidence on the ground, particularly that of the destruction of nearly all infrastructure required for a functioning economy, health care system, or even for basic human survival.

Let me know when you've finally manned up and posted a detailed timeline of events regarding the establishment of the state of Israel. I know you cannot, will not, and shall never dare embrace factual reality. It's all about the false narratives, starting with the Pentateuch. Hey, who needs facts when you have guns, right?

All you have are bullets and bombs. And the whole world now sees you for just who you are, in spite of strenuous efforts to stifle free speech and freedom of expression. Not too hard to forecast that AIPAC and Israel have massively overstepped, exposing their lies, and that when their ally finally turns on them after trillions of dollars and rivers of blood wasted backing the geopolitics of Israel's racist regime, a friendless and broke Israel will have nowhere to turn.
 
Usually, proportional representation, excludes extremists, because it tends to make anti-extremist parties cooperate to keep extremists out. In Israel's case, Likud has chosen to give extremists a huge influence, and the voters have not punished Likud for this: Likud's voters knew that extremist parties who be given influence, so it was accepted, rather than accepting that Likud would not be in the government. As I said, maybe a majority does not wanted to support extremists, but the majority certainly accepted that the extremists would be given power.

In Israel, PR has given right-wing parties a chance at power. In a country with weak party support for Prime Ministers, deep political and religious divides, and interest groups that cling tightly to special-issue parties, PR “generates strong incentives for short-term, sectarian, and populist conduct.” It produces an environment where extremist parties can exercise real influence—and in Israel, they do. The situation is very different in the Netherlands. Though the two countries may share a party-list proportional representation electoral system, Israel faces unique political dilemmas, and its government has to draw heavily on right-wing parties to string together a coalition.
I have also stated that I am in a middle position, but I can't write anything critical of Israel without automatically being put into Team Hamas. Nobody has put you into Team Hamas. How come?
The claim that any criticism of Israel on this forum is considered to be antisemitic and an automatic endorsement of Hamas is, frankly, a strawman. It's just not true. It's also been the case here that many among Team Hamas have argued vehemently against the definition of antisemitism, so as to get their obviously antisemitic posts off the hook. I'm thinking specifically about The Atheist here, but there have been others too.
One reason why no-one has put me in Team Hamas is that those posters have a habit of denying that I have, in fact, criticised Israel on multiple occasions, and only look at my criticisms of Hamas. They also ignore my repeated comments where I have stated that I am fully in favour of a Palestinian state, which includes either the repatriation of West Bank settlers to Israel or letting them remain as Palestinian citizens. And my stated desire to have a Palestinian leadership that is not corrupt or murderous, and that will actually help the people, not harm them. This is, of course, an example of the binary thinking on display among the Hamas apologists.
Oh, and look! We annoyed hlafordlaes! Result!
 
You are at perfect liberty to state your reasons for disagreeing with the part of this article that I quoted.
I just think the thread will drift even more off-topic, but OK, one sentence that you quoted was ‘In a country with weak party support for Prime Ministers, deep political and religious divides, and interest groups that cling tightly to special-issue parties, PR “generates strong incentives for short-term, sectarian, and populist conduct.”’ The article sees it as a problem that extremists get a seat in parliament that they can use to spread their messages. I think that you can’t stop extremists by keeping them out of parliament like the article prefers, and the article itself supports my view with reference to how extremists grow in France. Denmark and Germany are examples of how extremists can be in parliament, but be kept out of government. I don’t know what “weak party support for Prime Ministers” means. Likud has supported Netanyahu all the way, or he would be in prison now.
 
I just think the thread will drift even more off-topic, but OK, one sentence that you quoted was ‘In a country with weak party support for Prime Ministers, deep political and religious divides, and interest groups that cling tightly to special-issue parties, PR “generates strong incentives for short-term, sectarian, and populist conduct.”’ The article sees it as a problem that extremists get a seat in parliament that they can use to spread their messages. I think that you can’t stop extremists by keeping them out of parliament like the article prefers, and the article itself supports my view with reference to how extremists grow in France. Denmark and Germany are examples of how extremists can be in parliament, but be kept out of government. I don’t know what “weak party support for Prime Ministers” means. Likud has supported Netanyahu all the way, or he would be in prison now.
It's not so much that extremist parties can use their parliamentary seats to spread their messages: it's that, due to the very nature of PR, one party is unlikely to achieve an overall majority, and so is forced into coalitions. Netanyahu has entered into alliances with the extreme nationalist/fundamentalist far-right parties to maintain power. The quid pro quo is that these parties then get power- seats in government, and a say over policy. This gives them influence over and above their support among Israeli voters as a whole. To claim that a majority of Israelis endorse the aims of the likes of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is incorrect.
 
The question now becomes, where does HAMAS fit into the picture of a rebuilt Gaza?


The new US Admin. is considering the option of a mass population relocation, in order to rebuild the Gaza Strip.
 
My understanding of the ceasefire terms is that they have mentioned the need to consider who will govern Gaza once the dust settles, but no actual decision has been reached. Certainly, there's no way Hamas is going to surrender power gracefully. Fatah and the PA lack any kind of popular mandate to rule either. This is going to take some sorting out.
 
It's not so much that extremist parties can use their parliamentary seats to spread their messages: it's that, due to the very nature of PR, one party is unlikely to achieve an overall majority, and so is forced into coalitions.
Quite true. But which coalitions? Nobody can force them to form a coalition with extremists if they don’t want it. In Germany the two major parties with opposing political views are expected to join a coalition in order to keep the Nazi AfD out of government. Netanyahu has made it quite clear that he was willing to cooperate with the extremists. The voters knew it, but voted for his leadership anyway, and his party didn’t remove him. This is not a problem with proportional representation, but with the voters.
Changing the election system in order to prevent voters from having an influence proportional to their numbers will just make voters lose trust in the election system.
To claim that a majority of Israelis endorse the aims of the likes of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich is incorrect.
If the majority of Israelis thought they couldn’t live the likes of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in government, they could have voted differently. If Likud didn’t want them in government, the party could have removed Netanyahu as leader. The sad fact is that the majority of the parties and the electorate thought that other issues like security, or economy (I don’t know anything about Israeli politics) was more important.

I don’t know how many abstentions there are in Israeli elections, but people who do not want to vote must also be aware that they have supported the extremists indirectly.

It is a problem I have often discussed with youngsters who do not want to vote because they agree with no parties, but they certainly are against some parties. It is important that they should vote against those parties instead of not voting at all. Practically all my life I have voted on the “least worst” party instead of the “most best” party. This has made me vote for parties that I don’t agree with, but the result has in my view been better politics.
 
Cat's out of the bag. Here is what the conflict is based on; ie, extreme judeo-christian terrorism:

Trump UN nominee backs Israeli claims of biblical rights to West Bank

Elise Stefanik’s comments at Senate hearing align her with Israeli far right and highlight US-UN rifts over Israel policy


Donald Trump’s nominee for US ambassador to the United Nations has endorsed Israeli claims of biblical rights to the entire West Bank during a Senate confirmation hearing, aligning herself with positions that could complicate diplomatic efforts in the Middle East.

The New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Republican, was confronted on Tuesday over her backing of a position that aligns her with the Israeli far right, including Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich and former national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

“You told me that, yes, you shared that view,” the Democratic Maryland senator Chris Van Hollen said during questioning. “Is that your view today?”

“Yes,” Stefanik said.

Shocking such pro-mythological drivel should be so strenuously defended on ISF of all places. About as classy as belching loudly in polite company, an affront. After all, we all know that Israelis are settler colonialists whose sole justification for their colonial behavior is not prior sovereignty, not property rights, not international law. Just ethno-religious bigotry, plain and simple. A permit for mayhem issued by an occupying British Empire in contravention of its duties as an occupying power is no excuse whatsoever. But when did an Anglo supremacist ever survey the world without an eye on theft? Thanks, Trump, for the refreshing reminder.
 
s

The claim that any criticism of Israel on this forum is considered to be antisemitic and an automatic endorsement of Hamas is, frankly, a strawman. It's just not true. It's also been the case here that many among Team Hamas have argued vehemently against the definition of antisemitism, so as to get their obviously antisemitic posts off the hook. I'm thinking specifically about The Atheist here, but there have been others too.
One reason why no-one has put me in Team Hamas is that those posters have a habit of denying that I have, in fact, criticised Israel on multiple occasions, and only look at my criticisms of Hamas. They also ignore my repeated comments where I have stated that I am fully in favour of a Palestinian state, which includes either the repatriation of West Bank settlers to Israel or letting them remain as Palestinian citizens. And my stated desire to have a Palestinian leadership that is not corrupt or murderous, and that will actually help the people, not harm them. This is, of course, an example of the binary thinking on display among the Hamas apologists.
Oh, and look! We annoyed hlafordlaes! Result!
TO be fair, I have seen the anti criticism of Israel is anti semeitc argument made on some websites and message boards, but not here.
Anyway, I suspect the cease fire, armtitice whatever you want to call it , won't last that long.
And, ney, annoying hflaforlaes is always a good thing.
And I agree the West Bank settlemnts were as idiotic act as I have seen any country make.
The power that a few extremist religous parties have in Israel is scary. That is why the current coalition is unstable. No secret a lot of Likud party members have a huge dislike for the religous party and their attempts to impose Jewish religous law on all of Israel. As one writer said, many in Likud like their Bacon and Shrimp ......
 
Last edited:
I don’t know, dudalb, I definitely recall some posters including me I think, being called out for antisemitism on the grounds that we showed up in some of these threads to offer criticism on such hard-to-criticize stuff as ‘shot and killed escaped hostages in an area recently abandoned by Hamas and then said there is just no other way to do things, Hamas being guerilla murderers means we have to shoot everything always and also how dare you (we are already very sad about this)’ or ‘blew up famously beloved aid convoy with rockets and then after we learned that strikes like that were semi-automated they basically said oops but the system is working as intended and we’re not changing it’ ….without going to look for other similar horrible systemic problems/military strategies going on in other countries and starting threads to complain about those. As in, being interested in and posting about something we’re seeing in the news or on our feeds etc a lot at the time, means we’re singling out Israel for criticism, which means we’re antisemitic. (Disclaimer: YES actual antisemites will also only talk about gross looking things the IDF has done. Counterpoint: that in no way means that that, by itself, is a good litmus test for antisemitism)
 
Last edited:
Israel is spending the ceasefire killing Palestinians - mostly in the West Bank, not Gaza, which makes it totally okay, right?
 
TO be fair, I have seen the anti criticism of Israel is anti semeitc argument made on some websites and message boards, but not here.

dudalb: We literally had a thread here about this very subject. Unfortunately, due to the continued absence of the search function, I can't post a link to it (it was in Forum Community, as I recall). It revolved around The Atheist and Leumas's avatars, and their use of blanket condemnation and a swastika, respectively. A large part of the thread was about the definition of antisemitism, with those two strenuously denying that this definition was legit, and that their avatars and related posts fitted that definition to a tee.
 
Quite true. But which coalitions? Nobody can force them to form a coalition with extremists if they don’t want it. In Germany the two major parties with opposing political views are expected to join a coalition in order to keep the Nazi AfD out of government. Netanyahu has made it quite clear that he was willing to cooperate with the extremists.

That very much depends on your definition of extremists. Likud and Bibi both are right-wing. If you look at the composition of the coalition, it includes a mix of right-wing and centrist parties. Of the right-wingers, some are far-right and nasty, but others are religiously conservative, and the attitudes towards Palestine vary. The there's New Hope and National Unity, which are more centrist.
The voters knew it, but voted for his leadership anyway,

For someone who claims to know very little about Israeli politics, you seem to know a lot about what Israeli voters think. On what are you basing this claim?
and his party didn’t remove him.

Why would Likud remove him?
This is not a problem with proportional representation, but with the voters.

This part of your post is quite astonishing. You appear to be blaming Israeli voters who voted for moderate or more moderate parties, for allowing parties they didn't vote for to gain power. Does this criticism of yours apply to other countries too, or just to Israel?
Changing the election system in order to prevent voters from having an influence proportional to their numbers will just make voters lose trust in the election system.

If the majority of Israelis thought they couldn’t live the likes of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich in government, they could have voted differently. If Likud didn’t want them in government, the party could have removed Netanyahu as leader. The sad fact is that the majority of the parties and the electorate thought that other issues like security, or economy (I don’t know anything about Israeli politics) was more important.

Again, you are asking Israeli voters to vote against their own wishes, as part of some grand tactical voting scheme, to somehow ensure that people they didn't vote for don't get votes. This makes no sense to me at all.
I don’t know how many abstentions there are in Israeli elections, but people who do not want to vote must also be aware that they have supported the extremists indirectly.

Again, how? By not voting for them? It's worth noting that Likud has a very vague and ambivalent position on a Palestinian state, but some of their more recent policy statements endorse a two-state solution, or at the very least do not rule it out. That is hardly an extremist position.
It is a problem I have often discussed with youngsters who do not want to vote because they agree with no parties, but they certainly are against some parties. It is important that they should vote against those parties instead of not voting at all. Practically all my life I have voted on the “least worst” party instead of the “most best” party. This has made me vote for parties that I don’t agree with, but the result has in my view been better politics.

OK, so what if Israeli voters were doing the same? If the majority of the electorate are right-wing, to a greater or lesser degree, then Likud is the least-worst of the options available to them.
 
For the record, Israelis voted FIVE times in back-to-back-to-back elections (in less than four years) before a 'winner' emerged after the plebiscite on 1 November 2022.

Israelis vote for all sorts of parties with differing agendas, from legalizing cannabis, to communists, to Torah.

As you can see in the above chart, Israelis have a big challenge to decide how to cast their votes. (and 70% go to place ballots in the boxes).
Many years ago, the country attempted to revise the system and institute a DIRECT election of the Prime Minister.
That rule was rescinded, and no longer is the case.

And if anyone wants to glimpse the Israeli political system in operation, these recent articles cover a lot of ground

and

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/402798 (Naftali Bennett is a rising star).
 
Americans are going into Gaza to provide 'security' for the crossing point between N. and S. Gaza areas.

UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions are cooperating on the insertion of "private security" along the corridor.

Nothing being reported about this in mainstream media.
 
That very much depends on your definition of extremists. Likud and Bibi both are right-wing. If you look at the composition of the coalition, it includes a mix of right-wing and centrist parties. Of the right-wingers, some are far-right and nasty, but others are religiously conservative, and the attitudes towards Palestine vary. The there's New Hope and National Unity, which are more centrist.
I am only thinking of the far-right and nasty parties, without which Likud could not have formed a government.
For someone who claims to know very little about Israeli politics, you seem to know a lot about what Israeli voters think. On what are you basing this claim?
On the basis of the election results.
Why would Likud remove him?
If his party does not want to cooperate with the far right, they’ll need to remove him. But the fact is that they do accept a cooperation with the far right.
This part of your post is quite astonishing. You appear to be blaming Israeli voters who voted for moderate or more moderate parties, for allowing parties they didn't vote for to gain power.
I am at a loss of how you can construe my critics of the parties in the government as blaming the parties who are not in the government. However, those moderate parties who are in the government, are just like Likud: they have accepted the participation of the far right in the government.
Again, you are asking Israeli voters to vote against their own wishes, as part of some grand tactical voting scheme, to somehow ensure that people they didn't vote for don't get votes. This makes no sense to me at all.
Obviously, if the parties have betrayed their voters, and helped extremist parties to form part of the government, the voters are not to blame. As I said, I do not know anything about Israeli politics, so I really do not know if the voters could know in advance what their votes would be used for.
Again, how? By not voting for them? It's worth noting that Likud has a very vague and ambivalent position on a Palestinian state, but some of their more recent policy statements endorse a two-state solution, or at the very least do not rule it out. That is hardly an extremist position.
Parties in Denmark certainly make known what policies they would support, and recently at least one party has sort of broken its voter’s trust by entering government together with a left-center party. But it was done in order to prevent a government being formed that would include far-left parties.

So yes, I do think that voters are responsible for policies they don’t vote for, when they should know that these policies will be implemented because of their vote.
OK, so what if Israeli voters were doing the same? If the majority of the electorate are right-wing, to a greater or lesser degree, then Likud is the least-worst of the options available to them.
That is exactly what I am talking about, if the voters think that the least-worst option includes participation of the far-right in government, then they have accepted this. I do not say that this policy is what they want, but what they accept, for whatever reason that is more important than keeping the far right out.
 
UG Solutions and Safe Reach Solutions are cooperating on the insertion of "private security" along the corridor.

Nothing being reported about this in mainstream media.
That is indeed odd, but it is my impression that mercenaries are generally going under the radar of mainstream media.
 
If Genocide and ethnic cleansing are not the goal, what is?

If support for Palestinians means support for Hamas terrorism, what does all support for Israel mean, using the same logic?

Anyone check with international law, say, the fully legal right of occupied populations to fight their occupation? No? Figures. Must be the same ones repeating the "babies beheaded" slander. I mean, why not spice criminality with false witness?

What freaking hellhole of cowardice the IDF ISF has become.

Anyone man up to a full timeline of events starting in the 1940s yet? Or does that expose settler colonialism for what it is, and nullify the pansy excuse that Arab opposition to Palestine being brutally colonized was to blame? Anyone examine Israel's Absentee Property Law yet? No?

Ameraeli terrorists are ethno-religious bigots on par with ISIS. West Bank is next.

Ameraeli.Justice.png
 
Indeed, good sir! Here is the 1881 map showing that the region was most definitely considered Palestine prior to the ever-repeating tsunamis of Zionist propaganda. Palestinians are the rightful indigenous inhabitants of all of Palestine; Israelis are settler colonialists who have stolen land not theirs and murdered the inhabitants.
Palestine 1881.png
 
Back
Top Bottom