4 ms·

I fail to see how Bennett is far right in any sense of the word. Conservative yes, but the far right is inhabited by nut jobs like Smotrich and Ben Gvir. Whethe

I fail to see how Bennett is far right in any sense of the word. Conservative yes, but the far right is inhabited by nut jobs like Smotrich and Ben Gvir. Whether you define support for an active military as militaristic versus actually taking aggressive military action is also another issue - they cannot be militaristic if you accept the second definition.

tsimionescu 5y ago
There are few countries on Earth that have (a) directly officially threatened military action against another state, or (b) routinely bomb another state they are not officially at war with, the way Israel has. How are they not "taking aggressive military action"?
- eli_gottlieb 5y ago
  > (b) routinely bomb another state they are not officially at war with In what sense are we not officially at war with Palestine? Nobody ever signed an armistice, ceasefire, or peace deal to end the War of 1948. Nobody even wants to. The official policies of both the PLO and Hamas remain "struggle until victory". There are internal political reasons for this that any knowledgeable person can describe, but as far as anyone who lacks inside influence is concerned, that's their policy and they're sticking to it.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    > In what sense are we not officially at war with Palestine? In the literal sense. The territories that form Palestine and the West Bank today were part of Egypt and Jordan before the six-day war. Israel occupied these territories during the war, then signed peace treaties with the countries it defeated. The three Arab countries (including Syria) attempted to recapture their territories again in 1973, but failed, and peace treaties were again signed between all four countries involved. In the meantime, people living in the territories occupied by the Israeli military forces continued their fight for freedom, as all occupied people do. They made some strides in this direction with the Oslo accords, where they gained official recognition as a separate country under their own authority. While open hostility existed on both sides since the beginning, there has never been an official war declaration between the PLO and Israel. Both have been routinely attacking and killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in each other's country forma long time - though Israel now has a vast upper hand and the killing and destruction has become more and more one sided against the people of Palestine.
    - FridayoLeary 5y ago
      That's like saying after d-day, the killing and destruction has become more one sided against the Axis Powers. Nobody takes that as a serious argument that the Allies shouldn't have done it (and please, no Nazi comparisons).
      - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
        I mostly just don't like the rather extreme metaphysical claims involved in simply denying that there exists a state of war. If there is no war, what were the Oslo Accords for? To formalize terms of a post-war occupation? But then when was the war? Who surrendered? To talk of a "peace process", or even of an entrenchment of the Occupation, you need to acknowledge the existence of a second party to the conflict, who in any practical point of view are in a military struggle, that being a war, with the other party. Maybe you agree with their military-political demands, maybe you disagree. But certainly they exist, and are in fact fighting. If I were to treat it as reasoning rather than polemic, I would say it's projecting an expected - and feared - possible future backwards into the present. The idea seems to be, "we don't want the Palestinian Arabs to end up as a conquered, dispersed, exiled, or killed former nation, so we treat them as already dead, then cheer for them, being already dead, to rise up and prevent their own deaths ahead of time." That's getting a bit speculative and psychoanalytic, but it does sort of explain the grim, dark "rage against the dying of the light" attitude people display when trying to argue simultaneously that there's no war and that the Palestinian side of the war needs more support. My objection to the whole complex is: there is no dying of the light. Millions of people are right there, year after year, dealing with various endemic problems because, by and large, the peculiar factionalization of their political system forbids them to do anything else. There's no dramatic moment to wait for. They're just gonna suffer more as long as everyone keeps cheering for them to put victory over coexistence.
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        > If there is no war, what were the Oslo Accords for? To formalize terms of a post-war occupation? But then when was the war? Who surrendered? I explained my perspective on this: after the six-day war, Israel conquered the lands currently forming today's Palestinian territories and occupied them. As with any occupying force anywhere in the world, the occupied people started resisting this occupation. The Oslo accords happened between the occupying force, Israel; and (representatives of) the resistance movement - represented by the PLO at the time, mostly. The accords marked the beginning of the modern Palestinian state (the "official" beginning was Yasser Arafat's 1988 declaration of independence, but that couldn't even happen in Palestine). They were maybe closer to the Good Friday deal in Ireland than to any kind of inter-state peace treaty. So again, any regular war ended a loooong time ago (basically after the six-day war, but that was re-attempted in the 1973 Yom Kippur war); it ended with Israel de facto ruling all of the territory of modern Israel + all of the Palestinian territories. However, there are two aspects that prevented the fighting stopping there: (1) Israel wants to be a Jewish state, so they did not want to officially incorporate the Palestinian territories, since especially in 1967 they would have meant that the vast majority of Israel's population would have been Arabic; and (2) the people in the occupied territories started a bloody resistance movement against the occupation - fueled by historic religious hatred and concerns, but also by item (1) - the knowledge that they would not be allowed to be full citizens of Israel, even if they wanted to.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > In what sense are we not officially at war with Palestine? Israel is a part of Palestine. Palestine has never been a state. How can "we" (Israel, I presume) have ever been officially at war with a territory they are occupying? How can you sign an armistice to end a war that was never declared?
wolverine876 5y ago
Isn't Bennett's big issue, for most of his political career, seizing the West Bank? He and his political party have been routinely described as far right. We could define 'far' relatively, and say there are people further right, but I think the word stops being meaningful at that point.

tsimionescu 5y ago

There are few countries on Earth that have (a) directly officially threatened military action against another state, or (b) routinely bomb another state they are not officially at war with, the way Israel has. How are they not "taking aggressive military action"?

eli_gottlieb 5y ago
> (b) routinely bomb another state they are not officially at war with In what sense are we not officially at war with Palestine? Nobody ever signed an armistice, ceasefire, or peace deal to end the War of 1948. Nobody even wants to. The official policies of both the PLO and Hamas remain "struggle until victory". There are internal political reasons for this that any knowledgeable person can describe, but as far as anyone who lacks inside influence is concerned, that's their policy and they're sticking to it.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > In what sense are we not officially at war with Palestine? In the literal sense. The territories that form Palestine and the West Bank today were part of Egypt and Jordan before the six-day war. Israel occupied these territories during the war, then signed peace treaties with the countries it defeated. The three Arab countries (including Syria) attempted to recapture their territories again in 1973, but failed, and peace treaties were again signed between all four countries involved. In the meantime, people living in the territories occupied by the Israeli military forces continued their fight for freedom, as all occupied people do. They made some strides in this direction with the Oslo accords, where they gained official recognition as a separate country under their own authority. While open hostility existed on both sides since the beginning, there has never been an official war declaration between the PLO and Israel. Both have been routinely attacking and killing civilians and destroying infrastructure in each other's country forma long time - though Israel now has a vast upper hand and the killing and destruction has become more and more one sided against the people of Palestine.
  - FridayoLeary 5y ago
    That's like saying after d-day, the killing and destruction has become more one sided against the Axis Powers. Nobody takes that as a serious argument that the Allies shouldn't have done it (and please, no Nazi comparisons).
    - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
      I mostly just don't like the rather extreme metaphysical claims involved in simply denying that there exists a state of war. If there is no war, what were the Oslo Accords for? To formalize terms of a post-war occupation? But then when was the war? Who surrendered? To talk of a "peace process", or even of an entrenchment of the Occupation, you need to acknowledge the existence of a second party to the conflict, who in any practical point of view are in a military struggle, that being a war, with the other party. Maybe you agree with their military-political demands, maybe you disagree. But certainly they exist, and are in fact fighting. If I were to treat it as reasoning rather than polemic, I would say it's projecting an expected - and feared - possible future backwards into the present. The idea seems to be, "we don't want the Palestinian Arabs to end up as a conquered, dispersed, exiled, or killed former nation, so we treat them as already dead, then cheer for them, being already dead, to rise up and prevent their own deaths ahead of time." That's getting a bit speculative and psychoanalytic, but it does sort of explain the grim, dark "rage against the dying of the light" attitude people display when trying to argue simultaneously that there's no war and that the Palestinian side of the war needs more support. My objection to the whole complex is: there is no dying of the light. Millions of people are right there, year after year, dealing with various endemic problems because, by and large, the peculiar factionalization of their political system forbids them to do anything else. There's no dramatic moment to wait for. They're just gonna suffer more as long as everyone keeps cheering for them to put victory over coexistence.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        > If there is no war, what were the Oslo Accords for? To formalize terms of a post-war occupation? But then when was the war? Who surrendered? I explained my perspective on this: after the six-day war, Israel conquered the lands currently forming today's Palestinian territories and occupied them. As with any occupying force anywhere in the world, the occupied people started resisting this occupation. The Oslo accords happened between the occupying force, Israel; and (representatives of) the resistance movement - represented by the PLO at the time, mostly. The accords marked the beginning of the modern Palestinian state (the "official" beginning was Yasser Arafat's 1988 declaration of independence, but that couldn't even happen in Palestine). They were maybe closer to the Good Friday deal in Ireland than to any kind of inter-state peace treaty. So again, any regular war ended a loooong time ago (basically after the six-day war, but that was re-attempted in the 1973 Yom Kippur war); it ended with Israel de facto ruling all of the territory of modern Israel + all of the Palestinian territories. However, there are two aspects that prevented the fighting stopping there: (1) Israel wants to be a Jewish state, so they did not want to officially incorporate the Palestinian territories, since especially in 1967 they would have meant that the vast majority of Israel's population would have been Arabic; and (2) the people in the occupied territories started a bloody resistance movement against the occupation - fueled by historic religious hatred and concerns, but also by item (1) - the knowledge that they would not be allowed to be full citizens of Israel, even if they wanted to.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > In what sense are we not officially at war with Palestine? Israel is a part of Palestine. Palestine has never been a state. How can "we" (Israel, I presume) have ever been officially at war with a territory they are occupying? How can you sign an armistice to end a war that was never declared?

wolverine876 5y ago

Isn't Bennett's big issue, for most of his political career, seizing the West Bank? He and his political party have been routinely described as far right. We could define 'far' relatively, and say there are people further right, but I think the word stops being meaningful at that point.