6 ms·

Netanyahu's ongoing corruption trial looms large over all of this. If he were to lose power, he would be far more vulnerable to conviction and potential impriso

by ttul 2y ago

Netanyahu's ongoing corruption trial looms large over all of this. If he were to lose power, he would be far more vulnerable to conviction and potential imprisonment. So from this vantage point, the Al Jazeera ban could be seen as an act of desperation - muzzling a high-profile critic as a concession to far-right parties, even at the expense of free press principles, all in service of his own political and personal survival. It paints a troubling picture of a leader whose decision-making is distorted by clinging to power at all costs. Undermining democratic norms to appease extremist coalition partners is a dangerous road that could lead Israel to more illiberal and authoritarian policies, especially toward Palestinians, the Arab media, and domestic dissent.

refulgentis 2y ago
It was a very strange day yesterday: the whole week coverage had been building up to a meeting in Cairo, Hamas signalled they were going to accept the cease fire. Saturday AM EST, it was reported that Hamas confirmed they were going to accept the deal. By noon Saturday EST, the "Israel-Hamas War"...idk what to call it, live blog? collection-of-news headline?...was gone for the first time in months. Israel reporting (not just Haaretz) reported huge, multiple, protests (it was at night there, early afternoon EST) due to Israel rejecting a cease fire. Piecing it together from Twitter natsec people, standard blob, certainly not polarized against israel, Israel didn't even send a delegation to the talks, and the far right Israeli leader said Bibi promised him they wouldn't accept "a rushed deal" (i.e. the cease fire), and people were irate. An irate Israeli TV reporter revealed the anonymous "diplomatic source" promising no deal Friday night was Bibi himself. The blogs are back up now, with a sort of hurried framing that the talks fell apart because Hamas wanted a permanent cease fire (no mention of any of the above -- I assume that'd complicate it too much for, it needs to be a nice little set piece of Israel vs. Hamas. It's really, really strange watching the coverage the last week, in America, without any attachment to either "side". I guess its easier to push the A vs. B framing on a new subject, our college kids, rather than trying to explain how any of this makes any sense at all.
- NewJazz 2y ago
  Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining hostages. https://text.npr.org/1248276817 https://text.npr.org/1248276817
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Israel's war aims have transparently been about both returning the hostages and removing Hamas from power.
    - NewJazz 2y ago
      I am just pointing out that Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon. They'll probably need to have new elections.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
        arp242 2y ago
        "We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? It's a completely absurd thing to say. This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire. I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
easyThrowaway 2y ago
He's playing with the same rulebook of Slobodan Milošević - He's trying to make apparent to everybody that if he goes down, his own country will go down with him. Frankly, it feels like the only hope for an end to this conflict is in the hands of the internal Israeli political opposition. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not stopped, we're gonna see the same... "approach" used with Palestinian people applied to whatever internal resistance is left.
- int_19h 2y ago
  IIRC something like 80% of Israeli citizens approve of the way Israel is fighting in Gaza, according to the polls.
  - easyThrowaway 2y ago
    it would be interesting to know to what extent they're aware of what's actually happening in Gaza. Also, given the vilification we've seen of those expressing sympathy for a two-state solution or the general Palestinian population in the last 30 years, I'd be wary to take at face value any poll without being sure they were done with some sort of guarantee of anonymity. I'm pretty sure you'd get even more one-sided approval results asking the British about the handling of the Ireland border during the troubles, or the Spanish on the repression of the Basque population after Zaragoza.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure you're right on that last bit, but I don't think that wouldn't be reflecting the reality in UK or Spain, either. People are generally pretty quick to get into an "us vs them" mode when threatened, and, once there, will come up with increasingly ludicrous justifications even for the nastiest stuff. And yes, in Israel right now it's probably somewhat affected by social (and sometimes legal) consequences of dissent... but those very social consequences are in and of themselves indicative of supermajority support. Point being, even if it is, say, 65% rather than 80%, that still means that opposition has no power, and so nothing is really in its hands at the moment.
    - 2y ago
stoperaticless 2y ago
I share similar view. Israel response is guided by prime minister’s personal political ambitions, while war is ongoing, the leader has more power and less of a chance to be replaced.

by ttul 2y ago

refulgentis 2y ago

It was a very strange day yesterday: the whole week coverage had been building up to a meeting in Cairo, Hamas signalled they were going to accept the cease fire. Saturday AM EST, it was reported that Hamas confirmed they were going to accept the deal. By noon Saturday EST, the "Israel-Hamas War"...idk what to call it, live blog? collection-of-news headline?...was gone for the first time in months. Israel reporting (not just Haaretz) reported huge, multiple, protests (it was at night there, early afternoon EST) due to Israel rejecting a cease fire. Piecing it together from Twitter natsec people, standard blob, certainly not polarized against israel, Israel didn't even send a delegation to the talks, and the far right Israeli leader said Bibi promised him they wouldn't accept "a rushed deal" (i.e. the cease fire), and people were irate. An irate Israeli TV reporter revealed the anonymous "diplomatic source" promising no deal Friday night was Bibi himself. The blogs are back up now, with a sort of hurried framing that the talks fell apart because Hamas wanted a permanent cease fire (no mention of any of the above -- I assume that'd complicate it too much for, it needs to be a nice little set piece of Israel vs. Hamas. It's really, really strange watching the coverage the last week, in America, without any attachment to either "side". I guess its easier to push the A vs. B framing on a new subject, our college kids, rather than trying to explain how any of this makes any sense at all.

NewJazz 2y ago
Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining hostages. https://text.npr.org/1248276817 https://text.npr.org/1248276817
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Israel's war aims have transparently been about both returning the hostages and removing Hamas from power.
  - NewJazz 2y ago
    I am just pointing out that Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon. They'll probably need to have new elections.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
      - arp242 2y ago
        "We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? It's a completely absurd thing to say. This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire. I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.

easyThrowaway 2y ago

He's playing with the same rulebook of Slobodan Milošević - He's trying to make apparent to everybody that if he goes down, his own country will go down with him. Frankly, it feels like the only hope for an end to this conflict is in the hands of the internal Israeli political opposition. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not stopped, we're gonna see the same... "approach" used with Palestinian people applied to whatever internal resistance is left.

int_19h 2y ago
IIRC something like 80% of Israeli citizens approve of the way Israel is fighting in Gaza, according to the polls.
- easyThrowaway 2y ago
  it would be interesting to know to what extent they're aware of what's actually happening in Gaza. Also, given the vilification we've seen of those expressing sympathy for a two-state solution or the general Palestinian population in the last 30 years, I'd be wary to take at face value any poll without being sure they were done with some sort of guarantee of anonymity. I'm pretty sure you'd get even more one-sided approval results asking the British about the handling of the Ireland border during the troubles, or the Spanish on the repression of the Basque population after Zaragoza.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure you're right on that last bit, but I don't think that wouldn't be reflecting the reality in UK or Spain, either. People are generally pretty quick to get into an "us vs them" mode when threatened, and, once there, will come up with increasingly ludicrous justifications even for the nastiest stuff. And yes, in Israel right now it's probably somewhat affected by social (and sometimes legal) consequences of dissent... but those very social consequences are in and of themselves indicative of supermajority support. Point being, even if it is, say, 65% rather than 80%, that still means that opposition has no power, and so nothing is really in its hands at the moment.
  - 2y ago

stoperaticless 2y ago

I share similar view. Israel response is guided by prime minister’s personal political ambitions, while war is ongoing, the leader has more power and less of a chance to be replaced.