7 ms·

Assuming that's true—and it's a significant "if," given that every story has multiple perspectives and The Guardian's known critical stance toward Israel—such b

Assuming that's true—and it's a significant "if," given that every story has multiple perspectives and The Guardian's known critical stance toward Israel—such behavior by Israel would indeed be disgraceful. As an Israeli, I must clarify that the current government represents only a small minority. This minority has gained power through political maneuvering orchestrated by Netanyahu. It's important to note that there are daily demonstrations with thousands of protesters demanding a change in government. These actions are completely out of step with the desires and values of the broader Israeli populace.

helpfulContrib 2y ago
>As an Israeli, I can say that the current government represent a small minority that through political manipulation by Netanyahu has gained power. I sure hope this is true, although I have my doubts that it is a 'small minority'. A nation willfully ruled by war criminals always becomes their final victim.
klyrs 2y ago
> ... the current government represent a small minority that through political manipulation by Netanyahu has gained power. The only part of this sentence that's an Israeli thing is Netanyahu. Right wing hardliners don't get elected to power, they seize it.
Teever 2y ago
Benjamin Netanyahu has been PM of Israel for almost 17 years. Israel has been a state since 1948. 2023-1948 = 75 years. 16.66/75*100 = 22% of the existence of Israel. Think about that. One man has been the democratically elected leader of Israel for about 22% of the entire time it has existed. He is also the first prime minister to have been born in Israel after its establishment. In so many ways this man is the manifestation of the nation of Israel. Or maybe it could be better said that Israel is a manifestation of Benjamin Netanyahu? It would be interesting to work out the numbers on what percent of the entire Israeli population of all time voted for him and compare that with the percent of the entire Palestinian population that has existed from the same time period that voted for Hamas that one time Which IIRC was a vote that was only open to males 35+.
- Protostome 2y ago
  Benjamin Netanyahu has generally been averse to war over the years, often avoiding major conflicts. However, following the debacle on Oct 7th, there has been increasing pressure for his resignation. In this context, the current conflict may serve his interests. Netanyahu is aware that once the conflict ends, he will face tough questions and likely need to step down.
  - Chris2048 2y ago
    Do you consider the occupation of Palestinian territory previous to Oct 7th to be major conflict?
    - Protostome 2y ago
      Firstly, the territory in question is contested. Although I acknowledge that it is occupied—the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt—historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian. To clarify, I fully support the establishment of a Palestinian state across all of these territories with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, the historical context is crucial as it significantly influences how this conflict is perceived. Why, you might ask? Before their occupation by Israel in 1967, when these territories were under Jordanian and Egyptian control, they were not regarded as occupied by the local population. There was no PLO or Hamas fighting the Jordanians nor the Egyptians. Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. Therefore, Netanyahu position on this subject hasn't been far from the majority vote in Israel, and so he was not challenged about it
      - racional 2y ago
        It is occupied — the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt I think what you mean to say here is that these were the last modern states to hold recognized sovereignty over the respective territories. But of course they exercised any control over those places since 1967. Historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian Correct if, again, one is thinking in terms of a sovereign Palestine state. However there has been nonetheless distinct Palestinian identity in formation since the 19th century, or possibly further depending on whom you ask (even if it didn't align exactly with European models for such at the time). Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. This is pretty good summation of the mainstream position within Israel society. A corresponding view of the current mainstream Palestinian position might go like this: Given this background, many Palestinians believe that current Israeli policy is not about establishing its own security (and certainly not within 1967 borders), but about the continuing removal from, and/or permanent subjugation of the Palestinian people within the Occupied Territories. In particular, they see absolutely no interest in a 2SS solution on the Israeli side. They therefore see the dismantling of the Israeli state not just as the only viable alternative to their own destruction, but as a historical inevitability. That seems to be what it comes down to. The question is -- where to go from here.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
> As an Israeli, I must clarify that the current government represents only a small minority. Did the majority of the Knesset not vote for this government, and if not, how did it form?
- dijit 2y ago
  tl;dr: Coalition governments.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    A majority of Knesset voting for a coalition government is ... a majority of the Knesset. You may not like it, you may even hate it, the majority of Israelis may hate it, but they vote for representatives, representatives vote for the executive. This is not some undemocratic power grab that happened here, it is in fact how most of the words democratic countries operate and form governments.
    - dijit 2y ago
      Nothing you said contradicts the original message at all though. It's also true that the british government has some of the lowest support in history, losing the popular vote many times over and only attained power (marginally) due to vote splitting and gerrymandering. It's not fair to say that "the british people want to bring back mandatory military service" (for example) because the conservative governments do, and the situation in Israel is even more dire in that regard.
      - flanked-evergl 2y ago
        I'm fairly sure vote splitting and gerrymandering does not apply to Israel, as they don't have districts for representatives. If you have any data to back up your claim that the popular vote is vastly different from the composition of the knesset, please share it. But as far as I can tell from Wikipedia this is not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Israeli_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Israeli_legislative_elect... And the claim was not as to the popularity of policies, the claim was that the government does not represent the electorate, which is categorically false in this case, and would have been even if there were electoral districts. If a government is elected by the representatives of the people, then that government represents the people. If the government did not represent the representatives and the population that elected the representatives, who does it represent then?
wslh 2y ago
I love to read every intelligence news but it seems The Guardian has many issues finding what Putin or others are really doing. Today the problem is not only the truth and the signal vs. noise but the context. This all seems like the spotlight fallacy.
eynsham 2y ago
First, thanks for the conatructive tone. Every day I am astonished that people directly impacted—whose friends died and might have been sexually abused on 7.10 and people whose families have been blown to pieces by aerial bombardment—somehow still manage to be more reasonable (on occasion) than many of their supporters in the West. Second, I am not sure that this is a ‘small’ minority. Even ignoring the Channel 14 polls (which do seem to be made up) the current coalition is on about 50 seats (looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Israeli_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_I...). And then I am not really convinced that Sa’ar or Lieberman would really be opposed to this specific action, which would make a majority. For that matter, I saw one poll saying a Sa’ar+Cohen+Bennett tie-up would hit a whole thirty-two seats and reduce the Likud to twelve (that's the one labelled ‘Merger of Gideon Sa'ar, Naftali Bennett and Yossi Cohen & Labor and Meretz under Yair Golan’…) Admittedly maybe Lieberman would say that it’s stupid but that’s different from saying it’s disgraceful.
muddi900 2y ago
Benjamin Netenyahu has consistently been winning elections. It took a coalition of 11 parties last time to keep him away from the PM seat. At what point will people accept that he is the rule, not the exception?
- runarberg 2y ago
  Also, this has been going on since 2015, with serious escalation in 2018-2019, spanning a total of 4 governments, one of which didn’t include Netanyahu, two (and a half) included Netanyahu’s main oppositions. Spying, and using nefarious methods to undermine international law seems to be a consistent policy of Israel regardless of who is in power. Democracies usually have a set of policies which the public has no influence over, so perhaps, if given the choice, the Israeli public would vote to abolish these kinds of policies. That said, these kinds of actions are usually followed by international (and—in case of democracies—domestic) condemnation, and in the worst cases (which this is) sanctions. In the case of Israel, the response seems to be a relatively small demonstrations (think Argentina if you want to see demonstration against actions the public really dislikes) and a lackluster international response. I don’t think Israel is likely to change these policies any time soon, unless the international response really steps up their pressure.

helpfulContrib 2y ago

>As an Israeli, I can say that the current government represent a small minority that through political manipulation by Netanyahu has gained power. I sure hope this is true, although I have my doubts that it is a 'small minority'. A nation willfully ruled by war criminals always becomes their final victim.

klyrs 2y ago

> ... the current government represent a small minority that through political manipulation by Netanyahu has gained power. The only part of this sentence that's an Israeli thing is Netanyahu. Right wing hardliners don't get elected to power, they seize it.

Teever 2y ago

Benjamin Netanyahu has been PM of Israel for almost 17 years. Israel has been a state since 1948. 2023-1948 = 75 years. 16.66/75*100 = 22% of the existence of Israel. Think about that. One man has been the democratically elected leader of Israel for about 22% of the entire time it has existed. He is also the first prime minister to have been born in Israel after its establishment. In so many ways this man is the manifestation of the nation of Israel. Or maybe it could be better said that Israel is a manifestation of Benjamin Netanyahu? It would be interesting to work out the numbers on what percent of the entire Israeli population of all time voted for him and compare that with the percent of the entire Palestinian population that has existed from the same time period that voted for Hamas that one time Which IIRC was a vote that was only open to males 35+.

Protostome 2y ago
Benjamin Netanyahu has generally been averse to war over the years, often avoiding major conflicts. However, following the debacle on Oct 7th, there has been increasing pressure for his resignation. In this context, the current conflict may serve his interests. Netanyahu is aware that once the conflict ends, he will face tough questions and likely need to step down.
- Chris2048 2y ago
  Do you consider the occupation of Palestinian territory previous to Oct 7th to be major conflict?
  - Protostome 2y ago
    Firstly, the territory in question is contested. Although I acknowledge that it is occupied—the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt—historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian. To clarify, I fully support the establishment of a Palestinian state across all of these territories with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, the historical context is crucial as it significantly influences how this conflict is perceived. Why, you might ask? Before their occupation by Israel in 1967, when these territories were under Jordanian and Egyptian control, they were not regarded as occupied by the local population. There was no PLO or Hamas fighting the Jordanians nor the Egyptians. Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. Therefore, Netanyahu position on this subject hasn't been far from the majority vote in Israel, and so he was not challenged about it
    - racional 2y ago
      It is occupied — the West Bank by Jordan and Gaza by Egypt I think what you mean to say here is that these were the last modern states to hold recognized sovereignty over the respective territories. But of course they exercised any control over those places since 1967. Historically, these areas were never considered Palestinian Correct if, again, one is thinking in terms of a sovereign Palestine state. However there has been nonetheless distinct Palestinian identity in formation since the 19th century, or possibly further depending on whom you ask (even if it didn't align exactly with European models for such at the time). Given this background, many Israelis believe that the Palestinian struggle against Israel has not primarily been about establishing an independent nation to coexist peacefully alongside Israel. Rather, they view the aim of the struggle as attempting to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state by systematically challenging its historical and political legitimacy. This is pretty good summation of the mainstream position within Israel society. A corresponding view of the current mainstream Palestinian position might go like this: Given this background, many Palestinians believe that current Israeli policy is not about establishing its own security (and certainly not within 1967 borders), but about the continuing removal from, and/or permanent subjugation of the Palestinian people within the Occupied Territories. In particular, they see absolutely no interest in a 2SS solution on the Israeli side. They therefore see the dismantling of the Israeli state not just as the only viable alternative to their own destruction, but as a historical inevitability. That seems to be what it comes down to. The question is -- where to go from here.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

> As an Israeli, I must clarify that the current government represents only a small minority. Did the majority of the Knesset not vote for this government, and if not, how did it form?

dijit 2y ago
tl;dr: Coalition governments.
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  A majority of Knesset voting for a coalition government is ... a majority of the Knesset. You may not like it, you may even hate it, the majority of Israelis may hate it, but they vote for representatives, representatives vote for the executive. This is not some undemocratic power grab that happened here, it is in fact how most of the words democratic countries operate and form governments.
  - dijit 2y ago
    Nothing you said contradicts the original message at all though. It's also true that the british government has some of the lowest support in history, losing the popular vote many times over and only attained power (marginally) due to vote splitting and gerrymandering. It's not fair to say that "the british people want to bring back mandatory military service" (for example) because the conservative governments do, and the situation in Israel is even more dire in that regard.
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      I'm fairly sure vote splitting and gerrymandering does not apply to Israel, as they don't have districts for representatives. If you have any data to back up your claim that the popular vote is vastly different from the composition of the knesset, please share it. But as far as I can tell from Wikipedia this is not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Israeli_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Israeli_legislative_elect... And the claim was not as to the popularity of policies, the claim was that the government does not represent the electorate, which is categorically false in this case, and would have been even if there were electoral districts. If a government is elected by the representatives of the people, then that government represents the people. If the government did not represent the representatives and the population that elected the representatives, who does it represent then?

wslh 2y ago

I love to read every intelligence news but it seems The Guardian has many issues finding what Putin or others are really doing. Today the problem is not only the truth and the signal vs. noise but the context. This all seems like the spotlight fallacy.

eynsham 2y ago

First, thanks for the conatructive tone. Every day I am astonished that people directly impacted—whose friends died and might have been sexually abused on 7.10 and people whose families have been blown to pieces by aerial bombardment—somehow still manage to be more reasonable (on occasion) than many of their supporters in the West. Second, I am not sure that this is a ‘small’ minority. Even ignoring the Channel 14 polls (which do seem to be made up) the current coalition is on about 50 seats (looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Israeli_legislative_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_I...). And then I am not really convinced that Sa’ar or Lieberman would really be opposed to this specific action, which would make a majority. For that matter, I saw one poll saying a Sa’ar+Cohen+Bennett tie-up would hit a whole thirty-two seats and reduce the Likud to twelve (that's the one labelled ‘Merger of Gideon Sa'ar, Naftali Bennett and Yossi Cohen & Labor and Meretz under Yair Golan’…) Admittedly maybe Lieberman would say that it’s stupid but that’s different from saying it’s disgraceful.

muddi900 2y ago

Benjamin Netenyahu has consistently been winning elections. It took a coalition of 11 parties last time to keep him away from the PM seat. At what point will people accept that he is the rule, not the exception?

runarberg 2y ago
Also, this has been going on since 2015, with serious escalation in 2018-2019, spanning a total of 4 governments, one of which didn’t include Netanyahu, two (and a half) included Netanyahu’s main oppositions. Spying, and using nefarious methods to undermine international law seems to be a consistent policy of Israel regardless of who is in power. Democracies usually have a set of policies which the public has no influence over, so perhaps, if given the choice, the Israeli public would vote to abolish these kinds of policies. That said, these kinds of actions are usually followed by international (and—in case of democracies—domestic) condemnation, and in the worst cases (which this is) sanctions. In the case of Israel, the response seems to be a relatively small demonstrations (think Argentina if you want to see demonstration against actions the public really dislikes) and a lackluster international response. I don’t think Israel is likely to change these policies any time soon, unless the international response really steps up their pressure.