|
Reuven Rivlin is a long-term Likudnik but of the old school (aka not as much of a racist theocratic thug) and it's believed his preference is for a unity government between Zionist Union and Likud but both parties have been disavowing that. Lum_ fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Mar 13, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Avshalom posted:netanyahu has a small, blunt and hairless penis
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You are a funny guy. More like funny goy, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
i'm not a goy!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:netanyahu has a small, blunt and hairless penis Coming from you, I am not sure whether this is a compliment or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:i'm not a goy!!! Goyiphobe
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Herzog Zwei. ohmygod YES
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
If you are still confused about the elections and why it's unlikely for Netanyahu to be unseated this is a pretty good overview: http://972mag.com/polls-show-zionist-camp-with-biggest-lead-yet-over-netanyahu/104219/
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
I liked http://972mag.com/behind-election-lurks-israels-ethnic-divide/104073/ better, although the author is stunningly in denial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
So um I'm more of a US Politics guy so can I just ask: are there any parties in Israel that aren't as bad as or worse than Netanyahu when it comes to Iran? Might Israel not have a warmongerer for a Prime Minister, or does anyone who stands a chance of beating Bibi beat the drums of war even louder than he does?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:So um I'm more of a US Politics guy so can I just ask: are there any parties in Israel that aren't as bad as or worse than Netanyahu when it comes to Iran? Might Israel not have a warmongerer for a Prime Minister, or does anyone who stands a chance of beating Bibi beat the drums of war even louder than he does? On that particular topic it might not actually matter that much, because the Israeli and American opposition to negotiations with Iran made a series of unforced strategic errors. e.g. Initially the State Department was keeping the Israeli government updated on the progress of the negotiations. The Israelis kept selectively leaking in an obvious effort to undermine the talks, to the point that State called them out on it publicly and stopped sharing the information. Netanyahu's address to Congress was possibly a good campaign ad but it was very unwise foreign policy, because it politicized US-Israel relations and firmly aligned him with the Republican Party. Finally, the more recent Republican open letter to the Iranian government was historically stupid--it probably scuttled any chance of getting Congressional Dems to cross the aisle on Iran, which means the Republicans won't get a veto-proof majority on any kind of sanctions bills. (It also, hilariously, led to the Iranian chief negotiator and Khamenei openly mocking Republicans as ignorant fools.) The upshot is that the Obama administration is going to worry a little about how the deal will look to Israelis, but it's not going to be his priority. Nor are the Israelis able to rely on congressional Republicans to advance their agenda. As regards unilateral Israeli military action, Netanyahu and other right-wing Israeli pols have talked about that from time to time but the stance of Israel's professional security establishment has been unwavering--it's a non-starter. The IAF has the theoretical ability to mount some kind of strike on Iranian nuclear facilities but the probability of any durable success is extremely low and the risks are enormous. The guy who was made Chief of the General Staff, Gadi Eizenkot, is copiously on record as a staunch opponent of strikes. Whoever is sitting in Netanyahu's chair is going to hear the same thing about an attack: not doable, or narrowly doable but an incredibly bad, risky idea. Finally, the USA is leading P5+1 negotiations with Iran towards a comprehensive nuclear agreement, and it won't be that long before we see the results. If the deal is at all good--and, regardless of what Netanyahu and Tom Cotton think, it will probably be real good compared to the alternative of no deal and Iran goes all-in on nuclear weapons--an Israeli strike would be basically insane. You're talking about starting a war with one of the three main ME powers for basically no reason, while at the same time torpedoing a deal to contain nuclear proliferation in the world's most volatile region, which will have been signed off on by the UN and the six most important countries in the world. That's some heavy poo poo. There's also the strong possibility that the Israeli political class is, in fact, not nearly as threatened by Iran as they profess to be. A lot of that is posturing for votes. Anyway. The current polling on the Israeli election would indicate that Netanyahu will likely return as PM, but the character of his coalition might shift hard to the right. There are other figures on the right more extreme that Netanyahu but, barring a dramatic collapse by Likud, none of them will replace Bibi at the top of a right-wing coalition. There might be some slim chance of a center-left coalition unseating him, and any PM from there is gonna be hawkish on Iran because that's the default pose. Less so than Netanyahu, though. Overall my point would be that things are passing the point where the PM of Israel can say what happens with Iran. I think that the threat of ISIS has forced a kind of reassessment on US foreign policy. In dealing with that threat our alliance with Israel is no help to us whatsoever (if anything, it's damaging), but an understanding with Iran could be incredibly useful, even decisive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
So some of my more Hasbarah-y friends have been throwing this article my way: http://observer.com/2015/03/how-the-ap-botched-its-investigation-of-civilian-deaths-in-the-israel-hamas-war/ Basically it's saying that the Associated Press is anti-Israel, and exaggerated casualties caused by Israel in favor of the Palestinian "side" amongst other things. What do you guys think?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So some of my more Hasbarah-y friends have been throwing this article my way: Should get better friends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So some of my more Hasbarah-y friends have been throwing this article my way: I don't know why articles like this can't wrap their head around the idea that Israel is killing more civilians than "baddies" when even if you think Israel is an oasis of freedom and democracy it should be clear that dropping bombs on a densely populated city where the avg. age is very young is going to kill more civilians than militia. Basically, pro-israel sources should stick to demonising Hamas rather than making nonsensensical excuses for the difference in casualties between the two.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So some of my more Hasbarah-y friends have been throwing this article my way: "Hm check out this photo of a 6 year old boy standing on the ruins of his house where his family was killed by an IDF airstrike. What they DON'T show you is that the father was actually a Hamas Basically the whole thing is just trying to dehumanize the victims and smear the AP. I can't find anywhere where they actually prove anything the AP reported as substantially wrong. Maybe that's because I literally had to stop reading when I got to this part: quote:But the problem with this photo, and the other seven, does not end there. The photo’s use of a 6-year-old child, standing amid the ruins of the family home, draws a vociferously negative reaction from Dr. Madeline Levine, a child psychologist and author of See No Evil: A Guide to Protecting Our Children from Media Violence (1998). The photo, she says, “manipulates emotions … Should we do this with youngsters? Of course not, because they’re more vulnerable and the job is to protect them, not exploit them.” If the photo was posed—as admitted by the AP—“that’s pretty disgusting, because there are so many opportunities to make that point that don’t involve exploitation of a young child.” *levels an entire neighborhood*
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Wow that is some refreshingly frisky hasbara. "We vaporized hundreds of children, toddlers, and infants but the true monsters here are those dastardly pro-palestinian journalists who appeal to human empathy by using pictures of children." Brings me back to "telegenically dead civilians".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:So some of my more Hasbarah-y friends have been throwing this article my way: I almost stopped reading as soon as it pointed to a picture of a 6-year-old child standing among the bombed-out ruins of his home as an example of AP photographers "exploiting children". I managed to keep going until it explicitly stated that photographs of dead children are just "manipulating the audience" and insinuated that the 6-year-old might have been a Hamas fighter, and then I stopped reading because it's an incredibly obvious PR piece written solely to ease the cognitive dissonance for people who already support Israel, and there appears to be very little actual fact in the article - it's mostly based in "hmm, isn't this suspicious", "just asking questions", "what if the facts were THIS instead of THAT", and "they're not relying solely on our preferred sources". It's textbook doubt-sowing to help people rationalize and reinforce what they already believe; it's not really meant for our eyes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
No you see his dad was a terrorist so he deserves to suffer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the 6-year-old might have been a Hamas fighter
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:No you see his dad was a terrorist so he deserves to suffer. A truly monstrous act by the Zionazi apartheid regime. Now, if that were the six-year old child of a West Bank settler....
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Then no-one would even think of writing an article in which they insinuate that the child deserved what he got, good point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
People on both sides often use weasel words to justify violence against innocents, the difference is that that pro-zionist child-murder justifiers get printed in more prominent western media venues, it should also be noted that the pretext under which Israelis murder children is a lot more palatable to the average american as it is trivially branded as collateral wherein palestinian violence against children is harder to frame in such a way. Haven't actually read the article, don't really intend to. Edit: Completely unrelated, I'm somewhat worried that Meretz aren't going to make the cut tomorrow. emanresu tnuocca fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Mar 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Now, if that were the six-year old child of a West Bank settler....
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:A truly monstrous act by the Zionazi apartheid regime. DarkCrawler posted:Yes. We all want you to name names instead of doing bullshit insinuations. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
my body is ready
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Anyone who ever saw The Diary of Anne Frank should be deeply ashamed. Exploiting children 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:Anyone who ever saw The Diary of Anne Frank should be deeply ashamed. Exploiting children Plenty of ways to make their point without resorting to that imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
I just had some dude call me a Nazi who's spreading antisemitic leftist propaganda cause I deny the fact that Israel had already made territorial compromises when it gave up on its divinely sanctioned territory east of the jordan river.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:32
|
|
|
I'm going to watch the Israeli elections pretty closely. Personally, I'm rooting the chaos option of a Likud-ZU coalition... and a Joint List Opposition 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 12:43
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:I just had some dude call me a Nazi who's spreading antisemitic leftist propaganda cause I deny the fact that Israel had already made territorial compromises when it gave up on its divinely sanctioned territory east of the jordan river. Did you explain to him you can't be antisemitic, only a self-hating jew?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Pro-Israeli people have been attacking the AP recently. Seems like a coordinated attempt to undermine their credibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
oh my god gently caress likud to deathquote:Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau said Monday that if he were to be reelected, a Palestinian state would not be created, in a definite disavowal of his 2009 speech, in which he had voiced support for the principle of two states for two peoples. http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-election-2015/.premium-1.647212
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:oh my god gently caress likud to death It is kind of hilarious how blatantly Netenyahu is torpedoing Israel's interests (as he sees them) by openly discrediting the thin rationalizations that have allowed Israel to maintain support in the face of obvious sabatoges of the peace process, just to keep his job. It's amazing, first admitting that a settlement was specifically to gently caress with the Palistinian state and now this. It's getting much harder to pretend it's the Palistinians that are the problem now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
It turns out the biggest regional threat to Israel's security was Bibi all along!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Yeah, considering that the chances of a center-left coalition taking power are minimal, the Palestinians are pretty screwed and I wouldn't be surprised if the PA quits en masse before the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Probably sooner considering they are running out of funds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Bibi is a two-faced bitch, he's saying this now just to steal a couple more votes from Bennet's party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:Bibi is a two-faced bitch, he's saying this now just to steal a couple more votes from Bennet's party. Yeah, Bibi is a clear 'listen to what he does, not to what he says' kind of politician, given that he's been PM for 6 years after he made those 2009 statements and there's nothing to show for it it seems imprudent to interpret his most recent statements as an actual change in policy, as far as Bibs is concerned the actual long term policy decisions pertaining to the I/P conflict are to be deferred for as long as possible, at the moment when the 'peace camp' is strongly leaning towards Herzog/Livni there is very little political capital to be made by appealing to Israeli centrists, on the other hand, weakening Bennett and Liberman (as he's been doing for the entirety of the campaign) would place him in a much better position in two days time, assuming their voters will vote Likud instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Whatever Fatah does, it probably won't be too long after the Israeli elections. They're between a rock and a hard place right now, they don't really have the time to sit around waiting leisurely to see if Netanyahu miraculously changes his outlook after being reelected. I can't imagine Abbas giving up effective control over the West Bank, but if nothing changes on the Israeli side soon, the PA is going to drastically reduce its cooperation with Israel, and violence will ramp up sharply - not just between Palestinians and Israel, but between Fatah and Gaza. Right now, they're keeping quiet and making veiled threats in attempts to influence the elections, but when that fails, the situation will begin to change probably within a month or two. Over the last week, Fatah has been carrying out mass arrests of Hamas members in the West Bank, which the media is calling a move to bolster Israeli leftists in the elections, but is also probably intended to bolster Fatah's dominance in the West Bank and weaken potential opposition just in case Fatah's own position weakens in the near future. Meanwhile, Hamas is claiming that the PA gathered military intel on Hamas during Protective Edge and passed it to Israel, that Fatah has been responsible for stirring up anti-Hamas feelings in Egypt, and is also accusing Fatah of being behind a recent spree of bombings and car fires in Gaza. Hamas claims to have proof, including recorded phone calls and the confessions of the supposed Fatah agents, while Fatah has claimed that all the evidence is fake, that Hamas "controls Gaza with fire and iron", and that the bombings were actually false-flag attacks committed by Hamas in order to accuse Fatah. According to Hamas, Fatah carried out the bombings in order to distract from their failure to take control or responsibility over Gaza, while Fatah says Hamas bombed themselves to cover up their failures to control Gaza. Of course, the security officials in Gaza have been working without pay for nearly a year now, and there was an awfully suspicious spree of bombings against the homes of Fatah members in Gaza back in November (some of which a fledgling ISIS movement in Gaza claimed responsibility for), so who knows? It could be basically anyone at this point. Whoever's responsible, though, it's clear that the relationship between Hamas and Fatah has taken a sharp decline in recent months, and both sides have really stepped it up lately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
His statement doesn't imply a change in policy, but it does provide the first honest description of current Israeli policy by a sitting prime minister. He's finally admitted that Israel does not and has never wanted peace, and that any seeming indication they did want peace (going through the "process" with no results while building settlements, starving Palestinians and leveling Gaza) was just an act.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2015 18:18
|
|