Unfortunately the latter I thinkIf Netanyahu eventually goes, is it more likely Israel softens or moves further to the right?
Could be that he's just trying to do as much damage/make life as hard as possible for his successor, since he can't be unaware of how unpopular he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini...aeli_legislative_election#Netanyahu_vs._GantzIn today's settler fanatic news, Netanyahu just appointed this guy to head the Knesset's West Bank security sub-committee
![]()
Netanyahu appoints far-right MK as chairman of West Bank committee
Groups like Brothers in Arms and Peace Now accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of endangering national security with the appointment.m.jpost.com
Hard to convey what a terrible idea this is. Zvi Sukkot is the living embodiment of hardline settler violence. It's like appointing David Duke to oversee a committee on race relations. Just hurling gasoline on a fire. Dangerous and crazy with no upside.
This isn't like incumbent White House staff gluing locks shut or whatever to mess with the incoming staff tho. It's appointing a dangerous fanatic - literally, a terrorist - to a very sensitive and at least symbolically important position at the most dangerous possible time, a situation that could explode at any moment.Could be that he's just trying to do as much damage/make life as hard as possible for his successor, since he can't be unaware of how unpopular he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opini...aeli_legislative_election#Netanyahu_vs._Gantz
the haredi aren't nationalist at all though are they, some of them even opposing the state of israel?Unfortunately the latter I think
Who knows what will happen in the wake of the chaos this war generates, and it's possible Lapid could return to power. But demographically as I think I said in the longer-term the indicators are bad. Israel is likely to get more religious, more hardline, less open, less tolerant. The religious just have more kids. A key point of the religious settler parties is intense homophobia on religious grounds. There's also specifically the ticking Haredi time bomb (basically, they neither fight nor contribute to the economy, which becomes a larger problem the greater % of the population they become).
It's something I've been thinking about for a long time. For all the bad things the Ashkenazi war heroes - esp Sharon and Netanyahu - have done, what comes after will probably be even worse.
That is partly true. Some Haredim oppose Israel on the grounds that only the Messiah can initiate a Jewish state (there's more to it than that but that's the basic idea). Some - a significant minority, at least - are Zionists.the haredi aren't nationalist at all though are they, some of them even opposing the state of israel?
They're also exempt from military service, aren't they? So it's doubly unfair on the rest.I should have clarified that the Haredi thing overlaps with religious nationalism but is a different challenge. Religious settlers are extremely dangerous and share some views, but the main problem with Haredi is as I said they mostly just leech off of secular society. Or, the women work, taking care of the million children each family has. The men just get govt stipends to study Torah. It's a crazy system. This is also frequently the case w/American Haredi btw (idk about Europe).
Yes. They can serve but they're not obligated to. The same thing is true for Israeli Arabs but that makes much more sense.They're also exempt from military service, aren't they? So it's doubly unfair on the rest.
Sure, there is some % exceptionsSome of them work in tech.
![]()
The ultra-Orthodox Jews combining tech and the Torah
Israel's Haredi Jews have long led a life devoted to religious study but an increasing number are breaking with tradition and excelling in Israel's tech start-up sector.www.bbc.co.uk
Some of them work in tech.
![]()
The ultra-Orthodox Jews combining tech and the Torah
Israel's Haredi Jews have long led a life devoted to religious study but an increasing number are breaking with tradition and excelling in Israel's tech start-up sector.www.bbc.co.uk
You're doing it again: saying something is a bad opinion but giving no reason other than that it's bad because your bogeyman du jour has said something similar. In order to have a proper opinion you need to have thought it through yourself rather than just algorithmically prefixed someone else's opinion with 'NOT'. The major drawback of propounding superficial negations of your claimed foes' opinions is that they determine what you think and do...that's how people who call themselves 'anti-fascist' end up agitating for strict gender norms, the suppression of homosexuality, sterilisation of homosexuals and the gender non-conforming, and experimentation on children.As always, not going to take your typical sealioning bait, but just to clarify your typical thing of trying to put words in my mouth to make it seem as if we agree.
None of this happened. Your opinions on trans rights are bad because they're bad opinions, as well as generally quite ignorant. Separately, they're shared with a variety absolutely terrible people (RW evangelicals, Neonazis, etc). The point of mentioning that is to demonstrating the absurdity of claiming to be on the left - which obv doesn't apply to you - while happily supporting people who in turn happily ally themselves to the most regressive RW elements of society. And I answered, in detail, every single opposing take, however bad and ignorant I found them. Go and find me an unanswered one.
Mumsnet is a raving hotbed of transphobia as, again, I detailed with links etc that you didn't bother to read.
And none of this is "abstract". It is all very immediate and very real. It's only abstract for you bc you don't have any real stakes involved, beyond a frankly creepy obsession with trans women.
That's all I'm going to say about that. Not letting this get derailed.
And to make it relevant to this thread, apparently the anti-fascist take here is to align oneself with theocratic, patriarchal, ultra-conservative, homophobic, illiberal terrorists over land ownership rights when land ownership per se is normally regarded by the left as an act of violent presumption no matter who asserts it.
Clearly the assumption that the enemy of your enemy would be your friend is topographically unsound: the enemy of your enemy may just be an even greater enemy.
Much ink has been spilled describing the longtime relationship – rather, alliance – between Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas. And still, the very fact that there has been close cooperation between the Israeli prime minister (with the support of many on the right) and the fundamentalist organization seemingly evaporated from most of the current analyses – everyone’s talking about “failures,” “mistakes” and “contzeptziot” (fixed conceptions). Given this, there is a need not only to review the history of cooperation but also to conclude unequivocally: The pogrom of October 7, 2023, helps Netanyahu, and not for the first time, to preserve his rule, certainly in the short term.
they might have ideals about land ownership rights in some distant future, but that doesn't mean you just forget you're living in the world in the current state it is and don't call for fair application of the law. also, personal land ownership issues aren't really the same as issues of self-determination and legally mandated statehood.And to make it relevant to this thread, apparently the anti-fascist take here is to align oneself with theocratic, patriarchal, ultra-conservative, homophobic, illiberal terrorists over land ownership rights when land ownership per se is normally regarded by the left as an act of violent presumption no matter who asserts it.