https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/golan-calls-for-bloc-to-unite-with-arab-parties-we-have-a-majority-of-65-seats-we-must-stop-being-afraid/

Democrats leader Yair Golan calls for the parties in the bloc led by Yashar’s Gadi Eisenkot to partner with the Arab parties and form a government, noting it would have a majority of seats.

“Netanyahu lost. I know how to count to 120. 65 is more than 55. That’s how Israeli democracy works. Period,” Golan writes on X.

“The reality must teach us one resounding lesson: We have no future here if we don’t stop being afraid. And if we don’t stop with the racism. We must no longer accept Netanyahu’s racist division between Jewish votes and Arab votes,” he says.

“And now let’s talk about Zionism. In Netanyahu’s bloc sit 16 Knesset members from non-Zionist Haredi parties, who promote mass draft evasion while our children are fighting and dying,” writes the former IDF deputy chief.

“If Netanyahu insists on counting only a Zionist majority, let him first subtract from his own bloc the 16 Knesset members from the non-Zionist Haredi parties. They won’t preach to us about Zionism,” he says.

“The change bloc has a Zionist majority: 49 against 39. The change bloc has an Israeli majority: 65 against 55,” Golan says.

“We have a majority. We have responsibility. And we have an opportunity to form a government of change in partnership with Israel’s Arab citizens. A government that will serve all Israeli citizens. Now we need courage. It takes leadership. It takes stopping the fear and starting to act,” he says.

Amid the ongoing count, Netanyahu’s bloc has 56 seats, Eisenkot’s has 48, and the Arab parties are at 16 seats.

If Zionism (the belief in Jewish self-determination) is inherently violent, would you apply the same logic to Palestinian self-determination?

I keep hearing that because I’m a Zionist (a person who believes in Jewish self-detrmination), I must somehow support a violent ideology. Which I 1 million percent reject.

I believe Jews have a right to self-determination. I also believe Palestinians have that same right.

Jews have maintained a connection to the Land of Israel and a hope of return for centuries (Zionism). So what is it about the belief in Jewish self-determination (Zionism) itself that you think inherently requires violence?

People have also committed horrific violence while claiming to act for Palestinian liberation. Does that make the belief that Palestinians deserve self-determination inherently violent? Does everyone who supports that right to Palestinian liberation inherently endorse violence?

I would say no. Palestinians deserve self-determination, and I can support that right while condemning violence committed in its name.

I’m asking you to apply the same distinction to Jews. If you believe Jewish self-determination (zionism) is inherently violent but Palestinian self-determination isn’t, please explain why.

ETA: If you can't answer the questions, or don't want to, then just move along. No one is forcing you to answer the questions. Make your own post with your own questions if you feel like it, this is MY post with MY questions.

 Bibi doesn’t have 61, but it’s a disaster regardless, and it will be difficult for the opposing bloc to achieve a better result in the next elections. Through a fear-mongering campaign, Bibi siphoned votes from the other parties in his bloc and managed to achieve a result that no one thought he would- famously, in 1996, people thought Peres had won-only to wake up to a "Bibi" morning. The same thing happened in 2015: everyone believed Bibi had been defeated, but he managed to win by using a fear-based campaign.

 In 2015, everyone mobilized against him; people were sure he would lose, and the next morning there was a turnaround, and he won and surprised everyone. From 2015, he realized that he could do whatever he wanted, and stopped being afraid of what he was afraid of doing in 2009-2014: He started to take control of the state systems and establish his own media outlets, but he was still held back by the public service and the protesters on the other side. If Bibi wins now, all opposition to him will collapse. The public will be exhausted, and he will receive a definitive mandate to do whatever he pleases-taking the final step toward transforming the state into an entity entirely aligned with him. From seizing control of the courts, dismissing legal advisors, and reshuffling the IDF’s top brass, to a "crypto-economy"- Israel will become the "Netanyahu family State."

Netanyahu is a very effective fearmonger and despite the anti-Haredi sentiment, there will always be anti-Arab sentiment as well and obviously anti-Palestinian. Bibi's supporters are loyal as hell and see him as god, probably more than Trump's own supporters. Bibi’s cult of personality is now on track to become second only to North Korea’s. Any Israeli who knows Bibi supporters-and witnessed them yesterday-understands exactly what I’m talking about. He is one step away from being crowned a god. We are essentially entering Season 5 of The Boys, with a Homelander-style cult of personality. Incidentally, I believe Netanyahu’s supporters proved yesterday that they are even more loyal than Trump’s. They are arguably the most loyal base among all supporters of right-wing, authoritarian leaders worldwide.

Is Corey Gil-Shuster's The Ask Project hasbara? Because honestly after watching a few videos of him asking Palestinians questions.. it makes Palestinians look like they actually sort of want to wipe all the jews out?

My question is, is he cherry picking answers or are Palestinians really as allergic to solutions as Israelis? ​

I know that Palestine is the occupied territory. but honestly with the answers I saw in these videos.. I cant say I blame them for having security concerns or thinking that btowdly Palestinians are a threat. Is this just the way it is going to be? Intractable as they say?

edit: I thank people for their thoughtful responses. I see that my use of hasbara has offended some people. What I mean by hasbara is the way un which israel uses media to influence public opinion. If you prefer propaganda that works too.

Japan attacked first. Pearl Harbor killed about 2,400 Americans. The US response included the firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945, around 100,000 dead in a single night. Then Hiroshima and Nagasaki, between 110,000 and 210,000 dead by the end of 1945, mostly civilians. In total, US bombing killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. The casualty ratio was far more one-sided than in Gaza. Yet almost nobody calls Japan the victim of that war, and there were no mass pro-Japan protests, because of the Japanese regime's atrocities, terrorizing the whole region and joining the Axis. Having mass civilian casualties doesn't change who's in the wrong when you have a warmongering military dictatorship.

Korea. In 1950, North Korea invaded the South. US bombing destroyed most North Korean cities, and North Korean civilian deaths are estimated in the hundreds of thousands, possibly over a million. Again a huge imbalance in losses. And again, almost nobody thinks the North was in the right.

Civilian deaths are a tragedy in any war, and specific strikes can and should be criticized. But if counting bodies is your only argument, then by that logic you'd have to side with Imperial Japan and Kim Il Sung.

The conclusion is simple: a casualty ratio alone doesn't tell you who's right. What matters is who started the war, what kind of regime is on the other side, and what it takes to end the war.

For those who'll say the laws of war changed after WW2: true, and the modern rules don't ban civilian casualties. They ban attacks where expected civilian harm is excessive compared to the military gain, and they require precautions. That's a strike-by-strike standard, not a ratio. The same rules also ban fighting from among civilians and using them as shields, which Hamas does as a strategy.

For those who'll say the atomic bombings were war crimes too: then you agree a high civilian toll doesn't make the other side right. Nobody concludes from Hiroshima that Imperial Japan should've won.

For those who'll say Israel started it all: look at the actual wars. In 1948 the UN proposed partition, the Jewish side accepted, the Arab side rejected it, and five Arab armies invaded the day after Israel declared independence. In 1973 Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur. On October 7 Hamas broke a ceasefire and killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians. Israel did strike first in 1967, but only after Egypt expelled UN peacekeepers, blockaded Israeli shipping and massed troops on the border. It also invaded Lebanon in 1982 after years of PLO attacks from there. You can argue about each of those, but "Israel started every war" just isn't the history. If anything, I would say the aggression has mostly come from the other side.

For those who'll say Israel doesn't belong in the region: Jews have lived there continuously for about 3,000 years, long before the Arab conquest. After 1948, around 850,000 Jews were pushed out of Arab and Muslim countries, and most went to Israel. Today roughly half of Israeli Jews have roots in the Middle East and North Africa, not Europe. Most modern states in the region were drawn up in the 20th century too, Jordan in 1921, Iraq and Syria from post-WW1 mandates. Israel has been a UN member since 1949 and has peace deals with Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco, so much of the region itself accepts it exists. And 10 million people, including 2 million Arab citizens, aren't going anywhere. The real question is how both peoples live there, not whether one of them should disappear.

And if you really care about civilians, criticize Hamas at your protests too. It started this war on October 7, killed around 1,200 people and dragged about 250 hostages into Gaza. It built a huge tunnel network under homes, schools and hospitals, for its fighters, not for civilians. It hasn't held an election since 2006 and still rules Gaza by force. When Gazans themselves protested against Hamas in 2025, it cracked down on them. If Palestinian lives are what you care about, Hamas belongs on your signs too. But most of you don't put it there.

The day began on an optimistic note, with a high voter turnout within the bloc opposed to Bibi. I voted for Bennett-as did many other right-wingers-because we want a right-wing, capitalist, and socially liberal candidate who is not Netanyahu, someone who will clean up the corruption and our terrible govt and also not a leftist.

Over the last few hours, Netanyahu has been running an aggressive fear-mongering campaign—claiming that "the Left and the Arabs will steal the country," that "we are fighting for the very life of the nation," and that "the Palestinians will kill us if we don't vote for Likud", "The Leftist government will establish a Palestinian state"-and consequently, there has been an uptick in votes for Netanyahu. Some friends of mine, whom I consider to be intelligent people, surprised me by voting for Bibi.

Netanyahu himself is in a struggle against Ben-Gvir-who leads the new populist Right, a Right composed of thugs from the periphery who loathe the establishment, and nationalists whose traditionalism is performative rather than symbolic. Ben-Gvir offers a more extreme and populist approach than Netanyahu, whose own style is far more akin to that of a monarchical leader/white-collar elitist than a low-class populist. Ben-Gvir supporters are basically like trad catholic Catholic Young Rightwingers who are to the right of Trump and Ben-Gvir himself is now a rural populist for traditionalists from the periphery, the leader of the anarchic, neo-fascistic, populist, Post-Bibi right, As for Bibi himself, he is surrounded by something akin to a cult of personality-one that has permeated the mainstream-with followers who view him as a "king" and the nation's savior. The dynamic surrounding Bibi bears a striking resemblance to Homelander from *The Boys*: a sort of new religion has formed around him, worshipping him and regarding him as the nation’s messiah-a protector against enemies, whether from without or within. Some even claim that voting for Bibi is a Jewish obligation, and so on.

In 2015, Bibi was like 'Homelander Season 1', carefully polished image, more behind the scenes stuff while dog whistling and trying to maintain a clean image, he hid what we see now and was afraid of confronting the Israeli state institutions. He even halted attempts of Likud members to attack the Supreme court. In 2015, everyone mobilized against him; people were sure he would lose, and the next morning there was a turnaround, and he won and surprised everyone. From 2015, he realized that he could do whatever he wanted, and stopped being afraid of what he was afraid of doing in 2009-2014: He started to take control of the state systems and establish his own media outlets, but he was still held back by the public service and the protesters on the other side. If Bibi wins now, all opposition to him will collapse. The public will be exhausted, and he will receive a definitive mandate to do whatever he pleases-taking the final step toward transforming the state into an entity entirely aligned with him. From seizing control of the courts, dismissing legal advisors, and reshuffling the IDF’s top brass, to a "crypto-economy"- Israel will become the "Netanyahu family State."

In any case, I’m pessimistic; I think it will end in a tie.

The United States and the United Kingdom overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 because his government nationalized the Iranian oil.

Following the ousting of Mosaddegh and the consolidation of the Shah’s power, relations between Iran and Israel improved dramatically. From 1953 onward, Iran under the Shah became Israel’s primary oil supplier, and the two countries developed deep cooperation in military, intelligence (between the Mossad and the Iranian SAVAK), and commercial spheres, which lasted until the 1979 Revolution.

Given that Iran already possesses 440.9 kilograms of 60%-enriched uranium with which it could theoretically manufacture nuclear weapons and that if the United States were to launch a ground invasion with a million troops, it would take only one or two weeks to refine that material to 90%? Also, we do not know how many advanced centrifuges they still possess in deep bunkers and secret facilities after the war, and even before the 2025 and 2026 bombings, Iran's nuclear program was monitored (albeit with limitations) by the IAEA in known facilities like Natanz and Fordow. By destroying those surface complexes, the real result was pushing the entire program into absolute secrecy. The Iranian regime no longer has any reason to maintain its uranium at 60% as a bargaining chip; its top priority is now existential survival, which logically compels them to use those secret centrifuges to reach 90% enrichment as quickly as possible as the a deterrent against new attacks.

So what was Israel’s strategic rationale for risking global inflation and oil market disruptions caused by the conflict with Iran and the resulting blockades at the Bab el-Mandeb and Hormuz straits disruptions that were entirely predictable? Was the primary objective a preemptive strike to prevent Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank from operating under an Iranian nuclear umbrella thereby obstructing any potential strategic integration or territorial claims like South Lebanon,Syria and Judea and Samaria? Or does this reflect a far more complex geopolitical 200 IQ thinking we cant understand like pushing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon under military pressure from the strikes to fragment Arab support for the Palestinian cause, knowing that key Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan view the emergence of a nuclear-armed, Shiite-led Iran as an existential threat? Or did they expect the United States to carry out a full ground invasion of Iran to steal the uranium given that Donald Trump cancelled that mission due to the severe risks involved?

I've noticed that pro-Palestine protests focus almost entirely on Israel's government and military, and I rarely see signs or chants criticizing Hamas, even though Hamas governs Gaza and is responsible for the suffering of people there.

Gaza hasn't had an election since 2006, and Freedom House describes Hamas as governing in an authoritarian manner and suppressing criticism of its rule. When Gazans protested high taxes and living costs in 2019, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented Hamas beating, arresting, and torturing protesters and journalists. In 2025, Amnesty again reported that Hamas threatened and beat Gazans who protested against its rule and the war. Meanwhile, Hamas has heavily taxed Gazans and spent huge resources on tunnels and weapons, while its top leaders lived comfortably abroad in Qatar.

If the goal is a better life for Palestinians, then the group that rules them, suppresses their dissent, and tortures their protesters can't be left out of the picture. Gazans themselves have protested against Hamas at real personal risk. Western protesters face no such risk, yet they stay silent about it.

That silence sends a message, whether intended or not: that Hamas's role in Palestinian suffering doesn't matter, that criticizing it is off limits, or that some protesters are simply being antisemitic without openly admitting it. It also makes it easier for critics to dismiss the whole movement as being against Israel rather than for Palestinians. Adding even basic criticism of Hamas would make the protests more consistent, more credible, and closer to what many Gazans themselves have been saying.

Hey, I'm from Israel and voting left-wing tomorrow. Here are a few clarifications for the people interested in insight, because these elections are weird and not as they seem

:The Coalition's corruption as discussed by Israelis

The main reason why Netanyahu is accused of corruption: it's the stripping away of democracy by removing the power of the Supreme Court so it can't strike down any laws the far-right government makes. They called it the "judicial overhaul" (or legal revolution), and a lot of awful, dictatorial laws were passed this way. You also didn't mention the firing of civil servants just to appoint cronies and hand out jobs based on how much they kiss his ass, nor did you mention the corruption of the police force by Minister Ben-Gvir, and many other things.
(This was originally a comment to a major news source)

:Eisenkot's Vagueness doesn't mean change isn't coming

Eisenkot is definitely somewhat vague about his views, but precisely because of how our electoral system works, a coalition of many parties, it doesn't really matter. Because he supports what the other strong parties represent. Here, the specific Prime Minister matters much less than the overall opposition bloc, which this time is very left-leaning and most wants what's best for everyone, including the country's Arab citizens. You'll see that they will partner with the Arab parties and work together. It feels to me like you're slightly avoiding emphasizing the scale of the revolution that Eisenkot represents.

:Arab citizens's vote

The Arab population really didn't have a high voter turnout in the past, yes, but this time they are part of the revolution. The turnout this time is going to be vastly bigger because the Netanyahu government is actively fucking up their lives.

:No left-wing? (READ THIS ONLY IS YOU ARE LAZY)

As a citizen, I can tell you a secret: most of the opposition IS the left in disguise. Over the last 15 years, Netanyahu has made the word "left" completely taboo in this country as part of a fear-mongering campaign that blames leftists for everything. Since then, anyone running against him has learned that they can't call themselves "leftist" because many of his voters are terrified of that word, and the ultimate goal is to win over his voters. This time, too, the opposition is avoiding saying they have an opposing, left-wing worldview, because the vaguer you are, just promising to make things better here, the more likely Netanyahu's voters, who feel how shitty it is to live here right now, will switch sides. But their actual views are definitely left-wing. This is a full-on left-wing revolution; it's just keeping a very low profile to sweep up right-wing votes. The word "left" has lost some of its meaning simply because of Netanyahu. It is true that the openly declared left differs from the undeclared left in that it talks much more about Gaza and a solution for the Palestinians. And here is an optimistic point: the only explicitly left-wing party, Yair Golan's "The Democrats," together with the Arab parties, are projected to get around 27 seats. That's almost half of the new coalition, which means nearly half of the coalition will be explicitly left-wing, and the other half will be centrist parties that refuse to call themselves left-wing but hold many leftist views. The explicit left is going to have a lot of power in the government.

This is a revolution, thats why people all over the country say its the most important election in their life time, its THIS CRITICAL TO REMOVE THESE CRIMINALS.

EDIT: vote percentage trunout is higher then ever before, both in the Israeli and in the arab communities, everyone is fighting for a change, all we can hope is that they will indeed sit with the arab parties (i think its pretty surly the case)
Only according to votes, a major win, this is a revolution.

Just a few weeks ago, on October 7, an Israelis for Peace vigil group gathered to mourn BOTH Israelis killed on October 7 and Palestinians killed in Gaza during the last 3 years of war. They held candles and shared testimonies from grieving families.

Unfortunately, delusional protesters showed up and drowned out the testimonies so they couldn't even be heard. They accused Mamdani, in attendance, of supporting genocide and asked how many children he had killed. They told Jewish attendees to go to Poland and mocked them with references to Israelis fleeing on October 7. They called at least one attendee a “N@zi bitch.”

They called Brad Lander a N@zi and told him to kill himself. Lander is a Jewish politician who publicly acknowledges the war as a genocide, fiercely opposes the occupation, and advocates heavily for Palestinian rights.

And then there was this exchange between two protesters:

“I still find it ironic to call Jews [N@zis](mailto:N@zis).”

“That gets under their skin the most. That’s why you got to use it.”

Let's just sit with that for a second.

These people came together to mourn innocent Israelis and Palestinians. To say clearly they do not want any more people to die (they held signs reading 'NOT ONE MORE DEATH'. And this is what they were met with.

If even Mamdani can be accused of supporting genocide at a peaceful unity vigil, and even Lander can be called a N@zi, then we are all very screwed. What is an individual Jew or supposed to do that will ever be enough?

Last week, I watched a beautiful documentary made by a teenager about Palestinians and Jews who refuse to be enemies despite their own personal losses. A few agitators in the room insisted it was a call for “more genocide.”

Is anything ever going to be enough? Do you personally have some threshold of acceptance when x, y, and z are accomplished? Or will it never be enough ever?

Lest we forget what happened to Scott Wiener. And even Nadav Lapid, an Israeli filmmaker who exiled himself to France and is a fierce critic of the Israeli government who was forced to withdraw from a film festival after calls to boycott him and his documentary, a film about how little he perceived Israelis to care about the war at all. Make it make sense.

Again, I ask, if even these super anti-Israel Jews are just not enough to feed your hate, WHAT IS?

****

And let's just get this out of the way: yes, I know these protesters don’t represent everyone who supports Palestinians. Yes, I know Jewish and Israeli extremists exist too. However, none of that answers my question.

And don't come at me with "well what would be enough for Jews?". If you want ot ask that, then create your own post. This is my post and my questions are above. If you can't answer in good faith, then don't respond. I’m asking you what would be enough for you to accept an individual Jew and not condemn them.

Now let me be clear: Israel was a mistake and I do see it as an inferior society culturally.

What pushed me to make this post was a conversation I had with an anti Zionist a couple days. He was disgusted the israeli left didn’t go to war with the Israeli right after the assassination of Rabin in order to free, FREE PALESTINE like the northern states of America did with the confederacy.

And this got me thinking of a massive flaw in pro Palestinian advocacy in comparison to successful social justice movements.

They’ve not tried to get the dominant group that they acknowledge holds all the real power in the conflict to like Palestinians

Black Americans, gay Americans, made it a point to frame giving each group rights as beneficial to the dominant group or at least something that wouldn’t negatively impact them in any significant way.

The gay rights movement in the 90s made very very coordinated and careful messaging of just being regular people who’d like to get married and raise the children no one wants.

Gay guys could be a non-threatening male confidant to women even.

Black Americans made it apparent the political party most favorable to them would get their votes.

Palestinian aren’t offering any benefit to Israeli Jews.

The most popular group amongst them is promising to eradicate or expel or subjugate the majority of the population.

Hamas is often compared to the ANC. But the thing is even besides the fact the anc tried to be discriminatory in their violence they still preached coexistence and had members in their organization.

Also three years ago this group did murder and rape Israeli leftists and progressives at a music festival.

The most accommodating part of Israel society got the most vicious sort of violence.

The method trying to convince the dominant group of the utility of ending an oppression has gone out the window in recent years in the social justice scene.

People should be given rights merely because it is right.

Which I agree with.

But it wouldn’t be particularly convincing to many people who either hate or feel threaten by the group whose rights are supposedly being oppressed.

And if they’re currently in a situation wherein they think giving those rights to the people they hate will end with their murder and deaths they simply will not do it,

It doesn’t matter if you scream on social media about it or burn down a coffee shop in France for the fFREE FREE Palestine.

The vast majority of the Israeli population—-Israeli Jews will continue onward increasing the pressure on Palestinian society until either the neck breaks or they tap out in defeat.

With all the antisemitism on the rise in the US and Canada, do you see Jews from those places fleeing to what are perceived to be more safe places? Do you think the same will happen to Jews in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand? Those few that are left in South Africa?

Which places do you think would become safe havens for Jews?

Even once safe places like Thailand and the Philippines are no longer safe for Jews (judging by the recent events there).

The only European countries I can see being safe now are Hungary and Czechia.

I assume most would choose Israel. Some would possibly choose places like Singapore, Taiwan, India, and Russia.

Let's look at the mathematical absurdity of Israel's 'only democracy' in the Middle East: under full Israeli control live approximately 15.5 million people (10 million citizens and 5.5 million Palestinians in the occupied territories). However, only 7.3 million are eligible voters. This means that more than 52% of the population under their rule is politically completely disenfranchised and has absolutely no say regarding the laws that decisively shape and restrict their lives.

Around 350,000 Palestinians living in occupied East Jerusalem cannot vote in Israeli parliamentary elections, even though Israel annexed this part of Jerusalem after occupying it in the 1967 war, an action considered illegal, and views it as part of its territory. Israel granted Palestinians in East Jerusalem permanent residency status but did not grant them citizenship. On the other hand, Israeli residents of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where more than 750,000 of them live, are permitted to vote in Israeli parliamentary elections.

If Netanyahu loses power, would anything actually change in the West Bank?

Hey everyone! We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom.

With Israel's election approaching, we've published an opinion piece by Shaqued Morag, who previously led Peace Now, one of Israel's oldest peace organisations, and worked as an adviser in the Knesset.

What makes her perspective interesting is that she's experienced the gap between political promises and what happens in practice.

Drawing on her time working during the previous Bennett-led coalition, she argues that even a government presenting itself as an alternative to Netanyahu may continue existing West Bank policies, particularly when coalition partners disagree on settlements and territorial control.

She looks at how decisions about settlements, planning and administration can continue shaping people's lives regardless of who leads the government.

It raises a question we'd be interested in discussing here:

What would a new Israeli government actually need to change for Palestinians and Israelis to see a meaningful difference in the West Bank?

And how much can a change in leadership accomplish without broader agreement on the future of the territory?

Here's Shaqued's full opinion piece

Let us know what you think and let's discuss here :)

I'm from Belgium. I'm not religious. I'm against zionism.

These are my impressions of NAZA:

I saw the docu last week in the cinema. I think the docu presented a very neccessary perspective. It wasn't trying to reveal something we didn't know or at least strongly suspect. It wasn't trying to demonise individual IDF soldiers who are complicit in the mass bombings and killings in Gaza. It wasn't interested in the psychology of those individuals.

Rather, I think the dry and sober style and content of interviews mixed with 'normal' images of Tel Aviv at night indifferenr about the propagandised images of the city, helped in constructing a systematic comprehension of what's happening.

The docu doesn't force us to be shocked or surprised about the atrocities, it rather tries to explain why we aren't shocked that this happens (again). Ironically, NAZA reminded me of Claude Lanzmans very long and dry documentary Shoah consisting mostly of testimonies as well. (I don't think it's a coincidence Lanzmann is briefly mentioned)

I left the cinema with a more precise and clear explanation of an idea I already had for a while. An idea that tries to understand how and why this could happen, after the holocaust. This idea is in my own words: the unwilingness of zionist jews to see the possibility of commiting genocide in oneself, to see that as human as well.

Or in the -better- words of Imre Kertersz (Hungarian jewish writer that survided the holocaust) while criticising Schindlers List:

"The film’s blunt simplification enraged the Hungarian-Jewish Nobel laureate Imre Kertész, himself a survivor. Schindler’s List, he argued, was kitsch. “I regard as kitsch any representation of the Holocaust that is incapable of understanding or unwilling to understand the organic connection between our own deformed mode of life (whether in the private sphere or on the level of ‘civilization’ as such) and the very possibility of the Holocaust,” he wrote in his 2001 essay, “Who Owns Auschwitz?” “Here I have in mind those representations that seek to establish the Holocaust once and for all as something foreign to human nature; that seek to drive the Holocaust out of the realm of human experience.” ( source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/listless)

These were my own insights. What do you think of them? Do you agree or not and why? What do you think of the documentary NAZA yourself?

Israel is often presented as a liberal democracy and a defender of Western values, while explicitly defining itself as a Jewish state. How does that fit with secular government and equal citizenship regardless of religion or ethnicity?

Suppose Iran or Afghanistan introduced competitive elections, protected civil liberties, and declared themselves “Islamic democracies.” Would we judge them by their institutions and treatment of minorities, or consider their religious identity inherently incompatible with liberal democracy?

I recognise that “Jewish” describes a people and national identity as well as a religion. But that still leaves the question: when does preserving a state’s identity become privileging one group over other citizens?

What consistent standard should apply to all three countries? Would we accept an Islamic democracy under the same conditions, or are we allowing Israel an exception we would reject elsewhere?

Hi everyone. I’m extremely pro-Israel, and in most conversations about the conflict, I find myself believing Israel is in the right. When I discuss it with friends, the conversation often ends with them saying they aren’t getting through to me. That doesn’t help either of us explain where we disagree, so I want to have a more substantive conversation with people who hold opposing views.

I’m not going to pretend I’m neutral or undecided. I have strong opinions, and I’ll probably push back on arguments I disagree with. But I’m choosing to ask for opposing perspectives because I want to seriously examine those opinions. Disagreeing with a response doesn’t mean I haven’t read or considered it, and I’ll try to extend that same understanding to anyone responding.

My main question is: which specific Israeli action or policy do you think presents the strongest challenge to a pro-Israel position, and why? Rather than trying to debate the entire conflict at once, I’d like to start with a concrete example and discuss the evidence, reasoning, and counterarguments.

I recognize that Israel’s right to exist, its citizens’ security, and whether a particular government decision is justified are separate questions. Please make clear which claim you’re challenging so we can address the same issue.

Two arguments that come up in these discussions are that Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens from attacks, and that security concerns cannot justify every action taken in response. Stating those principles alone doesn’t settle where the limits should be. How do you apply them to the example you choose, and what would you consider a justified alternative?

Sources would be appreciated, especially when the disagreement concerns what happened rather than how we judge it. I’ll be active in the comments and would welcome a reasonably quick back-and-forth, while understanding that thoughtful replies take time. I’m looking for a respectful discussion where we can challenge each other’s reasoning without making it personal.

I have a quote stuck in my mind that I use, constantly, and I've just realized I've forgotten who's line is it?

It's something along the lines of - Israelis like to say that they want peace, when they actually mean they want security.

If someone knows who said it I'd be eternally grateful and if you also remember the context - perfect.

There are 11,700 bomb shelters in Israel, protecting Israeli citizens.

but for some reason, only 37 of them are in Arab towns.

meanwhile many Arab citizens of Israel were killed or injured by incoming rockets from Hezbollah and Iran over the last three years.

if Arabs make up 20% of the state of Israel shouldn't there be at least hundreds of bomb shelters in their many towns and villages? or does Arab life not count as much in Israel?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveb...-are-located-in-arab-towns-coexistence-group/

37 out of more than 11,700 bombs shelters. Talk about discrimination.

Netanyahu: "He flew to Berlin. Hitler didn't want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, "If you expel them, they'll all come here." 'So what should I do with them?" he asked. He said, Burn them."

And every time Israel does something that violates Palestinian human rights, people on social media always post the photo of Haj Amin al-Husseini with Hitler, accusing all Palestinians of being Nazi allies and blaming them for the Holocaust even though it deliberately ignores the fact that approximately 12,000 Palestinian Arabs voluntarily enlisted in the British Army during World War II to fight against the Axis powers.

So it's like that South Park episode "Whale Whores", where the Japanese hate whales because they think whales dropped the atomic bomb instead of the Americans based on a photo, except that in real life a part of the Israeli population legitimately believes that Palestinians convinced Hitler to implement the Final Solution.

According to Israeli news site Ynet the survey published on Thursday and carried out by the Panels Politics polling institute revealed that 26% of respondents said that they agreed with Netanyahu's theory regarding the Nazi leader and Husseini.

The poll also asked respondents if they felt that Netanyahu's claim diminished Hitler's responsibility for the Holocaust - 37% accepted the claim and 53% rejected it.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/society/89897-151022-only-53-of-israelis-disagree-with-netanyahu-s-version-of-holocaust-history#:\~:text=Survey%20Finds%2053%25%20Of%20Israelis%20Disagree%20With,i24NEWS.%20Israel.%20Middle%20East.%20Israel%20elections%202026.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9HmkRYlVZw

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/netanyahu-under-fire-for-palestinian-grand-mufti-holocaust-claim

Another Israel national obsession is schnitzel.

One of the most fascinating things about Israeli cuisine is how it combines European and Middle Eastern culinary traditions into something distinctly Israeli. And perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than with schnitzel.

There is no war around schnitzel like hummus, although perhaps because Middle Easterners can not figure out how to get credit for it.

Schnitzel originated in Central Europe, where it is traditionally made from veal or pork. Jewish immigrants brought their schnitzel traditions to Israel, but the dish underwent an interesting transformation from its European counterpart.

Instead of veal or pork, Israeli schnitzel is overwhelmingly made from chicken breast, pounded thin, breaded, and fried until golden and crispy.

Today, schnitzel is practically a national institution. It's served everywhere. There is hardly a block in Tel Aviv that does have some restaurant that serves schnitzel, and like hummus there are restaurants that focus on it.

For many Israelis, schnitzel is the ultimate comfort food, rivaling hummus in its everyday popularity.

But here's where things get interesting. Israelis have essentially Middle Easternized the European schnitzel.

Israelis frequently stuff schnitzel into a pita or baguette, generously slather on hummus, and pile on Israeli salad, pickles, tahini, and sometimes spicy zhug or Moroccan matbucha. You can even find schnitzel wrapped in laffa or Yemenite malawach.

Think about that for a moment. Israelis eat a European-style breaded chicken cutlet, stuffed into Middle Eastern flatbread, covered in Levantine hummus, topped with Yemeni hot sauce and Moroccan tomato salad.

It works beautifully. But it's not all:

In Israel, Turkish style bourekas are eaten alongside pickles, hard-boiled eggs, and sometimes tahini.

Eastern European challah is served alongside fiery Moroccan salads.

North African shakshuka has become a staple of Israeli breakfast cafes, sometimes accompanied by European-style breads and cheeses.

Iraqi Jewish sabich has become one of the country's iconic pita sandwiches.

Israel is a place where Jewish culinary traditions from Poland, Austria, Morocco, Iraq, Yemen, Tunisia, and dozens of other places have collided, mixed, and evolved together.

It is one of the most beautiful things about Israeli food culture. All these cultures have influenced one another, producing combinations that would have seemed utterly bizarre to their ancestors.

A Polish grandmother might recognize the schnitzel, but wonder why her grandson is stuffing it into a pita and drowning it in hummus and zhug.

Nobody seems particularly worried about calling that combination cultural appropriation. They just call it lunch. And it's absolutely delicious.

That's Israeli cuisine in a nutshell: European comfort food meets Middle Eastern ingredients, Jewish dietary traditions, and a healthy disregard for culinary boundaries.

My friend Ran Heilbrunn wrote this for Café Américain. It's the first part of a four-part series on contemporary Israel, and it came out just before the October 27 vote.

His main point goes against the usual reading. Israel had five elections in four years. Then the government elected in 2022 became the first since 1988 to serve its full term. He doesn't think that means things got healthier. A large part of the public sees this government as unfit or even illegitimate, especially since October 7. That gave its members every reason to stay together and put off facing voters. So in his view, weak popular support is what produced the stability.

He also goes back over how the deadlock produced the 2021-22 "Government of Change," which had a settler-movement prime minister and an Islamist Arab party in the same coalition. He argues that turning every election into a vote on democracy itself is unhealthy, though he grants that Israel's neighborhood makes the fear more than talk. And he points out how strangely quiet the campaign feels on the ground.

Do you buy that a full term here shows a lack of legitimacy rather than stability, or is that reading too much into coalition discipline?

The link goes to Café Américain's post on X, which links to the article. If you think it's worth it, repost or reply there:

https://x.com/keithwhitson/status/2114460007144345608

I've been building FrontPageJews.com as a way to test my sense that Israel/Palestine is over-represented in the news, at least in part because the conflict involves Jews (the data itself does not speak to the reasons, and there are of course many other factors involved).

The site compares every country's share of news coverage against an equally weighted formula based on its population, GDP, and recent conflict-related deaths, all defined more precisely on the site.

It is an intentionally crude, blunt formula, inspired by Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow (ch. 21, Intuitions vs. Formulas):

Simple equally weighted formulas based on existing statistics or on common sense are often very good predictors of significant outcomes.

The results are more complicated than I expected. E.g. it shows Israel as slightly *under* represented over the summer of 2024. Still, I think the data generally leans towards sustained over-representation relative to other countries.

However you read this, I think it has merit as a baseline for discussion. You can explore the data yourself at https://frontpagejews.com/

Feedback welcome.

----------------------------------------------------------

Some notes written up by Claude to give a taste of what this can turn up:

Israel’s over-coverage has outlasted the war. Before Oct 2023 it got about 5× its benchmark, high but behind Ireland, Greece and New Zealand. Since the ceasefire, coverage has settled at about three times its pre-war level while its share of conflict deaths has dropped away, and it’s now the most over-covered country at 9.5×.

Per death, Israel/Gaza got far more coverage than other wars. Since Oct 2023 it got 6–7× Ukraine’s coverage per death. Sudan now has about 30 times Israel/Gaza’s 12-month death toll and about one-eighteenth of its coverage.

Who is missing matters as much. China, India and the African wars (Sudan, DR Congo, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia) are the largest gaps between coverage and reality. The attention Israel gets is coming at their expense.