Israeli Judicial Overhaul Resumes

[Fahran]

I think he’s saying democracy is the imperial religion, judging by the sig.

>superfascist
Oh, look. Someone who reads Evola unironically.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I think he’s saying democracy is the imperial religion, judging by the sig.

>superfascist
Oh, look. Someone who reads Evola unironically.

Even the Italian Fascists thought the man was a nut.

[Fahran]

>superfascist
Oh, look. Someone who reads Evola unironically.

Even the Italian Fascists thought the man was a nut.

Because he was.

"Let's do astrology but make it racist."

[HISPIDA]

Even the Italian Fascists thought the man was a nut.

Because he was.

"Let's do astrology but make it racist."

the political compass, is that you?!

[El Lazaro]

>superfascist
Oh, look. Someone who reads Evola unironically.

Even the Italian Fascists thought the man was a nut.

Italian Fascists were soft core tbf. Imagine creating fascism as a political force and failing to actually do fascism when you become the dictator. If they were fascist-er, obviously that would have made up for their incompetence.

[Nilokeras]

Which was entirely in line with similar Soviet policies aimed at defusing nationalist sentiment in other minority nationalities. It wasn't a purely benevolent policy, to be sure, but I don't think we can call it antisemitic.

This doesn't exactly contradict my point at all. The USSR did not have any inherent interest in promoting Jewish self-determination or preserving Jewish cultural expression. Even when we consider Soviet leaders of Jewish heritage, such as Trotsky, they often viewed both Zionists and Yiddishists in a negative light, instead favoring the same sort of assimilationism that had been promoted in Germany and France during the Haskalah and Emancipation.

As for Antisemitism, I was discussing Soviet attitudes and policies more broadly. The anti-cosmopolitan purges and the proposed purges that would have followed the Doctors' Plot represent perhaps the most severe examples of Antisemitism at the highest levels of the Soviet government, but, with the exception of the early 1920s, Antisemitism had almost always been an underlying current within Soviet politics and in Soviet media when taken as a whole. And, no, it wasn't comparable to post-1950s or post-1960s Antisemitism in the US or UK. Brezhnev's show trials and the reaction of the Soviet media, which castigated convicted persons for their Jewishness, provide us with a glimpse of the same sentiments that underpinned the Dreyfus Affair a mere century before.

Taking all of that as a whole, we should not take an insincere proposal, intended to nullify Jewish self-determination that was known by the target audience to be both disingenuous and impractical and that was proposed multiple times by governments that had serious problems with Antisemitism, to the point that there was serious consideration of a targeted purging of Jews after the Holocaust, as a credible alternative to Zionism. The Soviets not only could not assure the safety of Jews, as both persons and as a nation, but they had no intention of ever doing the latter in a meaningful sense.

I think Soviet disregard for many of its minority populations should be obvious given the regime remained culpable of genocide for the entire duration of its existence - in the same sense as the US and Canada have been culpable of genocide for the majority of their existence. They enjoyed a more ambivalent relationship with certain Turkic and Slavic populations, but, yeah, I don't find any insistence that ethnic minorities should have appealed to the Soviets as protectors credible. It's mostly bad apologia that ignores the serious history of persecution, suppression, erasure, and genocide.

I think calling the Soviets 'genocidal' towards the constituent nationalities of the USSR is a bit much. It wasn't a settler colonialist regime that sought to supplant local nationalities with Russians. The structure of the USSR, after all, was designed to be a federation of autonomous national republics or governing bodies, of which the JAO was supposed to be one. We can certainly argue about the success they had in fulfilling those designs or the degree to which Stalin looms over everything, but that fact remains clear.

And to repeat a point I make below, I don't really know what criteria we're using to compare cultural antisemitism between the USSR and the West more broadly. What material reasons do we have to think that it was that much worse in the Soviet Union?

McCarthy's persecution of communists and left-wingers doesn't really compare to anything proposed by Stalin or put into practice by Brezhnev. McCarthy would get you blacklisted from working as a screenwriter and would destroy your personal relationships. Stalin would have you murdered or worked to death in a gulag. Brezhnev would do everything McCarthy would do to you, as the media castigated you for being a capitalist and rootless cosmopolitan, and would then put you in prison. Again, the status of Jews in the post-1950s and post-1960s USSR was almost beyond any doubt worse than the status of Jews in the Anglophone world in the same period. Some of this was actually down the Soviet geopolitical positions, given much of their Anti-Zionist propaganda was also Antisemitic in character, but, even ignoring that, Russia and Ukraine had long been deeply Antisemitic and that impacted government, media, and public attitudes. The US and UK, while still Antisemitic to some degree, have never really been on the same level as the countries where pogroms were almost a national sport.

Many of McCarthy's victims had their lives destroyed. Obviously it's not equivalent to being dragged out of your home and shot in the basement of Lubyanka but he had hundreds and hundreds of victims, many of whom were targets because they were prominent Jewish intellectuals or public figures. There are academic accounts from people who made it through the McCarthy era of an entire vanished cohort of people. Many of them emigrated, doubtlessly some to Israel. How do we measure the relative antisemitism of these two societies? Is it even worth trying to find degrees?

Russia and Ukraine are and pretty much always have been unique in their Antisemitism, whether we're discussing the Russian Empire or the USSR. The fact that Antisemitism is a specter that has haunted the Diaspora everywhere doesn't really make it's particular virulence in that region of the world a non-issue. There's a reason a steady stream of immigration existed from both the Russian Empire and the USSR, when such options were available, to the US and Levant. It's because they were actually as bad as I'm describing.

You're painting with a very broad brush here, and I think you're missing a lot in the process. When the Warsaw pogrom of 1881 broke out, do we say 'ah Russian society is so antisemitic'? Even when it was carried out in Poland, by Polish mobs? How much of the violence in the Pale against Jews was carried out by ethnic Russians?

There's a reason the JAO wasn't popular. See above. It was a deliberate attempt to suppress Jewish demands for self-determination while promoting assimilation within the context of a deeply Antisemitic society. The repetition of that process across Europe, even in ostensibly tolerant places, and experiences with its failures is what led to the popularity of Labor Zionism and Revisionist Zionism. The Holocaust, Farhud, and Arab Expulsions may have been the final nails in the coffin, but they represented the latest and most extreme expressions of what I'm describing. Assimilation cannot and will not save you when your neighbors hate you for what you are on a fundamental level and cannot bear to leave you be.

I think it's difficult to know what the JAO could have been without the war and the Holocaust it brought with it.

It's not ultranationalism. It's just nationalism.

And the solution, at least in my mind, is to promote national liberation of the Palestinians rather than to reverse the national liberation of the Jews. I don't think a binational state or even a non-nationalistic one-state solution are viable options at this juncture, and there's never really been any support for the latter option except among Israeli Marxists.

I think it's worth the distinction. Nationalism is fluid: it is, at it's heart, an idealistic sentiment that moves with its context. Enemies come and go depending on the needs of the moment. In-group and out-group shift as the Nation assimilates newcomers, or turns against the old. Israeli nationalism is fixed: like the US with its Western frontier, it is negationist. For America to survive and achieve it's destiny, the West must be settled and its inhabitants erased. For Israel to survive, it must destroy Palestinian sovereignty and its national identity must be destroyed. The national body politic is not complete without the process of settlement and expulsion through conflict being brought to completion.

I genuinely don't know what the way forward is for Palestine. As long as Israel's politics is held in the balance by violent nationalist/ultranationalist parties, its genocidal policies are just going to march on. Some sort of broad coalition of non-negationists has to find its way to power at the bare minimum, and I don't know if that willpower exists.

[Fahran]

I think calling the Soviets 'genocidal' towards the constituent nationalities of the USSR is a bit much.

It's not. The boarding schools they maintained for Siberian children were every bit as genocidal as their American and Canadian counterparts. These were an inheritance from the Russian Empire and have been maintained, largely without interruption, to the present day. There's also the largely uncontroversial discourse surrounding the genocide of the Ingrian Finns of Karelia. As well as ethnic cleansing, genocide, and discrimination against Turkic and Muslim populations.

It wasn't a settler colonialist regime that sought to supplant local nationalities with Russians. The structure of the USSR, after all, was designed to be a federation of autonomous national republics or governing bodies, of which the JAO was supposed to be one. We can certainly argue about the success they had in fulfilling those designs or the degree to which Stalin looms over everything, but that fact remains clear.

I don't think this represents a substantive difference honestly. The practical effect of Soviet policy, motivated by attempts to create a particular type of citizen and consciousness, was the prioritization of Russian culture over the culture of ethnic minorities, especially in linguistic terms, and the continuation of the process of Russian settlement in Ukraine, Siberia, and in the Ural regions. And, of course, there were several instances where this was actually a somewhat deliberate process.

And, yes, I'm aware of the enduring harm Soviet attempts at social engineering, especially with regard to religion, did on Russian culture as well. It doesn't really negate the point I'm making here.

And to repeat a point I make below, I don't really know what criteria we're using to compare cultural antisemitism between the USSR and the West more broadly. What material reasons do we have to think that it was that much worse in the Soviet Union?

The fact the state media was churning out Antisemitic propaganda on the reg in the 1960s and 1970s, that Jewish people were specifically targeted for political purges in the 1950s and 1960s, and that harassment and social prejudice remained extremely high in the USSR relative to the US and UK for starters. This presents a somewhat decent starting point. Jewish religious and cultural practices, as well as Yiddish, were actively suppressed in the USSR in the 1950s, largely in pursuit of the somewhat elusive goal of assimilating Jews into a Soviet identity. And it largely ignores the more pronounced Antisemitism that developed under Brezhnev and that accompanied Soviet Anti-Zionist propaganda campaigns, which relied often on common Antisemitic canards.

Many of McCarthy's victims had their lives destroyed. Obviously it's not equivalent to being dragged out of your home and shot in the basement of Lubyanka but he had hundreds and hundreds of victims, many of whom were targets because they were prominent Jewish intellectuals or public figures. There are academic accounts from people who made it through the McCarthy era of an entire vanished cohort of people. Many of them emigrated, doubtlessly some to Israel. How do we measure the relative antisemitism of these two societies? Is it even worth trying to find degrees?

The most obvious method is to examine media headlines, public support for Antisemitic views and policies, social status of Jewish people within the respective political communities, perceptions of Jewish people themselves, levels of government-sanctioned harassment, etc.

You're painting with a very broad brush here, and I think you're missing a lot in the process. When the Warsaw pogrom of 1881 broke out, do we say 'ah Russian society is so antisemitic'? Even when it was carried out in Poland, by Polish mobs? How much of the violence in the Pale against Jews was carried out by ethnic Russians?

Given the Pale of Settlement was imposed and maintained by Imperial Russian authorities and that pogroms were routinely instigated by Imperial Russian authorities... I'm not certain pointing to Poles removes the culpability or erases the broad historical trend. Prior to partitions, Poland was historically one of the more tolerant places in Europe with regard to its Jewish minority, to the point that it even created political problems within the Jewish community due to Jewish officials being somewhat overbearing towards their charges. I'd honestly have expected you to gesture towards the Ukrainian peasants or residents of Kyiv given they were far more prominently associated with pogroms than Poles even in later periods of Russian Imperial Rule.

There's a distressing tendency in a lot of recent discourse to shove culpability onto uneducated mobs when the institutional basis for Antisemitism has often remained in the hands of educated elites. It's not dissimilar to how the poor white Southerner is the cartoon villain representing racism in the United States despite a lot of the institutional barriers keeping black people, in particular, in a subordinated state were created by well-educated, politically-connected people who would never tie a noose.

I think it's difficult to know what the JAO could have been without the war and the Holocaust it brought with it.

Given we know the intention behind it... I disagree.

I think it's worth the distinction. Nationalism is fluid: it is, at it's heart, an idealistic sentiment that moves with its context. Enemies come and go depending on the needs of the moment. In-group and out-group shift as the Nation assimilates newcomers, or turns against the old. Israeli nationalism is fixed: like the US with its Western frontier, it is negationist. For America to survive and achieve it's destiny, the West must be settled and its inhabitants erased. For Israel to survive, it must destroy Palestinian sovereignty and its national identity must be destroyed. The national body politic is not complete without the process of settlement and expulsion through conflict being brought to completion.

I don't think this logically follows from the precepts of Zionism as a whole.

I genuinely don't know what the way forward is for Palestine. As long as Israel's politics is held in the balance by violent nationalist/ultranationalist parties, its genocidal policies are just going to march on. Some sort of broad coalition of non-negationists has to find its way to power at the bare minimum, and I don't know if that willpower exists.

We'd need moderates of an unusual caliber to win both Israeli and Palestinian elections simultaneously. Going by polls, there's still support for a two-state solution, but there's not really support for the compromises needed to achieve a two-state solution. Additionally... racism is very common among both Israeli and Palestinian electorates and open, virulent racism is increasingly common among Israeli politicians in the mainstream - with the addition that it is and always has been common among Palestinian politicians in the mainstream. That is not to say earlier Israeli politicians weren't racist, just that they were more quietly racist.

[Alcala-Cordel]

It's a slow process, but the priority should be moving Palestinian families back to their own homes.
If a lack of homes is an issue, they could build more or something. A good portion of Israelis will probably leave because they don't want to live around Palestinians.

That last line is something else. I’m not certain if these apologetics are born out of sincere ignorance or willful insidious intent, but you’re advocating for ethnic cleansing here. Palestine, like every other Arab nation, ethnically cleansed its Jewish population during the course and in the immediate aftermath of the 1948 War. By 1954, the majority of the Israeli population were refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. “They don’t want to live next to Palestinians because they’re racist” is a very interesting way to say “Arabs ethnically cleansed my grandparents and I don’t trust them not to do the same to me the minute they have the upper hand given all their elected officials are racists.” It actually reminds me of apologetics offered for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians during the Nakba.

Are you intentionally trying to interpret what I said in the worst possible way, or do you honestly believe that's what I meant?

I hate ethnic cleansing, which is why I believe Israel should be stopped to begin with. The bit about Israelis leaving isn't euphemism for anything, I honestly believe some of them will move to other countries or regions because the apartheid is over, and things will probably become very segregated at first. That isn't a good thing, but it's worth pointing out.

Like I said, it will take time. If South Africa can work to overcome apartheid, it can happen in Palestine too.

It's not apartheid when you have a Palestinian government, paramilitary, international relations, etc. This is honestly closer to the Serbia-Kosovo situation where some nations recognize one over the other. The debate is where the borders are drawn.

Some people are debating where the borders are drawn, but I don't believe apartheid states should exist at all.

[Fahran]

Are you intentionally trying to interpret what I said in the worst possible way, or do you honestly believe that's what I meant?

No, I'm assuming a modicum of intelligence and common sense on your part.

I hate ethnic cleansing, which is why I believe Israel should be stopped to begin with. The bit about Israelis leaving isn't euphemism for anything, I honestly believe some of them will move to other countries or regions because the apartheid is over, and things will probably become very segregated at first. That isn't a good thing, but it's worth pointing out.

The last time the political communities that would become Palestine had a Jewish minority within their power they ethnically cleansed said Jewish minority. They did this very prominently, with the intention that old communities should be completely uprooted and destroyed, never to return. It wasn't hidden. It wasn't kept quiet. It was viewed as a triumph, and they didn't talk of Zionists. They talked of expelling the Jews from Jerusalem and the Hills of Judah.

Over half of Israel's population claims some degree of descent from Jewish populations ethnically cleansed from Arab-majority countries. They represented the absolute majority within Israel by 1954 as Arab nationalist sentiments reached a boiling point. What you're proposing is that we should place a Jewish minority once more at the mercy of a largely racist Arab majority whose mainstream leaders routinely engage in Holocaust denial and Antisemitism. And then act like you don't realize the almost certain consequences of what you're proposing.

I'm certain "some Israeli Jews will choose to leave" just as "some Palestinians chose to leave in the Nakba" as a response to the Deir Yassin Massacre or "some Mizrachim chose to leave Iraq" following the Farhud. As I said... I'm assuming that you have a modicum of intelligence and common sense above, and, based on that, I'm concluding that you know full well that what you're proposing is to allow ethnic cleansing in the opposite direction with an air of plausible deniability and without accepting actual culpability for what you're promoting.

Because even alluding to the alternative is less than magnanimous to you.

Some people are debating where the borders are drawn, but I don't believe apartheid states should exist at all.

You don't believe states should exist at all either, but the practical effect of what you're proposing is the creation of an apartheid state akin to Syria, Algeria, or Sudan. Because, again, you're putting Jews at the mercy of an Arab majority that is, by most metrics, very deeply racist against them. And you're doing this instead of creating a functional two-state solution - which, at least on paper, still has popular support on both sides.

[Benuty]

So then where do the 9 million Israelis go? They live there now, and like it or not, they don’t deserve to be kicked out of their homes either. What’s the solution to the crisis?

They stay there. Their ancestors committed awful crimes in getting there, yes, but that doesn't mean they should be kicked out.
What needs to happen is EITHER palestine is given independence or (the more unlikely but better option) a federation where both people are truly equal and everyone's rights are respected.
The solution is to stop the oppression. Nowhere does that require removing the Israelis.

Being quite realistic unless a really competent Titoesque figure can ensure the stability of that federation, and then do what Tito couldn't fix (ensuring stability after death). You are simply asking for another Yugoslavia. Which then leads to genocide by virtue of every nationalist opportunist under the sun.

Or you have the Soviet dissolution which means pockets of ethnic cleansing mixed with a core of disgruntled nostalgics using memories of the good old days to cause war. Alongside some rampant economic corruption as a result of the collapse of the former federation.

That's just the federation. Freeing Palestine in its current state leaves a country effectively in two. Having a country effectively in two with two different parties vying for power over the different areas might lead to the East/West Pakistan situation that gave birth to Bangladesh. In this case Israel would be role-playing India here. Now this problem could be solved if the two areas were united by land, but I doubt Israel would remotely entertain that idea.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Three far right parties! (My lord have mercy on the Arabs of Palestine and Israel!

[Fahran]

Three far right parties! (My lord have mercy on the Arabs of Palestine and Israel!

This largely overstates how radical the current majority is. The cabinet is dominated by members of Likud and Shas. Really, the only game-changing aspect of all this is that Otzma Yehudit usurped Yisrael Beiteinu's role as the king-maker of the Knesset, largely owing to Avigdor Lieberman's understandable defection from Bibi's previous governing majority in the wake of Bibi's corruption scandal. Likud has 32 MKs, Shas has 11 MKs, UTJ has 7 MKs, Tkuma has 7 MKs, Otzma Yehudit has 6 MKs, and Noam has a single MK. 14 out 64 (22%) seats of the majority consists of far-right parties. If we take out Tkuma, which isn't wholly Kahanist, that number goes down to 7 out of 64 (11%) seats of the majority. Given Yisrael Beiteinu was pretty racist previously, I'm not certain we should expect too many changes in how hawkish Israel is towards Palestine or in the settlement policy.

The more salient issue, at least to me, is that this will enable Bibi to abolish the independence of the Israeli judiciary and prevent himself from facing charges of corruption. In the long-term, this will set the stage for the continued hegemony of Likud in Israeli politics. Additionally, we can expect Likud, going forward, to form coalitions with religious parties rather than anti-clerical nationalist parties. As I've mentioned before, I don't think this will change Israeli foreign policy terribly much, but, then again, I'm of the opinion that Yair Lapid would have been more hawkish than most foreign commentators realize. Because hawkishness is actually a sound policy if you're an Israeli PM and the peace process can't move forward.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Are you intentionally trying to interpret what I said in the worst possible way, or do you honestly believe that's what I meant?

No, I'm assuming a modicum of intelligence and common sense on your part.

People with common sense don't support genocide.

The last time the political communities that would become Palestine had a Jewish minority within their power they ethnically cleansed said Jewish minority. They did this very prominently, with the intention that old communities should be completely uprooted and destroyed, never to return. It wasn't hidden. It wasn't kept quiet. It was viewed as a triumph, and they didn't talk of Zionists. They talked of expelling the Jews from Jerusalem and the Hills of Judah.

Over half of Israel's population claims some degree of descent from Jewish populations ethnically cleansed from Arab-majority countries. They represented the absolute majority within Israel by 1954 as Arab nationalist sentiments reached a boiling point. What you're proposing is that we should place a Jewish minority once more at the mercy of a largely racist Arab majority whose mainstream leaders routinely engage in Holocaust denial and Antisemitism. And then act like you don't realize the almost certain consequences of what you're proposing.

I'm certain "some Israeli Jews will choose to leave" just as "some Palestinians chose to leave in the Nakba" as a response to the Deir Yassin Massacre or "some Mizrachim chose to leave Iraq" following the Farhud. As I said... I'm assuming that you have a modicum of intelligence and common sense above, and, based on that, I'm concluding that you know full well that what you're proposing is to allow ethnic cleansing in the opposite direction with an air of plausible deniability and without accepting actual culpability for what you're promoting.

Because even alluding to the alternative is less than magnanimous to you.

Your assumption is wrong, I'm not proposing that we put anyone at the mercy of anyone else. I support de-escalation to the goal of ending the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. I do not support the ethnic cleansing of anyone, nor do I believe it is the way to achieve peace in the region. Killing Jewish people is bad. I can't stop you from believing I'm a murderous piece of garbage, though.

[El Lazaro]

Three far right parties! (My lord have mercy on the Arabs of Palestine and Israel!

This largely overstates how radical the current majority is. The cabinet is dominated by members of Likud and Shas. Really, the only game-changing aspect of all this is that Otzma Yehudit usurped Yisrael Beiteinu's role as the king-maker of the Knesset, largely owing to Avigdor Lieberman's understandable defection from Bibi's previous governing majority in the wake of Bibi's corruption scandal. Likud has 32 MKs, Shas has 11 MKs, UTJ has 7 MKs, Tkuma has 7 MKs, Otzma Yehudit has 6 MKs, and Noam has a single MK. 14 out 64 (22%) seats of the majority consists of far-right parties. If we take out Tkuma, which isn't wholly Kahanist, that number goes down to 7 out of 64 (11%) seats of the majority. Given Yisrael Beiteinu was pretty racist previously, I'm not certain we should expect too many changes in how hawkish Israel is towards Palestine or in the settlement policy.

The more salient issue, at least to me, is that this will enable Bibi to abolish the independence of the Israeli judiciary and prevent himself from facing charges of corruption. In the long-term, this will set the stage for the continued hegemony of Likud in Israeli politics. Additionally, we can expect Likud, going forward, to form coalitions with religious parties rather than anti-clerical nationalist parties. As I've mentioned before, I don't think this will change Israeli foreign policy terribly much, but, then again, I'm of the opinion that Yair Lapid would have been more hawkish than most foreign commentators realize. Because hawkishness is actually a sound policy if you're an Israeli PM and the peace process can't move forward.

Ignoring the idea that literally everyone in a party needs to be a card-carrying SS officer for the whole to be far-right, any amount of seats large enough to oust Netanyahu is significant. If he doesn’t appease the hardliners enough, then he risks imprisonment.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

What a surprise that the state who's entire existence revolved around stealing other peoples' land and colonialism turned out to become a bastion for the far-right and ultranationalism!
Israel must go. There is no "two state solution here". It's no different than what happened with South Africa- stolen lands are not yours to keep.

[Fahran]

Your assumption is wrong, I'm not proposing that we put anyone at the mercy of anyone else. I support de-escalation to the goal of ending the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. I do not support the ethnic cleansing of anyone, nor do I believe it is the way to achieve peace in the region. Killing Jewish people is bad. I can't stop you from believing I'm a murderous piece of garbage, though.

I never said you were a murderous piece of garbage. I don't think most murderous people are irredeemably evil anyhow, even if my conviction is that they might need to be opposed or dealt with in some way. And you yourself do not strike me as a murder anyway - in spite of supporting policies that I think will lead to even more people getting hurt.

I said that you were either deeply naïve in your expectations or that you didn't really care about what happened to the Jewish minority under a one-state solution. A regime where the probable leader is a Holocaust denier isn't going to represent a good outcome for any Jewish citizen living under it. De-escalation doesn't fix "I spout Neo-Nazi talking points because I'm an Anti-Semite." The most sus aspect of what you mentioned was the allusion to Israelis leaving because they were racist. If you know about the history of the Jewish-Arab Conflict after the 1920s, that would have struck you as a yikes comment - given most of the Jews who "left" Arab-dominated states were ethnically cleansed.

[Greater Kaourukerea]

The Zionist regime is corrupt even to the Jewish people it pretends to "protect". The Palestinian establishment is corrupt even to the Palestinians it claims to protect.

The solution is a Mutiny against both to create a new State for both peoples.

[Fahran]

Ignoring the idea that literally everyone in a party needs to be a card-carrying SS officer for the whole to be far-right,

If you have a broad range of right-wingers within a party such that policy is nuanced and made through compromise, you're not a purely far-right party. That's especially the case when you're largely a demographic interest party - which is what Tkuma is.

Describing Tkuma as a Kahanist or far-right on the whole is questionable. Which is why the Wikipedia article that was quoted describes them as "right to far-right." They have been associated with center-right and broad right-wing parties/coalitions in the past - participating in elections with both Bayit HaYehudi (far-right) and Yamina (right-wing). Properly speaking, the party, as a whole, is more akin to a Charedi interest faction than to an ideological one. Their leader Smotrich is a racist, mind you, but you can't really call them uniformly far-right when some MKs would fit in fine with Likud.

any amount of seats large enough to oust Netanyahu is significant. If he doesn’t appease the hardliners enough, then he risks imprisonment.

The appeasement is that he's going to give additional concessions to Charedim since most of his major coalition partners support Charedi interests. He doesn't need to pander to Kahanists when most of what they want is gradually occurring already and the alternative for them is a coalition of anti-clerical parties that will likely impose conscription on yeshiva students coming to power. Not everything in Israeli politics is about Palestine, and, as I mentioned, there's no governing coalition that's going to be consistently dovish on Palestine because, as a policy, that's proven not to work since the peace process broke down in 2005.

[Fahran]

The Zionist regime is corrupt even to the Jewish people it pretends to "protect". The Palestinian establishment is corrupt even to the Palestinians it claims to protect.

The solution is a Mutiny against both to create a new State for both peoples.

Which might be an option if both weren't gripped by levels of racism that make Serbians and Albanians look tolerant, open-minded, and worldly. One might as well seek the restoration of Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, or a united India.

[Fahran]

What a surprise that the state who's entire existence revolved around stealing other peoples' land and colonialism turned out to become a bastion for the far-right and ultranationalism!
Israel must go. There is no "two state solution here". It's no different than what happened with South Africa- stolen lands are not yours to keep.

And what, pray tell, makes a land stolen?

[Vistulange]

What a surprise that the state who's entire existence revolved around stealing other peoples' land and colonialism turned out to become a bastion for the far-right and ultranationalism!
Israel must go. There is no "two state solution here". It's no different than what happened with South Africa- stolen lands are not yours to keep.

Stolen lands? Fahran's addressing that bit.

What happens to the Jews when "Israel goes"?

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

What a surprise that the state who's entire existence revolved around stealing other peoples' land and colonialism turned out to become a bastion for the far-right and ultranationalism!
Israel must go. There is no "two state solution here". It's no different than what happened with South Africa- stolen lands are not yours to keep.

Stolen lands? Fahran's addressing that bit.

What happens to the Jews when "Israel goes"?

Something something "you don't like Israel so you want a second holocaust!!"
Bleh. Same argument from you apartheid supporters. The Jews have no homeland. The very notion of a religious group having a homeland is a foolish idea and by every regard, Israel as a religious ethnostate is an exception to the rest of the world, not the norm- and it even existing is thanks to constant US funding to ensure that the US retains an extremely loyal ally in the region.
Those who settled on occupied Palestinian lands leave. I refer to the 1947 partition plan (even though it's shit and is so clearly biased in favor of Israel whilst cutting the Arab populations off). Nobody was arguing against the white apartheid supporters having to pack up their bags and leave when their racist regime fell, but it's suddenly different with the Jews because "Jews".

[Vistulange]

Stolen lands? Fahran's addressing that bit.

What happens to the Jews when "Israel goes"?

Something something "you don't like Israel so you want a second holocaust!!"
Bleh. Same argument from you apartheid supporters. The Jews have no homeland. The very notion of a religious group having a homeland is a foolish idea and by every regard, Israel as a religious ethnostate is an exception to the rest of the world, not the norm- and it even existing is thanks to constant US funding to ensure that the US retains an extremely loyal ally in the region.
Those who settled on occupied Palestinian lands leave. I refer to the 1947 partition plan (even though it's shit and is so clearly biased in favor of Israel whilst cutting the Arab populations off). Nobody was arguing against the white apartheid supporters having to pack up their bags and leave when their racist regime fell, but it's suddenly different with the Jews because "Jews".

You really aren't able to argue without strawmen, are you? You've done it in the other thread, too. I suppose you cannot help it.

The Palestinians rejected the 1947 Partition and fought a war against Israel in doing so. Who are you to impose it on them, when they themselves rejected it?

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Something something "you don't like Israel so you want a second holocaust!!"
Bleh. Same argument from you apartheid supporters. The Jews have no homeland. The very notion of a religious group having a homeland is a foolish idea and by every regard, Israel as a religious ethnostate is an exception to the rest of the world, not the norm- and it even existing is thanks to constant US funding to ensure that the US retains an extremely loyal ally in the region.
Those who settled on occupied Palestinian lands leave. I refer to the 1947 partition plan (even though it's shit and is so clearly biased in favor of Israel whilst cutting the Arab populations off). Nobody was arguing against the white apartheid supporters having to pack up their bags and leave when their racist regime fell, but it's suddenly different with the Jews because "Jews".

You really aren't able to argue without strawmen, are you? You've done it in the other thread, too. I suppose you cannot help it.

The Palestinians rejected the 1947 Partition and fought a war against Israel in doing so. Who are you to impose it on them, when they themselves rejected it?

Strawmen... strawmen something something where? It was unbelievably obvious that your comment about "where would the Jews go"? was meant at some sort of comment implying that anyone who wants Israel gone supports genocide. Once again I implore you to come up with an actual argument against me aside from pointing out "fallacies"- which in of itself is a fallacy (fallacy fallacy!)
- I said I referred to the 1947 partition plan, not that I supported it- because the other choice of completely abolishing the state of Israel would one way or another lead you to saying "So you support forcing all the Jews to leave or they die???" or whatever. Literally do not even try and say that that wasn't what you were going to do- your tone shines through with intent.
I would prefer a one state solution under Palestine, though. And what's this shit on "imposing it on them"? I'm not imposing anything, merely commenting that Israelites on occupied Palestinian land need to fuck off.

[Fahran]

Strawmen... strawmen something something where? It was unbelievably obvious that your comment about "where would the Jews go"? was meant at some sort of comment implying that anyone who wants Israel gone supports genocide. Once again I implore you to come up with an actual argument against me aside from pointing out "fallacies"- which in of itself is a fallacy (fallacy fallacy!)

So... the issue of what will happen to the Jews is a fairly big deal given you're proposing a one-state solution that will ensure an Arab majority. The predecessors of the modern Palestinian nation, together with the Jordanians, ethnically cleansed their Jewish minority the last time they had one. The current leader of the PA is a Holocaust denier and Hamas is openly genocidal.

If you were to propose placing Bosnia under Serbian control or Ukraine under Russian control, it would raise a number of questions. First, why are you doing this in the first place? What do you seek to accomplish? Second, do you have measures in place to prevent a genocide, ethnic cleansing, or persecution? In this case, none of the answers are reassuring to people who aren't engaging in revanchist or utopian thinking.

Israel having power over Palestinians has been terrible for Palestinians. Arabs having power over Jews has been terrible for Jews. The ideal solution involves giving both nations autonomy and self-determination - which is what the two-state solution proposes.

- I said I referred to the 1947 partition plan, not that I supported it- because the other choice of completely abolishing the state of Israel would one way or another lead you to saying "So you support forcing all the Jews to leave or they die???" or whatever. Literally do not even try and say that that wasn't what you were going to do- your tone shines through with intent.
I would prefer a one state solution under Palestine, though. And what's this shit on "imposing it on them"? I'm not imposing anything, merely commenting that Israelites on occupied Palestinian land need to fuck off.

What counts as occupied Palestinian land? All of Israel? The pre-1967 borders?