Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Netanyahu's fourth gov't: The good, the bad and the ugly

The next Israeli government will attempt to preserve the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza at all costs. Facing international backlash, the persecution of leftists and Arabs could rise to dangerous levels.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in front of a painting of former Likud prime minister Menachim Begin. (Photo: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in front of a painting of former Likud prime minister Menachim Begin. (Photo: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

It’s quite clear what the fourth Netanyahu government will look like: A coalition of the Likud’s “natural partners.” These are the same people who have been following and backing Netanyahu since the 1990s: Avigdor Liberman, Bennett’s Jewish Home, the ultra-Orthodox parties, and Moshe Kahlon, who is actually comprises the moderate wing of the Likud. There are all sorts of rumors about sending feelers to the Labor party, but I believe Isaac Herzog will stay in the opposition this time. There is a slightly bigger chance that Yair Lapid can be lured in by Bibi, but the chances are that won’t happen right away.

Socio-economically speaking, it will likely be a better government than its two predecessors. The Jewish Home party, which espoused a radical free market ideology, shrunk dramatically. Lapid, who dedicated his time in power to going after the ultra-Orthodox (the poorest population segment in Jewish Israeli society), will be replaced by Moshe Kahlon, who is in touch with the day-to-day hardships of most Israelis, and especially those with lower incomes. Kahlon has indicated that he has far more well-off targets than the Arabs and ultra-Orthodox in his cross-hairs: the banks, for instance. I sincerely hope if he heads in that direction that he will receive the backing of both Netanyahu and the opposition parties.

In other ways I think that we are headed into a very dangerous era. Netanyahu believes in maintaining the status quo in Gaza and the West Bank. But the Palestinians will continue their anti-occupation struggle; they are not waiting to for Israel’s instructions on that matter. International pressure is building, along with efforts to confront Israel in international institutions. Israel doesn’t have an answer to such steps — it’s enough to look at the distrust with which Netanyahu’s zigzagging on the matter of Palestinian statehood is being met.

In such a case, with each international or diplomatic move or any renewed outbursts of violence, the pushback will be directed at “the enemy from within” — in other words, the Israeli Left, and especially those groups and activists working in the occupied territories, as well as Palestinian citizens. There’s not much Netanyahu can do against the UN or the American government, or even against the Palestinian Authority, which Israel doesn’t want to collapse. But you can always go after B’Tselem, Haaretz or Adalah. Our failure to deal with the occupation — the fact that it has become something nobody knows how to solve — will fan the flames heating the pressure cooker that is Israeli society and politics.

It is clear that we will see new versions of laws targeting human rights NGOs, the “Jewish Nation-State Law” will make a comeback, and there will be attempts to change the character of the judicial system. But I’m even more bothered by the public mood, which could be far worse than the Netanyahu governments of 2009-2013, or during Operation Protective Edge.

The final two weeks leading up to the elections taught the Right a very dangerous lesson: that breaking to the right politically, that reckless incitement against Arabs and leftists not only causes them no harm, but that it leads to electoral victory. This is why Netanyahu was able to strip so many votes from Eli Yishai and the Jewish Home. The far-right Kahanist activists may have been pushed out of the Knesset, but only because the spirit of Kahanism permeated Netanyahu’s messaging. Even Netanyahu’s election-night victory speech didn’t include any attempts at reconciliation or an outstretched hand to the other side, certainly not to the Arabs. Not even the lip service that one could expect in such moments. There is a spirit of “settling the score” among the Israeli Right now, which won’t calm as the dust settles.

These elections were more about identity and culture than ideology. I think those blaming the Right for fear-mongering themselves into power miss the point. It’s not fear they were dealing to the masses. There is no great difference between the ways the Zionist Camp and the Likud view the Middle East, or relations with the Palestinians. What does stand between the Right and Left is deep loathing. It goes both ways, but it is the Right that holds power, with very few checks on it remaining. Politics are seen as a zero-sum game in which he who controls the state organs has the legitimacy to destroy the other side.

That is a phenomenon that exists in a lot of other places in the world, and it is related to the disintegration of national identities that once held together otherwise rival communities. On the least violent end of the spectrum is the cultural war in the United States between Republicans and Democrats that is paralyzing Washington. On the other end of the spectrum are Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Egypt’s General a-Sisi. You can decide for yourselves where Israel fits on that spectrum, and where we are headed. Lest we forget, Israel is already a country that violently oppresses a civilian population under its control.

Personally, there are days when I believe strongly in Israeli society, in our feeling of a shared destiny and in the unbridled intimacy that Israelis feel for each other. On other days I am very worried — this past summer, or in the last two weeks, for example. It’s not because of Netanyahu’s election victory — we’ve gotten used to that by now — but rather the way it happened, and because of the lessons both the Left and Right are drawing from it.

Election banner - new

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Jello

      You are describing an optimal government. Kachlon will drop prices. The government will stand strong against international pressure to make concessions to terrorists. The foreign funding that provides the oxygen to the various shades of the Israeli extreme left will be cut back. The Supreme Court will be put in its place as a Court and not a Legislature. The country will be defined by law what it has always been – a Jewish state – and not some amorphous state of all its citizens on the verge of losing its Jewish ethos.

      My only problem is that this government will probably include the Haredim which means there will have to be some concessions made to them on various issues. Hopefully this will be compensated for by Kachlon liberalizing much of the economy and passing reforms in banking, cable and housing. And in any case the Haredim are slowly but surely going to work. A few years with them in the government could potentially allow them a respectable transition to become productive members of society.

      I am going to miss 972mag when its funding dries up. It has been fun. I’ll be happy to read you in other publications though.

      One point of dispute – didn’t Bibi in his victory speech say that he is going to be a PM for all of Israel, Jewish and non-Jewish alike?

      Reply to Comment
      • Foreign funding–you mean like Sheldon Adelson?

        The boots, they do march.

        Reply to Comment
        • Jello

          No. Adelson does not sponsor traitors. The EU does that. For now anyways.

          Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            Did I? I just said that Adelson doesn’t fund traitors. The opposite – that everyone the EU funds are traitors – does not logically follow. Nor does 972mag receive support from the EU. So, no, I didn’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • The claim that Adelson does not fund traitors is empty, relying on your definition of Israeli patriotism–not a definition sustained in an Israeli court.

            Actually, I believe 972 has, at least in the past, received EU grant money. Nor does, in your world, the EU exhaust the foreign sources of traitors. But tell us, Jello, exactly what traitor of Israel is the EU funding at the moment, which I take as the meaning of “The EU does that.”

            You’re appropriately named.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            Any organization or person that wishes to overturn the country they live in and replace it with another country is a traitor. That is my definition. By that definition the EU, European states and quasi-governmental ‘charities’ are funding a wide range of organizations in Israel that are traitors. They would have already been banned long ago in France. I expect similar action on the part of the next government or at the very least to cut off foreign government funding for them. The direct foreign governmental intervention in Israeli internal affairs is a travesty that must be corrected.

            I presume that once Israeli law catches up with my definition we shall be in agreement on what constitutes treason or would you then be relying on your own definition to dispute the case?

            Reply to Comment
          • Advocating an alteration of State policy is not advocating that the country be “overturned,” and you know that. Give me a name, Jello. An Israeli organization, composed of Israeli citizens, which is treasonous, funded by the EU. Let me help you–perhaps B’Tselem? And if you so say, what of the High Court, on those occasions when it has affirmed a B’Tselem petition? Is the High Court then in collusion with traitors, so traitorous in turn?

            As to what constitutes treason, this goes to the heart of the national right, for they will say that a unicameral legislature can define such, jurisprudence generally, and so too what a “right” is. Can a unicameral legislature police itself?

            The simply truth is you like what Adelson does with his money but not what B’tselem does with whatever grants it obtains. Both sources are foreign, but only one is pure, even more so since the donator is Jewish, and extension of the Law of Return (but then one must admit liberal Jewish donations too). Both sources are providing aid to Israeli citizens in the execution of politics. This is a purity issue, nothing more. Your assertion that the country will be “overturned” is baseless, unless you equate the country with your coalition, and that is not the rule of law. But as you say, perhaps making this so is the goal.

            Once again: is 972 treasonous? If not, distinguish what it does from what treason would be. This seems urgent, as 972 has indeed accepted EU money in the past.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            I repeat. Any organization or person that wishes to overturn the country they live in and replace it with another country is a traitor. So, in the context of Israel any organization or person that has as its goal the elimination of Israel and its replacement by a different country is treasonous. There are plenty of such organizations, including parties that are represented in the Knesset which are entirely explicit about the fact that their end-goal is the elimination of Israel. Such organizations and parties would be outlawed in pretty much every functioning democracy. Here they exist and are receiving donations from the EU and European governments.

            My definition is not right-wing. It is in fact common sense. And I am not going to give you a name of an organization because you just want to argue on the merits of the specific organizations without actually accepting my definition of treason or providing one of your own.

            And yes, I do like most of what Adelson does with his money, and it is entirely explicit and obvious that he wishes for the state of Israel to continue to exist and his donations are designed with that purpose in mind. The same can not be said of the various extreme left organizations receiving money from European governments.

            There is no particular urgency to determining if 972mag, a website, is treasonous or not. I would say that there are writers on here that have certainly crossed the line into advocating the elimination of their country, and so yes, those are traitors. The only argument I would imagine that you could use to argue to the contrary is to insist that there is no such thing as treason, which I feel you are leaning towards doing, but then you are just being tedious and annoying.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            Excellent point, Jello. You have just saved the American taxpayer more than three billion dollars a year. Or perhaps that money could be better spent building up the institutions of a Palestinian state?

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            Please explain the difference between government funding, quazi-governmental funding, and funding which comes from private individuals who are aliens. Israel would not have been born, let alone survive a single day of its approaching “three-score years and ten” without passing round the begging bowl to Zionist supporters around the world. Israel’s State Comptroller Office has just revealed that 90% of Netanyahu’s political funding comes from the USA, much of it from a small number of plutocrats like the Falic, Book and Schottenstein families (see http://www.buzzfeed.com/sheerafrenkel/meet-the-american-families-bankrolling-netanyahus#.hrVqDxxwg)

            “”He doesn’t even have to ask and they give,”” said one Likud Party campaign adviser, who asked not be named as he was not approved to speak to the media. “Their pocketbooks are always open for Netanyahu.” The adviser said it freed up time for Netanyahu, who did not have to make the rounds at formal events and dinners to collect donations. “There is a well-established network in the U.S. through the group American Friends of the Likud, which is connected to people who care about Israel and its future,” said the adviser.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            The difference is that there is a widely preached principle of non-interference by states in the internal affairs of other states. The primary reason why it is considered somewhat distasteful is because such intervention is designed to benefit the intervening state, and not the people of the recipient state, otherwise it is a waste of the money of the taxpayers in the intervening state. As such it undermines the principle that the people of the recipient state should make their own informed democratic choices without foreign intervention and for their own benefit. In any case, sponsoring, as the case is here, groups that are almost exclusively against the government and to a large extent against the existence of the state itself is fundamentally a hostile act.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            “interference by states in the internal affairs of other states…. is considered somewhat distasteful … because such intervention is designed to benefit the intervening state, and not the people of the recipient state”. Thanks Jello for that resounding condemnation of Netanyahu’s recent intervention on Capitol Hill. I hadn’t realized you were such a strong advocate of pure, unsullied, popular democracy. Glad to here we won’t any more have aliens canvassing American leaders to prepare the body-bags to protect Israel’s regional interests.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            Making a speech after being welcomed by the a superpower’s parliament is not even remotely equivalent to sending tens of millions of dollars to a small country in order to interfere in its internal politics by sponsoring extreme left-wing anti-governmental organizations. So, thank you for conceding the argument.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            Your use of the concept of treachery, Jello, says everything anyone needs to know about your sick, dysfunctional, illiberal and undemocratic society. In a liberal state all parties, whether of left or right, provided they accept the rule of law, and seek to achieve change through peaceful campaigning and the ballot box, are accepted as fundamentally legitimate. Not so in totalitarian states. Protagonists of the thousand-year Reich attacked trades unionists, libertarians, Jews and the like as a cancerous treachery against the ordained order. In the worst manifestations of Communism, like Stalinism and Maoism, dissidents or social activists were condemned in show trials as enemies of the people. And in Israel, Jello and millions like him regard Arabs, campaigners for human rights, a free press and international organizations as enemies of the regime.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            No, in democracies it is not generally considered legitimate to advocate the elimination of the country or the overthrow of democracy (even through democratic means). Nor is every group that acts within the rule of law considered legitimate. For example, in many European countries explicitly fascist groups are banned outright. So you have created a bullshit straw man or bullshit straw ideal as the case may be here.

            There is also nothing about democracies that obligates the democracy to accept foreign governmental intervention in its politics internal affairs. This is another straw man argument that argues that because I reject foreign governmental intervention in Israeli domestic politics that I wish to outlaw all opposition. No. I would like to see Israel defend its democracy from traitors that wish to eliminate Israel as a country and from intervention by foreign governments. This is common sense and it is enshrined in the laws of many democracies so the hyperbole that is spilled when talking about adopting similar measures here is just bs rhetoric.

            Reply to Comment
          • “in democracies it is not generally considered legitimate to advocate the elimination of the country or the overthrow of democracy (even through democratic means).”

            In the US, Jello, it is. You can advocate the elimination of the US government, you can even run for office doing so. A constitutional amendment eliminating the US is legally possible. What you have done here is shift speech into material support of violent action against the government. In the US, treason is limited to material action in war:

            “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” (US Constitution, Article III, section 3).

            “Aid and comfort” is limited by “war”; nor are acts protesting war such aid and comfort–one can say a war is wrong in print, or refuse conscription, neither of which is treasonous. Even during WW I, when people were arrested for publishing anti-war material, they were not convicted under constitutional treason, but rather as disrupting the war effort by interfering with public spirit; by the time of Vietnam, such laws would not survive the Supreme Court. Cronkite, reporting from Vietnam, was not legally treasonous; nor were the anti-war protestors at home; under you definition, at least the latter would be–which is good to know. One can also appeal to the courts against a war action without that being treasonous, as well as financially support that legal action.

            I actually think that if you affirmed your Declaration of Independence as a meta-constitutional document, to which all constitutions must conform, the elimination of Israel would be impossible in any legal sense unless those meta-conditions were retained. And that includes the Law of Return. The right would get much by so affirming the declaration; but you also have that pesky full equality in social and political rights clause as well.

            Because Israel does not have a written constitution, you can hide your preferences in phrase “the elimination of Israel and its replacement by a different country.” “Elimination of Israel” becomes your Israel. Someone who argues for confederation can easily say Israel would not be eliminated. Someone who advocates a majority Knesset decision to create a binational State could say so as well, defining Israel as the process of the majority Knesset (I would not so define it). Israel for you means Jewish. I understand that. If it means “refuge for the Jews,” as said, I think affirming your Declaration as meta-constitutional would get you that. But to advocate something is not to produce it. Once you limit some advocacy you can limit more general advocacy. Consider freedom of speech over building a bomb. I can place on the internet instructions on how to build a bomb. I cannot, however, tell you were to actually procure the material; nor can I tell you some defect in security allowing its placement at a specific place. These become material aid. But the idea of bomb construction is nonmatieral, and idea.

            I chose B’Tselem because I suspect you see its support for residents under occupation as treasonous; yet the High Court has sometimes affirmed their petitions, so how can they be treasonous, unless your definition of Israel allows the Knesset ultimately to declare the High Court treasonous. Nor are all occupied residents “at war with Israel.” We both know where the next Knesset is heading–Jewish Nation bill, selectively tax some NGO’s receiving outside funding, possibly an attempt to roll back judicial review. You see all three of these actions as protections against treason, I suspect.

            You are winning, yet still afraid. Whatever for?

            Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            The US is not the only democracy on the planet nor likely a great candidate for being the best governed one. Unless you would like to argue that France or Germany are not democracies you are forced to accept that it is entirely legitimate in democracies to exclude the voices of those that are trying to undermine the state or promote fascist or sectarian agendas. It is also evidently legitimate to prevent foreign governments from interfering in domestic affairs.

            I don’t hide my preferences. I state explicitly that those whose goal is the elimination of the state of Israel are traitors to the state of Israel and their political activities should be controlled, and certainly their sponsorship by foreign governments should be prevented. This is common sense and is already law in other democracies. If you want a simple rule of thumb then I would suggest this: if an organization proposes a political agenda and a goal and is incapable of saying that it wishes to see the state of Israel continue to exist once that agenda or goal are achieved then that organization is not operating in a manner conducive to the basic survival of the country it operates in and there is no good reason why it should be allowed to continue to operate. Whatever good deeds it could achieve could be equally pushed forward by other organizations that are not operating on the basis of an agenda that is fundamentally hostile to their host country.

            Whatever formulation one wishes to propose for changing the basic nature of the state of Israel, even if in their mind that leaves the state of Israel alive, there is absolutely no good reason why they should be allowed to receive funding from foreign governments. At their core such proposals or agendas are certainly destabilizing, potentially disruptive and possibly destructive. I can’t imagine any good reason why foreign governments should be allowed to use money to push them forward. Other than calling me a fascist I don’t see anyone actually arguing that such funding is legitimate or alternatively that preventing such funding would be illegitimate.

            The High Court’s job is to rule according to the law on the books. In the past 20 years the Court has chosen to adopt for itself a role as the arbiter of a constitution that does not exist. It has chosen to use its judgement, and not the law, in terms of determining what laws it likes and what laws it doesn’t. In effect it has turned itself into an unelected secondary legislative body which a bill must pass before it becomes law. The next Knesset will likely try to eliminate this role that the Court has decided to take onto itself. It is also likely to take control over the process of promoting new judges rather than letting an unelected body to continue to police and constitute itself, which in my mind is vastly worse from the point of view of democratic governance than whatever the elected parliament might do. In the US Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and approved by the parliament. Surely Israeli citizens deserves to have some say over the identity of the High Court judges.

            Isn’t the whole point of winning an election to push forward changes that one thinks are best for the country? Why wouldn’t one push forward changes that they think will defend their country or govern their country in the best way possible going forward?

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            You are again talking arrant nonsense Jello (“Nor is every group that acts within the rule of law considered legitimate. For example, in many European countries explicitly fascist groups are banned outright. So you have created a bullshit straw man or bullshit straw ideal as the case may be here.”) Please give me examples of mature democracies where parties that act within the rule of law are banned. A few parties have been banned but only because they did not respect the rule of law and incited violence and racist attacks. In France a Fascist group FANE was dissolved three times (in 1980, 1985 1nd 1987) but specifically because it organised violent demonstrations, had a paramilitary structure and incited racial discrimination). The Nationalist Front in Germany was banned in 1992 but only after its members had murdered a Turkish family in an arson attack. In Israel Kach was outlawed in 1994 but only because it espoused racism and terrorist attacks.

            Fascist and neo-Nazi parties regularly compete in elections e.g. the American Nazi Party, the British National Party, the French National Front, the Party of New Forces in Belgium, the Italian Social Movement, Golden Dawn in Greece – the list is endless.

            But the point I made that you don’t get – and will probably never get – is that in a democracy even extreme parties advocating peaceful change are not seen as enemies of the state – as traitors – because the state is not a metaphysical end in itself; it is merely a vessel for whatever the people want it to be. It can change according to the will of the people. Your fundamentally fascist principle is different – blood and soil – the people and the land and the system of government are all inextricably linked, and no element in this formula can be changed. This leads advocates of any change to be seen as traitors who want to destroy the state – the eternal Jewish and democratic state. This leads to such silliness that legitimate change must be cast as destruction, whilst a real democracy will continually evolve, as people change and ideas change.

            Reply to Comment
          • Jello

            Why must you give me such simple challenges? Lets see. Vlaams Blok was effectively banned in Belgium. Hizb ut-Tahrir was banned in Germany. Spain banned Batasuna. Canada banned the Communist Party during WW2. West Germany also banned its Communist Party in 1956. Sinn Fein and several other Irish parties were banned at various points by the UK.

            And yes, you have admitted that parties have in fact been banned in mature democracies; in many cases because they were ‘inciting’ violence or were otherwise politically incorrect in their leanings (Islamist, far-right, Communist, Basque, Irish). In the case of Vlaams Blok for example it would appear that all it took was some positions that someone deemed politically incorrect. In Germany neo-Nazi groups (National Offensive) were banned after the attack on the hostel in 1992 that had no relation to the attack at all. In other words, we are no longer arguing whether it is legitimate in democracies to ban political parties or organizations, but in what cases.

            A party or organization that operates within a country and insists that it wants to eliminate that country is reasonably defined as being traitorous. Whether you consider such an outcome legitimate or desired is not particularly relevant. It is entirely legitimate for that country (backed by an overwhelming majority of its citizens) to take measures against such parties or organizations.

            The “end” is to be secure and protected and to ensure our right to live in our homeland. The state is the most obvious tool that serves that “end”. You can scream “fascist” until you turn blue, and still we are not so stupid as to see attempts to undermine our state as anything short of an attempt to remove our protection and force us out of our homeland, because all the proposed alternatives realistically leave us no better off than the Christians of Iraq or Syria. That isn’t fascism. It is common sense. Until you get that through your head you are going to continue to keep knocking your head against a wall because you are not going to get anywhere with us.

            Reply to Comment
    2. Bruce Gould

      This is what the next 10 years will look like: more settlements, home demolitions, crop bulldozings, olive grove burnings, administrative detentions, shootings, Palestinians acting on their own and driving their cars into Israelis, a wave of activity on U.S. college campuses, the BDS movement chipping away, various governments voting to recognize a Palestinian state. All those who came of age during the struggle against South African apartheid will have a chance to relive their youth.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Richard Lightbown

      “There’s not much Netanyahu can do against the UN or the American government, or even against the Palestinian Authority”

      He seems to have done pretty well against them so far. It’s six years since Obama screwed him to make that two state comment in the Bar Ilan speech. Since then political reality has been explained to Obama who has done largely what he has been told, e.g. cast the veto when needed and don’t rock the boat in the meantime. OK so the Administration is now talking about a rebellion following Bibi’s rebuttal of a two state reality, but the White House spokesman did not seem very sure what that might amount to yesterday. The chances are they will soon be brought back into line. And no one is even thinking, still less talking about cancelling the annual three billion dollar military aid package.

      At the UN Schabas was not allowed into Gaza and has since been forced to quit. Richard Falk was denied entry to Palestine, Richard Goldstone was publicly humiliated. When Hudson-Phillips produced an honest report on the Gaza Flotilla Attack that was sidelined and the useful idiot Palmer was used to front a report by Uribe which said the commando attack was legal. That is usually the only report you hear mentioned now. The President of the United States was told to keep his mouth shut about the US citizen shot dead on the Mavi Marmara.

      As for the Palestinian Authority, that’s a sick joke. Yes Abbas finally got to the ICC, but that will only drone on for years. Abbas has not got the balls to do anything dangerous like disband the PA or refuse to cooperate with Israel on security.

      Just what is it of consequence that the Israeli government cannot do to these institutions Noam?

      Reply to Comment
    4. Bruce Gould

      “The country will be defined by law what it has always been – a Jewish state – and not some amorphous state of all its citizens on the verge of losing its Jewish ethos.”

      This is practically identical to the rhetoric used by every fascist state in modern history.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Richard Witty

      There is no Netanyahu government yet. Please please please, do not jump the gun.

      There is now strong opposition to likud. The only area of victory for the right is the likehlihood that building in existing settlments will increase.

      Everything else you cite, and others, there are moderating influences, including the US, Europe, contending parties.

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        “The only area of victory for the right is the likehlihood that building in existing settlments will increase.”

        Witty, what other game is there? This is all they care about. What is your point?

        Reply to Comment
        • Joel Cantor

          The Labor party will never take power in Israel. The movement that imported in 50,000 armed terrorists into Yesha in the 1990s is finished. The Oslo War resulted in 1500 Dead Israelis plus another 5000 Israelis getting burned, blinded or seriously injuered. The nation has learned its lesson.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Well you’ve defined anyone who won’t submit to race-based domination and land theft as a “terrorist.” (And absolutely anyone who disagrees with you as an “anti-Semite.”) A large and now increasing part of the rest of humanity defines the same people as victims of apartheid. You’re dreaming if you think this conflict is over. Just because the Afrikaners did not have the easy ready-made epithet of “anti-Afrikanerism” or “anti-whitism” to throw back at people does not mean the occupation is not apartheid.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Click here to load previous comments
© 2010 - 2017 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website powered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel