This was a necessary stepping stone to get Lapid into office in a maximum of two years.
If this government can stick together long enough to pass the necessary reforms to avoid future PMs from enacting extreme resolutions like Netanyahu did for so long, Israel will be an attractive place to continue funding with US taxpayers as the center government will be able to match US civil rights ideals and implement due process instead of rationalizing destructive responses based on rumors. Its not so absurd to imagine getting a court order to seize a property and prosecute individuals that are using military grade munitions. Right now it might seem to be, but it isn't.
If the government doesn't stick together long enough, Lapid gets into office sooner, but it would remain to be seen if there would be any will for restricting the PM power or passing reforms at that point.
...and then Israel can build its own fighter jets? Count us in!
It's not "aid." It's fiscal transfer to vassal states (though 75% of it really goes to US corporations' pockets - aid isn't dollars but vouchers to spend on US products at 4x the market price) within the US empire. Just ask any non-voting subject of the empire.
BTW in numbers it's $4B/year - $3B to US firms, $1B to Israel. Our GDP is about $400B. Would we buy our independence for $1B per year, if the US was selling/if the world worked that way? You bet!
(And don't get me wrong, it might be the best empire to be the vassal of for Israel which is too small to be independent. Just let's call it what it is.)
I see this argument often and it is pretty ridiculous. Israel is still the beneficiary of billions of dollars worth of US taxpayer dollars every year. We shouldn't be spending that kind of money on your nations security when we have homeless and starving Americans not being taken care of.
Very possibly you don't want the US to be an empire and to spend money on the "security" of Israel (eg preventing us from developing fighter jets - for our own security, no doubt) or eg Germany which can't even give asylum to Snowden who broke the news that your intel agencies eavesdrop on their Chancellor's phone. Just don't blame the vassals. Raise this point with the imperial government. You're a voting subject, maybe you can pull it off.
(It could be that for the US taxpayer the empire is a good deal. eg could you print all those dollars and get the entire world to hold them without the empire? You get a nice windfall from this. But again it's between you and your government. Maybe if you called yourself an empire, it would enable more open and productive discussions wrt cost/benefit analysis per vassal state.)
Yes, a shitty cycle in a shitty world. If not for the threat of China, I don't think the U.S. military industrial complex would have as much merit, but, under that (growing) threat, I think anyone who values freedom, democracy, and progressive ideals should see merit in the U.S. maintaining and growing capability.
To do that, it seems like the defense industry needs "stuff to do". Like a muscle, that sector atrophies if left unused. It's counterintuitive, though -- why spend so much money on a glorified Skunk Works project like the F35? Why double down and start producing hundreds of them despite their issues? Because it generates/maintains experience and lessons and keeps the metabolic pathways that turn material into materiel active. If you skipped the extra steps and had the government just sustain the defense industry on welfare while it does nothing right up until we have a massive conflict, things are going to go much more poorly for you.
It's also the security of the only enclave of gay rights and feminism in one of the most barbarously anti-progressive regions in the world. Whether or not that adds incentive is subjective, but framing it like paying for just "a nation's security" sounds like propping up Luxembourg's independence from France and Germany.
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political/ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for or against, because it's destructive of what HN is supposed to be for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting in the future, we'd be grateful. That means thoughtful, substantive comments that engage with curiosity rather than enemies.
Edit: it looks like we've had to warn you about this multiple times before. Please fix this.
1. Is this discussion about the Saudi Arabian government or the Israeli government? I also have stuff to say about Saudis too but that's not the topic right now.
And by the way I am not anti-semitic, if that is what you were trying to imply with "absurdly selective".
Israel has many high value products to export besides weapons. Israel can enjoy prosperity without having to resort to trading weapons with such regimes.
I don’t think it’s whataboutism if every country in the set does it. It’s just a part of being in the business of war. If you sell arms to resolve geopolitical conflict, you’ve eventually got blood on your hands no matter how much due diligence you do.
Why should Israeli weapon manufacturers be held to higher evaluative standards than others? Whataboutism is useless to answer this question; it is a stick to beat your opponents in order to stop pursuing this line of questioning.
Is it not the point of Israel to be a Jewish state?
Judaism imposes duties on each Jew. Religious duties in the form of commandments.
How about following those commandments? If you say the commandments do not matter then you are saying that as a Jew, Judaism doesn't matter. In that case, you don't need a state don't you?
If you want to be free to practice your religion, do it. But do it properly, not only the parts you like.
The israel lobby is too powerful to ever have their funding cut. Very few in Washington are critical of israel and those that are will be labled anti-semetic because no distinction can ever exist between criticism of israel and anti-semitism apparently.
It's truly pathetic how openly American polticians will kowtow to israel and even china these days. Whatever they are getting in return must be worth it.
Compliant politicians don't necessarily have to get anything in return. Punishment and the threat of it can motivate behavior, just like positive reinforcement.
Anyway, I wouldn't personify these countries and assign them motivations. Geopolitics is complicated, and there are many people pulling strings across many nations, complete with complicated rivalries and partnerships. The support for a modern Israeli state in the first place started outside of what is now Israel. So, you can't assume pressure to support Israel all comes from Israel itself, purely in its self-interest.
Every thousand spent abroad in an unstable country is ten thousand saved ten years later when a military operation is needed or humanitarian aid is sent.
That’s a weird binary - maybe it’s okay to give aid to some countries (that are poor, don’t have half their population espousing racist AF views, that haven’t undermined the US itself)?
Right. But as this is a constant across all US administrations' heads of state, as well as super majority of representatives in Congress it is currently useless to debate that and acknowledge the reality: it will be less objectionable to much of US population if Israel is able to implement due process to all of its citizens that more closely matches what occurs in the US.
There are some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger (and there are millions of them at this very moment).
That's a bit short sighted, though. Foreign aid is an investment, and a tool to solidify your soft power.It is worth it even without considering any humanitarian aspect (which you should, but not everybody does).
Running a slightly less ridiculous military-industrial complex would free plenty of funds to fix just about any issue there might be in the US (except of course the big one, climate change). Second is having a slightly less ridiculous tax system.
> some who believe that not even a single dollar should flow out to foreign aid so long as there is, for example, an American child experiencing hunger
Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war.
> Thankfully, not enough to be politically relevant. Because the alternative is letting the world degrade to the point that we’re shipping that child out to a war.
I think this is exactly what politicians would like you to believe. You should take a look at how the foreign aid budget gets spent in reality.
>Its not so absurd to imagine getting a court order to seize a property and prosecute individuals that are using military grade munitions. Right now it might seem to be, but it isn't.
Ah hem. The Second Amendment would like a word...
There is nothing in theory keeping anyone in the United States from owning or even using military grade munitions. Just paperwork. And all too much at that. If you're going to be seizing property, due process. Your due process you seem to be espousing reads "have use military grade munitions -> seize and prosecute".
Those of us that like to safely own and have things that go boom or have military applications would appreciate it if you'd describe due process as it should be, "prosecute, secure beyond reasonable doubt conviction -> seize property", though even that is open to question as the property to be seized should reflect the crime committed. If felony theft is committed, property should transfer to next of kin, or liquidated with proceeds going to next-of-kin.
Order matters.
Besides which, what is the big deal with Israel anyway? Besides people who read way too much Revelations, and think entirely too much of the United States as a lynchpin in that, I've seen very little to recommend keeping up a military industrial pipeline coffer lining exercise in that part of the world. The U.S. is quite literally being the mother of all enablers in that regard.
Owning and using arms are very different. The ownership typically has an avenue available in all parts of the US. If the avenue isn't broad enough or too restrictive then the courts re-broaden it on 2nd amendment grounds. Using is much more tightly restricted and illegal in most areas of the US, there is no area of the US where you can shoot mortars off of somebody else's building, at someone else's property, without consequence from the state itself.
But the primary difference between areas within the US borders and areas within Israel's borders is how the consequence materializes.
In the US the expected response would be an investigation, finding the munitions, taking the munition as evidence, finding the owner or user, interviewing people, indicting and convicting the owner, seizing the owners assets or finding the building somehow culpable too, only for the purpose of temporary ownership by the state, not destruction. If something occurred during the investigation or the presence of a law enforcement, the law enforcement may shoot back on the spot.
In Israel, right now the expected response is lobbing a missile at the building and gaslighting everyone that questions that particular approach.
> But as this is a constant across all US administrations' heads of state, as well as super majority of representatives in Congress it is currently useless to debate that
Just wait 10 years until most new cars are electric, and we’ll see whether or not that still holds.
It seems like you just outlined why it is necessary to debate. Think of how many positions used to have overwhelming majority in Congress, only to be overturned after citizens pushed the issue, by publicly debating it when it was unpopular.
>This was a necessary stepping stone to get Lapid into office in a maximum of two years.
It's very debatable whether the coalition would even survive that long.
>If the government doesn't stick together long enough, Lapid gets into office sooner
Technically yes, but looking at the distribution of parliament, Lapid won't have the votes to pass much, and would have significant difficulty keeping the seat. Nethanyahu or anyone who'd replace him in Likud would have a decent chance of forming a government without an election.
> Israel will be an attractive place to continue funding with US taxpayers
Probably not. The US supported Israel to keep Iran/Russia in check in the region and frighten the rest. If the US is pulling support, it's probably going to rely on Iran (the legitimate heir?) to run the place. They'll have no incentive to keep propping Israel.
Imo, that's why Netanyahu tried to spark a war with Iran. They went on to make several alliances with Arab countries, in a bid to create a military alliance against Iran. He was wrong, however, in that Arab countries (surprise, Saudia Arabia) was more interested in making peace with Iran than starting an all out war.
For that, Netanyahu tried to spark a conflict and he had the right ammo for this (he knew the guys in Gaza will retaliate). At surface, it looks like Netanyahu hates the Gaza guys (Hamas) and they hate him. In reality, their existence depends on this conflict.
It seems, however, that everyone is willing to move on. There will be peace in the future and also higher oil prices :)
> The US supported Israel to keep Iran/Russia in check in the region and frighten the rest.
This is an excuse that Jewish in America and Evangelicals use to rationalize broader support from Americans. It is almost as weak as the 2000 year old land claim arguments from some Jewish Nationalists, and weaker than the doomsday prophecies that Evangelicals feel obligated to accelerate at the expense of everyone else so they can ride away on a cloud with Jesus while the planet descends into chaos.
The US has bases in almost every surrounding country of Israel, and literally invaded all the countries that border Iran. It can lob missiles and strike at nuclear facilities in Iran if it wanted to from anywhere. It has the rest of NATO on the European subcontinent to keep Russia in check.
The US can easily tell Israel to pound sand and make good on the supposed idea of aligning with Russia. Nothing of value would be lost.
If it sounds absurd to imagine the fiction where Peru is paying for Israel's defense budget, then it is absurd for the US to be involved too.
"stick together long enough....", I don't think that's going to happen. There's no way this government will last 2 years, I doubt it will even last 3 months.
That's fine though, another far right extremist PM gets outed faster and Lapid gets in sooner. They just need to make it so Netanyahu - a very familiar face in Israel - doesn't get back in, and that a future PM doesn't get in the same endless hold over the public and all resources.
Broad in this context means that the coalition is build together out of many parties along a broad spectrum, as opposed to, say, two very conservative parties or so.
Bennet is pretty different than Netanyahu. For one thing he is religious. He is probably more hawkish from the perspective of the historical rights of the Jewish people in the region but he is also possibly more pragmatic. The religious zionist parties in the past had no problem sitting in coalition with left wing parties.
While the heart of the conflict is probably not something that can be resolved by anyone at this time at least I think he and his coalition will try to steer things in a better direction.
This is the first time in Israeli history where we have Israeli Arab (Palestinian) parties in the coalition/government in Israel. That's pretty big step forward. This potentially is the first step towards eventually forming a single state which is in my mind is the only solution that's going to work. For those who think the two state option is a solution this is maybe a step backwards.
If you think about a single state then the gap between some of the Israeli right (that considers the lands to be part of that state) and the Israeli left isn't that large. This is sort of what this government is about, that the civil aspects, the day to day life of everyone, can be decoupled from the nationalistic aspect. In a single state the Israeli right gets to "keep" those lands so that problem is solved. The problem of Jerusalem is also solved. That's not to say there aren't a whole bunch of other really difficult questions... Maybe this single state is a federation (so it's two states in the US sense but one country).
I'm really hopeful something good will come out of this.
> In a single state the Israeli right gets to "keep" those lands
In a single state jews become a minority, their army is democratically dismantled and what happens next is anyone's guess...looking at surrounding countries there's no reason to be too optimistic.
I'm not sure the Jewish would be a minority... Unless you're including "The right of return" in you calculations. But that shouldn't be a given.
There can also be a constitution that requires special majority to change. But yeah, like I said, this doesn't solve all the problems. It just seems the problems this leaves us with are easier to solve. The reality is that all these people are gonna need to figure out some way to get along. And that's all this is, a bunch of people, Palestinians, Arabs, Jewish, Christian etc. Within the right sort of framework this could work. It could still be a homeland for the Jewish people but it can also be the country for other people as well who enjoy equal (-ish?) rights.
Not unlike many other western countries which are Christian but minorities get equal-ish rights this could be a Jewish "western"/democratic country with about half the population not Jewish. Could work. You may say I'm a dreamer ;)
There are quite a few difficulties with this vision:
1) Aren't Jews entitled to self determination? That was the whole point of Zionism which the U.N eventually supported.
2) The only example of a binational state we have in the middle east (Lebanon) suffered many civil wars and horrible atrocities between Christians and Muslims. The animosity between Palestinian (Muslims) and Israeli Jews is older and stronger. Would you consider moving 300 million Chinese to the U.S to make one big happy democracy?
3) The problems we have now can look tiny compared to some Islamist fundamentalist regime over the whole area (something like Hamas, which is the body most Palestinians prefer). Where is this expectation of democracy coming from? It's an extreme rarity in the middle east: "Israel is the only democratic country (qualified as a "flawed democracy", ranked #28 worldwide) in the Middle East, while Tunisia (#53 worldwide) is the only democracy (also "flawed democracy") in North Africa."
But yeah, the current mess makes any change welcome I guess, even if it's destructive.
There are 2 million non-Jewish Israeli citizens right now and it seems to work. Why can't it work with 5-6 million?
Yes. The idea that the combined country still be the homeland of the Jewish people needs to be recognized as should the historic rights of the Jews in that region. The rights of the people who have lived there in more recent history can also be recognized. These should not be mutually exclusive. There are plenty of reasons why the rest of the region is messed up I'm not sure I want to look at that as evidence this can't work.
There were plenty of periods in recent history where most Palestinians and Jews got along just fine. I don't think the animosity runs as deep as you're portraying. Sure, a lot of blood has been spilled since which doesn't help but there's plenty historical examples (lessay in Europe) where people have moved on. This is a multi-decade process. It's not something that will happen from today to tomorrow.
There are 5 million Chinese citizens in the U.S, why cant it work with 200 million more? 5 million more Palestinians is exactly the difference between being a majoriry and controlling your future to being a minority. There are not so many examples of this working out. Jews lived in relative peace in Palestine when they were a tiny Arab speaking minority, now they are seen as a colonialist entity. Jews were almost entirely cleansed from all Arab countries to the point we have today only a few thousands left (they used to number a million). Even in European cities in 2021 there are big question marks on whether Jews and Muslims can live together. The animosity now became religious as well so its unclear if it wll stop if Zionism stops.
And again, where is the expectation of democracy coming from? The state you are proposing is as likely to become democratic as China or Egypt.
1. There would still be a Jewish majority given those numbers.
2. A democracy can have a constitution that can't be changed by a simple majority.
3. A minority can have a huge sway in a democracy, e.g. the small parties that form the balance in forming a coalition in Israel today.
4. The Jews and non-jews in Israel aren't exactly the homogeneous entities they are perceived to be. There's plenty of Jews and non-Jews/Palestinians who are closer in their cultural, political and even religious views than in between some Jews and some non-Jews.
5. The US could totally work with 200 million more Chinese. If I was a US citizen of Chinese origin I'd probably take this question as pretty offensive.
Anyhow, the precise formula, whether it's one "state" or a federation, or something along those lines can be figured out over time. The degree to which these populations are intertwined right now and the ongoing costs of the current situation are going to force this to happen. It's really the Israeli right that has been pushing in this direction all along, since in their book none of the land can be given up and obviously the Palestinians aren't gonna just move somewhere else.
Even if his policies were identical, a corrupt leader can't be allowed to remain and solidify his corruption even further. He's already been there far too long and done far too much institutional damage.
why was this flagged? Geopolitics and changes in the political arena effect changes on all of us, irrespective of whether or not we know or particularly care about a given country. Israel specifically has tremendous influence in software (maybe adtech is the biggest software industry there?) - perhaps indirectly, or sometimes quite directly as well as in biotech.
Wars, conflicts that arise vs Palestine also play a huge role in our daily lives even if they aren't evident in our day to day existence. So it is a little disappointing that an article that is related to current events is flagged just because perhaps some participants don't like the outcome.
There are plenty of current events sites out there. If such stories weren't mostly treated as off topic here, HN would be entirely a current-events site. Yes, there are exceptions—you can find detailed descriptions of how we approach that in these past explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... But I don't think this submission would make a good exception. It's a political horse race story. I realize that in this case the horse race turned out to be historic, but that's not going to make for a thoughtful, substantive thread (perhaps 20 years from now). As evidence for that, I give you: this actual thread.
It's a bit creepy how Israel gets about as much attention as a country like China or Russia in social media / news. Does this deserve a mention? Probably does. As the main headline in CNN / BBC / Nytimes ? I'm not so sure, how is Israel so important?
They are one of the world tech powers, regardless of whether you like to think of it or not. There is power concentrated there, and intellectual property.
It's similar to how Vatican City will get posted even if there is almost no population.
Most certainly not, Israel has a very nice software industry but it isnt critical. If it stopped tomorrow nothing major will happen. If Taiwan stopped tomorrow the global chip supply collapses.
Israel has a unique place in the Anglo-American conscience for several reasons:
1. It was established by Britain out of the Palestinian mandate
2. Judaism is central to the history and thought of Western civilization
3. There is a large Jewish diaspora in the West, especially the United States
4. Israel is the sole Western society in the Middle East
5. Israel was geopolitically important to the US in the Cold War as part of its strategic containment of the USSR, and today in counteracting Iran's regional influence
6. The US has provided more aid to Israel than any other country
7. There is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States
8. Given all these ties, Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza rightly attracts a lot of criticism in the West
They are one of the few world powers with nuclear capabilities, although they are not officially recognized as such. However from my understanding basically everyone on the world stage knows it is true.
Not to mention, if Modi struggled to gain a coalition for a year, got caught up in corruption scandals, and was in active conflict with Pakistan, the news would be covering India even more.
I'd be surprised if the average American or European knows who Modi is. Netanyahu though? 50% chance they will at least recognize his face in a picture.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict spills over to other parts of the world. Either through their Muslim populations, or through activists who put Israel into the "colonial state" category, and, of course "colonial" is a very negative thing nowadays.
Thats maybe part of it but the obsession is with jews not with muslins. We don't read that much about political struggles in Iran (which are happening right now btw). I will be extremely surprised if the next Iranian election will make it to #1 on HN.
Israel supports who is aligned with their regional objectives. Like when they supported Iran before the takeover. You work with what you got, there isn't big love between Israel and Egypt or Saudi Arabia and why single Israel? Everyone in the world has relationships with these 2 countries.
It's true that a strong Lebanon or Syria aren't in the best Interest of Israel military wise but at least there was someone in charge to keep the "peace" now it's chaos with Iranian backed groups working close to the border to destabilize it and Hezbollah has thousands of rockets pointing at Israel that's not in the best interest of Israel
Lebanon as a country was never a real threat to Israel but the PLO terrorist organization that started the civil war after trying to take over Jordan.
The Lebanese government let Hezbollah get the way it is by first allowing the PLO into south Lebanon bowing to Syria and having no backbone and shit military and now they suffer for it.
Do you think Israel was jealous of the Paris of the middle east and set up Hezbollah to take over?
> And? Not much has changed from that fact
Your whole argument was that Hezbollah is good for Israel, how thousands of rocket aiming at your population centers good for Israel? That's why what you wrote is bull.
> Your whole argument was that Hezbollah is good for Israel, how thousands of rocket aiming at your population centers good for Israel? That's why what you wrote is bull.
You have half of middle east pointing rockets at Israel. In comparison with Hezbollah takeover effectively making Lebanon a non-country, price-benefit ratio is not simply positive, but overwhelmingly in Israel's favour.
In contrast with Syria, where the Iranian support tries to preserver the existing state, and where Israel clashed with it to the point they began aiding Syrian rebels.
I can't see how you mentioned Egypt and Saudi Arabia as dreaded regimes but see Iranian supporting the Syrian regime as positive where they are the same and even worse on some accounts.
Syria needs to be split up into at least 3 or 4 countries that's why there was so much internal tension there but you want to preserve the current ruthless regime who bombed their own civilians by the 100s of thousands, despicable.
They don't preserver the existing state they plan to take over and rule from a far.
> Israel clashed with it to the point they began aiding Syrian rebels
Israel assisted the rebels by giving medical aid so they won't hurt the druze population in Syria because the druze in Israel are blood relatives and enlist in the Israeli military that's a far cry from suppling weapons and intel
> Iranian supporting the Syrian regime as positive
I don't see it as positive at all.
Just saying that Israel has no problem with Iranians in Lebanon when if they mess up local establishment, but have it in Syria because there Iran is pro-existing regime.
> You still didn't explain how.
Hezbollah ruined Lebanese political establishment, and the state at the same time. Effectively, they made it a blank space on the map as it is now.
If you go to Russia and report something too negative for too long, you'll probably be expelled and never be allowed in again.
But there's a chance Putin would invite you to drink his special tea. If not you, your sources. Or that you'll feel so full of guilt for your slanderous reporting you'll spontaneously decide to jump out of a window.
Obviously reporters prefer safe and easy locations. Israel lets you be in a warzone but be in relatively little risk.
Israel is considered extremely important to the US because the US cares a lot about having influence in the Middle East. Being extremely important to the US gets them a lot of coverage in US media.
> they're the only democratic country in the Middle East
Yes. All citizens can vote. All those who can't vote are not citizens- which doesn't prevent the Israeli government from actually governing them. Since the division is along ethnic lines, this is usually called apartheid.
A combination of religious sensitivities, active violent geopolitical contest, various political movements all but seeing Israel as a mirror of their own country and supporting/opposing it as a result, unresolved feelings from long Jewish history elsewhere, Israel being open enough to report frequently from, and sufficient weakness of all involved that all sides could potentially see a change in status quo.
Well, you read quite a few comments of the form 'if they learnt from their own history'. Lets leave aside for a moment debates about Israel. This is a perverse attitude regardless of how innocent/guilty it is.
When people have been historically wronged, usually the moral burden is placed upon the perpetrators (and perhaps their descendants) and not the victims' descendants. Some African Americans act very badly (every population has its own criminals), but we don't ask them to 'learn lessons from slavery'. We ask white people inasmuch we ask this.
But in this case, it's only Jews that get this reply and somehow almost never the descendants of perpetrators of historical anti-Jewish atrocities. And this reply doesn't help Palestinians at all (I suspect it's strongly counterproductive), so it's not about them either.
I suspect the root of this is unresolved guilt, the unspoken argument is "see, you're as bad as we are!". Despite that the worst accusations against Israel don't come close to the scale of several historical atrocities against Jews.
1) Report on a minor issues in Israel
2) Make it "world news"
3) Escalate the tension
4) Rip those clicks.
Do you think reporting on some stone throwing or a house eviction should be the top headline in CNN? These don't remotely compare to what's going on in Africa, Yemen or east Ukraine.
Thats my point, who cares? Why is it so important for you to know about 4 elections in 2 years? Obviously people care but who decided this country is on par with China in the amount of attention it gets?
Well, in fairness, there isn’t often interesting _democracy-related_ news about China or Russia. If there were, it would be significantly more remarkable than this story.
Should either of your example countries (China or Russia) have a change in leadership, that would be a massive story in the US media.
The media regularly inflates the importance of some issues while failing to adequately cover others. Can you better articulate why you find this to be creepy?
In general, I wouldn't say Israel gets that much press attention. Honestly, I'd say it doesn't get enough.
There has been an uptick in coverage recently, but that's because of the uptick in violence and atrocities - like Israel ordering Palestinians to destroy their own homes (or pay for demolition if they don't), evicting Palestinians, Israelis expanding into Palestnian territory, the Israeli military destroying Palestinian tower blocks (resulting in numerous civilian deaths, including children), etc.*
Oh, and it's a nuclear power, and the spirtiual home of Judaism.
* I'm just giving reasons for news coverage; I'm not trying to start an ideological flame war here, and I know the Israeli government != Israelis. I also know that there is the odd rocket being fired into Israel from Palestine, so it's not a one-sided thing, but the point is that human rights atrocities being carried out with impunity by a US and UK ally is pretty awful.
There are actual genocides happening as we speak in countries no one knows or cares about. If your point is that Israel gets attention proportionate to the human suffering taking place that is nonsense.
My point wasn't solely about the violence - what makes the atrocities worse (more notable, if you like) is that Western governments don't give half a shit - Israel is a "friend" of the US and UK, with billions in "aid" arms sales flowing into Israel every year.
I maybe didn't put it quite right - western governments have much stronger political links with Israel. Hence, I think it makes sense that current events in Israel and Palestine would be reported in western media. As I said initially though, I don't believe Israel gets a disproportionate amount of coverage.
Pro Israel lobbies heavily influence American Congress. Israel receives a disproportionately unique generous backing on all fronts by Western governments, therefore they deserve extra scrutiny and should be held to account above rogue foreign regimes.
> Israel receives a disproportionately unique generous backing on all fronts by Western governments, therefore they deserve extra scrutiny and should be held to account above rogue foreign regimes
I just don't see how this has anything to do with it. News should be about important and influential events happening in the world (in theory, in practice it's about getting clicks), who cares about "unique generous backing" (which you are definitely exaggerating btw), the media shouldn't really care about that when deciding what is important.
Because Israel is one of the most powerful nations in the world. Maybe not so much the country itself, but its people are everwhere. They are our alies
Are American Jews still politically aligned with Israel? A honest question out of ignorance.
I know that American Jewish community tends to vote Democrat and that Democrats have a young cohort of politicians that is very vocally pro-Palestinian. So I would expect some drift. But I am not sure how to even measure it, or if someone tried to.
Both the people and the country are not so powerful, that sounds borderline anti semitic though I dont think you have bad intentions. But it shows me my original question is spot on.
Anyways, the interesting thing is the total remixing of ideologies that happened. "Rightwing" Netanyahu is considered to be the best for the poor/traditional Mizrachis. "Leftwing" Meretz agreed to have a cabinet dominated by settlers. "Leftist" endeavor of bridging the gaps with the Arabs is bringing anti-LGBT legislation (and was actually started by "right-wing " Netanyahu).
Israel needs a new name for the current political divide because right vs left, it is not
Hi, replying from the US. Israel is obviously at least tied with KSA for our top relationship in the middle east, and both of those relationships are deeply (like, DEEPLY) important to our politics. Not to mention that you're one of only 9 nuclear armed states in the entire world! Plus Bibi was PM for 15 years, including the last 12, and you've had 4 elections in the past 2 years trying to sort out if he's staying in office or not, ending up with a coalition of parties that ostensibly hate each other but are laser focused on removing him- the whole thing is certainly newsworthy!
Could you say why you think that is instead of clouding what you’re trying to say in a rhetorical question?
To me, Israel is significantly more than a microstate. Liechtenstein with its 38,000 people or Monaco with 39,000 are dots on the map. Israel has over 9 million inhabitants — I think classifying it as a “microstate” is a misnomer.
Israel is also a pretty powerful player and holds a lot of influence over US and world politics in a way that no “microstate” can.
Why are people so interested in US politics? Because the decisions of the US matter deeply to global geopolitics. Same goes for Israel, I think.
I'm not the OP, but he is correct even if he expressed himself poorly. Israel has since its inception had every transgression, every poor decision, and every flaw magnified in international press far more than any nation, even before accounting for Israel's small landmass and population.
Every country has issues, but none have them paraded about as blatantly as Israel does. When was the last time a country of less than 100,000 km^2, or less than 100M population, had a change of head of state as front-page news on HN? Why is this such an important event that every international news organization has it on the front page, when changes to other non-G8 nations' heads of state are not?
Every country in Europe aside from Russia has a population smaller than 100 million. Israel is larger than Austria by population.
Also, Israel is an ethnostate (of sorts) which has perennially been in some kind of armed conflict since its inception.
If Austria had wars and territorial disputes with all its neighbors, and received tens of billions of dollars from the US in military aid, and was nuclear-capable, and had a Prime Minister who wielded strong influence over US politics through an organization like the “American Austrian Public Affairs Committee”, we’d probably hear a lot more about it.
I kinda doubt it honestly.
I'm not even positive a regime change in China / Russia would have made it to #1 on HN and they both have much more influence on the U.S (and the world's future) than Israel. And even if China's leader being replaced would have made it to #1, the fact we are actually making this comparison (that Israel is as important globally as China) is surreal to me.
One must be delusional to think the international press is giving Netanyahu’s departure more or equal attention than would be given to regime change in Russia or China.
I’m also from this “micro state” and I find your alluding to racism to be disgusting.
But am used to this tactic to brute force your rightwing arguments, so no surprise here
I’m mostly interested because Israel is funded by tax dollars I pay, and heavily supported by racist religious people who believe we must support Israel because “they are Gods chosen people”. We don’t share such view for any other country on Earth, and the topic of Israel has been essentially censured in the US. Even now, criticizing Israel is quickly equated with anti Semitism. You can burn flags, insult Presidents, insult any country or statesman on Earth, and it’s all within some acceptable boundary, but the minute you even dare question Israel, the discussion comes to an end.
American politicians will drag their heels at times to address issues impacting Americans, but criticizing Israel shows them immediately speak up.
I think that’s dangerous, and we have to overturn that. And the idea of any particular race being “Gods chosen people” is unacceptably racist. An Israeli person is no better than a person of any other nationality. They are not above criticism. And if your religion says it is, we need to work to completely remove any influence your religion has on our government. Racism is racism, period.
Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and the other countries in the Middle East could well lead to a nuclear war, or at least destabilize the Middle East, which is a critical source of oil for the rest of the world.
If Israel was in Antarctica or on the Moon, a lot fewer people would care.
Well, there is the fact that Israel is in the middle of a series of conflicts that has so far lasted a couple of millennia, the consequences of which spread quite further than Israel itself, so it's in the interest of quite a few people to see a bit less fuel poured on that specific fire?
Several occidental countries have a (relatively) long love/hate relationship with Israel on top of that.
Also the fact that (some) Israeli politicians are not above a bit of interference with other countries either.
This is a fun fact, actually. Most politicians, even in 3rd world countries like mine, have at least one degree. In rare cases they don't, they get honorary phds in politics and/or sociology.
Lapid is the alternate prime minister, and the significance is that (correct me if I’m wrong) it’s fairly uncommon for people in political power positions not to have higher education of some sort.
Our (Indian) PM just just faked it! He got a degree printed in a subject that didnt exist, and when the degrees written by hand and in a font that was invented in this century. Not sure if Israelians tolerate white lies from their politicians as we do.
Naftali Bennett is more theocratic than Netanyahu. He defends his arguments saying "The bible says...". He does this even in international interviews, where interviewers are looking for answers that a diverse audience can understand.
He served as an education minister in Israel despite being heavily theocratic. In the US, we mock people that try to teach intelligent design in schools. In Israel, you put them in charge of education.
You can respect freedom of religion but claiming that the Bible prevails over international law is just absurd.
Ratified treaties are law, not scriptures and books sacred to a religion. Many countries do not have an official religion and most states do not have Judaism as an official religion. The bible argument just doesn't work.
What is that kind of discourse going to achieve? Clearly making Israel more popular is not among those things.
"In the US, we mock people that try to teach intelligent design in schools. In Israel, you put them in charge of education."
There have been plenty of theocrats in high positions of power in the US, and teaching Intelligent Design is not a laughing matter for large portions of the American population.
In fact, we may see some cases supporting the teaching of Intelligent Design come before the Supreme Court before long, and given the conservative dominance of the court those cases could well be decided in Intelligent Design's favor.
Many other countries are basically "Christian" countries or "Muslim" countries or insert your favorite religion. It's just not spelled out as such because it's a given. Is Christmas a holiday? Or is it Yom Kippur? It's easy to advocate for freedom of religion when 99.9% of the population is Christian or Muslim or <insert your favorite religion>.
The old testament is at least partly a historical document so referring to it as part of understanding the conflict is acceptable. Now if your argument simply reduces to "because g*d said so" then I agree it's not a very strong one, but Bennet is an intelligent person and I doubt that's the only reasoning he gives.
This was a necessary stepping stone to get Lapid into office in a maximum of two years.
If this government can stick together long enough to pass the necessary reforms to avoid future PMs from enacting extreme resolutions like Netanyahu did for so long, Israel will be an attractive place to continue funding with US taxpayers as the center government will be able to match US civil rights ideals and implement due process instead of rationalizing destructive responses based on rumors. Its not so absurd to imagine getting a court order to seize a property and prosecute individuals that are using military grade munitions. Right now it might seem to be, but it isn't.
If the government doesn't stick together long enough, Lapid gets into office sooner, but it would remain to be seen if there would be any will for restricting the PM power or passing reforms at that point.