Israel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

I understand the concept, just not the necessity.

---

I just have to disagree with that...

"There is a risk of famine in the projection period through May 2024 if the current situation persists or worsens," it said. The United Nations said in February that more than a quarter of Gaza's 2.3 million people were "estimated to be facing catastrophic levels of deprivation and starvation."

The UN reports that the decline in the population's nutrition status is at a globally unprecedented rate; children in Gaza are being starved at the fastest rate that the world has ever seen. Experts found that one in six children under two years old in northern Gaza are now acutely malnourished.

But there are groups that think they deserve it :(

Quote:

---

I understand the concept, just not the necessity.

---

Is it the need for aid you're questioning or the method of delivery. I'd disagree with you either way but for different reasons.

I think the people of Gaza definitely need aid right now and they've not been getting it. Pretty much every international aid organisation agrees on that. I think you can debate whether the responsibility for delivering it lies with the US but 1. I think it really rests with everyone. It's not a Nationality thing, it's a humanity thing. And 2. I don't think the US (or the UK, for that matter) has been leading on this. In fact we've been lagging behind the rest of the world. That said the US does have the logistic capability as well as the political clout with Israel to facilitate getting a project like this done.

As for whether this is a sensible way to go about it, no, it isn't, not really. The sensible way to go about it would be trucks through Israel but Israel has been blocking and choking that off since the word go. There have been some air drops recently but that's a ridiculously expensive and inefficient mechanism. So this seems like the last option available. It's not a good option but I can't think of a better one.

I was mostly about making puns, but the point Funky made is largely correct. Gaza can't feed itself. It never could, as it was largely a city. Cities in the US are estimated to have roughly a week of food supplies on hand, so without constant supply, people would start starving within a week. Gaza may be somewhat better off, considering they've faced greater food insecurity, and might have built up larger reserves. On the other hand, they've been bombed pretty steadily, so those reserves may be rubble, by now.

The main artery for supplies into Gaza was through one entryway in Israel, which Israel has cut off. That left a minor access point through Egypt, which was never capable of handling the necessary throughput even in the best of times. These are not the best of times. Trucks are undergoing extensive inspections and delays, so an inadequate port of entry is now hopeless. Israel could fix this, but shows no inclination to do so. Even if they re-opened their larger facility, they'd still slow walk the inspection of trucks, and food supplies will be inadequate.

Air was never realistic. It would take a few planes to realistically be able to air drop what a single truck can carry. Meanwhile, a single cargo ship can carry what several trucks could carry. At this point, assuming a pier can be built pretty quickly (we used to be able to, but that skill might have atrophied), delivery from a ship is probably the only way to avoid mass starvation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

I just have to disagree with that...

"There is a risk of famine in the projection period through May 2024 if the current situation persists or worsens," it said. The United Nations said in February that more than a quarter of Gaza's 2.3 million people were "estimated to be facing catastrophic levels of deprivation and starvation."

The UN reports that the decline in the population's nutrition status is at a globally unprecedented rate; children in Gaza are being starved at the fastest rate that the world has ever seen. Experts found that one in six children under two years old in northern Gaza are now acutely malnourished.

But there are groups that think they deserve it :(

---

You misunderstand. I'm all for Gaza getting aid.

Quote:

---

As for whether this is a sensible way to go about it, no, it isn't, not really. The sensible way to go about it would be trucks through Israel but Israel has been blocking and choking that off since the word go. There have been some air drops recently but that's a ridiculously expensive and inefficient mechanism. So this seems like the last option available. It's not a good option but I can't think of a better one.

---

What the US should be doing is condemning Israel totally for the murdering of civilians. Stop waffling and stop vetoing UN measures trying to hold Israel accountable and stop providing military aid. Israel can't stand for long against everyone.

Quote:

---

Air was never realistic. It would take a few planes to realistically be able to air drop what a single truck can carry

---

I'd say the Berlin air drop proves it can be done and there are much larger more powerful planes that can carry as much as a truck. But that's not what I'm suggesting. This madness needs to stop and there are ways of doing that.

I have to admit that the military buff in me is curious of what this temporary port would look like and how long it would take. If it's something that can be accomplished in a few days then perhaps it's a good idea. But it just seems like a way to avoid doing the right thing.

Berlin had an airfield, and the planes were probably still there from the war. Maybe that actually makes it harder? The only airdrops I have seen have been relatively small packages. Can you drop whole pallets from a plane with any accuracy, and have them parachute without too much damage? If so, then not needing to land might make it easier than the Berlin airlift. Don't know, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Berlin had an airfield, and the planes were probably still there from the war. Maybe that actually makes it harder? The only airdrops I have seen have been relatively small packages. Can you drop whole pallets from a plane with any accuracy, and have them parachute without too much damage? If so, then not needing to land might make it easier than the Berlin airlift. Don't know, though.

---

I'm not sure of the max size they're capable of safely dropping. Have seen some large ones being dropped. I'd say just a little smaller than a shipping container. The military also have hover craft that could ferry goods from ships. They can carry an Abrams Tank, that's 60tons. There are heavy lift helicopters. There are ways, if we have the commitment. I don't mean just us, it not just our responsibility. But all of this isn't my point. My point is lets open up the roads that are already there, lets stop this massacre.

Yeah.

Here is an example:

Since no one is willing to do anything more than say "shame on you" to Israel, I guess any way we can increase aid is a good thing. The fact this will take @ 60days indicates the US has no plans to change it's stance any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

I'm not sure of the max size they're capable of safely dropping. Have seen some large ones being dropped. I'd say just a little smaller than a shipping container. The military also have hover craft that could ferry goods from ships. They can carry an Abrams Tank, that's 60tons. There are heavy lift helicopters. There are ways, if we have the commitment. I don't mean just us, it not just our responsibility. But all of this isn't my point. My point is lets open up the roads that are already there, lets stop this massacre.

---

I see they're back to air drops. Unless you got a way to retrieve the rigging and chutes it would probably be hard to sustain.

Maybe Israel could give us the chutes back as payment for the bombs we give them. The circle of life.

Quote:

---

What the US should be doing is condemning Israel totally for the murdering of civilians.

---

Now there I'm with you 100%. The only nuance I'd add is that I'd like to hear some loud voices saying the same to Hamas. I feel like those Israel's actions have caused those voices to recede and we shouldn't allow them to. Hamas are not the Palestinian people and, just as the Palestinian people do not deserve to be punished for the actions of Hamas, we should not forget what Hamas did because we're now watching the Palestinian people suffer for it.

That said, I agree with with gist. We need to do much, much more to hold the Israeli government accountable for it's recent actions.

Quote:

---

stop providing military aid

---

I'm nervous about this but don't have anything better to offer. I'm nervous of it because I'm aware of Israel's geopolitical position. They're surrounded by Muslim nations who have, historically, been extremely hostile. Without Western military aid Israel wouldn't exist now and probably wouldn't last 5 years if we cut it off. What we're seeing in Gaza would probably be repeated except against the Israeli people and across the whole of Israel. That said, providing military aid to one regime while providing humanitarian aid to the people that military aid is being turned against is a starkly hypocritical position to be occupying. I guess I'm looking for a way to make the Israeli government climb down without throwing the Israeli people under the bus at the same time. Damned if I can think of one but that should at least be the goal.

Sadly, the air drop idea aged like milk. I won't pretend my criticism of it considered anything like that happening but, God, it's like this situation just wants to keep kicking the Palestinians in new and horrible ways.

I wasn't suggesting to permanently stop military aid. But we shouldn't be supplying them weapons for use in Gaza. Lets just turn the tap off for a while and when they realize the danger that puts them in, perhaps it would motivate them to rethink their current course of action. I also think Israel needs to know that support from it's friends isn't absolute and can be terminated. For some reason we've been turning a blind eye to what they they've been doing in the region for the last 30yrs.

This isn't the first time ....

Palestinian society was decimated during the Nakba, 531 Palestinian villages were destroyed, and more than 70 massacres were carried out against innocent civilians, killing more than 15 thousand Palestinians between 1947 and 1949.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

The current violence didn't spark out of a vacuum. At this point I think Israel, and they are doing it, needs to "remove" Palestinians from "their" land. They learned that from the Germans, cleaning out the Polish "Ghetto". I guess it is just matter of time until the US backs that up.

Not much subtle about Israel. In the middle of an invasion of Gaza Israel grabs more land in the West Bank. https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news...121840804.html

I wouldn't say "Israel". There's certainly a group within Israel.

I don't understand how that country hangs together. The group that has a birth rate greater than the replacement rate is the ultraorthodox subset. They receive generous welfare, are generally uneducated, barely work (partially since they are generally uneducated), and are exempt from military service. That means that the rest of the country is essentially subsidizing what amounts to a parasitic group that is steadily growing. I'd be kind of pissed about that.

I guess one big difference between what the Germans did to the Jews in cleaning out Warsaw is the Palestinians aren't fighting back as they get wiped out. But...they "voted" for Hamas and must die for it. Even though that was like seventeen years ago since the last election. Most of the people Israel is killing weren't even born then, let alone voted for them. But that is what they use as an excuse for for killing 30,000 plus women and children, they voted for Hamas. In that light, starve the rest of them...

Another tragedy in a long line of tragedies. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/l...tes-rcna145971

Not only have more innocents been killed, now the food from Cypress wont be coming.

Yet the US is still talking out of both sides of its mouth. "Stop the fighting in Gaza, here's some more bombs."

I think Israel has taken the position there will be no more Palestinians allowed. They will be killed or assimilated. The position, I think, is there will never be a two-state solution.

What is food from "Cypress" ? Did I miss something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapator

What is food from "Cypress" ? Did I miss something?

---

There was a boat pulling a barge with 240 ton of food heading to Gaza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

I think Israel has taken the position there will be no more Palestinians allowed. They will be killed or assimilated. The position, I think, is there will never be a two-state solution.

---

I don't think that's the position of Israel. I think that's the position of the current government of Israel, and I want to make that distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I don't think that's the position of Israel. I think that's the position of the current government of Israel, and I want to make that distinction.

---

You've made this distinction before and I'm not sure what your trying to say. The government is forcing this on them? I don't know anything about Israel's governing system. Don't they have elections. Maybe you could explain. Just a little, I don't have room in my brain for a lot of new information. lol

Yeah, to some extent the government is forcing this on them. Netanyahu is primarily concerned with remaining in power, because so long as he does, he can keep the prosecutions at bay. What is keeping him in power is a coalition of right and far right groups, including the ultra orthodox, who are becoming an increasingly large part of the population of Israel, since they have a birth rate well above the 2.1 children/woman rate needed to maintain a population. I believe that the birth rate for non-ultra orthodox and secular members of society is well below 2.1, so as one group fades, the other group is surging.

The ultra-orthodox group is exempt from military service...and education. They also get some pretty robust subsidies, because very few of them are capable of making a living on their own. They lack the education to do most work, and are devoted to studying scripture, which doesn't have much monetary return. This group has largely been untouched by this war. They don't serve, they haven't been called up, and they have no economy aside from handouts, which Netanyahu has proposed increasing at the same time that other parts of the civil spending have been cut back to support the war effort.

Another group that is part of his coalition is the group led by Itamar Ben-Gvir. If there is a person who would like to exterminate the Palestinians, it would be him. Netanyahu made him the Minister of National Security to keep him in the coalition.

So, basically, I feel that the largest obstacle to peace is the government of Israel, largely because Netanyahu had to form a coalition of some distasteful people just to become Prime Minister, and he has to remain Prime Minister to remain out of prison. They won't accept anything aside from the elimination of the Palestinians, and he can't save his neck without them. Therefore, no peace.

Thanks, that was interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I don't think that's the position of Israel. I think that's the position of the current government of Israel, and I want to make that distinction.

---

Just like the Israelis say about the Palestinians, the Israelis voted the government in...they OKed this.

Forget the last Palestinian election was around seventeen years ago. When was Netanyahu voted in? Now I don't subscribe to that line of thinking, but you hear many of the people defending what the Israelis are doing saying that very thing. The Palestinians brought this all on themselves.

Netanyahu was barely voted in. There are numerous parties, so it was a matter of who could build a coalition. He did, then he didn't, and then he did, again. The mix of parties was pretty well balanced, such that small parties held considerable influence, as they could make or break a government. As it stands, he can't afford to lose even one of his coalition partners, which is why Ben-Gvir comes in.

The Hamas attack certainly appears to have swung the needle. It's unlikely that Netanyahu would stand a chance in an election, these days, so he HAS to keep his coalition together, which means feeding his far right coalition members. That's a major factor in how this war is going. It's not just an election for him, because a loss will likely result in him going to prison. He doesn't just lose power, he loses freedom, so he has to keep the coalition together, and the coalition includes the most extreme, genocidal, elements of the right wing in Israeli politics. He can't afford to lose them, so there will never be a viable peace.

Quote:

---

Just like the Israelis say about the Palestinians, the Israelis voted the government in...they OKed this.

---

I don't think it's valid no matter which side is saying it. You can't get to collective punishment without traveling through collective blame on the way. When we couch this in terms of "the Israelis" that quickly becomes a proxy for "all Israelis". Do you feel that should share responsibility for the attack on the capitol on Jan 6th? Do you feel the average Trump supporter feels they should share responsible for Biden's border policies?

I'm with Shaggy on this. I think that's a very important distinction to make. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to get bent out of shape when people use "Israel" or "Israelis" as a linguistic shortcut (it's the sort of thing we all do all the time) but given the unique history of Israel and Jewish people and given current events, it's a distinction we should probably take more care with than we do with other generalisations like "the Brits" or "Americans".

What I do think is valid to say is that a non trivial number of Israeli's are complicit or acquiescent in what's happening in Gaza. Sometimes, though I suspect not often, this is through active desire and hatred. More commonly, I suspect, it's through simple ignorance of the extent of what's happening and the human tendency to just bury one's head when faced with uncomfortable truths.

Edit> As I read this back some of it might come across as an attack. Apologies if it does as it's not meant as one. I just felt it was worth clarifying why this, in particular, is a more important distinction than most.

Quote:

---

I don't think it's valid no matter which side is saying it. You can't get to collective punishment without traveling through collective blame on the way. When we couch this in terms of "the Israelis" that quickly becomes a proxy for "all Israelis". Do you feel that should share responsibility for the attack on the capitol on Jan 6th? Do you feel the average Trump supporter feels they should share responsible for Biden's border policies?

---

Using the term Israel or Israelis is a sensible generalization, I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation. It's reasonable to assume that we understand that not all Israelis are for or against such things as war. I don't feel it should be necessary to clarify that it's not all. As for responsibility, yes . In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility. Well, a legitimately elected government

So I have no problem with saying Israel is responsible for current horrific situation in Gaza and thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I also know not all Israelis agree with what's going on.

I should add, I have no problem with SH making a distinction. That lead to some interesting insight into Israeli politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

Using the term Israel or Israelis is a sensible generalization, I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation. It's reasonable to assume that we understand that not all Israelis are for or against such things as war. I don't feel it should be necessary to clarify that it's not all. As for responsibility, yes . In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility. Well, a legitimately elected government

So I have no problem with saying Israel is responsible for current horrific situation in Gaza and thousands of unnecessary deaths. But I also know not all Israelis agree with what's going on.

I should add, I have no problem with SH making a distinction. That lead to some interesting insight into Israeli politics.

---

Ditto on that. It works against me also. I'm part of the evil west, an American imperialist, all the stuff. But I'm also a regular Joe that goes to work everyday. I never killed anyone but "Americans" do and "we" are part of worldwide killings.

Should I be lumped into all that? That is just the way it goes, but, keep we try and in mind "we are all brethren under the sun".

Quote:

---

In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility.

---

Then you're not making an incidental generalisation for linguistic simplicity. You're making a deliberate generalisation that arbitrarily lumps a subset of people together.

Like I said, by that logic you are responsible for Jan 6th. You are responsible for Trump's policy of separating the children of refugees from their parents. You are responsible for the falsification of claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and, by proxy, for the thousands of deaths that resulted. You're responsible for the drone attacks Obama ordered during his tenure. It means you are responsible for every evil the US government has carried out since you came of voting age. For clarity, I don't think that any of those accusations can legitimately be applied to you and, for the same reasons, I don't think the entire Israeli electorate can be held responsible for the actions of a hard right government led my a man who faces prosecution as soon as loses power. I don't equate Israelis with Netanyahu any more than I equate Palestinians with Hamas.

I do agree that incidental linguistic generalisations are pretty much necessary for communication. Like I said, I'll talk about "Brits" and "Americans" when discussing foreign policy because it's a useful shortcut. But I also think that ones around Israel specifically are particularly problematic given the history of Jews in the previous century and current events. I don't necessarily ascribe any ill intent to people who make those sorts of passive generalisations (I'm sure I've done it myself in this thread) but, given the not insignificant number of people who want to make active connections from Israel's Foreign Policy to Israel to Israelis and, in turn, to "Jews" at the moment, I just think it's sensible to try and avoid those generalisations where possible.

For that reason I felt that Shaggy was right to explicitly make the distinction and, honestly, I find pretty weird that anyone felt the need to question it.

Quote:

---

I find pretty weird that anyone felt the need to question it.

---

I feel the exact opposite. For some reason you have to insist on the necessity of clarifying that not all Israelis support the current actions in Gaza. To the point of calling anyone that doesn't agree with the necessity, "weird".

Well, at least you don't "ascribe any ill intent" , that's something us weirdo's have going for us. lol

Quote:

---

I find pretty weird that anyone felt the need to question it.

---

I feel the exact opposite. For some reason you have to insist on the necessity of clarifying that not all Israelis support the current actions in Gaza. To the point of calling anyone that doesn't agree with the necessity, "weird".

Well, at least you don't "ascribe any ill intent" , that's something us weirdo's have going for us. lol

Quote:

---

Then you're not making an incidental generalisation for linguistic simplicity. You're making a deliberate generalisation that arbitrarily lumps a subset of people together.

---

ALL generalizations lump subsets together. That's why they're called a generalization. You want to pass judgement on whether it was incidental or deliberate, go ahead.

I'm not going to carry out a long debate over why I feel a countries population is ultimately responsible of their governments action. Now that I think about it, that's a different subject, it really has nothing to do with why I feel it's proper to use the generalization of "Israel" when referring to who is causing the current tragedy in Gaza.

It seems that Israel has set the bar pretty low for what justifies an air strike. https://apnews.com/article/israel-ga...ontent=rundown

But it's hard to be sure because they haven't been transparent about what their methods are to justify air strikes.

Quote:

---

why I feel it's proper to use the generalization of "Israel" when referring to who is causing the current tragedy in Gaza.

---

I don't feel it's "proper". No generalisation is ever truly "proper" if you're seeking clarity. What I do think is that such generalisations are often (almost always in fact) "acceptable". As you said: "I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation". I agree with you that we use such generalisations all the time and don't get bent out of shape over it. We accept it for the linguistic shortcut it's usually intended to be.

However, I think that Israel, Israelis and Jews in general represent an exception in the context of the current events. The reason is that the chief accusation that's being levelled at the moment (quite rightly, in my opinion) is that the Knesset appears to be engaged in Genocide. The Jews suffered the worst genocide in living memory and the state of Israel was explicitly created as a home for the survivors of that genocide. Indeed, the word genocide was originally coined in 1944 to describe the holocaust - that's the very origin of the word. And this is setting aside the troubled history of persecutions up to and including the Spanish Inquisition. Jews, Israelis and the state of Israel have a very unique history.

So by using that generalisation in this particular case you risk communicating that holocaust survivors are guilty of or complicit in genocide, whether they individually are or not. Can you really not see why that is magnitudes more offensive than when we use this type of generalisation more commonly, even if that is not the intent when you use it.

As I said, I am not ascribing ill intent to people who use the generalisation in this case. I stated explicitly in post 218 that this was not intended as an attack and I felt that it not being an accusation was implicit in that. However, I do not feel that pointing out that such a generalisation is best avoided in this particular case is an unreasonable thing to have done. Particularly given that avoiding the generalisation is as simple saying "Netanyahu", "the Knesset", "the IDF" or "Israeli Foreign Policy". It's not like we lack terminology.

Quote:

---

As you said: "I'd say it's acceptable in a conversation"

---

And that's all we were having here. Until you turned a simple point made by SH into a chance for you to wrap yourself in the flag of righteousness and justify it by reliving the horrors of the holocaust. You seem to imply this forum is infected with ignorant racists. So we can't use normal terminology. Calling people that use a normal generalization weird and "magnitudes more offensive".

Quote:

---

Particularly given that avoiding the generalisation is as simple saying "Netanyahu", "the Knesset", "the IDF" or "Israeli Foreign Policy"

---

Another generalization. None of these groups exists in a vaccuum. Whether the majority of the Israeli population is for or against the actions in Gaza, I don't know. But Israel is the country responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

history of persecutions up to and including the Spanish Inquisition.

---

I didn't expect that.

The longer this goes on, the more I'm starting to feel it is Israel. There's starting to be some protests, and I can understand the formerly protesting Israelis staying quiet for a time following the attacks of Oct 7th, but I feel that Netanyahu is doubling down on selling the country down the river, and the objections to that are not loud enough.

If I lived there, I'd be pissed that he's talking about cutting social services...except for an increase in the welfare for the ultra orthodox. He's going to squander the goodwill of the Israeli people to try to save his own neck. At some point, people are going to have to speak up more loudly, or he will accomplish what Hamas never could.

I've seen the reports of Israeli protests against Netanyahu but it's hard to say what the dominate view of the Gaza situation is by the Israelis. You can't really tell that by what makes the news. But it does feel like the goodwill towards Israel is weakening. Severely.

Quote:

---

You seem to imply this forum is infected with ignorant racists.

---

I have done no such thing, quite the opposite in fact. I have explicitly gone out of my way to say that I was not doing that. Multiple times. Way back in post 218, before any of the latest to and fro we've had, I wrote this: "As I read this back some of it might come across as an attack. Apologies if it does as it's not meant as one. I just felt it was worth clarifying why this, in particular, is a more important distinction than most." So no, I haven't implied that. You have inferred it.

What I have been trying to say, and which you have clearly been reading straight past, is why I feel this distinction is more important than most. The reason depends somewhat on how the generalisation is used. When we use that generalisation we are using it in one of two ways:-

1. As a deliberate equation of Israeli people with the actions of their state. I think you did do this in post 219 when you wrote "As for responsibility, yes . In an elected government, the population has to take responsibility." I responded to that in post 221 and I don't feel anything I said was an invalid response to that position. You rowed that back somewhat in your last paragraph of post 223 so I don't know whether we still disagree on that or not. I'm happy to engage in a good faith debate with you on that if you wish but I don't feel that position is valid because the people of Israel simply do not equate to the set of people who are calling the shots behind the current events. Further, as one of the accusations being pointed at the Israeli government is collective punishment (which is a war crime) it seems hypocritical to engage in the same sort of collectivisation about the people of Israel (I averred to this in post 218) although only to the level of blame rather than punishment.

2. As a linguistic short cut. As I have said repeatedly, this is far from the worst thing in the world and I don't think anyone doing it is racist (well, they might be, it's certainly something that racists do but I don't get the impression that's what's happening here and I've gone out of my way to make clear that I'm not levelling that accusation). What I do think, though, is that when we're talking about such a sensitive subject as Jews engaging in genocide it's best to be aware and mindful of our language. Otherwise we risk causing offence when we simply don't need to. It's one of the rare cases where clarity should probably trump brevity. I am not saying you can't use Israel as a generalisation in this context but I am pointing out that doing so could cause offence for little benefit.

Finally, I have not called anyone weird. What I said was that challenging someone making a distinction between the people of Israel and the Government of Israel seemed weird to me because, to me, the distinction is obvious. Indeed, if you read back way upthread I'm pretty sure you'll find me making exactly this distinction on page 1.


Edit> I was wrong. I first made the distinction on page 2.

Quote:

---

I've seen the reports of Israeli protests against Netanyahu

---

There's been lots of protesting and lots of reporting on it over here so this may be a "side of the pond" thing. There were protests this last weekend. Interestingly some of the loudest voices have been the families of the hostages.

We're starting to hear more of that. It creates an interesting situation.

The Israeli government will fall if one of the participating groups pulls out. Will considerable protest cause that to happen, or cause the reverse? I can't decide which I think is more likely. The governing coalition will have divisions, as all coalitions do. In the case of Israel, the governing coalition is a coalition of right-wing groups. They can pretty well see that they will currently lose any new election, which means that pulling out of the coalition, and thereby bringing about an early election, will cost them dearly. On the other hand, stress tends to make cracks more prominent.

Quote:

---

Will considerable protest cause that to happen, or cause the reverse?

---

Sadly I suspect not. I think the groups that form the coalition will double down. Some of them actively want this and, for others, its politically expedient to just go along with it. My hope is that the electorate shifts (or already has shifted) radically from the last election and this coalition will be ousted at the next election. It'd be great if t happened sooner though.

Quote:

---

They can pretty well see that they will currently lose any new election, which means that pulling out of the coalition, and thereby bringing about an early election, will cost them dearly.

---

It always sounds strange to me how many elections Israel has. I'm so use the our system. Sort of remains me of your current House of Representatives. lol

Their theoretical cycle is pretty reasonable at four years (same as the UK) but they've had a crazy time recently. Mainly because Netanyahu keeps having to scramble to hold onto his position because he's not popular and as soon as he loses his position he's likely to face criminal corruption charges. So, yeah, 5 elections in 2 years I think.

Mind you, the UK's had 3 Prime Ministers in the last 2 years and we're probably going to have another one or possibly two before the end of this year. Difference is we're not even getting to elect ours lately.

Wasn't one of yours a head of lettuce?

No, wait, that was Boris Johnson.

Quote:

---

Their theoretical cycle is pretty reasonable at four years (same as the UK) but they've had a crazy time recently. Mainly because Netanyahu keeps having to scramble to hold onto his position because he's not popular and as soon as he loses his position he's likely to face criminal corruption charges. So, yeah, 5 elections in 2 years I think.

---

What triggers these other elections.

Quote:

---

No, wait, that was Boris Johnson.

---

The lettuce was Liz Truss. But Boris certainly qualifies as some kind legume. I'm thinking turnip.

Quote:

---

What triggers these other elections.

---

There's been a variety of reason but the theme is Netanyahu's hold on power being VERY tenuous coupled with a proportional representation system which means you need broad consensus to be able to govern (I'm a fan of PR but this is one of it's weaknesses - in highly polarised setup it can be a recipe for grid lock). So, for example, a couple of his governments collapsed when one of his partners walked away, I remember at least one election where nobody was able to form a coalition and there was one where his opponent could have formed a coalition but only just and Netanyahu was able to simply declare that election invalid.

So if one of the coalition walks away there's has to be a new election. Is it an election by the people or just member of the congress/parliament? Sounds messy.

By the people, and yes, it IS messy. It's very messy.

I knew it was the lettuce that outlasted Liz Truss, but when I think of Boris and his hair....lettuce does kind of come to mind. If he's a turnip, then he'd be the root (vegetable) of some evil.

Quote:

---

So if one of the coalition walks away there's has to be a new election

---

It's not so much that there has to be an election but rather, if the leading coalition loses it's majority, they can't pass anything so everything just shuts down. It's kind of like what you've got in congress right now but more so. At that point they typically just hold a new election and try and form new coalitions. I think (though I'm not sure) that the governing body has mechanisms to force a new election if a majority supports it which would mean Netanyahu can't just dig his heels in.

I like PR but this is one of it's weaknesses. It functions wholly on compromise so is susceptible to gridlock if the governing body is so polarised that compromise become impossible. It also tends to over power extreme and single issue parties because they get to play king maker.

Quote:

---

I think of Boris and his hair....lettuce does kind of come to mind

---

I think I'm channelling his face when I suggested turnip. It's kind of round, pale and a little bit lumpy. I could call him a swede but he's actually an American (believe it or not).

He screwed up government, so it doesn't surprise me.

Our leading coalition in the house, has a majority, but also hates one another, and therefore they STILL can't pass anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

He screwed up government, so it doesn't surprise me.

Our leading coalition in the house, has a majority, but also hates one another, and therefore they STILL can't pass anything.

---

To compound that, one side of the hate can't even get along in their own camp. Everyday it seems the speaker is facing being voted out. One person can start the process.

And let's pile on some more...the former president has outsized influence on Republicans currently in office directing many of their votes. Past presidents traditionally kept a low profile. Trump broke the mould. He recently torpedoed the immigration bill that leaned heavily conservative. He didn't want to give the democrats a win, the hell with the American people, it is a one man show.

The republican speaker of the house is meeting with Trump in Florida today to get his marching orders...the tail wagging the dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TysonLPrice

To compound that, one side of the hate can't even get along in their own camp.

---

That's actually what I meant, but after re-reading what I posted, one might think I meant that the two parties hate each other. I don't mean that. They are opponents, but the real fighting is happening within the majority party. That's often the case, it's just a bit more extreme, at the moment.

Quote:

---

They are opponents, but the real fighting is happening within the majority party

---

I think that's actually pretty common, we save our true vitriol for our siblings. In the UK I tend to associate this with the left (though the right is showing it more at the moment). Labour supporters don't like Tories but say "New Labour" to a Corbyn supporter and they turn apoplectic.

I've got to say, MTG seems to be putting on quite a show lately.

Quote:

---

I've got to say, MTG seems to be putting on quite a show lately.

---

She always does. A few months ago her sound bite was, impeach Biden. With her the sky is always falling.

Perhaps she could just go with "Impeach ___________"

Frankly, as a person who enjoys the politics, I hope she does bring forwards that motion to vacate. It would provide for some delightful theatre. I have no idea which way things would go, though I'm leaning towards Johnson surviving the vote because he seems more pragmatic and reliable that McCarthy. The Democrats might support him in exchange for something like a vote on Ukraine funding (which a lot of Republicans would also support), and the Republicans might support him simply because they want to avoid another embarrassing period of flailing disunity.

So far she doesn't seem to have much backing for vacating Johnson. With Johnson there has been some progress but there is still no Ukraine aid and he just went and met with Trump to get his marching orders. So I don't have much hope for anything meaningful being passed by congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wes4dbt

So far she doesn't seem to have much backing for vacating Johnson. With Johnson there has been some progress but there is still no Ukraine aid and he just went and met with Trump to get his marching orders. So I don't have much hope for anything meaningful being passed by congress.

---

Johnson went down to Florida and kissed Trump's "ring". He is going to bring up some meaningless immigration bill and I think in return MTG will be told to heal. I'll bet two reptation points she suddenly shuts up :bigyello: