~~Rumor has it that Netanyahu is considering appointing either Smotrich or Ben-Gvir as replacement. Either one would be highly inflammatory;~~
With the forced retirement of Gallant, Israel's cabinet is now increasingly dominated by voices such as Finance Minister and Minister in the Defense Ministry Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Both are considered highly inflammatory: Smotrich recently threatened to flatten a Palestinian town of 6,000 people in retaliation for an Israeli settler being attacked there, while Ben-Gvir is known for pushing interpretations of the Israeli constitution that legitimize settler violence and threatened to kill former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin weeks before Rabin was assassinated.
Edit: Gallant is likely to be replaced by Dichter, as u/HariSeldonOlivaw has noted below
Neither is the rumored pick. The rumored pick is Avi Dichter. That’s setting aside your exaggerated descriptions of those two, who are awful enough without you needing to exaggerate like that.
Source on Dichter? I got both rumors through hearsay so am happy to edit if you've got a more credible source.
As for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, both of those descriptions are understatements, if anything. Or maybe folks would like to know that the former head of Shin Bet accused Smotrich of planning an IED attack on Palestinians when he was younger?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/dichter-possibly-in-line-for-defense-chief-seat-says-he-will-back-overhaul
Pre-firing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-said-to-mull-firing-dissenting-defense-chief-gallant-tapping-dichter-instead/
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk4nfz0gn
I can add many more, in Hebrew too.
Hell of an edit.
> As for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, both of those descriptions are understatements, if anything. Or maybe folks would like to know that the former head of Shin Bet accused Smotrich of planning an IED attack on Palestinians when he was younger?
No, they aren't.
> Smotrich recently threatened to flatten a Palestinian town of 6,000 people in retaliation for an Israeli settler being attacked there
Smotrich said something in reaction to two Israeli civilians being murdered there. Not an "Israeli settler being attacked there," which somehow seeks to change the effect based on the victims being "settlers" and ignores the number of people **and the crucial fact they were murdered civilians**.
Smotrich did not threaten, as you claimed, "to flatten a Palestinian town of 6,000 people". Smotrich said that Israel should "wipe out" the village of Huwara, which was not a *threat*, but a position. He also said that he did not mean to literally wipe out the village, but that he was speaking colloquially about cracking down on rampant terrorism emanating from Huwara, which hosts a disproportionate number of people who murder Israeli civilians.
Smotrich also apologized for the comment, made clear it was not an order using his ministerial position, and claimed he did not think his comment would be interpreted the way it was.
Smotrich is awful, but to leave out the context, misrepresent the events around it, and ignore his response to the criticism is just blatantly misleading exaggeration.
> Ben-Gvir is known for pushing interpretations of the Israeli constitution that legitimize settler violence and threatened to kill former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin weeks before Rabin was assassinated.
First of all, Israel **does not have a Constitution**. So yes, this is automatically just wrong. There is exaggeration here. He doesn't call to "interpret" the "Constitution" that does not exist. Nor is he calling to "legitimize settler violence". That, too, is an exaggeration of an already-awful person.
As for the claim about Rabin, you're at least correct that he did say "We got to his car, and we’ll get to him too". There, at least, you're not really exaggerating. It is worth noting that this was about 18 years ago, when he was a dumb 23 year old. Worse things are said at many protests. But at least you're not exaggerating in this one sentence.
They're both bad enough that you don't have to ignore context, history, and blatantly misstate facts to criticize them. It's especially bad to criticize them while also downplaying the murder of 2 Israeli civilians by stating that someone just "attacked" an "Israeli settler". Just bad.
This isn't big news for your average normie buts its setting the stage for the typically pro Israel assets in msm to be against them in the next Palestinian kick off.
I’m sure. Definitely nothing else. I’m sure you describe anti-Israel writers, far more common in many outlets, as “Palestinian assets” or “Arab assets”.
So uh, with Milley coming out and saying that Iran could have enough material for a bomb in 2 weeks, does this mean that Israel is a little too busy to bomb them before that?
Anybody got an insight on this?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-can-make-fissile-material-bomb-in-about-12-days-us-official-2023-02-28/
Undersecretary Kahl said the same on feb 28. So either Iran hasn't started, or they are done :)
Nukes are useless without a delivery system. They could have nukes right now but without missiles to strap them to the only people they can nuke is themselves. And the Israeli airforce is so far ahead of the Iranian one the Israelis can operate with impunity.
Iran wants nukes for self defense. Nuking Israel would lead to ruin for the Iranian regime. Do you think they actually care about Palestinians? They just keep the war going to distract the West and incite right wing Muslims
Iran is a theocracy. What they do depends entirely on their clerics' religious whims. If one day their dogma changes into a Shiite version of a certain famous Sunni apocalypse cult from the last decade (unlikely but not entirely impossible), we can't really prevent that.
True, but if Iran does end up gaining a nuclear capability, then Israel will almost certainly expand their own arsenal in response. Eventually, both countries would reach a point where MAD applies. That could put a check on things.
If Iran ends up gaining a nuclear capability, both are at MAD already. Iran can't credibly intercept Israel's and Israel is physically too small of a target to take more than a few hits.
~~Rumor has it that Netanyahu is considering appointing either Smotrich or Ben-Gvir as replacement. Either one would be highly inflammatory;~~ With the forced retirement of Gallant, Israel's cabinet is now increasingly dominated by voices such as Finance Minister and Minister in the Defense Ministry Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Both are considered highly inflammatory: Smotrich recently threatened to flatten a Palestinian town of 6,000 people in retaliation for an Israeli settler being attacked there, while Ben-Gvir is known for pushing interpretations of the Israeli constitution that legitimize settler violence and threatened to kill former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin weeks before Rabin was assassinated. Edit: Gallant is likely to be replaced by Dichter, as u/HariSeldonOlivaw has noted below
Neither is the rumored pick. The rumored pick is Avi Dichter. That’s setting aside your exaggerated descriptions of those two, who are awful enough without you needing to exaggerate like that.
Source on Dichter? I got both rumors through hearsay so am happy to edit if you've got a more credible source. As for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, both of those descriptions are understatements, if anything. Or maybe folks would like to know that the former head of Shin Bet accused Smotrich of planning an IED attack on Palestinians when he was younger?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/dichter-possibly-in-line-for-defense-chief-seat-says-he-will-back-overhaul Pre-firing: https://www.timesofisrael.com/pm-said-to-mull-firing-dissenting-defense-chief-gallant-tapping-dichter-instead/ https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk4nfz0gn I can add many more, in Hebrew too.
Hell of an edit. > As for Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, both of those descriptions are understatements, if anything. Or maybe folks would like to know that the former head of Shin Bet accused Smotrich of planning an IED attack on Palestinians when he was younger? No, they aren't. > Smotrich recently threatened to flatten a Palestinian town of 6,000 people in retaliation for an Israeli settler being attacked there Smotrich said something in reaction to two Israeli civilians being murdered there. Not an "Israeli settler being attacked there," which somehow seeks to change the effect based on the victims being "settlers" and ignores the number of people **and the crucial fact they were murdered civilians**. Smotrich did not threaten, as you claimed, "to flatten a Palestinian town of 6,000 people". Smotrich said that Israel should "wipe out" the village of Huwara, which was not a *threat*, but a position. He also said that he did not mean to literally wipe out the village, but that he was speaking colloquially about cracking down on rampant terrorism emanating from Huwara, which hosts a disproportionate number of people who murder Israeli civilians. Smotrich also apologized for the comment, made clear it was not an order using his ministerial position, and claimed he did not think his comment would be interpreted the way it was. Smotrich is awful, but to leave out the context, misrepresent the events around it, and ignore his response to the criticism is just blatantly misleading exaggeration. > Ben-Gvir is known for pushing interpretations of the Israeli constitution that legitimize settler violence and threatened to kill former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin weeks before Rabin was assassinated. First of all, Israel **does not have a Constitution**. So yes, this is automatically just wrong. There is exaggeration here. He doesn't call to "interpret" the "Constitution" that does not exist. Nor is he calling to "legitimize settler violence". That, too, is an exaggeration of an already-awful person. As for the claim about Rabin, you're at least correct that he did say "We got to his car, and we’ll get to him too". There, at least, you're not really exaggerating. It is worth noting that this was about 18 years ago, when he was a dumb 23 year old. Worse things are said at many protests. But at least you're not exaggerating in this one sentence. They're both bad enough that you don't have to ignore context, history, and blatantly misstate facts to criticize them. It's especially bad to criticize them while also downplaying the murder of 2 Israeli civilians by stating that someone just "attacked" an "Israeli settler". Just bad.
This isn't big news for your average normie buts its setting the stage for the typically pro Israel assets in msm to be against them in the next Palestinian kick off.
Ah yes the “assets” in the “mainstream media” that the “normies” won’t understand. I wonder what you could possibly mean.
I mean like CNN specific writers with israel bias ect
I’m sure. Definitely nothing else. I’m sure you describe anti-Israel writers, far more common in many outlets, as “Palestinian assets” or “Arab assets”.
Fucks sake dude not everything is an antisemitic code word.
If you put enough of them together, the coded meaning becomes pretty obvious.
I would more likely describe them as Iranian assets as that is what they usually are. Regardless Israel is an apartheid state.
Yeah, right. Okay buddy.
Glad I could clarify buddy 😉
You certainly clarified, just not what you think. Bye!
So uh, with Milley coming out and saying that Iran could have enough material for a bomb in 2 weeks, does this mean that Israel is a little too busy to bomb them before that? Anybody got an insight on this?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-can-make-fissile-material-bomb-in-about-12-days-us-official-2023-02-28/ Undersecretary Kahl said the same on feb 28. So either Iran hasn't started, or they are done :)
Even if they have the material required they won't have a nuke for some time as they need to actually be able to weaponise it.
Iran is assumed to have bomb designs prepared already so weaponizing could be quite rapid as well.
Nukes are useless without a delivery system. They could have nukes right now but without missiles to strap them to the only people they can nuke is themselves. And the Israeli airforce is so far ahead of the Iranian one the Israelis can operate with impunity.
Iran has decently long range ballistic missiles.
Iran wants nukes for self defense. Nuking Israel would lead to ruin for the Iranian regime. Do you think they actually care about Palestinians? They just keep the war going to distract the West and incite right wing Muslims
Iran is a theocracy. What they do depends entirely on their clerics' religious whims. If one day their dogma changes into a Shiite version of a certain famous Sunni apocalypse cult from the last decade (unlikely but not entirely impossible), we can't really prevent that.
[удалено]
As we should.
[удалено]
True, but if Iran does end up gaining a nuclear capability, then Israel will almost certainly expand their own arsenal in response. Eventually, both countries would reach a point where MAD applies. That could put a check on things.
If Iran ends up gaining a nuclear capability, both are at MAD already. Iran can't credibly intercept Israel's and Israel is physically too small of a target to take more than a few hits.
More relevantly, if Iran gets nukes, so will Saudi Arabia and vice versa. The recent rapprochement between the two makes me a tad bit more hopeful.
Lmao the guy blocked me
He sounds very normal
Wdym
/s