No wonder why he wants west bank (hes jew)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Speaking at a meeting of his Religious Zionism party, Smotrich told colleagues that he was “establish[ing] facts on the ground in order to make Judea and Samaria [an Israeli term for the occupied West Bank] an integral part of the state of Israel”.
The comments by Smotrich echoed recorded remarks he made at a gathering of supporters in the West Bank, first disclosed by the New York Times, in which he appeared to refer to the administrative changes as “mega-dramatic”.
As the Guardian revealed last week, the Israeli military recently quietly handed over significant legal powers in the occupied West Bank to pro-settler civil servants working for Smotrich.
An order posted by the Israel Defense Forces on its website on 29 May transferred responsibility for dozens of bylaws at the Civil Administration from the military to officials led by Smotrich at the defence ministry.
Speaking after the transfer of powers was disclosed, Michael Sfard, an Israeli human rights lawyer, said: “The bottom line is that [for] anyone who thought the question of annexation was foggy, this order should end any doubts.”
Reports in the Israeli media say US officials have privately discussed the possibility of imposing sanctions on Smotrich over his destabilising impact on the West Bank, where he lives in a settlement that is illegal under international law.
The original article contains 750 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The Israelis have been “creating facts on the ground” in the West Bank for thirty years.
These are now facts and Israel will have to reckon with what those facts mean.
It has always been a trilemma for them: Israel can be large, Jewish, democratic, pick two. They seem to have frozen the first variable, making the trilemma a dilemma: a Jewish state or a democratic one.
Yes and no. It was originally the dilemma until they got around it by committing the Nakba.
I don’t think so. In the context of the eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans, the Nakba is (sadly) not that unique.
I mean maybe it’s not, but I don’t see how that’s related to my point.
The way I understood your point is that their foundational atrocity, the Nakba, makes majority-Jewish democracy impossible. I.e., it could have never at any point in its history have been a democratic country. Did I understand your point wrong?
To that point I responded that other ethnostate democracies exist in the region that also have foundational atrocities in their history but are now pretty democratic and pretty peaceful, …all things considered. But they had to learn the lesson the hard way. That’s my point, that Israelis need to at some point also face the harsh reality of the impossibility of their nationalist delusions. Just like the Greeks, the Turks, the Bulgarians etc.
It is unique in the perpetrators being colonizers.
I don’t see it. Same shit happened all over the Balkans, Anatolia and the Caucasus. Hell it’s not even the most recent example. Cyprus has been subjected to colonization by Anatolian Turks since the 1974 war, and that’s after the Yom Kippur War.
Considering Zionism is inherently a fascist principle I think they’re pretty clear on which one they favor.
Zionism is no more fascist than any other of the ethnic nationalisms in the region. They are all the same bag shit, there is nothing especially fascistic about the Israeli Jewish one. I mean each one of them can and often has given birth to fascism at some point, but it’s not an inherent necessity.
Zionism calls for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. You literally can’t have that without fascism. It’s impossible.
Your argument is that Zionism is no more inherently fascist than other inherently fascist ideals? Okay. Was that it? Seems kind of nonsensical.
