RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive25

This is an archive page, last updated 5 September 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>

, (new)(back)

Boy Scouts

While I agree the Boy Scouts are an organization that are in marked need of a change in groupthink and leadership, why is keeping out girls so 19th century? The Girl Scouts don't allow cis boys to join, only boys who identify as girls; their FAQ even says "Boys too, have unique needs and interests, which are addressed by organizations designed specifically for them." Wouldn't the Boy Scouts be that organization, by definition? If the Boy Scouts aren't an organization that can be "designed specifically" for boys, then what is? Thanos6 (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

They aren't designed specifically for boys any more than they're designed specifically for girls. They're designed to promote (not even current!) gender stereotypes. Been there, did that. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America is also a weird outlier. It's out of communion with scouting organisations internationally, largely because of the strangehold that religion has over it. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I do tend to forget that, being somewhat of an American. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

That and a somewhat odd idea of leadership. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So then should someone basically just take the Girl Scouts, flip the genders, and create some new, I dunno, "Young Male Scouts" organization? Thanos6 (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck getting traction with that, and by that I mean building an organization with anything near the scope of the BSA, not even by several orders of magnitude. In other news, the US Boy Scouts have morphed into a front group for the LDS church since the last quarter of the twentieth century or so. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My father is a long time member of the Boy Scouts and is a current leader, so these things get brought up whenever a new story comes out. First off, this isn't the first time the BSA has had this issue, they "solved" it initially with Venture Scouting, a branch of official scouting that girls 14-up could join and focused on more "high adventure" stuff. He's always lamented the amount of power the Mormons had over the national organization, however, and thinks that the BSA and GSA should and probably will merge at some point, but that it's traditionally been the GSA who has resisted the idea (possibly because they don't want to share the cookie money.) Really I've always thought the denial of faithless was more egregious than their stance on anything else, their policy on gays was essentially the same as the US Armed Forces- still bad in general but justifiable at least under those auspices. Discriminating based on religion is something that went out of style long before GSM discrimination. Hentropy (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Vestra Inet

Goddammit, I can't think of a punny name for this question.

Out of curiosity, is Vestra Inet a famous company in Canada? Yes the posting is sexist, but I feel like this is similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado -- terrible practice, but not really massively newsworthy and very quickly forgotten. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I've never heard of it. Glassdoor says it's under 50 employees, under $1M revenue. Appears to be a dime-a-dozen web design firm. Compro01 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

4th Precinct

Can somebody add that? I'm going to bed. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 08:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done. I could have expanded the entry a little more, I suppose, but I didn't want to post anything that has not yet been verified. --OverworldTheme (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

So, how much does King Salman have to do with this? Should we tweet "King Salmon is a total DAESH-bag" at him? Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 20:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, he has lots to do with it? Okay. Narky Sawtooth (Nyar?~) 20:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Well you know it is a Palestinian on the receiving end of state sponsored violence... In this case the Palestinian is likely innocent... Yet I hear deafening silence... Probably that's just me having earphones on... ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Shut up.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be the only plausible explanation, yeah. WalkerWalkerWalker 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mona for one has been silent. As has been fake-BoN... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If only you wouldn't break the trend.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 13:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well I think terrible abuses by those claiming to be a "state" calling itself "Saudi Arabia" have to be called what they are: Cold blooded murder. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

You could probably drop both sets of scare quotes and be fine. Try it. WalkerWalkerWalker 11:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Bredbandsbolaget

I look at that and go meh. I mean, I understand that sometimes copyright enforcement is a little heavy-handed, and that the state of the law makes that easy, but... I still think it's overall for the better. My perspective is of course somewhat skewed though, I admit. WalkerWalkerWalker 10:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Tebow

Not that I'm not a big fan of bashing Tebow, but I don't believe the article. I had a lot of friends at UF and, while he maintained his goodboy image to the press, he was well-known for sleeping around. I'm calling PR stunt. Ayzmo^Cheers 13:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of something else. Starting with the reason why the article was there and what point its presence there was trying to make, I do not approve.148.84.49.52 (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

December WIGOs

All were bolloxed up - now put right but anyone who voted'll have to do it again. fröhlich ^{"gay" and "happy"} 21:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Shootings in the United States.

Perhaps these should no longer be WIGO'd, on the grounds that things that happen literally every day on average are not really "news" in any meaningful sense of the word... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

WIGO:'Merica --Ymir (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The sad thing is that all of these shootings are starting to feel eerily reminiscent of the casualty and fatality reports that I remember hearing about every day for our soldiers during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. FFS (although I don't blame you all for that; I personally think that all of us in this country should have to face that discomfort until the problem is "resolved"). Eoan (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the gun industry profits massively from the political aftermath of mass shootings. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course Americans are going to want to buy more guns because they are terrifyingly afraid of being shot. That's exactly what they hear from the NRA: Buy a gun and you'll be OK. You can even get a discount! More people have died of gun violence this year in America than US troops in all wars in the past 20 years! More people died in shootings this month than total US troops in Afghanistan. It is time we implement common-sense gun reform like that which is seen in Europe and Asia. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Art Bell's office....

.... makes me nostalgic for the days when there was more than just crap on the shortwave. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

We should be better than this

OK, so the Mail, the Standard and Fox News, all fully reputable sources, say "it is alleged" that DAESH/ISIS eat babies are going to euthanise children with Downs Syndrome. Wow! 26 upvotes. Does anyone bother to check it out because Snopes ain't so sure. This all comes down to one, just one, blog post. Are we really sinking to this level? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

They also have factories to process human corpses into soap. Really! Carpetsmoker (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Euthanasia doesn't exactly seem like Daesh's style anyway. Hentropy (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders Campaign Suspended

Bernie Sanders' Presidential campaign has been suspended by the DNC after one of his staffers exploited a temporary vulnerability in the DNC computer system and gained access to private information about Hillary Clinton's supporters. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-dnc-suspension/

I personally think this is a hitjob. There is no evidence anyone told anyone else to break the rules but that one staffer did it, who was fired. People at the DNC saw this and said "On! Look! Suspend his campaign immediately! He broke the rules! You support Hillary right?" But I hope his campaign recovers and that this is not an irreparable blow. It seems like Hillary's campaign wanted this to happen desperately. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read your own link again. Bernie Sanders' campaign has not been suspended - the DNC can't unilaterally suspend a candidate's campaign. The DNC suspended the Sanders campaign's access to the DNC's voter database after a Sanders campaign staffer abused his campaign's access to it.70.62.74.74 (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

He almost might have well have suspended his campaign, though. If a campaign is suspended from their primary voter database, they're basically running blind. There's only so much on-the-ground work they can do without that data. It's a pretty big deal; moreso if it's true that the Sanders campaign has been telling the DNC about this exploit for some time before the incident. --OverworldTheme (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, now that there's been over a week of fallout from this incident, there hasn't been much of a change in poll numbers I've seen on RealClearPolitics. I expected this to be a way used to attack his campaign, but there's still time until the Primaries. Can't wait to see what surprises happen this campaign season on America's Next Top Candidate™ during the primaries. Jrussellwrites (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate Poll Id

Just noticed that poll id "world11032" is being used for two different entries. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Per policy, which is the one to be assigned a new ID and thus, have its poll reset? The first one, the second one, or both (since both polls has been affected by unintended cross-votes from the other)? I did not want to break anything without knowing the precedent and am not a regular here, so I took no direct action. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy for that. The last time I fixed a duplicate poll, I think I just reset the newer one, but I don't remember for sure. Resetting both sounds like the best course of action, though. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 02:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's no set policy, then I think I might reset them both the next time I see this sort of thing. --OverworldTheme (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Fox news poll on banning Muslims from America

Is anyone else getting a 404 from this link? Looks to me that Fox News took that particular story down. Hertzy (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this page seems to be down, but you can access it via the glorious Wayback Machine.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oberlin

Those kids need 1. a life and 2. therapy for their severe and obviously crippling persecution complexes. The Vietnamese and Japanese have no issue with taking pizza and modifying it so it has toppings like mayonnaise; I probably wouldn't have t that way myself, but as an American I can't for the life of me see how that could be considered in any way a "culturally appropriative sustenance system" (whatever the fuck that means, only in academia or its wannabes). Besides, part of the idea of cooking is to try new ways of doing things, or to substitute ingredients if you can't do it exactly the same (what college cafeteria does anyone seriously think will have pâté, for fuck's sake?). Are these people really college students, or just fucking 3 year olds? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The most amusing thing to me about the ersatz banh mi is that the "sandwich" concept, the baguette, yeast bread, and wheaten flour were all brought to Vietnam by Evil Colonialists. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that crossed my mind as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like more a concern for basic labeling. Like if you ordered a meatball sandwich from somewhere and they give you a sandwich with pork gravy and chicken nuggets in it. If you want to have a chicken and gravy sandwich, fine. Just don't call it a meatball sandwich. Or, in this case, don't claim it's authentic ethnic cuisine. That's already a big deal in the U.S. in general. It's not really any different from asking an Italian about Ragu or a Mexican about Taco Bell. That's how you get old time Italians sounding just like the Vietnamese college student who didn't like them labeling that as authentic Vietnamese cuisine. And maybe it's time to stop thinking that everything is an evil college student conspiracy.- Psycho Gecko 04:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Pointig out that these people are being complete fucking idiots isn't thinking that everything is an evil college conspiracy. If you don't like the food, don't eat it!! Apparently it's completely fine to tell religious people the same thing about not watching certain TV shows, listening to certain types of music, etc. I entirely agree with that sentiment, and without contradiction will say it has to cut both ways; in a cafeteria with plenty of options to eat, you can just eat something else instead of throwing a little hissy fit because DEY TERK MAH FOOD!!!!!!!! Seriously, though, if you want to complain just say you don't like it, which is essentially what your cited examples above are. A "culturally appropriative sustenance system"? That quote is going in my list of the most patently ridiculous things I've ever read. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, the ridiculous publicity puffing by the food-service company, all about diversity and local produce, invited this kind of overreaction. They're a college cafeteria company; thet made sandwiches out of ciabatta bread, pulled pork and coleslaw because that was what they had. I'd eat that. Only this one was operating at Oberlin, so they had to give it an exotic name to puff up their multiculti credentials. So yeah, they invited this. College dorm food services have always operated according to this business model. It's worse at the end of the semester before breaks; I remember that our food service offered "chicken salad tacos" as the last day's meal. ¡Olé! - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a seriously big deal. I once had Lo Mein that was actually spaghetti. It made me so mad that I immediately killed 35 people and a puppy. I spent 5 years behind bars for animal cruelty, and then married another man, but didn't wear a condom so I got pregnant and had to get an abortion. Don't make Lo Mein out of spaghetti, because it causes abortions. CorruptUser (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation is bullshit, anyway. All culture was made from bits and parts from another cultures, no exception at all. Almost as brainless as the Polish getting their panties in a bunch about the Russians claiming vodka as their own or the Egyptians whining about the Israelis considering falafel their national dish.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

This is 100% manufactroversy & you all need to check your reading comprehension. Look at what the quoted students are saying: they're pointing out that the food is inauthentic & misleadingly labelled. There's nothing childish, idiotic or persecution complexy about this; it's the sort of thing people say all the time. The Oberlin Review has presented it, rather dubiously, as part of some culture war about appropriation, & the Washington Post has picked up on that, apparently treating it as a national news. But there's no actual story here: it's just three students' opinions of what their cafeteria serves. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with Mr. Weasel. This is just a fake controversy pushed by right leaning media sources to further the conservative narrative of "These darned kids... get off my lawn!". 3 students commenting on the inauthentic labeling of ethnic food is not important, and little more than Nutpicking. Petey Plane (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As someone who gets a little bit more angry than they should at Arby's commercials that try to compare their soggy sandwich beef to prime steakhouse steaks, I can understand being a little peeved about mislabeled banh mi. However, it isn't just three students statements and then media blew it up, this is three students getting upset, idiots at Oberlin thinking this has anything to do with cultural appropriation, and then people responding to Oberlin trying to make everything about cultural protection. Cultural appropriation is a thing and it can be bad, but cultural appropriation can almost never be applied to food. Many of these same super culturally sensitive baka gaijin probably eat their sushi with chopsticks (itself a potentially insensitive term for hashi). Hentropy (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Watchlists

Am I missing something, or was this published over a year ago? That isn't to say it shouldn't get attention (maybe we should have an article on terror watchlists?), but it's not really breaking news. --Ymir (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep - commented out (this page is supposed to be for new stuff) - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, I just noticed this and since it's a source I read every day I wondered if I had done that. And sure enough, it was me. All I can think is that it got tweeted and I clicked and read, not recalling how long ago this had been. I don't think I've ever added stuff out-of-month before. Sorry.---Mona- (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

All of us have done it at some time. It's easy to pick up an article or blog via Facebook or Twitter & WIGO it without noticing how old it actually is. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders Fed Reserve Reform

So Bernie Sanders has wrote an oped in the NYT about his plan to reform the Federal Reserve. I don't have enough knowledge to determine if whether this is left-wing (right-wing?) populism or actual improvement for a corrupt system. I don't fully grasp the consequences of these reforms, but I do remember Ron Paul being the main advocate for the Audit the Fed campaign. So any thoughts? Bloomberg has a simplified list of his reforms.--Owlman (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanders' proposals are a bit different from the Paulite "Audit the Fed" stuff. Paulites tend to dislike the Fed in general and think it should be replaced. Sanders' ideas are more along the lines of left-wing reform, though I'm not sure how effective they would really be. The fact is that the only people who can run a big, complex banking system like the Fed competently are those with experience running big, complex banking systems... like the big banks. Conflicts of interest can be minimized, but a certain amount is almost unavoidable. The Fed isn't perfect obviously but part of the beauty of it is that it's removed entirely from the political system. It's a technocratic system and while it's not always right, it can adjust policy without it being a year-long political fight and isn't easily swayed by short-sighted political winds. The plans from both the left and the right tend to be that they want politicians (them) to have more control over monetary policy. Libertarians don't want government in money at all, which... really we don't know what that would even look like in the modern age. But you could say there's a certain horseshoe effect going on, with Sanders and Paul being much closer on the issue than they are on most. Hentropy (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Larry Summers critiqued Sanders's proposal and made some proposals his own. Like I said before I don't know enough about fiscal policy and economics to understand the consequences of his proposal, but I don't fully agree with either of theirs.--Owlman (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Summers more than Sanders, while Sanders is right on several counts, the banking system cannot be fixed by populism. Putting union leaders or government people on the board will not not make it less corrupt, and there's a kind of obsession with Glass-Stegall. Some progressives may argue the issue to death but it's hard to look at the facts and deny the fact that the government was creating a regulatory environment that encouraged risky real estate lending in the name of helping the poor buy houses, and that exacerbated the housing the crash. Forcing the banking system to work "for the people" simply isn't what the banking system was ever designed to do. Hentropy (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Our Long National Nightmare Is Over

They caught the affluenza idiot. Can't we just leave him in a Mexican jail to serve his sentence? Psycho Gecko 22:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I never thought about the implications of him rotting in a Mexican prison, but that sounds like a good idea. It's definitely harsher than his punishment for vehicular manslaughter his terrible affliction of Affluenza! jrussellwrites (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

NSA & Israel

Really, this is news? The NSA listens in on all foreign countries; it's their job. We do the same to the UK, France, Canada, etc. If the NSA isn't listening in, they're not doing their job. --Castaigne2 (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is mostly about politicians that were indifferent or even supportive of government surveillance doing a complete about-face after realizing they are among those subjected to it. That level of institutional hypocrisy seems pretty relevant to RW's interests.107.77.106.31 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You have it right BoN. I didn't add the original WSJ article scoop on the spying per se, but when the hue and cry went up about the "intolerable abuse" of government surveillance powers -- from people, especially Congresscritters, who heretofore had wanted to give the NSA a blank check with no meaningful accountability -- now that's newsworthy. Apparently, eavesdropping on Israeli government officials when they speak to American Congresspeople or to American Jewish organizations, well that's just not, er, kosher at all.---Mona- (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Israel education ministry bans book containing love story between Israeli and Palestinian

Can you imagine the outcry if a government education department banned a love story between a black and white person from schools on the grounds of opposition to miscegenation? This kind of decision would fit well in Jim Crow era American South, or apartheid South Africa. It shows how much Israel has in common with them, as much as Israel hates the "apartheid" label, in this case it fits well. Israel wants to pretend to the world that it is a "normal" "advanced" country like those of Western Europe, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand; this is an example of why it is far from being such a thing — can you imagine such a government decision, in the 21st century, in any of those countries? No wonder there can be no peace with people like this in the current Israeli government. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Tip of the deeply racist iceberberg. In the last 10 yars Israel has moved so far to the right, that a man who sang the praises of was Hitler's "genius", Moshe Feiglin, recently served as deputy speaker of Israel's parliamentary body. In the same interview where he lavished praise on Hitler, he said:

"There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that Zionism is racist."

Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. "There is no Palestinian nation. There is only an Arab-speaking public which has suddenly identified itself as a people, a negative of the Zionist movement, parasites. The fact that they hadn't done so earlier only serves to prove how inferior they are. The Africans have no nations either. Only Zulus, Tutsis."

The situation in Israel has become utterly dire. Fascism looms, if it has not yet entirely arrived.---Mona- (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

While this is rather indefensible, it's also a very controversial and very unpopular move with many Israelis. The same could not be said for the old American south, where there were comparatively very few whites who opposed segregation. The right-wing Israeli government only survives (barely) because of continued violent behavior by many Palestinians. Hentropy (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You mean the "violent behavior" of the victims of ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid, and frequent carnage that kills thousands, hundreds of children, and turns tens of thousands of their homes into rubble? Those Palestinians? Yeah, when people resist oppression it's all their fault when the oppressor veers ever-closer toward full-blown fascism. pffft---Mona- (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to go down that route, I'm going to remind you that the majority of Israeli Jews were the victims (and descendants) of ethnic cleansing from Islamic lands, without getting into Europe. CorruptUser (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Going down that route" = telling the truth about who is the victim and who is the oppressor. Moreover, the expulsion of Jews in some Arab countries only occurred after the Zionists violently took over Palestine and ethnically cleansed the land to establish the State of Israel. To whatever extent the leave-taking of of Jews were actually expulsions, or some wishing to go to the new Jewish State of their own volition, is subject to controversy. But either way, your point is whataboutery. The facts remain. Israel commits: ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid and carnage that kills hundreds of children, thousands of civilian adults, and destroys 10s of thousands of homes and infrastructure. And now, Israel is on the cusp of full-blown fascism.---Mona- (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Considering that it's very damn well involved in the whole I-P thing, it's most certainly not whataboutery. Not to mention that things weren't exactly all roses and sunshine in the Mid-East for Jews LOOOONG before Israel was created. All they had to do was accept living in an Apartheid-like system with Islamic supremacy.CorruptUser (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, pure whataboutery. The Zionists were the aggressors toward the Palestinians, and the Arab world reacted with force. Some expelled some Jews, other Arab Jews left for other reasons. The expulsions, to the extent they occurred, are along the lines of the U.S. having interred Japanese in camps during WWII; it was wrong, but driven by fear there were supporters of the enemy in our midst. It's not remotely analogous to the oppression started by the aggressor Zionists, that continues very severely to this day. Moreover, that very wiki entry states the truth that in older times Jews fared better in Muslim lands than in Christian ones; Jews often fled to the former. Finally, Israel fancies itself a modern, liberal, Western democracy. It is judged by those standards and utterly fails.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sixty years of this impotent "resistance" against a much stronger enemy has produced a lot of results for the Palestinians, huh? I'm not even necessarily saying I blame them for being angry and wanting to kill people, but if blacks in the US or even South Africa had taken the same route as the Palestinians, they'd also be in the same boat of endless conflict that only ends in more dead children on your side and more bloodlust on the other. You don't convince people that you're a nonviolent people who just want freedom and peaceful coexistence by committing violence against civilians. It's not (or shouldn't) be a competition as to who can kill more of the other people in blind rage and hatred. Hentropy (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"You don't convince people that you're a nonviolent people who just want freedom and peaceful coexistence" Excuse you? The Palestinian people are victims of ethnic cleansing, land theft, apartheid, gross discrimination, grossly unequal application of law such that Jewish terrorists may kill them with near impunity. These are victims meriting restitution. The notion that they should have to "convince" their oppressor (or you) they are worthy of not being oppressed is obscene. ---Mona- (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying killing Israeli civilians is justified because of the actions of their government? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this seems to be your argument. When Israelis kill civilians, it's the most disgusting tragedy to ever be committed, but when Palestinians kill civilians it's "restitution" and not worthy of denouncement? That's all I'm doing. Denouncing Palestinian extremists who kill Israeli civilians in an attempt to scare them. You know, terrorism? I've said over and over that I largely don't approve of Israel's actions in most situations. Yes, the Palestinians are oppressed, no need to convince me. I hope that the two will be able to coexist with two separate states. When Palestinians pass around Nazi propaganda in schools as facts, that's bad, when Israel bans a novel, it's bad. Hentropy (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"So you're saying" there is nothing opaque about what I'm saying, to repeat in part: [Palestinians] are victims meriting restitution. The notion that they should have to "convince" their oppressor (or you) they are worthy of not being oppressed is obscene. ---Mona- (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Which has no impact on anything I've said so far. You have yet to say exactly what kind of "restitution" is acceptable, only to say over and over again that Palestinians are victims when we agree on that point. But Israelis are also victims of Palestinian terrorism against their civilians, which is not justified in any situation in my perspective. Hentropy (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In other discussions I have gone on at some length regarding what I see as the starting point of justice for Palestinians. As for Israeli victims, yes; some innocent white Afrikaaners were also killed when whites were oppressing blacks in South Africa. That fact did not create moral parity between the whites and blacks, and neither does it vis-a-vis the Israelis and Palestinians.---Mona- (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Which has no impact on anything I've said so far" Oh yes, yes it does. You wrote this outrageous, victim-blaming statement: You don't convince people that you're a nonviolent people who just want freedom and peaceful coexistence by committing violence against civilians. So I suppose, the deeply oppressed blacks in apartheid-era South Africa shouldn't have been given the vote and ceased being discriminated against because of the necklacing and terrorism against whites, as well as misbehaving comrades? Placing the burden of demonstrating moral worthiness on a severely oppressed group is morally ill.---Mona- (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The fight to end apartheid lasted as long as it did because of extremists who would not give up those types of atrocities and violent actions, which only solidified the supremacist view of the white politicians. It ultimately ended because they abandoned them, and under Mandela embraced a platform of unity to create a better South Africa for all, rather than just tit-for-tat revenge and refighting old battles over and over. This is not an issue of morality for me, it is an issue of practicality. Hamas, Islamism, extremism, and terrorism are not ways towards freedom from the Israelis. Being an oppressed victim does not give someone an excuse to act against their own interests because of strong emotions, leaving morality and ethics entirely out of it. Hentropy (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hentropy, at which point did the ANC renounce violence? I'm pretty sure it was after F. W. de Klerk made the decision in 1990 to negotiate an end to apartheid. Who are these extremists you are talking about? Nelson Mandela? He was the first commander of the ANC's military wing (Umkhonto we Sizwe), and responsible for a number of bombings in 1961. Are you claiming that if the ANC had renounced violence in 1980 instead of 1990 apartheid would have ended 10 years earlier - do you really believe that? It seems pretty ludicrous to me. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The negotiations only worked because Klerk had someone reasonable and nonviolent to negotiate with. Mandela did not sit there and demand that all whites leave the country. So far all negotiations between Israel and Palestine have been problematic because there's always one party in the situation, currently Hamas, who are nakedly hostile towards Jews (not just Israelis) and demand an end to the Israeli state. International pressure did indeed do wonders for South Africa, but any negotiation requires two people who actually want to negotiate in good faith, and right now neither side in the issue largely wants to negotiate, the one person who might, Abbas, cannot control his own faction. Hentropy (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Mandela was never non-violent. He openly admitted involvement in violence and never said he regretted that. But, when the South African government offered him 90% of what he wanted, why not sit down and talk it out rather than go on fighting? If your opponent is surrendering, why keep on fighting them? Israel has never offered the Palestinians anywhere near as much as de Klerk offered Mandela; maybe if Israel made as big an offer (e.g. a one-state solution), the Palestinians might decide to stop fighting too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Even I am not nonviolent in all situations. However, targeting civilians for acts of terror is never justified, and this includes indiscriminate attacks as well. If there were someone here defending Israel I would point out to them what they did in Gaza, but since people are defending the likes of Hamas and other Palestinian extremists under the auspices of "being an oppressed victim gives you license to commit atrocities against innocent civilians", then I am going to point out not only how that is immoral on its face, but also does not work for your cause on a practical level. And I will agree that Netanyahu has no interest in negotiations, I already said as much. If you wish to paint me as some kind of rabid anti-Palestinian racist because I don't agree with killing innocent civilians, then fine. Hentropy (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"targeting civilians for acts of terror is never justified". Such as Irgun, and the Stern Gang, and the Lavon affair. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, they do it too so it's okay! For the record, I'm well aware and often bring up old Zionist terror groups when it comes to Israel supporters. A much more relevant argument today includes the frequently indiscriminate bombings of Gaza. But, say it with me, two wrongs don't make a right. Hentropy (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Both sides have from time to time engaged in unjustifiable violence against innocent civilians. And that makes better the Israel government's anti-miscegenation position how? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"While this is rather indefensible, it's also a very controversial and very unpopular move with many Israelis." That was my first sentence in this discussion. An unelected right-wing bureaucrat banning a book from being taught in schools (keep in mind, the book is still available to the general public) is indefensible. At the same time, I would like to see what would happen if that same book tried to be taught in Palestinian schools... there's no great love for the "let's all hold hands and get along" mindset on either side right now. Hentropy (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It seems ludicrous to you Zack because it is. South Africa ended apartheid because the boycott movement -- "Don't play Sun City" -- was humiliating. As a soi-disant modern Western democracy, becoming the pariah of the Western world didn't feel very good at all. The violence was going on all that time, as our American right-wing liked to remind us every chance it got. But, Reagan held firm against supporting the boycott, and guess which nation was the racist South Africa's very best friend? Why, that would be Israel.

The Israeli government had extremely warm relations with Apartheid South Africa, to the point where Tel Aviv offered the Afrikaners a nuclear weapon (presumably for brandishing at the leftist states of black Africa). That the Israelis accuse Iran of being a nuclear proliferator is actually hilarious if you know the history. Iran doesn’t appear ever to have attempted to construct a nuclear weapon, whereas Israel has hundreds and seems entirely willing to share.

In the US, the vehemently anti-Palestinian Anti-Defamation League in San Francisco spied on American anti-Apartheid activists on behalf of the Apartheid state. If the ADL ever calls you a racist, you can revel in the irony.

---Mona- (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hentropy, you say "The same could not be said for the old American south, where there were comparatively very few whites who opposed segregation" - do you have any evidence for that assertion? For example, is there a survey of the attitudes of white Southerners to black-white relationships in e.g. 1950, and we could compare its results to a survey of the attitudes of Jewish Israelis to Jewish-Arab relationships in e.g. 2015? @CorruptUser, someone being a victim of wrongdoing, does not make it impossible for them or their descendants to in turn become perpetrators whether now or in the future. History is full of today's perpetrators becoming tomorrow's victims, and vice versa. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are no hard numbers on the issue as public opinion polling was not nearly as robust back then, but one need only really look at the political situation. Southern politicians were uniformly opposed to integration to the point of absolute intransigence. There may have been many southern whites who changed their positions across time and may have felt a great variety of ways about racial situation, but the number of people who supported segregation dwarfed the number that didn't. There were of course very notable exceptions to this rule, humans are never so monolithic, but the point is that Segregationist parties were not holding on for dear life in elections (like Likud), they were enjoying overwhelming popularity in most southern states until the Federal government had to force them to change. Hentropy (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Southern politicians were uniformly opposed to integration to the point of absolute intransigence" What about LBJ? He was a Southern politician (representing Texas in both chambers of Congress, and then President). He was so intransigently opposed to integration that he even signed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and appointed the first African-American (Thurgood Marshall) to the Supreme Court. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

LBJ WAS a racist and a segregationist early in his career. When he became a national politician riding the waves of Kennedy, things did change at that point, but probably only because of political expediency. He wanted to sideline the issue civil rights several times. He may not have been as racist as his colleagues and may have legitimately came around on the issue, but that doesn't mean he was a progressive through-and-through. Hentropy (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said he was "a progressive through-and-through". I simply cited him as an example (not the only one) of the falsehood of your claim "Southern politicians were uniformly opposed to integration to the point of absolute intransigence". What you said is wrong. Your attempts to distinguish Israel from the Southern United States are based on an overly simplistic picture of the later. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said literally every politician ever was a segregationist either, in fact I said the opposite, that of course there's going to be exceptions to the rule. The original point was that while Netanyahu had to scrape and go into panic-pandering mode to win re-election, southern Segregationist politicians were not threatened to the same degree until after black people started voting. You can derail all you want but that was my only original point, and it holds. Hentropy (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@CorruptUser. This is a good overview of the many reasons Arab-Jews in Muslim countries fled, left or were in some cases expelled. The reasons are various and historically complex, but it wasn't a straightforward "revenge" expulsion, at all. But even if they had all been expelled out of revenge, that would not redeem the atrocities Zionists have been committing against Palestinians for more than 60 years.---Mona- (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet you think Zionist actions redeem the atrocities the Palestinians and Arabs have been committing against Israelis for more than 60 years? There is a word for someone who has this double standard; "racist". To excuse the actions of Israel for a variety of reasons while not excusing the Palestinian actions for virtually same reasons is blatant anti-Arab racism (or maybe Islamophobia). To excuse the actions of the Palestinians for a variety of reasons while not excusing the Israeli actions for virtually same reasons is blatant anti-semitism.

When you make Norman Finklestein look like a raging pro-Zionist, that's how we know you aren't a "critic" but an actual loon; likewise for anyone that makes Benny Morris look like an anti-Zionist.CorruptUser (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"And yet you think Zionist actions redeem the atrocities the Palestinians and Arabs " In your fevered mind I think that, but nowhere else. On numerous occasions I've stated that the ANC committed atrocities, such as necklacing. As abhorrent as that was, it did not detract from the fact that they were the victims of oppression, and their cause was just. Finally, you are in a small minority who finds my views to be those of a "loon." I assure you, I can live with that.---Mona- (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. And a populum that doesn't exist outside of the Islamic world. CorruptUser (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Fallacy Galloping! It always comes out with Zionists. In point of fact, I did not commit a fallacy because I was not advising you that your minority opinion is wrong; I correctly said it doesn't concern me. (Whether I am or am not a loon isn't resolved by your minority status and also would not be if you were in the majority; it just goes to the odds in a forum of skeptics.) Your assessments of my character or mental status do not interest me a whit. Anyway, how ironic for you to (wrongly) accuse me of committing a fallacy when you just pulled out such a great big strawman that you are covered in hay.---Mona- (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hentropy is utterly deluded. She claims: "but the point is that Segregationist parties were not holding on for dear life in elections (like Likud)" Do you have a single clue how Netanyahu won this last election? It wasn't by promising to be reasonable and moderate! Reuters: "Hard-right shift delivers upset election win for Netanyahu"

In the final days of campaigning, Netanyahu abandoned a commitment to negotiate a Palestinian state - the basis of more than two decades of Middle East peacemaking - and promised to go on building settlements on occupied land. Such policies defy the core vision of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict embraced by President Barack Obama and his Republican and Democratic predecessors.

Another Reuters piece:

In effect, Netanyahu succeeded in robbing votes from his allies on the right - Naftali Bennett's pro-settler Jewish Home party and Avigdor Lieberman's ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu - to ensure that Likud ended up with the largest total.

He risked losing by not attracting enough of the right. So, he made the pledges that got him voters who are reasonably described as fascist.---Mona- (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I know how Netanyahu won the election. I never claimed he did it by moderating. But even with his last minute pandering and shifting to the right, he still had to fight to cobble together a coalition that would keep him in power. Segregationists, on the other hand, were never threatened to be unseated in the south until after the height of the Civil Rights Movement had come and passed. Putting obvious differences in political systems behind, the two situations are not comparable. Israel continues to be richly politically diverse, with leftists being even farther left than most of the west and the right being much farther to the right than most of the west. Hentropy (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Israel heads toward fascism

Hentropy, the far-right is ascendant in Israel, and the left is being harassed out of existence. Events like this are not unusual:

A rocket siren interrupted a pro-peace demonstration in Tel Aviv, sending everyone running to the nearby bomb shelters. Suddenly, several dozen right wing thugs clutching baseball bats appeared and started attacking the left-wing protesters. “Death to the Leftists!” “Leftists are traitors!”, they cried.

Right-wing Israeli rapper Yoav Eliasi known as ‘The Shade’ later thanked his fellow activists for showing up at the demonstration.

“Together we’re a force against the real enemy among us, the radical left, and thanks to my guys who are apparently called the lions, and thanks to the IDF, all this is for you!”, he wrote on Facebook.

These incidents, though unsettling, are by no means isolated. As the Gaza conflict continues, there are signs that rabid right-wing extremism may be spreading further across Israeli society.

Israeli journalist Gideon Levy was very nearly lynched in the rocket-battered southern city of Ashkelon after he published an article levelling criticism at Israeli pilots who, he wrote, “are now perpetrating the worst, the cruelest, the most despicable deeds” in Gaza.

Do get your head out of your ass about the U.S. South of yesteryear and face contemporary reality. This discussion started with a post about the anti-miscegenation movement in Israel which has succeeded in getting a book banned. You are in denial.---Mona- (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue in Israel, as I stated before, and I very much doubt it would be an issue in Palestine, where they have never tolerated mixing with Israelis on any level. You can paint all of Israel as being some kind of fundamentalist right-wing hellhole all you want, but you know that's not true. Hentropy (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hentropy, the book banning in schools isn't that unpopular. Again, read the Yuval Diskin piece: Israel has gone right-wing and leftists are increasingly harassed and even terrorized. Former IDF soldiers who speak out against the war crimes they saw are no longer allowed to speak in Israeli schools. Moreover, whether Palestinians would like that book is utterly irrelevant; Israel is the oppressor, holding itself out as a liberal democracy. Liberal democracies are not, to understate, supposed to behave the way proto-fascist way Israel does.---Mona- (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hentropy, the "paint" I use is hard facts. Israel is becoming fascist. Here's some more facts for you, from the former director of Israel's version of the FBI (Shin Bet). Do read his article, keeping in mind the book-banning, and it's motives, that began this thread.---Mona- (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even really arguing that with you, though 'fascism' is more than just race nationalism, there's no doubt that Israel has always had very nationalist factions, but there's always also been other factions that still exist today. That doesn't change the fact that Netanyahu barely won, and while I'm not an Israeli pollster, he is not getting more popular considering all that is going on. Hentropy (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are deluded, if you mean to suggest Netanyahu cares about being unpopular with the ever-shrinking Israeli left. His concern is to remain acceptable to the far-right; hence, his behavior in the last days of the last election. He won, and did so by going further right.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're just arguing for the sake of it at this point, I already said I know Netanyahu isn't trying to get the votes of the left wing, I never claimed he was. I'm not sure what you're reading in my posts to give you that impression, but it's not my actual words. The left wing still exists regardless of what Netanyahu thinks of them, and the attacks and attempts at repression will likely only embolden them. Time will tell to see if people end up rejecting the right wing in the next elections. Hentropy (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Fascism for the most part doesn't just spring up out of nowhere, it's forged in the heat of constant threats and attacks. Just like the various Palestinian Nationalist organizations were created mostly due to Israel's actions (and let's be honest, other countries' funding), the more fascist elements in Israel were created by the Intifadas and constant warfare. It doesn't matter why Israel does what it does or the Palestinians and Arabs do what they do, the end result is more hatred and crazy ideology. Do you think the Bukharian Jews give one shit about why the Kyrgystanis decided to exterminate them from the land they'd been on for 2500 years? Do you think the Palestinians cared why they were being kicked off the land they had lived on their whole lives? The constant fighting is fueling the constant fighting. CorruptUser (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"it's forged in the heat of constant threats and attacks." Actually, fascism is forged on other circumstances as well. Zionism, certainly as Jabotinsky's prevailing version, has the seeds embedded therein. Moreover, even if it were true that threats and attacks generated Israel's looming fascism, they created the violent enemies by ethnic cleansing, land theft, and ongoing oppression. Vis-a-vis Palestinians, Zionists are the oppressor; not the victim. And the Muslim devil "didn't make them do it."---Mona- (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You are kind of ignoring that the majority of Israelis are descended from people that escaped the ethnic cleansings from Islamic countries like Iraq, Kyrgystan, Yemen, Iran, Syria; you know, the people who make up the bulk of Netanyahu's support. Countries that routinely call for the subjugation of all Jews and the destruction of Israel, and that's not getting into the Israelis who saw the writing on the walls and fled Europe when they did. This idea that ONLY one side was a victim is basically racist denialism, whether you deny the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians or of the Jews. Zionists are both.CorruptUser (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Now you're trying to take us in circles. I already addressed this so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Jews by Arab countries well above this part of the thread. I can't make you read my links, of course. Everything that is wrong with Israel today is the fault of Zionists. Only Zionists. And perhaps, the West that enabled (and still does) the Zionist terrorism and violent takeover of Arab land. But it is not the fault of Palestinians. Zionists continue to oppress Palestinians, compounding their "Original Sin." Israel is becoming fascist and, listen to yourself, you are apologizing for them and engaged in endless special pleading.---Mona- (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I read most of your link. It's a bunch of bunk. I've actually met people that survived the ethnic cleansings from Morocco and Iran and Algeria and Kyrgystan and Yemen. None, NONE of them left because "economic reasons"; people leaving for economic reasons don't leave in the numbers they did. It wasn't any more voluntary than the people fleeing Syria today. I mean seriously Mona, I know you're a racist but just listen to yourself. It's just sad at this point. CorruptUser (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh FFS, you claim you "met some people" and so a well-documented and well-reasoned article is "bunk." First of all, I doubt you are old enough to have known people who fled Arab countries c. 1948. Second of all, even if all those Arab countries expelled thousands of Jews because of the Nakba and the grossly violent and unjust foundation of the State of Israel (which caused a certain number of Arab countries to freak out about their Jewish populations since they were now at war with the new "Jewish State"), that does not in any way justify Israel's long history of crimes against Palestinians, which continue to this day. Will you seriously listen to what you are saying: "Ok, Israel may be fascist but it's because of their enemies whose land they stole and who are treated to apartheid conditions on the WB and Gaza, the latter being essentially an open air prison. They should be nicer about these little problems." I really never thought I'd see a regular user here apologize for fascism. This is really something.---Mona- (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am done here. CorruptUser, your comments throughout this thread could (and should) be littered with ^{[citation needed]}. I've been wasting my time arguing with a guy who pulls undocumented shit out of his ass, and then resorts to anecdotes about "knowing some people" who contradict my source -- and so said source is "bunk." If anyone else is actually still reading this exchange, I'm content to rest on my record here, but perhaps more so, I'm content to rest on yours.---Mona- (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Oooo, Shaker's Law and Danth's Law! And while you might think that Jews only have lifespans of a few years, but many of the people who fled the Islamic countries are still alive; their stories are not "anecdotes" but first hand accounts. My family is friends with quite a few refugees from a diverse number of countries and the story is always the same; "we fled for our lives". I am not trying to justify either the Palestinian or the Israeli actions, I'm trying to show you where those actions come from. CorruptUser (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And I jump into another flamewar. I will try to address the above points. Here goes.

Sure there is terrible hatred on both sides. We all understand that. I think Mona understands that quite a lot of Jews were persecuted and driven from their homes in other Muslim countries with varying degrees of coercion. The point of contention seems to be about Israeli far-right and where it came from. You take the position that it is a result of neighboring countries routinely calling for subjugation of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. I disagree. Over the past decades, have we heard calls from the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey calling for cleansing of the Jews or the destruction of Israel? No. We've routinely heard not that. Instead, we've heard a moderate position of two-state solution, as evidenced by Egypt negotiating a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as well as Jordan submitting a UN resolution for an Israeli state along the 1967 borders. The vast majority of the chatter from Israel's Islamic neighbors has been moderate with regard to the territorial endgame. Only Iran and Hezbollah have been spewing violent rhetoric calling for Israel to cease as a polity.

In my view, Israeli far-right thought is largely irrational and unjustified. Israel is the safest country in the Middle-East. Its military is the best equipped, it is surrounded by allies, and it has a bottomless supply of money and weapons from a foreign hyperpower. There's no reason for Israelis to support candidates calling for more war and violence. Supporting the two-state solution and better treatment of Palestinian people makes the most sense for Israelis. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)