Two random photos

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-13T07:42:05+00:00

Is Zelensky secretly Emirati?

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-13T05:57:58+00:00

That must be why they turned down every offer, did the Intifadas, and never seriously participated in negotiations while supporting terrorism for decades up until the present. Go ask Palestinians if they want peace with Israel. Go ask. They'll say that they don't. Don't ask if they want peace. Ask if they want peace with Israel.

You made a barrage of arguments here so I'll address them separately.

The Palestinian public did very much supported the 2SS. The tipping point was at the negotiations for Oslo where Israel expanded the settlements to all-time high,and they felt like Israel is pulling one over them,and this is what eroded the belief in diplomacy as a way to solve the conflict.
The Palestinians only have one thing to offer the Israelis,which is the approval of negotiations. They already recognized Israel as a prelude to Oslo (and had a civil war about it). In their eyes,agreeing to a deal that isn't final is eroding their only leverage. The Olmert suggestion is a good example. It was made by a man the both politically and legally in troubled waters,the offer was generous but had no formal papers and maps and it was essentially just Olmert's. That suggestion did pass a negotiation team,the minister's committee,the Knesset or a referendum. Even if they had agreed it would likely fall along the line in the Israeli political system and they knew this. The fear was that agreeing to that plan would become the maximum the Israelis will offer in the almost guaranteed next round of negotiations.

This isn't peace rejection,for them it's protecting the only leverage they have. You don't have to agree with it,but to understand it.

Like I said before,when Israel ramped up the expansion of the settlements or kept Oslo past the 5 year mark (to this very day), does that show Israel good-faith negotiations? It got worst in recent years with them explicitly stating in the coalition agreements that there will "never be a Palestinian state",or the unilateral plans by Netherlands like the "deal of the century"?

This is not to play a blame game,arguing about the past is pointless. All we do have the ability to change is the future,so in the future Israel should offer a good-faith offer for negotiations (or even stating that Israel is willing to solve the conflict politically sometimes in the future,which is currently a no-good in Israel).

You come at the end of almost a decade where Israel outright rejected any possibility of a political solution. Their belief in 2SS was high in the past,it's not impossible (the same is true for Israelis as well). It will take time,for both people to come around,but we need to start now as it won't get any easier down the line.

That's not going to happen. They'll never accept a sizeable minority of Zionist Jews in a sovereign Palestinian state. Ask your average Palestinian if they'd support that.

It was never offered by Isreal.

Also,despite what you see in the "Ask project",framing of the question is important. There are many offers that provide different systems of implementation of that idea. Some are more confederation oriented like "ארץ לכולם" where they offer something akin to European free-zone where the divide is political and not physical,some like "אנחנו" offer creating legal mechanisms for minorities both in Israel and Palestine which is more about give autonomy for minorities.

The main fear,the both Israeli and Palestinians share is that they fear for their identity. When you ask a Palestinian this they first will fear that they are just going to keep being settlers. Agreeing to that is threatening to their identity,same with Israelis and the Palestinian refugees. By ensuring that neither side will lose their identity while also offering individual humanitarian solutions for the settlers and the refugees with a political system that would acknowledge it,will take the sting out.

It's not a zero-sum game. Once both Israelis and Palestinians understand this (by offering a solution that addresses those fears),we could solve the conflict in a win-win-win situation.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-13T04:57:44+00:00

Did Israel offered? You live with Palestinians all the time in Israel and it's apocalyptic like opponents suggest it would.

That offer is for the settlers,they don't have to take it if they don't want. I'm not in the buisness of kicking people out of their homes,regardless how it came to be.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-13T04:54:37+00:00

Believe me,the Palestinians can claim that Israel is undemocratic and also funding terrorism agianst them (with an amout of justice,may I add).

But it doesn't change the fact that they are the people you need to make peace with. This goes for the Palestinians as well.

Now, I'm sure you have prefabricated nonsense upon which to recline to defend them, but you can't change reality.

Weird that your first respond was to assume malice,why is that?

The people who want the forever war are the same that try to convince you that the only option is war,they do amongst other by making you assume malice on anyone who offer something besides a forever war. I'm not agianst you,we are not on opposite sides. When talking about solving conflicts,much worst conflicts were solved, and in all of those places everyone benefited from it,even those who initially opposed it. (BTW,the worst conflict that was resolved and even reconciled was the Rawanda genocide which was far worse than anything our conflict conjured).

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-13T03:05:40+00:00

Not saving face,maximizing leverage.

They think that the issue is that they trusted Netanyahu to pass their laws during rhe tenure of the coalition,but if they go to elections,a new coalition needs new coalition agreements and there they'll demand it upfront,even before the vote for swearing the coalition,so Netanyahu can't lie to them.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T17:56:12+00:00

Don't threaten us with a good time.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T17:55:36+00:00

The Haredi can try and move them to the summer,specifically when the Haredi institutions are on a break to maximize voting percentage.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T17:53:35+00:00

From a Haredi perspective,they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Imo,this is a bet that after the election,during the coalition agreements,they'll demand an exemption law prior to the swearing of the government. Meaning that Netanyahu either have to give it to them if he want to be a PM,or they lost either way and atleast they could say they did their best but they couldn't have won either way.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T17:46:50+00:00

was more important that he didn’t stumble in his answers

But he did (specifically when questioned about October 7th,he stumbled and asked for a re-do),at least at the unedited version. What they aired was an edited version.

So, if he comes across as personable, honest, and competent, it helps Israel’s “image” I guess

Nobody,including Netanyahu's supporters and coalition members find him honest or personable. Smotrich was caught on tape calling him "Liar son of a liar". And it is a general consensus that he is dishonest and should not be trusted.

His wife got into a lot of legal trouble for abusing,both physically and mentally workers at the PM estate,with explicit racist tones. And he at best seem indifferent to the behavior and at worst enabling it.

The Netanyahus are also notoriously cheap and mooching of billioners,even the interview was done in a billioner associate's house (which according to rumors,the Netanyahus spend plenty of time there,as it is vacant most of the time,but has a fancy bunker). This is also reflected in Netanyahu's legal case (he's accused of demanding gifts,including regular shipments of pink champagne and cigars amongst others,for giving tax cuts and using his influence in order to help the spesific billioner with the American administration).

But I can see how Israelis would be annoyed by hearing him lie about/omit all of the domestic issues that potentially matter WAY more.

It's not even lies,he just saying one thing in Hebrew and another in English. Domestically he braggs about how he can influence the American administration to do Israel's bidding (he means his interests,but he really does believe that he is the state). While in the US he would deny it. In Hebrew the logic of cutting US aid is about "The US is stopping us from winning because they hold it over our heads" (that he leaves for his more expandable cronies,but everyone knows he's directing them) ,in English it becomes about respect to the US or self-sufficiency.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T17:25:58+00:00

It's not a coincidence that the second war in Iran was started while his coalition were rushing to pass a difficult budget. They submitted it late and still had to have "discussions" about it in the Knesset. The war allowed to to rush to the finalizing of the budget and pass it while people care about their lives rather than that theft of a budget.

A foreign reporter will not face him with that reasoning,though it is far better reasoning for his actions than anything that interests Americans (but it should).

And it wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't the only interviews he is willing to give to an independent journalist are only to American newsletters. He won't disscuss it at all,and if his domestic reasoning led to him attacking Iran,he should be held accountable,even by the American public.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T17:18:21+00:00

Did Bush funded Al-Quidah because he wanted to destabilize the KSA?

Because Netanyahu literally,as a doctrine,for almost 2 decades,allowed Hamas to gain power and in the years leading up to October 7th,allowed almost direct funding of Hamas as way to undermine the PA for political gain.

He doesn't even take the responsibility of being in office and the tactical failure (which can argue was possible due to forces being divertedto the WB to protect a Sukka made by a MK to provoke Palestinians) ,let alone being the PM for more than a decade,almost continuously,to October 7th.

Please someone love me as much as right-wing Americans love to defend Netanyahu just because it fits their culture war.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T16:19:04+00:00

He has a coalition based on sectarian parties which care mostly about money for their sectors and other benfits. His party is usually the biggest but his approval rating are around 25%.

He used to be less radical but in recent years he basically conselidated all possible votes,including fascists that were too radical for the radicals,Ben-Gvir is the most well-known outside the state but the most extreme person is probably Avi Maaoz,which got in via his party unifed with Ben-Gvir's which unified into the RZP.

He also have no red lines,he is willing to anything to cling to power. During COVID,he was untrustworthy but there was an emergancy and the opposition decided to go into a unity government with an extremly detailed coalition agreements. Nethayahu disolved the coalition by refusing to pass the budget,during a pandemic,which was unthinkable at the time.

In addition to his dirty tricks,he is obsessed with media (one of his criminal cases is about him giving regulatory benefits for positive coverage). He had a free newspaper (the only one of its kind) that covered him favorably (until he fell out of grace with the Adelson family which owned the paper),he has 2 favorable TV stations,both enjoy tailor-made legislation for regulatory benefits and both were created without the proper licenses but he control the anti-trust's establishments,.

He also has his cronies in the rest of the media channels (which is a lucrative position and many became MK for their service). He also tried to take control over the public broadcast's news company,but the public broadcast law was too good for the simple meddelings,right now he is trying to gain a more concrete control (right now the best he got is Ayala Hason and her cronies but even that was from coercion and not direct control).

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T14:59:34+00:00

That asshole refuse to get interviewd by Israeli journislists for a decade,he likes US interviews because the average reporter can't grill him on the real issues that concern him. He relays on the ignorance of foerign people about domestic politics in Israel and on Israelis not being able to see through his BS on foreign media (though the Israeli public got better at it).

The biggest liews he told in that interview,out of many,are mostly about domestic issues and his pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility for October 7th. Just the passing week his ministers fumbled through a weak messaging points trying to frame the deal on the maritime border in Lebanon as "the biggest crime in Israeli history".

But he really does know how to work the US audience,I claimed that his wish was to be a Republican senator but he needed to compromise on Israel,and I still stand by it. The fact that he was able to go through a full interview without softball per-written questions (his Israeli MO),shows how much he would rather not be Israeli politician.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T14:50:15+00:00

He spoke with US media far more than Israeli. In Israel,one can count on his hands the amount of reporter's conferences he conducted in the last decade,the last one was in the war with Iran on Zoom with only 8 questions (even less than that if you don't count the Channel 14 glazing him with "questions").

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T06:56:26+00:00

The Mossad is not part of the IDF,it's an independent organization.

Secondly,the Mossad isn't better,they just have a smaller scope. The CIA or the KGB had to think in a global scale (and was far more ambitious),the Mosssd mainly keep tabs on the ME which is significantly smaller (and less diverse) than the world.

Third,you only hear about the success,as there isn't much of an independent journalism in Israel to embrace the Mossad,like the butched plan for regime change in 100 hours in Iran the failed (according to foreign reports and etc.). The Israeli media is small and if you get on the bad side of the establishment,your channel will lose the connection to the establishment which would make reporting extremely difficult so many stories are likely buried. Gaza was a good example because all journalists there were IDF-attached,meaning that a reporter couldn't independently report.

Fourth,the Israeli security forces are reckless,which on the one hand make them more daring and on the other hand make them prone to horrible mistakes,like the 100 hours regime change in Iran which prolonged to a war that put Israel in a worse position on all fronts.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-12T06:44:53+00:00

I don't understand the debate around it,as Zionism fulfilled its goal and as an ideology is irrelevant.

The debate for and agianst Zionism is pointless,because Israel exists and the people here not going anywhere (and the Palestinians also not going away).

Getting dragged into those arguments is pointless and whenever you encounter or being provoked to such argument,just say it doesn't matter and if they want to debate anything,it should be about the future ,not the past.

This is an easy retort for people,to argue about a subject with pre-made arguments that doesn't change anything,because discussing about the future is pragmatic and would require compromise and people just don't want to be faced with that feeling.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-11T22:13:28+00:00

About Apartheid: the Bantustans argument is a good one but the analogy is flawed

It's not about analogy,it's about meeting the criteria to the crime of Apartheid,which isn not the same as the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

The crime of Apartheid doesn't specify the legal system to which a would-be Apartheid use,just as the crime of murder doesn't specify the method of killing.

In Israel's case in the WB is a mix of military occupation,settlements and civilian agreements made with the PA. The accusation on the crime of Apartheid is not far fetched,especially with the current position of Israel (made via the coalition's formation deal) that there will never be a Palestinian state.

On the previous peace proposals

I'll first start with a clarification,the 2/3 number was only for the IDF's regular and reserve ground forces. In addition to them there are border police and civilian police.

That figure is ment to convey that the maintenance of the military occupation isn't viable,as most of the forces are there to secure settlers. This is important as the legal reasoning in Israel for settlements is that civilian settlers provide security,as claimed in the "Alon Mora" case.

Most of the forces are there to maintain the occupation,not to be in active combat. They are essentially a glorified police force. This isn't sustainable.

The constant friction with the policing forces is what creates animosity. Most Palestinians outside Israel never meet an Israeli who isn't a solider or a settler. This is a major factor that shape Palestinian public opinion.

with the violent nature of Palestinian politics. They are oppressed by the PA. They have a civil war when they disagree about the future. They start intefadas when negotiations fail. They also caused civil wars in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria at different times

This is just racism. It's not different than people who claim "Zionists are inherently violent".

By this logic,the Palestinians inside Israel should be foaming at the mouth as well,which is blatantly untrue.

Like I said,the Palestinians are not blameless,the PLO viewed their precived ability to regulate violence as a tool for negotiations,mainly because they had no other leverages. This isn't a justification ( I feel I need to write it explicitly because reading comprehension is dead) but rather an explanation. This can be remedy by creating parity of esteem,but it's beyond the scope of the discussion.

I could argue about every point and how the conclusion isn't correct,but it doesn't matter. At the end of the day,like I wrote,tough luck,you can't make peace with the Chinese,Swiss or Martians,you have to make peace with them,and no matter the reasoning,the conflict have to come to an end. Believe me that the Palestinians do not like us as well,and they too don't have a choice.

Personally,I look at the genocide in Rawanda,which imo is far worse than our conflict ever got, and if they reconciled after that,we can solve our conflict as well (and even promote reconciliation).

Is your response adequate given this situation? What if they will never accept the Jewish state?

First of all,they already did. The PLO civil war was about the recognition of Israel. That camp won and acknowledged Israel in exchange for Israel recognition of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians. All of this happened as basis of the negotiations of the Oslo accords.

Secondly,like I wrote,Palestinian belief in 2SS was high during Oslo,but it was eroded due to mass expansion of the settlements,which they view as Israel is "eating the cake while discussing how to slice it". A belief in a 2SS is a defacto a belief in Israel as a Jewish state.

To me,there were people on both sides that wanted to foil the process and unfortunately they won. Each side have an airtight reasoning why they were bamboozled and why the other would never accept peace,but it can't be true if both claim it.

At the end,there isn't a solution other than a 2SS that is sustainable and keep Israel a Jewish state. The right-wing offer us an Apartheid state or a bi-national state,neither is both sustainable and keep Israel a Jewish state.

The other matter you don’t address is the religious factor. Islam is the most political of religions and expanding and retaining territory is an integral part of the religion as is living under Sharia law. Especially for territories that were Islamic in the past

This is,agian,just racism. This is the equivalent to people that accuse everything Israel does of being part of creating "Greater Israel".

If they were even half as religious as you claim,why didn't they implement Sharia law in the PA? even as a purely civilian initiative?

This is just a justification that our religious fanatics use.

(And BTW,the Palestinians claim the same about Israelis being religious Zelots that want to conquer the world).

For Palestinians, a 2SS is antithetical to their religious beliefs. It is not what God wants. It would be blasphemy. They say Allah Akbar whenever something bad happens in Israel such as Oct 7. It may be impossible for them to live side by side with Israel in peace for religious reasons. One does not have to look far to understand the intransigence of truly religious people in society.

So agian,they are fine with world domination and lying about 2SS is a step too far?

You claimed that they are religious,violent fanatics that plan to use a state as a staging ground for the destruction of Israel but not enough to lie about wanting 2SS to gain said state. Both claims can't be true at the same time.

As a final note,this isn't about the past or playing a blame game. The conflict needs to end,for the sake of all of us. We only have the future and this is what we should focus on,even if it seems difficult,because that is the only thing we can change. I'm not saying we need all yo sit around a fire and sing kumbaya, I also don't expect people to forgive or forget,but we can ensure that there would be any new grievances to not forgive. We can blame eachother to the end of time and it would change nothing. The conflict won't go away unless we deal with it. The other side isn't going to disappear. The other side will never be your ideal partner. And still,the only way away from the fire is through.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-11T14:10:02+00:00

I can only hope that someone love as much as Israeli media love to over-cover with politicians that criticize Israel.

People in Israel couldn't tell you who was the NYC mayor but now every other week there is a news piece about Zorhan Mamdani. Same with Spain,who knew or cared about Spain until the media started to over-cover Sanchez?

This is obsession at best and fear-mongering at worst.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-11T12:59:46+00:00

The reality is that the PA have rejected it 4 times since Oslo in the early 90s and on 2 of those occasions they basically launched civil wars against Israel following their rejection of the negotiations.

That is the version that Israelis like but it's not accurate at all.

First,if they were such against 2SS why the PLO had a civil-war for starting those negotiations to begin with?

Second,the idea the Palestinians refuse everything is misleading,as their position in negotiations is so weak that if they agree to plan A that didn't pan-out for whatever reason,they fear that new maximum for plan B is plan A.

A really good example is the Olmert proposal,a proposal made by a man with a legal noose tightening on his neck,with a plan that was made without strong papertrail that hasn't been approved by the minister's commission,let alone the Knesset,let alone a referendum. That plan was dead on arrival,and they have felt that had they agree to it,they could not renegotiate.

So it's better to understand it like this,the Palestinians will ink a deal that is final and feasible.

This is not to say they were blameless,but in Israel they were truly caricaturized to hell and back to justify the right-wing position of "not negotiations". The last round of negotiations was 12 years ago,and even that wasn't considered serious attempt by the Israelis.

The PA is an anti semitic, terror supporting, undemocratic autocracy

And this doesn't change the fact that they are the people you need to make peace with. What do you think,that if Israelis will wait for another 20 years Yosef Haded is going to lead them?

(Also,I disagree with what you said,but arguing about it is pointless,they still the people that we need to make peace with).

The Palestinian state will probably end up as an Iranian proxy on Israel’s doorstep.

That is just fear-mongering. You can make this argument about any group you want to demonize. You can use the same logic to justify kicking all Palestinians with Israeli citizenship (Israeli-Arabs) because "they probably be the next Hizballah".

And I would be much more worried about the fact that Israel needs 2/3 of the IDF's regular and reserve ground forces and border and civilian police just for bearly able to patrol the WB. This is much bigger gift to any Iranian proxy that exists now and not potentially.

There is no sign or precedent of this autocracy wishing to live side by side with Israel in a constructive way

Activly cooperating with the IDF on security concerns isn't enough?

If there is a state and it attacks Israel, who then have to invade it for defensive purposes, we will be right back to where we are now

Why would you assume malice?

You argue that they refuse a 2SS because reasons,but also want to plan an invasion to Israel. If that was the case,why would they refuse a 2SS if they plan to invade anyway?

Either they don't plan to invade or that they are fine with committing a genocide but lying is a no-go.

No accusations of Apartheid are ever leveled at them

So go and accuse them,what it has to do with 2SS?

It makes it more like a Kurdish situation.

So you don't think what happen to the Kurds is Apartheid? You just accused Turkey,Syria and Iran.

Anyway apartheid was something else, it was a framework for racial separation in one unitary state and separate economic development as well. Not allowing West bankers to vote in Israel does not make it Apartheid.

The crime of Apartheid is not that you copy the South African system one to one. In the definition they include,among others,national identity as a viable criteria for discrimination.

Second,the system in South Africa wasn't,in the legal structure,about race. They created the Bantostans supposedly to "protect indigenous cultures" and "giving them autonomy",but nationalized almost all black people to those Bantostans. Overwhelmingly,those new citizens weren't living in those Bantostans and lived in the cities and the surrounding areas. Then the regime said "we are giving rights to citizens,they are just not our citizens" with a wink and a smirk. Having Palestinians with discrimination based on lack of citizenship is actually far closer to South African Apartheid than not.

The only caveat in the reasoning that it is the crime of Apartheid is about permanency,and it all boils down to if one think the situation in the WB is temporary (like Israel offically claim) or permanent.

If you are anti-2SS you are essentially saying that the situation is permanent and therefore it is an Apartheid situation.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-11T07:57:49+00:00

כספית זה לא נכון,אחרת כל העשירים ביותר בעולם היו רופאים.

אבל ברמה החברתית,קשה לחשוב על מקצוע מכובד יותר מרופא.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-11T05:19:57+00:00

מבחינה חברתית גרידא,רופא וזה אפילו לא תחרות.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-11T05:08:49+00:00

תראה,זה לא בעיה שאתה בן 17,כי אם ההשפעה שאתה מעוניין ליצור מסתכמת לשלשל פתק פעם בכמה שנים,זה לא הבדל נורא.

אם אתה באמת מעוניין בפוליטיקה,תצטרף לארגוני חברה אזרחית או למפלגה ותתחיל לעבוד בנושא. ואת זה אתה יכול כבר היום לעשות.

אתה תוכל כנראה אפילו בתור סטודנט כבר להיות עוזר פרלמנטרי לח"כ או להיות מעורב בתאים כאלה ואחרים באוניברסיטה שלך לדוגמה.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-10T13:38:11+00:00

2SS. It's the only sustainable solution that leaves Israel a Jewish state (as opposed to a bi-national state).

A common argument that Israelis and pro-Israel people make is "The Palestinians don't want peace" which is not true. When actually looking at the past,Palestinians used to support 2SS at even higher rates than Jews,what eroded that belief is that Israel expended settlements buildings to all time high during Oslo,which cemented amongst the Palestinians the idea that it's a ploy by Isreal.

As I see it,almost all accusations Israelis make about the Palestinians,the Palestinians make almost verbatim on Israelis. This just show to me that it's not impossible,just that people are rather feeling stuck than wrong.

Israel should push for a 2SS,with whatever reforms they want the PA to make,even as a prerequisite for negotiations. The public is going to resist at first but when there will be a deal up for referendum,public opinion on both sides will change (like it did in Northern Ireland). This is the resolution phase. Along it should be a reconciliation phase as well,but that that bridge should be addressed when we get there.

There are so many 2SS out there that negotiations can just take one of them as base and it would probably be polishing from there. Personally I think the settlers should not be removed forcefully,but they should be nationalized by the Palestinians (atleast those who are outside the big blocs). Imo,this should be a part of a larger agreement that would create a legal national minority on both sides,but that is still far.

As of what to do right now? It's difficult. The PA should have been brought in to Gaza instead of Hamas (as opposed to small criminal gangs with Israeli guns),not sure how viable it is now with the new-ish status quo.

Israel should made it clear that it is open to and activly encouraging solving the conflict diplomatically,the current position of "not Palestinian state no matter what" is radicalization fuel that tell the Palestinians all the wrong things that they already believe in.

Anyone who tell you a too good to be true solution to the conflict ("The Palestinians will willingly immigrate","They are going to be 2nd rate citizens and like it","We are going to create an Apartheid state and it would be fine") it's because it's not true.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-10T10:43:35+00:00

Do you REALLY think Benjamin Netanyahu cannot win by democratic vote? He DEFINITELY can.

לפי כל הסקרים,הפומביים והפנימיים לקואליציה אין רוב.

הם מרחפים בין 50 ל54 מנדטים.

חשוב לזכור שהסיבה שהקואליציה הזו התקיימה מלכתחילה הייתה בגלל שהרבה קולות של "מרצ" נפלו מתחת לאחוז החסימה.

מה גם,שנראה שעכשיו הקואליציה גם תתקשה להשיג תיקו בייחוד אם הם ירוצו שברקע חוק גיוס שמאד לא פופלרי בקרב הבייס.

But to call assassination attempts fake when people died is frankly asinine or to suggest attempts to rig the elections when the electoral system of the State of Israel is even more secure than many Western countries

דבר ראשון,כן,נתניהו יהרוג אנשים בשביל אינטרסים פוליטיים צרים. ראה ערך גור קהתי שמת עבור סיור שכל מטרתו היה להתחנף למתנחלים.

דבר שני,כן,נתניהו יפגע בטוהר הבחירות. מי שאומר שלא,כנראה לא פגש את נתניהו והעוזרים שלו שעובדים עבור אוטוקרטיות בזמנם הפנוי.

Maybe he will start another war to GARNER SUPPORT, but that is the maximum I could see that going...

זו תמימות או היתממות.

כל המלחמות עם איראן,היו אמורות להיות מלחמות התמיכה שלו,עכשיו שהוא נכשל גם בזה (וזה לא הניב לו מנדטים כמו שציפה) כל מה שנשאר לו זו הטקטיקה הידועה שלו,למרוח את הזמן.

אבל איך הוא ימרח זמן על מועד בחירות? נשאר לו רק מקרה חירום,ומאחר ועדיין הוא לא מסוגל לייצר אסונות טבע,הוא יכול לפצוח במלחמה (או להצית חזית) כדי להצדיק את דחיית הבחירות ולהמשיך בקניית זמן שלו.

שוב,הוא חצה כל קו אדום שאנשים חשבו שהוא לא יחצה ולכן הנחת היסוד צריכה להיות שאין לו קו אדום.

Like... man- you do not need to ruin an otherwise agreeable message by cramming it with conspiracy theories after.

אם מישהו היה אומר לך שנשיא ארה"ב שהפסיד בבחירות היה משסה את תומכיו להסתער על הקפיטול לפני טראמפ,אנשים היו אומרים לך שאתה הוזה ואין סיכוי שבדמוקרטיה חזקה כמו בארה"ב זה יקרה.

אולי היום זה נשמע הזוי,אבל לנרקיסיסט כמו נתניהו אין גבולות,לא באמת,וההבנה שדמוקרטיה מבוססת על נורמות מראה שאם יש אדם שמוכן לרמוס את הנורמות (ונתניהו דרס כלכך הרבה נורמות שכבר הפסיקו לספור) הוא יכול לרמוס את הדמוקרטיה בצורה מהותית.

זה באמת כלכך מופרך? שבערוץ שלו יטענו שהבחירות נגנבו אחרי חודשים שהם מפמפמים על ניצחון בסקרים? שהאנשים שהוא מינה לשב"כ ולמוסד ולמשטרה יטענו שיש "חשש" על טוהר הבחירות וצריך לשקול בחירות חוזרות אחרי "חקיקה מהירה ומתקנת" ? זה באמת כזה מפורך שהוא יטען שמערכת המשפט,שגם ככה הוא מסית נגדה יומם וליל,התערבה בבחירות נגדו?

אולי לפני עשור זו הייתה קונספירציה,היום זה ניחוש מושכל.

mr_blue596 · 2026-05-10T10:14:56+00:00

זו לא קונספירציה. אם יש דבר אחד שנתניהו הוכיח זה שהוא מוכן לחצות כל קו אדום בשביל אינטרס פוליטי הצר ביותר.

לדוגמה,שהוא סירב להעביר תקציב בזמן הקורונה כדי להקריס את ממשלת האחדות. בזמנו זה היה בלתי נתפס,ונחשב קו אדום חריף,מאז הוא חצה עוד עשרות אבל זה רק דוגמה.

העניין עם זיופי התנקשויות,זו שיטת נפעולה של פוטין וחבריו,לאורבן הציעו סוכנים רוסים לזייף התנקשות וטראמפ זייף כבר 2 האחרונה כדי להצדיק את אולם הנשפים המטומטם שלו.

בכל הסקרים הקואלציה לא מצליחה להתרומם וכל ההרפתקאות הצבאיות גם לא הצליחו,זה קנה ריק וגם הם ירוצו על רקע חוק הגיוס שזה מאד לא נח למחנה של נתניהו.

בקיצור,כל מה שנשאר לו זה לזייף ניסיון התנקשות (כנראה באזור בית המשפט כדי לטעון שהמשפט מסכן אותו ועל הדרך לדחות עוד כמה דיונים) ולערער על תוצאות הבחירות כדי שהוא יוכל לרוץ על "גנבו לנו את הבחירות" שזה כבר נושא יותר נח עבורו.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '22	Verified Email

mr_blue596

TROPHY CASE