And in the end we'll talk about Iranian nukes as we do about North Korean nukes. And life goes on.

And what will Israel talk about?

And what will Israel talk about? — Punshhh

Yes, what will Sheldon Adelson and the AIPAC talk and what will they make Trump / the next President / the US do?

With the actual state of Israel the matter is different. Likely Israel cannot make a pre-emptive strike on the nuclear weapons program as it could do with Iraq AND the Syrian WMD project (people who don't know about the hit on the Syrian program, see Operation Outside the Box).

The fundamental taboo question is: "Can Israel and Iran have a balance in nuclear deterrence just Russia vs US, China vs US, India vs Pakistan?" I think it obviously yes. Forget the demagoguery of the Middle East, these players will fall in line just as every other country having nuclear weapons has. But naturally the rhetoric HAS TO BE that Iranians are crazy Mullahs hell bent on destroying Israel even if that means that Iran will be destroyed. Yet it doesn't make sense. Never has. But whatever goes in the public discourse. Iranian politicians get likes with rants of destroying Israel and the US politicians will get likes with of rants that Iran poses an existential threat to the US. All that nonsense will continue.

Israel will just loose it's nuclear hegemony and likely it will make it more timid in attacking it's neighbours.

The Israelis still have reason to be worried because it threatens their entire existence. — BitconnectCarlos

With having a strong nuclear deterrence, total superiority in the air and basically with their own armed forces being superior to other, having their foes in shambles (Syria in civil war, Egypt just barely hanging there), and having the sole Superpower as an obedient ally ready and wiling to rush to their help? It's not a dire situation as you think.

Sure, they might be worried, the US can be worried by North Korean nukes too, but the fact is that Netanyahu has chosen this low intensity conflict as the normal for Israel. Their mistake was after the Cold War to think that the US wouldn't see them as so important and hence started the Peace process. They had no reason to. The US supports them as fiercely as ever.

. Israel has had several wars where, if it had lost, it would have been finished as a state and its people would have been at the mercy of its enemies. — BitconnectCarlos

That indeed in might have happened during their war of Independence. Afterwards, they crushed their enemies quite well. Today is different than 1948.

Even against the "rational" Soviets we came nail-bitingly close to nuclear war and in some cases the choice came down the actual button-pushers. And that was without religion. — BitconnectCarlos

And the ugly truth is that actually WW3 didn't happen. Yes, we came close, but we didn't have it.

With having a strong nuclear deterrence, total superiority in the air and basically with their own armed forces being superior to other, having their foes in shambles (Syria in civil war, Egypt just barely hanging there), and having the sole Superpower as an obedient ally ready and wiling to rush to their help? It's not a dire situation as you think.

We're talking about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

but the fact is that Netanyahu has chosen this low intensity conflict as the normal for Israel.

Israel funds anti-Iranian regime groups and Iran funds anti-Israel groups. If Iran were to withdraw support from Hezbollah and Hamas I'd suspect there could be serious inroads made to normalizing relations.

And the ugly truth is that actually WW3 didn't happen. Yes, we came close, but we didn't have it. — ssu

That indeed in might have happened during their war of Independence. Afterwards, they crushed their enemies quite well. Today is different than 1948. — ssu

I understand that Israel won in 1948, 1967, and 1973. I also understand that there were no nuclear strikes between the US-USSR during the cold war or for the matter India-Pakistan.

You seem to regard these facts as inevitabilities though, and I'd like to push back against that notion. If we embrace free will we should understand that there could have been a nuclear holocaust and we've basically just got lucky that it hasn't happened. We should view our current situation as extremely fortunate. There were many, many critical junction points where things could have gone differently both in regard to a nuclear holocaust and Israel's victories in '48, '67, and '73. You know that in 1967 Israel did a very controversial pre-emptive strike against the Egyptians which took out their air force. It was hotly debated. Israeli tank commanders outmanuevered their enemies in tanks battles in 1973 despite being outnumbered; it was not a certain victory.

What do you think about this view of history?

To me it seems obvious that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is a pretty major national security concern for Israel. The question is to what to extent Israel should go to prevent this from happening.

I understand that Israel won in 1948, 1967, and 1973. — BitconnectCarlos

Also 1956. During the Suez crisis Israel performed it's part without any problems.

And don't forget Operation "Peace for Galilee" in 1982, the swift occupation of Lebanon and the defeat of Syria in that conflict. If in 1973 the Soviet lead ground based air defence had brought some losses to the Israeli Air Force, the dominance of Israeli air power in 1982 was totally clear. The Syrian air force was shot from the sky: 85 shot down vs. no losses to Israel.

(Line up of Israeli F-15 fighters with their kill marks after 1982.)


The 2006 Lebanese-Isreali Border War has been the only example were the Israelis haven't been so extremely successful, but in all it cannot be regarded as a failure.

What do you think about this view of history? — BitconnectCarlos

What you doesn't change the fact that as time has gone on, Israel has achieved dominance over it's neighbours. And let's remember that two of it's four neighbouring states have made peace with it. Two are totally unable to make peace as they don't now control fully their areas, even if Israel wanted to make peace.

(Sharing a cigarette after making peace. Although later an Israeli religious fanatic killed Prime Minister Rabin because of his Peace efforts. Making peace can be deadly for politicians, being a hawk is easier.)


The bottom line is that Israel is part of the First World and it's neighbours are part of Third.

And Iran? There the truth is that for Iran opposing Israel is an ideological issue, not an existential issue, the countries aren't even close to one other. Opposing Israel goes to heart of the revolutionary zeal of the Islamic Republic.

And this is why you see demonstrations in Tehran. Perhaps it's difficult for some to understand that some in the young population of Iran would be themselves tired of their country being involved in conflicts in other countries, just as some Americans are tired of their country being the Global policeman and getting it's nose into every conflict there is. The revolutionary fervour has long since toned down in Iran and been replaced an official line. Many Iranians have a better view of the US than actually people in the West think.

Few dozen cruise missiles can naturally change that, if the neocons get their way.

Sharing a cigarette after making peace. Although later an Israeli religious fanatic killed Prime Minister Rabin because of his Peace efforts. Making peace can be deadly for politicians, being a hawk is easier.) — ssu

Not forgetting Anwar Sadat.

Exactly.

The so-called Doves get killed in the Middle East. While basically the ranting hate-speachers (who typically haven't been themselves anywhere near a frontline) prosper there.

Thank you for the history lesson complete with pictures. It was really tragic what happened with Rabin.

For the sake of our discussion, I've mostly been referring to Iran. I think we both know that Iran is no push over militarily speaking. In regard to the nuclear threat, a good way to measure risk is to take into account both the odds of X happening as well as the amount of damage caused by X. In the case of nuclear war the odds of a nuclear strike by Iran are small (I think we both agree that it's small, but we probably disagree on how small. 1% and .00001% are both small but very, very different figures.) The amount of damage would of course be unfathomable. I'd be interested to see if you'd be willing to throw out a % here within the next 50-100 years that either Iran or a nuclear weapon from Iran is used against Israel.

There the truth is that for Iran opposing Israel is an ideological issue, not an existential issue,

I would question this; members of the Iranian government or groups close to and funded by Iran have repeatedly supported the destruction of Israel. The destruction of a Jewish state and its replacement by an Islamic one would be a HUGE win on a religious front for nearly the entire Islamic world including Iran. Here's a few examples:

Khamenei: “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” (2014)

Hossein Salami, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: "We will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat." (2014)

Salami: "Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth." (2014)

Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: "The issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it ..." (2014)

Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: "The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime ... We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region's geopolitics." (2015)

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/Iranian-View-of-Israel/387085/

Make no mistake about it; Zionism is inseparable from the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If Zionism falls Israel falls.

Iran doesn't recognize Israel and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these groups carry out intentional attacks on civilians and the Hamas isn't remotely shy about wanting Israel wiped from the map. How about the risk of Iran proliferating the nuclear weapons to one of these groups?

At the end of the day, I want to stay optimistic. I have no qualms towards the people of Iran, only the leadership. Neither of us have the inside scoop about their actual intentions, but based on rhetoric and ideology there is cause for concern. Do not underestimate the force of religious ideology. Mutually assured destruction might be insane by western standards, but radical Islam has a strong record of self-sacrifice for the greater cause.

Make no mistake about it; Zionism is inseparable from the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. If Zionism falls Israel falls.

Iran doesn't recognize Israel and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these groups carry out intentional attacks on civilians and the Hamas isn't remotely shy about wanting Israel wiped from the map. How about the risk of Iran proliferating the nuclear weapons to one of these groups?

At the end of the day, I want to stay optimistic. I have no qualms towards the people of Iran, only the leadership. Neither of us have the inside scoop about their actual intentions, but based on rhetoric and ideology there is cause for concern. Do not underestimate the force of religious ideology. Mutually assured destruction might be insane by western standards, but radical Islam has a strong record of self-sacrifice for the greater cause. — BitconnectCarlos

Neither is Zionist Israel, like its main ruling party Likud, shy about annexing the West Bank but nobody seems to worry about the existential threat to Palestinians. The difference is that Israel is continuing with settlements and annexation yet no Arab country has attacked Israel for over how many years?

If there is something that ought to fall, it is the Zionist agenda and the concept of Israel as a Jewish state that makes second rate citizens of non-Jewish Israelis. It's a racist country and Zionism is what informs that racism.

I really shouldn't respond to this since you display no understanding on what Zionism actually is. It has nothing to do with race. Jews aren't a race. If you don't believe the Jews deserve self-determination or a "safe space" given history then you're either ignorant, uncaring, or anti-semitic.

I'm a non-religious Jew. My best friend in college was an ardent Zionist. In 1972 he spent a year in Israel traveling around and working on a kibbutz. When he came back he said to me: "We [meaning us Jews] blew it. We should never have tried to move into a place with a large hostile population. We should have moved into Tierra del Fuego - or maybe Newfoundland".

I feel conflicted about Israel. I empathize with the emotions that drive Zionism. I remember feeling so proud as a teenager after the '67 War - we took on the enemy and crushed them - and if there were ever another war I would be rooting for Israel. A defeat would be catastrophic.

That said, my feeling is that an historical mistake was made by making Israel the country of the Jewish people. It could have been declared a Jewish homeland (i.e. preserve the Right of Return) but otherwise a secular democracy. Whether this would have worked is anyone's guess.

As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight.

I really shouldn't respond to this since you display no understanding on what Zionism actually is. It has nothing to do with race. Jews aren't a race. If you don't believe the Jews deserve self-determination or a "safe space" given history then you're either ignorant, uncaring, or anti-semitic. — BitconnectCarlos

Fuck you for pulling the anti-semitic card when it's quite clear I take issue with the discrimination in Israel of non-Jewish Israeli citizens as a result of Jews and their Supreme Court upholding discriminatory laws, which is as much informed by culture as a conceptual race that they think entitles them to the annexation of the West Bank as part of the Promised Land. It's within the language of "the descendants of Abraham" and the "Jewish people" as opposed to, let's say, people of the Jewish faith.

If you don't see the racist undertones and indeed the racism and fascism of Begin and his Herut party and it's influence on Likud to this day then you're probably biased.

I am deeply pessimistic about the future of Israel. I don't see any workable solution - the two sides are too far apart. They're gonna have to get sick & tired of killing each other before any compromise is possible.

Of course, at the rate things are going, global warming & the associated climate change will likely make the whole region uninhabitable - thus solving the problem.

It would make me very happy to be wrong about all this.

As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight. — EricH

A lot of those who have been there, like many blue berets that have been in Lebanon, share your pessimistic view. I see no easy way out here at all.

You see, the ugly truth is that in order for this to change, just to look at Europe. Just ask yourself, how did the French and the Germans forget about Alsace-Lorraine (or Elsass Lothringen in German)? How did these bitter rivals get so friendly? Simple answer: they fought two extremely bloody World Wars that afterward made it impossible to anyone getting hyped in a jingoistic fashion about some stupid geographical area. Europeans learned something only after millions of dead. Not before.

(The Black Stain. French schoolboys being taught about the lost provinces. Jingoism Pre-WW I.


The fact is that even if the conventional wars fought by Israel and the Arabs have been (nearly) all out wars, the losses haven't been catastrophic. It never has been a fight to the other one's destruction. They wars haven't bred war weariness at all. Just look at how religious people get all hyped up about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Somewhere else it would be considered utter stupidity.

I don't even know why you're engaging me; are you seriously trying to change my mind or are you just looking to exchange insults? If you're going to pull the "zionism is racism" card then I'm going to pull the "anti-semitic" card and believe me I still hold the "nazi" card and I'm waiting for my chance. I guess you hold the nazi card too. We could just call each other nazis totally incapable of reasoning and be done with it.

In any case I don't agree with everything the Israeli government has done. Obviously. You can criticize settlement expansion and still be a Zionist.

All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. I can't tell if you're an angry white liberal with no real personal stake or history with the conflict or if you're an Arab who has a personal connection to it and to whom I would actually relate to a little better.

In any case no one's really changing minds here so.... great use of time.

If you're going to pull the "zionism is racism" card then I'm going to pull the "anti-semitic" card and believe me I still hold the "nazi" card and I'm waiting for my chance. I guess you hold the nazi card too. We could just call each other nazis totally incapable of reasoning and be done with it. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't pull that card on you, asshole.

All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

Which is a racist enterprise. It wouldn't be if it would be a state of Israel that would be safe for Jews with equal rights for all Israeli citizens. Instead we have the discriminatory bullshit that is the Israeli state pretending to be a western style democracy. Not to mention the fascist right wing of the Likud party that anyone with a modicum of historic interest would be aware of. Just read what Arendt and Einstein had to say about Begin and Herut.

The distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis is enshrined in Israeli Law, confirmed by the Supreme Court on December 25, 1989, of which a judge said eleven days later in Ha'aretz: “The essence of a Jewish state is to give preeminence to Jews as Jews. Anyone who asks … for equality to all its citizens … must be rejected as one who negates the existence of the Israeli state as the state of the Jewish people.”

It's not just about the settlements, it's about the inherent racism that "God's chosen" exhibit and the laws they have passed to ensure it and the courts who uphold it.

:up:

All Zionism is about is establishing a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

The historic...

What is this? Government by Torah?

Palestine belongs to the Jewish religion I guess. The homes and lives of the illegal aliens who have been squatting there for the last 1000 years have no rights I guess...

Israel has widespread anti-discrimination legislation. Of course there are problems, but so does every other country.

You're using an anti-semitic trope here. You seem like a sharp guy, so you should know this is an anti-semitic trope:

it's about the inherent racism that "God's chosen"

Nice quote cherry-picking one judge from 1989. I'm sure you really dug through the texts to find that one.

But you're right that Israel is a Jewish state, just as many Islamic countries base their own governments on Islamic texts.... but of course you're all over those and accuse Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE, Egypt, etc. of racism all the time and demand the destruction of their states too.

Israel has widespread anti-discrimination legislation. Of course there are problems, but so does every other country. — BitconnectCarlos

It's not "problems". You are downplaying the institutionalised racism and discrimination perpetrated by the Jewish state which relegates non-Jewish citizens to second class citizens.

If Jewish identity is the raison d'être of Israel, this must lead to discrimination. Once you place one group of people above others, it is inescapable. And that is the implicit logic of zionism. Israel is the only country in the world that divides its citizenry by having a difference between the Jewish nationality (which every Jew in the world has) and Israeli citizenship. Many government funded programs are only accessible to Israeli citizens with the Jewish nationality.

The 1989 quote was important because that concerned commentary on the case where a Jewish man who converted to Christianity lost the benefits of government funded programs. The Supreme Court upheld it and thus enshrined discrimination based on religious persuasion as legally acceptable. That's basically illegal in every meaningful democracy in the world, as they have something or other equivalent to the second article of the universal declaration of human rights.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. — article 2

But you're right that Israel is a Jewish state, just as many Islamic countries base their own governments on Islamic texts.... but of course you're all over those and accuse Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE, Egypt, etc. of racism all the time and demand the destruction of their states too. — BitconnectCarlos

We're talking about Israel so this is really besides the point. Nevertheless, Israel likes to pretend it's a Western style democracy. Don't you think it's pathetic you need to compare Israel to autocratic regimes to make it look good? Necessary for sure, because Israel is neither a real democracy nor a Western country.

I don't really feel like continuing this argument with you because I don't know what the purpose of it is. I am just curious where you heard the "chosen people" line. Are you from the US? It's interesting because we were just talking about Israel and then you threw that in... I'm just a little interested in where it all comes from. Getting an honest view of where you're coming from would probably be the most valuable thing that I could take away from this conversation.

I'm well aware that the religious and philosophical treatise of the concept of a chosen people is rather different and less negative (apart from the obvious ethnocentrism) than its political counterpart, which is why it was in quotation marks. The ultra-nationalist usage of the concept by Herut and nowadays an influential part of Likud (including Netanyahu) is definitely a racist concept of it, which informs its fantasy claims of all the land from the sea to the banks of the river Jordan and justifies passing laws discriminating against non-Jewish Israeli citizens, because Jews are "special" in their view.

The only relevant background in this case is that I graduated in international and European law, with a special interest in terrorism and as a consequence also modern history of the Middle East.

Just curious, do you think Jews were treated as equals in pre-1948 Palestine? Were they safe? Are Israel's neighbors Jewish populations treated as equals?

Demographically - at least in terms of immigration - it should go without saying that if Israel wishes to remain a Jewish state it needs to reflect that with immigration.

Judaism isn't a race though and there's no such thing as a "Jewish nationality" which you referenced earlier. You keep calling it racist for some reason when anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of race.

Just curious, do you think Jews were treated as equals in pre-1948 Palestine? Were they safe? Are Israel's neighbors Jewish populations treated as equals? — BitconnectCarlos

Again. Appealing to what autocratic regimes do to make Israel look good is not the argument you want to be making here.

Demographically - at least in terms of immigration - it should go without saying that if Israel wishes to remain a Jewish state it needs to reflect that with immigration. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not talking about immigration now am I? Every country discriminates between citizens and non-citizens.

Judaism isn't a race though and there's no such thing as a "Jewish nationality" which you referenced earlier. You keep calling it racist for some reason when anyone can convert to Judaism regardless of race. — BitconnectCarlos

There's most definitely a difference. Jewish nationality is recognised based on descent (blood) and gives right to Israeli citizenship and other government funded programs for Jews only. For non-Jews Israeli citizenship is only reserved based on the fact they are born in Israel. The distinction based on religion is institutionalised. As far as immigration goes, that's not an issue. It's an issue that once you're both Israeli citizens, the Jewish citizen gets preferential treatment.

As to the racism part, I think I've repeated myself enough about how Herut and Likud conceive of the notion. Race is, in any case, not a biological concept but a social one. Apartheid wouldn't have been racist if we'd adhered to the biological concept of race, yet we all agree it was racist. It's only the perpetuated collective guilt trip the West is still on that we have such problems with saying the same about the institutionalised discrimination in Israel; that it is, in fact, racist.

Again. Appealing to what autocratic regimes do to make Israel look good is not the argument you want to be making here. — Benkei

Benkei, you got me confused here. Palestine was under the control of the British. Was the UK autocratic by your standards?

I was referring to the treatment of Jews in neighbouring countries. It's in any case all a red herring/tu quoque. It's not about what others do and have done but what's happening in Israel. Just because others are racist pricks, doesn't excuse us to do the same.

i dont have time to fully respond now but i'll respond later. no, my point wasn't "oh the arabs treat jews like this therefore it's ok." the point i'm trying to get at is that part of the drive behind zionism was to establish a safe space for jews where they wouldn't be at the mercy of other powers. if we're going to make any progress in this convo you need to start thinking of zionism as an idea as opposed to how israel's right wing acts. one is a political party, the other is an idea with deep roots and is often identified with theodore hertzl.

how likud acts is a different discussion than the discussion on the essential idea of zionism which is older than likud. is the idea of a jewish state in palestine an inherently racist one - or at least any more "racist" than the idea of a muslim state? if you just want to say that all states that seek to maintain a certain religious character are racist then i actually think in some way we've made progress because we've clarified your position.

and for the record israel is not surrounded by autocracies, case in point lebanon. it's a troubled parliamentary republic and not fair to call an autocracy.

EDIT: I read what you said a few posts back which was that zionism was not an inherently racist enterprise. good, and i definitely agree that there's some problems but the reality is complicated and certain benefits are given for having served in the military which is compulsory for jews but not for muslims. certainly in america too veterans are entitled to benefits. i don't live in israel and presumably neither do you, i live in america which you could also call racist. the reality of israel's legal system is very complicated and you should probably talk to an israeli lawyer about it. i don't defend everything 100% but the existence of racial problems or inequalities doesn't mean we need to damn the entire country.

i dont have time to fully respond now but i'll respond later. no, my point wasn't "oh the arabs treat jews like this therefore it's ok." the point i'm trying to get at is that part of the drive behind zionism was to establish a safe space for jews where they wouldn't be at the mercy of other powers. if we're going to make any progress in this convo you need to start thinking of zionism as an idea as opposed to how israel's right wing acts. one is a political party, the other is an idea with deep roots and is often identified with theodore hertzl. — BitconnectCarlos

Fair enough. But I think that merely explains why Israel is the way it is, it doesn't excuse institutionalised racism. The State of Israel doesn't need to be a Jewish state, with special treatment for Jewish people, to be safe for Jews. In which Western EU country are Jews currently unsafe?

I maintain that Zionism is implicitly racist as its factual implementation requires you to treat one group of people different than others; no matter how historically understandable it is, it is still racist. If I were beaten by my father as a child, how does that excuse me to beat my son or another? We might understand where my aggression comes from, but it doesn't excuse my aggression in any way.

how likud acts is a different discussion than the discussion on the essential idea of zionism which is older than likud. is the idea of a jewish state in palestine an inherently racist one - or at least any more "racist" than the idea of a muslim state? if you just want to say that all states that seek to maintain a certain religious character are racist then i actually think in some way we've made progress because we've clarified your position. — BitconnectCarlos

This really depends on the facts on the ground. A country where the majority are Muslims could be considered a Muslim country. If Muslims in no way are treated differently by the State than non-Muslims, on the basis of their religious persuasion then it's not a country that suffers form institutionalised discrimination. To the extent religion coincides with ethnicity, as it does in Israel, it would make sense to speak about racism or not.

That said, I find it hard to conceive of a country actively promoting a specific religious or ethnic character without resorting to discriminatory policies. So with the caveat that we need to look at the actual facts to be certain, I suspect they would always be racist if religion coincides with ethnicity.

I also think how Likud acts is part of the discussion because they are a political party causing real world effects based on their view of zionism. It doesn't matter what "zionism really is", which has different theological interpretation in any case, it matters what is done in its name. Considering how long Likud has been in power, 22 years of the 24 since 1996, their version of zionism is what has been largely implemented in Israel in recent history. Which is not to say other parties did not have a hand in bringing about the existing laws in Israel. It's just that Likud's particular brand of zionism is obviously racist as opposed to the "racist by (unintended?) consequence" resulting from the understandable wish to have a safe space for Jews.

and for the record israel is not surrounded by autocracies, case in point lebanon. it's a troubled parliamentary republic and not fair to call an autocracy. — BitconnectCarlos

True.

Jews were the Nazis' victims, Zionists their imitators.

That doesn't make a lot of sense considering zionism existed well before the Nazis.

Comparing Zionists to Nazis is an anti-semitic trope and isn't going to fly here anyway. Take it somewhere else.