Israel general discussion

[Hnv1]

I think that the majority of their supporters will vote for Buskila despite their endorsement.

With Gilon definitely not and his supporters will mainly flock to Zandberg (they pushed for the endorsement). With Dabush, there weren’t all that many, some will move to Buskila but the majority will just stay home. Buskila hardly ran an inspiring campaign and instead of using it as a platform for the list primaries he managed to anger quite a lot of people. Can’t see anything but a landslide here

Many of the Gilon supporters feeling that Meretz not connecting with the public in the periphery,Buskila is much better option for them than Tamar(wich i like but she can't bring more votes to Mererz).
Endorsment is such overrated thing,i remind you that in the last Labour primary in the first round Peretz got 32% Margalit and Herzog got both also 32% together ,thay both endorsed Peretz and Gabbay still won.

I suspect you don't know how the reds (as they call themselves) work. They decided on that bottom to top, meaning they had 2 meetings with 500 supporters to decide who they will turn to. Gilon's group is very cohesive and it's not like he dictates the play there (prof. Gutwein does).

As to Buskila he might have been alternative, but he's clueless on economics and wouldn't give them the concessions they wanted (Tammy pretty much outsourced the economic part of the platform to them).

Bar for Peretz no one in Labour had any effective control on his voters so the analogy is unfit.

And as I said Buskila hardly ran an impressive campaign and Meretz members appreciate political experience and commitment more than to accept an absolute no one who came from no where with no clear positions.

Your distate from every sephard candidate is racist.

You do know that I’m Sephardic (half)? And a big supporter of Raz who is Sephardic. I just don’t like identity politics and instant politician. This is not a publicity contest, I want more competent politicians and Buskila fails to meet that standard (Peretz whom I don’t like is a very competent politician)

I never supported identity politics and Peretz never used identity politics,Gabbay actually tried to use idenity politics.
Gabbay is a total failure.

Jesus wept. I was referring to Buskila’s tactic

[Hnv1]

Knesset channel reported that Kachlon going to return to the Likud.

Lmao. His whole party, then, I assume?

Galant, Cohen, and Oren are effectively knee deep in Likud already. But there’s no way Azaria and Ben Ari joins (in that case they’d drift to YA) and I doubt Polkman will join in as well.

Anyway I highly doubt it

[Mike88]

Poll from Geocartography/Israel Hayom:

39 Likud
20 YA
10 JL
10 ZU
  9 UTJ
  8 JH
  7 Levy
  7 Meretz
  5 Kulanu
  5 YB
  0 Shas

[Hnv1]

Poll from Geocartography/Israel Hayom:

39 Likud
20 YA
10 JL
10 ZU
  9 UTJ
  8 JH
  7 Levy
  7 Meretz
  5 Kulanu
  5 YB
  0 Shas

Geocartography are by far the worst pollsters in Israel, and I've been following politics for quite a while. so many oddball results they produce all the time. rubbish.

Anyway Kachlon said that an indictment means Bibi will have to resign, which is progress.

[Mike88]

Poll from Geocartography/Israel Hayom:

39 Likud
20 YA
10 JL
10 ZU
  9 UTJ
  8 JH
  7 Levy
  7 Meretz
  5 Kulanu
  5 YB
  0 Shas

Geocartography are by far the worst pollsters in Israel, and I've been following politics for quite a while. so many oddball results they produce all the time. rubbish.

Anyway Kachlon said that an indictment means Bibi will have to resign, which is progress.

Now that you mention, in the Wiki page they have Likud well above 30 since January. They seem to be an outlier. One question: If Bibi is indicted, would he be allowed to run for a 4th term or would he be barred?

[Hnv1]

Poll from Geocartography/Israel Hayom:

39 Likud
20 YA
10 JL
10 ZU
  9 UTJ
  8 JH
  7 Levy
  7 Meretz
  5 Kulanu
  5 YB
  0 Shas

Geocartography are by far the worst pollsters in Israel, and I've been following politics for quite a while. so many oddball results they produce all the time. rubbish.

Anyway Kachlon said that an indictment means Bibi will have to resign, which is progress.

Now that you mention, in the Wiki page they have Likud well above 30 since January. They seem to be an outlier. One question: If Bibi is indicted, would he be allowed to run for a 4th term or would he be barred?

legally speaking he will be allowed. actually the basic law says that only after a conviction by an appellate court the house can vote him out with a special majority. But politically he probably can't survive conviction (the indictment will be a test by itself), and if he holds on still somehow the SC could interfere.

[Frodo]

Sound familiar?

In Israel’s Poorer Periphery, Legal Woes Don’t Dent Netanyahu’s Appeal

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hnv1]

Meretz primaries tomorrow. I predict 65-33-2 to Zandberg

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sound familiar?

It sounds familiar because journalists are a lazy bunch these days and tend to write the same article about very different situations with only the names changed. Everything in all countries everywhere is now an allegory about Trump, apparently. Yawn.

[danny]

Sound familiar?

The idea that supporters of a political party or candidate would continue their support despite a scandal is a hardly a new phenomenon first seen with Trump, and the Bibi and and Trump demographics are quite different and Bibi didn't attract some significant group that never voted for him before. Also, Trump lost in all 20 of the biggest cities, while Likud was the biggest in 13 of them.

[Hnv1]

Turnout as anticipated was low on 53.6%. Good for Buskila

[danny]

As expected, Zandberg wins.

[danny]

Zandberg: 12,112 votes 71.12%
Buskila: 4,851 votes 28.48%

[America Needs R'hllor]

*Snore*
I wish Galon and Gilon had stayed in, if only to make this more exciting.

[Hnv1]

With the positive bump and the green-SPD trend going I think we’ll see polls where Meretz leapfrog the ZU

[DavidB.]

I don't know what the hell is going on in Israel, but I read that Netanyahu wants to retract the plan of deporting 37,000 illegal African immigrants to Rwanda and Uganda; instead, he now wants half of them to stay in Israel and half of them to be assigned a country through the UN refugee quota thing. For the latter category, Netanyahu apparently explicitly said that countries like Germany, Italy and Canada could take them, which is bafflingly stupid diplomatically, especially given how toxic this subject is. What's more, antisemites always say Israel/teh j00z want "diversity for thee, but not for me", which has always been easy for me to debunk; however, this action basically leaves me speechless when confronted with such accusations. If these people are not welcome in Israel (and they should not be welcome imo), why the hell does Netanyahu think Germany and Italy should take them in? Everything about this story seems to be outrageous, in addition to the fact that everyone involved here appears to be extremely incompetent, but I really hope the Dutch NRC Handelsblad has informed me wrongly, which tends to happen on issues regarding Israel. Could anybody explain to me why the original plan was cancelled? Who in the Knesset now stopped supporting it?

[MaxQue]

I don't know what the hell is going on in Israel, but I read that Netanyahu wants to retract the plan of deporting 37.000 illegal African immigrants to Rwanda and Uganda; instead, he now wants half of them to stay in Israel and half of them to be assigned a country through the UN refugee quota thing. For the latter category, Netanyahu apparently explicitly said that countries like Germany, Italy and Canada could take them, which is bafflingly stupid diplomatically, especially given how toxic this subject is. What's more, antisemites always say Israel/teh j00z want "diversity for thee, but not for me", which has always been easy for me to debunk; however, this action basically leaves me speechless when confronted with such accusations. If these people are not welcome in Israel (and they should not be welcome imo), why the hell does Netanyahu think Germany and Italy should take them in? Everything about this story seems to be outrageous, in addition to the fact that everyone involved here appears to be extremely incompetent, but I really hope the Dutch NRC Handelsblad has informed me wrongly, which tends to happen on issues regarding Israel. Could anybody explain to me why the original plan was cancelled? Who in the Knesset now stopped supporting it?

The African plan was rejected due to failing to finance the plan in the budget (obviously, the African countries want money to take back people) and now the European plan is suspended (because the most right elements of his coalition are against).

[America Needs R'hllor]

I don't know what the hell is going on in Israel, but I read that Netanyahu wants to retract the plan of deporting 37.000 illegal African immigrants to Rwanda and Uganda; instead, he now wants half of them to stay in Israel and half of them to be assigned a country through the UN refugee quota thing. For the latter category, Netanyahu apparently explicitly said that countries like Germany, Italy and Canada could take them, which is bafflingly stupid diplomatically, especially given how toxic this subject is. What's more, antisemites always say Israel/teh j00z want "diversity for thee, but not for me", which has always been easy for me to debunk; however, this action basically leaves me speechless when confronted with such accusations. If these people are not welcome in Israel (and they should not be welcome imo), why the hell does Netanyahu think Germany and Italy should take them in? Everything about this story seems to be outrageous, in addition to the fact that everyone involved here appears to be extremely incompetent, but I really hope the Dutch NRC Handelsblad has informed me wrongly, which tends to happen on issues regarding Israel. Could anybody explain to me why the original plan was cancelled? Who in the Knesset now stopped supporting it?

I believe that your media informed you fairly well. But, I mean, it's quite simple, no? Israel is a tiny country. These migrants are a big, real, and very well-felt problem that make life in many big cities and neighbourhoods horrible. Norway, Germany, Canada etc are large countries with plenty of space where this amount of African immigrants will be barely felt if at all. So I wholeheartedly support this agreement. But yes, it was stupidly done because it appears as if, like always, Bibi spoke before getting the permission of the countries he mentioned. In simple words, he lied. Like always.
What this tells you about Bibi, whether you support the agreement or not, whether your left or right, is that he's not a leader- he's not bold and brave like he pretends to be, but rather a coward, a pathetic straw swaying with the winds who gets scared by a few statements from Bennet.

[palandio]

As far as I understand there is a UNHCR resettlement program to resettle a fixed quota of refugees every year. Countries like Canada, Germany, Italy and others haved pledged to take a certain share of these quotas. The quotas are by today's standards quite low. In my opinion programs like this can (should?) be part of a responsible, sustainable international refugee policy.

But the current story seems like a total PR desaster to me. From the reporting it appears like Israel could just dump half of these rejected asylum seekers into the program. It also seems like these were supposed to be additional immigrants and not to be included into already existing quotas (To be honest the program and the quotas often weren't even mentioned prominently.) Remember that >1,000,000 "now they're here anyways" have come to Germany since 2015. The articles about the UNHCR-Israel deal have been the most read articles on some of the most important German news platforms yesterday. Can you immagine what people are thinking now?

[DavidB.]

Palandio is right. Norway may be much bigger than Israel in terms of land mass, but it has a much smaller population. The Tel Aviv metro area is about four times as big as the Oslo metro area. Therefore, I would be inclined to say that taking in 16,000 African migrants has an even bigger impact on Norway than on Israel. Italy and Germany are different cases, but they already have a big problem with enormous numbers of migrants, and they have certainly taken in more migrants per capita than Israel. Why would this be any less disruptive to society than in Israel? This whole line of reasoning that Israel can remain a fortress (which I agree with; I definitely don't want Israel to take these people in!) but Europe should open its borders is outrageous. In addition, plans like these are the best way to alienate European right-wing sympathizers. I was already approached by several friends who wanted to know whether this was real ("Interesting how Israel can strike a UN deal like this for such a small number of migrants but we cannot do it for a much bigger number"). This made the headlines in Europe. I completely agree about Bibi, by the way, but I think you know I haven't been particularly fond of him for a long time.

I am still interested in learning why the initial agreement was cancelled, and who was responsible for that.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I agree that this was a PR disaster and done very incompetently by the Netanyahu government (like pretty much everything else). However, I'd argue that in substance this is a good deal for Israel- whether it's a good deal for other countries is another question, but I wouldn't fault my government for signing such a good deal. Forced deportations are not just terrible optics, but also very inhumane, and I wouldn't want to see them happening in my country, so this is in my opinion the only way to solve this problem. I'd also argue that landmass matters- these migrants have basically ruined the lives of Southern Tel Aviv residents, and it's a big problem. I don't know Norway enough, but I think they have the space to spread them enough so that it doesn't disrupt people's lives. If not, well, countries like Canada exist. Generally, it is my opinion that Canada and the U.S. are by far the most superior countries to take immigration, making me left-wing in regards to U.S. immigration matters and at the very least center-right in regards to European immigration.
But that's besides the point. I don't think that Israel should make decisions based on what a few right-wingers in Europe think (or for that matter, left-wingers too), it should make decision based on what's good for its citizens. I also believe that your friend's argument is pretty weak, because, indeed, it's much easier to strike a deal for a small number of immigrants than strike a deal that changes the location of a 'a much bigger number'.

[Famous Mortimer]

I agree that this was a PR disaster and done very incompetently by the Netanyahu government (like pretty much everything else). However, I'd argue that in substance this is a good deal for Israel- whether it's a good deal for other countries is another question, but I wouldn't fault my government for signing such a good deal. Forced deportations are not just terrible optics, but also very inhumane, and I wouldn't want to see them happening in my country, so this is in my opinion the only way to solve this problem. I'd also argue that landmass matters- these migrants have basically ruined the lives of Southern Tel Aviv residents, and it's a big problem. I don't know Norway enough, but I think they have the space to spread them enough so that it doesn't disrupt people's lives. If not, well, countries like Canada exist. Generally, it is my opinion that Canada and the U.S. are by far the most superior countries to take immigration, making me left-wing in regards to U.S. immigration matters and at the very least center-right in regards to European immigration.
But that's besides the point. I don't think that Israel should make decisions based on what a few right-wingers in Europe think (or for that matter, left-wingers too), it should make decision based on what's good for its citizens. I also believe that your friend's argument is pretty weak, because, indeed, it's much easier to strike a deal for a small number of immigrants than strike a deal that changes the location of a 'a much bigger number'.

Norway has the space? That's ridiculous. Land mass is irrelevant when talking about immigration. It's not like these immigrants are going to be settled on previously non-residential farm land. These immigrants, like 99% of immigrants to Europe, are going to be given housing in the centers of major cities, where most native born citizens could not themselves afford to live.

[DavidB.]

Neither do I think Israel should make decisions based on what European right-wingers think. I am rather arguing that it is not in Israel's strategic interest to alienate Europeans this way. Israel spends a lot of time and attention on PR (the term "hasbara" has already backfired for this reason) and clearly understands that it is in the country's own strategic interest if the European public have a positive perception of the country: after all, this plays a role in the political choices European leaders make. EU member states whose citizens have a more negative view of Israel (e.g. Sweden, Ireland) tend to be more harsh on Israel in international fora, including the increasingly important EU itself. If alienating Europeans this way happens repeatedly (and you don't even have to be particularly right-wing to think this move is outrageous), Israel might pay a price for it in the future. Meanwhile, the strategic costs of deporting 35k or so people to Africa are zero. I cannot imagine any voter for a coalition party opposing this either.

Let me be very clear that the main reason why I am opposed to this deal is because I think it is outrageous and these migrants should not be welcomed in either Europe or Israel, but I understand that the abovementioned strategic argument would be more convincing to some Israelis.

You say you are opposed to forced deportations and therefore support this deal. I am not sure what you think would happen to these 16k people who would be relocated through the UN deal. They would be forcefully deported from Israel too.

Meanwhile, is there anybody who could answer my initial question?

These immigrants, like 99% of immigrants to Europe, are going to be given housing in the centers of major cities, where most native born citizens could not themselves afford to live.

I agreed with your main point that land mass is irrelevant, but this is untrue. Almost no immigrants end up living in the city centers. Instead, they tend to live in social housing projects in working-class neighborhoods outside the city center (which is problematic in times of housing shortages, of course); the type of area I live in. In the Netherlands, every municipality has to take in a certain percentage of migrants. Rich municipalities full of VVD/D66/GL voters pay poorer ones to take in their share.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You say you are opposed to forced deportations and therefore support this deal. I am not sure what you think would happen to these 16k people who would be relocated through the UN deal. They would be forcefully deported from Israel too.

Meanwhile, is there anybody who could answer my initial question?

Somehow I think that the immigrants would happily agree to go to Canada or Germany without any need to use force The problem with sending them to African countries was that you couldn't guarantee their safety. The strategic argument has a point, but in my opinion the PR damage wouldn't be large enough to make this deal uncompelling.
As for the initial question, it's probably a combination of Netanyahu bending to the slightest of right-wing pressure and not actually talking to the leaders of the host countries before announcing, but I'm not 100% sure.

[MaxQue]

You say you are opposed to forced deportations and therefore support this deal. I am not sure what you think would happen to these 16k people who would be relocated through the UN deal. They would be forcefully deported from Israel too.

Meanwhile, is there anybody who could answer my initial question?

Somehow I think that the immigrants would happily agree to go to Canada or Germany without any need to use force The problem with sending them to African countries was that you couldn't guarantee their safety. The strategic argument has a point, but in my opinion the PR damage wouldn't be large enough to make this deal uncompelling.
As for the initial question, it's probably a combination of Netanyahu bending to the slightest of right-wing pressure and not actually talking to the leaders of the host countries before announcing, but I'm not 100% sure.

He did the talking, Canada confirmed we were talking with Israel since a month. However, not  much has happened except than people with private sponsors will be allowed to stay in Canada until their immigration demand is ruled on (when the usual process is for them to stay where they were before, i.e. Israel).