Tweet

Yair Wallach

23 Mar, 9 tweets, 2 min read

So a few thoughts on the results, based on current polls:

Netanyahu can form a hard right government, with bare majority of 61 out 120, with the Kahanist Ben Gvir in crucial position. Netanyahu wants to halt or cancel his trial, and will be willing to promise everything

2/ However, it's not clear everyone will be happy to hand Netanyahu what he wants (immunity or halting the trial); and I expect a Kahanist government will face enormous international pressures. In normal times, Netanyahu would never agree to such government.

3/ So yes, such a government, that liquidates Israel's judiciary on one hand, and pushes aggressively for annexation, is possible, and would be a departure and a serious escalation. And at the moment it seems to be leading that way...

4/ But with such a thin majority, I'm not sure this could work. International pressure, or internal resistance to cancelling Netanyahu's trial, could make this impossible. I'm not sure Netanyahu has the nerve to follow such route.

5/ The other options are a government with a wider coalition, in which Netanyahu's trial goes forward. That has very little value for him. So he would opt to go for a fifth round, and hope he may get luckier next time.

6/ Just a year ago, Palestinian voters and their Joint List prevented Netanyahu from forming a government. Netanyahu understood this, decided to change tack: engage in order to split and fragment the Joint List. That worked well for him. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

7/ As I wrote at the time, the ball was in the opposition's court. "Will the Blue and White opposition abandon this racist logic of a “Jewish majority”, and form an alliance with the Joint List in order to oust Netanyahu?"

The centrist opposition failed that test.

8/ Jewish-Israeli opposition has moved, but still struggles to think of Palestinians citizens and their representatives as legitimate partners. As long as this does not happen, the right wing will rule, with Netanyahu or without him.

9/ And when Palestinians are structurally excluded from government, their overtures to Israel's centrist parties are rejected, and organised crime is allowed a free rein in their streets, one cannot be surprised if voter turnout falls.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @YairWallach

Yair Wallach

@YairWallach

4 Mar

Raef Zreik: "To be anti-Zionist means mainly an ideological stand on the narrative on how we got here. But what hinders any solution is not ideological, but rather political. And here, I'm a 100% political person ...

"I'm interested in the manifestations, practices, materialities of how people live. If someone like [Meiron] Benvenisti thinks the essence of Zionism is a binational state, I'm not going to argue with him saying, no you have to stop being Zionist."

"I agree with him, and he can continue to call himself a Zionist. I'm fine with that. I'm for the political, not the ideological."

From his remarkable talk in Van Leer in the panel on Julia Neuberger’s book on Antisemitism:

Read 4 tweets

Yair Wallach

@YairWallach

4 Mar

These are two key paragraph from David Feldman's article: Miller's assumption - and it's not just his - that if you're a Zionist, you have no right to speak, especially on antisemitism. A couple of points on that

haaretz.com/israel-news/da…

The first is that anti-racism means fighting racism - not fighting for the victims whose politics we like. Otherwise it's not anti-racism. And being a victim of racism does not mean that you can't be bigoted yourself. But that doesn't cancel the racism against you.

The idea that Jews need to state publicly their opposition Zionism in order to be allowed to speak is unacceptable. In the same way that other members of minority groups should not be demanded to profess their loyalty or good standing (e.g. French muslims at the moment).

Read 6 tweets

Yair Wallach

@YairWallach

13 Jan

1/ One of the risks of using the term "Apartheid state" is that it could create the impression that Israel is an unusual anachronism - like South Africa was. A relic of a bygone age of colonialism. But Israel is not an anachronism in 2021; it's very much cutting edge.

2/ It's no accident that hard-right populists from all over the world look up to Netanyahu. For them, Israel represents a success story, of how to maintain economic growth and some democratic credentials while promoting exclusivist citizenship and unequal domination.

3/ While Israel is unusual in many ways (which make it interesting) I have always maintained that regarding it as an aberration is profoundly wrong. I think it should be clear to anyone watching world events.

Read 6 tweets

Yair Wallach

@YairWallach

13 Jan

The question is not whether Israel is a replica of Apartheid South Afirca - because it isn't. The question is whether there is a well-entrenched, permanent political system of clear domination of one group over another, extending throughout Israel/Palestine.

To claim otherwise would be to say that the current reality is a temporary occupation - even after 53 years, hundreds of settlements, billions of dollars of investments, and incredibly well developed legal architecture that binds the West Bank to Israel.

You don't like the word Apartheid? You could call it "a well entrenched regime of discrimination, segregation and domination". Does it sound any better?

Read 4 tweets

Yair Wallach

@YairWallach

12 Jan

A few quick thoughts on the B'Tselem report, calling Israel an Apartheid State:

2/ B'Tselem are right to characterise Israel/Palestine as one political unit, in which there is a permanent, well-entrenched political system based on Jewish-Israeli privilege, and only Israeli Jews enjoy full political rights.

3/ International actors prefer to ignore this reality, and to continue speaking about the West Bank (and Gaza, with caveats) as under military occupation, which can be undone. This is more convenient than coming to terms the fact that the West Bank has been effectively annexed.

Read 9 tweets

Yair Wallach

@YairWallach

5 Jan

The debate on Israeli responsibility on COVID vaccines in West Bank and Gaza is an opportunity to think of the competing and overlapping frameworks: occupation vs. apartheid.

[Thread]

2/ On vaccines, Israel's responsibility as an occupying power towards the occupied population is clear, based on the 4th Geneva convention. The Palestinian Authority, the Oslo agreements, or claims for Palestinian statehood do not change that.

3/ Israel could meet its obligation through the PA, but it is ultimately its obligation.

And this shows the strength of the occupation paradigm. On some things - like responsibility towards local population, or settlements - it's very clear.

Read 14 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!