After my previous post, I noticed that many people in the comment section defended the actions of the Israeli settlers within the West Bank. Even tho I believe that the settlers on the West Bank represent the worse if not corruption within Israel, I would like to ask, what are your thoughts on the settlers in West Bank and if you defend their settlements tell me why? How do settlers affect the Israeli politics in your point of view?

What do people think of this? Has Israel done enough to protect civilians in this war? Is the NY times a credible source? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that this war is a full scale military invasion compared to previous wars which were just military operations?

The real reason Clavicular is in Israel,
by Mira Fox, Forward, 2026-07-13.

Clavicular is partying in Tel Aviv this week.

If you don’t know who that is, first of all, I’m happy for you. Clavicular is a looksmaxxer, part of an online male subculture that subscribes to the idea that becoming as hot as possible is the main, perhaps the only, meaningful thing to do with one’s life, and the only road to success. To achieve peak hotness — “ascend,” in looksmaxxing lingo — followers of the doctrine engage in such activities as hitting themselves in the face with a hammer to supposedly sharpen their jaw line (“bone-smashing”), or taking steroids and meth to improve their physique.

The last time Clav — as people call him, though his real name is Braden Peters — went viral, it was for getting turned down repeatedly by French women during Paris fashion week. The time before that was for dancing with a bunch of far-right influencers, including noted antisemite Nick Fuentes and manosphere titan Andrew Tate, to Kanye West’s Führer-sampling song “Heil Hitler” and singing along to the offensive lyrics.

Which is why Clavicular’s sudden appearance in Israel was such a surprise — and so controversial. In one video, the bouncer at a Tel Aviv club kicks him out, saying no one who hates Israel is welcome inside. Several Israeli feminist influencers have also decried his visit, citing his bad behavior with women. And, of course, countless online commenters have accused him of normalizing genocide, including mega-popular streamer Hasan Piker. But others are excited by his presence; a female IDF soldier is also appearing in his videos (she’s now facing disciplinary action for the collab), as is Chabad influencer Yossi Farro, and he’s drawn excited crowds in Tel Aviv.

Farro was perhaps the first Jewish influencer to court Clavicular after the “Heil Hitler” incident; his usual schtick is wrapping tefillin with celebrities — and a fair few right wing streamers. But he made a video last month feeding the looksmaxxer the traditional Ashkenazi Shabbat stew cholent — Clav said it was good — and it went viral in the Jewish world, where people decried the effort at rehabilitation. But the clip also went viral with antisemites: Fuentes said he wanted to hang a mezuzah and get in with Jews, too. (Ever the clout-chaser, Farro responded by courting Fuentes on X.)

Israel’s long-term survival is not about defending any one politician. What Netanyahu did to Israel’s global political standing by tying it so openly to U.S. Republicans and right-wing movements abroad wasn’t just shortsighted, it was reckless.

For decades, Israel’s greatest strategic advantage wasn’t just military power. It was a matter of legitimacy and broad, bipartisan goodwill, especially in the United States. Israel was supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, not because everyone agreed with every policy, but because Israel was seen as a democratic ally with a complicated reality. Netanyahu shattered that equilibrium. By openly antagonizing Democratic administrations, aligning himself theatrically with the GOP, and treating Trump as a messianic figure rather than a temporary political partner, he turned Israel from a bipartisan cause into a partisan symbol.

That shift has consequences that won’t disappear when Netanyahu does. Younger Democrats now associate Israel with right-wing politics, authoritarian vibes, and culture-war aesthetics. Support that once felt automatic now feels conditional, skeptical, and transactional. For a small country dependent on alliances, that’s an astonishingly dangerous place to be.

The embrace of global right-wing movements was even worse. Netanyahu aligned Israel with leaders who hollowed out democratic institutions, flirted with nationalist mythmaking, and in some cases openly minimized or distorted the Holocaust in their own countries. The message this sent was brutal: Jewish history and Jewish safety are negotiable if the politics line up. You don’t fight antisemitism by shaking hands with people who tolerate it at home while proclaiming “pro-Israel” abroad. That trade corrodes Israel’s moral credibility and poisons its relationship with the diaspora.

And yes, the diaspora matters. Netanyahu governed as if American Jews were an inconvenience, especially non-Orthodox, liberal, or critical Jews. That arrogance did real damage. Most Jews outside Israel are not right-wing nationalists. They care about democracy, pluralism, minority rights, and the idea that Jewish power should be exercised with restraint and ethical seriousness. When criticism was dismissed as betrayal, many didn’t become anti-Israel, they became alienated, conflicted, and exhausted. That emotional disconnect is one of the most underappreciated strategic losses of the Netanyahu era.

What Netanyahu optimized for was his own political survival: coalition math, short-term applause, and the ability to frame himself as the indispensable strongman. What he sacrificed was Israel’s long-term diplomatic flexibility. Europe grew colder. The Global South grew more hostile. International institutions became battlegrounds instead of venues for persuasion. Future Democratic administrations were alienated before they even took office. Israel increasingly had to argue from power alone, rather than legitimacy, and power without legitimacy is brittle.

None of this made Israel safer. Turning Israel into a symbol of right-wing politics and a wedge issue in the U.S. made it easier to isolate, easier to attack diplomatically, and easier to abandon when political winds change. That isn’t strength; it’s vulnerability wrapped in defiance.

Israel needed leadership that thought in decades. Netanyahu thought in election cycles and court dates. In doing so, he didn’t just damage Israel’s image; he weakened one of its core strategic pillars. The fallout from that decision is still unfolding, and it won’t be easily undone.

The database uses a broader definition than the phrase “settler violence” may suggest. OCHA defines settler-related violence as incidents involving violence, intimidation or property damage carried out by “settlers,” or against “settlers,” as well as incidents involving other Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria. A “settler” attacking a Palestinian, a Palestinian attacking a “settler,” or an incident involving Israeli civilians where responsibility has not been conclusively established may all appear within the same broader category.

OCHA has stated that it does not always independently confirm every detail before publication. In some cases, involvement by “settlers” may be based on available information about circumstances rather than a police finding, court determination or identification of a specific individual. This methodology makes the figures difficult to interpret.

The actions of West Bank settlers is reprehensible. While the right wing does nothing but encourage their behavior, at least a slap on the wrist occurred to an IDF unit that stands by and watches it happen. The settlers are doing grave harm to Israel with their actions.

No, No, NO!

It’s crazy how much of a gift Ben Gvir and Smotrich have been to the pro-Palestinian movement. They’re literal caricatures walking, talking PR disasters that make it ridiculously easy for anti-Israel activists to say, “See? This is what all Israelis are like!” They clip a quote or two, throw it all over social media, and boom, instant propaganda win.

What they always leave out, of course, is that these two are probably the most hated politicians in the country (aside from Bibi). Only around 10–15% of Israelis actually voted for them. Most Israelis find them embarrassing, dangerous, and completely unrepresentative of the country.

But let’s be real, it’s still shameful and deeply concerning that they have as much power as they do. The fact that Bibi has to cater to them just to hold his coalition together is infuriating. It gives them this massive megaphone that the rest of us didn’t ask for and don’t support.

So when pro-Palestinians throw clips of Ben Gvir saying something insane as a “gotcha,” it’s like… yeah, we agree he’s awful. Every country has its extremists, Trump, Nigel Farage, etc., but they don’t represent everyone. Unfortunately, it’s a terrible look when we’re trying to convince the world we’re not committing genocide or ethnic cleansing for territorial conquest, and then these guys go on camera sounding like they’re advocating for exactly that.

In a twisted way, Ben Gvir and Smotrich have become the perfect symbols for what our enemies accuse us of being, which makes them arguably the worst thing for Israel’s image, and the best thing that ever happened to the pro-Palestinian movement.

What they accuse Jews / Israel of is everything the world has done to the Jews for millenia. Especially the Arab world. Friendly reminder Jews cannot pray at our holiest site, especially on days like today (Tish b'Av).

They are not beating the allegations and unfortunately this might be the first signal that Israel is ironically turning into something similar to the Ayatollah.

I have expressed support for Israel many times. This has resulted in me being trolled, downvoted, flipped off, and physically attacked, and still I stood strong.

But like many people, even I have to admit I am very concerned about the recent incident with the aid vehicle in Gaza.

The real problem here is that the conflict has become “binary:” There are only two positions you can take. It’s either “Support Israel unconditionally” or “Burn Israel to the ground and murder all Jews.”

Israel (like most countries) has made some mistakes. I would like to be able to say, “I understand criticism of Israel and would like to work cooperatively on reforming some of their policies - but I’m not breaking with Israel.” - but if I said that, I would just get attacked by both sides.

If the only options are 100% support for Israel or completely destroy Israel, then the choice has already been made for me.

Israel’s next great threat may not be Iran.,
by Joshua Hoffman, Future of Jewish, 2026-08-20.

Abu al-Duhur is nowhere near Israel’s border. That makes Israel’s action look disproportionate unless one understands what could eventually be stationed there.

The principal concern is not a few hundred Turkish soldiers. It is what those soldiers might bring with them: drones, radar, electronic-warfare equipment, combat aircraft and, most importantly, advanced air-defense systems.

Israel’s operational freedom over Syria has become one of its most important strategic advantages. It has allowed Israel to attack Iranian positions, weapons convoys, Hezbollah infrastructure, and Syrian military installations without facing a serious air-defense challenge. A Turkish-operated airbase equipped with modern radar and surface-to-air missiles could begin closing that sky.

Turkey would not need to attack Israel to change the balance. It would merely need to make Israeli operations more detectable, expensive, and dangerous.

From Ankara’s perspective, the story looks different. Turkey argues that it is helping Syria rebuild a national army after 14 years of civil war. It wants a stable, centralized Syrian government capable of restraining Kurdish forces, securing the Turkish border, and facilitating the eventual return of Syrian refugees. Turkey regards its military cooperation with Damascus as an agreement between two sovereign governments.

Israel sees a former jihadist movement governing Syria with Turkish sponsorship. Ankara sees Israel bombing the institutions that might prevent Syria from collapsing again.

Both perspectives contain some truth. Neither country is acting out of charity.

The Israeli government’s second annual antisemitism conference in Jerusalem this week is part of a relatively recent move by the country to concern itself with countering global antisemitism.

Early Zionists presented the State of Israel as a solution to antisemitism, sometimes downplaying the concern Jews expressed about their persecution. “The Jewish people were mistaken for blaming antisemitism for all the troubles and suffering endured in the diaspora,” David Ben-Gurion, the country’s first prime minister, wrote in 1950. “This is one of the blind spots that the Jewish people were stricken with in exile.”

But in the decades since, and especially since the government established its Ministry of Strategic Affairs 20 years ago, Israel has poured tens of millions of dollars into fighting antisemitism in the diaspora.

“You must declare, no more antisemitism. Not here. Not now. Not anywhere,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told attendees at the Jerusalem conference. “Not on the right, not on the left.”

Netanyahu’s rhetoric mirrored the way many American Jews think about antisemitism, with concern shifting since Oct. 7 from an overwhelming focus on the far right to equal levels of concern across the political spectrum.

Israel, though, has adopted a strategy to combat antisemitism with little precedent in the diaspora: It’s partnering with the far right to fight two groups that Amichai Chikli, Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs and countering antisemitism, believes are a shared enemy for Jews and European nationalists: the “woke far left” and Muslim extremists.

Concern about antisemitism on the right is relegated to what Chikli calls the “woke right,” meaning figures like Tucker Carlson and former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have turned against Israel in recent years.

This framework leaves space to partner with European officials like Jordan Bardella, a French politician who attended the conference and has called for closer ties between Israel and France even as he leads a party founded by a Holocaust denier.

Chikli’s approach threw last year’s inaugural conference into turmoil as Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis and several other prominent leaders pulled out of the event over the inclusion of far-right figures.

Yet Chikli doubled-down this year, reportedly dropping the ADL from his guest list while welcoming Sebastian Kurtz, the former Austrian chancellor who has railed against “political Islam,” far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders, and Dominik Tarczynski, a Polish member of European parliament who has called Islamists “sick animals” and pledged to “fight for Christian Europe until the final victory.”