u/KeyMusic5713

And I never said that every single non-Arab party in Israeli politics are bastions of centrism and bipartisanship, just that defending terrorist groups doesn't make you popular with the voters other parties need to get elected in the future.

Didn't I just make a comment explaining how it was the political stances they take which makes them electorally toxic?

I wasn't saying that he shouldn't be locked up - if someone like him isn't mentally fit to be in prison, then they need to be sent to a psychiatric ward. I was criticising the online response to what happened.

If you know a way to make bureaucracy and disclosure forms instant, get off of Reddit and start filing a patent so you can make money off of your solution which saves a lot of paperwork.

Nothing says you have a good argument quite like giving up trying to explain why someone is wrong and going over to being patronising instead.

Why should armed forces and groups that place civilians in harms way be clear of blame when civilians die because of where those armed forces and groups use?

“You can't simultaneously significantly restrict donations and spending while also allowing seats to remain competitive”

I'm bringing up what the Teals have brought up, and the reason why I'm bringing it up is that it that political campaigns are expensive and I'm not claiming I know the perfect solution to make elections as competitive as possible while also restricting spending and donations as much as possible.

So I asked why Labor needed to spend such high amounts to compete against a party that significantly restricts their own donations. The fact that Labor needed to spend such high amounts means that your statement was inaccurate

That Labor spend that much money is a comment on a political strategy in two seats. It's a comment on two seats, not an entire country.

So it's not Britain's fault for putting a key military location inside of a hotel?

It isn't, but it's deeply inappropriate (to put it lightly) for different reasons.

She wouldn't have been allowed to win - it'd be far easier for the Capitol to have her die than to hide what they did.

The same Grace Tame that supported a man who fled to the Ecuadorian embassy in London over a sexual assault trial in Sweden? That was also disappointing.

The better question is 'what do parties in the Joint List value more? Political grandstanding, or realising that every time one of their members defends a terrorist group, working with them becomes electorally toxic'. If a potential Israeli government overlooks what politicians in the Joint List have said, they can say goodbye to forming a coalition because other parties would walk away from it.

And speaking of treating people with dignity, you really need to tell that to Joint List politicians when they praise groups like Hezbollah.

And yet Ra'am was part of the Bennett-Lapid government. And there is a fundamental difference - size, and later, policy. A small political party, unless there's a narrow hung parliament and there's no other option does not have a lot of political leverage, and once the Joint List was formed, working with the Joint List would collapse a government because of how extreme some of its politicians were (and are) (forming a government with members that have praised terrorist groups isn't a good way to keep your government in Israel).

And what got Ra'am into that government was because it walked away from the Joint List, and thus became far less politically toxic. It's also worth mentioning that one of the parties in the Joint List - Hadash, includes Israel's communist party, and in a political system where you need to form broad coalitions to get a majority, trying to include communists makes it a lot harder.

Stories like this are why it's a good idea to wait for more information and not immediately jump to conclusions.

The armed group. This aint rocket science brother.

I've got no idea what you mean by this.

You couldnt verify the death tolls of Oct. 7 and the King David Hotel? These are highly reported public events with all the details readily available.

I typed in the numbers you put in, and found breakdowns of how many people of what nationality died and the total number of deaths. And as I was doing that I realised that the exact breakdown was far less relevant than what I brought up, which you ignored. You compared two fundamentally different attacks, and didn't explain how they're similar.

You responded to my question with another question that didn't answer what I asked so I ignore it and went back to my original question.

And does banning corporate donations include banning donations from people like Simon Holmes à Court? How do you plan to completely ban donations from corporations and rich people while allowing independents like the teals to remain competitive?

There is no perfect answer. If there is, I'm all ears.

Because I tried to, couldn't, and since I couldn't, I tried to steal man your argument by responding as if they were completely accurate.

Wouldn’t this factual information kind of at least put into question how much of a civilian target Oct. 7 aimed for, when you yourself claim an attack on a military HQ had a much higher civilian casualty rate?

If you place soldiers in a building full of civilians, whose fault is it when an armed group attack those soldiers? You're comparing the two and you haven't explained how placing soldiers in a building full of civilians is at all comparable to an attack as spread out as October 7th?

And how does that answer anything that I said? You were saying the current system is flawed. So I asked what you'd do differently. You didn't answer that. You also ignored what I said about the cost of elections (which got brought up by teals).

For the sake of the argument, let's take those numbers as accurate. You are comparing attacking a military target placed in a civilian area, to an attack targeted primarily at civilians and meant to take hostages. October 7th was not targeted at military targets. The King David Hotel bombing was. The British mandatory authorities choose to use a civilian hotel as a base.

Why they got away with it, because it was not enacted until after their big spend.

The restrictions in that legislation aren't instant - the reason why they're not going to be in force until the 2028 election (assuming one isn't called earlier) is because it takes time to implement. If this was an immediate cutoff with no transitional period, then you'd have a point but those laws have a transitional period to make the current rules easier to comply with.

The article you posted talks about federal donation laws so what would you do instead?

You can't simultaneously significantly restrict donations and spending while also allowing seats to remain competitive - the article you posted said that "Independents object to the new spending limit of $800,000 per seat, arguing that it often costs campaigns more than $1 million to raise the profile of a candidate above the much-recognized brands of the major parties."

That's why I made said I was focusing on the message the story sent - she had her own reasons, but it still represents a character killing hundreds of people, and then stopping when they find the person they have the most valid reason to hate.

I'm sure all the political dissidents and Uyghurs feel safe at night as well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aussie/comments/1qits3e/randa_abdelfattah_deletes_controversial_public/

Here's a collection of some of Randa Abdel-Fattah's hate speech. Progressives, not the far-right, defended her.

It is possible to acknowledge that hatred comes from more than one part of politics.

Britain used the King David Hotel as, among other things, a HQ and housing for officers. It was a military target.