The past few years have really opened my eyes to the nakedly tribal nature of democratic politics. Polybius was largely correct when he said that it inevitably degenerates into oligarchy or mob-rule -- but what's especially unfortunate is that the US and Israel appear to be getting both at the same time: A naked oligarchy with just enough mob rule to keep the animal spirits of the populace sated.
Israel is becoming so crazy, that it would be funny if the result was not so terrible for the people targeted.
> “Not just those who pose an immediate threat — there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.”[1]
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/ben-gvir-israel-gaza-hamas-netany...
> “Not just those who pose an immediate threat, there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people,” added Ben-Gvir.
Not sure how the full quote is supposed to help.
If it was "secure X amount of land from Hamas" it would be way better because that would give them the option to surrender or run away, and give IDF an incentive to avoid violence. What Israel is doing means soldiers feel pressure to kill on sight even if the enemy is unarmed and ready to give up so they can meet their quota for the night. That is a war crime.
https://www.ft.com/content/f6b953fc-a6ad-48cd-bed1-d42619b57...
“I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat – there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.”
It's absolutely plain as day that Ben Gvir is genocidal.
Bots pushing fake propaganda indeed!
“It’s no secret, I disagree with the prime minister," he said. “I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night,” said the far-right Israeli lawmaker.
“Not just those who pose an immediate threat, there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people,” added Ben-Gvir.
...
"Terrorist" is just the 21st century replacement for the n-word, which racists can't use openly any more, so they invented a new word.
[1]: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/ben-gvir-calls-killing-30-04422310...
He was apparently on a podcast with a released hostage from Gaza. He was discussing targeted assassinations. One doesn't "target" an innocent person. He indeed said that we should target not only those that are an "immediate threat". I'm guessing he meant people who took part in October 7th's attack but are not currently fighting, for example prisoners of the hostage he was talking with.
Many in Israel thinks the US forced Israel to stops many of its operations in Gaza, and he was basically saying he thinks some operations should continue.
To clarify, I disagree with him, I'm glad IDF operations in Gaza largely stopped and I wish they stopped completely. I wish the best for ordinary citizens of Gaza and I am longing for the day Ben Gvir will be behind bars. But he did not say we should randomly kill 30-40 Palestinians per day. There is an armed conflict, and many people on both sides would unfortunately love to see tens of deaths on the other side per day, especially armed people.
That's a lot of leeway for Ben Gvir, a guy that clearly doesn't mind killing innocent civilians. For years he proudly hung the portrait of the israeli terrorist Baruch Goldstein in his living room, the terrorist who in 1994 entered a mosque and killed 29 Muslim worshipers and wounded 125 more.
Quite apart from anything else, I don't think these statements hang together, and we wouldn't accept them in any other context. Being targeted is not the same as being guilty.
Being targeted is indeed not the same as being guilty. One is being used in the context of war, and the other is used in the Justice system.
(1) Person X is targeted -> (2) innocent people don't get targeted -> (3) therefore person X must not be innocent
The problem is that (2) contains too many bad assumptions: that the person doing the targeting is benevolent, that there's sufficient due process to ensure the targeter is correct, that there's a universally agreed definition of "innocent", etc.
History has proven that innocent people DO get targeted, so even from a common sense perspective your statement doesn't withstand scrutiny.
Targeted -> this will be a specifically identified person
Assassination -> they will be killed
For example, a dictator might perform a targeted assassination on a rival, in order to stay in power. Innocence or non-innocence has nothing to do with it. Or to give a more relevant example, someone might target and kill a Palestinian so that settlers can take their land. Whether the Palestinian was innocent or not doesn't matter. The land was the objective.
This is the term in Hebrew, as it appears on Wikipedia: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9C...
I will leave it to you to translate the first paragraph and see what it means in the Israeli, Hebrew context.
Again, to clarify, I do not support him nor wish for any of his plans to become real, and I'm deeply said and ashmed of every plan of his that did become real. What I was commenting on what about what he said, though, which is already a deviation from the original post in discussion. If we're going to start talking about Ben Gvir in general, for all the I care he should be sitting in jail, already since the 90s.
You mean the guy (a minister in the current Israeli government, by the way) that said in a post on X:
“for every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers should cry. All of Lebanon must burn!”
that guy?
> “It’s no secret, I disagree with the prime minister,” he said. “I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night. Not just those who pose an immediate threat — there are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.”
The man used to have a shrine to a mass murderer in his home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamar_Ben-Gvir
> Ben-Gvir is known for being a provocateur and has attracted headlines for a variety of reasons: threatening Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on live television in 1995 shortly before his assassination; having had a portrait in his living room of Baruch Goldstein, a Jewish terrorist and mass murderer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacr...)...
I am not at all surprised that it was a comment about the targeted assassination of terrorists, or people who participated in the October 7th terrorist attack, or something like that.
These tactics are obvious. Take a quote out of context, omit the part that points at the real context ("targeted assassination") and tack on "Palestinians" instead, so that it sounds like a clear call to murder civilians.
Do you not think we should aim for higher standards in discussion on here?
It reminds me of headlines claiming Trump threatened a blood bath [for the auto industry] if he isn't elected.
How gullible do people who quote out of context think we are?
I am not going to entertain further discussion on the matter, as I think I pointed out the issue here rather clearly.
Politicians say really terrible, stupid things on a fairly regular basis. The difference between the two situations is that Ben-Gvir is loathed by 90% of Israeli society (Trump still has 33% approval) and unlike Trump has no power to follow through on his threats.[1]
[1]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-06/israel-court-battle-o...
Tl;dr Lawfare is a thing and it’s effing everywhere.
Maybe that 90% number is for Tel Aviv. In national polls, they both have roughly the same approval rating.
I have no doubt that Ben-Gvir has a similar segment of haters in Israel. They want the same things, but they don't want to do it in the style of a leering hooligan fishing for a fistfight.
His form is just a tiny cherry on top of very big rotting cake. Make form smooth and underlying crap won't change a bit. Hating trump ain't emotional, purely rational approach is sufficient.
A bit of an extraordinary belief to hold, to be honest