• jj4211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Hypothetically, let’s say that he is secretly game for the cease fire. How does he pivot from implying that the conditions are not met as things stand today to suddenly adopting a stance that is consistent with your proposed interpretation?

    If what you said was true, that he is willing to consider the threat eliminated, then he would have said it already. Since he implies otherwise means he is requiring something more than the current situation. There’s no path to just abandon his stated position without something actually changing.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      He would pivot when he had enough backing from his political coalition to make it safe for him to do so.

      I think that’s probably the only issue right now. He’s a politician who above all wants to remain in power. Crafting a consistent narrative is only a minor consideration. So he can imply whatever he wants, the bare minimum is to avoid saying two things that cannot later be reconciled logically.

      It’s like asking “How does Nikki Haley pivot to supporting Trump after implying he was unfit to be president?” It took no effort at all, once she decided it was politically expedient.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The analogy about Nikki Haley is apt, to ‘pivot’ is trivial, to credibly pivot is another. I promise not a single Trump supporter suddenly believed Nikki’s change and it didn’t buy her any clout. If anything, it undermined her previous bet of ‘party will move beyond Trump soon’.

        Similarly, Netanyahu pivoting won’t appease any of his hard core supporters. Also, this presumes that Netanyahu is some secret moderate trying to appease extremists rather than actually being a key proponent/leader of the extremist agenda. This would be like saying “Trump is looking for an opportunity to pivot toward a pro-immigration stance, but his party just won’t let him”.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Israel, unlike the US, is a multiparty democracy. Likud, the biggest party, still only won 23% of the vote. So like nearly all Israeli PM’s, Netanyahu cannot remain in power without official support from other political parties. That means convincing other political leaders to support him is far more important than in the US.

          Yes, if Netanyahu supports a peace proposal then he will lose the far right (Ben Gvir). But he could gain the support of other leaders (Yair Lapid). And if he doesn’t pivot, he could lose Gantz.

          This is what I mean by political calculus, which I think at this point is at least as important to Netanyahu as ideology (in view of the risk of prosecution if he loses power).