There are many claims to be skeptical of in this article; I had to put a disclaimer in the body of my post under the link. That was the first red flag which went up for me as well. The reason I posted it was as an insight to how Israelis view the situation from their Haaretz-reading left. I was reading through many articles in their paper yesterday and this one seemed like the most relatively helpful to better understand the parties in Israel other than the outright bigots and denialists whose motivations are easier to understand.

Edit: I mean the above as in the difference between a proud right-winger who is openly and proudly bigoted who argued they are justified vs those who have convinced themselves that there is no alternative but to go along with the bigots while recognizing the bigotry is not justified. There are clear parallels here in the US of course.

If I understand the reasoning correctly, having any Palestinians on the land, is an “existential threat” in two ways:

• It gives standing to the “Two States” proposal, which goes against Israel’s goal of controlling all the land.
• There are about as many Palestinians as Israeli citizens, meaning if they were to ever hold a democratic self-determination referendum on the land, the state of Israel could actually lose.

The zionist idea that Israel is under threat from all sides, […] is absurd.

It’s part of the amended Zionist strategy after they realized Holocaust refugees wouldn’t be enough to meet their goals: pissing Arab countries so much, that it’ll put Jewish citizens under threat, so they want to seek refuge by populating Israel.

Now they keep playing the same card both to appear as the underdog who needs aid, and to keep their own population convinced that it’s a bad idea to leave Israel, but a great idea to take arms and risk their life to defend the land, while continuing the ethnic cleansing.