Trending Topics:

The Israeli election is a shitshow of toxic masculinity

News
on 61 Comments

The last major twist in the Israeli elections of 2019 was the attempt by Binyamin Netanyahu to present his partner in war crimes, Binyamin Gantz, as mentally ill. This came soon after his surrogates’ attempt to paint Gantz as a sex offender fell flat. If you remember Netanyahu’s attempts to paint Rabin as a drunk, back in 1993-1994, this wouldn’t surprise you at all.

What is disturbing about this campaign is how much – from just about any angle – it is about toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity means the idea that the way men are taught to behave in life – they should be silent, strong, always ready for violence, contemptuous of weakness (theirs and others), and avoid expressing feelings or “feminine” interests – is one of the most harmful concepts to society. We are taught at an early age that the world is full of predators, that it is incapable of change, that any sign of weakness will mark you as prey, and therefore you should always look dangerous. When you internalize this pattern of behavior, when what used to be a mask becomes part of you, you become violent if not a predator yourself, and the circle is immortalized. Seen from this angle, feminism frees not just women but men as well: it allows them to break out of the corral they’re forced into.

Last Friday, Israeli journalist Ben Caspit published an article, which said that Gantz – oy vey – consulted a psychologist after his discharge from the Israel Defense Forces, and that he also received psychiatric medicine from her. There’s something basically wrong with this story, inasmuch as Israeli psychologists aren’t allowed to prescribe any medicine, and yet, it was enough to start a major brouhaha.

The pro-corruption camp in Israel (Netanyahu’s Likud Party and others) quickly jumped on the bandwagon: See, Gantz is receiving treatment! And boom, back came all the old stereotypes: If you’re receiving mental care, you’re a dangerous kook who’s on the direct route to become the next Hannibal Lecter. If you see a shrink, you’re weak, effeminate, unstable, dangerous to others. The Israeli media, always preferring its prime minister a killer (one should remember how it deified Ariel Sharon and claimed that his opponent, ‘Amram Mitznah, “lacked killer instinct”), happily pushed Gantz back into the trap of the silent, sealed man.

I don’t know Gantz’s psychological makeup. He was, and remains, one of the least interesting political actors in Israel. But we do have a good approximation of Netanyahu’s makeup: He’s a chronic miser, a paranoid with clear narcissist tendencies. It would be better for him, and all of us, if here were to receive treatment. We already had a prime minister who suffered from acute depression and wasn’t properly treated (Menachem Begin): that didn’t end well.

Unfortunately, Gantz quickly announced that Caspit’s story is false and that he is not, God forbid, under any psychological treatment. Our attitude towards mental injuries is still touched with primordial fear: If a person says he broke his hand, society will treat him with kindness and mercy. Were they to say they’re suffering from depression, the kindness will be blended with fear and revulsion. Gantz, in his response, lent his hand to this fear. My problem with Gantz isn’t that he said that he didn’t receive treatment; it’s that he saw it as a stain upon his honor.

Gantz could have bought his place in the next world quite easily: He could have said that as Chief of Staff, he was under tremendous amounts of stress. That psychological treatment would have helped and aided him in addressing the stress. That elite unit officers are ordered to report to psychologists on a regular basis – including Sayeret Matkal, where Netanyahu served in the 1970s. He could have sat down with Gabi Ashkenazi – a gruff former Chief of Staff, a grunt’s grunt – and spoken about the scars a long active military service invariably leaves you with. But, of course, at that point Likud would have declared them both too effeminate for office: they are too attuned to their feelings, they do not repress.

Gantz could have used the opportunity that, especially as he recognizes the importance of psychological treatment, he would do his best to make certain any citizen could have such treatment. In Netanyahu’s Israel, psychological treatment is a privilege, reserved to the haves. The price is high, and the medical public companies  – always on the brink of collapse – are bound in a “reform” meant to limit treatment of the have-nots. All of which is part of Netanyahu to destroy Israeli medical services so he could privatize them – as part of a circular deal, one suspects, at the end of which sits one of his innumerable cousins.

Gantz could have also said a few gentle words about the corral in which he and Netanyahu tread together: The need to act like a gamecock, all puffed up, against Hamas’ Ihya Sinwar, who also has to preen himself as a manly man. And between all of those would-be Rambos are trapped women, children, and men who have no time for all this shit but still have to maintain status, which means they have to act tough and threaten mutually assured destruction. Which pushes us towards the same.

The First World War broke out in the early days of modern psychology. When it was over, Freud would write about the death drive, which pushes people to risk themselves and die: Thanatos versus Eros.

When the war began, some men were on the verge of nervous breakdown. When the Russian Interior Minister had to sign the general mobilization orders – which he understood full well would mean the death of millions and untold destruction – he filled his office with candles and ikons, and sat down among them, trying to find some salvation for the crime he felt was his duty to carry out. The French premier, when he realized that the final talks between his president and the Czar’s ministers were not about avoiding the war but rather about the most expedient way to start, suffered a real nervous breakdown: he collapsed, and spoke incoherently for two days. A list of other generals and ministers suffered similar symptoms.

Then they pulled themselves off the floor, reminded themselves they were men, and they ought to be resolute and silent, and authorized the great and incomprehensible massacre, the manifestation of the death drive on a continental level (“But the old man would not so, but slew his son/and half the seed of Europe, one by one”).

It is time to dismantle the house of toxic masculinity, because it kills us. Literally kills us. We don’t need leaders who walk shirtless by (well-drugged) tigers. We need leaders who who don’t give Thanatos dominion: who are able to listen to their fears, who would be able to acknowledge their own weaknesses and, by doing so, be able to empathize with the weaknesses of others; who would not see human beings as pawns on some game board, but as fellow humans, something terrifyingly fragile and gentle.

In these elections, we should have had the option of someone who does not worship Moloch, who can show us a way out of the maze which we built for ourselves. It’s an ancient maze, possibly prehistoric; its walls appear in our oldest poetry and art; it whispers it always was here and always will be here; but it is us who built it, and we can demolish it.

Yossi Gurvitz

Yossi Gurvitz is a journalist and a blogger, and has covered the occupation extensively.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

61 Responses

  1. Citizen on April 1, 2019, 2:25 pm

    Well, the Zionists said they would create a new Jewish man, one that would not be led to to the slaughter meek, sort of the reverse of what the Americans did going from John Wayne as model to a ridiculed macho dinosaur during the Vietnam War era.

    • Abe Bird on April 3, 2019, 5:51 am

      There is a new Jewish person – wise, strong, who is not afraid to stand up for his righteousness, who controls his life, defeats his enemies and humiliates his opponents.
      This irritates the anti-Semites, Jews as non-Jews, who are unable to cope with the new reality that is devouring them for 2000 years of hatred and intrigue.

      Should the Israelis apologize?
      Nop, let the haters eat their hat.

      • Mooser on April 3, 2019, 11:32 am

        “There is a new Jewish person”

        Why, there might be as many as a couple million of these ‘new Jewish persons’ ready to defeat their “enemies” and “humiliate his opponents”.

      • gamal on April 3, 2019, 1:30 pm

        “Not afraid to stand up for his righteousness” the normalization didn’t take then.

        “as many as a couple million of these ‘new ” Orens, the blood of anti-semites drips from his knuckles as he stands proud and victorious the Sunlight catching his blond perfectly coiffed locks, Orens Arise, normalization not really taken then, pity “humiliates his opponents” wow what a man.

        Look Abe here are two manly men, I met the less manly one but still a little manly and look they have normalized without effort nor even cast a glance askance at the more girly of our gender, Help the weak and don’t despise the poor, that’s the boy ting, loudly beating your chest less so.

      • RoHa on April 3, 2019, 10:44 pm

        “There is a new Jewish person – wise, strong, who is not afraid to stand up for his righteousness, ”

        New?

        Not Mooser, then.

        Righteousness?

        Not a Zionist, then.

        Who is this paragon?

      • Mooser on April 7, 2019, 12:09 pm

        “Not Mooser, then.”

        Nope, not me. I’m passe, old hat, strictly nye kulturny, over the hill, and “L-7”. (Never learned to dance)

      • Keith on April 7, 2019, 4:18 pm

        ABEBIRD- “There is a new Jewish person – wise, strong, who is not afraid to stand up for his righteousness, who controls his life, defeats his enemies and humiliates his opponents.”

        Abe, I see that you are into self-parody. Be that as it may, how could I let pass this opportunity to link to “Israel Man” by Eli Valley? https://www.elivalley.com/comics/israel-man-and-diaspora-boy

    • eljay on April 4, 2019, 7:48 am

      || Abe Bird: There is a new Jewish person – wise, strong, who is not afraid to stand up for his righteousness, who controls his life, defeats his enemies and humiliates his opponents. … ||

      That’s one way to prettify the hatefulness, immorality, hypocrisy and (war) criminality of Jewish supremacists (Zionists).

      || … Should the Israelis apologize? … ||

      Israelis? You were talking about Jews just a moment ago.

      Oh, I see, you’re doing that typically Zionist thing of anti-Semitically conflating Zionism and Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Zionism and Israel.

  2. Keith on April 1, 2019, 5:10 pm

    YOSSI GURVITZ- “Seen from this angle, feminism frees not just women but men as well: it allows them to break out of the corral they’re forced into.”

    I agree that any feminism worthy of the name would be a boon to men as well as women. Unfortunately, American feminism has morphed into imperial feminism. Rather than freeing men from the militarized corral, imperial (glass ceiling) feminism seeks to entice women into the militarized corral where they can hope to achieve parity with men in the administration of imperial power. Elite “feminism.” One can argue the extent to which lower income women find working two jobs to make ends meet is “liberating,” although New York professional women undoubtedly find it so. Or maybe not.

    • Mooser on April 1, 2019, 7:22 pm

      I’m sorry your experience with feminism was so discouraging, “Keith”.

      • Keith on April 1, 2019, 9:41 pm

        MOOSER- “I’m sorry your experience with feminism was so discouraging, “Keith”.

        My experience with feminism has not been discouraging. It is imperial “feminism” which disturbs me. It is women supporting Hillary and empire which discourages me. But for a Hillary supporter such as you, perhaps women in jackboots is a turn on?

      • annie on April 2, 2019, 1:45 am

        primarily, feminism in this country has little do do with the hillarys. they just get all the press. real feminists slags those people– who gives it a bad name. don’t shit on feminism, we are here and we are not imperialists. we’re not all running around in knitted pink hats. wake up.

      • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 12:02 pm

        “It is women supporting Hillary and empire which discourages me. “

        So let’s get down to the real nitty gritty and ask:
        What mighty ills have not been done by woman!Who was ’t betrayed the Capitol?—A woman!
        Who lost Mark Antony the world?—A woman! Who was the cause of a long ten years’ war, And laid at last old Troy in ashes?—Woman! Destructive, damnable, deceitful woman!

      • Keith on April 2, 2019, 4:16 pm

        ANNIE- “don’t shit on feminism….”

        I’m not, as my two comments should make clear. I am decrying the phony feminism of imperial feminism, the major feminist organizations with all of the money who get all of the publicity. The “feminism” of the Democratic party. And if you are an anti-imperialist “real” feminist, more power to you, however, you socially transformative feminists appear to be a small minority as are all socially transformative progressive groups. Below I link to an interesting discussion on this very topic. https://dissidentvoice.org/2019/04/sitting-pretty-on-a-sinking-ship-neoliberal-feminism/#more-90723

      • annie on April 2, 2019, 4:58 pm

        hi keith, i’m only a little way through it a) it’s not a discussion but one persons opinion. b) it sounds a tad more like an anti dem party (liberal) rant vs a rational critique. c) there are 2 many strange statements for me to address them all, ie:

        They must work to supplement their husband’s earnings or, as single mothers, they are the family’s sole support.

        this, about “most” middle and upper-middle class women, misses the mark. can you tell why?

        At the same time other women, less politically aware, embraced being seen as sexual objects, rather than as sexless as in the fifties. We started wearing provocative clothes, lots of makeup, ridiculous high-heeled shoes and laughed off or rationalized the catcalls on the street as well as sexual harassment from our bosses and male co-workers. I know all of this because I was one of those women.

        reading this is like listening to fingernails on a blackboard.

      • annie on April 2, 2019, 5:57 pm

        i’m working my way down the article. it seems to me the writer, Barbara MacLean, has some very strange notions of what feminism is. i find it odd that all the women she chose to profile, and criticize, were married. she seems to resent the idea that a woman could retire early and not engage in a profession out of choice, that’s not very feminist. she seems to have ideas about hair and make up and how much time a woman spends on it that are primarily in relation to feminism.

        How much time and money are we spending on our appearance and why do we need to do that in order to feel good about ourselves and attractive to men?

        it’s literally none of her business how much time and money a person spends on their appearance if that’s what they want to do. feminism is about not making assumptions or judgements and being free of others expectations. there’s absolutely nothing wrong dressing up to feel attractive. it’s not her business to make value judgements about spike heels. that’s the opposite of feminism.

        she sounds really nosey and judgmental. maybe bitter. she’s making a lot of sweeping judgements that to me seem the very opposite of what a feminist represents.

        she makes some good points about neoliberalism but her hammer doesn’t impress me.

      • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 9:45 pm
      • Keith on April 2, 2019, 10:19 pm

        ANNIE- “she makes some good points about neoliberalism but her hammer doesn’t impress me.”

        I also disagree with some of what she says, however, I think the value of her article is to get people to think about what feminism in its various manifestations actually refers to rather than imputing unjustified meaning based upon the label alone. Also, is a certain level of activity and commitment required or is someone a “feminist” just because they apply the label to themselves? And while gaining a certain level of equality within the framework of our imperial political economy had some initial merit, the feminism which I wholeheartedly support involves the transformation of our intrinsically anti-feminist militarized society into a demilitarized society where most of the military budget gets redirected towards social good like healthcare and education for all. And saving the planet rather than destroying it as we are currently doing.

      • Mooser on April 3, 2019, 11:34 am

        “Also, is a certain level of activity and commitment required or is someone a “feminist” just because they apply the label to themselves?”

        Yeah, it’s a lot like deciding which males can call themselves “men.”

      • Keith on April 3, 2019, 1:08 pm

        MOOSER- “Yeah, it’s a lot like deciding which males can call themselves “men.”

        No, it’s not.

      • annie on April 4, 2019, 2:28 am

        I think the value of her article is to get people to think about what feminism in its various manifestations actually refers to rather than imputing unjustified meaning based upon the label alone. Also, is a certain level of activity and commitment required or is someone a “feminist” just because they apply the label to themselves?

        i’m probably not the best person to define feminism because i can only speak for myself. your question is a good one. often people glom onto an identity because they have an axe to grind. they might even dive into that issue and then declare they are an expert (see my last comment).

        i heard something tonight that reminded me of this conversation, and it rang so true to me.

        “liberation is not an external thing, it’s an internal thing. people say how have you gotten empowered and i say i was born this way. it is not how others make us feel it is how we tell ourselves we are worthy.”

        this is what (my) feminism means to me. i was born this way. and i was born and remember the era Barbara MacLean writes about (“Think of the mothers in Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best (the name of the show says it all). They even dressed like that when they were cleaning the oven!”) this is hollywood keith. not my mom. this is a man’s world writing scripts of their ideas of what wives and mother should be and we all watched it on tv. and she — believes it and calls herself a feminist! 99.99% of the women in that era didn’t dress up when they were cleaning their ovens 99.9% of the time. and if her mother did so what? her entire article is so full of misconceptions and judgements. the idea a woman’s wages are a “supplement their husband’s” unless they are (gasp) a single mother. the idea our earnings are “supplemental” is just like.. weird.

        my generation (boomer, born in the 50’s) witnessed, without necessarily being totally aware of how radical it was what we were witnessing and being a part of, a real transformation of societal conscientious surrounding women, and of course this impacts men too. a lot of that has to do with judgement of others and self judgement.

        this person is taking her own (rather warped imho) ideas of feminism and using them to impugn women who she disagrees with politically, who she then labels “Pink Pussycats”, a degrading term. but along the way she reveals some pretty nasty stuff about herself that i find extremely non feminist, very so last century.

        for one thing, she references “childcare, grocery shopping, housekeeping and cooking” as “sliding back”. has she ever been a mother? is being a mother “sliding back”. this is life, kids eat. people cook. it’s not anti feminism to feed people. all these labels. mothers want to be with their children, that’s normal, it’s not “childcare” or babysitting, it’s life. feeding, cooking and cleaning up is normal. so is going to the grocery store unless you can afford to have it delivered. sports are normal. she references women who embrace their sexuality as “politically unaware” or assumes they regard themselves is “sexual objects” because that is how she reflect back on her own promiscuities. she assumes a woman isn’t insulating or heating her art studio because of her husband (?) weird!

        each person is different. “it’s an internal thing … i was born this way”:

      • Keith on April 4, 2019, 11:25 am

        ANNIE- “…who she then labels “Pink Pussycats”, a degrading term.”

        Jeez, and I thought that it was an obvious riff on the “pink pussyhat” phenomenon. If you re-read my original comment this is what I am alluding to that many (most?) “feminists” seem less interested in getting men “out of the corral they’re forced into” than in joining them inside the corral. And for this I am accused of being anti-woman, mansplaining, etc. To me, the “pink pussyhat” phenomenon is an example of the DNC harnessing feminism as yet another form of identity politics. And if this passes moderation I am off this thread.

        “A year ago, they stormed the streets of big cities and small towns to make their views known: Women’s rights are human rights. Many wore on their heads what became the de-facto symbol of feminism in 2017, the pink pussyhat.” https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/01/10/pink-pussyhats-feminists-hats-womens-march/1013630001/

      • annie on April 4, 2019, 12:57 pm

        yes, i did see it as an obvious riff on that pink hat phenomenon. i can’t really speak on that “DNC harnessing feminism as yet another form of identity politics” which is what i meant earlier when i wrote “feminism in this country has little do do with the hillarys. they just get all the press”. i don’t follow that crowd and it doesn’t surprise me that something so ridiculous as knitted pink hats fell out of fashion after one protest. i think there was a general revulsion after the election of trump that brought people out to the streets. but i don’t think you can make a statement about what feminism is or what it means based on that one march. and look at the cracks that appeared so early, even among the organizers over the inclusion (or exclusion) of women who support apartheid and a political system embracing the total oppression of women. the hypocrisy of that. so clearly there’s no unification in what feminism means once it becomes tokenized. but this is just a blip in history it doesn’t represent the whole era we’re living in. when the history of feminism is written about this era, the trump years will be a blip. like anita hill or monica, not bigger than..

    • Marnie on April 1, 2019, 11:30 pm

      I’ll be second to offer you condolences for your troubling experience with feminism. Cheer up though Keith – looks like you’re most likely going to get another 4 years of donald tRUMP – he’ll make those bitches pay for not staying in their lane and if by chance he doesn’t survive his 2nd term, pence and Mother will jump in with something very special for american women that you might feel way more comfortable with.

      • Keith on April 2, 2019, 4:41 pm

        MARNIE- “I’ll be second to offer you condolences for your troubling experience with feminism.”

        I have not had any troubling experiences with feminism, although my definition of feminism is probably more radical than the majority of (primarily) women who call themselves feminists yet are primarily concerned with achieving some sort of parity with men at the imperial trough. And who think that electing a Democrat and getting rid of Trump is going to usher in a bright new day. And anyone who infers that I am some sort of redneck Trump supporter is out of touch with reality. I dislike Trump but I am smart enough to know that getting rid of Trump will make little difference. Our problems are systemic, it is the system which needs changing. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening for a variety of reasons.

      • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 5:30 pm

        “although my definition of feminism is probably more radical than the majority of (primarily) women who call themselves feminists” “Keith”

        So true, women are the problem with feminism.

      • Keith on April 2, 2019, 8:18 pm

        MOOSER- “So true, women are the problem with feminism.”

        No, the problem with feminism writ large is that much of the movement has been co-opted by our system and reduced to a label which is utilized to serve the elites. Yet another category of identity politics.

      • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 9:49 pm

        “No, the problem with feminism…”

        …is way too much fucking mansplaining.

      • Keith on April 3, 2019, 12:39 am

        MOOSER- “…is way too much fucking mansplaining.”

        Oh Moosey, you look so adorable in your pink pussyhat! And the skillful use of vulgarity added just the right touch.

      • Mooser on April 3, 2019, 11:41 am

        “Oh Moosey, you look so adorable in your pink pussyhat!”

        “Keith” everybody who knows me says I am very effeminist!
        Sometimes I sit and wonder, in my artless Jewish way, why it is that I am so much more attractive than anybody else in the whole world.
        Can this be vanity? No!
        Nature is lovely and rejoices in her loveliness. I am a child of Nature, and take after my Mother!

      • Marnie on April 3, 2019, 2:59 pm

        @Keith –
        The only problem with feminists is they’re mostly women, right? We women can’t even get feminism right! Thank god there’s always at least one man with the answers, right Keith?

        “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” Rex Harrison – YouTube

      • Marnie on April 4, 2019, 6:06 am

        @Keith

        “Blah, blah, blah …. although my definition of feminism is probably more radical than the majority of (primarily) women who call themselves feminists yet are primarily concerned with achieving some sort of parity with men at the imperial trough.”

        Too right! We women have got to get over the insane notion that doing the same job as a man and being paid the same amount of money as a man doing the same job just isn’t as sweet a deal as it sounds.

        Having worked my entire life as a woman being paid less for the same job as a man is a shit deal that most men are perfectly fine with and conclude that a woman insisting on being paid the same wages as her male counterparts is just selfish, demanding and shows a desire to achieve ‘some sort of parity with men at the imperial trough’. Yeah Keith, that’s all it is. And considering its never happened to you, why don’t you just stop talking about shit you know nothing about?

      • gamal on April 4, 2019, 4:13 pm

        “Why is this all about what men think about it anyway? I mean, who gives a fuck what men think about it” oh

        “Exactly” oh

        Ok Marnie and Annie I believe culture in the form of Sharon Jones and the Dapkings express this Sharon is “nobodys baby”, i exclude all the french at the beginning to when it goes big heavy gal serious..also really fucking right ladies.

        I am a bonifide Capitane…Sharon learned the hard way

        https://youtu.be/Wj_0ZLLAnO8?t=47

    • RoHa on April 2, 2019, 2:54 am

      Feminism is not a topic I’m particularly familiar with, but, as far as I can tell, there seem to be several varieties, with overlap between them.

      One version I would sum up as “Equal rights for women”. Give women votes, equal access to jobs and training, and so forth, so that they can, if they wish, enter fields traditionally dominated by men. The large numbers of women doctors, lawyers, etc. show that this version has largely succeeded. (And a good thing, says I)

      Another is “Promote the inclusion of women into fields traditionally dominated by men”. These say (e.g.) “There should be more women scientists.” (Though I haven’t heard them saying “There should be more women sewage workers”, so there might be some male-dominated fields they are willing to leave male-dominated.)

      A third version seems to say “Aside from those few little bits, there is no essential difference between men and women, and they should be treated in the same way all the time”. (This version is likely to clash with those men who claim to be women and who want to be treated as women.)

      A fourth version seems to say “There is an essential difference between men and women. Men are responsible for all evil in the world.” I suspect these are more noisy than numerous.

      So, unless we agree that feminism stopped with Mary Wollstonecraft, I think the term “feminism” needs a lot more definition before I can agree with “feminism frees not just women but men as well: it allows them to break out of the corral they’re forced into.”

      • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 2:13 pm

        “Feminism is not a topic I’m particularly familiar with”

        Well, be cautioned. I once tried to argue about the nature of feminism with a woman. I lost by a knock-out.

      • annie on April 2, 2019, 3:15 pm

        RoHa, sewage divers, septic tank servicers, really? because that’s a profession people strive to be when they grow up? those much sought after jobs that pay around $20 an hour. you bring up this profession in the context of feminism? what’s next, executioners? just stop.

      • RoHa on April 3, 2019, 12:41 am

        Annie, my point is that some feminists seem to think, not merely that all fields should be open to women, but that there is a moral or prudential obligation for more women in some male-dominated fields. I am pointing out that they do not extend this obligation to all male-dominated fields, and this looks like an inconsistency to me.

        If there is some general benefit (as distinct from benefit to individual women who want to be physicists) from having more women physicists, what is that benefit, and why does it not apply to other fields?

        Of course, if I have misinterpreted those feminists, then none of this applies.

      • Mooser on April 3, 2019, 11:57 am

        “but that there is a moral or prudential obligation for more women in some male-dominated fields”

        Well, somebody had to take up the slack in the fatherhood field when we bug out on the job.

      • Marnie on April 3, 2019, 11:18 pm

        @RoHa – oh bother. “We” don’t have to agree with a definition you feel comfortable with or anyone else for that matter. Why is this all about what men think about it anyway? I mean, who gives a fuck what men think about it. It’s about as relevant as what jews think about palestinian aspirations, white people feel about black power, etc. Roll over already, Beethoven.

      • annie on April 4, 2019, 3:13 am

        exactly!

      • RoHa on April 4, 2019, 11:02 pm

        Marnie, what are you on about? Comfort doesn’t enter into it.

        Yoni said that feminism frees men. I said that I would need to know what kind of feminism before I agreed. And since it is freeing men that is the issue, perhaps what men think about it does have some slight relevance.

      • Marnie on April 5, 2019, 3:01 am

        @RoHa

        I’m sick and tired of a lifetime of men who are complete strangers and by virtue only of having a penis instead of a pussy have power over me, that’s what I’m “on about’. As far as your ‘what men think about it does have some slight relevance’ – uh, you sure about that? Did you take a poll? I don’t know, I don’t care and I’m way past giving a damn what men think is relevant. Sorry – have had a lifetime of it, me and the rest of the female population of earth.

      • RoHa on April 6, 2019, 1:26 am

        Relevance is a logical relationship. It is not determined by a poll. It holds or does not hold regardless of what people think.

        Since the issue of freeing men is relevant to men, it seems likely that what men think about it is relevant to the issue.

        But I’m not asking you to care about it.

      • Mooser on April 6, 2019, 11:28 am

        “Since the issue of freeing men is relevant to men, it seems likely that what men think about it is relevant to the issue.”

        Just think of all the horrible things which might happen if we left our cell!
        But don’t worry, you can stay incel if you like.

  3. echinococcus on April 1, 2019, 7:16 pm

    “In these elections, we should have had the option of someone who does not worship Moloch, who can show us a way out of the maze which we built for ourselves”

    The only way out of that, ehm, “maze” is straight to the door. Get the hell out and pay for every red cent of damages inflicted, directly or indirectly, since the start of Zionism. In other words, it’s not a maze and the door is right in front of your nose.

    Nothing to do with any elections.

  4. Kay24 on April 1, 2019, 8:25 pm

    Israelis will most probably elect the one that will keep the occupation and land grabs going.
    They also seem very impressed by this shitshow of toxic masculinity. The theme seems to be
    “I can be tougher and kill Palestinians”. So ugly.

  5. Marnie on April 1, 2019, 11:26 pm

    The election’s toxic masculinity shitshow reflects only too well the toxic masculinity that is israeli society and culture. Neanderthal, violent and scared to death.

  6. RoHa on April 2, 2019, 3:42 am

    So now it seems we are going to invoke the fashionable buzz words “toxic masculinity”.

    Can we give the idea a little thought?

    “Toxic masculinity means the idea that the way men are taught to behave in life – they should be silent, strong, always ready for violence, contemptuous of weakness (theirs and others), and avoid expressing feelings or “feminine” interests”

    Not all of that seems “toxic” to me.

    I can’t see anything wrong with being strong. There is a great deal of praise for and promotion of strength in women. Why is it bad in men?

    Being silent, rather than boasting or whining,also looks like a positive attribute.

    And there is probably some cod-psychology about the value of letting your feelings hang out, but it seems like dangerous self-indulgence to me. Disciplining both the feelings and the expression of them looks to be the safer course.

    There is no real need to act like a gamecock, but there is a real need to be able to stand up to evil and to fight against it. And some of the behaviour that is taught to men gives that ability.

    • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 12:32 pm

      “There is no real need to act like a gamecock, but there is a real need to be able to stand up to evil and to fight against it. And some of the behaviour that is taught to men gives that ability”

      And Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, too.

    • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 1:02 pm

      “Not all of that seems “toxic” to me.”

      Yes, but as I remember, talking about it, and demanding credit for it sort of spoils the effect.

  7. edwardm on April 2, 2019, 7:42 am

    Been Caspit published an article…
    Speaking of toxic masculinity? So toxic that he publicly fantasized about raping a child.

  8. OldWhig on April 2, 2019, 9:30 am

    Please, oh please keep FEMINISM out of this discussion. American feminisms claim to fame is 54 million victims of choice. As a Catholic man, I respond with the quote of St Francis De Sales: nothing is stronger than gentleness; nothing more gentle than true strength. Feminism and toxic masculinity is the problem; two faces of the same coin.

    • Mooser on April 2, 2019, 12:38 pm

      “American feminisms claim to fame is 54 million victims of choice”

      Ah, a “retired history professor” weighs in.

    • RoHa on April 3, 2019, 12:23 am

      I would like to keep all the fashionable stuff out, and stick to the issue of Palestine.

  9. Misterioso on April 2, 2019, 11:02 am

    Meanwhile, a young Palestinian woman once again steps forth on behalf of her long suffering people:

    March 31/19

    “March for Palestine on May 11th!” – Ahed Tamimi

    Ahed Tamimi sends a special message to people in the UK asking them to join the National Demo for Palestine on May 11th!

    Join, share, invite everyone you know: https://www.facebook.com/events/26040… #ExistResistReturn

    • Talkback on April 2, 2019, 4:12 pm

      Nothing to do with this message, but she just has to learn English to reach a wider audience in general.

    • RoHa on April 3, 2019, 12:49 am

      I would like to see her as President of Palestine in a few years.

  10. snaidamast on April 2, 2019, 12:16 pm

    Many years ago I read Amos Elon’s famous sociological study of Israelis as a people. (“Fathers and Sons”) To understand how Israelis interact with each other he went through a myriad of love letters between couples that somehow had become archived over the years.

    His conclusion after finishing this aspect of his research was that he found Israelis on a whole to be a very immature people.

    Forcing one’s isolation from the world around it while seeing “the other” as always an enemy or one to be aligned with if it only benefits you has added terrible, narrowly focused world views on the Israeli population.

    Instead of growing and maturing over the years into a people who could be open and honorable, Israelis have instead drawn increasingly inward who prefer to believe in their national mythologies as strongly as many Americans do.

    This will be the end of both nations in the near future. However, in the United States we have newer and younger people who are stepping up t o the plate to contest such long held national myths in an attempt to force the public to deal with realities.

    From what I have consistently read, Israel has no effective countermeasure to such sociological processes, which has led the majority of the state to become nothing more than dangerous, schoolyard bullies.

    The fact that the competing candidates for Prime Minister are involved in such ridiculous and childish endeavors against each other is merely proof of what Amos Elon postulated many years ago back in the 1960s.

    And no nation with such a warped sociology will succeed in lasting through the future no matter what type of military playthings they have at their disposal…

  11. annie on April 4, 2019, 4:14 am

    Gantz could have also said a few gentle words about the corral in which he and Netanyahu tread together: The need to act like a gamecock, all puffed up, against Hamas’ Ihya Sinwar, who also has to preen himself as a manly man. And between all of those would-be Rambos are trapped women, children, and men who have no time for all this shit but still have to maintain status, which means they have to act tough and threaten mutually assured destruction. Which pushes us towards the same.

    o yossi, you really get it. thank you for spelling it out so concisely and honestly. the horrific cross men bear and drag us all into bearing. it’s cowardly in the end ~ this manly thing.

    feminism frees not just women but men as well: it allows them to break out of the corral they’re forced into.

    aint that the truth.

  12. Ossinev on April 6, 2019, 9:33 am

    “Israel stood still for a moment this week so it could bring home the remains of Sgt. Zachary Baumel, a soldier who perished in battle in 1982. This was in the midst of the most bitterly contested election the country has had in decades, with important things at stake: the probity of government, relations with the Diaspora, the limits of the settlement enterprise, the possibility of peace.

    There are things that matter more. Keeping faith with the fallen and bereaved is one of them.

    Anyone who has lived in Israel gets this. It’s a young and improvising state resting atop an ancient and profound civilization. At the heart of the civilization is common memory. Elections come and go; memory accretes. It is to everyday life what geology is to flora and fauna: grounding, shaping, slow-moving, still-growing. Memory is the true land of Israel.

    The Israeli government spent 37 years tracking Baumel’s remains to Syria and negotiating their recovery through Russia. The country will expend similar efforts to bring home other fallen soldiers held in enemy hands. It’s the core of the Jewish state’s social contract. It may not be able to keep its people safe, much less make them rich. But it will never forget or forsake them”

    The oh so puke inducing words of the moronic Bret Stephens in yes you have gussed the NYT:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/israel-election-gantz-netanyahu.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    The heartbreaking return of the remains of this soldier Lebanon is thus shown as a classic illustration of the lengths that the blight unto the nations will go to bring back their “fallen”. Of course Zioland will never allow the remains of the massacred Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in the same year to be returned to their native land. After all that would , apart from “polluting ” the sacred God given Zio soil , set a dangerous precedent for the future.

    What do you think Bret. No forget I asked. Brainwashed hasbarists don`t think they just constantly spew hypocrisy from their every orifice.

    “It’s a young and improvising state resting atop an ancient and profound civilization”

    Hey Bret some would say Nazi Germany was in it`s own way ” young and improvising” and we all know now how that “improvising” worked out.

Leave a Reply