Aye, any Israeli who isn't actively opposing the settlements in the West Bank is unambiguously in the wrong. And I wish that wasn't a controversial statement.
You're right in that Rabin's assassination wasn't the change in itself (that such Israeli extremists had continued to exist shows that that violent current in Israel had continued and been bubbling away), but it makes a good mark of a turning point and the loss of really any chance for reconciliation in at least our lifetimes.
The Nakba was a tragedy, and Ben has his role in that along with all the other high ups in the various paramilitary forces. The IDF didn't exist then, though it does trace its routes back to those paramilitary groups.
That Ben G worked to limit their power once the nation was formed is a mark against him being a fascist to me, and he didn't go as hard on violent struggle as the meaning of life as full fasc-fascism does.
Violent, racist, and did bad things yes (and genocidal to boot!). I don't think that auto-makes fascist.
As for what was being done pre-Six Day War I'm going to guess pogroms, murders, and forced sterilisation. So I'll go back up and add genocidal to it. Doesn't make him fascist though, unless we're making it a synonym for genocidist.
Give Israel some credit, Ben Gurion wasn't a fascist, despite his problems - but also you could understand where he was coming from.
It's really from the 70s on when Israel moved from problematic and apatheidy into the full on genocidal regime we see today.
The watershed moment, not surprisingly, being the assassination of Rabin.
Which particular set of Israeli policies are you supporting here?
The 10-15 civilian deaths per strike on a possible low level Hamas supporter?
The continued "accidental" killing of medical staff, including Red Cross and Red Crescent workers, and journalists?
The idea of turning off water and electricity from all of Gaza as a valid response?
The escalation of illegal settlement and theft of Palestinian property and land in the West Bank, with IDF support no less?
Or the use of the Hannibal Protocol against Israeli Civilians on October 8th by IDF forces?
Or do you just not think it is incumbent on the one with greater power and strength to offer the olive branch first if peace is truly desires? And in fact would rather the Palestinian people are smeared across an enlarged Israel?
I didn't like the first series, and would've quit it at episode 3 or so but I ended up without internet access for a couple of days and the whole series downloaded... It got better.
But yeah, life's too short for TV shows that take time to be taken on faith. And if you did finish the first series and still not like it, more power to you.
Worse, the IDF was under orders to expand the Hannibal Protocol to civilians the whole time, too.
Hannibal Protocol is the order to kill Israelis rather than allow them to become hostages.
Does seem to be the case, they also seem to have no follow up to researched rebuttals of their talking points.
Edit: although the person I was responding to does seem to be not, if not anti, Marxist-Lenninist. Maybe they're Dengian or Maoist...
I think it's a little racist to remove agency from people who've made moves equally validly explained as self-defence and preservation against a hostile invader.
When you think about it, anti-corruption laws are just socialism getting in the way of fair and liberal use of money.