>"With that preface, I would like to explain why I think that both the positions of those in favor of Bibi’s hardline position, and those protesting in the streets against it, are eminently understandable."
Excellent take. Would be nice to see this perspective adopted more frequently: acknowledging both sides and recognizing inherent ambiguity and uncertainty.
I understand Hamas' side completely (Neturei Karta has tweeted about their relationship with Haniyeh ym's extensively) too. They claim they are not anti-Jewish per se, they just feel like we are in their land. But it's based on a different value system...
That is really sad that people could compare charedim to Hamas. Hamas literally want to kill every Jew and throw us into the sea. What do the charedim want that is even in the same ballpark let alone remotely close?
Actually, there is a comparison to be made between Hamas and most of Chareidi society. Hamas and its supporters are presently an immediate existential threat to the State. Chareidi society is an existential threat in the intermediate term. In 2 or 3 generations when Charedim wil become 20-25% of the Israeli population if present demographic and birth rate trends are extended. There will be few people left if most Charedim refuse to join militarily with their secular, some Muslim and Hesder-type Israelis in defense of Israel.
So, yes Hamas and most of Charedi society are an existential threat in their own debased and fiendish way.
Very dishonest argument. Hamas & hareidim believe, and do, two very different sets of things… But because you choose to apply the same phrase—“existential threat”—to each of them, you’re claiming they’re comparable. That’s kind of the logic that people use when they put Israel and Hamas on the same moral plane: both of them are killing people.
You can’t compare the threats in any way shape or form. Hamas is clear and obvious threat, they want to kill us all. The charedi “threat” is based on assumptions and projections that may or may not come true.
What? We should wait until those assumptions may or may not come true? We should deliver Israel’s fate to a growth of 25% of the Israeli population.
We presently know the Chareidi religious mindset. No emoyment to support large families and little secular education. Why would anyone assume anything is going to change? So to assuage your fealty to a structurally decrepit society only because they solely study holy books and engage in “God Fearing” reverential activities is a recipe for national disaster..
Regarding the threat towards Israel that the chareidi sector pose, I would add the extreme hatred that the Chareidim incalculate towards other Jews, and especially the mythological "far left" as we see in other comments here.
I think Nachum can confirm he is NOT Chareidi. As for "extreme hatred", I haven't followed Slifkin's posts for long, but his hatred for Chareidim dwarfs anything I have ever heard from any Chareidi toward a fellow Jew.
Charedim pretty strongly hate those who they do think harm them, though. Such as Lapid. Which is actually odd, because surely everything is from Hashem.
>"That is really sad that people could compare charedim to Hamas. Hamas literally want to kill every Jew and throw us into the sea. What do the charedim want that is even in the same ballpark let alone remotely close?"
This is a classic strawman fallacy and appeal to emotion, that has come up a few times in discussions here over the last few months. The original poster simply said: "For some people, Charedim are as bad as Hamas and there is no possibility of understanding their side at all."
The emotional pushback against the analogy smacks of the traditional need to say להבדיל for any slightly taboo analogy.
The strawman fallacy here is misrepresenting or exaggerating the position of those who compare Charedim to Hamas. The comparison obviously isn't about the exact goals or actions of Hamas (which seeks to physically harm Jews) and Charedim, but rather about *some* analagous similarities in societal impact.
By focusing on the most extreme and unrelated aspect (Hamas's intent to kill Jews) and contrasting it with the much less extreme goals of Charedim, the irrelevant critique sidesteps addressing the actual point of comparison, dismissing it without engaging with the actual point
Why shouldn't Hamas be used as a comparison, where relevant? Both Hamas and the Chareidim are two of the top existential risks facing Israel as we known it. It would be unreasonable *not* to compare them. The only reason not to would be for reasons related to emotion and taboo
Ezra, I'm sorry to say this so directly, but if you can't understand what is so terribly wrong with comparing chareidim to hamas it means you are (at least a bit) socially-off.
Don't take my word for it, ask someone whom you consider wise if they think it is normal.
If you really think there is any comparison between Hamas and the charedim I have nothing more to say to you. Your moral compass has been warped by anti charedi hate.
One thing is clear. The protests are a terrible mistake and make a deal much harder to make and help Hamas not the hostages. The most basic point about negotiations is that if the other side knows you are desperate they have no incentive to compromise or even make a deal. The protests incentivize Hamas to harden their positions and not compromise and not make a deal. Why would they make a deal now when they know that the longer they wait the better the deal will be? Why would they make a deal at all when they see that not making a deal is tearing the country apart and weakening it. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that will only make a deal if they think it’s in their interest. They don’t care about the Palestinian people or the hostages. The protests just strengthen Hamas in any negotiations.
Most people (and especially progressives) do not think beyond first order effects. Even considering first order effects is a stretch when the topic is emotional.
I agree with you on your comment that the protests are a terrible mistake and further goad Hamas and their supporters to kill the hostages to wreak havoc on Israeli societal avowal to completely destroy them.
There will be plenty of opportunities to get rid of Bibi after the decimation of Hamas.
First of all many are not sincere. They want to bring down Netanyahu any way they can. This is one. Second of all even the people who are sincere are acting stupidly and counterproductively. If they really care for the hostages and want them to be freed this kind of protest does just the opposite.
Natan, you are on point when you say, how can anyone be so sure, about the hostage deal. This is such a complicated issue with so many conflicting and painful considerations. In fact, anyone who is so “sure” just displays the fact that they haven’t thought it through with any depth.
However, leaders NEED conviction in order to lead. They must take on board the advice from army generals, defence minister, the other party leaders and the general public opinions etc.. which often are conflicting. And then, on balance, they need to move forward in a direction. That is leadership.
The difference here is, parties on the left have decided that they are SO SURE that a hostage deal is the right thing to do (and of you ask any individuals on the street protesting what the details of the deal are they couldn’t tell you) that they are willing to damage their own country economy in order to try and bring that about.
So they are 1. fighting for something that no-one can be sure about, and 2. they are fighting dirty by hurting their own fellow countryman.
I’m not suggesting that parties on the “right” don’t get up to their own shenanigans and machinations in the Knesset, but as a rule, it’s the left that constantly disrupt the everyday life of Israeli citizens every time they don’t get their way. Its as if they believe in democracy, only when they get their way!
With regards to your comments about Bibi as a leader, I’m afraid if you are looking for that level of integrity in a political leader you will always be disappointed. They are all guilty on some level of allowing self-interest to cloud their judgement. Call it out yes, but that any other leader/politician would be better, I doubt it. Bibi will be accused of self interest if he opposes a deal, so he can prolong his hold on power. Lapid will be accused of self interest if he supports a deal so he can cosy up to the US administration.
Point taken with regards to Bibi not speaking to Israeli press as much as he should, even though the anti Bibi media bias is so strong.
Let the public voice be heard at the next election.
No, I'm sorry. At a certain point, you need to look at some people, even if you think of them as "your" people, and say: "You people have gone mad." The people screaming in the streets, setting fires, attacking police officers...those people have gone mad.
And they're not "tearing the country apart." They represent less than 1% of the country. Maybe and tenth of that. They just have some very big people behind them, and get a lot of useful idiots tagging along who think they're "supporting the hostages." That's not why they're out there.
It's also hard to sort out how many of the protesters are for a hostage deal, and how many just want Bibi to either resign, or go for new elections.
What exactly is supposed to change if Bibi decides to resign? Will Hamas really be more amenable to releasing hostages if, say, Benny Gantz is Prime Minister?
Okay, but I think the policy vis-a-vis Hamas will be the same, regardless of who is Prime Minister. At least should be the same.
Everyone (except for the delusional left, like Gideon Levy), realize that Hamas will always seek to destroy Israel, and all "ceasefire deals" are simply used to rearm and regroup for the next jihad.
Probably true, I don't think that there is any major difference in security approach. Except that without Bibi, there is broad government that doesn't need to cater to Ben Gvir.
I believe like Kishon and Bg the biggest threat to Israel is the West who would tie Israel's hands when it comes to defending itself against the barbarians.
If Kamala comes in Israel would need a Bibi who is able to go over the president's head to the American people and thwart hostile initiatives. There is no Bibi waiting in the background. Gantz or Lapid do not have half of Bibi's talents Even if all the accusations against Bibi are true, Israel will still need Bibi who is by far the least worse of all the candidates.
So you get to define the Overton Windows? That sounds a bit presumptuous.
And what's wrong with catering to Ben-Gvir, by the way? Let's assume that the only reason Bibi isn't caving to the screamers is because of him. (And I don't think that's true. Bibi isn't nearly as craven as you like to think and has *some* principles.) Is that automatically a *bad* thing? Or do you just like to use "Ben-Gvir" as the Left does, as some sort of bogeyman?
I saw graffiti on Shabbat: It said, "Make Kahane illegal and there will be peace." Never mind that Kahane is, a, dead, and, b, illegal already, that's just delusional. (And of course undemocratic, but very few Israelis believe in actual democracy, including those who scream the word the loudest.) But it speaks volumes about the mindset, one you're treading close to.
If you're limiting yourself to "Zionist Jews," they currently hold about 98 Knesset seats. (I'll include Labor. If you take into account that many Shas voters are, in fact, Zionists, that number may be 105. But leave that aside.)
The parties you *don't* like account for *forty-six* of those seats. Basically half. So when you say "broad section," you're essentially saying "half."
Ben Gvir is a convicted criminal who was placed in charge of security. That tells you all you need to know about this government’s corruption and and lack of integrity. He should be in jail not in the Knesset.
Israel’s homegrown BDS—Bibi Derangement Syndrome: a condition in which the sufferer is incapable of discussing any situation remotely connected to Netanyahu (or even many that are not) without making it all about how awful & dishonest & stupid & mean Bibi is.
The people organizing it are simply anti-Bibi. They're even wearing the same t-shirts they wore back in 2020.
Six families didn't even have time to bury their loved ones before they were out on the streets. The level of organization is remarkable- you should have seen the massive setup in Tel Aviv last night. The funding must be incredible. No, I'm sorry, these people don't care about the hostages *at all*.
And even so, their numbers would be pitiful if they didn't get a bunch of mostly well-meaning hangers-on, people who feel like they "have to do something" and bored college kids whose semester doesn't begin until after the chagim and teenagers whose schools are on strike and so on. And then you stir up the crowd with a lot of chants and banging and eventually violence breaks out.
And what is supposed to happen? Again, they don't care. They just want Bibi out and then Mashiach (a secular mashiach, to be sure, but a Mashiach) will arrive.
I have looked these people in the eyes, literally, for five years now. They have set my street on fire numerous times, they have terrorized my kids, they have sent me to the hospital. You can't see one person holding a silly sign in Beit Shemesh and tell me you know them better than I.
Beni Gantz, and especially Gadi Eizenkott, are on the record as having pushed for the army to maneuver far more aggressively and quickly in Gaza and take Philadelphi and Rafiach far earlier. If they would have been making the decisions, it is possible that we would have been in Rafiach by late December. Hamas would be under exponentially greater pressure making release of the hostages more likely. We would also be in a far better position vs Hamas and Hezbullah, not to mention the extremely worrying developing situation in the West Bank.
Bibi does nothing. He centralizes all decision making and then procrastinates while blaming everyone else for the situation he caused. So long as he is prime minister this war will not end, certainly not in victory. If we're not gonna win the war anyway due to our weak leadership, we should at least try and get the hostages back.
If we had any leadership months ago, we could have won the war. We could have gone into Gaza properly and wiped them out. This hasn't been done and it may be too late. But there is going to be a war in the North, and there is an intifada developing in the West Bank. We urgently need to get rid of our incompetent leadership to have a hope of winning.
That is my thinking and the thinking of a lot of people who went to protest.
You leave out the fact that Biden/Harris applied pressure and didn't want Israel to enter Rafiah, and Bibi pushed ahead, evacuated the Gazans there, and did it anyway. I'm not sure if Gantz would have been Prime Minister at the time, that the results would have been any different.
But now Gantz and Eizenkott push for a "cease-fire deal". The "only" catch is that the only way Hamas agrees to a ceasefire is if they remain in power, and if they control the Philadelphi Corridor. As Einat Wilf said in a recent interview, it essentially restores things back to October 6th (with a few thousand terrorists that we'll have to release to get back the hostages, added to Hamas' ranks).
It will essentially throw away all of the gains of the war, and mean that the soldiers' lives lost were for naught.
I understand that the Americans applied pressure. It is the duty of the prime minister to deal with that pressure the same way it is the duty of the army leadership to deal with Hamas. Clearly Netanyahu failed to do his part.
The situation in Gaza is especially infuriating. We could have won! We were close to doing so in December but Netanyahu folded under pressure. Now, it may be impossible.
Gantz and Eisenkot and me as well are now in favour of a cease fire because we see a prime minister who is incapable or unwilling of bringing victory and refuses to quit and let someone else do the job.
You write that a ceasefire would throw away all the gains of the war. I will go further. It means an Israeli defeat. The fact is that due to our incompetent leadership we are not winning the war plus the hostages are being tortured and killed. If we are not going to win the war anyway, we should at least try and get back some of the hostages.
To be clear, if we had semi-competent leadership, I would have a different opinion about a ceasefire. This is why I want elections. With different leadership, we would not be in this terrible situation in the first place.
So long as this is the situation, I want to at least try and salvage as many live hostages as possible.
Sure they care. They also really like repeating the slogans like "bring them home" They just care about a lot of other stuff a lot more and aren't willing to give that up to save hostages. It's what the economists call a "revealed preference".
To me, a deal right after hamas murdered 6 hostages is a terrible idea. That just encourages more murders. I don't see what prior positions of army heads or "Netanyahu being a lair" have to do with it.
"I will start this post by giving my position on the hostage deal: I don’t have one. I don’t know if it’s a good idea or not. I don’t even know how anyone can know."
Israel appears to have only two incompatible options: (1) significantly compromise its future security by making a hostage "deal"; or (2) destroy its enemies' military capabilities to secure Israel's future viability (recognizing that, unfortunately, such a course entails a very high likelihood of losing the hostages).
Israel's leaders dug themselves a political hole at the outset by announcing the goals of both hostage return and military victory. If Israel wants to survive as a nation, the only realistic alternative is the latter option. It is a horrible choice, but Israel cannot undo the years of security lapses which led to October 7 and the dire threat to its North. The sooner Israelis come to this recognition the better as it appears clear that Israel's enemies are playing Israel's lack of resolve like a fiddle.
They were under huge pressure to state their war aims publically. On the one hand, it would be unwise to invade without clear goals, on the other hand, giving that information out puts Israel at a disadvantage.
Your comment : That Bibi is a blatant liar with absolutely zero integrity, who readily harms the country and even national security in order to amass and retain power"
It is simply called a politician!! Many might have some integrity, but most fit into you characterization of Bibi. Exactly how many politicians' can you name that don't have their own interest, including pride and power involved?
Don't get me wrong I think Bibi should go, the worst thing to happen to Israel - happened under his watch. Unfortunately this pain is not over and it seems it will cause more division among us.
Bibi is acting in the best interest of Bibi, nothing more, nothing less. He is using the war to cling to power and avoid the consequences of his actions.
While we all quarrel female prisoners are being raped and all are being tortured physical and even worse psychologically. If we do not do everything possible to rescue them we become Galut Jews all over again. The idea of this country was to fight for and rescue Jews. If we don’t, we don’t deserve this country.
Would you be open to do the Naturi Karta plan - giving back all of Israel and live on the benevolence of the kind Arabs? Don't we need to get them back so they can live out their lives
In other words, there are red lines that you also will also NOT cross . If they demanded this - would you not throw your hands up and say "there is nothing we can do to get them back, let us at least do what we set our goals to do, so this will never happen again.
Maybe others do not agree to how far you are willing to go? I gave an extreme example showing where it goes past your red lines. Giving back the Philadlphi
corridor is a red line many think and argue should not be paid., as then they can regroup and continue driving trucks with weapons', bombs, and missiles , that will kill us and our precious children.
Other argue anyone with blood on his hands is a Red line not to release them.
I am showing you have red lines and so do many others. I would be willing to put it to a vote and see what the majority wants to do.
The Leftists/ Peaceniks still haven't learned. Who did Hamas primarily target on Oct 7th? Not Likudniks. Leftists, in general and in every country, are suicidal. Sorry, but that's my opinion. You don't have to like it.
"some of us remember Ariel Sharon’s promise that if missiles are ever fired out of Gaza, Israel will be able to reconquer Gaza with full international support."
Is there a source for this available? Because rockets were fired from Gaza on the day of Sharon's funeral.
Thank you Natan. This is the most even-handed assessment of Israel's painful and complex situation that I have read to date. The biggest stumbling block to crafting a way forward is the near universal distrust and contempt for Netanyahu as he stubbornly clings to power, selling out whatever he needs to sell out to keep his corrupt and unwieldly coalition together, whatever the cost to the country. This precludes the type of rational and objective assessment of the government policies that Israel desperately needs.
Probably a stupid question from an American Jew, but if any of the other parties that "represent[] a broad section of Israel and the vast majority of Zionist Jews" were willing to join with Netanyahu in the first place when he formed a Government, he would not be beholden to BG. So, what is the responsibility of those parties -- not the far left ones, but ones more to the center who refused to join Bibi in a coalition --- for BG's power and Bibi's reliance on him?
So why not apply some rationalism- that is the name of the site, after all- and see what position you may have? Something the colder the better, I would think.
>"With that preface, I would like to explain why I think that both the positions of those in favor of Bibi’s hardline position, and those protesting in the streets against it, are eminently understandable."
Excellent take. Would be nice to see this perspective adopted more frequently: acknowledging both sides and recognizing inherent ambiguity and uncertainty.
I wonder if its even possible to try to understand both sides when it comes to Charedim.
For some people, Charedim are as bad as Hamas and there is no possibility of understanding their side at all.
I understand their side completely. But it's based on a different value system that does not include shared responsibility with the nation.
I understand Hamas' side completely (Neturei Karta has tweeted about their relationship with Haniyeh ym's extensively) too. They claim they are not anti-Jewish per se, they just feel like we are in their land. But it's based on a different value system...
That is really sad that people could compare charedim to Hamas. Hamas literally want to kill every Jew and throw us into the sea. What do the charedim want that is even in the same ballpark let alone remotely close?
@Marty Bluke
Actually, there is a comparison to be made between Hamas and most of Chareidi society. Hamas and its supporters are presently an immediate existential threat to the State. Chareidi society is an existential threat in the intermediate term. In 2 or 3 generations when Charedim wil become 20-25% of the Israeli population if present demographic and birth rate trends are extended. There will be few people left if most Charedim refuse to join militarily with their secular, some Muslim and Hesder-type Israelis in defense of Israel.
So, yes Hamas and most of Charedi society are an existential threat in their own debased and fiendish way.
Very dishonest argument. Hamas & hareidim believe, and do, two very different sets of things… But because you choose to apply the same phrase—“existential threat”—to each of them, you’re claiming they’re comparable. That’s kind of the logic that people use when they put Israel and Hamas on the same moral plane: both of them are killing people.
You can’t compare the threats in any way shape or form. Hamas is clear and obvious threat, they want to kill us all. The charedi “threat” is based on assumptions and projections that may or may not come true.
@Marty Bluke,
What? We should wait until those assumptions may or may not come true? We should deliver Israel’s fate to a growth of 25% of the Israeli population.
We presently know the Chareidi religious mindset. No emoyment to support large families and little secular education. Why would anyone assume anything is going to change? So to assuage your fealty to a structurally decrepit society only because they solely study holy books and engage in “God Fearing” reverential activities is a recipe for national disaster..
No one said to ignore it. But to compare that to the threat of Hamas is ridiculous
No. One. Said. To. Ignore. The. Problem.
Do you do this deliberately, is that your debating tactic— pretending to be so obtuse that the other person finally just gives up?
Regarding the threat towards Israel that the chareidi sector pose, I would add the extreme hatred that the Chareidim incalculate towards other Jews, and especially the mythological "far left" as we see in other comments here.
I think Nachum can confirm he is NOT Chareidi. As for "extreme hatred", I haven't followed Slifkin's posts for long, but his hatred for Chareidim dwarfs anything I have ever heard from any Chareidi toward a fellow Jew.
Charedim pretty strongly hate those who they do think harm them, though. Such as Lapid. Which is actually odd, because surely everything is from Hashem.
Why would charedim hate other Jews who don't do anything to harm them?
>"That is really sad that people could compare charedim to Hamas. Hamas literally want to kill every Jew and throw us into the sea. What do the charedim want that is even in the same ballpark let alone remotely close?"
This is a classic strawman fallacy and appeal to emotion, that has come up a few times in discussions here over the last few months. The original poster simply said: "For some people, Charedim are as bad as Hamas and there is no possibility of understanding their side at all."
The emotional pushback against the analogy smacks of the traditional need to say להבדיל for any slightly taboo analogy.
The strawman fallacy here is misrepresenting or exaggerating the position of those who compare Charedim to Hamas. The comparison obviously isn't about the exact goals or actions of Hamas (which seeks to physically harm Jews) and Charedim, but rather about *some* analagous similarities in societal impact.
By focusing on the most extreme and unrelated aspect (Hamas's intent to kill Jews) and contrasting it with the much less extreme goals of Charedim, the irrelevant critique sidesteps addressing the actual point of comparison, dismissing it without engaging with the actual point
There’s a really simple solution. Don’t use Hamas as a comparison and come up with a more appropriate comparison.
Why shouldn't Hamas be used as a comparison, where relevant? Both Hamas and the Chareidim are two of the top existential risks facing Israel as we known it. It would be unreasonable *not* to compare them. The only reason not to would be for reasons related to emotion and taboo
Ezra, I'm sorry to say this so directly, but if you can't understand what is so terribly wrong with comparing chareidim to hamas it means you are (at least a bit) socially-off.
Don't take my word for it, ask someone whom you consider wise if they think it is normal.
If you really think there is any comparison between Hamas and the charedim I have nothing more to say to you. Your moral compass has been warped by anti charedi hate.
Well, they're not rational societies.
One thing is clear. The protests are a terrible mistake and make a deal much harder to make and help Hamas not the hostages. The most basic point about negotiations is that if the other side knows you are desperate they have no incentive to compromise or even make a deal. The protests incentivize Hamas to harden their positions and not compromise and not make a deal. Why would they make a deal now when they know that the longer they wait the better the deal will be? Why would they make a deal at all when they see that not making a deal is tearing the country apart and weakening it. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that will only make a deal if they think it’s in their interest. They don’t care about the Palestinian people or the hostages. The protests just strengthen Hamas in any negotiations.
If they can buy a general strike by killing hostages, what's the motivation now for a deal?
Exactly, the strike disincentives Hamas to make a deal.
Worse, it incentivizes killing hostages.
The protests are well funded and are run by PR firms who know everything about popular persuasion and nothing about negotiation and deal making.
Literally run by advertising agencies who sell soap.
Most people (and especially progressives) do not think beyond first order effects. Even considering first order effects is a stretch when the topic is emotional.
@Marty Bluke,
I agree with you on your comment that the protests are a terrible mistake and further goad Hamas and their supporters to kill the hostages to wreak havoc on Israeli societal avowal to completely destroy them.
There will be plenty of opportunities to get rid of Bibi after the decimation of Hamas.
And while Bibi lies, hostages die…
First of all many are not sincere. They want to bring down Netanyahu any way they can. This is one. Second of all even the people who are sincere are acting stupidly and counterproductively. If they really care for the hostages and want them to be freed this kind of protest does just the opposite.
Natan, you are on point when you say, how can anyone be so sure, about the hostage deal. This is such a complicated issue with so many conflicting and painful considerations. In fact, anyone who is so “sure” just displays the fact that they haven’t thought it through with any depth.
However, leaders NEED conviction in order to lead. They must take on board the advice from army generals, defence minister, the other party leaders and the general public opinions etc.. which often are conflicting. And then, on balance, they need to move forward in a direction. That is leadership.
The difference here is, parties on the left have decided that they are SO SURE that a hostage deal is the right thing to do (and of you ask any individuals on the street protesting what the details of the deal are they couldn’t tell you) that they are willing to damage their own country economy in order to try and bring that about.
So they are 1. fighting for something that no-one can be sure about, and 2. they are fighting dirty by hurting their own fellow countryman.
I’m not suggesting that parties on the “right” don’t get up to their own shenanigans and machinations in the Knesset, but as a rule, it’s the left that constantly disrupt the everyday life of Israeli citizens every time they don’t get their way. Its as if they believe in democracy, only when they get their way!
With regards to your comments about Bibi as a leader, I’m afraid if you are looking for that level of integrity in a political leader you will always be disappointed. They are all guilty on some level of allowing self-interest to cloud their judgement. Call it out yes, but that any other leader/politician would be better, I doubt it. Bibi will be accused of self interest if he opposes a deal, so he can prolong his hold on power. Lapid will be accused of self interest if he supports a deal so he can cosy up to the US administration.
Point taken with regards to Bibi not speaking to Israeli press as much as he should, even though the anti Bibi media bias is so strong.
Let the public voice be heard at the next election.
No, I'm sorry. At a certain point, you need to look at some people, even if you think of them as "your" people, and say: "You people have gone mad." The people screaming in the streets, setting fires, attacking police officers...those people have gone mad.
And they're not "tearing the country apart." They represent less than 1% of the country. Maybe and tenth of that. They just have some very big people behind them, and get a lot of useful idiots tagging along who think they're "supporting the hostages." That's not why they're out there.
Oh, and if the protests are madness, shutting down the economy is a whole 'nother level of insanity.
It's also hard to sort out how many of the protesters are for a hostage deal, and how many just want Bibi to either resign, or go for new elections.
What exactly is supposed to change if Bibi decides to resign? Will Hamas really be more amenable to releasing hostages if, say, Benny Gantz is Prime Minister?
If Bibi resigns then we get a broad government that represents a broad section of Israel and the vast majority of Zionist Jews.
Okay, but I think the policy vis-a-vis Hamas will be the same, regardless of who is Prime Minister. At least should be the same.
Everyone (except for the delusional left, like Gideon Levy), realize that Hamas will always seek to destroy Israel, and all "ceasefire deals" are simply used to rearm and regroup for the next jihad.
Probably true, I don't think that there is any major difference in security approach. Except that without Bibi, there is broad government that doesn't need to cater to Ben Gvir.
I believe like Kishon and Bg the biggest threat to Israel is the West who would tie Israel's hands when it comes to defending itself against the barbarians.
If Kamala comes in Israel would need a Bibi who is able to go over the president's head to the American people and thwart hostile initiatives. There is no Bibi waiting in the background. Gantz or Lapid do not have half of Bibi's talents Even if all the accusations against Bibi are true, Israel will still need Bibi who is by far the least worse of all the candidates.
So you get to define the Overton Windows? That sounds a bit presumptuous.
And what's wrong with catering to Ben-Gvir, by the way? Let's assume that the only reason Bibi isn't caving to the screamers is because of him. (And I don't think that's true. Bibi isn't nearly as craven as you like to think and has *some* principles.) Is that automatically a *bad* thing? Or do you just like to use "Ben-Gvir" as the Left does, as some sort of bogeyman?
I saw graffiti on Shabbat: It said, "Make Kahane illegal and there will be peace." Never mind that Kahane is, a, dead, and, b, illegal already, that's just delusional. (And of course undemocratic, but very few Israelis believe in actual democracy, including those who scream the word the loudest.) But it speaks volumes about the mindset, one you're treading close to.
If you're limiting yourself to "Zionist Jews," they currently hold about 98 Knesset seats. (I'll include Labor. If you take into account that many Shas voters are, in fact, Zionists, that number may be 105. But leave that aside.)
The parties you *don't* like account for *forty-six* of those seats. Basically half. So when you say "broad section," you're essentially saying "half."
Ben Gvir is a convicted criminal who was placed in charge of security. That tells you all you need to know about this government’s corruption and and lack of integrity. He should be in jail not in the Knesset.
Israel’s homegrown BDS—Bibi Derangement Syndrome: a condition in which the sufferer is incapable of discussing any situation remotely connected to Netanyahu (or even many that are not) without making it all about how awful & dishonest & stupid & mean Bibi is.
Like Gantz joining instead? That worked out well in the war cabinet.
The people organizing it are simply anti-Bibi. They're even wearing the same t-shirts they wore back in 2020.
Six families didn't even have time to bury their loved ones before they were out on the streets. The level of organization is remarkable- you should have seen the massive setup in Tel Aviv last night. The funding must be incredible. No, I'm sorry, these people don't care about the hostages *at all*.
And even so, their numbers would be pitiful if they didn't get a bunch of mostly well-meaning hangers-on, people who feel like they "have to do something" and bored college kids whose semester doesn't begin until after the chagim and teenagers whose schools are on strike and so on. And then you stir up the crowd with a lot of chants and banging and eventually violence breaks out.
And what is supposed to happen? Again, they don't care. They just want Bibi out and then Mashiach (a secular mashiach, to be sure, but a Mashiach) will arrive.
I have looked these people in the eyes, literally, for five years now. They have set my street on fire numerous times, they have terrorized my kids, they have sent me to the hospital. You can't see one person holding a silly sign in Beit Shemesh and tell me you know them better than I.
Beni Gantz, and especially Gadi Eizenkott, are on the record as having pushed for the army to maneuver far more aggressively and quickly in Gaza and take Philadelphi and Rafiach far earlier. If they would have been making the decisions, it is possible that we would have been in Rafiach by late December. Hamas would be under exponentially greater pressure making release of the hostages more likely. We would also be in a far better position vs Hamas and Hezbullah, not to mention the extremely worrying developing situation in the West Bank.
Bibi does nothing. He centralizes all decision making and then procrastinates while blaming everyone else for the situation he caused. So long as he is prime minister this war will not end, certainly not in victory. If we're not gonna win the war anyway due to our weak leadership, we should at least try and get the hostages back.
If we had any leadership months ago, we could have won the war. We could have gone into Gaza properly and wiped them out. This hasn't been done and it may be too late. But there is going to be a war in the North, and there is an intifada developing in the West Bank. We urgently need to get rid of our incompetent leadership to have a hope of winning.
That is my thinking and the thinking of a lot of people who went to protest.
You leave out the fact that Biden/Harris applied pressure and didn't want Israel to enter Rafiah, and Bibi pushed ahead, evacuated the Gazans there, and did it anyway. I'm not sure if Gantz would have been Prime Minister at the time, that the results would have been any different.
But now Gantz and Eizenkott push for a "cease-fire deal". The "only" catch is that the only way Hamas agrees to a ceasefire is if they remain in power, and if they control the Philadelphi Corridor. As Einat Wilf said in a recent interview, it essentially restores things back to October 6th (with a few thousand terrorists that we'll have to release to get back the hostages, added to Hamas' ranks).
It will essentially throw away all of the gains of the war, and mean that the soldiers' lives lost were for naught.
I understand that the Americans applied pressure. It is the duty of the prime minister to deal with that pressure the same way it is the duty of the army leadership to deal with Hamas. Clearly Netanyahu failed to do his part.
The situation in Gaza is especially infuriating. We could have won! We were close to doing so in December but Netanyahu folded under pressure. Now, it may be impossible.
Gantz and Eisenkot and me as well are now in favour of a cease fire because we see a prime minister who is incapable or unwilling of bringing victory and refuses to quit and let someone else do the job.
You write that a ceasefire would throw away all the gains of the war. I will go further. It means an Israeli defeat. The fact is that due to our incompetent leadership we are not winning the war plus the hostages are being tortured and killed. If we are not going to win the war anyway, we should at least try and get back some of the hostages.
To be clear, if we had semi-competent leadership, I would have a different opinion about a ceasefire. This is why I want elections. With different leadership, we would not be in this terrible situation in the first place.
So long as this is the situation, I want to at least try and salvage as many live hostages as possible.
Rabbi Slivkin:
"The government has showed an appalling lack of concern for the hostages"
I lost you on that - I think you should rethink that sentence.
There is not a Jew that doesn't care! How we go about it is a different issue. What risks we should take is an argument.
I am very surprised you said that!
Sure they care. They also really like repeating the slogans like "bring them home" They just care about a lot of other stuff a lot more and aren't willing to give that up to save hostages. It's what the economists call a "revealed preference".
I think "revealed preference" is something people don't say out loud. Bibi is being pretty open. So are his opponents.
To me, a deal right after hamas murdered 6 hostages is a terrible idea. That just encourages more murders. I don't see what prior positions of army heads or "Netanyahu being a lair" have to do with it.
"I will start this post by giving my position on the hostage deal: I don’t have one. I don’t know if it’s a good idea or not. I don’t even know how anyone can know."
-
Battered spouse syndrome. You've learned nothing.
Israel appears to have only two incompatible options: (1) significantly compromise its future security by making a hostage "deal"; or (2) destroy its enemies' military capabilities to secure Israel's future viability (recognizing that, unfortunately, such a course entails a very high likelihood of losing the hostages).
Israel's leaders dug themselves a political hole at the outset by announcing the goals of both hostage return and military victory. If Israel wants to survive as a nation, the only realistic alternative is the latter option. It is a horrible choice, but Israel cannot undo the years of security lapses which led to October 7 and the dire threat to its North. The sooner Israelis come to this recognition the better as it appears clear that Israel's enemies are playing Israel's lack of resolve like a fiddle.
They were under huge pressure to state their war aims publically. On the one hand, it would be unwise to invade without clear goals, on the other hand, giving that information out puts Israel at a disadvantage.
Your comment : That Bibi is a blatant liar with absolutely zero integrity, who readily harms the country and even national security in order to amass and retain power"
It is simply called a politician!! Many might have some integrity, but most fit into you characterization of Bibi. Exactly how many politicians' can you name that don't have their own interest, including pride and power involved?
Don't get me wrong I think Bibi should go, the worst thing to happen to Israel - happened under his watch. Unfortunately this pain is not over and it seems it will cause more division among us.
Bibi is acting in the best interest of Bibi, nothing more, nothing less. He is using the war to cling to power and avoid the consequences of his actions.
And Gallant has his own issues.
While we all quarrel female prisoners are being raped and all are being tortured physical and even worse psychologically. If we do not do everything possible to rescue them we become Galut Jews all over again. The idea of this country was to fight for and rescue Jews. If we don’t, we don’t deserve this country.
How far do you suppose we go to get them back?
Anything and everything - Really?
Would you be open to do the Naturi Karta plan - giving back all of Israel and live on the benevolence of the kind Arabs? Don't we need to get them back so they can live out their lives
In other words, there are red lines that you also will also NOT cross . If they demanded this - would you not throw your hands up and say "there is nothing we can do to get them back, let us at least do what we set our goals to do, so this will never happen again.
That’s a ludicrous argument. We are talking about trading them something they want as badly as we do. Prisoners we have.
Not just prisoners. There are all kinds of conditions including ending the war, complete withdrawal from Gaza including Philadelphi, etc.
But what is your price you are willing to pay?
Maybe others do not agree to how far you are willing to go? I gave an extreme example showing where it goes past your red lines. Giving back the Philadlphi
corridor is a red line many think and argue should not be paid., as then they can regroup and continue driving trucks with weapons', bombs, and missiles , that will kill us and our precious children.
Other argue anyone with blood on his hands is a Red line not to release them.
I am showing you have red lines and so do many others. I would be willing to put it to a vote and see what the majority wants to do.
The Leftists/ Peaceniks still haven't learned. Who did Hamas primarily target on Oct 7th? Not Likudniks. Leftists, in general and in every country, are suicidal. Sorry, but that's my opinion. You don't have to like it.
A bunch of the residents of those kibbutzim are sounding like real Kahanists these days.
"some of us remember Ariel Sharon’s promise that if missiles are ever fired out of Gaza, Israel will be able to reconquer Gaza with full international support."
Is there a source for this available? Because rockets were fired from Gaza on the day of Sharon's funeral.
There are recordings of Sharon saying it, and recordings of lots of people saying similar things at the time of Oslo.
Thank you Natan. This is the most even-handed assessment of Israel's painful and complex situation that I have read to date. The biggest stumbling block to crafting a way forward is the near universal distrust and contempt for Netanyahu as he stubbornly clings to power, selling out whatever he needs to sell out to keep his corrupt and unwieldly coalition together, whatever the cost to the country. This precludes the type of rational and objective assessment of the government policies that Israel desperately needs.
Probably a stupid question from an American Jew, but if any of the other parties that "represent[] a broad section of Israel and the vast majority of Zionist Jews" were willing to join with Netanyahu in the first place when he formed a Government, he would not be beholden to BG. So, what is the responsibility of those parties -- not the far left ones, but ones more to the center who refused to join Bibi in a coalition --- for BG's power and Bibi's reliance on him?
So why not apply some rationalism- that is the name of the site, after all- and see what position you may have? Something the colder the better, I would think.
By the way, you can't look at the screaming mob and think it represents "rationalism" in any way.
Do you expect people whose hearts are torn to pieces to act rationally…?