I don't know, most of Ben Gvir's constituents are fed up and frustrated with the Palestinians and their supporters by now. The rage has reached a boiling point. Instead of attacking the messenger for mean tweets, we should understand the deep trauma of Ben Gvir's community. They've had enough of appeasing the enemy.
Nope. For many years Ben Gvir had a picture of Baruch Goldstein on his wall and only took it down due to political pressure. The same Baruch Goldstein who massacred 29 Muslim civilians for no particular reason. For Ben Gvir, killing is not a means to defense, killing is the point.
Uh-huh—the fact that “for many years” someone had a picture on their wall is definitely the single most relevant point about their character—every single thing they say or do now should be assessed through that lens, not on its own relevant merits or context.
(This, of course, applies only to Israelis. When the majority of Palestinians loudly, repeatedly, and with utter consistency, declare their allegiance to & support for terrorism, they’re really just helpless victims caught between Hamas & Israel, expressing their misery in the only way they know how.)
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israelis agree with Ben Gvir. These are from communities that have shown some of the greatest mesiras nefesh in the war. For them, killing is the point? Whatever one thinks of Ben Gvir personally is irrelevant. He's just representative of the opinion of so many Israelis. Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, take the message seriously.
This is a weird comment. Goldstein was a mass murderer motivated by religious and political extremism, and Ben Gvir displayed his picture to celebrate that behavior.
A better analogy than Rabin would be someone keeping a picture of the child-killers of Ma’alot or the perpetrators of 9/11 on their wall.
Have you ever tried to understand the reason why Ben Gvir became a significant figure in Israeli politics? Why he has influence over a certain part of the population, and even though the quality of his abilities as a politician is far below average, despite the fact that he constantly makes gross mistakes unforgivable for a politician, he occupies a fairly high place in the cabinet?
Because Bibi needs his seats in the Knesset to be PM, since no-one else wants to be in a coalition with him, not so difficult to understand. The level of the political discourse in Israel, historically, has never been one of sofisticated arguments but rather one of visceral actions and reactions. Lately social media has open the square forum to everyone, and we have learnt that most people are actually not that smart. Ben Gvir is very far below the intellectual level that Rav Kahane had, agree with him or not. He is a populist and appeals to the fears and resentment of people. I am G-d forbid not denying the legitimacy of such fear and resentment, but BG has no solution for the issues facing the country. Remember how he and Smotrich disappeared for weeks when the war started? While I may share part of their big picture ideology, I don't trust them for a second to represent my interests.
Excellent answer. It explains why Bibi took him into the coalition. But it does not explain his popularity among the people, and why he has won, if not your and my trust, then the trust of a large number of Israelis. For example, for you the main thing in the description of Ben Gvir is that he is a populist and his intellectual level is low. But if you look at it from the point of view that he represents the Otzma Yehudit party, whose program includes everything that the Jewish state needs, then it looks different. You understand that I am saying that different people look from different points of view.
Pulling out the yishuvim, yes, though it was tragic and heartbreaking. Pulling out the army at the very same time and leaving it to the weak PA without any international guarantees was clearly a huge mistake.
Why should we have pulled out yishuvim? Gaza is Israel. If there are attacks you need to respond swiftly and decisively. Not pull out of your own land like a wimp. Pulling out showed the arabs that were just colonizers who can be sent packing.
People like you are the reason that it’s 10 months since October 7th, the hostages are still in captivity and we haven’t destroyed Hamas. The world, especially the Arab world respects strength. Instead, we have dithered and fathered and tried to satisfy Biden and others and what has that gotten us? Kamala Harris saying that she’s not going to stay quiet about the dead Palestinian children and the Palestinian starvation. So we didn’t win the war and are still getting attacked by the left.
For 10 months the people of the North have been homeless because the world doesn’t want us to attack Hezbollah. What normal country on earth allows a terrorist organization to fire tens of missiles into its territory every day without addressing the situation?
Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets and Israel doesn't have 150,000 Iron Dome interceptors. Maybe it's worth it to destroy Hezbollah at the cost of tens of thousands of rockets raining down on our houses and numerous (hundreds?) of civilians dying. But maybe not. What seems likely is that you haven't even thought about the question.
Absolutely nothing Marty Bluke said gives you any basis to say he “hasn’t thought about the question”; the same applies to R’ Slifkin’s article, which contains a typically fair, well-reasoned consideration of different sides of the problem—but ends with a very unfair, judgmental assessment of those who disagree with his bottom line.
Marty Bluke said "you don't know that a war with Hezbollah would involve enormous losses." Sorry but that's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. As Mark said, they have 150,000 rockets, Israel does not have 150,000 intercepters. There is absolutely nobody who does not think that there would be serious losses on Israel's side.
And you are perfectly ok with 80,000 people from the north homeless. Here’s a good idea, let’s just surrender to Hezbollah. After all they have all those rockets.
We can’t have a state of people sitting in their living rooms have to worry that a missiles going to hit their house. No country in the world can accept that.
Marty. Why on earth would you think that anyone is okay with 80,000 homeless? Why would you even talk that way?
In fact I just realized the answer. It's a reflection/projection. You don't consider the downside to your approach, so you assume that others don't consider the downside to their approach.
You're saying that it's worth it for hundreds (?) of people to die so that 80,000 people can return home. Finally a serious claim that can be debated. I'm personally not sure whether I agree or disagree. The answer probably depends on factors that you and I don't know the answer to (like whether the death toll would be tens or else hundreds or else thousands, whether we have enough ammunition to fight the war effectively if the US cuts off arms imports, whether we would do better to fight two years from now when laser air defense is better developed). Since I do not know the answers to these questions, while the government and military do mostly know the answers, my policy is to avoid any loud screaming one way or the other and try to follow the consensus of what government and military figures say or do on the subject.
The same military experts who said the disengagement would help Israel’s security? The same military experts who claimed that Hamas was deterred before October 7th?
I have to confess I don’t understand this kind of magical thinking. I pray every day for the destruction of Hamas and the redemption of the hostages but, if we are honest with ourselves, neither of those things is likely to happen in the normal course of human events.
How, precisely, are the hostages to be rescued? Sure, a “ceasefire” or some other such agreement might include the release of hostages, but that obviously does nothing to destroy Hamas. And this is certainly not the kind of thing that can be accomplished by a precision commando raid (like Entebbe or the Iranian embassy in London), since all the hostages are not in the same place but rather are dispersed throughout an entire swath of hostile territory (and intermingled with [so-called] civilians).
That brings us to the destruction of the Hamas. To be sure, Israel has the capability to raze Gaza to the ground, but that would almost certainly result in the deaths of the hostages (to say nothing of the Palestinians “civilians” whose deaths would draw international condemnation). So that leaves more conventional military operations. And how often to such conventional military operations succeed in utterly destroying an “insurgency” that also has the almost universal support of the population in which it is embedded?
Even if you were able to defeat such an enemy (which would not necessarily result in the rescue of hostages, and instead might precipitate their deaths), how would such a “regime change” actually change anything when the rest of the population supports the regime and would likely seek to continue its hateful policies?
And ceasefire now is a nuanced well thought out position? These idiotic slogans of peace now ceasefire now are ridiculous, there is another side which hates us doesn’t want peace and in fact wants to kill every jew. But sure let’s just surrender and give back all the murderers. After all that worked out so well in the Gilad Shalit deal.
The fundamentalists, on both sides, are dangerous to give them power. The way I view it they mark the outer boundaries of where rational thought is allowed to operate. In a stable society they'd be a voice in the background, that feed the fundamentals in to the moderate center. That's good. Unfortunately, once you have allowed them to dictate direction, there is naturally a big counter reaction from the other fundamental side and then you get instability. Kind of the way a tightrope walker would react if he began slipping in one direction. A hard pull in the counter direction, followed by a period of corrective gyrations. They are hard to stomach and watch and you're not sure until he straightens out whether he won't fall. The Left made that very hard push in the last government. So many long time untouchables were suddenly being picked at, geirus, kashrus, same sex marriage, etc... Everything was being ripped at. Now we have the counter balance move. Hopefully we can get back to a stable center.
This is the best post I've read in a while. If anyone thinks we can survive with the whole world against us, they are completely irrational. It's not about right and wrong. Of course we're fighting murderers who we are entitled to destroy; but the question is what's our best long-term strategy to achieve military victory? Of course, it's all in the hands of HKBH, but what should we do to win "all derech hatevah?" I believe time is on our side. Hamas is now neutralized for the near-term future. In the longer run, who knows? I would bet that our military technology will greatly outpace theirs. It would be in our interest to avoid becoming a pariah state, encouraging foreign investment in technology and continuing the upgrade of our military capabilities.
Time is on our side with Hezbollah? Absolutely not. They are only going stronger and bolder and have de facto changed the border. No one can live near the border. They have made 80,000 people homeless. So how is time on our side?
I was getting all ready to wholeheartedly agree with you when I realized you fail your own test when it comes to the charedim. You want throw them all into the army now without weighing the consequences. Sure, there are differences, but let point to a few that I have not read about it here. An insightful article in a recent tzarichiyun.org post argued the real reason charedim won’t join the army is because they are charedim and not Israeli. The gist of his point was that there is a distinct Israeli identity built of many elements - one of which is serving in the army. And there is a very distinct charedi identity with many elements but most centrally, that they are the heroes of the Torah resisting the secular onslaught of the state in whatever guise - especially buying into their “new Jew” who is a soldier more than a scholar, whose pride is the army and not the Torah. If you have any hope of reaching them, you have to first show them how one can be a charedi and and Israeli at the same time. Right now, these two identities are a flagrant contradiction, notwithstanding the few pockets here and there of those who are doing it. Charedim have an overriding identity that also includes “we have the mesorah.” Declaring “well, it was mostly right but we got the whole army thing wrong, most of the state thing wrong and a bunch of other little things wrong,” however you try to sugar-coat it, will spell the end of charedi communities and the panic/depression/whatever that would ensue. THE ONLY HOPE IS TO FIND AN APPROACH TO ARMY SERVICE THAT IS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR BELIEFS AND NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THEM. This takes weighing sides of issues and not just hammering away at them for being bad people. You may as well bang your head against the wall, as none of your “pressure” is going to accomplish anything at all, especially when they hop over the pond for a quick hundred mil to keep them going. You COULD make a difference if you applied this balanced reasoning to how you approach the charedi disdain for all things Israeli.
Very good point - However, if they don't adhere to the laws of the country they live in, and even if in their minds have a very good reason not to, they are then not part of our country, Finding a different country to live in - would solve the problem of FAIRNESS in Israel. Wouldn't that be a win/win situation for everyone?
I have a solution for the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians should realize that they are wrong, and they should klopp al chet, and go back to living without terrorism.
Yes, he compared them. Are you so shallow minded that you can't conceive of a comparison in one respect between two very different groups? One can also compare Zionists and Palestinians, in that they are both extremely nationalistic. The comparison between Palestinians and Chareidim was about people who are extremely committed to their cause, and you will not be successful in just screaming to them that they are wrong. Is that clear enough?
Wow...then he and you have totally lost the narrative. You are willing to compare yourselves to our worst enemy, who have committed acts of inconceivable evil just to win a debating point?
There is nothing wrong with making a true and relevant comparison to make a true and relevant point. One of the commenters compared Hezbollah capabilities with the Israelis, the horror. If your emotions are getting in the way of reasoned debate, you shouldn't be attempting to engage in it.
In the western world of today, where stupidity, foolishness, and tiny IQ rule, you can attack a person with stupidities like that.
I am b"h not a product of that world, my mind wasn't molested by this way of thinking. I don't think your question makes any difference to the matter at hand. Just another distraction in the comedy show that the world lives in today.
You want to just "find a different country" for close to a million people? Seriously? Aside from the extreme impracticality of that, it would represent completely giving up on the Jewish future in Israel. The charedim will have a key role to play once they embrace reality. But they need a whole lot of help and attacking them alone will only cause them to dig in further. They need pressure and support together, weighing both sides seriously at each step, just like RDNS advises in this post.
Completely giving up on the Jewish future in Israel?? Really??
Do you not realize there just as many "non charedei" that are frum and Jewish - as there are charedei. Do you think, you and your kind, are the only religious people and everyone else is OTD or something like that.
If a group of people does not want to live and uphold the law of the land , just go and find a land they like. What is wrong with that?? Isn't that fair? Why sit in a land you hate and don't want to cooperate with society.
If you are really worried about having frum people still living in the land, thank you for you concern. However, we have no problem with that.
"Don't attack them or talk bad about them, because they will dig in"! That is a new excuse I never heard - but keep 'em coming.
If you claim they "love the land" why don't they protect the land. If every group found some excuse NOT to join the army then the Arabs will just walk right in, rape our woman and girls and kill all the others. They gave us a tasting sample just recently. If no one protects the land, there is NO land.
My argument about "digging in", so what - dig them out and put them in jail if they don't want to serve. Just like all the other millions of people that live in the land are subject to.
They believe they ARE protecting the land. Just read the Torah - if everyone keeps the mitzvos, G-d will bless the land with peace and no weapon will pass through the land, even on its way somewhere else. Wars and enemies come when Jews don’t keep the Torah. This is their view, however unrealistic it may seem to the modern ear.
My argument was just to take the same sort of balance described in this post regarding dealing with the Palestinians and apply it in approaching the charedi draft question. Sweeping proclomations (especially juvenille-sounding ones like throw them all in jail) are easy to throw around. The grown-ups in the room need balance. That’s how ALL serious social problems are solved.
If many of the commentators here were around in 1948 there would have been no state of Israel. They would have said, look at all the weapons the Arab armies have. So many people will be killed. Let’s wait a year or 2 until we build up more strength.
There are 80,000 people homeless in the north. You want them to be homeless for 2 years? Who is going to support them? For someone who is so worried about out the economy when it comes to charedim, why aren’t you worried about the effects of the abandonment of the birth to the economy? What is going to change in 2 years? Hezbollah just gets more rockets and gets stronger. Why do you think the situation will be any better in 2 years?
The point is not whether Israel should or should not go to war. The point is that it should be weighed up against the costs. You are not doing that at all - above you even claim that there is no proof that there will be any costs - and thereby proving my point.
Of course there will be costs. No one in their right mind would think anything else. I have weighed the costs and IMHO the cost of 80,000 people homeless for an indeterminate period of time, the de facto loss of sovereignty in the north, the economic costs of both the rocket damage and the shutting down of the economy in the north outweigh the risks of war. But it’s more than that. If we show weakness it just makes the situation worse. If we let Hezbollah control the north then we give them an incentive to try more. If they can force us from the north then they can force us from the rest of the country. It invites other actors to attack as well. In the Middle East it is critical to show strength. That is the only thing that the Arabs respect. So not only do we have the moral considerations to the citizens of the north, the economic and sovereignty issues, we have the broader issue of our standing in the Middle East and the world.
There is nothing in your 20+ comments to indicate that you are considering the costs. In one comment you even challenged the idea that there will be any. I'd like to hear you discuss what you think the costs are. So far you are Exhibit A for the point that I was making. Endlessly going on about why Israel must wage war right now and absolutely no acknowledgement of the costs.
“IMHO the cost of 80,000 people homeless for an indeterminate period of time, the de facto loss of sovereignty in the north, the economic costs of both the rocket damage and the shutting down of the economy in the north outweigh the risks of war.”
Yes that is a fact of life and one of the risks of war. Every single military action can result in the loss of lives. Every life lost is tragic but for a nation to survive it requires sacrifice. The Minchas Chinuch points out that there is no din of pikuach nefesh in war because loss of life is the definition of war. A leader can’t let the risk of casualties paralyze and prevent them from taking the correct action.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I said “outweighs the risks”. The risks of war are quite obvious, the loss of life both civilian and military as well as property destruction. I stated very clearly that IMHO the risks, namely casualties, destruction etc. were outweighed. I don’t know what else I could have said that would have been clearer.
In 1948, 1% of the population was killed in the war. That’s a lot of people, a huge cost. But Ben Gurion felt that it was worth the cost to establish a state. In retrospect I assume that you and most people agree. Like I said if you had been there there would be no state. You would have said the cost is too great.
According to you after Pearl Harbor the US should have said only 2300 sailors were killed. If we declare war on Japan there will be serious losses. So let’s negotiate a ceasefire. Let’s wait a year or 2 until we are stronger. Everyone understands how ridiculous that is. The same applies in the North. Hezbollah is waging a war against us.
"The point is that it should be weighed up against the costs. "
But was it weighed? Were the costs calculated? Were they calculated when Hamas' tunnels & missiles were a fraction of where they were on October 6? Were they calculated when Trump was in the White House?
No, these calculations were not made. They are painful calculations. But it was easier to de-escalate, deter and dither.
You can talk about costs, and Marty can talk about profits, but the leadership only wanted to buy time. And now time's up.
Exactly. We need to learn from our mistakes that putting off hard decisions only makes them harder and more painful. The threat from Hezbollah is not going away and is only going to get bigger and bigger. Time is not on our side.
Analogies are not the strongest argument but it is clear that Ben Gvir represents the mentality that power is everything and the solution is always war with the assumption that Israel without outside help will win. It is incredible that the anyone who disagrees becomes leftists and traitors even the military police. When this is seen as the accepted approach of religious Zionism the damage to the image of Torah is devastating.
Can we clear the air here a bit? Did you support Oslo? The Disengagement? (It's hardly a secret.)
Did Ben-Gvir support either?
Now, what did Churchill saying about getting war regardless?
Oh, and President Herzog, who is hardly a right-winger and never has a good word to say about them, remarkably allowed that maybe the MPs were out of line as well.
The "image of Torah" has survived a lot worse. Who knows, maybe it's the approach of the self-appointed guardians of "Religious Zionism" who damage its image.
What was worse than the Disengagement, was the timid refusal of the government, left & right, to live by the fundamental principles of the Disengagement. Specifically, the idea that Disengagement would give Israel legitimacy and freedom to counter terror attacks from the strip, unencumbered by the "taint" of being an "occupying" power. The left thus abandoned the basic "faith" of the Disengagement and dithered and procrastinated. It's not (only) that they were wrong; it's that they betrayed their own principles.
Can I make a crazy suggestion of why Ben-Gvir, and the Right in general, may feel a little...emboldened in their suggestions these days? Mebbe- and ah'm jes' spitballin' here- mebbe it's because for *decades* now the Right, and especially the "crazy" Right, has been calling, on the one hand, in *favor* of things all the "sensible" people have told us not to do because, you know, it will cost us "world support," and lo and behold, once done, they did not (let's remember that *Ronald Reagan* himself condemning the bombing of the Iraqi reactor), and have been warning, on the other hand, *against* all the things the "sensible" people told us were completely safe and would even gain us "world support" (and failure to do them would cost us that support), and, lo and behold once they were done not only did we not get that support, and not only did we continue to *lose* all support, but even worse, the worst warnings of the "crazy" Right- which were loud and public at the time- turned out to be true?
"Oh, why would you be opposed to a promise of Palestinian 'autonomy'? That's inhuman! And the US demands it! And we're getting peace with Egypt! What are you, crazy?"
"What, we shouldn't let Arafat escape from Lebanon?" [This was the *halakhic p'sak* of the Chief Rabbi, believe it or not.] "No! He'll go to Tunisia and we'll never hear from him again! Besides, do you want the US angry at us? And to just shoot him? That's Not Who We Are!"
"Arafat is shaking hands with Rabin! It's wonderful! I got a seat on the White House lawn to witness it! What, you think it's a bad idea? What are you, some sort of land-worshipping messianic fanatic?"
"Of course we have to pull out of Lebanon! A small group of protesters is very loudly demanding it! What, you think we'll have to go back in one day? Twice? Three times? Don't be ridiculous! The UN passed a resolution!"
"But Condi Rice is demanding we pull out of Gaza! What, you want to lose US support? What are you, some sort of land-worshipping messianic fanatic? And don't worry, now no one will ever be able to criticize us again! And just one rocket, and we'll flatten the place, and no one will be able to say we're wrong! Besides, those settlers have to be taught a 'harsh lesson in democracy' [Lapid Jr.] and be 'welcomed back to Israel' [let's not even say]. They have it coming."
"Oh, come on, only a *monster* would say that we shouldn't trade a thousand hostages for Gilad Shalit. Oh, come on, of *course* they won't go back to terror. Oh, come on, we prove our *humanity* by treating the head of Hamas to brain surgery. What, we shouldn't? That's Not Who We Are! What, targeted killings? Executions? Noooo!"
"Protest the Iran deal? What, and get Obama angry at us? But he looooooves Israel! Bibi went to Congress to protest it? That's TERRIBLE! He's making support of Israel a PARTISAN ISSUE! That could cost us US support!"
"What, you think we should cut off funds to Hamas? Don't be ridiculous! Give them gobs of cash and they'll leave us alone! Plus, we have super-duper technology they can never overcome, except maybe with balloons!"
And then the Right was proven horribly, terribly correct. On all those points. And the people who argued with them? Not a word admitting that they just may have been wrong. Not even on this very thread, when confronted with straightforward questions. Instead, the Left, as they always do, pivoted on a dime, and began insisting that all the horrors were the fault of the *Right*. Even more outlandishly, they even often said it was the fault of the Right for *not being right-wing enough*, i.e., for supposedly doing things the *Left* had been demanding for years.
But you know what? The Right knew the truth. And much of Israel knows the truth. October 7 did not happen because people listened to the warnings of the "crazy Right" nor because the actually crazy Left had been correct all along.
So ask yourself: If you were Ben-Gvir, what would you think? Do you think, "Hmmm, I was right all along and they said I was crazy. Maybe when they say I'm crazy now I'm *also* right."
The real tragedy, or one of them, is that just maybe Ben-Gvir *is* wrong now. But there's no one to tell him, because no one is willing to say, "OK, Itamar, you were right and we were wrong on Oslo, and the Disengagement, and Shalit, and pretty much everything else. But that doesn't necessarily mean you're right now. So let's take a close look together."
No. Instead, all we get are, "We were right all along!" or "Let's not talk about 2005!" followed by "You're crazy, Itamar! The Rooooooomaaannnsss! 150,000!!!!!"
"let's remember that *Ronald Reagan* himself condemning the bombing of the Iraqi reactor"
Richard V. Allen, then nation security advisor, on Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor:
...President Reagan was on the line... “Yes, Dick, what is it?” I quickly recited what happened, and he asked me to repeat the message. After pausing for a few seconds, he asked, “Why do you suppose they did that?” My answer was something to the effect that the Israelis clearly did not want that reactor to become operational.
He went silent, and the phone line again filled with the churning of the copter. With characteristic aplomb, he suddenly asked: “Well, you know what?” I said, “What, Mr. President?” His retort was classic: “Boys will be boys!”
Ben Gvir can continue to make irresponsible pronouncements to stir up his mindless followers and shore up his power base, secure in the knowledge that others in the governing coalition will be charged to clean up the mess he leaves behind.
Maybe you are right. However, the media love to flaunt marginal left-wing "narratives" all the time. In 1992 the support for Palestinian autonomy was maybe 25%. 0% for their independence. Even Peres said in the Knesset "there will be NO Palestinian State". Yet the media promoted their anti-consensus agenda time after time with the argument that "one has to hear both sides of the story". Without reference to any particular politician, taking a firm stand is not extremism per se. Think about my argument, maybe this narrative is also true.....
And I honestly don't know where you would find yourself circa year 69. But you woulda been one of the misyavnim denouncing the Maccabees two centuries before that.
I don't know, most of Ben Gvir's constituents are fed up and frustrated with the Palestinians and their supporters by now. The rage has reached a boiling point. Instead of attacking the messenger for mean tweets, we should understand the deep trauma of Ben Gvir's community. They've had enough of appeasing the enemy.
Hear ye, hear ye, dear fellows! A new post just dropped from the Irrationalist Modoxer! Come one, come all, come big, come small!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/rabbi-moshe-neria-hater-of-the-army
Nope. For many years Ben Gvir had a picture of Baruch Goldstein on his wall and only took it down due to political pressure. The same Baruch Goldstein who massacred 29 Muslim civilians for no particular reason. For Ben Gvir, killing is not a means to defense, killing is the point.
Uh-huh—the fact that “for many years” someone had a picture on their wall is definitely the single most relevant point about their character—every single thing they say or do now should be assessed through that lens, not on its own relevant merits or context.
(This, of course, applies only to Israelis. When the majority of Palestinians loudly, repeatedly, and with utter consistency, declare their allegiance to & support for terrorism, they’re really just helpless victims caught between Hamas & Israel, expressing their misery in the only way they know how.)
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israelis agree with Ben Gvir. These are from communities that have shown some of the greatest mesiras nefesh in the war. For them, killing is the point? Whatever one thinks of Ben Gvir personally is irrelevant. He's just representative of the opinion of so many Israelis. Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, take the message seriously.
Hmm, nervously checking my bookshelf...
Lots of people have pictures of Rabin on their wall. He massacred 16 Jews for no particular reason. Well, he had a reason, but it wasn't a good one.
This is a weird comment. Goldstein was a mass murderer motivated by religious and political extremism, and Ben Gvir displayed his picture to celebrate that behavior.
A better analogy than Rabin would be someone keeping a picture of the child-killers of Ma’alot or the perpetrators of 9/11 on their wall.
Have you ever tried to understand the reason why Ben Gvir became a significant figure in Israeli politics? Why he has influence over a certain part of the population, and even though the quality of his abilities as a politician is far below average, despite the fact that he constantly makes gross mistakes unforgivable for a politician, he occupies a fairly high place in the cabinet?
Because Bibi needs his seats in the Knesset to be PM, since no-one else wants to be in a coalition with him, not so difficult to understand. The level of the political discourse in Israel, historically, has never been one of sofisticated arguments but rather one of visceral actions and reactions. Lately social media has open the square forum to everyone, and we have learnt that most people are actually not that smart. Ben Gvir is very far below the intellectual level that Rav Kahane had, agree with him or not. He is a populist and appeals to the fears and resentment of people. I am G-d forbid not denying the legitimacy of such fear and resentment, but BG has no solution for the issues facing the country. Remember how he and Smotrich disappeared for weeks when the war started? While I may share part of their big picture ideology, I don't trust them for a second to represent my interests.
Excellent answer. It explains why Bibi took him into the coalition. But it does not explain his popularity among the people, and why he has won, if not your and my trust, then the trust of a large number of Israelis. For example, for you the main thing in the description of Ben Gvir is that he is a populist and his intellectual level is low. But if you look at it from the point of view that he represents the Otzma Yehudit party, whose program includes everything that the Jewish state needs, then it looks different. You understand that I am saying that different people look from different points of view.
They're fed up waiting to expel Gaza's population (and who cares where that population goes) so they can re-establish Gush Katif.
Problem?
By the way, they wouldn't have to expel anyone to re-establish Gush Katif.
Just for clarity, do you still think pulling out of it was a good idea?
Pulling out the yishuvim, yes, though it was tragic and heartbreaking. Pulling out the army at the very same time and leaving it to the weak PA without any international guarantees was clearly a huge mistake.
International guarantees? When have international guarantees ever meant anything? Case in point UN Resolution 1701.
Why should we have pulled out yishuvim? Gaza is Israel. If there are attacks you need to respond swiftly and decisively. Not pull out of your own land like a wimp. Pulling out showed the arabs that were just colonizers who can be sent packing.
People like you are the reason that it’s 10 months since October 7th, the hostages are still in captivity and we haven’t destroyed Hamas. The world, especially the Arab world respects strength. Instead, we have dithered and fathered and tried to satisfy Biden and others and what has that gotten us? Kamala Harris saying that she’s not going to stay quiet about the dead Palestinian children and the Palestinian starvation. So we didn’t win the war and are still getting attacked by the left.
For 10 months the people of the North have been homeless because the world doesn’t want us to attack Hezbollah. What normal country on earth allows a terrorist organization to fire tens of missiles into its territory every day without addressing the situation?
A country which doesn't have the means to neutralize the threat without enormous losses?
You don’t know that. Based on what do you make such a claim?
On what basis do you claim the opposite?
Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets and Israel doesn't have 150,000 Iron Dome interceptors. Maybe it's worth it to destroy Hezbollah at the cost of tens of thousands of rockets raining down on our houses and numerous (hundreds?) of civilians dying. But maybe not. What seems likely is that you haven't even thought about the question.
Absolutely nothing Marty Bluke said gives you any basis to say he “hasn’t thought about the question”; the same applies to R’ Slifkin’s article, which contains a typically fair, well-reasoned consideration of different sides of the problem—but ends with a very unfair, judgmental assessment of those who disagree with his bottom line.
Marty Bluke said "you don't know that a war with Hezbollah would involve enormous losses." Sorry but that's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. As Mark said, they have 150,000 rockets, Israel does not have 150,000 intercepters. There is absolutely nobody who does not think that there would be serious losses on Israel's side.
And you are perfectly ok with 80,000 people from the north homeless. Here’s a good idea, let’s just surrender to Hezbollah. After all they have all those rockets.
We can’t have a state of people sitting in their living rooms have to worry that a missiles going to hit their house. No country in the world can accept that.
Marty. Why on earth would you think that anyone is okay with 80,000 homeless? Why would you even talk that way?
In fact I just realized the answer. It's a reflection/projection. You don't consider the downside to your approach, so you assume that others don't consider the downside to their approach.
You're saying that it's worth it for hundreds (?) of people to die so that 80,000 people can return home. Finally a serious claim that can be debated. I'm personally not sure whether I agree or disagree. The answer probably depends on factors that you and I don't know the answer to (like whether the death toll would be tens or else hundreds or else thousands, whether we have enough ammunition to fight the war effectively if the US cuts off arms imports, whether we would do better to fight two years from now when laser air defense is better developed). Since I do not know the answers to these questions, while the government and military do mostly know the answers, my policy is to avoid any loud screaming one way or the other and try to follow the consensus of what government and military figures say or do on the subject.
The world doesn't even know that 80k Jews are homeless.
Another epic fail of Israeli hasbara.
Imo the fact should be shouted from the rooftops until people appreciate the need to destroy Hezbollah on a personal humanistic reasoning
The same military experts who were against the disengagement against the policy with Hamas etc.
Which ones? And what are their arguments?
The same military experts who said the disengagement would help Israel’s security? The same military experts who claimed that Hamas was deterred before October 7th?
Emunas chachamim?
One must know the rules well in order to break them.
I have to confess I don’t understand this kind of magical thinking. I pray every day for the destruction of Hamas and the redemption of the hostages but, if we are honest with ourselves, neither of those things is likely to happen in the normal course of human events.
How, precisely, are the hostages to be rescued? Sure, a “ceasefire” or some other such agreement might include the release of hostages, but that obviously does nothing to destroy Hamas. And this is certainly not the kind of thing that can be accomplished by a precision commando raid (like Entebbe or the Iranian embassy in London), since all the hostages are not in the same place but rather are dispersed throughout an entire swath of hostile territory (and intermingled with [so-called] civilians).
That brings us to the destruction of the Hamas. To be sure, Israel has the capability to raze Gaza to the ground, but that would almost certainly result in the deaths of the hostages (to say nothing of the Palestinians “civilians” whose deaths would draw international condemnation). So that leaves more conventional military operations. And how often to such conventional military operations succeed in utterly destroying an “insurgency” that also has the almost universal support of the population in which it is embedded?
Even if you were able to defeat such an enemy (which would not necessarily result in the rescue of hostages, and instead might precipitate their deaths), how would such a “regime change” actually change anything when the rest of the population supports the regime and would likely seek to continue its hateful policies?
And ceasefire now is a nuanced well thought out position? These idiotic slogans of peace now ceasefire now are ridiculous, there is another side which hates us doesn’t want peace and in fact wants to kill every jew. But sure let’s just surrender and give back all the murderers. After all that worked out so well in the Gilad Shalit deal.
Correct, "ceasefire now" is ALSO a knee-jerk position, not weighing things up. Fundamentalists on both sides.
The fundamentalists, on both sides, are dangerous to give them power. The way I view it they mark the outer boundaries of where rational thought is allowed to operate. In a stable society they'd be a voice in the background, that feed the fundamentals in to the moderate center. That's good. Unfortunately, once you have allowed them to dictate direction, there is naturally a big counter reaction from the other fundamental side and then you get instability. Kind of the way a tightrope walker would react if he began slipping in one direction. A hard pull in the counter direction, followed by a period of corrective gyrations. They are hard to stomach and watch and you're not sure until he straightens out whether he won't fall. The Left made that very hard push in the last government. So many long time untouchables were suddenly being picked at, geirus, kashrus, same sex marriage, etc... Everything was being ripped at. Now we have the counter balance move. Hopefully we can get back to a stable center.
This is the best post I've read in a while. If anyone thinks we can survive with the whole world against us, they are completely irrational. It's not about right and wrong. Of course we're fighting murderers who we are entitled to destroy; but the question is what's our best long-term strategy to achieve military victory? Of course, it's all in the hands of HKBH, but what should we do to win "all derech hatevah?" I believe time is on our side. Hamas is now neutralized for the near-term future. In the longer run, who knows? I would bet that our military technology will greatly outpace theirs. It would be in our interest to avoid becoming a pariah state, encouraging foreign investment in technology and continuing the upgrade of our military capabilities.
Time is on our side with Hezbollah? Absolutely not. They are only going stronger and bolder and have de facto changed the border. No one can live near the border. They have made 80,000 people homeless. So how is time on our side?
I was getting all ready to wholeheartedly agree with you when I realized you fail your own test when it comes to the charedim. You want throw them all into the army now without weighing the consequences. Sure, there are differences, but let point to a few that I have not read about it here. An insightful article in a recent tzarichiyun.org post argued the real reason charedim won’t join the army is because they are charedim and not Israeli. The gist of his point was that there is a distinct Israeli identity built of many elements - one of which is serving in the army. And there is a very distinct charedi identity with many elements but most centrally, that they are the heroes of the Torah resisting the secular onslaught of the state in whatever guise - especially buying into their “new Jew” who is a soldier more than a scholar, whose pride is the army and not the Torah. If you have any hope of reaching them, you have to first show them how one can be a charedi and and Israeli at the same time. Right now, these two identities are a flagrant contradiction, notwithstanding the few pockets here and there of those who are doing it. Charedim have an overriding identity that also includes “we have the mesorah.” Declaring “well, it was mostly right but we got the whole army thing wrong, most of the state thing wrong and a bunch of other little things wrong,” however you try to sugar-coat it, will spell the end of charedi communities and the panic/depression/whatever that would ensue. THE ONLY HOPE IS TO FIND AN APPROACH TO ARMY SERVICE THAT IS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR BELIEFS AND NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THEM. This takes weighing sides of issues and not just hammering away at them for being bad people. You may as well bang your head against the wall, as none of your “pressure” is going to accomplish anything at all, especially when they hop over the pond for a quick hundred mil to keep them going. You COULD make a difference if you applied this balanced reasoning to how you approach the charedi disdain for all things Israeli.
Very good point - However, if they don't adhere to the laws of the country they live in, and even if in their minds have a very good reason not to, they are then not part of our country, Finding a different country to live in - would solve the problem of FAIRNESS in Israel. Wouldn't that be a win/win situation for everyone?
Great idea!
I have a solution for the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians should realize that they are wrong, and they should klopp al chet, and go back to living without terrorism.
Perfect!
Are you comparing the Palestinians and the Chareidim?
Yes, he compared them. Are you so shallow minded that you can't conceive of a comparison in one respect between two very different groups? One can also compare Zionists and Palestinians, in that they are both extremely nationalistic. The comparison between Palestinians and Chareidim was about people who are extremely committed to their cause, and you will not be successful in just screaming to them that they are wrong. Is that clear enough?
Wow...then he and you have totally lost the narrative. You are willing to compare yourselves to our worst enemy, who have committed acts of inconceivable evil just to win a debating point?
There is nothing wrong with making a true and relevant comparison to make a true and relevant point. One of the commenters compared Hezbollah capabilities with the Israelis, the horror. If your emotions are getting in the way of reasoned debate, you shouldn't be attempting to engage in it.
He is. He just didn't notice. Why did you tell him?
In the western world of today, where stupidity, foolishness, and tiny IQ rule, you can attack a person with stupidities like that.
I am b"h not a product of that world, my mind wasn't molested by this way of thinking. I don't think your question makes any difference to the matter at hand. Just another distraction in the comedy show that the world lives in today.
Or you could address what I wrote without bloviating.
I think you didn't realize you were comparing Palestinians with Charedim.
You are just like a Nazi.
Both of you breathe oxygen.
You want to just "find a different country" for close to a million people? Seriously? Aside from the extreme impracticality of that, it would represent completely giving up on the Jewish future in Israel. The charedim will have a key role to play once they embrace reality. But they need a whole lot of help and attacking them alone will only cause them to dig in further. They need pressure and support together, weighing both sides seriously at each step, just like RDNS advises in this post.
Completely giving up on the Jewish future in Israel?? Really??
Do you not realize there just as many "non charedei" that are frum and Jewish - as there are charedei. Do you think, you and your kind, are the only religious people and everyone else is OTD or something like that.
If a group of people does not want to live and uphold the law of the land , just go and find a land they like. What is wrong with that?? Isn't that fair? Why sit in a land you hate and don't want to cooperate with society.
If you are really worried about having frum people still living in the land, thank you for you concern. However, we have no problem with that.
"Don't attack them or talk bad about them, because they will dig in"! That is a new excuse I never heard - but keep 'em coming.
A. I am NOT charedi; not sure why you thought I am.
B. They do want to live in the land and they do love the land: not sure what makes you think otherwise.
C. My comment had zero to do with all the other bnei Torah in the land (people like me); not sure what made you think it did.
D. Like it or not, we are all part of the Jewish future, all have strengths and weaknesses and all need each other very deeply.
E. If you never heard that attacking people makes them defensive, maybe you need to get out more
If you claim they "love the land" why don't they protect the land. If every group found some excuse NOT to join the army then the Arabs will just walk right in, rape our woman and girls and kill all the others. They gave us a tasting sample just recently. If no one protects the land, there is NO land.
My argument about "digging in", so what - dig them out and put them in jail if they don't want to serve. Just like all the other millions of people that live in the land are subject to.
They believe they ARE protecting the land. Just read the Torah - if everyone keeps the mitzvos, G-d will bless the land with peace and no weapon will pass through the land, even on its way somewhere else. Wars and enemies come when Jews don’t keep the Torah. This is their view, however unrealistic it may seem to the modern ear.
My argument was just to take the same sort of balance described in this post regarding dealing with the Palestinians and apply it in approaching the charedi draft question. Sweeping proclomations (especially juvenille-sounding ones like throw them all in jail) are easy to throw around. The grown-ups in the room need balance. That’s how ALL serious social problems are solved.
"I’m pretty sure that if Ben Gvir had been living 2000 years ago, he would have been saying “Rome Shmome” and burning the grain."
The rest of us are pretty sure that had you been there, you would have been a Herodian, fighting on the Romans' side.
In seriousness, this is an entirely inane argument.
If many of the commentators here were around in 1948 there would have been no state of Israel. They would have said, look at all the weapons the Arab armies have. So many people will be killed. Let’s wait a year or 2 until we build up more strength.
There are 80,000 people homeless in the north. You want them to be homeless for 2 years? Who is going to support them? For someone who is so worried about out the economy when it comes to charedim, why aren’t you worried about the effects of the abandonment of the birth to the economy? What is going to change in 2 years? Hezbollah just gets more rockets and gets stronger. Why do you think the situation will be any better in 2 years?
The point is not whether Israel should or should not go to war. The point is that it should be weighed up against the costs. You are not doing that at all - above you even claim that there is no proof that there will be any costs - and thereby proving my point.
Of course there will be costs. No one in their right mind would think anything else. I have weighed the costs and IMHO the cost of 80,000 people homeless for an indeterminate period of time, the de facto loss of sovereignty in the north, the economic costs of both the rocket damage and the shutting down of the economy in the north outweigh the risks of war. But it’s more than that. If we show weakness it just makes the situation worse. If we let Hezbollah control the north then we give them an incentive to try more. If they can force us from the north then they can force us from the rest of the country. It invites other actors to attack as well. In the Middle East it is critical to show strength. That is the only thing that the Arabs respect. So not only do we have the moral considerations to the citizens of the north, the economic and sovereignty issues, we have the broader issue of our standing in the Middle East and the world.
There is nothing in your 20+ comments to indicate that you are considering the costs. In one comment you even challenged the idea that there will be any. I'd like to hear you discuss what you think the costs are. So far you are Exhibit A for the point that I was making. Endlessly going on about why Israel must wage war right now and absolutely no acknowledgement of the costs.
Really. So what do you call this.
“IMHO the cost of 80,000 people homeless for an indeterminate period of time, the de facto loss of sovereignty in the north, the economic costs of both the rocket damage and the shutting down of the economy in the north outweigh the risks of war.”
That is not weighing the costs and risks?
Huh? That's mentioning the costs of NOT going to war, not the costs of going to war! Again, an absolutely perfect example of the point I was making.
Yes that is a fact of life and one of the risks of war. Every single military action can result in the loss of lives. Every life lost is tragic but for a nation to survive it requires sacrifice. The Minchas Chinuch points out that there is no din of pikuach nefesh in war because loss of life is the definition of war. A leader can’t let the risk of casualties paralyze and prevent them from taking the correct action.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I said “outweighs the risks”. The risks of war are quite obvious, the loss of life both civilian and military as well as property destruction. I stated very clearly that IMHO the risks, namely casualties, destruction etc. were outweighed. I don’t know what else I could have said that would have been clearer.
In 1948, 1% of the population was killed in the war. That’s a lot of people, a huge cost. But Ben Gurion felt that it was worth the cost to establish a state. In retrospect I assume that you and most people agree. Like I said if you had been there there would be no state. You would have said the cost is too great.
Then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I specifically addressed the costs and risks in a long comment.
Please either give me a link to that comment or paste it here.
According to you after Pearl Harbor the US should have said only 2300 sailors were killed. If we declare war on Japan there will be serious losses. So let’s negotiate a ceasefire. Let’s wait a year or 2 until we are stronger. Everyone understands how ridiculous that is. The same applies in the North. Hezbollah is waging a war against us.
"The point is that it should be weighed up against the costs. "
But was it weighed? Were the costs calculated? Were they calculated when Hamas' tunnels & missiles were a fraction of where they were on October 6? Were they calculated when Trump was in the White House?
No, these calculations were not made. They are painful calculations. But it was easier to de-escalate, deter and dither.
You can talk about costs, and Marty can talk about profits, but the leadership only wanted to buy time. And now time's up.
Exactly. We need to learn from our mistakes that putting off hard decisions only makes them harder and more painful. The threat from Hezbollah is not going away and is only going to get bigger and bigger. Time is not on our side.
He did NOT say there is no proof there will be any costs.
Analogies are not the strongest argument but it is clear that Ben Gvir represents the mentality that power is everything and the solution is always war with the assumption that Israel without outside help will win. It is incredible that the anyone who disagrees becomes leftists and traitors even the military police. When this is seen as the accepted approach of religious Zionism the damage to the image of Torah is devastating.
Can we clear the air here a bit? Did you support Oslo? The Disengagement? (It's hardly a secret.)
Did Ben-Gvir support either?
Now, what did Churchill saying about getting war regardless?
Oh, and President Herzog, who is hardly a right-winger and never has a good word to say about them, remarkably allowed that maybe the MPs were out of line as well.
The "image of Torah" has survived a lot worse. Who knows, maybe it's the approach of the self-appointed guardians of "Religious Zionism" who damage its image.
"The Disengagement?"
What was worse than the Disengagement, was the timid refusal of the government, left & right, to live by the fundamental principles of the Disengagement. Specifically, the idea that Disengagement would give Israel legitimacy and freedom to counter terror attacks from the strip, unencumbered by the "taint" of being an "occupying" power. The left thus abandoned the basic "faith" of the Disengagement and dithered and procrastinated. It's not (only) that they were wrong; it's that they betrayed their own principles.
I think many people knew ahead of time that they would never stand by it. And said so out loud.
Can I make a crazy suggestion of why Ben-Gvir, and the Right in general, may feel a little...emboldened in their suggestions these days? Mebbe- and ah'm jes' spitballin' here- mebbe it's because for *decades* now the Right, and especially the "crazy" Right, has been calling, on the one hand, in *favor* of things all the "sensible" people have told us not to do because, you know, it will cost us "world support," and lo and behold, once done, they did not (let's remember that *Ronald Reagan* himself condemning the bombing of the Iraqi reactor), and have been warning, on the other hand, *against* all the things the "sensible" people told us were completely safe and would even gain us "world support" (and failure to do them would cost us that support), and, lo and behold once they were done not only did we not get that support, and not only did we continue to *lose* all support, but even worse, the worst warnings of the "crazy" Right- which were loud and public at the time- turned out to be true?
"Oh, why would you be opposed to a promise of Palestinian 'autonomy'? That's inhuman! And the US demands it! And we're getting peace with Egypt! What are you, crazy?"
"What, we shouldn't let Arafat escape from Lebanon?" [This was the *halakhic p'sak* of the Chief Rabbi, believe it or not.] "No! He'll go to Tunisia and we'll never hear from him again! Besides, do you want the US angry at us? And to just shoot him? That's Not Who We Are!"
"Arafat is shaking hands with Rabin! It's wonderful! I got a seat on the White House lawn to witness it! What, you think it's a bad idea? What are you, some sort of land-worshipping messianic fanatic?"
"Of course we have to pull out of Lebanon! A small group of protesters is very loudly demanding it! What, you think we'll have to go back in one day? Twice? Three times? Don't be ridiculous! The UN passed a resolution!"
"But Condi Rice is demanding we pull out of Gaza! What, you want to lose US support? What are you, some sort of land-worshipping messianic fanatic? And don't worry, now no one will ever be able to criticize us again! And just one rocket, and we'll flatten the place, and no one will be able to say we're wrong! Besides, those settlers have to be taught a 'harsh lesson in democracy' [Lapid Jr.] and be 'welcomed back to Israel' [let's not even say]. They have it coming."
"Oh, come on, only a *monster* would say that we shouldn't trade a thousand hostages for Gilad Shalit. Oh, come on, of *course* they won't go back to terror. Oh, come on, we prove our *humanity* by treating the head of Hamas to brain surgery. What, we shouldn't? That's Not Who We Are! What, targeted killings? Executions? Noooo!"
"Protest the Iran deal? What, and get Obama angry at us? But he looooooves Israel! Bibi went to Congress to protest it? That's TERRIBLE! He's making support of Israel a PARTISAN ISSUE! That could cost us US support!"
"What, you think we should cut off funds to Hamas? Don't be ridiculous! Give them gobs of cash and they'll leave us alone! Plus, we have super-duper technology they can never overcome, except maybe with balloons!"
And then the Right was proven horribly, terribly correct. On all those points. And the people who argued with them? Not a word admitting that they just may have been wrong. Not even on this very thread, when confronted with straightforward questions. Instead, the Left, as they always do, pivoted on a dime, and began insisting that all the horrors were the fault of the *Right*. Even more outlandishly, they even often said it was the fault of the Right for *not being right-wing enough*, i.e., for supposedly doing things the *Left* had been demanding for years.
But you know what? The Right knew the truth. And much of Israel knows the truth. October 7 did not happen because people listened to the warnings of the "crazy Right" nor because the actually crazy Left had been correct all along.
So ask yourself: If you were Ben-Gvir, what would you think? Do you think, "Hmmm, I was right all along and they said I was crazy. Maybe when they say I'm crazy now I'm *also* right."
The real tragedy, or one of them, is that just maybe Ben-Gvir *is* wrong now. But there's no one to tell him, because no one is willing to say, "OK, Itamar, you were right and we were wrong on Oslo, and the Disengagement, and Shalit, and pretty much everything else. But that doesn't necessarily mean you're right now. So let's take a close look together."
No. Instead, all we get are, "We were right all along!" or "Let's not talk about 2005!" followed by "You're crazy, Itamar! The Rooooooomaaannnsss! 150,000!!!!!"
And then it's all Ben-Gvir's fault. Got it.
אין מזל לישאל
Of all the people in gov't why should the most correct person be Ben Gvir?
(I could say parallel things about Trump)
"let's remember that *Ronald Reagan* himself condemning the bombing of the Iraqi reactor"
Richard V. Allen, then nation security advisor, on Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor:
...President Reagan was on the line... “Yes, Dick, what is it?” I quickly recited what happened, and he asked me to repeat the message. After pausing for a few seconds, he asked, “Why do you suppose they did that?” My answer was something to the effect that the Israelis clearly did not want that reactor to become operational.
He went silent, and the phone line again filled with the churning of the copter. With characteristic aplomb, he suddenly asked: “Well, you know what?” I said, “What, Mr. President?” His retort was classic: “Boys will be boys!”
Yes, in private.
Ben Gvir can continue to make irresponsible pronouncements to stir up his mindless followers and shore up his power base, secure in the knowledge that others in the governing coalition will be charged to clean up the mess he leaves behind.
Agree with everything you wrote except the breakins to the idf base.
It was a disgrace of epic proportions that the reservists were arrested on the say of a Hamas scum.
I fully support getting them out of that base
Maybe you are right. However, the media love to flaunt marginal left-wing "narratives" all the time. In 1992 the support for Palestinian autonomy was maybe 25%. 0% for their independence. Even Peres said in the Knesset "there will be NO Palestinian State". Yet the media promoted their anti-consensus agenda time after time with the argument that "one has to hear both sides of the story". Without reference to any particular politician, taking a firm stand is not extremism per se. Think about my argument, maybe this narrative is also true.....
"I’m pretty sure that if Ben Gvir had been living 2000 years ago, he would have been saying “Rome Shmome” and burning the grain."
The rest of us are pretty sure that had you been there, you would have been a Herodian, fighting on the Romans' side.
In seriousness, this is an entirely inane argument.
And I honestly don't know where you would find yourself circa year 69. But you woulda been one of the misyavnim denouncing the Maccabees two centuries before that.
You know who denounced the Maccabees? The hasidim (as they were called then), that is, the real frum sorts.
Great piece, well-said
International community skeptical of Hamas rapes, but is certain Israel rapes Palestinians on the testimony of terrorists.
Israel has no choice,but to defend its borders, even at great costs.