Conquest

Did the rabbi write about these topics?
And where?

To Rabbi Mikhi, the Haredim have never said no to the recruitment of secularists. They will continue to be knights in the coalition as well. What did I miss in your words?
And I have a question to ask, how does the Rabbi phrase it as “we came here and they wanted to destroy us for no wrong on our part” without adding that we came here and conquered?! Even though they were harming us even before the establishment of the state, that is the legitimate reason for their uprising. The Europeans who carried out pogroms are terrible, but if the Kishinevs carried out a pogrom after a forceful Jewish takeover of their country, what can we complain about them? They defended their homeland. So what if we arrived in Kishinev. The problem is that we conquered it.
Note: The Rabbi takes care that there will not be a big difference between a right-wing and left-wing coalition (that's a word that is censored, right?) from a political perspective. Doesn't the Rabbi believe that they will implement the bulk of their terror without knowingly harming the state? Such as peace agreements that will be signed in an optimistic atmosphere for a peaceful future, which the right-wingers are pessimistic about. Tightening humane procedures regarding checkpoints, etc.
Good night/morning.

Elia, I didn't write, and I don't know what to write here.

Dewey, the argument about the Haredim is irrelevant. First, I wasn't talking about the draft, but about their approach to halakha and life in general. Second, the draft is certainly part of it, but that's not the issue. Third, of course, from their perspective, it's good to have a gentile of the Sabbath who will do the work for them and die for them, but the enthusiastic declarations about the Torah that Magna and Mitzla would disappear like magic if the responsibility were on them and if their lives were in danger. The same goes for medical studies, engineering, livelihoods, and the like. All of these would evaporate if the Haredim had to manage and bear responsibility for the existence of a state, security, medical, economic, and more. But they choose to be armchair tzaddik. It's more convenient and easier. And fourth, the fact that they are partners in the coalition has no meaning. There is no responsibility on them. They are there mainly to take care of people and that's it. The others will do the dirty work for them.

We did not conquer. We arrived and settled on lands that were legally acquired. They started a war and unfortunately we won it (Kishon has already written about this: Sorry we won and woe to the victors).

Regarding the last point, this is of course only an assessment. In my opinion, under the leftist government, the situation would have been much more serious and aggressive. When they saw that their peace aspirations were leading to attacks and they had no partner to tango with, they would have opened terror checkpoints. I am just reminding you that the state was not established by the right, and even the occupation and military rule in the territories was not initiated by the right.

The rabbi knows that even the Haredim are confiscating his honor's books, but the law itself demands changes in changing conditions. Because of the "prohibitions" (which his honor frowned upon) that were invented for the purpose of halakhic law during the Corona period. The most important rabbis issued a host of instructions that sound like they were taken from the ancient Greek workshop that wanted to uproot Torah from Israel.
What is unique about the Haredim is that education "from the beginning" is taught at the level of "let it be killed and let it not pass." They keep the plans for the conditions of the dead secret, but that does not mean that they do not exist. An excellent education system in my opinion. (This may cause great difficulty for those who do not align themselves with the truth)
Full disclosure: I am sorry for this message that mentions clear secular ignorance during the Haredi movement, while I know that the Rabbi knows their Haredi and halakhic course. The Rabbi knows the concept of a mitzvah that can be performed by others. The Rabbi was precise in writing “and if their lives were in danger” which does not exist now and when it does, then the Haredi will say the word of the halakhic in their eyes and it is “time to do it’ they violated your Torah” “and live in them” etc.
“Torah that is Magna and Mitzla would disappear like a magic wand”- the Rabbi does not hold the void that I have in my pocket”n? Let's not forget that the Torah's morals did have a magic wand…
And then the rabbi said that the Haredim are in the coalition, oh, I was talking about a future situation that predicts that the Haredim will be the majority. I understand from this that they will also be the ruling party in about 50 years.
The rabbi writes that ”they choose to be armchair tzaddik”- the rabbi knows that these guys don't have a penny on their back to sit on an armchair.

They started the war just like we did in 1967. In 1948, they launched the attack after the partition plan was accepted by the UN (Wikipedia). In 1967, the Israelis launched the attack due to intelligence information (which even the Americans, if I'm not mistaken, disagreed with). Why? Because the UN decided to seize their lands? And if today the UN decides to establish a Syrian state or another refugee state in Israel, then so be it?
The first Rashi in the Torah speaks of the nations that are united. I don't know this situation from the past, but only from today. I think he means today. (I am aware that the rabbi does not hold this to be binding)

Regarding the assessment of the situation if the government goes to the left, doesn't that serve the goals of the right? That is, the rabbi is supposed to vote left because you are right-wing. At least because of the security aspect. Did I understand correctly? In another version, the rabbi rejects the left's method of first checking the carrot despite the concerns, and if they materialize, then applying the stick?

The rabbi wrote that there is no need to write about it because these are simple things
Is the dispute that is tearing our society apart more or less as simple as one side?
Is what Leibovitz would say that IDF soldiers have a Judeo-Nazi mentality and the occupation is corrupting? Is it not worth discussing at all?
Is it that we have no international right to land and only as a result of a war that we are not guilty of, but still in 2020 matters of occupying territories and settling in them are suitable for dictators like Putin, etc.
Whether there is a place for organizations like the Shavets, or not
etc.
I believe I did not write all the questions on the matter
And it is difficult for me to understand why it is not worth a column or a series of columns to hear the Rabbi's point of view on the matter
Although the site here is not a democracy and certainly the participants do not have the right to determine policy here, but I am sure that if the Rabbi were to conduct a survey among the readers and subscribers of the site, would they be happy if such a column appeared? I am sure that at least 80% would vote in favor
Thank you and sorry for the harassment

As mentioned, I don't see what there is to discuss here. You are mixing gender with non-gender here. The question of our attitude towards the Palestinians and the morality of the IDF is a completely different question. It has nothing to do with the justification for our very existence here, which is not debatable except for a few sleepwalkers from the extreme left. You talked about it. If you are expecting an essay on the history of Zionism and the conduct of the State of Israel - that is another matter. But I still don't think I will do it here.

And why don't I get a response from the rabbi?

Answer to what? Why don't I vote for a left-wing party? I don't vote for a right-wing party either. I don't vote at all. I've certainly considered voting for the left more than once.

In short, you're tired of answering me and my ilk.

I am open to criticism of why my writing is offensive to you. I may even refrain from using the same characteristics that cause it if the rabbi names them.

I didn't read what you wrote, but I can't stand to see such weakness, so I have to respond. Why would you change? Don't even answer me. Don't change for anyone so that everyone will jump. Write as you see fit and whatever characteristics there may be.