Did Bibi betray the country?

1. The aid we received from Biden is unprecedented in relation to any war and any president in American history, so to say that with Trump we will receive more sounds crazy.
2. So if I interpret what you are saying, we need to drag out the war, pay billions of shekels, lose dozens of soldiers. To curry favor with Trump a little so that he might let us annex or all sorts of other nonsense that mainly pleases Smotrich?? I would be happy if you could give me one example of something that Trump could bring that is relevant to the war (and not an embassy in Jerusalem, annexation and other vegetables) that Biden did not bring.

Yosef, you are reading things that no one wrote, speaking of psychosis.

Miki did not say that with Trump we will get more. The fact is that Trump is now going to reign and our fate is to a certain extent in his hands. Miki, who is not a geopolitical expert, suggested that perhaps the Washington Post's speculation actually has a practical benefit for Israel. He wrote it as an option, not as a personal opinion. Therefore, your “2” is also a hallucination, Miki never implied that he was for or against this or that move, which may even be a cynical interpretation by a Washington Post reporter.

I assume that you are a renowned expert in the field, so I will not doubt your assertions about the consequences of waging war in the north.

It's hard with psychotics. It's a corruption of words.

The answer to the original question is definitely yes: Netanyahu has harmed the security of the state on several occasions. It is true that the use of the term ‘treason’ here may be misleading, because it is treason out of personal interests and not necessarily as aid to the enemy, and yet there are prominent and proven examples of this:

1. The State Investigation Committee report determined that Netanyahu jeopardized the security of the state regarding the submarine procurement. Apparently out of personal economic motives.

2. Although Netanyahu has stated in the past that the two-state solution is the right one, he refrains from promoting it in order to maintain a stable coalition, which leads to the loss of lives of civilians and soldiers in operations aimed at preserving the existing situation and not promoting a solution.

There are also other examples that are obvious to anyone who observes with open eyes. For example, the irrelevant continuation of the operation in Gaza – which is known to not promote any strategic purpose, as even Gallant said publicly. For example, the appointment of a failed police minister who led to damage to human life and property, or the appointment of an inexperienced defense minister in the midst of a war on several fronts.

Disdain and mocking responses towards the questioners only indicate the weakness of the Rabbi and the sinner's argument for the purpose of a substantive discussion.

If this is an example of a substantive discussion, then I disagree with it.

Kant,

Do you expect the rabbi to continue a substantive discussion when he is talking to a wall? And no, this is not a jab at the questioner. He really did not communicate logically. Read and argue.

Regarding your claim,

I think your criticism is legitimate, I share a certain amount, not with the specific criticisms you chose, but with others.
Specifically, all three of your claims are very arrogant and unfair.
1) Subject to severe public and professional controversy, and if anything, I would lean towards the side that claims these are exaggerated political accusations (just leaning, neither I nor you really know. Regardless, perhaps no one knows except a few, because one of the main uses of submarines is nuclear armament, about which Israel maintains ambiguity)
2) It is arrogance and bubbliness to assume that your perceptions about the two-state solution prevail in Netanyahu's heart because of a speech under American pressure that was taken out of context. Just listen to Bar Ilan's speech, Netanyahu has barely changed his tone since then, even then he was a partner maybe a little more than Ben Gvir, simply deceitful enough to use conditions that he knows the other side will not meet. In addition, even if Netanyahu really thinks that the solution to the conflict is two states, most Israelis do not think like him, and I would not exaggerate the importance of betrayal if he did not promote it for personal and not security reasons.
3) Here you have completely exaggerated your arrogance. What do you know about the war that I do not know? In the polls, the majority of the public thinks that the campaign is being managed well. And you continued with your arrogance, when you presented the other side in additional political disputes, as betrayal. Are you so sure that Bibi simply does not think like you on these issues? Of course he may be wrong, but that's how it is, the elite of our people are not in the Knesset, neither on that side nor on the other side.

Are you so sure it's not that Bibi just doesn't think like you**