Has the Rabbi written about these issues?
And where?

To Rabbi Michi, the Haredim never said no to drafting secular people. They’ll continue to be knights even in the coalition. 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 fault of our own,” without adding that we came here and conquered?! Even though they attacked us even before the establishment of the state, still, that itself is the cause that legitimizes their uprising. The Europeans who carried out pogroms are terrible, but if the people of Kishinev had carried out a pogrom after a forceful Jewish takeover of their land, what complaint would we have against them? They were defending their homeland. So what if we came to Kishinev. The problem is that we conquered it.
Note: the Rabbi says there wouldn’t be much difference between a right-wing and left-wing coalition in terms of policy. The Rabbi doesn’t think they would implement the main part of their commotion without knowingly and certainly harming the state? For example, peace agreements signed in an optimistic atmosphere about a peaceful future, which the right is pessimistic about. Tightening humanitarian procedures at checkpoints, etc.
Good night / good morning.

Elia, I haven’t written about it, and I don’t know what there is to write here.

Dewey, the argument about the Haredim is irrelevant. First, I wasn’t talking about the draft but about their approach to Jewish law and to life in general. Second, the draft is definitely part of that, but that’s not the subject. Third, of course from their point of view it’s good to have a Sabbath gentile who will do the work for them and die for them, but the enthusiastic declarations about Torah protecting and saving would disappear as if by magic if the responsibility were on them and if their lives were in danger. The same goes for medical studies, engineering, making a living, and the like. All of these would evaporate if the Haredim had to govern and bear responsibility for the existence of a state—security-wise, medically, economically, and more. But they choose to be armchair righteous people. It’s more comfortable and easier. And fourth, the fact that they are partners in the coalition has no significance. They bear no responsibility. They are there mainly to take care of their own people, and that’s it. The dirty work will be done by others for them.

We did not conquer. We came and settled on land that was legally purchased. They started a war, and unfortunately we won it. (About that Kishon already wrote: sorry we won, and woe to the victors.)

As for the last point, this is of course only an assessment. In my opinion, under a left-wing government the situation would be much worse and much more aggressive. When they saw that their peace aspirations were leading to terror attacks and that they had no partner for tango, they would set up terror roadblocks. I’ll just remind you that the state was not established by the right, and even the conquest and military rule in the territories were not initiated by the right.

The Rabbi knows that even though the Haredim boycott your books, still Jewish law itself requires changes when circumstances change. See the “prohibitions” (which made the Rabbi so angry) that were invented for a halakhic need during the coronavirus period. The most important rabbis came out with all kinds of instructions that sounded like they were taken from the workshop of ancient Greece, which wanted to uproot Torah from Israel.
What is special about the Haredim is that the educational ideal is taught by them at the level of “be killed rather than transgress.” Their plans for ex post facto situations they keep quiet, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. An excellent educational method in my opinion. (It may be that this creates great difficulty for those who don’t fall in line, but that is not our topic.)
Full disclosure: this message needs further examination, because it sounds like classic secular ignorance about how Haredism works, while I know that the Rabbi knows their Haredi and halakhic reasoning. The Rabbi knows the concept of a commandment that can be done by others. The Rabbi was careful to write “and if their lives were in danger,” which is not the case now, and when it does become the case, then the Haredim will state what in their eyes is the Jewish law: “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have voided Your Torah,” “and live by them,” etc.
“Torah protecting and saving would disappear as if by magic” — doesn’t the Rabbi hold that one desecrates the Sabbath in a life-threatening situation? Let us not forget that the morality of the Torah really did have a magic staff…
And what the Rabbi wrote about the Haredim being in the coalition—fine, I was talking about a future situation in which the Haredim are expected to be a 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 righteous people” — the Rabbi knows those guys don’t have a penny under their backside to sit on an armchair.

They started a war just as we started in ’67. In ’48 they began the attack after the partition plan was accepted in the U.N. General Assembly (Wikipedia). In ’67 the Israelis began the attack because of intelligence information (which even the Americans, if I’m not mistaken, disputed). What’s the difference between this and that? Because the U.N. decided to rob them of their lands? And if today the U.N. decides to establish a Syrian state or some other refugee state in Israel, then all good?
Rashi’s first comment on the Torah speaks about the nations who complain. I don’t know this situation from the past, only from today. I think he means today. (I’m aware that the Rabbi doesn’t hold that this is binding.)

As for the assessment of the situation if the government passes to the left, doesn’t that serve the goals of the right? Meaning, the Rabbi is supposed to vote left because you are right-wing. At least from the security angle. Did I understand correctly? Put differently, the Rabbi rejects the method of the left to first check with the carrot despite the concerns, and if they materialize, then use the stick?

The Rabbi wrote that there’s no need to write about this because these things are simple.
Is the dispute that is more or less tearing our society apart really something so simple to one side?
Is what Leibowitz would say—that IDF soldiers have a Judeo-Nazi mentality and that the occupation corrupts—not worth discussion at all?
Is the fact that we have no international right to the land, and only as a result of war—which admittedly we are not to blame for—but still, in 2020 matters of occupying territory and settling it are something suited to dictators like Putin and the like?
Whether there is a place for organizations like Breaking the Silence or not,
etc.
I believe I haven’t written all the questions on the matter.
And it’s hard for me to understand why this isn’t worth a column or a series of columns in order to hear the Rabbi’s point of view on the matter.
Granted, there is no democracy on this site, and certainly the participants have no right to determine policy here, but I’m sure that if the Rabbi took a survey among the site’s readers and subscribers asking whether they would be happy if such a column appeared, I’m sure that at least 80% would vote yes.
Thank you, and sorry for the bother.

As I said, I don’t see what there is to discuss here. You are mixing things that don’t belong together. The question of our attitude toward the Palestinians and the morality of the IDF is an entirely different question. It has nothing to do with the justification for our very existence here, about which there is no debate except among a few lunatics on the far left. You were talking about that. If you expect an essay on the history of Zionism and the conduct of the State of Israel—that is a different matter. But it still doesn’t seem likely that I’ll do that here.

And why don’t I deserve an answer from the Rabbi?

An answer about what? Why I don’t vote for a left-wing party? I don’t vote for a right-wing party either. I don’t vote at all. I have definitely considered more than once voting for the left.

In short, you’re tired of answering me and people like me.

I’m open to criticism as to why my writing is repulsive in your eyes. Maybe I’ll even stop using those same characteristics that cause that, if the Rabbi points them out.

I didn’t read what you wrote, but I can’t stand seeing this kind of weakness, so I have to respond. Why should you change? Don’t even answer me. Don’t change for anyone—let them all jump. Write however you think is right, and let there be whatever characteristics there may be.