Q&A: Did Bibi Betray the State?
Did Bibi Betray the State?
Question
The Washington Post reported that the campaign in the north will most likely end only after Trump takes office, not for security reasons, but because Bibi doesn’t want to give Biden credit. Now let’s put aside for a second the fact that Netanyahu’s reckless conduct toward the Democratic administration will come back to hurt us in the future (when they get elected again someday). Assuming this is true, and decisions involving human lives are being made out of ego and honor by this tyrant, isn’t that grounds for putting him on trial for treason?
Another question: does this make you rethink the decision to stay in Philadelphi, which sealed the fate of the hostages’ lives? I remember you wrote an entire manifesto saying that anyone who opposed it was a psychopath (a psychosis, in your wording), and explained why staying in Gaza was such a good idea that anyone who opposed it was reckless. Can you at least understand those who said the dramatic decisions were being made for political reasons?
Answer
Well, it’s hard to respond to so many errors packed into one small paragraph. Truly resting comfortably on seven mistakes. A noteworthy achievement.
First, I never wrote that anyone who opposes leaving Philadelphi is a psychopath, nor that such opposition in itself is psychosis. What I wrote was that the obsessive persecution of Bibi and the obsessive and unconditional support for a hostage deal is psychosis. That is an entirely different claim.
Second, the absolute trust you place in everything written in the Washington Post really is worthy of great admiration. If only I had that kind of trust in the Written and Oral Torah.
Third, even if this information is correct, it could also be the result of a legitimate consideration on Bibi’s part. For example, assuming that in his assessment, the assistance we would receive from Trump because of such a step would be significant and would save lives or advance other interests of ours. Would it not be right to act that way in order to ensure American support in the future? Or are you proposing that we ignore Trumpian madness and behave in a balanced and responsible way that will lead to our doom?
Fourth, I never wrote that opposition to remaining in Gaza is in itself reckless. A nice invention in its own right, it’s just a shame that it lacks any factual basis.
And fifth, in your remarks here you have strikingly proven my claim that many of the arguments against Bibi are the product of psychosis driven by political considerations. Your errors express this very well.
And I write all this as someone who is a very sharp opponent of Bibi and his coalition of horrors, who longs for their swift disappearance from our world and wishes them every evil with all my heart. But I still remain with my bizarre position that opposition does not have to be psychotic. One can also oppose in a thoughtful and substantive way, on the basis of correct and well-founded arguments. That too is an option.
Discussion on Answer
Yosef, you’re reading things nobody wrote, speaking of psychosis.
Michi didn’t say that under Trump we’d get more. The fact is that Trump is now about to reign, and our fate is to some extent in his hands. Michi, who is not a geopolitical expert, suggested that perhaps the Washington Post speculation actually has substantive benefit for Israel. He wrote it as a possibility, not as his personal view. So your “2” is also delusional; Michi never hinted that he’s for or against such-and-such a move, which in any case may just be the cynical interpretation of a Washington Post reporter.
I assume you’re a renowned expert in the field, so I won’t question your determinations about the implications of how the war in the north is being managed.
It’s hard dealing with psychotics. It corrupts words.
The answer to the original question is definitely yes: Netanyahu has harmed the security of the state on a number of occasions. True, the use of the term “treason” here may be misleading, because this is betrayal out of personal interests and not necessarily by aiding the enemy, and still there are clear and proven examples of this:
1. The report of the state commission of inquiry determined that Netanyahu endangered state security in the submarine procurement affair, apparently out of personal financial motives.
2. Although Netanyahu previously declared that the two-state solution is the correct one, he refrained from advancing it in order to preserve a stable coalition, which leads to loss of life among civilians and soldiers in operations whose purpose is to preserve the existing situation rather than advance a solution.
There are other examples as well, obvious to anyone looking with open eyes. For example, the non-substantive continuation of the operation in Gaza—which is known not to advance any strategic purpose, as even Gallant said publicly. For example, the appointment of a failed police minister that led to harm to life and property, or the appointment of an inexperienced defense minister in the midst of a war on several fronts.
Contemptuous and mocking responses toward questioners only testify to the weakness of the rabbi’s argument and miss the point of substantive discussion.
If this is your example of substantive discussion, then I want no part of it.
Kant,
Do you expect the rabbi to continue a substantive discussion when he’s talking to a wall? And no, that’s not a jab at the questioner. He really did not communicate logically. Read it and see.
As for your claim,
I think your criticism is legitimate; I share some of it, though not the specific criticisms you chose, but others.
Specifically, all three of your claims are very arrogant and unfair.
1) This is subject to serious public and professional dispute, and if anything, I would lean toward the side that claims these are exaggerated political accusations (just lean—not that you or I really know. Regardless, maybe nobody knows except a few people, because one of the central uses of submarines is nuclear armament, regarding which Israel maintains ambiguity).
2) It is arrogant and bubble-like to assume that your views about the two-state solution dwell in Netanyahu’s heart because of a speech given under American pressure and taken out of context. Just listen to the Bar-Ilan speech; Netanyahu has barely changed tone since then. Even then he was maybe a slightly better partner than Ben-Gvir, just enough of a liar to use conditions he knew the other side would not meet. In addition, even if Netanyahu really does think that the solution to the conflict is two states, most Israelis do not think like him, and I wouldn’t exaggerate the importance of “treason” if he didn’t advance it for personal rather than security motives.
3) Here you really went too far with the arrogance. What do you know about the war that I don’t know? In polls, most of the public thinks the campaign is being managed well. And you kept going with the arrogance when you presented the other side in additional political disputes as betrayal. Are you so sure that Bibi simply doesn’t think like you on these issues? Of course it’s possible that he’s mistaken, but that’s how it is: the best among us are not in the Knesset, not on that side and not on the other.
You’re so sure that it’s not simply that Bibi doesn’t think like you**
1. The aid we got from Biden is unprecedented compared to any war and any president in American history, so to say that under Trump we’d get more sounds bizarre.
2. So if I understand what you’re saying, we should drag out the war, pay billions of shekels, lose dozens of soldiers, just to butter up Trump a bit so that maybe he’ll let us annex or do other nonsense that mainly pleases Smotrich?? I’d be happy if you could give me one example of something Trump could bring that is relevant to the war (not the embassy in Jerusalem, annexation, and all that sort of thing) that Biden didn’t bring.