“The disaster that struck Israel during the Simchat Torah holiday is clearly the responsibility of one person: Benjamin Netanyahu.” The editorial, which appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on October 8, does not mince words: For the famously progressive newspaper, the main perpetrator of the Hamas attack is the Israeli prime minister and Hamas in particular […]
CONTINUE READING
SUPPORT US
1 € FOR THE FIRST MONTH
Already a subscriber?
CONTINUE READING
“The catastrophe what fell on it Israel during the Simchat Torah holiday clearly the responsibility of one person: Benjamin Netanyahu”. The editorial that appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on October 8 does not mince words: for the famously progressive newspaper, the main perpetrator of the Hamas attack is the Israeli prime minister and Hamas in particular “Government of Annexation and Expropriation” which he established after narrowly winning the last elections. Netanyahu, the editorial says, “bragged about his great political experience and be irreplaceable wisdom on security issues,” but “completely failed” to understand the dangers Israel was heading toward when it used extremists to set up the most right-wing government in the country’s history Bezalel Smotrich And Itamar Ben-Gvir Filling key positions and “a foreign policy that blatantly ignored the existence and rights of Palestinians.”.
“Netanyahu will definitely try shirk one’s responsibility”The editorial continued: “The blame lies with the leaders of the army, military intelligence and the Shin Bet security service.” Not that these institutions are innocent, as they underestimated the likelihood of escalation. A similar mistake to their predecessors the night before Yom Kippur War: “They mocked the enemy and its offensive military capabilities.” In short, the Mistakes by the intelligence service and the Israel Defense Forces They will certainly appear in the next few weeks and any desire to replace them will certainly be “legitimate”. And yet, the editorial argues, “the failure of the military and intelligence agencies does not absolve Netanyahu from his fate.” general responsibility for the crisis”.
The Prime Minister is indeed “thelast referee of Israeli foreign and security affairs,” a role in which Netanyahu is certainly no novice, “as he was Ehud Olmert in the Second Lebanon War”. And even in military matters, Bibi was by no means ignorant, as they claimed Golda Meir in 1973 and Menahem begins in 1982”. And yet the Prime Minister would have made a fundamental mistake: he would have cast aside the cautious positions of the past when he said he wanted to avoid wars and sacrifices and instead committed himself to “the politics of a…” ‘totally right-wing government'”.
And here Bibi has expressly taken measures “to Annexation of the West Bankto carry it out Ethnic cleansing in parts of Area C defined by the Oslo Accords, including the Hebron Mountains and the Jordan Valley. In addition, there is “a huge one.” Expansion of settlements and that Strengthening the Jewish presence on the Temple Mount, near Al-Aqsa Mosque”. And again the Prime Minister boasted that “an imminent event was coming.” Peace agreement with the Saudis of which the Palestinians would get nothing.” All moves that, according to the editorial, inevitably led to the re-ignition of the hostilities that began in the West Bank and then continued with Hamas’s surprise attack.
And why Netanyahu established “this”. terrible coalition” and has intensified measures against the Palestinians, there is no doubt about that in the editorial. “A Prime Minister charged with three counts of corruption.” – in fact, the article goes on to say – “he cannot take care of state affairs because he national interests will necessarily be subordinated for his release from a possible conviction and prison sentence.” Hence the “Judicial coup” promoted by Bibi, i.e. the new judicial reform, as well as “theWeakening of high-ranking officers the army and the secret services, who were perceived as political opponents. In short, Bibi did not fully understand the dangers to which he condemned Israel while trying to defend his position. “The price,” the editorial concluded, “was paid by the victims of the invasion.” Western Negev”.