Israelis Should Focus on Government's Survival, Not Netanyahu's Warnings
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
The article argues that the focus of Israeli elections should be on how the government remains in power after the October 7th attacks, rather than whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warned. It suggests that miscalculations and a flawed strategic assumption contributed to the failures. The author criticizes the opposition for disunity and warns that a Netanyahu victory could lead to further dismantling of the judiciary, urging voters to choose between a democratic or a theocratic state.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- The central question for Israeli elections should be how the government remains in power after the October 7th attacks.
- Miscalculations and a belief that Hamas could be appeased with money contributed to the failures of October 7th.
- A state commission of inquiry is needed to uncover the truth and assign responsibility for the failures.
- The author criticizes the opposition for failing to unite behind a single candidate like Gadi Eisenkot.
- A Netanyahu victory could lead to the completion of the judicial overhaul, undermining democracy.
- Voters face a choice between a Jewish and democratic state or a theocratic-totalitarian one.
As elections approach, many Israelis are debating whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warned about the October 7th Hamas attack, but the author argues this misses the more critical question: how the government remains in power after such a devastating event. The article suggests that even if Netanyahu received warnings, they may not have been clear or detailed enough, and a sense of hubris, coupled with the belief that Hamas could be appeased with money, led to a miscalculation that any potential incident would be minor.
This perspective is framed within the context of a broader strategic assumption, referred to as the 'conception,' which the current government has not abandoned. The author asserts that only a state commission of inquiry can uncover the full truth and identify those truly responsible for the failures.
The central argument is that the upcoming elections should focus on explaining the continued tenure of the government following the most tragic event since the state's founding. The article questions how the public can overlook the abandonment of 251 hostages and the government's decisions that prolong the war for its own political survival. It also points to the judicial overhaul initiated by Netanyahu and Yair Levin in the government's first year.
The piece criticizes opposition parties for focusing on appealing to disillusioned Netanyahu voters rather than uniting behind a single candidate like Gadi Eisenkot, who is leading in polls. It also questions why the opposition has not demanded Naftali Bennett publicly state he will not sit with Netanyahu, noting Bennett's past ambiguity and potential to be a kingmaker in a coalition with Netanyahu.
If Netanyahu's bloc wins the next election, the author warns, he will interpret it as a mandate to complete the dismantling of the judiciary, which is seen as the bedrock of Israeli democracy. The article concludes by urging voters to choose between a Jewish and democratic state or a theocratic-totalitarian one, emphasizing the need to remove the current coalition from power.
Mentioned
