Author Questions Responsibility for October 7th Amidst Political Division
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Daphna Netanyahu questions the slogan "You are the head, you are guilty" regarding responsibility for the October 7th attacks, arguing that complex policy decisions, like the entry of Qatari funds into Gaza, require deeper examination. She criticizes the left's "blindness" to Arab intentions and contrasts it with Netanyahu's perceived lack of shared "conception" about enemies. The author believes this "spell" of wishful thinking on the left poses a significant danger to Israel's security.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Daphna Netanyahu questions the slogan "You are the head, you are guilty" regarding responsibility for the October 7th attacks.
- The author criticizes the left's "blindness" to Arab intentions and its reliance on wishful thinking.
- She raises questions about policies allowing Qatari money into Gaza and its impact on Hamas's military buildup.
- Netanyahu argues leaders are judged by their crisis management, not by avoiding bad scenarios.
- The article suggests that the left's "spell" of wishful thinking poses a danger to Israel's security.
The slogan "You are the head, you are guilty" has become a symbol of the opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since the October 7th attacks, but the author Daphna Netanyahu questions whether it adequately addresses the issue of responsibility. The article suggests that beyond simple blame, deeper questions about policy decisions, such as the entry of Qatari money into Gaza and the broader "conception" regarding Arab intentions, remain unanswered.
Netanyahu argues that leaders are primarily judged by their crisis management, not by the absence of bad scenarios or by hindsight on alternative choices, especially in complex governmental systems. She criticizes what she calls the "blindness" of the left and its supporters, who she claims automatically reject any data that challenges their worldview. This blindness, she contends, prevents them from asking critical questions about policies like allowing Qatari funds into Gaza and whether Netanyahu made a miscalculation given the circumstances and the needs of Gaza's residents.
The author further draws a parallel between this political "blindness" and a "conception" regarding Arab and Muslim enemies, which she states Prime Minister Netanyahu has never shared. This "conception," she explains, led to agreements like Oslo and the disengagement from Gaza, and continues to foster the belief that Gaza's Arabs are primarily interested in improving their economic situation, thus supposedly weakening their desire to harm Israel. She points to the idea that allowing 20,000 Gazan workers into the Gaza envelope communities daily would diminish their aspirations to destroy Israel.
Netanyahu characterizes both the "leftist" approach and the "conception" regarding enemies as wishful thinking, akin to fairy tales where removing an evil spell (symbolized by Netanyahu and the right) will lead to a utopian future. She criticizes the Joint List and the southern branch of the Islamic Movement, calling them ideological kin to Hamas, and suggests they would continue to seek Israel's destruction even if integrated into the government, while sending messages of support to those actively trying to eliminate Israelis. The author concludes that this "spell" has a strong hold on the left, and as long as they remain in positions of power, Israel will face significant trouble.