Under the auspices of rhetoric on a policy focused on favorable values for marketing and publicity, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid signals to Israel a future of subordination: accepting Iran's nuclear law (despite denials), subordinating the struggle against its intensification on our borders to American approval, and subordinating the conflict settlement to Israel. International. "
Thus, for example, the focus of the conflict he initiated with Poland over the return of property to Jews.
Such a policy has no useful benefit.
It's all a statement of "political morality."
But for her sake an important ally has been thrown against hostile forces in Europe, and Hungary is perhaps next in line.
In the same vein, Lapid tried to adapt the concept of "anti-Semitism" to a progressive discourse on human rights, expanding it to the point of insignificance.
Here, too, what motivated Lapid is positioning: a hopeless attempt to adapt the Israeli ethos to the world of anti-national progressives.
The intellectual obstacles revealed in his remarks have been the subject of justified criticism, but the political obstacles are also screaming. We demand that the nations of the world support those who correct the horrors of their anti-Semitism, that is, the State of Israel. Therefore, for example, inviting Jews and rejecting non-Jews in our immigration policy is "affirmative action" for a persecuted group and its territorial security. The special risk to Jews, in light of historical experience, also dictates severe security and demographic requirements in our relations with Muslims in Israel.
Lapid denied the fact that Jews are at particular risk in Christian and Muslim cultures. With typical rhetorical superficiality, he gnawed at a basic Israeli claim that had profound implications for both our struggle in Iran and our struggle against the Palestinians. The progressives, recipients of Lapid's "propaganda", are not interested in the fate of Jews in the face of anti-Semitism in the United States and Europe. Israel demands from the democratic world to understand the threat posed to Jews and what is required of them.Whoever does not understand that the prosecution must not be blurred, in an attempt to please radical progressives who do not want to, cannot be in charge of our foreign relations.
Now Lapid has come to generalize these moves, in a political view he recently awarded in Haaretz. According to him, we must part with Netanyahu's "gloomy" political realism, and understand together with the "international community" (this is a rhetorical fiction that will guarantee him) that "there is no such thing as local problems. All problems, big and small, will eventually become global." On the one hand, this is an obvious statement. Everything is connected to everything, and as far as this globalist statement goes without saying - it does not go up or down. But on the other hand, it is very misleading and may be a screen behind which the "international community," that is, the United States, is given the responsibility to solve Israel's problems.
When it comes to rhetoric, there is little faith in Torch's assertion that "we need to do everything - including public confrontations with our best friends - to expose the true nature of the Iranian regime and its malicious plans to acquire nuclear weapons." Things have already been put to the test. As you may recall, Lapid sharply opposed Netanyahu's verbal confrontation with "our good friend" Obama. And more importantly: he and Defense Minister Ganz reiterate that Israel's actions against Iran, as opposed to its words against it, will be subject to the discipline of the United States, the so-called leader of globalism, and in fact a country with particular interests that do not overlap with Israel's. Thus a reckless waiver of independent maneuverability.
We cannot know what Israel can or cannot do against Iran's nuclear threat, and against its attempt to encircle us with aggressive emissaries under its nuclear auspices.
The possibilities are hidden, rightly, from the public eye.
Precisely because of this, we must be convinced that the decisions vis-à-vis Iran and the Muslims in the country will be made by people who are committed to
Israel's independence.
