Three major events that took place in the last few weeks and months could teach the terrorist organizations one thing: in the IDF there is confusion regarding opening fire, instructions to open fire, when to shoot and when to shoot. This was exacerbated following the shooting of a journalist in Jenin, following which investigations were carried out and the Americans intervened and put pressure on Israel to change the opening fire instructions. Defense Minister Gantz and Prime Minister Lapid are proud to have put the Americans in their place.
But the Palestinians realized that they had a backlash from the Americans and that this simple issue - which is supposed to be the national security of the state - is in dispute, probably within the security forces.
A few weeks ago the incident was on the seam line, similar to what happened this week near the Jalma checkpoint.
During the reports and interpretations about the shooting of a soldier's friend, it became clear that there is a worsening of the opening fire procedure: soldiers are only allowed to shoot if the identified infiltrator is armed.
The confusion in the forces and the public increased when the soldier who shot was immediately taken for questioning at the Israel Defense Forces, and the incident was turned into a criminal dimension. The incident near Jalma can give an idea of the confusion in the IDF more than any other incidents.
The commander of the division, Brigadier General Blot, began with this, who immediately began the story of the incident in which Major Fleh was killed by saying that female scouts identified the terrorists and jumped on them, but they did not know how to report if they had weapons.
That was the key point.
The head of the Shin Bet is right that division and polarization among the people of Israel encourage aggression against us, but this has been true for the past 55 years. Like the terrorist organizations, the Israeli left has also been focused on breaking the consensus for decades, creating polarization and divisions. Which probably gives rise to the Palestinian effort to expel More and more attacks is the feeling of the terrorist organizations, that the IDF is very hesitant to shoot at terrorists, and the process that eventually leads to shooting is long and cumbersome and not suitable for the arena of fighting terrorism.
What is more worrying is that the IDF's pattern of self-sabotage, of a quality combat force, is repeating itself. What happened in Jalma is too similar to what happened in the Nut Patrol incident.
regime change
The Chiefs of Staff Party wants to "change the Israeli system" and prevent the Israelis from influencing their leadership. The goal is clear: remove Netanyahu
There is a question as to what is the goal of the Chiefs of Staff Party, which certainly has the support of other retired Chiefs of Staff, along with Gideon Sa'ar, in the model they propose to "change the system".
This change, as analyzed by Prof. Avi Barali, will cut off the public from the governing result which is the government, which will not depend on the elected Knesset.
This is a sort of further step forward from the model of a government led by a prime minister with six mandates.
This is beyond a regime that is no longer democratic.
This is another comprehensive method designed for one purpose: thwarting and removing Benjamin Netanyahu.
Benny Gantz and Gideon Sa'ar have a personal score with Netanyahu.
But probably longer.
The real problem in the democratic political system in Israel is the legal system, and especially the Supreme Court and the attorney's office, in strengthening the Attorney General.
But the "generals" who enjoy the prestige of the ranks and uniforms, which are now transparent being retired, are threatened by the same system, and therefore they divert the Israeli problem to another place - the political system.
Unfortunately, this is the reason why a respected institution like the Israel Democracy Institute and a dubious body like the "Center for Citizen Empowerment" give aid and fascination to the anti-democratic movement.
In Israel there is a middle-upper class coalition together with the established left and the retired security elite with the support of the judiciary, which is ready to do everything to prevent the right from coming to power.
The "instability" they speak of, the "rift", is not caused by a ruined economy and rampant inflation.
Nor from a particularly serious security situation.
These are usually the causes of destabilization in democratic regimes.
Until 2019, remarkable stability prevailed in Israel, and we know what happened then.
We got Lieberman and we got indictments.
So if it is not the economy nor a heavy security crisis, what is the cause of the invention of instability?
The answer is again, a certain social structure.
They invent a thousand ways to bypass the majority in the public.
For those who have already forgotten, the Oslo Agreement was essentially an alliance between the Labor Party and the Fatah organization. This is a very radical step. Instability stems from problems of depth, and only very partially from technical problems of "methodology". Today the left prefers the supporters of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority Even as a question of terrorism, in the face of the majority of the Jewish public, the right wing in Israel receives a new mission: to preserve democracy.
display strongly
Lapid tied himself to the false narrative that Netanyahu's speech to Congress destroyed relations with Washington, and now he is sticking to a cowardly and hesitant approach
According to senior diplomats such as former ambassador Ron Dermer, the impression is that "Israel conveys its messages on the nuclear issue in closed rooms, but they (the Americans) do not listen."
Part of the proof of this is the great effort of Lapid and Gantz to instill in the Israeli public's consciousness that the issues and givers are hardening positions due to the information and pressure we exert.
But Gantz and Lapid invest their powerful propaganda effort towards the Israeli public and against Netanyahu, and not towards the American public, its elected representatives and the heads of government.
In fact, the Israeli security leadership is relieved of the Iranian nuclear threat.
It's not new.
This light-headedness towards the potential threats from Gaza, from southern Lebanon, from the Yosh territories, from the Oslo agreement, from the maritime border, and even in relation to the Sinai border, existed for decades.
Instead of investing effort in persuading the Americans to stop the negotiations, in Israel the devices are opened every evening to find out if Supreme Leader Khamenei has decided to accept the latest offer - and that's it!
- of the Americans or Europeans.
In Israel it is estimated that one evening news will be received on Sheva Arab News that an agreement has been reached.
The reason that Yair Lapid is unable to really conduct a strong resistance campaign against the nuclear agreement is that since 2015 he has built a narrative of advocacy in closed rooms, face to face, and the important part of the narrative: Bibi's speech in Congress destroyed relations with the US. However, the relations were not destroyed, and the proof It is the ten-year security assistance agreement that was signed a year after the speech. Relations with the US are built on support in public opinion, in Congress, on cooperation with security establishments, and also with the White House.
Since the speech, the Americans have recognized the united Jerusalem and Israel's sovereignty in the Golan Heights and severely aggravated the sanctions on Iran, some of which have already been neutralized by the Biden administration.
About 20 years ago I met with one of the most serious and intelligent people who crossed the political galaxy in Israel, the late Yoash (Chato) Zidon, who was a senior officer in the Air Force.
He referred to those who represented the classical Israeli approach at the time - Shalapid, Bennett and Gantz are its successors - Nachman Shai.
"I do not agree with the approach of Nachman Shai, who thought that all that was necessary was to present information. The information should be presented powerfully," said Chato.
The Iranian nuclear was far from consciousness then.
It sounds simple.
Show the data, the other party in the closed room - or the sealed room - will already understand.
But it doesn't work that way.
It's a tree falling in the forest, and no one hears.
"To present powerfully" is what Volodymyr Zelensky has been doing for the past six months.
You blast your data and information and analysis on the biggest broadcast stages, including in Congress and including exposing the Iranian nuclear archive in the theater of political struggle.
Lapid's approach is outdated.
It grew up in a period of tail between the legs, of unbearably difficult economic and security dependence on the Americans.
It failed in the past when the Egyptians violated the terms of the ceasefire in August '70 and advanced the missiles;
And it failed in the days before the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War.
The Americans today have no desire to slide into a military conflict in the Middle East, so they do not listen to the information in the closed room.
The only one to date who implemented the concept of "powerful advocacy" was Benjamin Netanyahu.
The old attitude expressed by Lapid is cowardly;
But as Ron Dermer analyzed in an interview with Michael Makowski, he chained himself to the false narrative about the speech that destroyed the relationship.
Could say it, but not act on it.
the biggest?
Jean-Luc Godard proved that the right aesthetic allows you to sell even anti-Semitic messages.
The fact that his successor is walking around Tel Aviv is an interesting statement
It is not surprising that Godard left just now.
After the last viewer left, about a month and a half ago, it is only natural that the last jump cut will take place.
Jump Cut.
Now, after Godard's death, it sounds definitive.
violent.
suicidal.
Jean-Luc Godard, photo: AFP
Without Godard, we would not have received the wave of American filmmakers, who revived Hollywood cinema.
Coppola, Scorsese, Arthur Penn, Sam Peckinpah.
Did we already say "Bonnie and Clyde"?
Godard is one of those filmmakers whose attitude changes over time.
Now it's nostalgia's turn.
It would not be true to say that young people swore to become film directors thanks to Godard.
He might have been a little small for the students of the 70s.
What about Fellini?
Antonioni?
Dripping faucets.
But yes, she continued to engage in filmmaking as if out of nowhere, without professional training at university or as an assistant to a great director, coming from producers like Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut.
Johnny doesn't have to go to Hollywood.
It's enough to take a Super 8 from someone and start.
Truffaut said that the first to convey such inspiration - that a young man can become a filmmaker just because he loves movies and does not have to raise all the financial and production resources for it, it can be done in the light of day and in the dark - was Orson Welles.
It came to them from Orson Welles, but they, the priests of the new wave, preached these verses to a wave of artists.
Those who were suddenly attracted to cinema and not to literature, theater or painting.
We remember and love him not because of the 60 films he made over the years after his first creative decade between 1959 and 1969, but because of the ten plus or minus films he made at the beginning: "To the Bride of the Breath", "The Little Rifleman", "A Woman Is Woman", "Living Her Life", "The Contempt", "Mad Pierrot"... Just saying the names of these legendary works makes the heart feel good.
And what about "the Chinese", "male female", "two or three things I know about her", "separate gang".
It turns out that the first Godard film I saw was "Alphaville", almost in real time.
Then comes the ultimate moment of admiration, if you really believe in cinema.
Because over the years this art has faded.
But if so, the question arises as to whether Godard is actually the greatest of filmmakers.
At some point the tendency to say yes.
After all, without him we would not have received the wave of American creators who revived American cinema.
Coppola, Scorsese, Arthur Penn, Sam Peckinpah.
Did we already say "Bonnie and Clyde"?
All the cinematic language that served the world of movies from 1967 until the decline of cinema in the 80s, that is for about 20 years, was invented by Godard.
And yet, would we even remember the first jump cut to say the last, without Jean-Paul Belmondo in "Bride of Breath"?
in doubt.
Looking from today, after faith in Godard has been lost, we pay taxes as a member of the Truffaut party.
Or Jean-Pierre Melville.
Is it possible to compare some Godard film to "Army of Shadows"?
Because Godard, looking back, proves that if you come armed with the right and overwhelming, most up-to-date and modern aesthetics, you can sell the harshest anti-Semitic messages, bordering on Nazism.
If only we knew it in real time.
But the evangelists took care to cover up this disgrace.
Not his pro-Palestinianism, but his anti-Zionist anti-Semitism, and also against the background of family roots that collaborated with the Nazis.
and the worship of Soviet propagandists and Mao's revolutionary murder enterprise in China.
As a filmmaker, his successor hangs out in cafes in the Milan Square area in the first Hebrew, Zionist city.
I'd like to think that Tarantino is trying to make some kind of statement with this.
After all, he called his production company "Separate Gang Movies".
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
