The Prime Minister issued a condemnatory response to the Australian government's decision to withdraw from the recognition of West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Let's put aside for a moment the outrageous decision itself, which it seems we did not know about in advance and therefore did not prepare for it properly, and focus on the response.
Yair Lapid emphatically claimed that "Jerusalem is the eternal and united capital of Israel, and nothing will ever change that", not even a decision by a foreign government.
If that part of the response wasn't direct enough, he also added that he hoped "that in other matters the Australian government is more serious".
Well, maybe he should start acting as serious as well.
Only a day after he claimed that foreign countries do not decide what the capital of Israel is, the Prime Minister gave an interview to Arab media outlets and assured them that he would prevent Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, in the heart of Jerusalem. The one he firmly claims is the eternal and united capital of the State of Israel. If external factors do not determine how the State of Israel Israel needs to behave and what is important to it, why is it urgent for Lapid to prevent Jewish prayers on the Temple Mount? After all, he has no problem with Jewish prayers in general. There are two logical explanations - either he submitted to foreign dictates, such as he said he strongly rejects, or he expressed himself in this way to cut A political coupon - and this, as has been said, does not exactly show serious or responsible behavior. The popular explanation is that the Australian government withdrew from recognizing West Jerusalem as the capital of Israel due to domestic political pressures, so if the Prime Minister of Israel announced that he would prevent Jewish prayers in their holy place for the same reason, how exactly is he "Being more serious" than her?
The seriousness and credibility of the holder of the most important office in the State of Israel is further undermined, when watching the interview he gave in 2017, during the magnetometer crisis, in which he said that "we are the sovereign on the Temple Mount and we will not take dictates from anyone", but this is not the only case.
The then foreign minister, Yair Lapid, also opposed the evacuation of the illegal settlement of Khan al-Ahmar, for reasons not entirely related to Israeli sovereignty and interests.
Like his predecessor in office, Benjamin Netanyahu, he too did not enforce the law on the land grabbers in the village, fearing "what the world will say" and the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Some will argue, and with some degree of justice, that the State of Israel cannot act as if it were operating in a vacuum, and that it must take into account the opinion of other countries.
I agree with this claim, but I do not agree that they will make fun of us.
It is impossible to assert emphatically that the world does not dictate to us what to do, while we give up our sovereignty in the Negev for fear of the Hague, in South Tel Aviv for fear of the refugee organizations, in Yosh for fear of the USA and in the holiest place for Jews - the Temple Mount - for fear of Arab countries.
Yes.
You have to take into account what countries and organizations in the world think, but taking into account does not mean subjecting all Israeli interests to this consideration.
This is just one of a wide set of considerations, and I sincerely believe that if we stand our ground where the high priests and Jewish pilgrims stood, the world will respect us a little more;
And who knows, maybe it will even help to show that we cannot be told what to do.
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