Since the kidnapping of the boys and the WhatsApp rumors, security officials have denied many rumors, including the one according to which: "A special forces team broke into a house in the village of Awarta where the boys were kidnapped... Both boys were rescued safely...", which is of course fine.
But the same sources denied this as well, and note the date - 7.07.2014:
""The IDF is preparing for an operation that will last several weeks, to be called 'Protective Edge', and its goal is to clear terrorist nests by air and ground." This claim was immediately denied by security officials, as reported in the media.
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
Well, the day after. On July 8, 2014, the IDF launched an operation called, how could it not?... "Protective Edge." At first, they didn't even reveal that it was going to be a ground invasion, and we all shouted yes and no to a "ground entry" - but it had been planned for a long time.
So this rumor was very well-founded, and leaked from places that should have been more sealed.
The threat of the tunnels was also known, they planned an entire operation around it, they even gave it a name. Only the timing was not known (or was it), and it was necessary to wait for the 'trigger' with which the story could begin.
So why did they actually go on the operation?
Ostensibly, such a denial undermines the government's credibility in the eyes of the public. The operation was publicly perceived as a response to the kidnapping of the boys/escalation in the rocket fire. Moreover, the government also explicitly announced that the response was in response to the escalation. Initially, we gave them 48 hours, and they continued to shoot, and we gave another extension, and we all got angry.
And in practice? While Eyal, Ifrach, and Naftali are alive and walking among us - the government was working on a plan to eradicate terrorism in Gaza. They were just waiting for a tactical game on how to present the operation.
If anyone thinks that Israeli intelligence has been listening to the excavations for several years without knowing what their plans are, I'm afraid they are wrong this time.
So what does this mean? That Bibi decided that before the elections he needed a war that would bring out a hero in him?
Or was he anxious day and night for the peace of Israeli citizens and to that end decided to clean up the nests of terror in Gaza?
Is there a lie/distraction of the public here? Has the time come for mass democracy, where the people decide what to fight for and how?
In the case of "Protective Edge," if the government had not lied, the operation might not have been launched, and if they had stopped it, it would not have been possible to nullify the Hamas threat and remove the nests of terror.
So how do you go to war, and is the government really lying? If it did lie, was it appropriate to do so? I will try to present the problem from three angles: public opinion, secrecy, and international relations.
public opinion
It's hard to get people excited, and thousands of brilliant minds who work hard on advertising and marketing will testify to this. In order to get someone to agree to buy this particular cheese and not the competitor's, they have to invest a lot. And that's just for cheese. What about a war where it's clear that people will die?
It is likely that if it were up to the people, we would not make war until everyone agrees.
And if there is a threat of tunnels?
We will wait, and wait, and wait. And we will not fight. Because no one has the desire for wars.
On the other hand, if they kidnap our boys and murder them, and in the process present the threat of the tunnels. Suddenly the "direct democracy" app will ask: "Should we enter Gaza or not?" The answer will be 4 million likes of support among the Jews.
Well, that's what actually happened.
If the government were to announce in broad daylight that there was a need to clean up the terror tunnels and therefore embark on an operation that would cost around 50-100 soldiers (and that's a lot of work, sadly, in the face of hypocritical morality), would the people be ready for it?
And therefore accusing the government of lying is a bit out of place. Because today it is clear that public opinion wants it. Even our leftists have already sobered up and are simply demanding to "go in with all their might.".
The secret
""A conflict comes in, a secret comes out." It's no secret that if there is a conflict and there are enemies - most often, the ability to decide lies in the strategy of surprise.
This is how the kidnappers of the boys operated, and this is how all wars have been fought since time immemorial.
When the IDF informed the residents of Shajaiyah to evacuate before an attack - it ruined the surprise for Hamas,
And invited him to surprise him with explosives and an APC explosion.
A government often lies as part of surprise and keeping a secret.
In direct democracy there will be no secrets, this is an advantage of the utopia of a good world in which there are only nice "surprise eggs", and without the need to keep secrets from enemies,
But how will it be possible to manage issues that still require secrecy?
International relations
A government sometimes lies due to the need to manage international public relations, but this is a lie of 'truth', meaning it is right and desirable to lie. Just as it is desirable to lie to parents, spouses, and children, when it is more appropriate to flatter, encourage, and turn a blind eye.
This goes back a bit to the secret clause, meaning that in the end, they decide to keep secret the fact that "I don't like it at all" and instead say "How beautiful, thank you so much for buying it for me.".
The difficulty will escalate if we want to manage communication and relations between a country that has direct democracy and a country that does not.
The majority of the people in Israel may not like US President Obama, but the benefits of the Israel-US relationship are undeniable.
And therefore, if only there were direct democracy here - and the people decided to quarrel with a single person who is temporarily in charge of the throne - the people would lose. Because they don't know how to lie together when necessary.
