Hili Tropper, straight:
The Supreme Court showed Abu Shehadeh the way out of the Knesset candidate list, and rightly so. This has nothing to do with Netanyahu, but rather with a values-based position shared across nearly the entire Israeli political spectrum.
Nevertheless, there is a group in society that insists on viewing every position or move in the political arena through a single lens: Netanyahu.
For them, the fact that we supported disqualifying Sami Abu Shehadeh from running for the Knesset, after he expressed support for the October 7 massacre, means that “we are dancing to Netanyahu’s tune.”
As if it were impossible that we simply believe that someone who, after the massacre, incites our enemies to continue—“If little Gaza managed to do it, others can do it more simply and effectively”—should not be allowed to serve in Israel’s Knesset.
What difference does Netanyahu’s position on the matter make? Isn’t it morally clear enough that such a person should not sit in Israel’s Knesset?
The same applies when we say that only those who support eliminating Hamas can serve in the next government. It is immediately claimed that this is “surrendering to Netanyahu’s campaign.” But the world can also be viewed differently.
For example, through the eyes of residents of Kfar Aza, Be’eri, and Sderot, whom we promised after October 7 that we would fight Hamas relentlessly. Or through the eyes of the soldiers who fell, and those we are still sending into battle.
Does it make sense for people who do not support eliminating Hamas to sit in a government that sends soldiers into battle and makes decisions about the war against Hamas?
The same applies to our opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state. We must not risk a similar outcome, God forbid, in Judea and Samaria as well.
People can disagree with our positions. But the attempt to explain them through Netanyahu misses the point.