Lapid's paradox: The warning that could fuel the betrayal theory | Yoni Reini

Yoni Reini analyzes the paradox in Yair Lapid's statements, who claims he warned about the October 7 disaster based on information from the security establishment. Reini argues that this very claim could fuel the conspiracy theory of 'betrayal' within the security leadership, as it confirms its basic premise – that the leadership held dramatic information. The author points to a contradiction: if the information was so severe, why did the system's actual conduct completely contradict it, as evidenced by the head of Military Intelligence's vacation in Eilat and the approval of the Nova party two days before the massacre. Reini concludes that the failure stemmed from systemic blindness, not betrayal.

Yoni Reini analyzes in his column the paradox in Yair Lapid's statements. Lapid frequently mentions the speech he gave on the eve of Yom Kippur 5784, in which he warned of 'dangerous proximity to a violent, multi-front confrontation,' based on information he received from the security establishment. Reini argues that this very claim – that the security establishment knew and warned – could fuel the 'betrayal theory,' according to which the security leadership desired a limited security event to topple Netanyahu, but the plan spiraled out of control. The author emphasizes that the theory has no factual basis, but Lapid, by confirming that the leadership held dramatic information, validates its basic premise. Reini points to a contradiction: the head of Military Intelligence, Aharon Haliva, spent the night of October 6-7 on vacation in Eilat, and two days before the massacre, the IDF approved extending the Nova party despite security objections. If the information was so severe, the system's conduct was reckless; if the conduct was deemed reasonable, the warning was general. Reini concludes that the failure stemmed from cumulative systemic blindness, not betrayal, and that Lapid is fueling the conspiracy theory with his own hands.