Q&A: Sovereignty
Sovereignty
Question
Is sovereignty worth the potential casualties that would be caused by applying it directly, even if in the long run the benefit will be greater than the harm?
I’m referring to the Talmudic passage of “Give over one of you.”
True, there is no certainty that an Israeli will be killed directly as a result of applying sovereignty, but at the end of the day the probability says that there will almost certainly be casualties from such a move. From a religious standpoint, is it permissible to support this?
Answer
By that logic, we should never have established a state, and many other things as well. Sometimes it’s not right to take short-term considerations into account, because otherwise you’ll never be able to do anything at all. Your enemy will learn that threats deter you and will use that again and again.
As for sovereignty itself—no worries. There was nothing and there will be nothing. It’s all talk. And even if there is sovereignty, it has no real meaning, because they’ll cancel it as quickly as they imposed it. There’s no point investing even a gram of thought in it.
Discussion on Answer
And my answer was that in public matters, such calculations are not necessarily made. Like redeeming captives for more than their value, and the like.
As for your assessment of reality—maybe. We’ll wait and see.
What do you mean by public matters?
Even if the public is obedient to Jewish law?
After all, the passage of “Give us one of you” is dealing with a public case.
It has nothing to do with obedience. Public considerations are different.
As for the passage of “Give us one of you,” it is not relevant here.
1. It deals with desecration of God’s name, not saving life. I proved this in my article in Techumin.
2. There are quite a few distinctions between it and the case at hand (in fact there isn’t much connection between them).
3. And in any case, even if the leadership decides to depart from it for public reasons, there is no problem with that.
Regarding what you wrote in point 3:
Do you mean that in public matters the leadership should not take halakhic considerations at all?
(I’d be glad for the article in Techumin if you can attach a link).
There are halakhic considerations, but they do not always overlap with the halakhic considerations of the individual.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9D
Deleted. Just a political reference that says nothing about the discussion. Not relevant. (M.A.)
My question was, according to Jewish law, whether it is permitted to do something that with high probability will cause a direct killing in order to prevent many deaths in the longer term.
And it’s like a case where if he doesn’t turn the steering wheel, ten will be killed, and if he does turn it, one will be killed directly. In the passage of “Give over one of you,” it is explained that this is forbidden.
As for annexation itself:
It seems that Bibi feels he has to remain in history not as someone who ended up in prison but as the one who brought sovereignty, so he is going to do everything for it, including anything he can. In his view there is no reason he would hold back, especially since he has support from the opposition called Yamina, and even the opposition under Lapid will not be able to oppose it easily.
Trump too, before his first term is up, would prefer to come out with the Deal of the Century, as he called it, hoping it will cover for the full range of embarrassments of his term.
So apparently, just as Bibi cried morning and night that there would be nothing whatsoever and in fact there was much more than nothing, so too regarding sovereignty it seems that reality is stronger than common sense, and it looks like that is where we are headed.