Doesn’t the Rabbi support it automatically? They may yet call the Rabbi an inciter.

I didn’t say I don’t support it. I said I can’t express an opinion about an egg that hasn’t been laid. When it is born and we see how it conducts itself, I’ll have a position about it. You can ask whether it is proper to establish such a government. But to ask what I think about this government—that’s a question that can’t be answered.
I’m in favor of anything that isn’t Bibi. I didn’t sign petitions in favor of this government (which were sent to me in large numbers) because I’m skeptical about its ability to survive. So I thought it would be better to go back again and again to elections until Likud came to its senses, threw out the corrupt man, and formed a government without him. But now, if it is formed, we’ll wait and see. Maybe they’ll form it and pass a law that doesn’t allow corrupt people to run (which I’m not sure I support, for several reasons: personal legislation, and also going against the will of the voter), and then it would already have been worth forming it even if it doesn’t last.

On the one hand I support personal laws, and especially the law proposed here, and on the other hand if I were a Likudnik and they enacted such a “personal” law, then I’d have no problem at all explaining to everyone that at the head of Likud we’d put Shimon Bokovza as acting placeholder, and if there are 61 seats after the election then we’ll pass a one-of-a-kind law that a person named Shimon Bokovza, heading Likud in 2021, may be replaced by a person named Benjamin Netanyahu and receive all the powers as if he had been directly elected.
The condition for heading a government and the condition for legislating laws is the same: 61 seats. That means little tricks (even though in themselves I support them) aren’t supposed to work at all, and you can always turn the wheel backward.

Except that in another year or two he’ll likely already be in prison and won’t be able to replace the said Bokovza. The game is about time.

So we’ll pass a law that convicted prisoners too (provided their name is Benjamin Netanyahu) can serve as prime ministers, and the prison sentence will be suspended or canceled.

How familiar is the Rabbi with Ilan Yeshua’s testimony, that he calls Netanyahu corrupt?

Apparently the Rabbi is fed by a lot of propaganda that has been here for 3 years.

Honorable Rabbi, the question is what you think of Bennett’s act of deceit, and if possible it would be even better to write a column about it.

The Bennett-Lapid combination is not all that problematic, for even if together with Lapid they bring things to the point where one’s hand recoils from it, here we have secondary taste derived from secondary taste, which is permitted; especially since Ayelet Shaked has already gotten hold of him, and Lapid can only bring him to a severe whitening process that will render him fit.

The problem is the combination of Lapid with Sa’ar, for the wind of the storm may carry the blaze far away, and who can say whether Sa’ar’s companion will manage to say “cool it” and calm the storm; perhaps with the addition of “Biton” one may rely on it that the fire won’t spread, and this requires further examination.

Best regards, Piro Man

Paragraph 1, line 2:
… tertiary taste from secondary taste, which is permitted, …

The propaganda that was here caused voters to choose Bibi again and again.
Had the truth been told, he would have been thrown out from the start.
But the media wanted him there. He benefited them.

What do you think of the deceitful act of the Sages, who said that one who recites havdalah over the cup is granted male children? The Hazon Ish recited havdalah over the cup and had no children at all. This is an example from Rabbi Wolfson. And he explains that the Sages say that havdalah over the cup under ordinary conditions brings male children, but sometimes there are additional parameters that can neutralize that (as in “because of the sin of vows, a person’s children die”). Under different conditions it may be that a person breaks his promises because the new circumstances require doing X even though it is a breach of promise, and that is preferable to not doing it and keeping the promise, because the expected harm is greater.

With God’s help, 21 Sivan 5781

The left-wing bloc is prepared to hand out a few “candies” to Bennett and Sa’ar, but the prime ministership in a government whose majority is left-wing is an honor devoid of value. What is the value of a prime minister whose opinion in the government is a minority opinion? They will give Bennett and Sa’ar and co. the honors of prime minister, interior minister, education minister, and justice minister, but the people who will determine foreign, security, and economic policy will be the left-wingers.

The leftists need Bennett and Sa’ar in order to remove Netanyahu, but if they insist on determining anything in the diplomatic-security-economic sphere, or on setting judicial or prosecutorial appointments, then all the same “dance of demons” that Netanyahu “merited” will begin against them: smears and demonstrations, investigations and cases, until they “understand their place” or leave in shame.

And where will they go? They know perfectly well that in the next election they won’t pass the electoral threshold, after losing the trust of most of their right-wing voters. Their partners on the left can safely assume that in that situation Bennett and Sa’ar will have no choice but to faithfully serve their left-wing partners so that they may prolong their days over their symbolic “kingdom” on Balfour and Salah al-Din.

That is the painful choice left to Bennett and Sa’ar and co.: either suffer the persecutions Netanyahu went through, or be marionettes in the hands of the left. This is the fruit of envy and the urge to “be on top,” and what a pity…

Best regards, Yaron Fish”l Ordner.

Meanwhile, Ayelet Shaked is challenging the group with a forceful demand to be appointed to the Judicial Appointments Committee in place of Merav Michaeli. That is a demand that puts the left-wing people to the test: will they allow Yamina real influence? Maybe there is still some remedy for Yamina…

The analogy to the words of the Sages is not precise. The Sages did not promise that they would give sons to one who makes havdalah over wine; rather, they tried to explain a reality (a hidden/spiritual one, I assume)—and in such a situation it really makes sense that there are additional parameters beyond what they said in that specific sentence. That is not the case when a person promises that he will do or not do something.
Beyond that, it is not clear what new circumstances have existed since Bennett declared that he would not be prime minister with Lapid “not even in a rotation”—after all, it is obvious that he was referring to a situation in which Lapid forms a government (and not Netanyahu)—so what exactly has changed?
And furthermore, Bennett is acting against the will of most of his voters (according to the polls)—something that can definitely be interpreted as deceit. And furthermore, two weeks ago he declared that the change government was off the table—and since then it is not at all clear what has changed.

This conduct, in which the party chairman dictates policy to all the members of his faction and they approve it without any ability to object, out of fear that in the next elections they’ll be thrown off the list—invites contempt for the voting public.

When the Knesset members of the faction are chosen in primaries by all party members, or at least by its elected institutions, there can be criticism from their side of the moves of their party leader. But when they depend on him, they are obliged to say “yes” even to his most questionable whims.

Today the only large party whose leader and representatives in the Knesset are chosen by hundreds of thousands of party members is Likud. It is no coincidence that this party wins the trust of a million voters, who feel that the party leader and its representatives in the Knesset are real “public representatives” in whom one can place trust.

Best regards, Yafa”or

Anonymous, I hope you understand the distinction you made. I don’t. It’s exactly the same logic.
You can argue about whether the circumstances changed, but you’re mixing up an announcement from two weeks ago—which was a tactical decision and not a promise to the voter—with pre-election promises, since which the situation has changed a lot (for example, the results came in).

Yafa”or, your declarations sometimes reflect a magnificent detachment from reality. In Likud there is criticism from the MKs and the voters of the party and its leader? But that is precisely an example refuting your marvelous theory (though logically plausible a priori, it must be admitted) about the effect of primaries on the party. Throughout this period, the obvious interest of Likud voters is that Bibi should go so that there can be a full-full right-wing government (yeah, right) and not a “left-wing” government (yeah, right). I do not see them achieving that. Likud is a party in which there is tyrannical one-man rule against the interest of the party and the state, no less—and usually more—than in all the “dictatorial” parties.

With God’s help, 21 Sivan 5781

To Rabbi M. A. — greetings,

What can one do against the facts? The chairman of Likud and the party’s representatives for the Knesset were chosen in secret elections by hundreds of thousands of party members, to whom they are accountable.

Gideon Sa’ar lost in the internal elections, and was even less successful in the general elections. His demand that the party leader—who was chosen by a large majority of its members and won the trust of about a million voters—should resign, is a recipe for Likud’s collapse, for Netanyahu won the public’s trust because of his proven experience and ability.

Netanyahu stood firm and did not surrender to heavy pressures from within and without, including from the hostile U.S. president Obama, and despite the pressures succeeded in advancing the state’s economic, diplomatic, and security standing. In his handling of the coronavirus crisis, Netanyahu succeeded in making the State of Israel the first state to emerge from the plague by obtaining the vaccines, while the rest of the countries of the world stood behind us.

Replacing Netanyahu with a far less experienced leader, a leader who has never in his life stood before the pointed shoe of a U.S. president and not been intimidated—is an excellent move for Sa’ar. Not for Likud and not for the state.

Best regards, Yafa”or

In the last paragraph, lines 1–2:
… before the pointed shoe of the U.S. president …

With God’s help, 21 Sivan 5781

A surprising thing—or maybe not? I discovered in an article from 13 Tevet 5775, “The New Israel Fund: We financially support the Jewish Home,” on the Kol Hai Radio site. According to the article, people from the New Israel Fund informed Emilia Amrusi that the fund financially supports the Jewish Home, and thereby indirectly supports Bennett.

In an article on Channel 7 (19 Nisan 5781), the fund’s CEO Gitzin stated that he supports a government headed by Bennett that would bring about Netanyahu’s replacement, and that he is not worried by Bennett’s right-wing tendencies, because his partners on the left will greatly limit him.

In short: old ties with the New Israel Fund 🙂

With the blessing “On every horn, place a hat,” Tzvika Karni

With God’s help, 24 Sivan 5781

In the emerging “change government” (God forbid, may it not come to pass), three types of leaders hold a significant place, and the interaction between their opposing traits can affect matters for better and for worse.

At the forefront, of course, are the aggressive populists. Types like Yair Lapid, Avigdor Avigdor Liberman, Merav Michael, Tamar Zandbergi, and Nitzan Horowitz—whose ability to execute tends toward zero and whose political power comes from the hostility and provocations they stir up.

Balancing them somewhat is the second type, the pale and pleasant one: Benny Gantz. Secular but respectful of tradition, left-wing but a bit security-minded, with a certain empathy for the settlers and Religious Zionists.

Facing them stands the right-wing minority, headed by Naftali Behat, who is a wondrous combination of an aggressive populist and an excellent executor. The aspiration for rule in an unconquerable lust does not bode well. His tendency toward light religiosity as an ideal also invites trouble. On the other hand, his tendency toward the right and toward national and security activism may somewhat moderate the headlong rush to free ourselves from the “territories,” toward which Lapid, Meretz, and Michaeli will be drawn.

In the third type—the excellent executors—there stand on the right side of the map (the left-wing people I don’t know; maybe there are such people there too…) people like Ayelet Shaked, Matan Kahana, Gideon Sa’ar, Yifat Biton Shasha, and Ze’ev Elkin, who on the one hand will be able to advance positive trends in the areas entrusted to them—interior and justice, education and housing—and perhaps also slightly influence for the better the conduct of most of the government’s left-wing members.

Mansour Abbas also belongs to the type of excellent executors. He will be a major problem in the security sphere, by preventing a firm hand against rioters and terrorists; but on the other hand he will act against aggressive liberalism that seeks to undermine traditional family values, wage total war against gender separation, and promote aggressive LGBT-ism.

It may be that the contradictions in this strange government will succeed in moderating one another a little, and thereby maintain a relatively slow pace of deterioration, and in the meantime give Netanyahu time to rebuild his political path, so that he will not be satisfied, as in the past, with forceful and charismatic leadership, but will give more room to teamwork with his fellow leaders, so that Likud may return to lead.

In concern and hope, Nehorai Shraga Agami-Pasisovich

With God’s help, eve of the Sabbath, Shelach-Lecha, 5781

It may be that the strange “change government” will constitute a solution to the halakhic tangle created by applying the prohibition of “bribery by words” (= making a decision for the sake of “favorable coverage”) to public officials.

The prohibition of “bribery by words,” the rule of Hebrew law forbidding judges to sit in judgment over someone who gave them “favorable coverage,” is highly applicable to a dayan or a judge, who once appointed has no dependence on “public opinion” and needs nobody’s “favorable coverage.”

By contrast, a public official in a democratic regime, elected for a term of several years and liable to be a candidate for another term—his entire motivation in making decisions is the expectation of receiving “favorable coverage” from the public. Public favor is what will determine whether he “prolongs his days over his kingdom” or is removed.

The democratic character of government requires the leader to be attentive to the public’s favor or disfavor, and public opinion is a central component in the leader’s considerations in making decisions. As in the advice of the elders to Rehoboam, to be attentive to the will of the people so that they would accept his rule.

Applying the prohibition of “bribery by words” also to an elected official requires that the official be independent of public opinion, and that is possible only if the official is elected for one term alone—for example, like a judge appointed until age 70, or like a president elected to a single seven-year term, and then indeed from the moment he is chosen…

In that legal situation, which Jewish law recognizes as “the law of the kingdom is law,” a leader who may stand for another term is forbidden to make any decision whatsoever except in life-threatening situations. And indeed the situation of a paralyzed caretaker government is the only one that prevents elected officials from stumbling in the prohibition of “bribery by words.”

The change government has brought a new kind of elected official fit to make decisions: the “political suicide.” A leader who has lost his political base and the trust of most of his voters, and knows that this term is the last of his life—he truly is someone who can make decisions without any expectation of “favorable coverage.” Bennett, Shaked, Sa’ar, and Elkin know that with the right they have burned their bridges, and the left too will accept them only as a tool for removing Netanyahu from Balfour and will throw them to the winds at the first opportunity—these leaders know that no one will give them “favorable coverage,” and therefore all their decisions are valid according to the law of the kingdom 🙂

Thus perhaps the ministers of the “right-wing government” solved the prohibition of “making decisions for favorable coverage” for this term, and afterward may God have mercy…

Best regards, Dino Ze’ur, our legal commentator

By the way, in Israeli law the prohibition of “bribery by words” was not applied sweeping even to judges, and recusal in a matter of “favorable coverage” depends on the practical concern of bias. A very vague definition. See the article by retired judge Rachel Shalev-Gertel, “Bribery by Words in Hebrew Law and in Israeli Law.”

With God’s help, 27 Sivan 5781

It is seemingly puzzling why Behat and Sa’ar refused Netanyahu’s proposal to stand in a rotation at the head of a right-wing government, when Bennett was supposed to be first. Why did they prefer a government most of whose members are left-wingers, including the foreign, defense, and public security ministers?

In my humble opinion, the answer is: fear of international pressure. These two politicians know how to release strong right-wing slogans into the air, but to stand up to the pressures of the U.S. president, the European Union, etc.—the two have never in their lives stood before such pressures. Let Biden merely open his mouth and “their knees would knock together” and their arguments would fall silent.

Netanyahu is the only one who does not “melt” before international pressure, because he has orderly strategic thinking and the ability to “play” in the international arena even against powerful actors. Netanyahu moved the game to the “American field” through his ability to appeal to public opinion and awaken concern over the danger of Islamic, Palestinian, and Iranian terrorism.

If pressured by a hostile president, Netanyahu had the ability to mobilize senators and members of Congress, and factors that influence public opinion, and present them with clear facts showing the dangers of Islamic terrorism.

And not only with elements inside the U.S. Netanyahu developed extensive ties with various countries, with Russian president Putin, with the prime minister of India and leaders of states in Africa, and positioned himself as an important factor in the international arena.

In a brilliant move Netanyahu exploited the Gulf states’ fear of the Iranians and created ties with several Arab states, to the dismay of the Iranians and the Palestinians.

The continued deterioration vis-à-vis the Palestinians, as a result of the Oslo Accords and the disengagement, Netanyahu could not stop head-on and deny international agreements. So what did Netanyahu do? He firmly conditioned progress in the “peace process” on there actually being “peace,” through the cessation of terrorism, and since “the other side” is unwilling to abandon terrorism, the “process of withdrawal” is stuck.

So Bennett and Sa’ar, who know that they have neither a diplomatic strategy combining strategic determination with a certain flexibility, nor the ability to fight the American administration inside its own “home field,” understand that they will not have the power to implement a right-wing policy led by them.

To admit that they need Netanyahu’s experience, abilities, and daring—they will not admit. So they set up a government with Lapid and Gantz, who make it absolutely clear that they are committed to full obedience to every American dictate and have no path other than intercession. Gantz and Lapid will close the matters with the Americans, and Bennett and Sa’ar will answer amen with no choice. The price, after all, will not be paid by the residents of Tel Aviv or the residents of Ra’anana 🙂

Best regards, Simcha Fish”l Halevi Plankton

What Bennett succeeded in influencing in his “brothers” Lapid and Liberman was a change in the outlook that had demanded “pushing the Haredim to hell.” Bennett explained at the time that the Haredim are a factor that is convenient to work with, because they have no pretensions to substantially influence government policy. They need to secure their education, health, and housing needs, and beyond that—the heads of government can do whatever they want.

Accordingly, Lapid and Liberman abandoned their anti-Haredi line, understanding that the real threat to the secular character of the state is דווקא the people of Religious Zionism. Therefore Bennett and Lapid are trying to separate the Haredim from the “right-wing bloc,” by the “stick and carrot” method.

The “stick” is giving the Finance Ministry and the chairmanship of the Finance Committee to Liberman, handing the Health Ministry to Meretz, and the Interior and Religious Affairs ministries to Yamina. In these positions, those who hold them can make life bitter for the Haredim.

The “carrot” is the explicit call for the Haredim to join their government. They expect that the people of United Torah Judaism will be the first to join, in exchange for the chairmanship of the Finance Committee and the Health or Housing Ministry. And in the next stage Shas too will join and win the Interior or Religious Affairs Ministry.

Thus there will arise for them a relatively stable government that will care for the economic interests of the secular and religious bourgeoisie and for the interests of the Haredim, while advancing a diplomatic plan that will harm the “settlers,” and then “the State of Tel Aviv will have its redeemer” 🙂

Best regards, Shafif

With God’s help, 27 Sivan 5781

And in my humble opinion, the original mistake of Religious Zionism was crowning Bennett as the “leader of Religious Zionism.” The principled failure is that from a movement that engraved on its banner “The Land of Israel for the people of Israel according to the Torah of Israel,” we turned into “Yamina.” And the practical failure was not insisting on loyalty to our “natural partners”—Likud and the Haredim.

We appointed as “our leader” a man who challenged the leadership of Likud, and also joined in a “brothers’ alliance” with Yair Lapid in decreeing decrees against Torah scholars. Now that same man has risen against us, seeing us as the greatest obstacle to his attaining the coveted status of “prime minister.” Too bad we were not satisfied with the mission of being “the connecting hyphen” between “religious” and “national,” as Dr. Yosef Burg put it.

Best regards, Yaron Fish”l Ordner

Meanwhile, his left-wing partners are already informing the Americans (behind his back?) of their intention to renew the negotiations over “two states for two peoples” immediately upon the government’s formation. To convey these messages, Gantz went out to Washington (while still serving in Netanyahu’s government…). See the article: “Senior figures in the change bloc: the diplomatic negotiations will be renewed with the formation of the government,” on the Channel 7 site.

In short: in the change bloc they “don’t count” Bennett, Shaked, and Sa’ar, as it is written: “their landlord is cheapened” 🙂

Best regards, Yafa”or

To the honor of the Rabbi,
Why do you call Netanyahu corrupt? Is there evidence for that? Isn’t that slander?

There is endless evidence for it. And I’m not talking only about the trials being conducted against him. But there is no point getting into those arguments here.