Your position on the legal revolution after the events of November 7
Hello,
If I’m not mistaken – in the past you explained that regarding the legal revolution, protesters have the legitimacy to do extreme things like refusing to enlist in the army and blocking roads, etc.
Unlike other cases, for example, such as the disengagement – you explained that this is not the same thing as the disengagement, no matter how difficult it was for people, was still essentially within the framework of the law.
But here from the legal revolution you explain that this is a fight over the laws themselves and therefore the rules of the game are different and therefore there is legitimation to break the law. (But I apologize in advance if I’m explaining your words incorrectly – that’s how I understood you anyway)
In retrospect and assuming I understood you correctly – and in light of the events of November 7, was it a mistake and was there really no legitimacy for the protesters to do extreme things and break the law, such as not enlisting in the army and the like?
Because as we have come to know – the enemies themselves tell us that this is one of the reasons for their attack, probably the main one. They saw that we are very divided.
And I’ll add that I know your opinion that you’re not in favor of pragmatism – but that you should go for the truth, no matter the consequences.
But here we are talking about matters of the existence of the state itself – and we saw what a cruel enemy we are facing.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you
Indeed, the attack was planned before the reform, but the timing was probably due to the reform.
Without a doubt. The plan that was formulated two years ago clearly stated below:
To be implemented when there is a regime revolution and the protest will divide the Israeli public. As soon as they reach the point of refusal (in fact, a voluntary cessation is enough), this is the zero hour.
Schedule:
Zero + two hours - breaching the fence with Toyota vans and balloons.
Zero + four - takeover of the Teva Nova party, rape and massacre.
Zero + in the blink of an eye - Bibi's resignation.
Zero + two weeks and a minute - return to Gaza and handover of power to the leftists who protest our allies from brothers in arms.
May Allah help us.
Haters of Israel have always been planning, practicing, and looking for any way to harm us.
The question is only about the timing, and according to the testimony of one or more of the terrorists, the demonstrations against the reform and the threats of refusal encouraged them to take action.
So it seems that the connection between the demonstrations and the timing and mammothness of the attack cannot be underestimated.
If you try to read your words again, you will see how biased they are and how there is no question here. The discussion began with my relationship to "refusal" in light of the events. When you break it down to the smallest detail, you agree that there is no meaning except for what one so-and-so or an unknown person out of three thousand said (is he their general who knows what the considerations were? His impressions? And all of this is at most about timing) in an investigation that neither you nor I heard. From this you have strategic conclusions about who is to blame and what brought everything on us. You also ignore what I wrote (for example, it takes two to tango).
Well, very typical of the poor discourse that is taking place here, where every baseless argument is harnessed to our cart in order to prove what is wanted
By the way, this is of course true for both political sides. As we know, the exact same claim is made against Bibi, who caused the split and the "refusal". And I haven't even mentioned that there was almost no reluctance. Mainly a cessation of volunteering.
Indeed, it takes two to tango, and perhaps if we break it down, it turns out that the reform thinkers are the primary ones responsible. There are also those who would say that the Supreme Court, with its judicial over-activism, is the primary cause (we have moved from tango to a Yemeni step).
In any case, I do not think that the legal reform is what encouraged Hamas to take action. I never underestimate what my enemy says/declares or believes in its entirety, and they did tell the Shin Bet investigators that the demonstrations encouraged them. I did not hear it myself, but those who did passed it on to the media.
*)Those who disagree with you are not necessarily shallow
Happy Shabbat Shalom and Happy Urim
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
