Reply to your article

Shalom Rabbi Avraham

The young rabbi does not assume that the laws of democracy morally reject everything, what he is arguing is that I as an individual or as a minority group should not use force or violence to impose my understanding on the public, even if it is a very, very urgent and important matter.
This is not a moral issue – in the technical part, almost always the action of an individual or a minority will not really change the course of social affairs. The failure of Yigal Amir, and unlike Greenspan and Perkpotter, is not “accidental” but lies in the fact that they did not obey the ”laws of democracy” which are more like a natural-behavioral law than a moral law.

Hagai, a collection of meaningless words. After all the talk, if you think someone is now on the verge of death, that they are about to die (!) Won't you save them even if you violate democracy?! If you save them - that's what Yigal Amir thought. If not – justify it morally! And what, democracy rejects human life?? But what, you assume that it won't help, well, then Yigal Amir assumed otherwise. So at most he was wrong. But here we are discussing moral judgment towards a person!

No – I will not save him if it is contrary to the ”laws of democracy” because after a few minutes he will be on the verge of death again, while the very attempt to save him has damaged the democratic consensus, and then the level of violence will rise and many other people will end up in death.

Why – For a person who is currently in the center of a group of hundreds of people who are lynching him, and there is currently no force around him that can stop them – There is no chance that I will be able to save the poor man from the crowd, and on the other hand my life and perhaps the lives of those around me will be in danger.

It is clear that Yigal Amir was wrong, let's try to learn from his mistake and not harm the social consensus not to use violence (derisively called “laws of democracy”)

Hagai, you answered me as I should, and I really don't understand what you're saying. You'll leave a person to die because of the laws of democracy? Have you gone crazy? And according to your strange and eccentric method, let's assume that the entire nation is going to die. Won't you save him because of the laws of democracy?
And what's the point of this chatter that if you save him, he'll be in danger again? Are you inventing a justification? What dangers were created after Rabin's assassination?

Sorry, Your Honor, I'm struggling to answer the question and explain, you should try to relate to the cases I gave as examples.

Yes – I probably haven't gone crazy, but I won't take violent actions that most of my people oppose in order to save a human being. Would you break into a prison with violence to save a person sentenced to death who there is public consensus that this punishment is deserved?

If all of my people are going to die and are interested in it, I will not try to prevent it by resorting to violence (beyond the technical question of whether it is even possible) but I will try to convince.

The danger created after Rabin's assassination is a lack of solidarity among the people to the point of indifference to the lives of people who identify with the right-wing-settler sector, a lack of desire to protect them or help them in times of need. When you are a Jew in a hostile area (like the Earth), it is a pikuach nefesh

I don't see what needs to be answered. I answered everything, and your words don't address the issue. I'm sorry.

It seems to me that the argument is that just as in the case of a persecutor, if his limbs can be saved, he must not be killed, so too here, since there were supposed to be democratic elections in 1996, and Rabin was going to lose, this is a persecutor who can be saved with his limbs.

Y”D, I assume you're joking.