Addenda to the Last Two Columns (Column 545)
A. On Harsh Expressions B. Insights from the Demonstration
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
In the column before last I discussed Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s statements about the earthquake in Turkey. In the most recent column I wrote about the demonstration against the government (mainly against the judicial reform), and there too I addressed Rabbi Eliyahu and others in harsh terms. Here I wish to present a few points as an addendum to those two columns. Regarding the first, I want to touch on the sharp manner of my expression; regarding the second, on insights that occurred to me following the demonstration.
A. A Harsh Mode of Expression
My manner of phrasing
I was pleased to see that, in the comments to both columns, there were almost no remarks about my sharp tone. It became clear to me—unsurprisingly—that the site’s readers do in fact belong to the audience I intend to address. Others who are not comfortable with this are welcome not to read. I have answered similarly to quite a few remarks I’ve received in the past about the length of my writing (in books and columns), its complexity, and my use of scientific and philosophical jargon. In response I explain that my writing is intended for a particular audience that is prepared to make an effort and to learn. The length is mainly because my primary aim is not the bottom line, as in typical online posts; for me, a column is a kind of lesson in a mode of relating and analyzing—and yes, it also ends with a conclusion. In my view, the lesson is more important than the conclusion, and therefore even if I could present the conclusion briefly, I have no interest in doing so. The detail and the arguments are meant to address difficulties that may arise in reading and to try to convey a mode of analysis. I indeed lose readers as a result, but they have plenty of other material to their liking. My sense is that this is my added value, and I offer it to those who are interested in this sort of product. If someone wishes to adapt the material for a broader audience—be my guest; I don’t see that as my task.
The same goes for my opinions and for the sharpness of expression, which I refuse to moderate for the same reason. There are plenty of calm and measured discussions of such nonsense. In my view, a considerable portion of what passes for “Jewish thought” is of that sort. Here too I am aware that I am losing readers, but again I will say that my words are addressed to those who wish to relate and inquire in this way, and therefore they focus not on style but on substance. In many cases, those who have no way to deal with the arguments themselves latch onto the style. I direct my words to those who can focus on the substance, and through my style I also want to make clear that this is my intention (besides the desire to express anger at stupidity or wickedness, of course). Therefore, moderating the style will not necessarily serve my aims and at times may even harm them.
One can perhaps attribute the readers’ reactions to clarifications I have already provided here more than once (see, for example, column 63, which also appears on the homepage as clarifications for readers) regarding my attitude toward harsh expression and my opposition to focusing on style instead of substance. I explained there and elsewhere that, as far as I’m concerned, you may speak sharply and cynically as you wish, as long as it is not a substitute for arguments but merely a way of expressing them. When someone speaks nonsense, it is fitting to give him a good whack. In certain cases, a moderate and calm debate is not even appropriate, because it presents the situation as if there were a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai and the relation between the views should be that “these and those are the words of the living God.” But no: Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu’s words were malicious drivel, and one who says them is an idiot (and malicious too). To argue with him calmly is to miss the point entirely. Part of the message is precisely that this is not a legitimate opinion, and therefore it is not right to make do with tranquil arguments. And still, I was careful to ground my claims against him with arguments (some of which were elaborated in earlier columns, as I noted). The formulation of the arguments was sharp and personal, as befitted these matters, but it was indeed a presentation of arguments.
Between epithets and sharp descriptions
On WhatsApp and by phone I did receive several remarks about the style, and therefore I thought to add another clarification, which I believe I have also given before, but there is no study hall without a novelty.
When I say about someone that he is an idiot, a parasite, corrupt, a liar, and the like, these are usually taken as pejorative epithets. I could have written that “I am displeased with his words” (like the example I brought in the penultimate column from Rabbi Avraham Stav). But there is a category mistake here. These are not epithets; they are sharp descriptions. When I say that someone is an idiot, I intend to describe him or his words, not to slander him. The same goes for “liar,” “corrupt,” and “parasite.”
For your convenience I will bring here a few relevant dictionary definitions from the expanded Hebrew–Hebrew ‘Milog’ dictionary:
Idiot – a fool, not intelligent.
Primitive – 1. Belonging to an undeveloped society. 2. A term for a coarse, vulgar person of narrow horizons and lacking culture. 3. Simple, outdated. 4. Belonging to an early or initial stage; primeval; archaic.
Parasite – 1. A creature that obtains its means of subsistence from another creature. 2. One who lives off another’s resources; freeloader. “My son is a parasite and doesn’t want to leave the house for independent living.”
If you examine my words in the two columns—and in general, as far as I recall—wherever I used such expressions, I intended to describe the person or the phenomenon or the society. My intention was not to slander and attach epithets but to describe. If someone is a parasite or primitive, how am I to describe him? Should I write that I am displeased with him? For example, how should I relate to a person who preaches murder—or actually murders? Should I say that I am displeased with his path? If that person behaves in a highly problematic way and is also culpable for it (see below), it is permissible and even proper to make this clear with a sharp and unmannerly description of him.
Epithets are slanders—both in terminology and in motivation. Sometimes they use descriptive words (not always), but they do so in a way that is not intended to describe but to tag and defame. When you say about someone who holds a different or opposing view that he is wicked or stupid, while you yourself know that he is not (but you oppose his view), then such statements are slander or epithets. But if, in my judgment, he really is wicked or stupid, then saying so is not slander. Note that this does not exactly coincide with the distinction between falsehood and truth, though it is fairly close.
The culture of political correctness prefers style at the expense of substance. As is well known, I greatly dislike it, among other things because style there replaces substance (they deny the very existence of substance). But for some reason many of those who rise up against that phenomenon also preach to me about my style. The question worth discussing is how severe is the conduct or the mode of thinking that I oppose, and whether my descriptions match it and are warranted or not. That is what determines whether I am slandering or describing. If I mean to say that one who says what Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu said is an idiot, then that is exactly what I should say (and of course explain why, if necessary). If I wish to disagree with him and raise counter-arguments, then I will say that I am displeased with his words.
Two more notes on style
One of my interlocutors on WhatsApp told me that I was generalizing about Haredim when I said they are parasites. I replied that I was not speaking about Haredim but about Haredism. It is a parasitic way of life, even though it is clear that within it there are people who are not such. As a society, this is an accurate description of its values and its mode of operation; therefore, this too is not slander, and for the same reason there is no over-generalization here.
Another wrote to me that even if, in my view, a given person is an idiot, there is no obligation and it is not proper to say it to his face. What guilt has he for his IQ? Would I say to an ugly person that he is ugly—especially before many listeners/readers? (He alluded to the aggadah “Go to the Craftsman who made me,” Taanit 20b.) I answered that I would tell a person he is ugly in two cases: A. If he is making himself ugly, then he is indeed to blame for his condition (it was not the Craftsman who made him so; he himself is the craftsman of this creation). B. Even if he was born that way, there is room to protest vehemently against him if he chooses to represent us in a beauty-king competition. If he is ugly, even if it is not his fault, let him choose a different occupation.
Returning to Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu: I do not know him, but I did not get the impression that he is a person of low intelligence (in that column I wrote of his virtues—courage and integrity). But precisely for that reason two conditions obtain that justify sharply descriptive speech toward him: A. He is culpable for the stupidity of his words. If he is not a stupid person yet speaks stupidly and is to blame for it—and certainly if he repeats this not for the first time—then it is indeed fitting to present matters in this way. Especially when there is a public that follows him because of his rabbinic title. B. He sets himself up as a guide and teacher of the public and as a city rabbi (that is, an official appointed by the corrupt Chief Rabbinate; nothing to do with “rabbi” in the ordinary sense—perhaps a “rabbi by appointment” [mi-ta’am], or rather a “misleading rabbi” [a play on words in Hebrew]). He speaks publicly on various platforms around the country and of course uses his status as a rabbi (thus representing me as well and anyone loyal to the Torah). For that I claim he has chosen the wrong profession.
And now to the second part of the column.
B. Insights Following the Demonstration
- The composition of the demonstrators
For fear of transportation and parking problems I arrived in Jerusalem—and therefore at the demonstration—very early. I began walking among the people and was astonished to discover that there was hardly a single kippah-wearer to be found, and even fewer women wearing a Haredi-style kerchief. As time went on I did see a few such people, but their number was disturbingly tiny. This, especially given that the location was Jerusalem—a city filled with liberal and left-leaning religious people. Needless to say, there were no people with a distinctly Haredi appearance. Who even mentioned them.
Afterwards I saw the usual declarations that this is not a matter of Right and Left, Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, religious and secular, etc., and I of course chuckled to myself. Note that this is not said only by the sloganeers and leaders of the struggle in media interviews or various writings. In those contexts one naturally wants to show that the struggle is not along the usual societal fissures (but rather along the new watershed line; see the manifesto in column 500). By definition such talk is tendentious. I mean this also regarding reports in the media and in private WhatsApp chains. Time and again it became clear to me that a person sees what is in his own heart, and one cannot trust such reports. Personally, I saw almost no religious people there. To the best of my judgment, their percentage there was truly negligible (far from their percentage in the population).
It seems to me that a large part of the matter is what I pointed out in the previous column. First, political identification with the current coalition and opposition to attacks on it—even if one does not agree with what it is doing—prevent people from joining the protests. Second, the reservations about the content of the protests, some of which I described in the previous column, also prevent this. Apparently there are not many who share my view that at this time there is no room to insist on nuances.
Yoaz Hendel is doing the right thing in trying now to organize demonstrations by people on the Right who will protest the government’s policies and its judicial reform. Perhaps this will succeed in bringing a few more voices into the discussion, though I am rather skeptical.
- The significance of the number of people
In my estimation there is only a slim chance that these demonstrations will have any effect. The number of people is some dozens of percent of Meretz voters, and I don’t know how much this can move Likud members, Smotrich, or Haredim. There may be indirect effects, since through the hysteria investors and businesspeople are moving out, positions are being voiced by political and economic figures from around the world, and these may nonetheless have an impact.
But the overwhelming majority of the public lives by slogans and has no real idea what the reform actually says and what its effects will be. The media proudly reports about children explaining, with good taste, why they are at the demonstration. To me this is a joke. Their parents usually don’t understand the situation in its fullness either; with the children it is simply a matter of using and manipulating them. This, of course, exists everywhere—especially among Haredim and the nationalist Right, who frequently use children and youth who don’t really understand the issue. For the phenomenon of manipulated children they somehow use the term “civics lesson.” In my eyes that is a joke.
Someone told me she heard two women speaking about the protests, and one said to the other: “What do I care about democracy or dictatorship—just don’t block my streets here.” In the most recent episode of “Eretz Nehederet” there was a bit (see the end, from 49:40) in which the legendary taxi driver Asher Ben-Hurin (Yuval Semo) interviews people about the reform. It is truly amusing and instructive (though I’m sure it’s edited and curated). Worth watching to get a sense.
- Do people fear the collapse of democracy?
What was most striking to me were the calm and the smiles. A friend of mine (an active left-winger) explained that this stems from the fact that leftists are used to taking part in demonstrations of the same 50 regulars who resemble them, and suddenly they found themselves among tens of thousands (and more). That gave them satisfaction, hence the smiles. I was not convinced at all. The smiles were not only on the faces of those fifty regular leftists, but throughout the crowd. The attempts to inflame the atmosphere and lead various protest chants seemed rather pathetic. Some joined in from time to time, of course; and certainly those who watched on the media saw mainly those. But most people wandered about with flags and some signs and shirts and had picnics (including us). The harsh slogans on the signs and shirts clearly did not reflect the true mood prevailing there.
My conclusion was that people are not truly afraid of the collapse of democracy. In the previous column—and in a few before it—I pointed out that, in my opinion, these fears are greatly exaggerated. The reform is very bad in my eyes, but this is a matter of degrees, and even in its extreme formulation our democracy will not collapse because of it. I do not think we will become Hungary or Poland. To be honest, in light of what I am writing here, I no longer know whether to believe that this is the actual situation in Hungary or Poland. Likewise, when I see descriptions of Israel as an apartheid state like South Africa, I no longer know what to think or what to believe about what really transpired in South Africa.
In any case, that is certainly my view. But from my impression of the atmosphere at this large demonstration, it seems to me that this is the view of most participants there. Clearly they are troubled by what is expected, and that is truly infuriating—especially when the feeling is that the government and coalition are defecating on us from the diving board. But I did not see fear there, and there was certainly no hysterical mood about what is to come. They are trying hard, but it seems they haven’t really succeeded in convincing the public to be afraid. If we truly feared that a government like Putin’s (does such a thing even exist?) or Stalin’s (that apparently did exist) were about to arise here, I think we would be seeing a very different temperature.
This reminded me of a clip someone sent me in which two young Haredim mock the secular and their tranquil demonstrations. They explain that when a public (like the Haredim) demonstrates about its lifeblood, they go wild and set the country on fire, not hold smiling picnics. In short, it is evident that the topics of the demonstrations do not truly and deeply disturb the protesters’ peace of mind. Clearly there are sociological differences between the populations (Haredim can more easily attend demonstrations; they are more organized and disciplined; they work less; they are more dependent on organizing leadership; and of course every trifling matter is, for them, an injury to their lifeblood). And still, this echoed strongly for me as I walked around the demonstration.
My conclusion was that this is probably not only my own opinion. Contrary to the hysterical discourse, people are not truly afraid of the collapse of democracy and the denial of all our personal freedoms. That does not mean there is nothing to protest. Certainly there is, and I wrote this quite sharply in the previous column. But it’s pleasant to discover that I am not holding a minority view on this matter, even if many who share my opinion are not aware that this is, in fact, their view.
Which is huge?
Indeed, it is a joke
But there is something strange about the rabbi's description.
I spend several Sabbath nights instead of sitting quietly for ‘fathers and sons’, immediately after Havdalah I drive from home (a settlement somewhere) to a demonstration near the President's House in Jerusalem (more than an hour round trip)
There are several thousand there
And I estimate that every Sabbath, close to half and maybe only a third are religious (a few ultra-Orthodox)
So it is really strange that the rabbi claims that there are no religious people there…
We are much less than a third or half of the Israeli people and at the Sabbath demonstrations we are between a third and a half…
There is also no picnic on Sabbath…
Just nothing, not even water…
Return home and then ‘accompanied by a queen’
Unlucky me
I should have uploaded on Monday and not Saturday
The feelings that the rabbi describes from the demonstrations are interesting, but I don't interpret them that way. In my opinion, the reason they are perhaps a little complacent is not because they think that if the reform passes, Israel will be a reformed state and a wonderful democracy, but because they don't believe that the reform in an extreme form will pass at all. Of course, they protest the possibility and the chance, they fight to soften as much as possible, but they understand that reality is stronger than anything. Israel needs the West Bank and therefore cannot completely neutralize it, just as Israel cannot really annex Area C tomorrow. Reality dictates the main thing, they of course add as much as possible.
It's possible and even likely, and yet it means that the possibility of the worst thing they're crying out against happening is slim in their eyes. It's what I wrote.
Yes, but not exactly. I do think that from their perspective (and in my opinion quite rightly), if a radical reform is passed, Israel will be a kind of Hungary, and Hungary and Poland are a very bad thing from a democratic perspective. Israel is simply not Hungary, and there is no practical feasibility of neutralizing Getz (and in my opinion, even for the Levin reform with slightly more serious changes, I doubt how realistic it would be to pass, but we'll see).
One comment, please.
In my opinion, there is indeed a fear of the collapse of democracy. But, the fear is for the next 40 years, not the next 10 years. In addition, this trouble of a semi-democratic regime will probably not be the lot of the Tel Avivians and their descendants. They will always be able (financially, sociologically, and conscientiously) to emigrate from here and find themselves a temporary or permanent refuge. The trouble will be for the “second Israel”, those who will have to stay, whether for sociological, economic, or technical reasons.
By the way, Netanyahu, despite his many shortcomings, is known to be a pragmatic and distinctly anti-Messianic person (unlike the Messianics on the right and left), and he is, in my opinion, the last person who ever wanted to neutralize the High Court, not even in the slightest. All this for many reasons:
A. Ideologically (as much as it is possible to attribute ideology to this cynical man)
B. Practically on a domestic level - the High Court has done and will do for him a great deal of the work that is important to him, but not in his name
C. Practically on an international level: Um, The Hague, IDF control of the territories, international image, etc., etc.
And in my opinion here too, the reason he is "promoting" reform now is only as a tool to bring moderate centrist elements like Lapid and Gantz into the coalition (to break the boycott of the RLB) and then on the way to scuttle the reform or most of it and throw out the Messianics and Kahanists on the right. Time will tell, but that's my assessment.
N,
I completely agree. I would also add his desire to be remembered as a good and successful prime minister (a historical consciousness he received from his father). As for his motives, I'm a bit vague. I think his coalition is pressuring him and he has no choice. They too are tired of him holding them back for many years in right-wing governments.
Your conclusion, that his goal is to attract “moderate” elements like Kad and Gantz – is incredibly ridiculous. Netanyahu understands that the High Court needs to be weakened for the simple reason that with all its enormous legal power – it cannot govern, neither he nor the prime ministers who have followed him in history. Although he has no interest in stripping them of all their power (as he apparently did in the first reading), that a balance in the authorities is necessary, he clearly desires significant reform.
To think that Netanyahu thinks otherwise, you really have to bury your head in the sand; you don't have to listen to only tendentious speeches by the “gatekeepers” of “essential”democracy. And. . . It is clear that Netanyahu agrees with these arguments, because he is a rational person. Why not?
Reminds me a bit of hearing someone in the past who suspected Rambam of atheism, because how could such a wise man believe in religion? After all, “religion” is irrational by definition!!!
Well, well, the dogs bark and the caravan passes.
My response was directed to N, for the avoidance of doubt.
Roni,
Dance Dance. 🙂
What Gadi Taub called in his latest book “The Mobile”. But for some reason the second Israel is not in protest. Beyond that, I think that even among the mobile, a significant fear of the collapse of democracy would have provoked a much harsher reaction. Even rich and mobile people would be very afraid of being forced to emigrate.
Good luck. It is still important to criticize the content and not the person.
Regarding the length, it is better to have an intermediate one, not too short and not too long, and I understood your explanation.
Adding what my friend Rabbi Dr. Moshe Rat wrote on the subject:
In the Gemara it is said (Avodah Zara 20:1) that when Rabbi Akiva saw the wife of Turnusrufus, he spat, laughed, and cried. He spat – because she had come from a filthy place. He laughed – because he saw that she was going to convert and marry him. And he cried – because of her beauty that was going to be wasted in the earth.
Rabbi Yosef Yehuda Leib Bloch, in his book “Shiurei Daat”, brings this up as an illustration of the ability of people of high moral standing to simultaneously experience strong emotions of different kinds, relating to the different aspects of the reality before them. A simple person is able to focus emotionally on only one aspect, and be either happy, or sad, or angry, etc. – But not all of them together. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, was able to encompass in his vision the entirety of the aspects: the degradation of the physical, the news of the expected partnership, and the appreciation of beauty and the sorrow for its inevitable loss – and to experience in their full intensity all the emotions involved, despite the supposed contradiction between them. He did not see this as a contradiction but as a complement. And these things are reminiscent of Chesterton’s words, according to which the right path is not a compromise between different extremes but a full expression of both at the same time – so that in any case they will balance each other out, without losing their intensity.
When you understand this, you understand that it is indeed possible to experience seemingly contradictory emotions simultaneously: for example, if a disaster strikes an enemy country, you can simultaneously rejoice and give thanks for the defeat of the wicked, and weep and pity the innocent who suffer there. It is possible to love a certain person, and at the same time hate and detest their actions. Not everyone is capable of this, and therefore many prefer to focus only on one emotion and deny the place of the other. But a great person will have a place in the soul for both emotions at the same time, without having to give up either of them. In our generation, there is a lot of talk about “complexity”, but this word is often used to justify compromise, obscurity and evasion of decision. True complexity is the one that does not evade or obscure but expresses all aspects in their entirety.
And it is also possible, of course, to be emotionless and feel nothing towards such situations. This is also a possibility, and it saves a lot of problems and heartache.
Uriel, "It's worth an intermediate not too short not too long", what is this thing?? There are no salads here, there will be one who thinks it's a bit long and there will be another who thinks it's too short, etc., it's a matter of taste and smell, so there's nothing to recommend. Let the rabbi do as he likes to do and only then will it turn out well. For those who find it long, then skip it, for those who don't, no.
The authors are not supposed to present the book to the reader in such a way that he wants to read it. This should stem purely from the reader's will.
And in my personal opinion, it's better to be a hundred times longer but well explained and understood with different wording and different emphases and repetition in other words, etc., than a short, punchy one and no one really understood anything.
Your conclusion that the protesters are not afraid of the fall of democracy is wrong. First of all, because in this state of helplessness we live in cognitive dissonance. The meaning has not yet fully penetrated. In the meantime, the only effective thing that the individual feels he can do is take his money out of Israel, and that is the conversation right now. Yes, the fear is that we will become Hungary, but beyond going out to protest and worrying about an escape route, what else can be done?
Well, maybe. Doesn't sound likely to me.
Jonathan, all the people see the voices – How can you not see?
After all, the path has already been suggested – civil war!
By the way, it is interesting to know what our Rabbi Michael would call Huldai, Gantz, and Hodak who threaten civil war.
And most importantly, Aharon Barak who is ready to stand in front of the firing squad.
I didn't see the full quotes and their context. But as far as I understand, they didn't threaten a civil war. They expressed concern about reaching such a situation. They also said that there are situations in which it is justified to take such a path (and the fear is that we will reach them). This is definitely true.
This statement by Aharon Barak is idiotic.
How will a civil war break out?
When the side opposing the reform takes up arms.
“There are situations in which it is justified to resort to civil war ” – It is difficult to argue
about such a blanket statement, but
in the Rabbi's opinion, does passing the reform justify civil war?
Because that is what was implied by what Gantz, Chodak and Huldai implicitly claimed – After all, they did not come to teach us a chapter in political science
In my opinion, the current situation is the product of irresponsibility on both sides, meaning that the aggressive manner of the legislation is undoubtedly the product of unfair conduct by the Supreme Court, for example, in the lack of equal representation (in the past, there was justification due to lack of development, but in recent decades, this claim has lost its validity), and this has caused those who feel deprived to act in an immoderate manner when it comes to the ability to act.
A similar thing happened in the media, in my opinion. The main media channels reported frequently in a biased manner against the Netanyahu government, for example, and avoided any justified criticism of the opposition (I know this personally), which led to the opening of the terrible Channel 14 (in my opinion).
If they had acted more restrained, all of this probably would not have happened.
I completely agree with all of this and I wrote it too.
You had a statement of opinion that you published in synagogues before the last elections. I assume that whoever put the money into publishing it put quite a bit of money into it, and it seems to me that those who read your words from beginning to end were a limited number of readers. In the synagogue in Jerusalem where I prayed, I saw almost no one paying attention to it. Of course, I felt bad. So at least on this occasion you tried to appeal to a wide audience in your long, lecture-like style, and in my opinion, without success. Didn't you see that?? Do you think I'm wrong?
It's hard for me to say. I'm not willing to appeal to a broad audience at the expense of accuracy and detail. In my opinion, it's much more important to speak to the elites.
Regarding complacency, from my limited vantage point I see alertness and sober planning of various options, even if we don't sigh and walk away in a daze. The legal reform is a light blow to the wing, greater than it is the renewed understanding of who and what is stirring in the Jewish people in the Holy Land and what their power and plans are. Even if there is a five percent chance of a deep pit of clay, then a reasonable person (if he is not a hero) should formulate a backup plan for himself and his family. [By the way, with some connection, I recently realized again that there is something deceptive about a radical pessimist who sees reality taking a step towards the dystopia he has predicted for years and then smiles with satisfaction and expects that now everyone will recognize the correctness of his fundamental analysis and also join his forecast and his instructions for action. Like when there is a problem and there is no excuse and someone comes up with a shaky excuse, and then the choice is to be without an excuse or with the inexplicable excuse. ]
Shalom Rabbi,
I really like the sharp style that conveys the message in the best way without being politically correct.
One thing bothered me in the previous column: you called Miri Regev a moron.
While I abhor her, her behavior and her decisions (and I will never forget her expulsion from Gush Katif), calling her a moron deviates from the rule you gave here regarding nicknames (after all, a moron is someone whose male or female identity is unknown).
It is clear there that they tended to give a derogatory nickname.
This comes from the tendency in the soul to try to “be like everyone else”. Something that probably exists with Miki – “be like everyone else” (at least in certain things)
There is criticism of Regev, but it does not deserve to be so expensive.
And it is a great shame that you are in favor of an ugly discourse that corrupts the soul, and is literally on the verge of the gods.
I think this is a response that was overtaken by emotion.
If there is anyone who cannot be accused of: ”wanting to be like everyone else” it is Rabbi Michi.
“Substantive discourse without political correctness, or silent discourse about political correctness”
Why a false choice?
Why not substantive discourse with political correctness?
If you had read the column, you would understand why this is not a false choice.
Mikhi, regarding the use of harsh expressions:
I learned from Rabbi M.C. Neriah to aim at the substance of things and not at the substance of a person.
And I myself believe so, first of all, in this way the degree of harshness is to the taste of the writer
And hence the harshness of the expressions may be positive and it will be difficult to attach condemnation to them.
The style is less interesting.
What is interesting is whether the content of your words represents thinking that seeks to find out the truth, or, as it seems, thinking that is designed to serve your survival in the society in which you find yourself.
Can you even trust yourself?
What characterizes your words is mainly the intellectual and critical submission to those who determine your salary and academic status.
The ruminations and philosophizing are intended to distract the reader (and your mind) from the bitter truth that you are being forced to think the way you think. It is not the truth that is forcing you. It is your careerist survival.
You are completely obsessed with the matter and your words should not be trusted at all on issues that concern you personally. Just as no other person in a similar situation should be trusted.
Response to the last lip-splitter,
You write “What characterizes your words is…”
I looked for something in your words that hints at what you wrote. There is no such characterization in your words.
This is your invention. You thought it was a lie.
If you want to talk – talk about the matter, not about the person who wrote.
I hope you understand that you will not be able to convince the Rabbi or even an intelligent reader with this argument.
The matter in question is not interesting. All in all, a war of control by Ashkenazi masters of Ashkenazi against Ashkenazi masters of non-Ashkenazi, or a war of religions by believers and unbelievers, and of course a war over the public purse of pigs on both sides on the backs of the workers in the workers. Routine things.
What is interesting is the sacrifices that wise people make with their intellect and education for the sake of their status.
When the Greek historian Polybius analyzed wars and their causes, he used to distinguish between the pretext for war and the cause. There is a real reason that is sometimes not presented and sometimes not even conscious, and there is a pretext, that is, the excuse for starting a war.
The fight against the reform is supposedly about the independence of the judiciary, but these are meaningless things. It is clear to everyone that if all the Supreme Court justices were like Noam Solberg or Yosef Elron, they would not be fighting for the independence of the court, and it is very likely that we would see the opposite struggle.
These people feel, and to a considerable extent rightly, that their country is being stolen. They have served the country, contributed to its economy, and are proud of its liberal values. And here comes a new government that represents everything that is abhorrent to them. Religious fundamentalism, hatred of those who are different from me, directing enormous resources to unproductive sectors while reinforcing the trend. Their country is disappearing for them.
And the only body that can, in their understanding, stand against the trend is the High Court, which over the years has been composed of enlightened people, has represented liberal positions, and has positioned itself as a body that takes positions on political issues and is a counterweight to the government. The new government also understands this situation and is therefore charging like a raging bull at this judicial establishment.
So the struggle is not against the legal system out of a need for checks and balances. The protesters, some consciously and some unconsciously, want to make sure not only that there will be checks and balances, but that their foot will be the one placed on them.
One can completely understand their concern, and one can completely understand the other side. There is no escape from reaching a compromise.
First of all, Noam Solberg is also an activist. He is not legally conservative (that's simply the ego of judges). The thought that an unelected body (electing itself) would impose policy on the elected representatives of the Jewish people and try to educate the Jewish people at the cost of shedding Jewish blood on the human rights issues of those who behave like animals is intolerable. The reason this body is being attacked is that for many years it prevented the IDF from fighting and led to the deaths of many Jews and ultimately also to Gush Katif (because it did not let the IDF fight the residents of Gaza as a hostile collective. And in the end, it was not interested in the human rights of the evacuees. Imagine if they tried to evacuate 8,000 Israeli Arab settlers to the Palestinian Authority. They have no human rights for two days)
For years, the left did not allow the right to advance in productive work and in government jobs, starting from the days of Ben-Gurion (it hated Begin. And the left continued to hate him - "Begin the murderer"). The Haredim used to go to work and also go to the army, but because of religious persecution, they withdrew into themselves (the yeshivas were the “arks of Noah,” as the prophet said). And these are exactly their students. They never had to give citizenship to the Haredim (and then it was also possible to give citizenship to Arabs. But oh. No. This is the holy of holies of the left. Citizenship for the enemies of the Jewish people) and they increased it and today, subconsciously or consciously, they no longer have loyalty to the Jewish people (only to a state that is the state of all its citizens. Not the state of the Jewish people).
And vice versa, the more the religious (and right-wing) public was Zionist, more they joined the army, and more successful in academia, the more they hated it.
It is simply a religion that is a continuation and development of the communist religion that hates with a deadly hatred all other religions. Its admirals were the heads of the academy and judges from the days of Aharon Barak. What to do with people like that who have withdrawn from the Jewish people in their hearts have no place to go in the land.
Hello, I think you should reconsider your opinion and style regarding the Haredim. After all, you studied at the Noam Midrash and the Netivot Olam Yeshiva. In other words, you are Haredi yourself, and if so, you are a parasite. It doesn't seem like you are involved in agriculture or construction. In my opinion, anyone who is not involved in agriculture or construction is a parasite. Therefore, it is a shame to insult the Jews. It is just anti-Semitism for its own sake and is worthless. For gentiles, no benefit has come from anti-Semitism, on the contrary, only harm. And even more so for anti-Semitic Jews. In my opinion, you should apologize. Many people, including myself, were offended by your words.
The rabbi draws an equal distinction between Haredi demonstrations where violence and intoxication of the senses prevail and the demonstration of an educated and sober public that abhors violence.
The public that opposes the Bibi madness did not go to civil war because that is not its nature (of course, there can be a few violent individuals, but in the meantime it is easy to see who is on the violent side).
Right now there is still a struggle that is what is infuriating the Bibi, but there will be a point where people will lose hope and develop indifference.
When that happens, we will not see a struggle of courage and spirit, but a slow outflow of a public that has lost interest in the country.
As in marriage, the problem is not quarrels but the point at which indifference is reached and then there is no way back.
Note the gap between the vehemence of the organizers of the demonstrations (Huldai, Olmert, and Co.) who explicitly call for violence (a few decades ago, Yeshayahu Leibovitz explicitly called for a civil war and added that he would have taken an active part in it if it weren't for his extreme age) and the peaceful atmosphere of the demonstrators, as Michi himself describes. For some reason, neither you nor he realizes that there is another explanation for this gap, which is that many of the demonstrators simply didn't want to be there and were forced to come with threats (more or less subtle) about their sources of livelihood. I myself know several of them. This is not a struggle for democracy and human rights at all, but a simple and crude struggle for centers of power. In particular, for the last unelected center of power left to the left after it lost all hope of winning the people's trust in democratic elections. (In the 1980s, there were several leaders of the ”Maachar” who said this almost explicitly. I don't have quotes and sources to pull from now, but I was there then and I heard it.)
As for Miki's last three columns, I intentionally didn't respond. It's sickening and doesn't deserve a response. The poor guy freaked out and got trolled. Too bad, but not surprising. I already mentioned in the legal website that this is a well-known phenomenon. Philosophers and scientists (of a level infinitely higher than Miki) who, as a result of a urological problem, thought they understood everything. Some enthusiastically supported Stalin and others Hitler. For example, the Nazi flag flew over Harvard University in Cambridge (near Boston) until the US entered the war, and its president at the time declared that no Jew would ever set foot there. That didn't stop those professors from thinking of themselves as prophets of progress, morality, and freedom. How happy I was a few decades ago to trample underfoot the Harvard soil (at its expense!) and the promise of that anti-Semite, in one step... In any case, we have learned that expertise in one field, or even several, does not make you any more of an expert on the problems of the people and the times than any layman.
Members of the Rak-Bibi cult live in a world where they are forced to read and every fact that doesn't suit them rapes reality in order to get a picture that will confirm the lie they live in.
No one comes to a demonstration by force in the presence of the sane public.
But a Bibi who is crazy in his opinion cannot tolerate the thought that there is a public whose opinion differs from your idolatry and therefore consoles himself that they are all rapists and would actually like to join him in a great song by Bibi, King of Israel.
Perhaps we can argue with the merits and say that in Dinan's case, the Bibi sees from his heart's thoughts – I remember how during my studies in yeshiva they would put us all on buses and send us to demonstrations like sheep without opinions.
Those who refused to get on the bus were told that the demonstration was part of the curriculum and if he didn't like it, he should be respectful and leave the yeshiva…
Rest where your mind is – Among the sane public, there is no ideological or religious coercion.
There is also no single leader for the holy community, neither the Rebbe nor the Bibi.
Everyone leads themselves according to their own understanding.
Nothing is sane in this community. Your religion (the progressive religion in which there is no objective reality and which is the religion of all leftists today - consciously or unconsciously) is the most irrational and dangerous fanatical religion ever created. It is a community of mentally ill people by definition. And religious coercion there is the strongest coercion there is. And I was too. Apparently there is no Rebbe because it is a religion that works, among other things, for empty individualism. There is a Rebbe despite this - the hollow and empty scarecrow Lapid
Not in all high school yeshivahs was there compulsion to come to demonstrations.
“The sane public”, “Only Bibi cult members”. Well, well. Who can deal with such profound arguments?
“The sane public has no ideological or religious coercion”. You have a fine sense of humor, my friend. Apparently you are a young man and do not know the history of the kibbutz movement or the division that occurred in it (families were torn apart, partitions were erected in kibbutz dining rooms, etc.) and you are not familiar with the “Red Book” which was a condition that could not be passed to earn a living. (My late father also had one, even though he hated socialism and Mapai with all his heart. The book is still kept by my mother, who is still alive). I have many relatives in the northern kibbutzim whom I met for the first time in my life at my wedding. When I was a child, their parents did not allow them to meet with us, lest we spoil the fervor of their innocent faith in socialism. Well, there are some who came to the demonstration out of fear for their livelihood. How many? I don't know. But there are indications that their number is not insignificant at all. You can also tell yourself that you are part of the "sane public" and that everything is wonderful in the socialist/democratic/sane/progressive paradise that you have created for yourself in your imagination. I feel sorry for you the day you sober up (like some of my relatives from that branch of the family, the day Khrushchev's speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party was published).
Mordechai, you continue to project your delusions onto others.
Socialism? Is there more socialism than Bibi/Haredim/Mustards?
You have established a socialist paradise here where a person can not work a single day from birth to death when the working public will pay for daycare/education/healthcare for them and will further increase and add maternity grants, child benefits, infant benefits and food stamps…
The story of the Red Book and the kibbutzim at the establishment of the state, which I did not get to know, is very impressive.
But if you have to go back 70 years to find a helpful principle, apparently even through the veil of Bibi madness you are able to perceive that there is no coercion in the sane public and that it all exists at home.
In the days of Haldi, I met kibbutzniks, Meretz voters, high-techists, religious, Mustards and Haredim – And the only ones who made sure to keep the camp free from any foreign influence are the Haredim, followed in descending order by the Mustard and Religious.
Can you please detail and demonstrate who was forced to come to the demonstration?
Or will you continue to claim that the demonstrations were organized by aliens/New Foundation/Illuminati/Freemasons?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but only the wise are entitled to their own facts
Wipe the foam from your lips, drink a glass of cold water, lean back, breathe deeply and slowly and the attack will pass.
“You have established a socialist paradise here”. Who are your words directed at? The actions of the meager and few. I have never established either a paradise or a hell. Sorry. (And I am not at all Haredi, not a member of Likud and have never voted for Likud). Dragging the discussion into a stupid ad hominem does not earn you points.
“The sane public” is just a new mask for the old lady who once called herself “the progressive public”, “the enlightened public”, etc. The world behaves as it should. I mentioned that I don't have precise statistics and breakdowns of the protesters, but there are indications. One of them is the picnic atmosphere and the happening that Miki described. Those who came to “fight for ____” (fill in the blank) did not come to the picnic. There could be all sorts of reasons and I mentioned one possible one. Another possible reason is that some of the protesters do oppose the reform, but they know full well that the atmosphere of hysteria and ”end of democracy” is fake and staged, but the situation requires it. Others may have just taken advantage of an hour of leisure time at work. Whatever the reason, those who came “to fight” do not hold picnics. (By the way, my daughter accidentally stumbled upon a demonstration in Jerusalem and her impression was similar). That is why I am also not impressed by the threats of civil war. Ya'alon, Huldai, Olmert and other Napoleons will not sacrifice their budgetary pensions. Of course, this does not exempt the authorities from the obligation to prosecute them for inciting violence.
And regarding Michi Lemta's ”sweeping” remark below – another spectacular display of self-awareness.
Gabriel, that's an incredibly optimistic and biased description. There are cults on both sides, as I've written several times. And there are definitely influences and demagogy and lack of listening and preaching on both sides.
Does the rabbi accept the claim that people came to the demonstration under duress?
Because here is a guy who speaks from personal knowledge with conclusive evidence of rapes who were dragged in droves to the demonstration by kibbutzniks carrying red cards
He doesn't really mean coercion. But there were clearly social and other pressures, as in any society.
Mordechai, as usual, is swept up in the heat of the discussion and enthusiastic about his advice. One shouldn't take it too seriously.
Just proves that your fellow rabbis and rabbis of Israel the 3rd from Gush Etzion, as usual, go out of their way to be hysterical when it comes to the whites from Ramat Sharon.
It's an aesthetic matter, it's not fun to hear such a way of speaking. It creates an atmosphere of anger and power. I don't think it's good in any way and conveys a stronger message. You could write that this is a very big mistake and Rabbi Eliyahu is being promoted in his role and not say idiot and derogatory names. It's not related to PC, it's just more pleasant that way. It's just hard because you're angry, but turning it into a system?
The way I see it, a system of government is an expression of the character of the people who live in the country. Even if there is no political judicial system at all, the cards and borders will be rearranged and we will simply reach more or less the same point. It may take a few years, but it will work out. Just like the Arabs will remain in their mentality even if they formally have democracy. What do you think?
I have no interest in worrying about aesthetics. If there is an atmosphere of anger, it is certainly justified. I am truly angry, and the wording expresses this well.
In your opinion, there is no need for laws and systems at all. Everything works out in the end. How does it work out? Among other things, by the fact that we legislate.
Today my wife, who is smart and educated, behaved in a very stupid way. Does the rabbi think I can tell her that she is stupid, and if so, would the rabbi in a similar situation also act this way with his wife?
Reply to A.A.A
Before you ask how the Rabbi would behave, tell us how your wife behaves
when you (as smart and educated as she is) behaves in a stupid way.
I explained everything in the column. I don't see a question here.
Response to an unparalleled fool –
You wrote “Honorable Minister Smotrich…Why are you stupid” .
The method is being changed with you. The sentence is correct – The names have been changed.
Since people have different opinions, and as a result may be able to narrow and harm each other, it is easy to see the shortcomings of others, and to defend ourselves against them so that they will not harm us, God forbid. This is the middle ground of human discourse, the clearest expression of which is political discourse, or mass media. It is said of such discourse: There is nothing new under the sun. Real conversation does not arise from a place of arrogance and opinion, but from a place of listening and listening. This is how Rabbi Elimelech of Liszt used to pray: Grant it to our hearts that each of us may see the merits of our friends and not their shortcomings, and that each of us may speak to his friend in a way that is upright and pleasing before You, and that no hatred may arise from one against his friend, a slanderer.
The reason is that anyone who sees the existing legal proceedings in their entirety knows that today the High Court of Justice, legal advice, the police and the prosecutor's office are dishonest and unequal places towards the right-wing, ultra-Orthodox and Jewish public.
Therefore, those who participate in the demonstrations are those who or their positions receive disproportionate priority in the legal system = ahos'il (actually, the letter l in leumiim can already be deleted, non-Zionists also receive preference).
The rest hope that changing the legal system will bring about more equality.
I know that the writer is a religious person, but ahos'il is a cultural reference group, which also includes Mizrahi who identify with this culture.
The issue is not the present. If the legal reform passes and becomes an economic and social disaster, then in the next elections the left will have a majority with the Arabs, and they will cancel everything. But in another 40 or 50 years, the demographics will already be too Haredi, and there will be no existence in the country for anyone who is not Haredi, because the Haredi are predatory and do not count anyone but themselves. The fact that people are not panicking, because it is impossible to panic about things that will happen in another 40 years. It is a mental mechanism of repression that also prevents us from thinking every day that we will eventually die.
Your description of the demonstration sounds pretty accurate, but I don't think that means people aren't worried. It took Hungary a while to get to where they are today (young Hungarians don't want to live in Hungary today, and can relatively easily emigrate since Hungary is part of the EU). When talking to other people, everyone seems to understand the danger.
Just to be precise, for me the danger is not only that the government can do whatever it wants according to some “right” ideology (like imprisoning all refugees, annexing the carpets without giving equal rights to the Palestinians, arresting leftist lecturers and executing them, etc.), but first of all the corruption. We can already see that the government first and foremost wants to pass laws that will benefit members of the government, and we encounter them time and time again in the High Court or in legal advice (the various Deri laws, the law that the Likud MK wants to pass that allows elected officials to accept handouts from wealthy friends, and other things along those lines, I suppose). There are also smaller but very harmful corruptions, such as the appointments of people from our own party or benefits for close associates. There are more and more.
In such a corrupt country, it is hard to believe that they will continue to invest as they do today in academia and industry, which are truly magnificent by any standard, and young people with democratic consciousness, ability, and skills will simply flee (it is easier to emigrate when you are young and healthy, and it is also easy to go abroad for further education and never return). Of course, there is also the fear that the government willfully swindles companies or funds without any criticism. This is the beginning of a deterioration whose end can only be imagined.
So people are taking concrete steps, they do demonstrate, but they invest their savings and pensions abroad instead of in Israel, and some also transfer money to foreign banks, because it is better to play it safe. This in itself also harms the economy of course and leads to more spending of money, etc.
The situation here reminds me of the situation in England: they voted for Brexit in a referendum based on lies (and won by a very small majority), and now their economy is in a very bad state and many of those who voted in favor regret it. In other words, they got themselves into trouble for no good reason and now everyone is suffering as a result. This is what is going to happen here if this “reform” goes through as it is.
Hungary, Hungary, Hungary. The public is being scared by some demon who speaks an elite language that is unlike any other language in the world, and therefore the public cannot really follow what is really going on in that country, and the agents of ignorance and progress can play with the minds of the masses as they wish.
Well, as a Hungarian-speaking Hungarian citizen who follows what is happening in Hungary, I can report that everything is fake news (nyavalyás). Hungary is an exemplary democracy. All the scaremongering is the fruit of the filthy money of a despicable Jew named Georg Soros Yam”sh (formerly David Schwartz, who once boasted in a television interview that he used to strip Jewish bodies in the Budapest ghetto and loot what was on them, and described it as the best time of his life!!!) who also abundantly finances subversive funds in Israel. I wish Israel were as democratic as Hungary. May it be.
By the way, Hungary is one of the few countries in the world where a Jew need not fear walking around in public looking and dressing Jewish. In the ”liberal” democracies such as Germany, England, Sweden, etc., it is advisable not to highlight your Jewishness in public and not to speak Hebrew out loud. This could be dangerous.
Mordechai, I belong to that group (a very small one, in my opinion) of idiots who fail to form a firm and sweeping opinion for or against the legal reform. You intrigued me with your firm assertion that Hungary is an “model democracy”.
You don't owe me anything, but since you presented yourself as knowledgeable, I will ask you about a number of parameters of democracy, which are probably acceptable to you as well, that are present in your understanding in Hungary:
Effective separation of powers,
Formal-legal and practical protection of human and civil rights
Relatively low level of corruption
Freedom of expression and free media
A principled policy of the government to resolve internal conflicts peacefully.
In your understanding, is Hungary's situation in these parameters as good as (or even better than) declared democratic countries (including Israel)?
D.A. Gadi Taub spent about two weeks there as a guest of some academic institution with the aim, according to him at least, of understanding the situation. In an interview, I heard him say that it was not as loud as it was loud, but not as quiet either... meaning that there are anti-democratic restrictions in this country, restrictions that he himself does not like.
Forgive me for addressing you on such a marginal subject.
You asked a pertinent question, so I will try to answer correctly.
Separation of powers: The question is what do you call “effective”? The Fidesz party won a huge majority in parliament (about two-thirds). So we can say that the government and parliament are one and the same. On the other hand, such a large majority in the elections that no one claims were unfair indicates that the people support Orban and his party and are satisfied with their conduct. If democracy is first and foremost “government by consent of the governed” (Popper, as I think), then this is the most democratic thing in the world. Indeed, there have been claims that Orban “engineered” the constituencies so that he would receive an artificial majority. But these are vain claims because with this method it is possible to “steal” At most a few percent of the vote (which could be critical in a tie or close to it), but it is impossible to “engineer” a two-thirds majority at the ballot box by changing the definitions of electoral districts. The Hungarian people are simply fed up with dictates from Brussels regarding immigration policy, forced progressive brainwashing in schools, monetary policy dictated from Berlin, etc. (Hungary, like the Czech Republic and several other Eastern European countries, did not agree to give up its national currency, the forint, upon joining the European Union – and thus escaped the dismal fate of the Greek economy).
Hungary has an independent and well-functioning judicial system. The police there are also much more efficient and citizen-oriented than the police in Israel. (I witnessed this myself). The fact is that no one claims that ”disappeared” Where regime opponents are like in the Soviet Union or South American dictatorships. If you are destined to stand trial and the choice is yours between an Israeli judge and a Hungarian one – the Hungarian one is better!
A lot of fake news has been spread regarding freedom of the press in Hungary. What the law there requires is to report the truth and not spread lies under the guise of “commentary”, like the propaganda channels in Israel. You lie – you will pay! Spread false news – you will pay! In particular, these things are said about state media owned by the government. There is no reason for the Hungarian taxpayer to finance hostile progressive propaganda in the service of foreign countries directed by Brussels and Berlin. But it is certainly permissible to spread opinions and journalism against the government and these are actions that occur every day. It is also permissible to demonstrate and there were huge demonstrations against the government in Budapest. No one tried to interfere, no one tried to block buses, and there were no mass arrests of children until the end of the proceedings, etc. (reminds me of anything?). The government operates legally according to the majority it won in the elections. Is this called “peaceful ways”? I think so.
Corruption exists all over the world, even in democracies. It is a human trait, not necessarily a political one, although it should be remembered that under communism you could not survive if you were not corrupt, and it is possible that such a legacy is difficult to free yourself from. The bureaucracy in Hungary is very inefficient (my experiences in the government offices in Budapest could support several books and films by the late Franz Kieszczyński). But inefficiency due to the legacy of the communist regime is still not corruption, and I got the impression that the government is working hard to streamline the government apparatus and introduce Western standards into it. (The embassy in Tel Aviv demonstrates this). Personally, I have not encountered corruption in Hungary, but that doesn't mean anything, of course. In any case, I don't think that Hungary is more corrupt today than England or Germany, for example.
So is everything paradise? No. There is anti-Semitism (which I have actually encountered myself) and there is alcoholism and there are other ugly phenomena (as mentioned, some of which are the legacy of communism). However, the government is fighting all of these vigorously and, as I mentioned, there is no fear of walking around looking Jewish in Hungary. One can argue about the press laws in Hungary (e.g., Taub, whom you mentioned in your remarks), but it is absolutely not true that there is no freedom of expression there. It should be remembered that some of the restrictions on freedom of expression in Hungary (if any exist at all) relate to restrictions on anti-Semitic propaganda. I wonder who wants to remove them and why.
What has angered the progressives who rule the European Union is mainly Hungary's insistence on not allowing millions of Muslim "refugees" to flood in, forever changing its unique demographics and culture, as well as the government's insistence on not exposing kindergarten and elementary school children to LGBT and queer brainwashing. These decisions (mostly, there are a few more) have opened the gates of Western fake-news media hell to Hungary.
And something else that says more about the people than the government (perhaps), but is worth noting. I once walked with my daughter for about a kilometer on the main street of Budapest (Karoy Avenue) and we counted over ten large bookstores and several small ones! (Serious ones, not just cookbooks and comics). In Athens, for example, (the city of philosophers!) I saw only one bookstore in the entire city (I walked around a lot). If there is supply, there is probably demand, otherwise the merchants would go bankrupt, and vice versa. How many bookstores are there on Tel Aviv's main street?
You didn't address anything I wrote except for one small line about Hungary.
Regarding this:
So you start with “What the hell, we're not on our way to being Hungary”, and end with “Hungary is actually great”. I also liked the reference to ’George’ Soros. The description of the law that prohibits media outlets from spreading “lies” sounds horrible – Do you believe what you write? Who determines what is “fake news”? Let me guess that it is not an objective, independent body.
There is more than enough information available online about what happened to Hungary and you can put links or find it yourself. For example, the universities and the media are under the complete control of the government (i.e. the ruling party). The facts are that young people mostly don't want to live there and during Orban's rule, a lot of people left Hungary. The facts are that the Hungarian economy is now suffering from 26 percent inflation, compared to 9 percent in Germany.
But what is certain is that you can walk with a kippah on the street – that's good to know.
By the way, in England and Germany you can too, and of course you can speak Hebrew.
Indeed, there is a lot of fake news online, and ”universities and the media are under the complete control of the government” is a great example. But that is absolutely not true. The Central European University (an institution funded almost entirely by Soros) continues to operate in Budapest (I have a friend who serves as a professor of mathematics there). What the government said is that it is not obligated to fund gender studies, queer studies, and other progressive garbage with taxpayer money. But whoever wants to study and pay from their own pocket (or Soros's money) – please do. And as far as I am concerned, that is perfectly fine. That is why the government has received the people's trust – among other things to decide what to spend their money on and what not to.
You say that there is a lot of material online, but “guess” that whoever determines what is fake news is not an objective body. Interesting.
I tried to be fair and pointed out that not everything is paradise and gave examples. All I came to say is that the demon depicted here exists only in the imagination of some progressive leftists. The reality is completely different, and I know the reality there firsthand.
As for Sorosh - he is one of the most vile and vicious anti-Semites in the world today, and he himself does not try to hide it. The fact that he is of Jewish origin only intensifies my disgust towards him.
I could go on, but I don't have time. There is a lot of noise about the emigration of young people from Hungary, and there may be something to that (after all, why wouldn't people try to live in a richer country?) But I have not seen statistics that confirm that this is a migration of people, as they try to portray it.
As for the Central European University, it still exists in Budapest but its center moved to Vienna in 2018. The fact that the government controls universities is not just related to “gender studies” (how many people study gender studies anymore??), but really to the control of the government through political representatives in the bodies that control universities (the board of trustees). Something that was once academic is now political. That math professor you know, how old is he? I wonder how many young Hungarian mathematicians are returning to teach there and at what level.
Wait – So who really determines what is fake news in Hungary? Isn't it the court controlled by the government?
I'm not referring to what you wrote about George’Soros because he doesn't interest me enough. I'm just saying that you turned him into a demon and maybe with him too the picture is not as simple as you describe.
It's easy to find data online about the departure of Hungary. It's probably not a mass departure, but it's still a lot of people, and it's also interesting to see from what class.
Thanks for the response. I have the impression that the situation there, at least through your eyes, indicates a cultural and political "dignity" that is drawn from the old Eastern European communist spirit. A kind of healthy conservatism (in part) that is somewhat lacking in Western Europe and North America. Perhaps because there it encounters much more blatant progressive militancy. And perhaps here too are the differences between us and them that require us to take them into account. Democracy has different interpretations and different expressions, and not all of them are suitable for every country. Here perhaps I connect somewhat with the criticism of people like you about the Israeli "left", which is driven by righteous zeal to enforce its enlightenment, sometimes this is real enlightenment, on a somewhat more complex reality.
I just want to say that I think that “conservatism” as a name for homophobia and anti-trans propaganda, etc., is in many ways a way to cover up an inability to deal with real problems that bother real citizens and preoccupying citizens with imaginary problems with an enemy that is easy to hate (did anyone mention George Soros?).
I don't know if your words were directed at me, but if so, they didn't hit the mark. Conservatism is not homophobia, although it is true that among homophobes you will find many more conservatives (and even more reactionaries). Perhaps what defines a conservative to me more than anything else is not his commitment to ideology or the practice derived from it, but rather an attempt to emphasize, not always successfully, the deepest foundations at the base of human life: intuition, common sense, life experience, self-criticism, tradition, humor and self-humor, and so on. In the context of the legal reform proposed in Israel, perhaps such a definition would actually help you criticize its enthusiastic supporters like Levin and Rotman. As I said, I belong to the party of idiots who have not formulated a firm position on the subject, but I am not convinced that our reformers are that conservative (in the positive ways I described here).
Yes, they were referring to you. I wasn't talking about conservatism in general, but about one of its popular expressions (maintaining "family values"). I'm not sure there's a definition of conservatism that's acceptable to everyone who calls themselves a conservative, and I'm especially not sure that the definition you gave is one. According to this definition, our "reformers" are indeed not conservatives. They don't have a shred of humor, for example. They don't have common sense either. Life experience? As what? What did they do in life, I'm really asking? Rotman was some kind of lawyer and Levin was in the Knesset and his most senior position was Minister of Tourism (he was Speaker of the Knesset for a few minutes). Tradition? What tradition are they talking about? A tradition of huge changes in the basis of the Israeli regime in two months? Self-criticism? I haven't found it.
My opinion is also not firm. In other words, I oppose the reform as it is now proposed absolutely resolutely, but I am willing to make any reform, as long as it is widely agreed upon and backed by mechanisms that will ensure the independence of the judicial system.
Hello,
A few comments
1. First, relying on the online dictionary is ridiculous in my opinion.
A. The dictionary is the work of Rubik Rosenthal, the son of Rosenthal. Like his father, they do not bother, like the old-fashioned balloonists and language sleuths, to research the meaning of words and their true and accurate interpretation. Their main concern is with the culture of slang and all its shades of slang. The incorporation of foreign words into Hebrew, etc., and this is where their entire specialization is sealed.
So that an opinion piece, no matter how sharp and blunt it may be, but aimed at important things, relies ‘retroactively’ on a queasy dictionary on the internet, then the things arouse a certain discomfort.
B. And regardless of this pure source. There are words that even if they have meaning and a launch for expression. It is still not correct to use them. For example, the word ‘traitor’ if it had not been directed at Mr. Rabin, it would have been common for a long time, but it is still a word that many claim led to murder, and here and there people avoid using it. H ” H regarding the nickname ‘parasite’ which is, before all else, a creeper that sucks blood. And was very popular in Nazi Germany.
True, the golden tongue of the scoundrel will explain that there are people who mean other things, but that is exactly the point. Who are those people? Golani soldiers, prisoners and drug addicts or service providers in an employee's savich. Failed former politicians who try to shake the table and scrape the bottom?
I do not repeat to the rabbi that the artists of words and the writers of the deadly and celebrated criticisms who lived here Kurzweil, Haim Gamzo, the well-known slur, and in our time also Raanan Shaked ‘Mediaot’ does it excellently and many others always knew how to give a concise expression to confirm their hypothesis in a fit of anger, without resorting to antisemitic words and epithets and certainly did not want to check ”in milog” the holy one as a Jew and more to read.
Regarding the rabbi's tedious writing in the books and in some of the columns. I understand that the rabbi creates some kind of filter by doing so and remains with readers of a very specific cross-section. I understand that there are things that require in-depth explanation in the medium of a lesson. But the rabbi himself wrote here more than once that he wants to influence and change people. So that they think correctly, or that they think at all. I think the rabbi has countless easy-to-digest approaches and perceptions that stand firm in their own right even without a lesson and length of words. And it's a shame that the rabbi doesn't devote time to them. I personally know a few who, just from the last television interview with Erel Segal, understood that there are thought-provoking things in the rabbi's writing that you can definitely connect with. It's worth a try. (By the way, in many of the rabbi's books, he opens paragraphs and chapters with a quote from an ancient Greek poem or proverb. It turns out that brevity is the secret to longevity.)
I liked what the rabbi wrote in describing the left-wing protests compared to those of the right. It's true and stable that among the haredim, every comma becomes the uprooting of religion and the quacking of Israel's swamp, etc. But the fiery protests of the right, the national and religious camp, are indeed exactly those that are among their soulmates: uprooting from homes, handing over territories, weapons to bloodthirsty neighbors, lawlessness in construction and driving. They are on the front line to snatch the ricochets from every government decision. Their left-wing brothers, even on things that are important to them, always seem to be protesting something relaxed and pleasant. They sleep well at night even when Bibi smokes and Sarah completes sets or when Haredim pass the chametz law, which no one enforces anyway. As far as normative people are concerned (and they certainly are), they do not cry out and mourn bitterly.
They are, in the image of Yair Lapid, quite a rhetorician, but nothing throws him off balance and he speaks from the bottom of his heart. Because he really has nothing to say.
Therefore, why should they cry out about any nonsense or caprice of the government that will never touch them or disrupt their daily routine. The rabbi himself says that any religious coercion is simply a sin and not enforceable. (Getting married abroad - making a marriage contract, etc.) All that remains is to go out to the bridge on Saturday morning to stand with the Israeli flag and catch some sun
Shabbat Shalom!
I'm not sure I get what you wrote here about the difference between protests (people's "heartbreak" manifests itself in different ways in different populations), but I have a more interesting question. Why don't the religious and ultra-Orthodox really join the protests en masse? (I know that there are some who do, of course, but they are in the minority)
Don't they understand the madness of a fundamental regime change in a few months without any instructions (and as evidenced by the fact that after a month or more of "debates" in the Constitution Committee, the proposal that comes up on first reading is not substantially different from the original proposal)? Even without going into the specific details, can't this worry them?
And if you do go into the details, it's even scarier: the government's complete control over all branches of government (it controls the Knesset anyway: for the Knesset to do something against the government, it has to more or less commit suicide - I don't remember a government being replaced without changing the Knesset). What if the government changes one day? What if there are anti-Haredi/religious decisions in the next governments (this is not entirely unfounded), and they won't even have a theoretical answer to whom to turn? Even more so: How do you know that you have a chance at all in a government tender, or that the contractor building some project (like a train or whatever) knows what he's doing and isn't simply close to some minister? How come things like this don't worry everyone?
So in short:
A. This is not full control of the government, it is the neutralization of political decisions by an unelected body (in fact, the law authorizes the High Court to invalidate laws - which they have appropriated for themselves without authority so far - simply requires that it be in full composition, which proves that this is not the worldview of the person responsible for assigning the partial compositions. And as we saw with respect to the "Deri Law" - they have a lot to do with it).
B. The addition to your words about "theoretically they will not have anyone to turn to" seems to me to be sufficient to answer your idle questions.
A. This is indeed full government control. According to the reform, the government selects the judges, in all instances, not just the Supreme Court, controls their promotion and can also dismiss them (this is within the authority of the Judicial Selection Committee today).
B. So the problem is with the word “theoretical”? I don't want to give examples because I'm not an expert on this, but it seems to me that there have been cases where the Haredim have also benefited from the court's help against the state (I remember something with the Emmanuel School, but there must be more cases). In any case, yes, theoretically it's also a good question. By the way, even now, without any reform, there is a change (albeit slow) in the composition of judges in favor of more religious and conservative judges, so in the future it will be much less theoretical already with the current system, so why change?
What will happen if there is a government that passes laws against the Haredim? So because it doesn't seem to be on the agenda now, we can simply ignore it?
And let me ask another question, perhaps a bit of a quibble, but there's also the economic issue. We all live off the same economy, and when it collapses, we all suffer. Clearly, making such a reform worries the markets (and it doesn't matter who's to blame for it, it's simply a fact, so there's no point in arguing about it), and could lead to a decline in the value of the shekel, rising prices, etc. The ultra-Orthodox will also (maybe especially?) suffer from this. Isn't that a good enough reason to stop this madness and try to find something that everyone can agree on?
Dear Itay
I don't know how old you are
If you are young I assume you will grow up
And if you are older so that you can practice memory exercises
That will really calm you down
1992
What was good until then
Will be good for both the Haredim and all those who predict blackness here
I am completely in favor of the reform being done in stages
Like any change or reversal in our case
brings new and unexpected developments.
But dialogue? If who exactly if those who
call you parasites and then run to check with you are okay with it in the milog?
Did the government control (through the coalition) the committee for selecting judges until 1992? That's new to me. Were the legal advisors appointed by the government? I don't remember that either.
It won't happen again. What is being proposed in the reform has never been here.
This dialogue is not between the ultra-Orthodox and the secular, but between people who want the government to control the court and people who want the court to control the government. All the talk of "parasites", etc., is irrelevant at all and I don't know why you brought it up. Think for yourself if you want to live in a country where the government controls practically everything, without any criticism in practice (and don't tell me they can invalidate laws - who can? The judges who are appointed by the government and need them for promotion? Judges whose level of qualifications is who knows, given that the important criterion for selecting them is their political leanings?)
Again, not accurate.
Are you really out of your mind or are you…
The judges will not be appointed by the government but 'also'
Long live the difference
You should study the reform first and not be shaken by just excessive fear
Below is the proposal for the reform in the selection of judges
What is proposed: The committee will be expanded to 11 representatives. For the first time, equal representation will be given to each of the three authorities: 3 judges, 3 ministers, 3 Knesset members - the chairman of the Knesset Committee, the Constitution Committee as representatives of the coalition, the chairman of the State Audit Committee as a representative of the opposition. The majority required to appoint a judge will be a simple majority. In addition, two public representatives will be appointed by the Minister of Justice. The plan will balance and diversify the composition of judges in the judicial system.
The conversation is not between government control and High Court control
Why reduce
There is a much more fundamental debate
And yes, the Haredim have mainly hijacked the High Court on the right and left, mainly on the left, for the last 22 years while it tramples the law along the way.
Especially since the electoral victory is guaranteed to them, what do they have to fear?
Again, your lack of understanding of the other side is an excellent example of everything that is being shouted at here
So please don't stop.
Thanks for the compliments. You're probably not up to date either, because Rotman has already declared that Levin's proposal for a committee to appoint judges is "dead," and the current proposal does not expand the number of members. In any case, the problem is what is the required majority. What is meant by "also"? According to the proposal, the coalition will have control over the majority of members, and a simple majority is needed to appoint judges, so what is wrong with what I said? The government (through the coalition) will have a majority on the committee and therefore the government will control the appointment of judges. Not "also," but "only."
I really don't understand, which is why I'm writing here. Please explain to me where I'm wrong in what I wrote above.
I would also like to hear what the Haredim snatched from the High Court.
Deacon, rest assured.
1.
A. I did not rely in any way on this dictionary, and your criticisms of it are not really interesting and not relevant here. You can imagine that I know what an idiot is even without consulting dictionaries. I provided a dictionary entry to demonstrate that these words have a meaning and are not slander.
B. Incorrect to use in whose eyes? I explained why in my opinion it is also correct to use them. You can of course disagree with me, but claiming that there are words that are incorrect to use is too general and not well-reasoned. By the way, if there is a traitor, it is definitely correct to use the word traitor for him. Before Rabin or after him.
To the Rabbi
1. You wrote: I brought a dictionary entry to demonstrate that these words have meaning and are not slander.
He is the one who said that the passage is loaded with curses, slander, and slang, not in search of meaning. And this is exactly my criticism of the places from which the Rabbi seeks meaning.
Who is wrong? You tell me, if you think it is right to use these words, use them. What is the relevance of this or that dictionary? But words also have meaning in the eyes/ears of the listener, and this must be given weight before using them. In your opinion, the word "betrayer" has an interesting use that you yourself have not used in the columns of slaughter that appear here and thirst for descriptive words.
To Itay,
Regarding Rothman's declarations, it is difficult to argue and verify what he said and when, I heard him tell a neighbor in the building that he ultimately does want to follow the Levin plan. What I quoted is from the official reform content that appears in official documents everywhere and on the reform website. And if that is not credible in your eyes, then there is really no point in continuing
Regarding your question, what and how did the High Court of Justice act against the Haredim and in general against the state, I would bother to quote here
Now I have seen that Rabbi Melamed has already brought some of them, and they are certainly enough to carry out the correction.
https://www.inn.co.il/news/592541
So you don't get the meaning of the words as I quoted from the dictionary? Good luck to you. I used the dictionary as a literary way to point out that these words have meaning and that's what I meant, so it's not a derogatory term. I assume that a child's level of reading comprehension is enough to understand this. Or do you think the meaning of these words is not clear to everyone?
Indeed, overwhelming evidence from the word traitor. The words were taken from my mouth. Be strong and courageous.
Evidence for parasite from the milog as a literary method…
Sapir Prize on the way
Drop into self-respecting dictionaries and you will see that the meaning of parasite is simply that, without the context of humans. Hence the debate about meaning.
I have not brought evidence and certainly not overwhelming, as the famous Rabbi Otzar Blum of such expressions and does not hesitate to use much worse terms than the word traitor and not for nothing did the god go milog. My point was that it is not found on the site even though it expresses a seemingly simple meaning.
Thank you. I didn't know these things. He clearly writes from the heart, although I would have been happy if that article had at least given someone on the other side a chance to respond to his claims. Note that even in this article, there is nothing related to the Haredim, only things related to settlement.
You write “to carry out the correction”. Why is it clear that this reform will indeed lead to correction? I don't see how it corrects this. Maybe it will lead to the appointment of judges on behalf of the government, those who will approve everything the government says, but who can guarantee you that the government will be in your favor in the future? Doesn't it make more sense to leave the situation as it is in terms of the independence of the judiciary and continue with the appointment of more right-wing judges, as is already being done today?
And if you are in such a hurry to make a correction, maybe it is still worth thinking about the possible consequences, and not just looking through the prism of revenge? For example, it is clear to everyone that this reform will make it much easier to commit acts of corruption, both small and large. Why would a judge bother judging an elected official when he depends on him for his promotion? How would a legal advisor dare to say anything to a minister when the minister can fire him? It is so clear, surely you see it. How does this not worry you?
Blessed is he who gave his world to the guardians…
https://www.idi.org.il/articles/22273
The demagogues of the Israeli Institute for Dictatorship in the Supreme Court, who think that we don't know how the spirit of the commander permeates every single lawyer who is unwilling to defend the government's positions on certain issues and who basically neuters the government's policy (only from the right, of course), and that we don't know how, with the disengagement, the Supreme Court suddenly decided that it doesn't deal with political matters (but they know how to ask, like Itay, my dear, what will happen "if" the rights of right-wingers are violated by the government, as if we didn't see it with our own eyes in action every day).
For some reason you added my name to your response, so I will answer.
I don't want to go into examples about the rights of right-wingers who were harmed, etc., because it's clear that you feel that your rights have been harmed and I don't want to get into the legal discourse about rights, especially since I'm not a great expert. What's more, the situation can always be worse, and this reform certainly makes it easier for the government. For example, in the case of the disengagement, if it had happened after the reform [and remember that the disengagement at the time won a large majority both in the Knesset and in the public (according to polls; although not among Likud members), unlike the reform (at least in the first vote, the majority was 67 MKs)], there would have been no point in taking it to the High Court of Justice (which, if I'm not mistaken, provided benefits for the rights of the evacuees, perhaps not enough, I don't know). Now, at least, even with the current system, more and more right-wing judges are being appointed to the Supreme Court, and over time there will likely be a right-wing, anti-activist majority on the court.
The harm from this reform is clear to me (maybe to you too?), but the benefit is not at all clear: maybe in the short term, the right will succeed in implementing its policies, but at what cost? And what about the long term?
Someone has already compared this reform to brain surgery that takes half an hour. There is something serious and big here, and you are dealing with revenge.
When someone acts foolishly or wickedly, it does not make them ’stupid’ or ‘evil’.
When you call someone wicked, you are categorizing them according to their majority. There are certainly wicked and foolish people, but I believe that you also admit that this is not true of Rabbi Shmuel.
If for every foolish thing that came out of our mouths in the past we categorically become ’fools’, then you too are among them.
I admit that in positive things it is customary to make light of and describe a person according to his minority who is not careful..
There is something to this claim. But from the things said, it is clear that the reference is to these things and their light (or their sense). Many times when a person says something stupid, they are told that they are stupid or an idiot, and that is what is meant.
If you had phrased it precisely, “this is wickedness” or “this is stupidity” you would have saved yourself a lot of lip service from many who were bothered by the style, and I am among them. I appreciate that most of your followers expect a person of your level not to phrase it the way the world does “many times”. You are indeed a doctor, but also a rabbi, and as such, the expectations from you are different.
Please accept the criticism as a ’love wound’ from me.
I got it.
As someone who does not read regularly (except for the recent period in my sins, because they have multiplied) and as someone who does not vote at all and as someone who does not meet any accepted definition (perhaps secular who observes Torah and mitzvot suits me) I do not see any problem or annoyance with the style. Sometimes I even think it is restrained and the sages have already said “You shall not rise up before anyone– You shall not rise up before anyone– True, this is for judges sitting on Midian, but it can be included for everyone who wants to protest and prove – that it is also an important mitzvah for all the myriad of mitzvots.
I have read both extremely venomous classical anti-Semitic literature and modern ones (for study purposes, yes, also extensive sections from Mein Kampf in both volumes and even inflammatory articles by Goebbels, the Minister) so I am not impressed by a blatant style, not even in the style of the “new atheists– I speak Hebrew, English and French, and Rabbi Michi's sparse style is considered subtle in my opinion. But I am strongly convinced that the wise man's article on the human person (it seems that most Etra Din surfers do not share my opinion that King Solomon was really a historical figure, because the archaeologist Finkelstein and Co. completely deny him, even if there was no parable) "The words of the wise are heard with ease" – You can protest and you can even tell a person that he is an idiot with a smile and he will understand and respect you (from experience, unfortunately, by virtue of my work). Personally, I do not define Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu as a rabbi, and mention the title of rabbi before his name because that is how the majority of the people refer to him, and I have no interest in offending anyone, male or female. To the same extent, distinguishing between the living and the dead – I have never referred to Rabbi Shach as the great Maran of the generation, or Rabbi Kook as the great Maran of the generation, but I have always made sure to respect them when speaking to someone who considers them as such. Yes, I am amused by the discussion in the comments when neither side takes prisoners and how do you say in the name of Plato? (Assuming that there really was such a person) “Only the dead saw the end of the war…”.
Wishing you a happy Shabbat Shalom or a pleasant weekend – whatever is convenient for you.
https://www.maariv.co.il/journalists/Article-981441
There is no coercion among the sane masses (only in Hungary, Poland and the Bibi herd).