Reflections on Bibi

שו”ת › Category: general › Reflections on Bibi

asked 9 years ago

In the SD

Like everyone else, I read about the developments in the prime minister’s investigation, and for some reason I shifted uncomfortably in my chair. Indeed, in my eyes, Bibi is a man worthy of admiration, but even if we don’t judge it through my lens, he has truly done many things for the country and its security, and he deserves a little appreciation for that.

I want to ask, in your opinion, wouldn’t it be appropriate that in trials like this, certain sections of the indictment be waived, thanks to the many things he did for us? Doesn’t the justice system dictate that we not condemn our prime minister as the last of the criminals in Israel? What is the line between the need and desire to exhaust the justice system in the sense of making the mountain a mountain, and the desire and need to do a favor for someone who has done so much for us?

I would be happy to hear your response, (and maybe I even gave you an idea for another article and we will benefit even more..)

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

That’s why there are arguments for punishment. The legal debate should be equal for every citizen. Arguments for punishment take into account background, contribution to society, character, etc. By the way, many citizens have contributed to the country no less than he has. In his role as Prime Minister, he does not simply give up his life, but wants the position and the respect that comes with it. Holding a position that is a job with a salary does not confer rights, in my opinion. Only someone who goes beyond their duty or volunteers can be considered entitled.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

י' replied 9 years ago

Ok thanks I didn't know that this is indeed taken into account in arguments for punishment.
In the above context, the question arose for me why the king of Israel does not judge and is not judged? Is it because there was a problem with one king (Yannah, I think) that Serah should already rule that no king is judged? After all, the consequences of this are very dangerous when the king knows that he is not worthy of judgment at all. And why did they dare to rule like that?

מיכי Staff replied 9 years ago

See an incident that occurred in the Sanhedrin 19:1. Although the conclusion is that a king from the house of David judged and judged him, only a Gentile king and a king of Israel (as opposed to the house of David) do not detract from the incident that occurred (because he would not accept the judgment).