Haredi Voices for Integration (Column 558)
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.
A few days ago I saw a post by a man named Rabbi Michael Nachteiler, who goes by the name “Haredim to the Pilot Corps,” calling for the integration of Haredim into all of the state’s systems, following the protests by pilots, economists, and academics that succeeded in pausing the government’s judicial reform. I’ve already read and heard such voices in the past as well, and I’ll use this opportunity to examine a few points that are worth discussing.
And here are his sacred words:
| So we told them, “Go jump!”, and they jumped.
They jumped on our state, on the economy, on the army, on the law, on the streets, and above all on every possible sacred convention. They jumped and proved to us that the majority here does not decide. A liberal minority that lost the elections by a knockout, a group that is shrinking demographically and in identity, yet ruled all along, held the blue-and-white flag and never let go of it. It was there the whole time, letting the children play within the borders of the square, making sure here and there to straighten the deviants, to clarify to them that there is a master above them—permitting, but a master. And it is not to blame; for the most part it is not corrupt; it was simply there before us, in consciousness and in deed, letting the lads play before it so long as they do not change the rules of the game—first and foremost: its rule and the rule of its values. And as long as they are there and not us—as long as the little offices in Tel Aviv towers are filled with full-throttle liberals, as long as the cockpits of the air squadrons are manned by the children of “first Israel”, as long as the keyboards of the cyber warriors are manned by the descendants of Savyon, as long as the “falafel”-pin wearers in the police and army, the robe-wearers in the halls of justice, and the fluent English speakers in the Foreign Ministry—as long as these are their representatives, this will not change. To change the game into a democratic game, to move into the driver’s seat and touch the pedals of the state, so that we can begin to instill our values in a way that is not merely cosmetic—demography is not enough; sacrifice is required. Responsibility is required. We, as Haredim, must be there with our best sons—in the offices and in the squadrons, in cyber and in headquarters, at police stations around the country and in Israel’s missions abroad—we need to be an elite. Until we are there, reality has proven that we have no ability to instill our worldview. We will continue to play within the ever-shrinking boundaries of the game that will be defined for us, and to wait for them to allow us perhaps a bit more air and playtime. The call from the past month should not be for democracy. It does not really exist, as the Ayalon Highway proved. The call is to climb the mountain and touch its edge; the call is to conquer the elite. Despite the difficulty, despite the ideological distance, despite the sociological gap, and despite the fact that these are processes of decades—if we truly desire freedom, if our values really matter to us and we think they are critical to Israel’s future and to the future of the Jewish people—then the time has come to call out loudly within our community, inwardly: The good Haredim—to the pilot corps! |
Preliminary Analysis: Stealing the Elections
His words reflect the same frustration underlying the new protests by supporters of the reform that began this week, who claim that the protesters stole their vote. They won the last elections, expected constitutional change as promised, and now the government is acting according to the dictates of the minority that lost.
I’ll just note that this distorts the facts, as is customary in our parts. I won’t enter the debate over whether this was indeed clarified in the campaign and platform ahead of the elections (in my view—actually yes), but it is important to know that at least today it is clear that a large majority of the public (including over half of Likud voters) supports pausing the reform and entering dialogue toward agreements. Still, I can understand that this creates enormous frustration among the voters of the present right-wing coalition. This can be grasped well through the viral conversation of an aircraft mechanic with Erel Segal which, when I heard it, truly broke my heart. It’s worth listening, for those who haven’t already received it on WhatsApp. Despite the pain, I must say that in my opinion he is not right, and his comparison is incorrect. And yet you can hear words of truth from the heart. A similar feeling exists among Haredim, and there’s no doubt that even today there is a very large majority of voters who expected the most extreme reform and were disappointed.
Nachteiler, as noted, also laments the hijacking of the elections, and argues that what made it possible is the power held by pilots, hi-tech people, academics, police and army, legal figures, and so on. Therefore he calls on Haredi society to enter these fields, so that next time such hijackings won’t occur (and perhaps so that next time they will hijack their opponents’ voices in their direction). In his view, this is essentially a Haredi interest.
I must say that on a first reading I wasn’t sure he truly meant to call for a change in Haredi policy. I suspected this was sarcastic writing (in which case the headline missed the point entirely), whose aim is actually to protest the theft of the Haredi voice. But a search of the web about the author gave me the impression that it was indeed written seriously. Moreover, he seems consistent in his efforts to balance Haredi society, and it may be that his call is not really directed at advancing Haredi interests, as might be inferred, but at advancing Haredi people and opening options in the Haredi world. He hangs this on the interests of Haredi society because that’s how one writes there, but he actually means to say that this is what is right. One has to recognize the characteristics of Haredi writing, especially when it deals with radical ideas (like going to work, acquiring an education, thinking, or contributing to society—Heaven forfend). In such cases it uses a double language—arguments acceptable to the Haredi ear are written, behind which lurk critical arguments addressed to those who understand (I have personally heard in the past from writers at “Tzarikh Iyun,” from Nachteiler’s circles, that they do indeed write in such double language). In any case, I will address the content itself and assume it was written seriously. His words are merely a trigger for discussion, and that is what matters to me here.
Did the Pilots Really Steal His Vote?
As noted, most of the public today wants compromise and a pause. From this perspective, it is actually the supporters of the reform who took to the streets during the pause (Monday) who want to “steal the country” from all of us. The coalition indeed has a majority and did indeed win the elections legitimately. One can argue how legitimate it is to act now on the basis of a majority you received at the ballot box when it is now clear you no longer have a majority in the public (incidentally, perhaps not even a majority among Likud MKs, if the collection of rabbits there were willing to state their views openly and honestly, and not only off the record). But it is certainly unreasonable to call such a thing “theft.” This is coercion, using civic means, applied to the government with the goal of bringing it to represent the will of the majority of the public. That sounds a bit different from theft, doesn’t it?
Of course there is room to discuss the means of coercion. In my eyes, most of them are entirely legitimate. Economic-political pressure and protests, however stormy, are quintessentially democratic tools. That is how the public expresses an opinion, and the more extreme the situation seems to it, the more justification there is for extreme steps. This is not the first time roads are blocked here (yes, they were blocked during the disengagement as well. And no, I didn’t count how many times. Haredim blocked, Ethiopians blocked, and the disabled blocked). Especially since, as noted, most of the public today does not agree with the government’s headlong rush, it is certainly reasonable to claim that its actions have no moral validity, even if they have legal force.
Regarding refusal in the army, I personally thought there was no problem with it under the extreme circumstances that arose (at least for those who concluded that democracy itself was in danger and that the rules had changed in a way that substantially violates the social contract—even though I am not among those). But in recent days I have had further thoughts on the matter (among other things because of listening to the mechanic mentioned above), and I do not have a clear position about it. Clearly it also depends on an assessment of the risks expected, and on this I part ways with most of the protesters (in my opinion there is no danger to democracy even if the reform had passed, certainly in its limited form). I also think they arrived at the assessment of a danger to democracy with far too much ease; there is definitely a measure of negligence in that.
However, the Haredim are the last who can complain about refusal to enlist and serve in the army. Such complaints are the height of hypocrisy the likes of which I have yet to see. You not only shirk and condescend, not only receive rights undeservedly, you now also come with complaints against those who refuse to risk their lives for you, and you complain about the privileges of your faithful servants. They dare to use the power they have lawfully accumulated—power that you do not have because you are not willing to bear the burden—but you have no problem complaining about that. It’s a wonder they aren’t demanding to give weapons to yeshiva boys too, in the name of equality before the law. The Haredim insist on their right to use the money produced by hi-tech and the economy for their sectarian needs, without being willing to contribute anything to it. And then they complain about those who use their financial power or their sacrifice and volunteerism to influence. There is no limit to the obtuseness.
It is worth remembering that Yitzhak Tshuva pays taxes roughly equivalent to an entire city. Why don’t we complain about equality before the law there as well? Why do we take more from him than from any one of us? Is our vote worth more than his? In my view, just as it is reasonable to take more taxes from him, it is also entirely reasonable that he has greater influence due to his economic power than an ordinary citizen. Not at the ballot box, but in democratic struggles—definitely yes. I already mentioned in a previous column that the U.S. has veto rights on the Security Council and Belgium does not. Where is the equality? Apparently it’s merely credit given to power. But the critics of this forget that the U.S. is the one that sends soldiers and invests fortunes in international missions, not Belgium and not Israel either. Therefore there is indeed justice in giving it extra power and influence in international decisions. Whoever pays the price and bears the consequences deserves influence accordingly.
A Moral Note
By the way, if in Nachteiler’s view Haredim can enlist in the pilot corps (many years of service, including a lot of reserve duty) in order to influence their interests in the state, and if they can enter hi-tech and the economy in order to influence, I do not understand why they cannot enlist and contribute to GDP even now—simply in order to fulfill their duty. Even if no one were “stealing their vote,” they can and should contribute their share. Perhaps we should remind them that it’s permissible to fulfill your obligations even if it doesn’t advance your interests. For such an esoteric and contested value as fulfilling a moral and civic duty, apparently there is no justification to bear any burden. That’s what the suckers around were born for. The problem is that sometimes the suckers forget their obligations, and they have to be put back in their place.
This is a morally appalling conception in my eyes, though it does not surprise me. Incidentally, I mentioned above the Haredi double-speak, and I suspect that Nachteiler actually wants to say that one ought to contribute to society and bear the burden, but he writes it in the conventional Haredi way (=this is our interest, therefore we must and it is right to do so). Look—I even judged him favorably. And truly, I think this is a reasonable interpretive possibility for his words. More than once in the past (see for example in my article here) I have explained that one should not “judge favorably” by using incorrect arguments.
Will the “New Haredim” Still Be Haredim?
The interesting question that arose for me regarding this post is whether those Haredim who will integrate into all spheres of activity will still be Haredim—and in what sense? Will they not say Hallel on Independence Day? Remember that today the Haredi parties are “the National Camp.” Practically radical Zionism. I encounter this question whenever I hear Haredim calling for a substantial change in Haredi society: in its attitude toward work and education; toward the army; toward women; toward state institutions; toward external values and openness to the surroundings; toward art, and so on. After all of that changes, what will remain of the “Harediness” of these groups? The gartel and the kapote? Not saying Hallel on Independence Day? Perhaps absolute obedience to the “Gedolei HaDor” (who of course will also change—or at least their opinions will—since today they oppose all these proposals). By that criterion, one could even dispense with Torah and mitzvot entirely, obey our master Rabbi David Grossman and the Council of Elders of Meretz, and after all that still shelter under the label “Haredi.” In my manifesto (Column 500) I noted that Harediness—if we ignore the kapote and the gartel—is a fusion of two almost independent ideas: opposition to Zionism and opposition to modernity and its values. From this angle it is even clearer that the Harediness proposed here does not meet any of the substantive criteria that characterize it.
I wish to sharpen that this is not a criticism. There is no obligation to remain Haredi, and there is no sanctity in names and terms. One may certainly propose to oneself and to us all not to be Haredi (I also warmly recommend it), neither in relation to Zionism nor in relation to modernity. But the feeling I get in most cases is that the proponents of these proposals want to change Harediness rather than step out of it. To me this is akin to proposing to a mathematician that he engage in poetry because that would be more fitting for mathematics; or like proposing to a Jew to adopt Hinduism and give up Torah and mitzvot because that would be a truer and more fitting Judaism. Incidentally, quite a few propose similar proposals. Thus, for example, most of the proposals for a secular Jewish identity[1] say roughly this: my Judaism is a set of liberal values (plus some ethnic and cultural components, like speaking Hebrew, serving in the army, “they murdered my grandfather in the Holocaust,” etc.). The pseudo-sciences likewise propose that they be seen as science. Some of those engaged in them propose to conduct qualitative rather than quantitative research and insist on seeing that as science as well, and so on. The common denominator to all these proposals is that they may well be worthy, but there is no logic in insisting on seeing them as a change of the existing state/field and not a move to a different state/field.
These proposals amount to emptying Harediness of substantive content and remaining with an empty term—or clinging to sociological definitions (which will also change considerably). This is an obstinacy that insists on continuing to be called Haredi even when you are not. Perhaps these people feel a deep sentiment for the word “Haredi.” But to me it is just using a word. A semantic discussion that is of little interest. Note that if this was his intention, then Nachteiler is actually proposing that everyone “convert out” (according to the conventional Haredi conception) and not merely change Harediness. As I said, I don’t know if that is what he means (remember the matter of double language).
The Logical, Moral, and Psychological Problem
So far I have described a logical-conceptual problem. Beyond that, there seems to be a psychological problem underlying the logical-conceptual issue. A person is unwilling to detach from his place, or to acknowledge that he has detached, and therefore insists on entering conceptual contradictions. But above all, in my eyes there is also a moral problem here, and I will now address it.
Many of those who spoke with me about these issues expect others to do the work for them. Again and again I am asked: how will the revolution happen? How can the distortions of Haredi society and outlook be changed? It seems the questioners expect that I, or someone else, will do the work for them. “Change Harediness for us,” they say, “and then we can comfortably remain Haredi.” This is a desire for revolution without a willingness to pay a price. A revolution from the couch. I tell those Jews that in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century people gave their lives for a revolution. They took risks; compared to them, what a Haredi “revolutionary” in our days takes upon himself is a petty and miserable joke. If it is important to you to change things, if you want to express your views and act on them freely—please, take risks with a willingness to pay prices. You cannot expect a comfortable life with all the (dubious) “Haredi luxuries,” while asking or expecting that a revolution be carried out for you, without you.
Again and again it becomes clear to me that there is quite a large (?) Haredi group within which each individual wants a revolution, but they have no ability to organize because none of them is willing to be first. My son once told me about a failure known as the “fax problem.” Suppose I just invented the fax machine. I have no way to start selling it, because to use it there must be at least one more person who has a fax (preferably someone I’m connected to). Such a process has no way to start. In Column 67 I discussed a similar problem regarding rebellion against tyrants (like Stalin). This really brings us back to the Haredi revolution (only on a negligible scale compared to the original).
This reminds me of our Palestinian cousins who wail incessantly that everything was taken from them; they are unwilling to pay any price and expect others (us, for example) to sort everything out for them. As Yoram Arbel said: “That’s not how you build a wall.” Changes like these are made by people who are willing to pay prices. If it’s important to you—go for it. If you are not willing, then apparently it’s not really important to you, so eat what you cooked (or refused to cook).
My Proposal to the National-Religious (Religious Zionism)
I think that if we apply Nachteiler’s proposals as written, they are very relevant to the national-religious (Religious Zionist) public. There they will not run into the problems I described regarding their application among Haredim. All those in the national-religious camp who raise the very same complaints—that their country and their vote were “stolen”—should please go and assume the positions of power that enable influence. Here there will be no conceptual contradiction, and the way is indeed open. Religious Zionism has often taken upon itself new missions (settlement, senior command in the army, integration in academia and the legal system, in journalism, and more), but apparently it has not reached positions of sufficiently significant influence, and therefore precisely these days the “minority” that lost the elections still manages to defeat it. It seems we are on the way, there is indeed progress, and yet the distance is great.
Perhaps it will surprise you, but in my estimation this applies mainly to the hi-tech field. Many years ago I was invited to the hesder yeshiva in Ma’ale Adumim for an alumni conference. I spoke there about enlisting in hi-tech. I told them we’ve become accustomed to the idea that it is permitted and necessary to forgo family values and Torah-study values and the like in order to enlist and contribute in an elite commando unit or in senior combat command in the IDF. But for some reason there is no legitimacy for this in hi-tech. One must understand that founding a startup is not money dripping from one’s sleeve. Even after you have an idea and you have talent, it’s a tremendous effort, with Sisyphean work, taking great risks, losing years of life and a lot of stress—and all of this, of course, comes at the expense of the family. There is no way to enter this field unless you are willing to sacrifice in a way similar to military service.
A good friend of mine in the field once told me that there is a very large gap between secular and religious hi-tech people, and it’s no wonder there are very few startups led by religious folks. It’s probably not a difference in talent but in devotion. A religious worker is more loyal (so he said), no less dedicated and no less smart, but he has a family, limited working hours, divided attention across various fronts (at whose house are we doing the Seder? What about Daf Yomi?), and this doesn’t allow him to invest most of his head and heart in work. You can work in hi-tech like that, but that’s not how you build a startup. He told me that the typical Tel-Aviv hi-tech person is a young man who gets up at ten, dreams about what happens when you press CAPS LOCK together with SHIFT-8, swaps experiences with the guys at the bar about these topics, keeps up with everything going on, marries very late—if at all—and after a few years he has an idea and invests his entire being in realizing it. Meanwhile his religious friend works about ten hours a day devotedly, but in the rest of the time he takes care of the kids, prepares the Seder night, studies Torah, and so on. He has no real possibility of entering the startup world.
I told them that in yeshiva we are educated not to abandon learning even when we go out into the marketplace of life: not to give up spiritual and religious elevation, and to know how to combine the realms; to raise a splendid family and educate children. And in general—work is not everything. Ah, there is also Heavenly assistance; with true fear of Heaven we will succeed even without investing as much as “the accursed wicked.” “The Lord is near to all who call upon Him.” Well, apparently that doesn’t really work. Thus, my friend told me, we arrive at a situation in which among the newly wealthy in the hi-tech and startup world there are relatively few religious people. This has very broad implications. For example, it affects the ability of the religious public to stand on its own two feet (there are no major donors), and it becomes dependent on the generosity of others who don’t really believe in its values and therefore will donate less to them. Who exactly will sustain the yeshivot if there are no new religious tycoons?! There are of course other implications as well, and I told them there that it’s worth paying attention to this direction. The heroism of the army must be expanded to additional domains.
These days we have seen that there is another kind of price to the absence of religious startup founders: socio-political influence. We saw that the economic and public power of the protesters was a decisive factor in their strength. Holding the key positions—pilots, prominent academics, hi-tech figures and major CEOs—gives you tremendous power. That is how they “steal” your vote, friends.
I do not mean that it is right to aim the entire public in this way. This is suitable for only a few. But those few carry the entire economy on their backs (apropos the protests), and therefore in my opinion we must give legitimacy to those who are suitable, talented, and willing to make the sacrifice—to go for it. It’s like a commando unit or pilot training, and the public needs it no less, perhaps more. Yes—not only for the people of Israel but also for the religious public. Incidentally, that is indeed a sectoral interest, but it is entirely legitimate and even proper—so long as it is done in a straight way and not at the expense of the rest of society, but for its sake. Startups contribute tremendously to Israeli society as a whole, and if the religious community takes a more significant part in them, it will benefit society at large and also its religious part. Legitimate and worthy.
So then—forward: the best to the pilot corps and to startups.
[1] See on this in the article here, in Column 425, in the series of columns 336–339, and more.
This is pretty amazing, you're suggesting that religious Zionism be stronger and richer, so that the next time we upset it, it can be more violent/reluctant? This is beyond belief. Completely irrelevant, in my opinion, since this proposal goes against the core of religious Zionism, which is statist by nature and definition. But is this a reason to go high-tech??
Miki means to say that national responsibility must be taken in the field of high-tech as well, but in the religious public one must talk about ideals, so he expresses himself in double language, meaning "legitimate arguments for the religious ear, while behind them are hidden critical arguments that appeal to those who understand."
Hello Michael,
I didn't see any reference here that:
A. That the IDF is essentially building, critically, on the obligation of the reservist pilots and 8200 members (who receive a very significant jump to citizenship from the army) to report for reserve service.
Therefore, the meaning of their collective refusal, political coordinators, is a passive-quiet military revolution, which, if not eradicated, means that now they know that their hand is on the state's counter for any political demand.
(For example, the trigger for the 8200 members was the Ineligibility Law, which is an essential law in a situation where the Attorney General can at any moment ineligibly remove the Prime Minister)
🙏 On the enormous enterprise.
In fact, except that they received a public appointment on the state's alters:
The reservists, the Ben Gurion Airport, the Histadrut strike, use this power to impose their political position.
How can one call such mafia-like behavior?
*these
I didn't address the issue of refusal. I just commented on it in passing.
No. What I suggested to them is to participate so that they have equal status with others and do not have to whine about having power. This goes beyond the mere need to contribute our share. As I wrote in the column, power reflects contribution and is therefore justified.
And Moshe, I correctly identified that there is double language here, but I did not hide it because in the case of religious Zionism, they do participate and contribute and there is no need to hide (as there is with the Haredim).
Yes, indeed.
If religious Zionism were as strong as Michi wants, the reform would probably pass in its initial form.
Although he opposes the current reform, in my opinion he does not sufficiently understand the dangers inherent in it.
Maybe he is simply suggesting that they be more contributors and more significant to the people even in the realm of the ’world’?
And like Nichtler to the Haredim, he makes internal arguments that are accepted
When his malicious intention is nothing less than and nothing more than the real good of the people
Oh, Giveld
As a friend of heavy-handed Savyonim
The rabbi should comment on the mockery of military service.
This is just a false stigma.
They are in combat in very dangerous places
And a significant portion are very patriotic there.
They are victims who are simply being given a stigma that is not true in reality
Segal's recording with the aforementioned mechanic is false and has many holes in the story, as anyone who serves in the Air Force knows, some of which are basic and embarrassing.
It is doubtful whether Segal collaborated with a liar or fell for the trap by mistake
My wife showed me the list of lies that were not and will not be in reality in the story he told there
Maybe I will send it later
There was a mistake in my name
My full and accurate name, as you know, is:
I don't like bloopers, certainly not the most careless ones.
I don't want to ruin the celebration of the Haredim and Mustalim who might be convinced to contribute more of themselves to the nation through the temptation that they will have more power to influence in the future…
But everyone knows that Bibi stopped his plan when he saw the masses taking to the streets that night…
And especially the poll the next day that 2/3 of the people were against his plan.
In other words, he was left with only the Haredim and the hard-line rabbis and a little more…
He realized that he had lost big and the people were unequivocally against him, that's why he let it go for now
The intention in the column is really a decree of destruction
It is clear that those who come seriously and advance in the squadrons will learn a lot about the world and will be on a very specific side
And so in high-tech in most cases and above all in general with bank governors
With chiefs of staff, doctors and any other serious professional field that really requires talent and years of investment
Everyone is against the plan
In essence, the column calls for sending our sons to think about being serious and investing
So that in the end they will belong to the political side
This comes together with wisdom, seriousness, study and investment..
So what good were the wise men?
They must be intending here to decree destruction
You came upon us.
I would be very happy to have this surgery.
Maybe this is what you mean: https://twitter.com/shailevy6/status/1640729102788198405
It's not clear from this that it's a fake. And the letter with the mechanics' signatures? They do hide full names, but perhaps because it's forbidden to refuse. It's not clear.
Wonderful response by Hayutha Deutsch.
I would add that Rabbi Michael suggests, perhaps, that instead of dwelling in the depths of Halacha, we should dwell
in the depths of ALT, SHIFT, CAPS LOCK?
Was Rabbi Michael Avraham himself willing to waste his days and nights on this pursuit?
I too am one of those who prefer consensus, but that does not mean that my vote was not stolen through enormous pressure and perhaps outright blackmail, forcing me to be in favor of compromise.
If the opinion of the rich has more weight in the decisions that are supposed to result from the election results, it logically means that their vote at the ballot box is worth more.
The Security Council is a completely different kind of voluntary body with completely different goals than a national parliament.
Indeed, and in my opinion, their vote is rightly worth more. They didn't steal any of your votes, because as I explained, power represents justice.
And furthermore, as I explained in column 553, the minority has the right to protest by force when the rules of the game change. The ballot box does not determine the rules of the game. But I will not elaborate here again.
This is a different argument that can be discussed separately.
The debate is who changed the rules of the game.
Many, not “Bibists”, have claimed that Barak is a “legal pirate”.
Including Professor Shlomo Avnery.
The reform is intended to restore the old legal situation.
Actually, why do I bother – our rabbi explained that he is in favor of the reform – but he is protesting against it because he is against the government.
Where did our rabbi explain this? Since I am also one of his followers, I would love to see a source.
Beyond that, I recommend that in the future you raise relevant claims and, if possible, not false ones. This can certainly improve the discussion.
The reform does not restore the old situation. I myself have written more than once that Barak was a legal pirate. But don't bother yourself. If there are no relevant claims, it is always good to throw general sentences into the air.
Well, I was wrong about that. Not in favor of the "reform."
But from all the Rabbi's words, in his explanation of the background to the reform,
in his reference to Levin and Rotman as speaking on the matter while all their opponents only cry "dictatorship," in his reference to Aharon Barak as a "legal pirate," a necessary conclusion emerges of
the need for reform – if Barak robbed us – “ and returned the plunder he robbed– –
And here is a quote I found in the Rabbi's words –
“The High Court implicitly assumed that it had the authority to annul even a Basic Law (!). It should be understood that this is a real scandal in terms of legal thought. A regular law is annulled by virtue of the fact that it contradicts a Basic Law. But annulling a Basic Law seems to be a completely arbitrary act. The High Court of Justice becomes the supreme legislator without the law and the Knesset having authorized it to do so and without it being elected by the public.
And the Rabbi went so far as to call this an illusory position.
In light of all this, it can be concluded that the Rabbi understands that reform is needed (amendments or whatever name it has) – because who would support an illusory position?
Even in his words about the majority of the people in a compromise nation – the need for amendment (reform) arises because this is the meaning of compromise – not the entire bill will be accepted – but part of it.
Regarding restoring the situation to its former state – the Rabbi claims that it is not you who are asking for reform.
I remember a High Court ruling on the issue of recruiting yeshiva graduates, when they still needed the “right to stand” ” The High Court overturned the petitioner's claim (more reserve days) and determined that the petitioner wanted the court to rule on a matter that was in public dispute ” and we don't want to decide a public dispute” – That's how it used to be.
Professor Mautner also sees this as the Supreme Court's main sin.
Are you willing to explain to me what you want from my life? From so many speeches, I don't see a question here. Reform is indeed needed. I've written this several times. The proposed reform is extreme and problematic. I've written that too. Now what do you want? In simple and clear words, otherwise we'll end here.
If the claim is that the rich's vote is indeed worth more at the ballot box, we can talk about it, but it's important to call the child by his name.
My response regarding vote theft referred to the claim in the article, that the majority supports a compromise and therefore it is not vote theft.
If the agreement to a compromise is only because there is no strength to fight, this is the definition of vote theft or, more correctly, vote theft.
And what is no less bad is that this lie and this facade come in the name of equality itself. It's not that they will be hurt. Who might be hurt is the Arabs. But because the Arabs are equal to the right in their eyes. But when it comes to them, then there is no longer equality. They are simply people of lies and we need to differentiate ourselves from them as much as possible. This was actually the trigger for Harediism. During the establishment of the state, Haredi in general worked and there were also quite a few of them who served in the army and none of the big ones said anything and it was natural, but as soon as the problems started in the army that disdained kashrut (a famous story) etc. and the cutting of the wigs of Yemenite children and the secularization of Spanish Jews by force and the Red Book etc. then they gathered in themselves. I myself also gathered in myself years ago when I realized who really rules here. And it was a dictatorial regime that would at least be caring. But this is a foreign and hostile regime. So really, the good guys in high tech should separate themselves from the secular public and their army. Establish private militias. They will defend much more than the IDF (which today is no longer clear who it protects. It's safe for the officers)
I personally was and still am in favor of suspending the legislation (although I am sad that they did not try to reach a conversation even without stopping) in order to achieve broad consensus, and I still feel a very sour feeling, not of stealing elections, but of an illegitimate use of force, and this is not just refusal. I am glad that you are also starting to think twice if it is not too extreme a step. Stopping flights is also a delusional absurdity. A person holds power given to him by the whole of society and dictates to a part of it using force that does not belong to him. Blocking the roads, which I think is a legitimate tool, but it is important that they pay for the illegal act. Here there was a feeling that they were being given up on. I am a graduate of Haredi demonstrations. This looks completely different. The sight of people calmly placing blocks on the road and no police on the ground has never been there. Chief Ami Eshad walks among the protesters who are calmly standing on the road and everyone applauds him.
I think there are many right-wingers who are in favor of broad consensus, and still feel that we are one step away from a situation where political decisions will not be made by exploiting electoral power, which is mainly decided in elections, and will turn into power-hungry debates that slowly erode the influence of the election decision.
Finally, regarding the Haredim, I am not sure what I am saying, mainly because I am not familiar enough with religious Zionism, but I think that modern Haredim agree with the Zionist idea, but there is a great division over the religious status of Zionism, “the beginning of the growth of our salvation”, the prohibition on giving up territory in the Land of Israel, etc., and in my opinion this is a significant change. In addition, the thinking that scholars and Torah scholars are the elite of society, and that studying Torah is greater than all the commandments, modern Haredim mostly agree with this, they think that not everyone should sit and study, but they do think that those who do are superior, etc., and that every person must study to the best of their ability, even if they work. Religious Zionism, in my opinion, gives more weight to the correction of morals and perhaps even to prayer and faith, similar to the Hasidim. And in general, the Litvak view of religious life, the form of study and the ruling of halakhic law, etc.
P. B. I am in favor of integrating Haredim everywhere for the real reason that we cannot become a burden on the public and we must take an equal part with everyone, and in my opinion this is a view shared by the majority of modern Haredim.
The power was not given to him by society, but he volunteered to receive it, and therefore he received it. Anyone can do it, and that is exactly what I wrote about the Haredim and Religious Zionists.
As mentioned, this is about changing the rules of the game and not about legislation or a normal political decision. See column 553.
Regarding the differences between Haredim and Religious Zionists, I think you are wrong, but that is not the issue.
Excuse me?! He volunteered?!
So if he doesn't like it – let him resign (like Assaf Zamir did, and that's completely legitimate in my opinion). Where does the audacity to strike come from?! Let him come and say: I agreed to work under such and such conditions, they have changed – you will find someone else to run the Airports Authority.
Just like Boogie refused to command the disengagement – and was fired (but when Galant is fired then oh oh oh the end of democracy). He didn't strike the army in protest of his principled opposition to the idea, even though he ‘volunteered’ (I wish I had volunteered with such a salary and pension) for the position.
I think you should read it again. Your anger may have blinded you.
You wrote that the shutdown is legitimate because he volunteered to receive this power and it wasn't just given to him by the state. If you don't have an answer to the reasonable argument - "Then he should resign, and not shut down Netb" - you can simply say that you need to think about it instead of accusing me of not reading.
This nonsense indicates that you haven't read yet. Because of your audacity to insist on not reading, I won't answer you. You can continue to think that I have no answers to your overwhelming (and irrelevant) questions.
Bogey was not fired.
The length of the chief of staff's term is not set, but the practice is that the chief of staff is appointed for a three-year term, with the government being allowed to extend it for another year.
Bogey was not extended, which is very different from being fired.
In relation to the national religious public, it did not volunteer but rather took over. At least in the army and senior civil service. They probably intentionally prevented the promotion of talented religious people to senior officers. There is always some religious pet who will be dismissed in their eyes, but they appoint him precisely so that they do not have to appoint according to real qualifications (like the pet Muslim judge). I heard that at that time the Supreme Court justices intentionally prevented the appointments of religious judges to the district courts.
In relation to changing the rules of the game, this is already a real joke. They changed the rules of the game and because the right sat quietly (and until it took them a while to realize what was happening under their noses) and waited to change it at the ballot box and not with violence, so when they are now trying to change the rules of the game again with authority, the rules of the game that were changed by force and without authority - that's why they are the ones changing the rules of the game?!
How can you be so opaque?!
B, you're starting to get close to the point where I'll delete your trolling. We've realized that everyone is evil and stupid and the facts are fake and you're right and everyone else is wrong. There's no point in bringing this up again and again. It doesn't make this nonsense any more convincing. Such repetitive hassle won't continue here. See warning.
I think to what extent the responsibility is on you, many modern Haredim really don't want to be Haredim. Their problem is that there is no alternative outside. None of them are interested in redemption, Zionism, etc. They simply want to live here in the country like a normal person. Therefore, from their perspective, Haredim and so on are Haredim with another aspect that is very foreign to them, and the liberals are stuck with the same idea of redemption and so on. Therefore, they are also foreign to them [apart from the huge cultural differences like Bnei Akiva and so on]. Therefore, in order for there to be something in common, you need to know both sides. A liberal and a modern Haredim are on you [of course, not just you], and a much greater amount of responsibility is concentrated on you than on me or any single person. And as long as you don't stand on the same stage with modern Haredim rabbis and liberal rabbis and decide to establish a new movement, nothing will happen.
Good luck
I speak but no one answers. Everyone stays underground and wants the work done for them without paying prices. If there are enough people who want it, why don't they come together and create a place and a society that suits them? Why should someone else act for you?
Several times the idea of organizing a joint lesson with the rabbi [not via Zoom] has come up here so that people can connect as a group [and the sky is the limit] but the rabbi said he didn't have time but in my opinion [even though the giant sees higher than the little one, he can't see what the little one sees] as soon as there is a cohesive and serious group, everything will move on its own
So when do we start???
You jumped in too quickly. Unfortunately, I don't have time, and I also don't think a new religious movement will emerge from the lesson (that doesn't emerge from the website and all the other contexts. You know what? Start creating a new religious movement, come out of the closet, and then I'll join. 🙂
See the entry Hasidism that was established by Rebelach who made a noise and boys ran away from their homes and came to study with them and that is how Hasidism exists today [don't be offended that I compare you to Hasidism, this is just for the sake of discussion] Today, on the other hand, no one needs to run away from home, they just need to sit down and study with T.H. [you] and make a lot of noise [today it is very easy].
A lesson creates an immediate connection with people and in order to build a religious movement, this is the minimum that is needed.
Regarding startups,
As you wrote
it is different than more conventional jobs (for example, an engineer at an electrical company or a programmer at a bank).
A person who wants to live a life full of Torah and mitzvot + raise a large family, his chances of integrating into high-tech are significantly reduced.
There is a chance that in a startup they will ask for very high availability that includes readiness (a religious person is allowed to be available less than 6/24).
In addition to readiness, they will ask for many hours of actual work, with a religious person investing more than an hour in prayer a day and at least an hour of setting times for Torah.
And I am not talking about other things like managing a large family, usually the family is much larger for a religious person, and he probably gets married at a much younger age than his secular counterpart.
In short, a startup is less practical for a religious person. Except for the few who want to really sacrifice (and it would be a shame to sacrifice family life or Torah).
It is simply not really possible.
We should also note that the overwhelming majority of startups fail completely (not just in the current difficult year of high-tech, but always).
It seems you didn't read what I wrote.
Between 80% and 90% fail. No one in the world should sacrifice a family on this altar. Maybe for science, yes. But for technology. There are sometimes a few geniuses for whom it might actually be appropriate (Newton and Paul Erdős, for example). They are already antisocial and solitary people. And they don't sacrifice anything either. For them, science is like the air they breathe.
Mikhi, it is recommended to separate people who contribute to things that are truly essential to the people of Israel (at crazy times), and people who sacrifice for advertising, marketing and sales systems.
I am not in favor of sacrificing even one percent for science, unless it is something that truly benefits the world.
If someone wants to be a scientist who searches for fossils in all sorts of holes in the world (there are quite a few people like that), shame on them. It is not worth it.
Even in the fields of exact sciences, I am not in favor of sacrificing normative family life, but only if it truly contributes to the people of Israel.
So yes, the developers of Iron Dome, Ofek 13, or other critical systems, people like the gifted physicist Rabbi Dr. Doron Ledvin Shalit (you are invited to look at his LinkedIn and the recommendations he received to understand what a genius the person is) are allowed to sacrifice. And it is even recommended that they do so. But these are not strategists.
But sacrificing family and devaluing religious life for a startup called a “superior sales app” or a “superior advertising app” (which, by the way, do advance the world) is a critical mistake, and a serious mistake by the writer. This is a significant portion of startups, by the way.
Most cyber systems startups aren’t really critical things that require sacrifice either.
Oh, again, and let’s remember that statistically, the overwhelming majority of startups fail completely.
Obviously, there is a priority for content that truly advances the world. But startups advance the economy, regardless of the value of their product. In my opinion, a society that wants to live needs startups for its economy, regardless of their products. I'm just mentioning that the product created in the army is the ability to shoot at a target, carry stretchers, and kill people. Is it worth sacrificing life and family for that? The value is in what it contributes to us (security). That's exactly the case with startups.
And it's well known that most of them fail. How does that relate to the discussion?
I assume that in principle you will agree with me that the following sentence:
“But startups promote the economy, regardless of the value of their product.”
Products with saturated fat and all kinds of junk food also contribute very, very much to the economy here. Still, I would not want to produce and import products that do not bring health to the world.
But let's say I gave a bad example, because junk food is really something that is usually negative, and startups are usually good things.
The point is that even if the startup product itself is a positive thing, and even if it contributes to the economy (it contributes a lot), it is still not worth giving up things like family and quality in observing Torah and mitzvot for it.
The production of weapons for the holy IDF is actually worth giving up. In my opinion, this is true fear of God, if it comes from a place of doing for the common good. And in addition, as mentioned, this is a particularly high-quality product - yes, one that spies on murderous terrorists, crushes the Googles of murderers and their senders, or intercepts the missiles of murderous terrorists.
Those who make the choice to prioritize their career less will pay the price by having a lower chance of reaching the top. This is a completely legitimate choice (and, in my opinion, the right one for most people), but in large numbers - a sector whose members mostly choose it - will have less influence.
Contrary to what is written in the column, I don't think it should have the impact it did, but it will certainly have some impact. It can't be otherwise.
What you wrote here in the first paragraph of your statement is a summary of what I said in the column. That's why I don't understand your last comment.
Hang him and his wife.
After the disruptions of the “legitimate means” the public is ready for compromise.
It makes sense. And even the halacha recognizes this.
And even our Rabbi Michael.
But there is no discussion of Rabbi Michael Avraham here. The letter serves as a hanger for him, as usual, to hang his hatred of the Haredi public on.
So let us quote Professor Mautner – a staunch leftist, and the Rabbi will please respond to his words:
The quotes are from an interview in ”Haaretz”:
“The Supreme Court was warned - but it turned a deaf ear”.
The left has become accustomed to correcting politics through the High Court, it no longer works”.
“The former hegemons copied much of their activity to the court through the High Court that collaborated with them ” (He details the methods of cooperation)
“The Supreme Court has turned itself into an institution that writes the constitution” (There is a prologue)
So Professor Mautner believes that they have indeed stolen democracy.
Recommended reading – Haaretz newspaper” 03.03.2023
Anger blinds you. Things that are not of interest at all. By the way, Manny Mautner is my friend and I know his views well. You don't need to read this article.
And after Mautner informed you of all this - do you think that reform is not needed?
From what we can see, the Haredim will remain in the spotlight for a long time to come. These articles are one in a million, and in their eyes, he too will be portrayed as a heretic if they even read him.
The main part of the social contract is that each citizen has one vote, and those elected by that vote will determine the strategy of the country. Thanks to this agreement, Yitzhak Tshuva has employees who generate taxable income for him, and Strategist has dedicated developers who arrange his exit. If this agreement is violated, and certain groups have more influence, there will be no employees, no developers, and no aircraft mechanics. No one will live long in a country in which they only have half a vote.
It is too early to say what will happen, because it is not known whether a reform will pass and which one. But if it turns out in retrospect that a legally elected parliament failed to implement a policy due to violence, the rupture we will reach is much more serious than the reform in its most extreme version could have caused.
I don't understand this claim about vote stealing. Vote stealing is when you vote for party A and your ballot is counted as if you voted for party B. No one makes that claim. What is the claim? That you wanted to promote a certain policy and therefore voted for the party that would promote that policy, and even though the supporters of the policy won the majority, the policy still hasn't been promoted.
So now you're making claims about the opponents of the policy who prevented them from promoting that policy? That's a bit funny, isn't it?
What are the claims? That they shouldn't oppose with all the tools they have a policy that they feel is terrible? Why not?
Why don't you make claims about the politicians you voted for who failed? Couldn't they have done things better, or alternatively acknowledge reality and not sell their voters promises that they can't keep?
I didn't say a word about vote-stealing. I said that the side that lost the election is forcibly imposing its positions on the side that won. Of course, they shouldn't use illegal means to oppose the government's moves.
I definitely think the government could have done better. There's no contradiction here. If I walked through a crime-ridden neighborhood and shouted that I had diamonds in my pocket and got robbed, I did very badly, but the robber is still a criminal.
You didn't use the phrase “stealing votes”, but that's the content of your message about there being people with a more “worth” vote. The identity of the value of the vote is true for the ballot box and it certainly holds there: count your vote just like mine. Beyond that, there is certainly inequality in life, so I don't understand the complaint about more and less worthless votes.
What do you mean by “forbidden”? How do you forbid if people are willing to pay the price? The more terrible the policy, the stronger the resistance will be and people will use all the tools they have, whether it's taking money out of the country, whether it's refusing to volunteer (or maybe even refusing to serve (and sitting in jail instead) or anything else. I don't understand who you are to tell someone who opposes how to oppose?
In your example, the robber is a criminal, that's true, but your diamonds are still gone, so what good does the allegations against the robber do?
And I want to emphasize that in my opinion it's not just that the government could have been run better (to put it mildly - this is probably the worst government since the establishment of the state), but that the politicians you voted for are selling you illusions and when they can't be realized (or when their realization is met with difficulties) they blame the entire world (the court, the left, money, the army, the US) and set the parts of the people at odds with each other. This is policy, not an accident. I'm sorry - it really sucks to feel That they worked on you and I completely sympathize with that, but I think it's time to wake up.
“How would you prohibit” It's a matter of enforcement, not legitimacy. If the military were to take over the country, I would have no way of preventing it, but that doesn't make it legitimate. Once that happened, the social contract in the country would unravel, and the side that was defeated by force of arms would try to gain strength to break free.
That's exactly what could happen here. If the reform doesn't pass, what will stop right-wing politicians and activists from saying that they're all extreme and they refuse to serve? Nothing. After all, winning the elections didn't work for them. The result will be that whoever is stronger will win, and the other will wait on the sidelines until he gains strength to strike back. This is not the country I want to live in.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, sorry.
Do you think it would have been possible to force the “reluctant” pilots to come for training? How? Put them in jail? Do you think it would have worked?
And how did we get to this situation where if the reform doesn't pass, etc.? Who knew that this legal reform was the dream of all right-wing voters? Who turned it into a foretaste of everything? From the moment Levin put his proposal on the table, it became the dream, to be killed and not passed, of all right-wing voters.
Do a mental exercise with me for a moment: Imagine Levin had proposed a much more modest proposal, something related only to the committee for selecting judges (and without all the other things), and a much more reasonable proposal like Gideon Sapir's proposal that does not give control to the coalition, would the right suddenly feel that this is not what he went to the elections for?
If your answer to this is “no” (meaning the right wouldn't feel betrayed), then isn't this the case I pointed out again, meaning that they were actually working on you? (And on those Magdids and Zetim and everyone else who now has reform burning in their bones)
You live in a world of your own. Everyone who reads Israel Today, Sheva and Makor Rishon, has been waiting for this reform for years. Even people from the right who don't understand anything about legal matters if they read about the exploits of the High Court (which are truly evil. That is, the students of Aharon Barak and those who flatter them) will agree with this wholeheartedly. For the rest of the year, they will demand it with even greater force.
How can you be so insensitive and tell yourself such stories? And how do you still think that right-wing voters are so stupid that if you tell them this, there's a chance you might be able to win them over. I've never seen such a disconnect from reality. I hear the ridiculous claims of leftists who think that rightists are all stupid who start explaining to them what the Likud promised in the elections as if it were a leftist's business what the Likud promised its voters and what it does. After 5 election cycles and Bibi's trial, it is clear that those who voted for him in these elections have no confidence in the legal system in general and in the other state institutions in particular (the police, the prosecutor's office, of course, etc.). There is no need to say this at all.
Heart,
In short, reading comprehension.
“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.”
Laitai
I was referring to what I was referring to.
What the right-wing public is waiting for is the principle, not the details. And the fairest thing is for the coalition to control the appointment of judges if they appoint bad judges (now the worst). Because it has the responsibility and authority over the judges' decisions and they have no responsibility for their decisions, so in the next elections the coalition will change.
And any official who tries to take over and thwart right-wing policy because of his opinions has an expectation on the right that a law will come and slow him down. Tailor the law according to needs. In short, it is impossible in any case to leave the status of the advocates, which is truly ridiculous and shattered. The advocate was in fact the government's lawyer and represented it in court. Now imagine that you hire a lawyer and he suddenly becomes your policeman and judge. Instead of being the boss, he becomes the boss. The Golem Rises Against Its Maker
And if what is needed for the government's plan to be accepted that it can accept nurses is that there should also be an override clause, then so be it.
In any case, why do I even need to explain such obvious things to anyone?
Lev,
meaning the culture of discussion or even answering the matter is not something important.
There are answers to all the things you wrote, but what's the point of even answering?
You have basic assumptions that I attacked. That and more to the point. You wanted to claim that the right-wing public did not wait for reform and Anitzy did, and therefore his voice was stolen at least by his representatives in the Knesset. And the pilots really don't have to come. Although for anything that someone doesn't like today, they can say, "This is a dictatorship and I don't serve a dictatorship." This is excellent advice for people who are trying to evade the call. There is no need for it to have any connection to reality. Is the weather hot? This is a dictatorship, and so on. And here it's actually the other way around. In any case, the problem was with the attempt to terrorize Knesset members and ministers. And the snitching on foreign countries, etc. You are allowed not to serve, but you are not allowed to try to make someone think that without you they won't get along and that it's the end of the world when it's clear that you want to impose your opinion on them. This is not democracy. This is terrorism. By the way, I think these pilots really need to be fired without jail, without fuss, and without anything. Just don't call them into the reserves and that's it. In any case, they are disloyal people. . God Almighty will actually be with us longer without them. Maybe we can finally launch cheap missiles to Gaza and Lebanon instead of sending expensive flights that will blow up empty buildings or dunes with expensive bombs and be destroyed by Iron Dome missiles that cost tens of thousands of dollars each (we won't need tax money from high-tech people).
By the way, a pilot is not an ordinary reserve officer. Pilot training is expensive and works on the assumption that you will also serve in the reserves and not that you will do them any favors. In the US, enlistment is not mandatory, but once you enlist, you can't just stop like that. It's desertion and you'll end up in jail. Here, it's not desertion (because you're in the reserves), but it is cheating.
Lev,
I knew what I was writing when I wrote “Reading comprehension”. That's not what I claimed, read again.
In any case, good luck with God and all that, it's an excellent method for running a country.
I still don't understand what you want. I didn't address the issue of what was discussed here about vote stealing because that's not what I wanted to address. Maybe you'll just write what you think I didn't understand from your words and that's it. Besides, there's no point in running a state in Israel that doesn't serve the Jewish people but itself. And whoever doesn't have God (not necessarily keeping the commandments) probably doesn't have loyalty to the Jewish people either. That's how it turns out today.
Lev,
The claim is that, as usual, they worked on the coalition voters. Do the exercise from above: If Levin had proposed a reasonable plan in advance (in which the committee for selecting judges was not under the control of the coalition, and there are such proposals from right-wing academics, supporters of the coalition), and this proposal had passed, would the right feel betrayed?
As mentioned, good luck with God.
The one who worked on the voters is Gallant and his ilk (there is always the traitor on duty). Who even talks about the left that expecting any decency from it is inappropriate. Yes. There is no such thing as a committee for selecting judges including judges at all. And I would feel cheated otherwise. A committee only with politicians according to the representation key in the Knesset. And of course with coalition control. The progressive judges should be thrown out of the High Court forever.
There is no success without God. Certainly in dealing with the lying people on the left. So surely only with God will I have success.
Father, this is a classic communist argument. I would rather the workers resign and good luck to them. I have answered all your comments a long time ago, and it seems that you mainly want to vent your anger. Good luck.
A. It seems pretty clear that if it weren't for the violent and illegal protest, the majority would have been in favor of immediate reform. The fact that out of fear and a desire to prevent a civil war, they agree to suspend the process is itself stealing the election. Just as if Bibi had resigned because of the violence of the left.
B. It is known that many good people from religious Zionism have tried to reach key positions in the army, the media, and more, but the ruling leftist elite does not allow the religious (and the rightists in general, but especially the religious) to advance.
Sure. It's all the elite. We are perfect and they are evil. Good thing you explained, now I understand everything.
I don't know about our perfect. But they are truly evil. In any case, they let the rest of the public believe that they are truly equal to them and at the moment of truth they suddenly get called out when they want to do what will allow the right-wing public to carry out its policy. The "changing the rules of the game" that they are sensitive to and that is their passion that we must "consider", is simply the real renunciation of power. That's all. For decades, the right-wing public, the religious and the Sephardic, innocently served in the army, shed the blood of warriors and fulfilled its role as the cannon fodder that Ben Gurion imported from Arab countries and without which there would be no state here. . And yes. Also worked in necessary work. Maybe it didn't bring in a lot of money in taxes (which mainly finance the officials. The public sector) but in work that was needed for the economy. And from the belief that their vote is equal (after all, that was the communist mentality. Everyone is equal. Everyone gives according to their ability and receives according to their needs). Now suddenly when it is not convenient for them, then there is no equality? They can leave the country and that is their right. But using violent means and lying and manipulating and being stupid – is forbidden. You can not come to the reserves and that is fine. But sending a letter and publishing and threatening is already impudence. In short, they are liars. So yes. They are evil. Besides, he made good arguments. How can you develop and reach independence when the other side is trying to prevent you from it? The left needs the ultra-Orthodox and the undeveloped right so that it can continue to govern. Only the Arabs for some reason have rights.
In fact, it seems as if even the columns on the subject of the legal revolution here are part of the same stupid brainwashing that under the guise of supposed neutrality is actually trying to continue to enslave the right (and not me personally)
Never forget our Haredi glasses, which we wear, we know that our contribution to security, as a pure Torah army, is more obvious to the naked eye than any F35 pilot, even a decent pilot who is not serving on parole, such as the aforementioned refuseniks (and also in the context of high-tech, "the whole world is nourished by the merits of Hanina Benny"; you can also include all the most successful startups). You can disagree, mistakenly, with this statement, but do not come to claim that we are evasive, and that they are our suckers. It is like one of the Zulu tribe, who has never seen an airplane, claiming to a pilot, or to a fighter in the cyber formation, that they are playing around in my opinion, and are not sharing the burden. What can I do with him? Either send him to the wise, or suggest he wait until 120 years later until he learns the bitter truth. And regarding the claim you wrote, regarding changing the rules of the game, that it is not refusal, it is demagogic nonsense, which I hear from the refusal-makers themselves, but it does not hold water, everyone has their own conditions, when will they declare any nonsense that this is a change of the rules, and the slippery slope to the destruction of the army, one of the army chiefs, from the Air Force, told me that when Bennett stole the hearts of his voters, and formed a government with the Arabs, they felt in their hearts and were angry, even more strongly than some pilots feel today about the election of a judge or two by the representatives elected by the people in democratic elections, this terrible injustice, and they nevertheless continued to serve, and did not threaten refusal. And finally, he told me at the time, which pilot repented, what made him repent? He was used to being flattered wherever he went, as is well known in our region, and once a friend of his was taken to visit Rabbi Shteiman, and when he introduced the pilot to Rabbi Shteiman, our rabbi responded, "Nach ha-baal aglah" (there is a translation of "balbus" meaning "the owner of a small wagon for a few passengers, and there is a owner of a large wagon for a large number of passengers) and the pilot said, "For the first time I have seen a true man without false flattery."
We are looking for a supervisor who will spout empty, demagogic slogans while sitting next to us. Are you available?
And thanks to the representatives of these puffing scumbags, you and your children have food in the fridge.
Contrary to your fantasy or any of those who want to offer us a new path, they tried it many years ago and it really didn't work, there's even a holiday called Hanukkah about it once a year, and on the contrary, I have a feeling that after the left sees where it has deteriorated, with its fake Pyrrhic victory for the time being, and is now doing damage control, and taking stock, and is ashamed of where it has degraded the people here, all their legible chatter will burst like a deflated balloon, and everything will collapse like a house of cards, like communism in Russia at the time. They're fed up with it, they feel very hollow, and violent, and the hollow and hollow slogans they've been uttering, so far do not correspond with their inner integrity, and they feel disgusted with themselves, this is exactly the empty cart that the offended Ben Gurion predicted at the time, this is what we see before our eyes today in 2023 - an empty cart, literally, people suddenly realize that we live here Years in the lie of democracy so to speak, but under the control of all the little people, those who all that matters is eat and drink because tomorrow we will die, money lust and honor, and perversions of the forgotten Sodom and Gomorrah type, and if suddenly they feel that something threatens the continuation of the dictatorship under the guise of democracy, they burn the whole world, and go wild in the Knesset, and curse, and last but not least the army, which was to them a holy of holies, has now desecrated the holy, and everything converges into one great feeling of disgust, in preparation for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the State of Israel, the people are really, really depressed inside, (I am only talking about the secular ones, of course) Certainly, over this empty wagon, it is better to say Hallel than to even think about it, what one of them said last week over this rotten country is more appropriate, well, maybe this brings us closer to true redemption, because it was not for this boy that we prayed, may the great heavens be exalted and sanctified.
Happy birthday, heroic Hasmoneans. Wonderful. A great demonstration of what I wrote.
The truth is that for the first time this year, and even a few months ago - even before all the fuss - I thought about not celebrating Independence Day and certainly not saying Hillel (I don't know how people didn't get it for years. Maybe they thought the left were decent people. The left had many opportunities to recruit Haredim over these 40 years, and because of their hatred of settlers and Likudniks, they were actually happy to help them and give them more budgets (Rabin preferred Deri over Rafi for the Oslo Accords. Sharon and Omert included Haredim for the evacuation of settlements. Even in the previous government, they did nothing out of a hope disconnected from reality that the Haredim would break their alliance with Bibi)) and the rule of the bureaucrats would be revealed in its full nakedness and in any case there is really no independence. But I had hope that at least the Knesset would enact the laws and only then would these officials not do its word but the word of their Sanhedrin (the courts). Then it would be clear to everyone – including the left – that there is a dictatorship here (enlightened and necessary in their opinion) and finally the lies and manipulations would stop. Pretending is the real problem
In fact, the Haredim are not the issue at all. More than the left hates the Haredim, it hates the national religious. And even more than it hates the religion”l (which does not serve under it like in the days of Mapai”i) it hates the Sephardim and even more than it hates the Sephardim it hates the secular Ashkenazi right – people of freedom. And the liberals among them are generally servants of Satan. And Bibi (who is most similar to them) – the devil himself
You are making a projection.
Yehuda
By the way, the one who foresaw this emptiness of 2023 well was Rabbi Michi himself in ”Two Carts” (and in general in the entire Quartet). He also linked the concept of content to Jewishness (Hebrew logic). So, even though it was largely empty, the left still had some spark of content (Habadnik has a way of convincing him to put on tefillin….). They still believed in the Jewish people at least. The current generation is completely empty. Not only does it not have the Jewish people. It does not even have objective truth. It has no reality at all. Emptiness at its peak. And look who is leading this camp in the Knesset. And apparently the secular right also has no content and that will also be revealed at some point. I hope I am wrong
By the way, I am not sure that the left has a sense of disgust for themselves and certainly not inner integrity.. For that you need a little soul. I don't know if they really aren't zombies because they seem to really believe their ridiculous slogans.
His Honor is not up to date, it is possible that this is only in the beginning stages, but small Haredi high school yeshivas (including 5 credits of mathematics and the like) are now springing up like mushrooms after the rain. May his name be praised, it is possible that in 10-15 years we will discover that the format has turned out to be more successful than the high school yeshivas of religious Zionism
Indeed not up to date. I am very happy.
Rabbi Michael. I have a friend who often refers me to you in discussions about various topics. In particular, current affairs, but not only. She sends me a link to your columns, expecting me to read them. Unfortunately, I never read them all the way through.
It's not because you don't write well or because the things aren't smart in my opinion. It's excellently written, and from what I did read, it's clear that your analysis of things is both very creative and very deep. And that you see our country from afar and far away with a clarity and honesty that is not common today. My problem is with the length of the things.
While an average content article on the Internet is, in extreme cases, up to 1,000 words long, and is usually limited to 400 words (I used to work in content writing, I know a bit). Your average article is 3,000 words long. That's not a little longer than usual, it's disproportionately long for the format. And except on Shabbat, I don't have the time to read things of that length. In fact, writing 3,000-word opinion pieces online is a bit like a director releasing an 8-hour movie. There will probably be those who will find interest in this genre. But the vast majority of the potential audience will not even enter the screening room.
And I think that's a shame. Because as I said, it's clear that I'm losing quite a bit by being “lazy” and behaving like an average Western person. And I'm sure I'm not the only ”follower” that you're losing because of the way you write these days.
I would like to ask you to write at a normal standard, or at least give a summary of the main points at the end of each column.
The most successful solution in my opinion is for you to start releasing things as a podcast. In the style of “The Party of Thoughts” or “Slices in History”. So you can keep things short and break down each point into its components, but your followers will be able to follow along (because listening to a podcast doesn't require any special time, it's done while traveling).
Hopefully I'll be able to follow along in the not-too-distant future, Elad.
Hello Elad. I have been asked this more than once. My answer is negative. There is a purpose to the length. My intention is to teach analysis and thinking and not just present bottom lines (like the Gemara). Whoever does not want to, do not read. How much Yosef suffered in Shuka.
I'm coming back again and asking you to consider doing a podcast in the style of "The Thoughts Party". Maybe you and your student who lives near you. The people of Israel and I are missing out on you.
First of all, the anger of the reform supporters (I am not angry. I have long since given up. Anyone who goes into the army is a sucker. I have actually become ultra-Orthodox) is over Gallant's betrayal and a few others, and Netanyahu's capitulation and disdain for his voters. There are no expectations from the left. They are truly a bunch of thugs. And not because of the money being taken out of the country, the refusal to serve, and the demonstrations. All of these are completely legitimate. The problem is with the attempt to terrorize the Jewish people (the right). And of course with the opacity and lies. After all, the reform will really end the bureaucracy (the left) and begin a real democracy (at least more real than the current situation. The judges have nothing to look for in the Judicial Appointments Committee. Only Knesset members according to the size of the parties in the Knesset) in which the people choose the professionals who will work for them (the judges) and not the professionals who will appoint themselves. And these idiots call it a dictatorship when they are bigger dictators (the dictatorship of the officials) than any dictatorship that might arise here because of the loopholes in the reform. And if the overcoming clause is abolished, then there is nothing to talk about at all (it is not that important to me. What is really important is the honesty of the judges, which is completely lacking in the progressive judges (who, as mentioned, have no truth or justice in their world because they are postmodernists)). It is like (post)modern art - scribble something on a canvas and put it in a museum and here you have a work of art. It is impossible to talk to people like that at all.
Second thing - the problem with the left is that they use the "high" status Theirs (in their eyes. They are indeed a more educated public, but a public of fools (inert), idiots (infantile) and opinionless (meaning lacking a minimal sense of self-criticism. Lacking self-awareness. Not insane)), in order to educate the ”inferior” class in the name of none other than the sacred ”equality”. Let's assume that the right would agree to an inferior class at the ballot box, but then it would rightfully demand a higher class than that of the Arab public, which is “anti-donor”. But what happens in practice is that the upper class actually gives priority to the Arabs in the name of ”equality” over its “brothers“ from the right, whom it does not see as brothers at all. In short, either they are super corrupt or they are extremely stupid. Personally, I do not believe in equality and believe in a hierarchy among people. The hierarchy is determined by the ”knowledge” that a person has. And knowledge, not education. A crazy Einstein (“out of his mind”) is worth less than a sane bus driver. Of course, there are things for which hierarchy is irrelevant, such as the degree of redness of the blood, etc.’ but when it comes to power and government, it is relevant. As in the family, parents make dictatorial decisions regarding children. In short, it is simply hatred disguised as justice. Let them remove the disguise and say “we hate you”. That would be better. From here we can move on.
And we say Amen.
It is actually possible to remain Haredi and go to work. The essence of Harediism is not necessarily resistance to modernity. There are quite a few Haredi (Lithuanians) with an American orientation who work in high-tech or as scientists. In Israel, fewer. There is a famous Haredi mathematician at the Hebrew University (Ruth Mashhua. I don't remember. I studied with her) and there are a few more with black caps (with a modern mentality) in the physics and mathematics departments in Hebrew. In short, there are the modern Haredi, as they are called in Haredi society. The essence of Harediism is to separate oneself from the secular in order to avoid bad influence (for them it is because of the disdain for the Torah. For me it is because they are liars (yes. Including right-wing secular people. You can't trust anyone). This is impossible in the army but possible in the professional sphere. You can cooperate in work matters and not be friends and socialize in matters unrelated to work. In general, it is justified and right not to sacrifice a family on the altar of a startup (nor on the altar of the army). This also does not contribute to the strength of the state in the long run (as the state of the Jewish people). All these hitchists are people without identity and because of this lack loyalty to any substantial collective). They can also establish a private army that will protect Haredi communities with its own morality and not something imposed on it by Asa Kosher. I don't think the bigwigs will agree to this.
“In my opinion, just as it is reasonable to take more taxes from him, it is also entirely reasonable that he has a greater ability to influence because of his economic power, more than an ordinary citizen has. Not at the ballot box, but in democratic struggles – definitely yes.”
Could you please elaborate on this sentence a little more? What exactly does ‘democratic struggles’ mean, and why distinguish between them and a ‘ballot box’? Personally, I certainly understand the logic behind it, namely, that the person with the most power/who contributes the most will have a greater influence on the conduct of the state. But as far as I understand, this is not a democracy (not that there is a law that a state should be run democratically, but as you yourself claim, these are the ‘rules of the game’ that have been established and must be respected).
This is exactly democracy. I'll try to explain a little.
Regarding the ballot versus the power, there are no sharp distinctions here. The decision is that everyone has one ballot because it's difficult to quantify it otherwise. Beyond that, economic status and power also change over time and are difficult to quantify, so it's impossible to set criteria that reflect this. So they decided to let market forces determine (the invisible hand). A person will exercise power to the extent of his ability (within minimal framework rules) and if he succeeds, he probably deserves it. Therefore, there is a basis of one vote on the ballot for everyone, and from there on there are games in which people assume positions of power and try to influence. Whoever succeeds succeeds.
This is exactly democracy. A game in which there are exercises of power within a given framework, and decisions are made by elected institutions that take into account the forces on the field. The identification of democracy with majority rule is simplistic and incorrect. Democracy is a framework that allows for discussion and discourse (see Tori on what public discourse looks like), and these determine the decisions.
"The decision is that everyone has one ballot because it is difficult to quantify it otherwise." Nonsense. The pretense of defining "democracy" as a mathematical concept with a single meaning is also nonsense. Democracy has many forms that have been expressed throughout history in different and diverse regimes, each with a different cultural, value, and ideological background. The democratic thinking of the French Revolution was very different from the corresponding thinking in Britain or Germany, not to mention the "original" democracy of the Greek city-states, primarily Athens. You are trying to provoke a critical and impartial discussion, but you quite consistently ignore the fact that concepts from the realm of society and the state have a rich historical background and great diversity. The assertion that you present as if it were a kind of Cartesian insight into the "essence" of democracy is a very partial reflection of British perceptions of the role of the state, and the place of the economy within the political and social world. In Israel, the vast majority of the founding generation (except perhaps Weizmann) were drawn from completely different traditions, and therefore our regime is not at all like that in Britain. I mean, you can't understand anything without understanding its context. Want to know what Western liberal democracy is? Don't sit by the fireplace and think hard like Descartes, but go read some history books. This statement is in line with the categorical imperative. If everyone had learned to understand the connections between concepts and the developments of phenomena and turned less directly to abstract "logical" or "mathematical" thinking, at least the public discourse would have been more sane.
*If everyone studied…
If you enjoy writing strongly, then I'm glad I allowed you to. That's what we're here for. But beyond being strong, you should also improve your reading comprehension.
You're mixing historical claims with claims of substance. To make a historical claim, you do need to examine history. But I wasn't dealing with history here, so your claims are irrelevant. Good luck.
Deleted due to the difference in his stupidity. M”A
Spelling error in the article, Gretel and Captain (or Captain), not Captain
That's right, for example here on Wikipedia - Capote, and the origin of the word is French.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%98%D7%94
In Yiddish it was called Kapten (p’ raphe), or Kapite (p’ dagusha)
You have written in the past that a true Jew is measured by observing Torah and commandments.
Isn't it implied that you are essentially telling Jews to compromise their essence in exchange for a richer society (and for a certain interest that results from this for all religious people)?
Judaism is measured by observing Torah and commandments, not necessarily by being Jewish. See the previous column on Einstein and the Suns.
Regardless of Judaism, but in general, not the entire group is supposed to be engaged in the most important task in its eyes. Otherwise, the entire Jewish people would be engaged in medicine or Torah study. There is a division of group tasks, and for the group to function properly, some of its members need to engage in issues that support others even if they themselves have less value.
Assuming that both are formally (halachically) Jewish, who do you think is more Jewish (or “Jewish”) –
A secular strategist Jew or a Jew who observes the Torah and light and strict mitzvot?
Second. What is the question here?
You identify as a rabbi, and advise people to “study less Torah”. And in other words – “be less Jewish”.
You will say that other rabbis also tell their students to join the army, and it is clear that this involves sacrificing the quality of mitzvot (of course the mitzvot of studying Torah), that is true, but for these rabbis there is a religious value for the state, and there is really no sacrifice here according to those rabbis.
The same goes for ultra-Orthodox rabbis who tell students to study medicine or become a driver in the medical school (which involves sacrificing the quality of Torah study and other mitzvot), that is also true, but that is because they see value in the matter of saving lives. A religious value.
And what is your value?
To build a stronger economy for the state?
It is very difficult to say that it is a religious value.
In your opinion, Judaism is just halakhah, and going to develop startups is certainly not a halakhic matter, and there is no religious value here (not even the excuses that the country will be richer).
So where did you get this very unconventional philosophy from?
I will try not to put words in your mouth, but if your answer is “I am a liberal-modern Jew”,
then with all my impudence I will answer you this way: Bakhiat, leave you, Bamashech’ (this is not a curse of course).
It simply does not sound good.
I'm really holding back from writing my opinion on your abilities, in the field of reading comprehension and in general. So I'll stop here.
Regarding this sentence:
“But it is important to know that at least today it is clear that a large majority of the public (including over half of Likud voters) supports postponing the reform and dialogue towards agreements.”
It is possible that support for postponing and dialogue stems from the leftist camp's threat of refusal and other forceful measures.
Regarding this sentence:
“From this perspective, it is even clearer that the Haredi movement proposed here does not meet any of the essential criteria that characterize it.”
I think that one of the essential characteristics of Haredi movement that you forgot is extreme adherence to the commandments.
It is certainly possible. And yet, under these circumstances, the majority of the public is aware.
Strict adherence to commandments is not a Haredi characteristic, and certainly not unique.
At least that's how many in the public perceive Haredi. See, for example, the first sentence on Wikipedia about Haredi: “Haredi Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism characterized by relatively strict observance of commandments and observance of Halacha, and by conservatism in terms of its culture and lifestyle.”
I refuse to cooperate with the propaganda that anyone who is not Haredi/Lei is a lite.
Here it is: https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/599185/
On the level of ideas, I've lost you a bit (I asked, referring to the Haredi system as you perceive it). Is nihilism/nihilism an idea?
??
You spoke about opposition to Zionism and opposition to modernity and its values as an idea. What do you mean?
What is unclear about my intention?
I'm just updating you that religious Zionism marked the legal system as a target many years ago.
If you check the Jerusalem District Attorney's Office, you will discover an absolute majority of religious people, with the district attorney being a graduate of the Netiv Meir Yeshiva who went on to the Har Etzion Hesder Yeshiva. He studied at Bar Ilan and, according to rumors, even has a rabbinical ordination (not sure about this point).
He was also a reserve infantryman, the very model of Rabbi Aryeh Bina.
None of this helps him against the Bibiists who don't really want a right-wing/conservative/upright man, but rather want a puppet who will always be for the Bibi and will cleanse him of every sin and every crime.
Reminder that Mandelblit is a religious, observant Jew.
The evil Sharoni Alsheikh grew up in Kiryat Arba, studied at the Netiv Meir Yeshiva (as stated, Rabbi Bina's vision) and went on to the Rabbinical Center.
He is even a Mizrahi from the Second Israel, but none of this helped him the moment he came out against Bibi.
If religious Zionism begins to seriously integrate into high-tech (reported from the field – zero percentage of entrepreneurs/seniors/leaders…) it will not help because people who dedicate their lives to developing companies and products will not be able to see their handiwork drowning in the sea for the sake of the group interest and will therefore be on the side of the productive bloc and not on the side of Smotrich/Rotman/Ben Gvir
You claim that giving the opposition the power to shut down the state, meaning that extra-parliamentary bodies will dictate the agenda, is to begin with because they are the owners of the money and the big donors who hold them all.
And where do you get this from? “64 seats” They are not only ultra-Orthodox (who are also divided into women and men), but also Likudniks and the majority of the settlers in Judea and Samaria. Have you compared data regarding those serving in the army, between the two camps? And that the left overwhelmingly bypasses the group of 64 seats? After all, Elazar Stern, when he was head of the Achaemenid Movement, cried out after the second Lebanon about the disgrace of the Dan bloc recruits. Let's move on to money, and that the settlers in Judea and Samaria and the Likudnik public are all woodcutters and water carriers? Bottom line. I'm not at all sure (in fact, I'm sure not), because in the final count, the bulk of the state's holdings are clearly in the hands of the left. And having said that, there's another calculation that needs to be made: what is the weight of the spiritual and cultural value that each one gives. As you remember, we're in the neighborhood of “Sharq al-Awsat” on “Daulat Israel” Street, do you really think that with what Yair Lapid has to offer we'll survive here?
It's not black and white. There is certainly justification for such people and entities to have power. I wrote that right-wingers should certainly accept this (the capitalist invisible hand).
But that doesn't mean that every use of this power is justified. It is clear that its use is justified only in sufficiently critical circumstances and in reasonable proportion. But the decision as to whether the circumstances are critical and what the proportions are is itself controversial here. Those in power believe that it is.
The debate over who has the power is unnecessary. The terrain proves it, and there is no point in comparisons and gossip. If others have greater power, they should rather use it.
There was nothing in my words to say that spirituality is not significant for our survival.
The use that the elected government makes of the power given to it is no longer reasonable and justified. They simply run amok and without any rules of the game (e.g. the Ben Gvir police, the rampage of shooting Regev and Karei and the Haredim with the prohibitions on missions to prison, etc.). Unfortunately, although I am very active in trying to reach agreement, I am becoming more and more convinced that those who want to go all the way are right.
And I haven't even mentioned the fact that those who are elected by virtue of being the majority use the money created by the minority for their own selfish needs. Isn't that outrageous? How much opacity can be revealed?!
“Go all the way”. That would be a colossal failure for all of us. You're talking about unbridled rampage. I'm convinced that breaking the tie with 64 seats is related to one thing, the wall-walking of Matan Kahane (what kind of talk did he do, with his revolution? No matter how right it is) and Yoaz Hendel. A whole year and a half and the collapse of the center-left bloc. Where is the hump? And after we've all been defeated here because of going all the way (just as the Yisraelites wiped out Etzi, the Haganaites wiped out Etzi), who do you think will be left here to pick up the pieces, the students of the Rebbe of Sanz-Klausenburg or the descendants of Kastner? I hope they reach some kind of agreement.
You are repeating what I have been saying over and over again these days. I was just pointing out that the current government is making it very difficult due to its rampage, and makes me wonder whether we should fight them to the end.
And don't compare Matan Kahane's steps, even if you don't agree with them, to the current rampages. This is really demagogy (comparisons in the style of Bibi).
It's okay to agree, but only occasionally?
You're allowed, you're allowed, you're allowed.