Sovereignty
Is sovereignty worth the potential victims that would result from its direct application, even if in the long run the benefit would outweigh the harm?
Refers to the issue of “Give one of you.”
It is true that there is no certainty that an Israeli will be killed directly from the application of sovereignty, but the law of probability says that there will almost certainly be victims from this move. Is it permissible from a religious perspective to support this?
According to this logic, we shouldn’t have established a state, and many other things too. Sometimes it’s wrong to consider short-term considerations, otherwise you’ll never be able to do anything. Your enemy will learn that threats will deter you and will use it again and again.
As for the very issue of sovereignty – don’t worry. There was nothing and there will be nothing. It’s all talk. And even if there is sovereignty, it has no meaning, because it will be revoked as quickly as it was applied. There’s no point in investing a single gram of thought into it.
My question was whether, according to the halakha, it is permissible to carry out an act that will cause a high probability of direct killing in order to achieve the prevention of many deaths in the distant future.
And as in the situation where if he does not turn the wheel, ten will be killed and if he turns the wheel, one will be killed directly, then in the type of Let One of You it is made clear that this is prohibited.
As for annexation.
It seems that Bibi must remain in history from his point of view not as a person who ended up in prison but as someone who brought sovereignty so that he is going to do everything for this, including everything he can do in his mind. There is no reason for him to avoid this, especially since he has support from the opposition called Yamina and even the opposition as a whole will not be able to easily oppose it.
Even Trump, before his first term, would prefer to come out with a deal of a century, as he called it, in the hope that it will cover up all the scandals that occurred during his term.
So it seems that just as Bibi cried out morning and evening, "He will not be silenced," and indeed he was much more than anything, so too, on the issue of sovereignty, it seems that reality is stronger than common sense, and it seems that that is where we are headed.
And my answer was that in public affairs such considerations are not necessarily made. Like ransoming prisoners beyond their means and so on.
Regarding the assessment of reality, perhaps. We'll wait and see.
What do you mean by public affairs?
Even if the public is disciplined according to the law?
After all, the type of one who is an artist in the public
Not related to discipline. Public considerations are different.
Regarding the issue of giving us one of you, it does not concern us here.
1. It concerns blasphemy and not protection of life. I proved this in my article on the subject.
2. There are several differences between the two (in fact, there is not much connection between them).
3. In any case, even if the leadership decides to deviate from it for public considerations, there is no problem with that.
Your words in 3.
Do you mean that in public matters the leadership should not take into account any halachic considerations?
(I would be happy to read an article on the subject if you could include a link).
There are legal considerations, but they do not always coincide with the individual's legal considerations.
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9D
Deleted. Just a political appeal that says nothing to the discussion. Not relevant. (MA)
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
