Where was he during the disengagement?
I saw that you brought up the disengagement in your sermon.
I also hear this from those with feelings on the mustard-based right.
But Getz was not there when these settlements were established, nor when the best sons and daughters of Ra’anana, Herzliya, and Netanya were sent to defend them.
He didn’t help the mothers whose sons and daughters returned without an arm or a leg, a plant or in a coffin.
He left the issue entirely in the hands of the government.
If so, he also had no right to intervene against the evacuation when it was clear that it would cost the soldiers their blood.
He did not intervene when they were raised, when they were strengthened despite the blood, he cannot intervene when they are evacuated.
So what is the claim, where was the problem with disengagement?
It was in exactly the same place it was when they built it…
What does the rabbi think about this?
My opinion is that these are overly general claims that come from the gut. To ask seriously, one must examine exactly what government decision is in question, and what was supposed to be the reason for the High Court’s intervention. Only then can one try to compare the cases.
In general, the question of whether it will be in the blood of soldiers is not a reason for intervention by the High Court. It is a decision for the government. Therefore, it is not a discussion at all.
So also to address and stop the death, bereavement, suffering and injuries is the metaphor and there is no reason for intervention in the court
Those are the things
Are you serious? You called yourself a ‘straight path’, for no wrong in your hands :). Who demanded that the court intervene in the settlements because of the risk to soldiers? The argument is twofold: 1. It is against international law. 2. When it comes to private land, there is a question in Israeli law. That's all. What does this have to do with disengagement?!
1 This is a full-blown claim in any situation, although in principle an alliance between the above parts
2 Sometimes
3 The claim of the risk to a soldier in compulsory conscription is a full-blown claim every day, at any time, and at any hour
He who did not intervene when they established and strengthened it and remained silent when blood was shed
It is appropriate that he remain silent when this dance is stopped
The right of the government to decide to conquer and settle and kill for this, and its right to withdraw
If you want to write a post with your thoughts, that's fine, but not here. The answer here is for questions and discussion about them. You ignore what I wrote and continue with yours as if nothing happened. You can of course disagree, but then it's worth explaining, and there's certainly no point in repeating empty slogans that have already been proven to hold no water. I understand that you're angry at the High Court, and that's legitimate too, but venting frustrations is not an argument, certainly not for someone who is "straightforward."
Oh, I didn't notice. There's a new argument in your words: You claim that the High Court cannot intervene because of an agreement between the parties, which is a supreme constitutional principle. A wonderful legal move. How did I not think of that?!
It seems to me that the rabbi did not reach the end of my mind
The High Court of Justice allowed the government to occupy and allowed the government to settle and maintain at a very high price, especially for regular or reserve soldiers who come under the mandatory conscription law, and in fact they have no choice but to risk being injured and even dying because it assumed that this is the area that the government is entrusted with and trusted and is not supposed to interfere in.
At this point, the settlers and I among them are disappointed with the High Court, at least in its reservations about the culture in the government's decision, even though it imposes an existential danger on many soldiers.
Day 1 When the government decided for its own reasons to evacuate and stop endangering the soldiers in the Haganah, there is no reason to expect the High Court of Justice to intervene.
Because its opinion has been for decades that it does not intervene if we go to war or make peace if we establish a settlement or evacuate it. And when it was on our side, we were disappointed.
So if we eat the cake, it does not remain whole.
Now why doesn't the Rabbi in the sermon simply answer where the High Court was in the disengagement? Where it was in the establishment of these settlements..
?
Was it silent then (because it is a legitimate government decision and there is no reason to intervene) and was silent during the evacuation (because it is a legitimate government decision and there is no reason to intervene)
?
I'll answer again. No one expects the High Court to intervene because of the risk to the soldiers. That's not what the discussion is about.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
