Your opinion on the termination of agreements (Rabbi Peretz)
What do you think about Rabbi Rafi Peretz’s blatant violation of the agreement with Otzma? In a case where both would lose, is it moral to break an agreement? And if not, is there a limit to where it is moral?
PS It was interesting to see that the rabbis presented this as a halakhic issue. From their perspective, there is no separate category of morality, as you say. I think this is a good example to illustrate how much we all feel that the question here cannot be just halakhic. What do you think?
See the next column.
Thank you very much!
Looking forward to it…
On the 24th of Tevet 5772,
For joy, my dear,
Regarding the legal or halakhic validity of a political commitment, see the discussion in column 219 regarding the words of Rabbi Ratzon Arusi on the binding validity of a political commitment to the point of disqualifying the violator's competence.
However, see the discussion in column 269 on the question of the "normative duality" that may create conflicting value commitments. In the case of Didan, there is on the one hand the commitment of representatives of one party to go with its group, and on the other hand the commitment of a party representative to his voters to represent them in government authorities and to act to promote the values in which they believe. And it seems that in the case of Didan there is a contradiction between the two commitments.
Regards, Sh”t
I understand that the rabbi is waiting until the incident is no longer topical, and in accordance with the best philosophical traditions.
Hello Shchel!
I disagree with your second claim, A. The obligation not to violate an agreement is not only towards Ben Gvir himself but also towards his 84,000 voters and their blood is no less red than Peretz's audience.
B. Rabbi Rafi's obligation to his voters is, in my opinion, only when there is a Knesset, as soon as it has dispersed and he seeks their trust anew, he is supposed to offer his wares and they are supposed to elect him and renew a new mutual obligation between them, do you think everyone who voted for him last time will vote for him again? Just as they are not obligated to him, so he is not obligated to them. In another way, it can be said that he may have an obligation to them to run and allow them to elect him, but if he does not pass the threshold, the fault is theirs for not electing him, not his.
C. I am not at all sure that in the current situation that he received such little representation within the Yamina mix, he really promoted their values, perhaps in the process he only erased their possible representation in the future definitively.
D. Is not keeping your word one of their flags? In this matter, he betrayed the values of the public that elected him and promoted values (lack of values) that are contrary to their values.
E. How confident are they that they would not have passed the threshold, he and Ben Gvir alone? Ben Gvir is worth 84,000 votes alone, that means that Rabbi Rafi is supposed to bring a total of about 50,000 more, and what do you care if he is not worth that, since there is almost no public that stands behind him and we are back to my first argument that his commitment to Ben Gvir's 84,000 voters is certainly increasing, and if he has, then they would have passed the threshold and the representation of his voters and their political power would be much greater than they would have in the Yamina party.
I'm sure there are more arguments that could be made on this subject, I've just raised what came to mind.
Good night!
On 24 Tevet 5721, the contest between the Jewish Home+National Union+Otzma Yehudit yielded 5 seats in the 21st Knesset. Simply giving up one of the sides of the triangle almost certainly means: not passing the threshold.
The agreement between the Jewish Home and Otzma Yehudit only came into effect the night it was approved by the Jewish Home Center, and its approval by the Center probably stemmed from the knowledge that they had already reached the end of signing an agreement with the National Union, and that this agreement was about to be closed immediately after the Center's meeting.
For reasons that are not clear, the Chairman of the National Union decided after the Jewish Home Center's meeting that he was "closing" with the New Right, and he did not leave the Jewish Home No choice but to join in order to receive some representation, or go with ‘Otzma Yehudit’ to be lost..
If Rabbi Peretz had understood earlier that it was his duty to let go of Ben-Gvir and join the National Union and the New Right, as advised by MK Motti Yogev and other party veterans, – Bennett could have been pressured not to push Motti Yogev to 11th place, which was no longer appropriate to do an hour before the lists were closed.
Politics is the ‘art of the possible’ and within this framework we operate. The goal of running in elections is to win as many seats as possible and thus strengthen the power of religious Zionism, and the right-wing bloc must not lose votes on an adventure that will not pass the threshold.
Best regards, Sh”t
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
