On the 'Zehut' Party as an Oasis (Column 207)
With God's help
After much urging from various directions, I decided there was no choice but to wade into the political shallows and address the boring, degraded, and irrelevant question of whom to vote for in the elections. I will not address the topic as a whole; rather, I will explain why I am inclined to vote for Feiglin's 'Zehut' party, and may God help me with the reactions I will get here (I assume they will be somewhat livelier than the responses to my discussion of the categorical imperative or to Column 202 on verses and clauses 🙂 ).
I should preface this by saying that, contrary to what many of the requests I received seemed to want, I will not enter here into a discussion of the details of Zehut's platform, because that is not the point. Personally, I am inclined toward conceptions of freedom, privatization, and capitalism, and Zehut's platform, almost in its entirety, is nothing but a collection of derivatives of those ideas—such as separation of religion and state, legalization, education vouchers,[1] taking the monopoly away from the labor unions, and the like (alongside the claim that national and personal identity is part of the freedom of the citizen and the human being, which introduces components that seem to contradict the freedom championed by the platform as a whole). In that sense I identify with considerable parts of their platform. But as I will explain below, in my opinion voting for them does not depend on agreement with their platform, certainly not with its details, and I therefore hope I will be forgiven if I allow myself not to deal with that here.
Description of the situation
For quite some time I have been undecided, and I have written that here as well. In my view, all the parties from Hadera to Gedera are more or less the same thing. All of them will do (or rather, not do) the same things in the diplomatic-security realm, and probably in the economic realm as well. Therefore, what remains, in my view, with the greatest weight is the social realm: questions such as religion and state, for example, and the attitude toward different population groups. So despite my revulsion, I considered giving my vote to Meretz (vote and vomit), because on that plane it would do roughly what I think should be done. But in the end the revulsion, and the contempt I feel for the low level of intelligence reflected by its spokespeople[2] put me in a dilemma, and my conclusion was not to vote at all.[3]
In recent months the option of Zehut has arisen. True, I do not know any of the candidates there, but Feiglin, who is probably more or less the party, seems to be an intelligent and serious person, and his views are close to mine on most practical matters. Until about a month ago it was clear to me that this was a protest vote, since they were very far from the electoral threshold (here on the site too I did not take seriously reports about in-depth polls indicating a real chance, and even today I think that back then, in the pre-cannabis era, these were baseless claims). This did not particularly bother me, since my vote in any case affects nothing (one vote), but there was still room to ask why one should waste half an hour on this nonsense. Now it seems they are crossing the electoral threshold, and the possibility is becoming more realistic (give thanks to grass, for it is good, for His mercy endures forever). That of course makes the vote more relevant.
In recent days Zehut has been threatening to take the entire Knesset by storm, and not because of its revolutionary platform but simply because it advocates legalization of grass. At times this almost seems like the main issue in the current election campaign (aside from Gantz's phone and Miri Regev's dress). No wonder, since the election campaign right now is the third most popular reality show (after Survivor and MasterChef), and in my estimation also the most inferior in quality and the least interesting and relevant. It really looks like a children's game, in which one child tells another that he is a liar/corrupt, the other accuses the first of having started it, and besides, he is short. Then the first replies that in fact he is a homophobe, and the other answers that the Iranians stole his phone. And all this leads the news broadcasts and stands at the center of current affairs programs. If I were a kindergarten teacher and the children in the kindergarten behaved this way, they would be held back a year. No wonder that even grass is a refreshing breeze in the heap of garbage in which we have been mired these past weeks.
Ironically, I have heard people accuse Zehut of hiding its platform and its right-wing character (God forbid), which sounds especially amusing when it comes from all the identical zombies populating the center-right-left—that is, the collection of people without identity and without a platform, whom the spirit of the Lord animates between Zorah and Eshtaol (or between Hadera and Gedera). Zehut is occupied mainly with its detailed platform, which lies open for all to see in a published book and on websites. Everyone else is playing marbles in kindergarten and accusing them of hiding their platform.
Moshe Feiglin
Moshe Feiglin is a consistent person with an orderly doctrine whose essence is absolute capitalist freedom (which, as noted, also includes national identity), and the rejection of all government intervention in society, values, and the economy, except in areas where it is necessary, such as defense and policing. He opposes powerful labor unions and socialism, but here too he is consistent. He does not deny workers the right to organize, but asks that this be done by the will of each of them, and argues that such unions should not receive special rights and overprotection. This is why he succeeds in gathering around him people and voters with completely different views. They can all organize under a list that takes from the state the authority and the pretension to determine values and impose them on its citizens. Therefore, the accusations that he lacks a backbone because he unites under himself people with opposing worldviews stem from the incomprehension of the other reality-show players, who insist on wallowing in their swamp and dragging everyone else into it as well.
Feiglin is articulate and precise (though at times a bit simplistic), and it is a pleasure to hear him interviewed and speaking, because he is careful about conceptual and ideological distinctions, which drives many of his interviewers and rivals out of their minds. No wonder that in many cases they respond with baseless slogans and slanders, and with sheer misunderstanding of his words. In that respect he is truly an oasis (in my opinion only Smotrich can seriously be considered a competitor to him, and perhaps a little Ben-Gvir—though he is not really at that level).
In his past he led an impressive public protest movement (for which he was deprived of political rights and is vilified in a way that seems to me horribly tainted and political. Truly outrageous)[4], and he went through a controversial political career in Likud (my negative opinion of it I wrote, among other places, here and in Column 85). He is presented as a racist and a fascist, again through no fault of his own. To the best of my understanding there is nothing of the sort in him, but that is part of the anti-racist hysteria that the unintelligent Left tends to employ.[5]
On platforms and their absence
It seems to me that Feiglin's Zehut is the only party in Israeli politics that has an orderly and systematic doctrine. It is important to understand that their platform was developed over many years, and was not hastily organized for the elections, as is customary in our parts. There are a few other parties that wrote a platform (a small minority), but it consists mainly of an eclectic collection of populist statements, without detail and without foundation, and therefore there is neither desire nor any real chance that it will be implemented. In most cases it is written merely to check the box. Thus, for example, I heard on the radio an interviewee from Blue and White (I think it was Ofer Shelach) boasting that they sat three people down (Yoaz Hendel, Hili Tropper, and Ofer Shelach) for three intensive days and they wrote the platform in all areas. Despite the dozens of pages it contains, you can already imagine what such a platform looks like. It was not discussed among the various elements in the party (whose views differ on various issues, insofar as they have views at all), and it is, in its entirety, a collection of hollow slogans (we will care for the weak, fight corruption, provide hospital beds, education, tolerance, etc., etc.) that nobody seriously intends to fulfill. No wonder that in conversations with their candidates, nobody relates to the party platform. It seems it was written because they thought it would be embarrassing for a party to have no platform at all (which already constitutes an improvement over their colleagues in most of the other parties). What is astonishing is that the spokesman I heard sounded very proud that they had bothered to formulate a platform in such a 'serious' way. Well, the others do not even do that. From this you can understand that anyone who draws any conclusion about the plans of a party in present-day Israel in light of reading its platform does so at his own risk. That is also why most parties do not bother to write and publish a platform, and rightly so. Only this morning I chuckled to myself with pleasure when I heard an advertisement for a mako project intended to help a person find the party closest to his views. I have no idea on what basis they purport to do this (perhaps divine inspiration?…).
I cannot resist presenting here the flash of brilliance I had in the previous elections, when Tzipi Livni's party ran for the Knesset under the name 'The Movement' (R.I.P.). I remember thinking at the time that there are all kinds of movements: once there was the movement to stop the withdrawal from Sinai; there is (or was) the Labor Movement; the Movement for Quality Government; there are various peace movements, protest movements, and the like. The name of the movement usually indicates its goals (peace, stopping withdrawal, quality of government, etc.). According to that logic, with Tzipi Livni it was simply 'The Movement'—that is, a movement whose purpose is to be in motion, meaning to be elected to the Knesset: the movement for the vacuum (= a seat for Tzipi Livni). In fact, I thought to myself, this name may be the most intelligent thing ever to come from Tzipi Livni (even a stopped clock… ).[6] In that sense it is a generic name for all the parties running these days.
It is therefore no wonder that the elections focus on the personal plane, on trading accusations and empty slogans, and on wordplay and childish squabbles among the infantilists on the field. In vain will you look there for any discussion dealing with platforms and ideas. That is the last thing relevant to this great reality show. The election campaign is nothing but a collection of teasers and talking-point sheets that place so-and-so under some heading (racist, leftist, right-winger, blackmailable, corrupt, and so on), and response teams that diligently sit and monitor all media outlets 24/7 and send terse responses devoid of any meaning or importance. It is one large and irritating game, utterly valueless and tasteless. One thing is clear: it has no significance whatsoever for the decision whom to vote for, if anyone even decides to waste his time and go vote.
It is important to me to clarify that my problem is not with the violence of the discourse, but with its shallowness and foolishness. That is why I also have a problem with all the protests against verbal violence in discourse and propaganda. That is the secondary and less important aspect of the matter. Once the content has been emptied out, what remains is shallow, aggressive, and above all personal discourse. It is quite astonishing, and perhaps actually not so astonishing, to see all our media, in all its branches and channels, enlisted for the benefit of this stupid and insulting reality show. In fact, it not only joins this carnival but to a large extent creates it (and then whines about the shallowness of the discourse and its violence). Even when some substantive discussion does enter, it focuses on Gantz's phone and the legalization of cannabis and other trivial and secondary matters. In my opinion, it would already be preferable to broadcast continuously and live the thrilling events from the Big Brother house (if it were possible to cover the men and women there a bit more, then in my despair I might even consider watching). In my estimation, the level would rise wonders compared to what is broadcast in the media today. The current situation is an insult to the intelligence of the public, though perhaps a justified insult when one sees the public cooperation with this farce.
The main advantage: coherent ideology and conceptual discussion
From everything said so far emerges the main and central advantage of Zehut and of Feiglin: the very introduction of the plane of ideas and principles into the election campaign. They are a point of light, truly an oasis, in the sense that they conduct a principled discussion focused on ideas and direction, and not only on people and slogans as is customary among their competitors. This is probably also the main reason they do not manage to break through to the screen, that is, to receive airtime and coverage. A sensible and reasonable media would block all the parties and all their responses and would not give even a single second of airtime to all the degraded trash they hurl into the air. In fact, if the broadcasting networks made the obvious decision not to air slogans but only arguments and claims (except in advertising slots), it seems to me the result would be more or less a direct broadcast of Zehut's election campaign 24/7 on all media outlets, and little else.
Today, even when the media do refer to Zehut, it is mainly in relation to anecdotes, such as legalization, which is an esoteric issue (regardless of your opinion of it on the merits). Many people do not even understand that, from Zehut's perspective, legalization is not a specific point but rather an expression of a complete and orderly ideology of freedom and opposition to government involvement. Therefore many also do not understand how this fits with conservative views, and what the connection is between Feiglin and several eccentrics who make this issue the center of their world. It should be noted that this misunderstanding does not occur because Zehut people hide behind this issue, as they are accused of doing, but because the media choose to focus specifically on it (it fits well with the reality show and with the desire to flee from any substantive discussion of anything). The disappointing thing is that it seems it was precisely this focus on legalization that put them on the map, and thanks to it they are now seriously threatening to cross the electoral threshold and take the Knesset by storm. For several days Zehut stood at the center of public discourse because of the legalization issue. I, in my poverty, did not understand why Green Leaf, the copyright holders of this issue, did not succeed with it in the same way, but the ways of the herd and its charge are beyond me.
Interim conclusion: vote 'Zehut'!
I think that solely by virtue of the fact that the people of Zehut speak about ideas and formulate an orderly doctrine, and solely because they are trying to shift the discourse from shabby reality TV to a discussion of ideas and principles, they are worth voting for. Even if one does not agree with all their principles, at least they have principles. Perhaps even someone who does not identify with their ideas at all should vote for them for that reason, and also because they raise unconventional points of view and challenge accepted thinking in many areas.
Every citizen in Israel ought to have an interest in improving the quality of our public and political deliberation. This is an interest no less important than economic and security interests, especially since these in any event will hardly be affected by the question of which of all these identical twins will be prime minister. It seems to me that in the long term the quality of the discourse is much more important than all of those. In my eyes this is a main and sufficient reason to vote for them. As for myself, I also tend to agree with most of their ideas (not all of them), but that truly is already a matter of personal outlook.
The main disadvantage: coherent ideology and conceptual discussion
But therein lies the catch. I think there is much reason to fear people who possess a coherent ideology. Ideological groups and people think about reality in conceptual and ideological frameworks that are too rigid, and they try to bring reality, at times against its will, toward utopia. Usually reality is complex and does not submit to our intellectual and conceptual molds. It resists and kicks. Utopias and grand ideas, however beautiful, do not work in reality. Anyone acting in the practical world is required to have a great deal of flexibility. This flexibility is not a disadvantage but an advantage. Rigidity and ideological pattern-thinking are very dangerous traits when it comes to managing a practical world.
In columns 48–50 I discussed the disadvantages of top-down thinking, in that it tries to impose on reality a collection of rigid principles. Reality is recalcitrant and kicks back, and it does not yield easily. Also in Column 19 I discussed the pattern-thinking of the people of Har Hamor, and the problems that arise from it (ordinary Haredim, for example, are much more pragmatic and much less ideological, and therefore in my eyes less dangerous). Seeing reality and conducting oneself according to rigid rules is dangerous and leads to distortions and life inside a bubble. When recalcitrant reality kicks back, people of rules and patterns kick back at it. They will try to impose their principles on it, and very quickly we may arrive at social engineering and great harm.
True, social engineering characterizes mainly communist and left-wing thinking that advocates state intervention (see the series of columns from 177 onward) and the centralism that directs everything from above, whereas capitalism offers as an alternative the invisible hand, that is, letting reality move by its own forces, without direction and without rigid rules imposed upon it. But rigid right-wing and conservative ideology is also a utopia (or a dystopia, depending on one's point of view), and it too may suffer from the same defect. There are situations in which the conservative who believes in the invisible hand sees that the invisible hand is taking us to problematic places. In such cases there is reason to fear that he will insist on his way and try to lend the invisible hand a little help. Beyond that, there are cases in which the policy of the invisible hand truly is not appropriate or successful, but the conservative may cling to his rules and utopias and allow it to operate without trying to correct it. The rigid conservative may insist on freedom even where one ought to depart from it (this is what it is proper to call 'piggish capitalism,' as distinct from the current practice in which every capitalism, by virtue of being capitalism, is called piggish).
The conclusion is that one must not behave too rigidly even when implementing a policy that opposes rigidity and rules. The absence of rules is itself a kind of rule, and one must know how to depart from it from time to time. Even the vouchers proposal, which as I wrote above is very dear to me, is probably not fully implementable. This is why Feiglin's standing at the head of the system would worry me greatly. The book presenting his platform refers to itself (in its subtitle) as "The State of Israel – Operating Instructions." This is a pretentious title, and it may express belief in a set of rigid rules such that if we operate the state by them, and only by them, it will be saved. I am very much in favor of ideology and of an intellectual infrastructure, but I am very wary of utopian 'operating instructions.'
A combined conclusion
So far we have seen that the advantage and the disadvantage of Zehut stem from the same point. They have a coherent (too coherent) ideology of the absence of ideology. They have a utopia (to some extent, of the absence of utopias). On the one hand, this is an advantage because the discussion moves onto principled tracks and is not merely personal. It also makes possible a discussion even with those who disagree with them, because there is a language of principles and terms laid on the table for debate. On the other hand, discussing reality through a set of rules instead of seeing reality as it is and responding accordingly is a dangerous approach. As I explained, it may lead to social engineering—this time specifically from the right. Feiglin's view as though all the ills of society stem from a lack of freedom, and therefore adding freedom will solve them all, is too fixed and sweeping a perspective. Sometimes some measure of government intervention is unavoidable, and freedom is not always the ultimate or self-evident solution. Reality is complicated and recalcitrant, and a one-dimensional theory will not succeed in coping with it. I fear that Feiglin, who as noted has formulated his doctrine over years with much labor and thought, may cling to it even in such cases, and that is the main danger I see in his path.
Beyond this, Feiglin proposes a general revolution, not a collection of local proposals. But revolutions should be carried out slowly, checking each stage and correcting accordingly. A transformation of the entire state in one stroke toward a utopian model may lead to disastrous results that will be difficult to repair. It is preferable to act in accordance with the ideology, but gradually, while paying attention to reality.
The proper balance between the two planes is to conduct the discussion on the ideological and conceptual plane, but not to implement the ideas merely because they seem rational to us. One must not ignore reality, and when a departure from freedom is required, we should not hesitate to take that route. In such a moderated perspective, ideology is no longer a disadvantage but an advantage. If one does not take it too hard and too rigidly, it gives us a framework within which discussion can be conducted, and at times we can even decide whether and when to depart from it. In the absence of ideology, one cannot do even that; then people simply act from the gut, and conduct the kind of shallow personal discussion that can be seen today.
So how does one do this? How does one create a situation in which there is ideological and conceptual discussion, but also intellectual and practical flexibility and a considerate attentiveness to reality? Here specifically the influence of those without ideology is important, and thank God we are flooded with them beyond measure (although it would be preferable if they were also good people). They can balance ideological conceptions and moderate their absolutism.
Practical conclusions: should Feiglin be prime minister?
From all that has been said so far, you can understand that if Feiglin were a realistic candidate for prime minister, I probably would not vote for him. A total ideology like the one he presents probably cannot function in real reality, and therefore I think its implementation could cause great damage (perhaps even more than the lack of ideology common today). I am also not sure he would have the openness and honesty to admit this and act differently from his doctrine when that became necessary.
But at present that is not the situation. There is no chance whatsoever that Feiglin will threaten the prime minister's chair in the near future, and given that reality, I think it is very important that his voice be heard in the political arena. We need someone who will place the ideational dimension on the table and move all of us away from gut-level decision-making. We need someone who will provide a framework for discussion, who will cause us to think and examine basic assumptions. When such a framework exists, other people and groups can conduct a discussion and decide whether to act in accordance with it or to deviate from it. My assumption is that even if Feiglin has influence, other political actors will correct what needs correction. At the moment the pendulum leans in the anti-ideological direction and toward thinking (or rather non-thinking) from the gut, and therefore it seems important to me to bring into the game balancing factors that will pull us out of the distorted culture of political reality TV in which we find ourselves, and at least challenge the accepted approaches and prevailing discourse. Therefore, in the coming elections I will probably vote for Feiglin.
If later on he proves flexibility and success in implementing his policy, there may perhaps also be room to consider him as a candidate to lead the system. For now we are still far from that. Therefore I am not especially troubled by fears of him as a dictator and an unbalanced person. For the moment he is still not the prime minister, and it is important that there be someone who challenges our ossified system with out-of-the-box thinking (perhaps he will succeed in shaking up the collection of rigid minds in the army and government and lead to something refreshing in our policy—or our lack of policy—regarding Gaza…).
A note on the categorical imperative
To conclude, there is room to discuss here the question of the categorical imperative. I have explained more than once (see for example columns 13, 22, 85 and 189, and in the Fourth Notebook in part C) that the very decision to go vote in elections has no justification at all in terms of consequentialist considerations, since one vote has no influence whatsoever. My claim was that the only possible justification for going to vote is Kant's categorical imperative, which states that one should do what one would want to become universal law (assuming of course that we would not want nobody to go vote). If so, one could raise here the argument that voting for Feiglin does not meet these criteria, since as I wrote above I would not want everyone to vote for him—that is, that he become prime minister. It follows that I am recommending here doing something that I would not want to become universal law, and in my folly I am doing so specifically within a discussion of voting in elections, which I explained rests entirely on the categorical imperative.
One can of course object to this (as to almost every practical conclusion derived from Kant's categorical imperative) and say that in fact I would want the voting to be like this—that is, that some would vote for Feiglin and some would not. In that sense, when I vote for Zehut one may say that I do fulfill the imperative. But it seems to me that even without this bit of hair-splitting one may recommend voting Zehut. When I invoke the categorical imperative here as an argument against my recommendation, I myself slip into excessive ideological rigidity. The categorical imperative too is a rule (ideological, or moral), important and correct as it may be, and therefore it is important to beware of clinging too strongly even to it. If here it does not work, then it does not. Whether my recommendation does or does not fit the categorical imperative is an interesting theoretical question, but it is not necessarily right to make the decision whether and for whom to vote depend on it.
[1] I have a particular fondness for the vouchers proposal, because as far as I recall I am its founding father. Nearly thirty years ago I sent an article with such a proposal to Yediot Aharonot (which was not published). About a year later Yaron London raised the proposal, and in recent years it has come up again and again.
[2] This clip truly reflects an exalted peak of unusual stupidity, with more than a dash of hysteria and helplessness. Highly recommended viewing. But more generally as well, I have the impression that one of the great successes of the Left in Israel, and in general, is the creation of the impression that this is more intelligent discourse than that of the Right. You could not be more mistaken. Usually these are detached slogans that come from the gut and from the entrails of populist political correctness, with no real thought behind them.
[3] Bennett and Shaked are also a relatively reasonable option, since they too are intelligent people who from time to time speak about ideas, though they are much less coherent and operate on a much narrower front ("like an ant's world"). But in my estimation, beyond continuing to address the balancing of the judicial system, there is nothing relevant on the agenda with respect to which they have an agenda of added value.
[4] All the criminals in the world can run and be elected to the Knesset, and only Feiglin carries on his back a mark of moral turpitude that prevented this for him.
[5] The other possibility is that these are intelligent people who use these empty slogans cynically. But I do not have the impression that this is the case. See, for example, in the clip I already brought here, especially from the middle onward, a clear example of the intelligence gap. In this case the matter is no longer open to two interpretations.
[6] I can already see the protests before my mind's eye: "Chauvinist, you would not dare talk like that about a man…".
Discussion
The mockery of the level of public discourse is clear. But one must ask: if this really is the level of human beings (I don’t think Israel is very different from other developed countries), shouldn’t one choose in accordance with that limitation?
That is, if we were suddenly to turn into monkeys, we would want a tough alpha monkey to protect the tribe, not a monkey who knows how to calculate integrals. In the same way, we would want a leader who knows how to cope with and fight in the political swamp as it is conducted, not a philosopher (quite apart from the flexibility issue you raised).
If so, there is weight to the question of whether Gantz or Bibi know how to fend off arguments or set the agenda, even if it’s stupid.
I find it very hard to read a text so saturated with condescension and contempt toward the “dwarfs” all around—whether public figures, journalists, or the general public.
As has already been said, the fact that their platform is comprehensive and deep says nothing about Feiglin’s executive ability. The man has been around these issues for twenty years and has achieved almost zero. Even in rallying people around his discourse, one might have expected twenty years to produce something. I would be glad to know, if we’ve already descended into politics, why the rabbi does not think one should vote for the New Right, which managed to some extent to rouse the model of the mustachioed Mizrachi religious-Zionist and inject a bit of pragmatism into it, and even managed to poke the High Court a little.
Is this your first time here?
Sticking to my custom of writing a response without reading what was written. My view of Zehut and the man at its head is as follows: the man is an anarchist, and like anarchists generally—he comes to destroy. And if he is given the chance—he will succeed as well.
What matters is who will advance the ideological discourse. Unequivocally—Feiglin.
[It is entirely possible that you were the first to write in Hebrew about vouchers in education and tried to bring it into public awareness, but the person credited with the idea is Milton Friedman in 1955 (and that is how the idea is attributed everywhere). http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/fried1.htm
Yet the two steps could readily be separated. Governments could require a minimum level of education which they could finance by giving parents vouchers redeemable for a specified maximum sum per child per year if spent on "approved" educational services. Parents would then be free to spend this sum and any additional sum on purchasing educational services from an "approved" institution of their own choice. The educational services could be rendered by private enterprises operated for profit, or by non-profit institutions of various kinds. The role of the government would be limited to assuring that the schools met certain minimum standards such as the inclusion of a minimum common content in their programs, much as it now inspects restaurants to assure that they maintain minimum sanitary standards
And in Capitalism and Freedom (Shalem Press, p. 85) he writes:
“Governments financed schooling primarily by directly paying the operating costs of educational institutions. Hence this step appeared to follow naturally from the decision to subsidize schooling. But the two can readily be separated. Governments could require a minimum level of schooling financed by giving parents vouchers redeemable for a specified maximum sum per child per year if spent on ‘approved’ educational services. Parents would then be free to spend this sum, and any additional sum they themselves provide, to obtain educational services from an ‘approved’ institution of their own choice. The educational services could be rendered by private enterprises operated for profit or by nonprofit institutions of various kinds. The role of government would be limited to seeing that the schools met certain minimum standards, such as the inclusion of a minimum common content in their programs—just as it now inspects restaurants to ensure that they maintain minimum sanitary standards.”
But what can you do—that is the situation. The discourse among media people and politicians is appallingly shallow. What exactly was untrue in what the rabbi wrote?
Calling a person names without bringing justified arguments for it is itself anarchy..
You’re the founding father of the voucher system??
And in my innocence I thought it was Milton Friedman back in the 1950s.
I agree less with your criticism of Feiglin as holding an ideology of anti-ideology that is dangerous and polarizing.
I think there is an essential difference between presenting a worldview that advocates individual liberty and translating it into practical-theoretical terms in a detailed platform, and presenting a detailed platform that becomes sacred and an ideology in itself.
As someone who read the platform, in my opinion Zehut’s ideology is liberty, not the platform. There is a call for liberty through the platform, but there is no call for the platform in its exact wording in a precise and devoted way as the exclusive route to liberty; the party itself does not agree on everything 100% either. But despite that—there are very smart things there which in my view are also unique to individual liberty (such as separation of religion and state), if a person sees individual liberty as a value.
The platform says several times that there is awareness of slow, measured, gradual steps on the practical level, and that matters will be examined beforehand in the real world with various relevant actors. Especially on issues of privatizing the market, taxation, the army and security, annexation, and almost anything that causes political tremors.
That is exactly what the article is about. About people who express opinions and respond without reading and without using a bit of their brain.
Thank you, Rabbi.
Since your fondness for the Shalem Library is well known, it seems to me it would be interesting to hear your impressions from reading Michael Oakeshott’s thought, Rationalism in Politics (Shalem, 2011).
The perspective you presented here very much recalls the criticism Oakeshott leveled at Hayek in a number of places. According to Oakeshott, Hayek turned opposition to planning into a political doctrine, and thus he too fell into the pit of rationalist thinking in politics. Oakeshott’s politics is much more flexible and seeks to rely on the dispositions already present in society; they are what hint to us about the social and political future toward which we are moving.
From my acquaintance with your thought, you will surely recoil at the skepticism and relativism pulsing through Oakeshott’s doctrine, and his despair of reason will count for you as an unforgivable sin. Yet you too, like him, have a deep affection for tradition and are attentive to its cautious modes of change—so perhaps his ideas may find a path into your heart.
I think that in this case the contempt is on the side of the journalists and some of the politicians toward the broader public, since they think people can be bought with empty slogans, and Rabbi Michi is merely pointing to the phenomenon…
B. As a continuation of an earlier response, contrary to Rabbi Michi’s claims, the facts are that the young public was swept after Zehut in droves—long before it passed the electoral threshold in the polls.
[It is enough to look at the number of followers he had on Facebook in that period—when he was still supposedly seen as a “curiosity”… and no, it wasn’t only because of cannabis, which again is a media manipulation trying to present that as if it were the only thing.]
That shows that despite the disdain of politicians and the institutional press for voters, not everyone bought into that contempt—and people nevertheless were looking and are still looking for something deeper…
Zehut, Feiglin, and us: (without bombastic words)
Two concerns keep me awake at night:
The first—that Mr. Feiglin will be a “swing vote” and will ultimately join a Gantz government, because unlike other parties, he did not from the outset rule out sitting with Gantz. His commitment to cannabis may overcome his love of the Land of Israel and thereby bring the left to power.
The second—if he does not cross the electoral threshold, many right-wing votes from people who are not voting for him because of the legalization issue may go down the drain. His statements and those of his supporters that they are drawing votes from the left may come back to hurt him and us. None of them, deep polls notwithstanding, can commit to that. And the gain is not worth the king’s loss…..
I completely understand his need as a politician to keep his cards open, but I also do not forget his desire as a politician to get revenge on Bibi and Likud for all they did to him.
To tell the truth, this talented man brought it on himself, justly so. He earned every bit of “love” fair and square, and here are the explanations:
A. His argument about “abolishing Jewish legislation,” which he says will lead people to cleave to the Torah, is nothing but an unagreed-upon cliché—dangerous and impractical, at least in our generation. After all, he does not claim to be content merely being a thinker; he intends to implement this in the coming term. Castles in the air. Please do not bring the example of circumcision as proof that things endure without coercion. From my study and experience, I learn that this is not the reason. The reason is simple—it is an act like Yom Kippur, the flag, and Yom Kippur again—a prominent marker of Jewish identity.
B. This talented man has received many opportunities and failed to leave his mark. Twenty years are enough time to know whether you are talented or also an effective executor. No… he is not an executor… he is a talented speaker, bold and thinks outside the box. That is not enough.
C. His unceasing attempts to run for leadership… while switching disks are off-putting, frightening, and do not add points in his favor. Real leadership must grow from the bottom up… from experience… from genuine struggle in executive roles…… not from changing paradigms every election. What are we—his testing ground?
D. To strive to preserve our land there is no need to keep reinventing yourself again and again while relying on the public’s short memory. The distance from “I am willing to be arrested for my homeland, because this is our land” to legalization or building the Temple is vast and unbridgeable—unless it serves entirely private agendas. It is nice to declare utopian goals without saying how to achieve them. No… don’t tell me how you’ll build the Third Temple; let’s suffice with more prosaic things…and the list is long.
E. Is this the same Feiglin who proclaimed “to repair the world under the kingship of the Almighty”? At first it was fitting, beautiful, and bold—we will set believing leadership against other kinds of leadership. How did this election turn into “reducing state intervention in citizens’ lives”?? Is that what will bring us redemption? How did the believing leadership disappear? Is that not realistic? Is reducing state intervention more realistic? Or perhaps this is yet another desperate attempt to reinvent yourself again and again? And what is practical for you? To separate religion from the state? Circumcision?
E. Feiglin has never practically proven his willingness “to be arrested for his homeland” through legislation, or through any action preserving the Land of Israel that is recorded under his name. Apart from him, there is no one on the list who is truly committed to the Land of Israel. Other politicians, younger, less talented, and less charismatic, did things… advanced… and have receipts that can actually be cashed in. What do you have?
And finally, a phenomenon before which I “tip my hat” from Shushan the capital. He has managed to gather around him a group of people with a frightening level of commitment approaching a “cult.” I have no doubt that within minutes of publishing this I will be attacked by Zehut voters. Usually they do not respond substantively; they chant, copy-paste, point to links to the leader’s speeches, snicker, and curse….
I think that in this case you are actually a great fit for Zehut, because of your purist approach.
Blocking harmful bills (for example, Fair Rent) is also an achievement.
I am indeed considering Feiglin, but precisely because ideology is not the mirror image of politics, where there are compromises and concessions, scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, it is a more successful way to advance your ideas, some of them little by little.
Moshe Feiglin basically just took Milton Friedman’s doctrine and translated it into Hebrew.
With Bennett and Shaked it’s not only the court system but also the IDF and security. See this post by Bennett:
https://m.facebook.com/NaftaliBennett/photos/a.656000644421607/2240251159329873/?type=3&theater
More power to you for these wonderful words as always!
I actually thought that Livni called the party “The Movement” so that even from the party name it could easily join with others, so the party could be called “The Labor Movement” and so on—like calling a party “The Party”…
I do not understand where this disdain for Knesset elections comes from. If not for Bennett, for example, it is doubtful Hamas’s tunnels would have been destroyed in time, which could have brought a major disaster upon us. Without Minister Katz, flight prices would still be in the sky… and without Minister Kahlon, cellphone prices would still be unreasonable. All this, and much more action that changes all our lives, is done in the Knesset—something no chef born or chef who won on a reality show would have done—and one must vote and choose those people so they can continue that work. Is that really so esoteric in your eyes? Can you not distinguish between shallow statements, however shallow, and activity that helps us all?
Another point: Green Leaf had about 40,000 votes in the last election, which means Feiglin himself is recruiting close to a hundred thousand votes. I wouldn’t look down on the public to that extent and claim it’s all about cannabis, especially since the many media outlets where he gets extensive exposure (even more than others) do not interview him specifically about drugs.
And in conclusion, as an intelligent person I am pretty sure Feiglin will not create a revolution in a single day as you portrayed it, and he himself is aware that everything has to be done gradually, and he explicitly says so.
What does that have to do with anything.
Do you even know what anarchism is? What classical liberalism is? What libertarianism is? Maybe go read a bit about the concepts before you start slandering… you’re exactly the type of zombie who writes only “just Bibi” or “anyone but Bibi” anywhere there’s a line of text.
Full separation between religion and state means, in practical terms, given the current state of affairs on earth and mass migration, turning the State of Israel into a Muslim or Christian state. There is roughly one country in the world where (supposedly) no place is given to religion (France), and precisely because of that it is rapidly turning into a caliphate. Is that what Feiglin wants? The Law of Return, conversion, the Chief Rabbinate—all are imperfect, and they need constant improvement. But they are certainly not the worst arrangement available or possible for a nation which, in light of its tradition and within the framework of globalization, seeks in a humane way to preserve its only national home.
Michael Abraham is a blunt person but much more open than you are.
The quarterly Hashiloach and the rest of the things from your school of thought that I have encountered are characterized by closed-mindedness.
I prefer the openness of the blunt over the closed-off eloquence of those who fled from Sorek.
A very nice article, two comments.
1. This article seems to me like a nice example of the fact that Kant’s categorical imperative simply does not work. If the most correct act, from your point of view, right now is to vote for Feiglin’s party, then it obligates everyone (regardless of casuistry). And if it is preferable to vote for the party that will do the least damage in my view, then again the categorical imperative tells me to vote for it—or perhaps to refrain and not vote for any of them? (Or maybe according to that it is preferable to propose a blank ballot for the Blank Ballots Party?)
2. In fact, a vote for Feiglin might continue his party’s positive line, even if someone has problems with his personality. If Feiglin wins several seats, I imagine a natural competition will emerge (the invisible hand) of one kind or another over the place of the capitalist-wise-know-it-all in the Knesset.
On security, Feiglin left both of them in the dust; he dismantled a monopoly franchise all by himself, and while Bennett and Shaked pride themselves on the free market, they have heavy socialists in their party like Shuli Mualem, they themselves have done quite a bit of socialism, and when you normalize for the time they were in the Knesset with the power they had, against the meaningful and good action they took, you get very little in the bottom line.
A few important clarifications:
A) Even in the Zehut platform it is made clear that they believe in gradual processes in consultation with professionals, not in revolutions. “Evolution, not revolution,” in Feiglin’s words. He also defines reasonable threshold conditions for a coalition, from which it is clear that he does not intend to make immediate revolutions in everything. His language is very ideological, but at the same time he constantly makes clear that he is also realistic and believes in processes.
B) Feiglin himself has already clarified on quite a few occasions that there are no utopias and no perfect plans. There is, however, an aspiration to move forward.
C) The party is not just Feiglin. The list is also chosen through open primaries—not the structure of a one-man party. His list is also excellent, and I highly recommend that you get to know it. There are also many people of action there (among them a very serious economist).
I apologize if my previous comment sounded like political propaganda. I have been reading quite a few of the articles here for a long time. I am not politically active. I simply happen also to have been following them for a long time.
Still, I will note that I believe most of his supporters are really not doing it because of legalization. That is part of the media’s attempt to brand them as “the Halakhic State and Temple party” that works on stoners. That is really not the case. I believe most of them are more intelligent, and even if some were stoners they have probably already left because of all the recent attacks.
My problem with Feiglin stems from the fact that he used to be my guru. He managed to make me believe that the only way to change the political map was by running within Likud. He convinced me so thoroughly that I find it hard to believe there is any other way. Therefore I will vote Likud.
I retract what I said about your purist approach; that is what emerged from the beginning of your remarks.
You are confusing nationality with religion.
Not an anarchist—a minarchist.
Indeed, I too was puzzled by that sentence. Maybe he meant that he spoke about this issue here in Israel even before it entered the discourse.
Yondav and Moshe, a few comments:
1. I do not know what your confident assessments are based on regarding his executive ability. In Likud they did not give him an executive role and clipped his wings, so it is no wonder he did not succeed in advancing things. But he did create the protest movement, and the entry into Likud and the capture of a significant percentage of the votes. That points to some executive ability, no?
2. I wrote that I am not choosing him for an executive role but for membership in the Knesset. There proposals and debates come up, and it is important that his voice be heard.
3. I wrote that for me it is important to choose him not דווקא because of his platform and its advancement but thanks to his advancing the discourse.
Gabi, there are so many assumptions in your remarks that I do not agree with that it is hard to address them all. So I will say briefly:
I am really not alarmed by Gantz or his partners. There is no significant difference between him and Likud. On the contrary, I am more alarmed by Bibi, whom Bennett and Shaked are shielding. That man must not be allowed to be prime minister.
And for exactly the same reason, I am not really troubled by the biting into the votes of other parties. There is hardly any difference between all the others, and it does not really matter which of them will be there and which will not.
Even in the Zehut platform it is made clear that they believe in gradual processes in consultation with professionals, not in revolutions. “Evolution, not revolution,” in Feiglin’s words. He also defines reasonable threshold conditions for a coalition, from which it is clear that he does not intend to make immediate revolutions in everything. His language is very ideological, but at the same time he constantly makes clear that he is also realistic and believes in processes.
And you saw how he ended there.
If you try to act within Likud with a relatively unusual ideology:
Either you are like the liberals in Likud—even if you somehow manage to push in one or two unwanted representatives, they simply fall in line with the system and do not do much in practice.
Or you are like Feiglin—you really try to influence, and then you have no real political power, as a one-man internal faction that nobody counts. And pretty quickly they kick you out as well.
Feiglin was mistaken on that point, and sobered up. Now it’s your turn.
A prime minister’s role is not to argue with his opponents but to run things. And in a tribe of monkeys I would be very happy if a wiser and more intelligent creature came along and managed their affairs in a more sensible and rational way. Note that in the end, in the struggles of evolution, man overcomes the monkey and the lion—not thanks to his physical strength but thanks to integrals. So don’t disparage them (especially since they are dear to my heart).
Yoav,
And I, in my poverty, find it hard to look at a reality in which there are so many dwarfs around and still expect the world to keep silent. Why be silent? Why not scorn those who honestly earned that scorn? Why keep playing this grotesque game?
Dear friends.
Since I know Zahava, she does not need to read in order to know what anarchism is. Believe me, she knows. It is true that unargued statements are problematic, and on that point she can certainly be criticized.
Dear friends, I have accepted your comment and I retract the precious title I took for myself for nothing. Still, in Hebrew I know of no one who wrote this before. By the way, as far as I remember, my remarks were written without any acquaintance with Milton Friedman’s remarks.
Indeed, it is written there. And still, on the practical plane my concerns remain, and the burden of proof is on them. As I wrote, after they prove themselves as a small party, one can consider seeing them as an alternative for actual leadership.
In the Shalem Library there is a whole list of thinkers in this direction, and I completely agree with and am fond of them. Just this past Sabbath I looked at Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness, which says similar things, but I decided to spare you that and focus on the arguments.
Oakeshott’s little book was one of the very best, and I enjoyed every line of it, and every kind of essay in it (including those on poetry and on not being a historian, and more). In fact, I have long thought of writing a column about it. One could write a column on each one of his essays. He is simply wonderful and entirely far from essential skepticism. On the contrary, he is a synthetic man (that is, he recoils from certainty but is not a skeptic).
And into Hebrew (with the addition of identity). There is absolutely no obligation to be original.
It is precisely this simplism that worries me. I do not buy the fear that soldiers won’t shoot because of juridification. They were surprised, that’s all. We all know these blunders (because we have all probably made some ourselves). So regarding the IDF and security I see no real good news from Bennett, aside from boasting about foresight and proposals in the cabinet that I have no way of knowing whether they really existed or not. What is needed in Gaza is not only readiness to use force but a conception of what to do with the force and what goal to strive toward.
There are various people who did various things, and they certainly deserve credit for that. From there to an agenda that I choose as a path, the distance is great. Do you really think the transportation revolution or flight prices are a function of a party? They are a function of a person, and I see no reason why such a person could not be in Blue and White or any other party.
Nils answered well.
His deeds will bring him near and drive him away. I wrote out my concerns.
For some reason the polls soared following the legalization issue, but that is not really important at the moment.
Netanel, I assume he wrote that ironically. 🙂
Maybe. I wasn’t sure.
A classic case of Poe’s law…
What will happen in practice I don’t know either. We’ll wait and see.
I just don’t like the assertion that he will be an ideologue and go headfirst into the wall already now.
We’ll wait and see. He really doesn’t sound that way.
Okay, true, but if you are not voting for a party because there is no real difference between everyone’s agendas, then at least vote for the party that has the most people of action in it, and thus advance action for your own benefit (all this on the assumption that there is any need for an individual vote, of course). Besides, the comparison to reality TV is out of place, and certainly so is regarding it as the third-best species, since no singer or chef has affected my pocket.
I have only one question: if Feiglin fails once again, will he draw conclusions and retire from political life?
There was no such assertion. I expressed a concern.
Chayota, in my opinion that question is not all that important here. But why do you think that conclusion is called for? Maybe he will stick to the mission and look for other ways to influence? Is that not worthy of appreciation? Must someone who failed in one way necessarily give up? There was a time when sticking to the mission was considered a value worthy of a commendation…
An insight that occurred to me from reading the platform and trying to fully understand Feiglin’s own conception of the role of the state: there is a negative overlap between the extent of state involvement in the citizen’s life and its ability to provide him security (one can draw a coordinate system: the Y-axis represents involvement in the economy, the X-axis represents security, and the curve slopes downward at 1).
Zehut’s platform really takes this to the extreme: the more the state loosens its grip on the citizen’s life, the more it is incumbent upon it to solve security problems in a more fundamental way (to my mind the peak is the permit for every citizen to possess a weapon, alongside the army’s role in conquering Gaza and applying sovereignty).
Contrary to a common opinion (and contrary to several smear articles by Tomer Persico that, in my humble opinion, suffer from a mistaken understanding and I will not elaborate), libertarians (like me) can actually connect to this, because what distinguishes them from anarchists is support for the state’s monopoly on the use of force, so that it can protect individual liberty. And if that means eliminating the enemy—then the state has no right to exist if it is not prepared to do so, for that is its only role.
Because the man caused tremendous damage, threw thousands of votes into the trash. I want him to take responsibility. A first condition for leadership. This isn’t sticking to the mission; it’s taking responsibility for failure.
I really do not agree. If he thinks his doctrine is the correct solution, he should stick to it, and the voters will decide. Throwing the votes in the trash is not his act but a decision of the legislator and the voters. A person goes home if he is corrupt, not if he failed. At most he changes his path, and as stated here even that is not a necessary conclusion.
And beyond all that, from my perspective there is nothing wrong with throwing votes in the trash, when the alternative is in any case to throw them in the trash.
Sorry to say this, but the rabbi simply needs to grow up. I think that if the rabbi is already frightened by something, then he should also be frightened if Gantz is elected, if only because in the eyes of the Arab world a left-wing government (this is a left-wing party like Kadima) represents weakness, and in that alone there is a decline in Israel’s deterrence. Likewise, if there is no difference between him and Likud, what does it matter to him if he declares that he too is a right-wing party? That would be excellent. At last, competition and a free market. He simply wants to take left-wing voters. And those people crave withdrawals or agreements even when there is no one to talk to. So what does the rabbi think—won’t he eventually have to provide them with what they want?
And regarding Bibi, I am sorry that the rabbi let the media wash his brain (literally so! “He must not be allowed to be prime minister”? Really? Raviv Drucker is rubbing his hands with delight) on these matters. We have no idea what he is guilty of, if anything, but it is quite clear that the media and the courts (after the Ben Ari story—even Aharon Barak was smart enough not to disqualify Kach itself while at the same time approving Balad) and the prosecution are quite biased to the left (“biased” is not the word). I do not know why he trusts them more than Bibi. It is quite clear that these people are a minority that wants to rule the majority without taking responsibility for its actions. In general I do not believe a single word from the media (not the little facts but the overall picture they are trying to paint. How many times have I found that they omit small details that change the whole picture))—it is simply a propaganda machine of the left. Is letting them win really what the rabbi wants? These are people who want to dissolve the State of Israel as the state of the people. I understand the rabbi’s anarchism, but everything has its limit. Is the rabbi also in favor of separating the people from the state?
And if his criticism is of his feeble response to Hamas and his lack of policy, that is a general characteristic of all the leadership in the state today. Does the rabbi really think gray statesmen like Gantz or Ashkenazi (or maybe Lapid?!) will do better? The problem is simply the inability, or the lack of will, or the fear (which is perfectly understandable) to understand that all the residents of Gaza are the enemy (and the only proper response is the response we would make to missile launches from a sovereign state like Syria, for example). And as a result, a one-sided battle of missiles against almost no response, from fear of pointless deaths of soldiers in Gaza or bombings of sand dunes. I do not see which of them would do anything better on this issue. This is the best there is for now, as long as there is no competition (Bennett in the future maybe, after he gains experience)
There is no choice: either you believe in the people of Israel or you don’t and you emigrate to America. So if dwarfs currently rule over it, then choose the most successful dwarf. Right now that is Bibi.
To me this sounds like an attempt to understand the personality that missed several important points.
If this is a general concern, it is worth emphasizing that. It was written like an assertion about him, one that may have some basis but also a lot of things that contradict it.
At the very least, it would have been worth adding the points I mentioned in the first response.
In any case, we will wait and see. There is no way to know.
Rabbi Michi, for discourse you don’t need politicians. That’s what blogs and newspapers and books are for.
In politics you need people of action.
Feiglin indeed was only a junior MK in Likud, but the reason is that he insisted on going with his great theoretical truth instead of advancing in a reasonable way. He insisted on running against Netanyahu for the leadership of Likud and making himself into a public joke and a politically insignificant Knesset member, while at the same time Bennett and Shaked worked for Netanyahu, founded a party, and advanced to significant ministerial posts—and in the end advanced the positions Feiglin believes in better than he did.
Beyond that, one look further down his list is enough to understand that this is an unclear and unimpressive assortment of people.
If the question is which politician would be most interesting to sit down for a cup of coffee with—Feiglin is the answer.
If the question is who should actually get things moving here—then everyone except Feiglin.
To believe that Feiglin will advance practical matters is as naive as believing socialism can work.
Eilon, I hope that if you wait a few years I will already be a mature and worthy conversational partner.
I must say, you remind me of Mark Twain:
When I was 14, my father was so ignorant and stupid that I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much he had learned in 7 years. 🙂
[Just a minor and unimportant note. In my remarks I did not assume in any way that Bibi is guilty of anything.]
Gabi,
I am still waiting for the attacks from the members of the said cult (as remembered, expected within minutes of the publication of your comment) 🙂
Yondav, slogans are hard for me to deal with, and I have no interest in doing so.
Rabbi Michi,
1. The fact that a person managed to get a share of Likud voters (assuming that was heroism and not a disgraceful act—we’ll leave that argument aside), but did not manage to consolidate his power there to do something—doesn’t that say something about the man?
2. Let’s move to “practical” terms. I am very much in favor of separating religion and state, like you. We elect Feiglin and tomorrow he has 7 seats (not far-fetched at all). What will the government platform be? The Haredim will oppose it. The National Union and the Jewish Home too. Bennett and Shaked may agree. Likud will fear for its future seats with the Haredim. The same with Labor, and even more so. In short, there will be no separation of religion and state in the near future. So it’s nice to run with it, and for exactly that there are deep ideological movements and that is exactly what your blog is for. But your conclusion sins precisely against the gap between ideas and their implementation, and you yourself become Har HaMor (which is the greater sin, as is known). Actually no, because they believe to the very end in what they are doing, while you know that Feiglin is just nice ideas and you are only amusing yourself with them. And you vote as though these amusements replaced reality. Isn’t that a shame?
3. You didn’t answer me what is wrong with the New Right. I assume they are babblers in your eyes like everyone else. But it seems to me they have far more receipts than Feiglin.
Wonderful article!
A note on the substance: there is no such thing as predatory capitalism. There are no situations in which freedom will lead to a worse result than government intervention. The canvas is too short to contain it all, so I will mention a recommended book:
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
(: I will definitely adopt that parable if I’m Mark Twain here and the rabbi is his father……
In any case I did not write that (about growing up) lightly. It’s a response I’ve been holding back since the piece about the rabbi’s view on not voting in elections. There I didn’t respond, and here too I didn’t detail why this is a juvenile way of thinking. I’m glad to hear the rabbi was not speaking about the allegations, but the voice is the voice of the media (“must not be allowed,” etc.), even if the hands are the rabbi’s…. There is no doubt the rabbi speaks this way, whatever the reason he thinks so, under the influence of the media.
In any case, dwarfs rule the people because this is a democracy. But you have no choice except to believe in the people that it can be better. Or get stuck in black despair (the equivalent of getting stuck in skepticism in “two wagons”). Dwarfs rule because most of the people are dwarfish. The people won’t choose smart people because they are perceived as nerds and social weaklings. Or the smart people scorn the public, and then in any case they are not worthy to lead it no matter how right they are in their scorn. Until a smart person arises who also understands how to conduct himself with human beings, one can complain and cry or believe in the people. And believing in the people means believing in the representatives who offer themselves for election. Because there is simply no alternative. And to believe in the people today means Bibi or Bennett. There is no one else at the moment made of better leadership material than they are. And Bennett lacks experience (which Bibi fought to prevent him from acquiring). And no, Gantz, with all due respect, is not suitable. Yes, maybe he is made of the stuff of leaders, but right now it looks like he would lead the flock into the desert and not to pasture (Barak too was made of that stuff until it all blew up in his face and he failed to adapt himself to reality and lost his composure). And if Bibi (whom the rabbi doesn’t like) is the best there is, that is a mirror of the people. Leaders are always a reflection of the people from which they grew. It is a juvenile left-wing way of thinking to imagine that the problem is always with the regime and the leaders and the people are always fine. If the rabbi wants there to be good leaders, then the people need to be good. The people need to be worthy of good leaders, to earn them. Revolutions always begin from below, not from above. And there is no such thing as someone who “must not be prime minister” (not even Gantz, not Rabin, not Peres, and not Barak. Their leadership has consequences, but there is no prohibition. It is forbidden to speak out of emotion and frenzy when disqualifying people. One should be matter-of-fact). That is a left-wing style of speech. On the left everyone is “dangerous,” “fascist,” “corrupt,” “racist,” “enemy of humanity,” to the point of prostituting those words—even though they too are guilty of all those things there. There is no choice: there is a situation from which one must extend trust, if the alternative is to go mad. And if there is no trust, then leave the country.
At first I too thought this was bragging. I didn’t like his slogan that religious Zionism needs to move from the dining car to the engine of the train. I thought religious Zionism had never been only in the dining car, and that this was just a slur by Bnei Akiva types and Haredi rabbis in high-school yeshivot. Then Operation Protective Edge came, and it was a rather nightmarish period. And then after Protective Edge I began to notice that Bogie Ya’alon was constantly defending and justifying himself on various stages. This was puzzling, because Bogie had already been defense minister for several years (and chief of staff before that), and it wasn’t clear what he was apologizing for. Then I understood that the army’s functioning in the war had really been deficient, and that was clear to everyone in the know, and it became clear to me that Bennett had been right in his activity during Protective Edge. After that came the State Comptroller’s report, which in retrospect attacked the army, but in my view the Comptroller’s report actually harmed Bennett’s position (you can’t attack juridification and then make use of it).
My conclusion from this is that Bennett is a likable guy whose strong side is not deep thinking (in that respect Shaked and Feiglin are preferable). Many times he adopts discourse he hasn’t really thought through to the end just because it seems to him to be the bon ton. Bennett’s strong side is his spirit, his boldness (as Shaked herself admitted, it was Bennett who pushed her into the Justice Ministry), and his understanding in real time of what the important thing is. And only because of those abilities Bennett achieved what he achieved, despite being marked by Bibi and in practice receiving zero support from the religious-Zionist public. In other words, Bennett is the opposite of Feiglin—a person who constantly talks about liberty but on the practical level lacks it. Bennett doesn’t talk much about liberty, but in his conduct he reflects it.
This does not mean Bennett is free of mistakes, but while everyone is busy with his mistakes let us also remember his successes.
A slave market.
To the rabbi, may he live long and well,
It sounds as though the rabbi is unfamiliar with number three on Zehut’s list.
Well then, his name is Gilad Alper; he is a high-quality economist and was an adviser to the Finance Ministry.
He has many videos on the internet, and also a few interviews.
I recommend that the rabbi watch some of the videos in order to get to know him.
In my opinion, he is worth getting to know.
Moshe,
1. Certainly not. He made a mistake. So what?
2. I didn’t understand that argument. I claim that it is important that he be there in order to raise his ideas for discussion and implement some of them. My blog cannot do that (unfortunately).
3. In the post itself I wrote that this too is not a bad option, but their agenda is as narrow as an ant’s world, and for the most part it is neither interesting nor workable. The receipts they have are Ayelet Shaked’s receipts with respect to the Justice Ministry, and I do not dismiss that. But one should not get carried away with the receipts.
Lior, this is exactly the utopian drift I was talking about.
On a second reading I wonder about the general approach as though principles and agendas are the most important things on earth. What is strange is that I have also heard of people who had principles to murder, and it does not seem to me that they deserve preference for that. Likewise many parties that place before themselves the principle of opposing Jewish rule—do they too earn points with you, like Meretz? And are irrelevant agendas more important in your eyes than no agenda? You wrote that even someone who does not think like him should vote for him because he encourages some sort of discourse, but there are people who see his ideology as no less destructive, one that will bring an apocalypse. I do not think the right step for them is to vote for him in the name of the “principle.”
I did not write that this is the most important thing, only that it is very lacking at present.
Indeed, even to Meretz’s credit (yes, and Hitler too—I was surprised you didn’t enlist him) stands the fact that they have principles.
And indeed, as I wrote, I even considered voting for them (also because of the content of the principles, not only the mere fact that they exist).
But obviously there are prices I would not pay even for people of principle. I was speaking about someone who does not agree with the platform and could vote for him—not about someone who for some reason thinks he is a disaster and will bring a Holocaust upon us (with or without his four mandates)
I admit I didn’t read everything, but I very much identified with a lot of what I did read.
In the previous elections I was torn between ideology (Meretz) and pragmatism (Bennett), and although the day before the election Shaked annoyed me when she asked Tibi whether he was more Palestinian or Israeli (when that question is asked of a Jew in Hungary, that is antisemitism), at the moment of truth the strategy of fear worked. But I am glad, because the corrections in the legal system seem good to me.
Regarding the Bennett-and-the-tunnels story, as I recall the Comptroller’s report confirmed the matter, and it really seems Bennett was balanced and serious (I also do not believe in the Azaria effect), but I don’t feel like falling for fearmongering again, and I am thinking of voting Meretz just so I can say that I have been torn between Bennett and Meretz for years and actually vote once for each of them.
On the question whether Bibi may be allowed to be prime minister, I’m undecided, and although I too am already tired of him, I’m not sure that is a good enough reason to change my vote.
Hello Rabbi,
I agree very much about the importance of the principled and ideological trend that Feiglin represents, but the conclusions you drew from that bothered me a bit.
The sweeping disqualification of all the other parties on the charge of populism seems baseless to me.
With all due respect and appreciation for the wonders of modern education, most citizens of the state still remain without understanding in many areas. And since in a democracy citizens enjoy political power, for better or for worse, populism becomes an integral part of politics.
Even politicians who are principled, intelligent, and talented are sometimes forced (especially during election season) to create slogans and grab headlines, in order to reach the masses and accumulate political power, and there is no reason to disqualify them because of that.
There is no help for it; the Platonic republic of philosophers has not yet been realized, and as someone once said, the multitude shall not cease from the land.
I am not talking about presenting ideas in an easy and catchy way. I have no problem with copywriting, and I did not ask for articles in philosophy. I am talking about the absence of any discussion of ideas and a focus only on mudslinging and low personal attacks. That is something entirely different.
Beyond that, I disagree with your assessment of the public. When people talk about ideas, I assume most of them will understand. People are not as stupid as you make them out to be. When you drag everyone down to the low plane, everyone plays and wallows in the same degraded swamp.
That is why nothing changes.
By the way, yesterday I received for the first time a text message from “Zehut,” in the middle of the ocean of garbage I have been getting from everyone in recent weeks. And lo and behold—the only one out of the hundreds of texts I received that included an option to unsubscribe was the one from “Zehut.” Most of the others do not even make it possible to mark them as spam (which in itself apparently does not help). An oasis, as we said already?…
I hope you are right and that I am being condescending for nothing, but it seems to me there is a basis for pessimism.
An election campaign would not turn into a reality show, as you define it, if there were not public demand for that style..
And by the way, Likud does not need a platform because they have been in power so many years that everyone knows that what exists is what they will get (a bit like Mapai in its day).
Again, you have taken my remarks too far. I did not say there is no public demand. What I said is that it is not necessary that this be the discourse. That is, there is no necessity to surrender to that public demand. I argued that the public would understand even if spoken to like human beings. Whether they will like it or not is another discussion. By the way, in my opinion the answer there too is yes. The question of ratings does not represent the question of influence. Even if the public likes wrestling matches, that does not mean that because of this it will also decide to vote for the various wrestlers according to their success in the ring. I am not convinced that ratings reflect the degree of influence, and what matters is influence, not ratings.
So, for example, if one time each party were to present its position in an orderly way in several five-minute segments, that would be enough. After that one can put it on the party website and whoever wishes can watch or listen. That’s all. There is no need to go on feeding the public’s brain (or actually its loins) all the time with various teasers. After you’ve done that, one can return to routine and broadcast programs that appeal to our intellectual side, like Big Brother or MasterChef, for example.
Elad, hello.
As stated, I too at some stage considered Meretz, but every time anew I discover that these are simply not intelligent people (by the way, at least some of them do have a positive tendency and are good people, at least by their own lights). I recoil from appointing fools to manage our affairs. People from other parties (not all, of course), despite all their shallowness and preoccupation with Bibi, in my opinion are on average wiser and more intelligent. For all my aversion to generalizations, precisely because they keep pumping the opposite into us, I will not refrain from saying that the farther right you go, the higher the IQ on average (though not necessarily the human level).
Regarding Bibi, as I hinted above, in my opinion he must not be allowed to be prime minister, regardless of whether he is found guilty or not. Since this recurs here, I will explain a bit more. It seems to me there are several good reasons for this:
1. By all accounts he is a pleasure-seeker and money-grubber, even if not corrupt. In my eyes that is a problematic character for managing our affairs.
2. There are problematic factors influencing his conduct (Sara and Yair, not to mention various self-interested friends of his).
3. He has already been there too long. It is not good for a prime minister to feel like the owner of his seat.
4. I expect that he will be occupied with his legal affairs and defending against them, and therefore will not have the mental and practical leisure to govern the state properly.
5. His judgment on various matters may be skewed for the worse by his personal affairs. And there are many points of contact with the decisions he will have to make (cf. the disengagement and Ariel Sharon, at least on the level of appearances).
6. And in the very end, I have become convinced that there is at least a reasonable chance that he is guilty of at least some of the things. The whole business looks rotten from the root and on a broad front. But as I said, one need not get that far in order to prevent him from holding the office.
From all of the above, in my opinion he simply must not be prime minister (despite the pleasure I would feel when all the journalists and left-wing celebs eat their hats. That would be the positive bonus of this bad step—cf. Trump). On the merits, I far prefer Lapid and Gantz, regardless of their views (or lack thereof). And experience will come with time (I am not expecting catastrophes that are too great. No apocalypses. We got through Pharaoh; we’ll get through this too.
Indeed. They have no platform and they have been “implementing” that for a very long time.
They have a platform. It’s called the status quo. What was will be. They run the state but without plans for change. That’s what they sell and that’s what the public buys.
(To a large extent, the same is true of the Haredim and of Smotrich.)
I didn’t understand what the great complication here is with the categorical imperative.
In the present case, the general instruction needed is: “Vote-for-whomever-whose-strengthening-will-in-the-voter’s-view-bring-blessing-to-the-people-of-Israel.”
You think that, at the moment, that is Zehut, and someone else thinks it is Likud or Balad. The categorical imperative is needed only to obligate participation in the game as such. It does not have to apply to every detail of the act.
Of course all this is only an intellectual amusement. Nobody really acts according to the categorical imperative (even though we make use of it at times).
I already wrote above: if there is someone who enjoys rewriting what I wrote in his own words, good for him. I am happy in his happiness. 🙂
What is “above”?
In the post you hinted at some deep casuistry. I do not see any question here at all. It is about like saying that one cannot save an injured person on the basis of the categorical imperative, because I don’t want everyone to put a tourniquet on the injured: sometimes one needs resuscitation, sometimes cold water, etc.
“Above” means in one of the comments. In the post itself I wrote everything you wrote here (and I did not hint at anything). Examine it carefully and forget it.
I examined your comments twice and it did not turn up in my hand.
In the post it indeed seems that you were aiming at the same point, but you defined it as casuistry.
There is no casuistry here at all, and the “difficulty” can be asked about any application of the categorical imperative. There are always changing particulars.
Assuming I understood you correctly, could you briefly explain why you are in favor of legalizing marijuana? (Even though this is a marginal issue..)
I am neither for nor against it. I do not have a formed position because I am not familiar with the subject. In principle there is room to forbid something if its price to society is problematic and if the prohibition is indeed effective (that is, it does not merely make the drug more expensive without making it less accessible).
Gilad Alper really is the most impressive candidate in Zehut; after him, Libi Molad. If only he would become finance minister.
2. It turns out that even with Sara and Yair and all the deep-state plots, the man manages to function quite well, certainly compared to Gantz, whom two months of campaigning have driven out of his mind (Bibi wants to murder me—maybe the party of former chiefs of staff also needs one mental-health officer on the list?).
3. Don’t forget the element of experience accumulated with seniority.
4. See 2. The man is a phenomenon.
6. I prefer him over Ashkenazi of “I have leverage to straighten out Ayala Hasson” or Benny “I endangered an entire Golani company so I could feel moral” Gantz. There’s no point wasting words on Lapid. That bunch, even according to the attorney general, is knowingly fabricating a blood libel in the submarine affair. You can ask your friend Sh.K. to confirm that.
🙂 An experiment to see if it turns into a smiley
So you are basically taking a risk in the hope that legalization of cannabis will not harm society? There are those who warn of catastrophic dangers that legalization will bring, and this is an issue that Zehut will definitely promote.
Again
To say that “obviously he simply must not etc.” is ridiculous. Maybe it would be more correct to say that it would be undesirable for him to be, and that already points to the problems in the rabbi’s arguments.
It is quite evident that the rabbi spends time in salon conversations with friends. But the truth is that most of the rabbi’s arguments are not good.
1. The rabbi has many left-wing friends, and I believe (actually it is quite transparent to me) that inwardly it is unpleasant for him—despite his subversive character and therefore certainly—to not sound like the social fashion (the commenter above implied this) that Netanyahu is corrupt and evil etc., but all of that is just an invention of the media, the “shapers of public opinion,” ever since 1996. And all of that is nonsense. Note that not merely incorrect but nonsense. The truth is that the rabbi (and no commenter) has any way to know Netanyahu’s character unless he knows him personally. Most likely Netanyahu is no better and no worse than the average Israeli. “Pleasure-seeker and money-grubber” is simply the media’s label for anyone rich whom it does not favor. Because of cigars? Everyone has hobbies according to his wealth. Yes, he is not Begin and Benny Begin. So what? He is no worse than any other candidate currently available.
2. Same nonsense. As if the activist wives of the leftists Olmert and Gantz would receive such media exposure. A significant portion of the country has opinionated wives, or witches, alternatively. It is irrelevant to anything, and I am amazed that the rabbi descends to this level.
3. Like the one above me. And in general I don’t believe a system can affect essence. On the contrary. Someone who comes for a fixed term has no incentive to be good at the job. In any case he is here for a fixed term. He will be good if the people are good.
4. Maybe. But I believe he can manage and still be better than all the others.
5. The only serious argument. But even regarding Sharon I am not sure he did not act from what he thought was right (the truth is I believe he acted from his understanding, only that he was simply bulldozing by nature). Sharon was not cynical at any stage of his life. So now suddenly he started?
6. These things are blown far beyond their proper proportions. I have little trust in the prosecution (Shai Nitzan) and after Ben Ari also in the High Court (which in any case was already tainted with political bias), and the other courts are no longer worth much either. Until a court is chosen by the people there is nothing to talk about. After all, they can distort the law as they wish in order to create volume for these cases (which the prosecution has already done). The truth is that in the current media reality the rabbi has no way to know unless he investigates it himself. Even Mandelblit is part of the “holy gatekeepers chosen by God” whom one must not touch. See his discussion with Ayelet Shaked two days ago. In short, the point here is not to rejoice at the journalists’ expense but not to let them dictate the agenda.
And Gantz looks as though he is quite captive to his electorate, and at some point he will have to comply with their demands. He is not Sharon. Like my predecessor, there is no need to elaborate too much about Lapid. He is not suited to leadership at that level. He may be an honest person, but he is frightfully shallow (I still remember his days writing in Yedioth Ahronoth). He could perhaps be an ordinary minister, but making decisions on the level of statecraft is not in his caliber.
The experiment succeeded. Was there a prediction? 🙂
Without knowing the details of the subject, I see no catastrophic danger whatsoever. And if it is a catastrophic danger, then to pass it would require 61 Knesset members; Zehut’s 4 would not suffice. Give up the apocalypses.
Zehut’s economics expert predicted an economic crisis in the U.S. in 2014. On a blog that declares its intention to be capitalist, he attacks American capitalist policy https://return-to-a-free-market.blogspot.com/2014/06/blog-post_20.html
A look at Zehut’s platform
https://7minim.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fag
I saw nothing in Alper’s article that contradicts capitalism. Is a capitalist supposed to worship everything America does? Is Warren Buffett, who says the same thing, also a socialist? Alper criticizes American policy on a certain issue. I see no connection to capitalism.
As for Persico’s article, its opening is truly absurd (Feiglin is not talking about theology but about Jewish national identity. Persico in particular should remove the beam from between his own eyes regarding theology). Further on there are some sensible remarks, and those too deserve discussion. Contrary to his claims, Zehut’s platform says in several places that there will not be conduct according to halakhah, at least on the private plane, and not always on the public plane either.
Regarding marriage registration, Persico is completely right in my view. Their proposal on this matter is sloppy, and of course will not be workable. What is needed is only a very small correction: after private marriages, which each person conducts according to his own understanding, there should have to be transparent registration (that is, everyone will know how each couple was married), and registration with the state in court or city hall, which would recognize the various forms of marriage on the legal plane.
Just a note for precision. Ayelet Shaked’s question can be annoying for various reasons, but it has no connection to the irritating example you gave. Judaism is perceived primarily as a religion in the world, and therefore to assume that I am part of the Jewish people just because I am of the Jewish religion is racism. By contrast, the meaning of the terms “Israeli” and “Palestinian” belongs to the same plane of nationality, and therefore there is a contradiction between the two definitions.
Bottom line: Zehut’s platform simply frightens me.
They claim that the state should reduce its presence to the barest minimum and that the forces of the market and the community will fill the vacuum.
For example—lonely Holocaust survivors with nothing? They won’t receive an allowance. Their “community” will provide for all their needs.
Single mothers, the disabled, people struggling with mental illness, etc., who have trouble integrating into the workforce? All employment-assistance programs will be abolished. If they really want to, they’ll find work somehow.
And so on and so forth.
I hope it is self-evident to the sane majority that care for the weak does not happen by itself, and that if there is no professional, organized mechanism (one that does not operate for profit) for rehabilitation, accompaniment, and support of the weak, most of them will end up in dire situations that are hard to imagine.
Now, it is not as if what happens today is fine. Not at all. Today the state is playing pretend. There are welfare services but no resources. There are excellent professionals but their conditions do not allow them to work.
Today’s policy too leads the weak to horrific places, but at least there is some functioning mechanism.
In any case, precisely for the reasons I mentioned, and similar to some of Rabbi Michi’s paragraphs, I will vote for Orly Levy and Gesher’s excellent team. There is an orderly doctrine there, there is ideology, there are amazing people acting from the right motives.
I think this is not an accurate presentation of their position. But it is true that this is a point at which full freedom does not work, as I wrote.
Actually on the legal plane there is no problem; couples arrange their affairs legally as they wish before the wedding. There is no need for them to be registered as married, and in any case the state applies marriage law. In that model, what happens if they are not interested in all the legal arrangements the state makes? Therefore perhaps it is better that the couple themselves decide before the wedding what legal relationship they want between them.
The problem is only with respect to abroad, as Persico noted, and therefore it would indeed be worthwhile for there to be some registration of marriages somewhere.
The question should not be “whose platform seems most suitable to me,” but rather “who will advance the platform that seems most suitable to me.”
Here the answer is clearly not Feiglin.
Fine, he may be an interesting and refreshing thinker in the Israeli political sphere. That isn’t what matters.
What matters is voting for whoever advances those values. Bennett and Shaked, in a little over a decade in politics, have advanced the values Feiglin believes in far more than Feiglin and Amsalem have in their little over three decades in politics (combined).
A politician needs to be a person of action. Feiglin is not.