The Purse and the Sword – A Look at the State of the Legal System and Society in Israel (Column 258)
Hamilton and Friedman: lacking purse and sword is supposed to express democratic strength
The essay opens with Hamilton's original saying, via Daniel Friedman's book. In the original sense, the judiciary is strong precisely because it has no physical or economic power of its own: it rests on the law and the public, and this is a democratic model in which the will of the people outweighs the power of the rich and the strong. So 'without purse and sword' is not a description of weakness but of a source of legitimacy.
Aharon Barak turns the saying from a claim of legitimacy into a claim of weakness
The essay argues that in the usage associated with Aharon Barak the connotation is reversed: 'the judge has neither sword nor purse, only public trust' is presented as a fragile condition that requires caution about any criticism. From this comes the view that whoever attacks the system harms democracy itself. The rabbi argues that precisely when trust erodes, the system prefers to blame its critics rather than examine itself.
The Netanyahu affair highlights the absurdity: he may not criticize, but the system may bind him
The essay offers Netanyahu as a test case. Even if he may be using his claims tactically, nobody except the law-enforcement officials knows for certain what happened, and in principle it is possible that he really believes a case is being fabricated against him. If so, why is his criticism of the investigation and the prosecution treated from the outset as illegitimate incitement, while at the same time people demand, even before trial, that he draw conclusions, resign, and accept the system's authority? The essay sees this as an asymmetrical and absurd demand.
Distrust was not created only by right-wing propaganda but by the system's own failures
The essay argues that the system 'honestly earned' a large share of this distrust: preferential treatment for its own people, foot-dragging over internal failures, nepotism, resistance to oversight, self-control over appointments, giving binding force to legal advisers' positions without statutory basis, and judicial imperialism. It stresses that the criticism is not only from the right: Daniel Friedman, Ruth Gavison, Menachem Mautner, Hila Gerstel, Gadi Taub and others do not fit the simple image of a single 'political camp'. The problem is aggravated because the media and public discourse often present a professional dispute as a right-left battle, thereby silencing substantive criticism; and conversely, the right-wing media also suffers from bias when injustices involve Arabs or the left.
The judiciary today has purse and sword, sometimes more than politicians do
The essay concedes that the judiciary has no army or police 'of its own', and that in the end every regime also rests on obedience and trust. But this is equally true of politicians, chiefs of staff, and every governing institution, so one cannot present only the judiciary as powerless. Within the state's framework it decides whom to investigate, how to run a case, when to prosecute, how to interpret a law, and at times even how to strike one down; in that sense, a politician's fate is in its hands more than its fate is in his.
The D9 image and the lesson from Stalin show how institutional power really works
Moti Yogev was portrayed as if he had called for actual violence when he said one should 'go up on the Supreme Court with a D9', but the essay argues that this was mainly an expression of frustration at the court's disproportionate power, not a plan of action. From there it returns to a lesson drawn from reading a biography of Stalin: even someone who does not personally hold a weapon can control purse and sword through a governing structure that frightens everyone else and paralyzes resistance. So the claim that the judiciary has no power because the weapon is not physically in its hand misses how the modern state actually operates.
The system's very functioning without public trust proves that its power does not rest on trust alone
From here the essay returns to public distrust, which it says is now deep even among people who are not extremists. It notes that on the left too one hears similar claims about selective enforcement, police manipulation, and failures by the internal watchdog when the victims are Ethiopians or Arabs. Therefore, the fact that the judiciary and law-enforcement apparatus continue to act forcefully even amid severe erosion of public trust is, in the rabbi's view, evidence opposite to what people try to derive from Hamilton's saying: today their power rests to a large extent precisely on the state's purse and sword.
The danger is anarchy, so even someone who does not support Netanyahu must listen
The essay ends with a warning: if the judiciary and the media continue to answer criticism with silencing, by blaming the public, and by refusing self-scrutiny, Israeli society may move from fragmentation to breakdown. The rabbi stresses that he himself is not among Netanyahu's supporters, thinks he should have stepped down long ago, and even expects him to be convicted; yet he still sees it as a duty to listen to the authentic feelings of a broad public and not dismiss them as manipulation or stupidity. Even the idea of pardoning Netanyahu, he says, shows how far the judiciary's standing has eroded and how much law enforcement itself is harmed by that. Preventing this disintegration is a task for all sides, but it especially requires transparency, sensitivity, and self-correction from the institutions that seek trust.
Joker as a parable of the fragility of the social order
At the margin, the essay reads the film Joker not as another fashionable parable about the rich versus the weak, but as a warning about the rapid collapse of the thin normative shell that holds an entire society together. Arbitrary and insensitive power can ignite a single person, and from there masses as well. The conclusion is that one must return from Barak's manipulative interpretation to Hamilton's original meaning: institutions cannot demand trust while rejecting criticism, but must be built on real public legitimacy.
With God’s help
In this column I would like to make use of a common maxim whose meaning has, almost unnoticed (?) been reversed, and through it to reflect on the state of the legal system and of Israeli society today.
The original direction of the purse and the sword: Hamilton and Friedman
Professor Daniel Friedman (Law, Tel Aviv University), former Minister of Justice, is known as a sharp opponent of the judicial imperialism of Aharon Barak and his successors (he too is another one with an agenda, like Ruth Gavison)[1]. Years ago Friedman wrote a book called The Purse and the Sword – The Legal Revolution and Its Collapse, which deals with Barak’s machinations and the system he headed. The title of the book is based on a well-known dictum of Alexander Hamilton, a constitutional lawyer and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, who said that the power of the judicial system rests precisely on the fact that it has no purse and no sword. Hamilton argued that the power of the judicial system is derived only from the fact that it represents the law and the public.
Originally, this is a statement that conveys strength: despite having no objective power whatsoever, the judicial system represents the law and the public standing behind it, and from there comes its power. And that is as it should be. Democratic thought gives priority to the will of the people and the public over the purse and the sword, and rightly so. If you wish, that is the essence of democracy: to neutralize the absolute weight of the purse and the sword (the wealthy and the powerful) and distribute power among all citizens.
The reversal in the use of the maxim: Aharon Barak
In recent years, however, people have tended to use this maxim precisely to emphasize the weakness of the judicial system (see, for example, here and here). This probably goes back to Aharon Barak, who used to say: "A judge has neither sword nor purse, but only the public’s trust." In other words, this is an inherent weakness of the system, since it has no purse and no sword. The foundation of its power is only the public’s trust, and therefore it is so fragile. From this, many people—mainly on one side of the debate—draw the conclusion that one must not speak out against this system,[2] and that it is crucial to preserve its standing with great care. I suddenly noticed that in recent years these statements have acquired a connotation opposite to the original one (a reversal of connotation, even if not of meaning).
Barak’s faction in the party of the purse and the sword (as opposed to the faction of Friedman and Hamilton), which may be called the "Rule of Law" party (those who make cynical use of the concept of "the rule of law" in order to promote their positions, and in truth their power), frequently quotes this maxim in order to silence critics. They argue again and again that public criticism may destroy the system and thereby bring ruin upon us all. The message is that the struggle is unfair, because we (the jurists) "have no real weapons with which to defend ourselves." The politician comes from a position of power backed by the purse and the sword, whereas the judicial system comes empty-handed (deriving strength only from public trust).
Naturally, these statements intensify precisely in situations in which the public is losing trust in the system. There, instead of examining itself and trying to repair matters, the system usually prefers to place the problem at the doorstep of the critics and present its weakness as an argument for the illegitimacy of the criticism. Every criticism is perceived as a destruction of the system, and of democracy in general, and of course as an unfair struggle: you (the critics, the public, the politicians) are the powerful ones, and we (the judicial system) are the weak.
The elephant in the room: Bibi
Take, for example, the claims surrounding Bibi. He claims that a case has been stitched up against him and that the investigation against him is being conducted in a biased, disgraceful, and scandalous manner. If he is doing this merely as a tactic of public relations and public struggle for the sake of his status—then this criticism is justified. But at present none of us (perhaps except for the prosecution and the police, the objects of the criticism) can really know that. And yet that does not prevent anyone from attacking him on the grounds that he is inciting against the judicial and law-enforcement system, and that his criticism is illegitimate.
Imagine the hypothetical possibility that this is indeed how he feels—in other words, that in his view this really is the situation (that they are framing him and behaving scandalously). And perhaps not only does he think so, but this really is the situation. In principle, that is possible. Is he forbidden, even in such a situation, from raising these claims? There is no doubt that a considerable part of the public thinks so too, whether rightly or wrongly. Is the criticism he raises illegitimate? Can a prime minister who feels this way not express his criticism? What is a person who feels that the system fabricates cases and behaves unjustly supposed to do? Keep quiet, capitulate, and continue honoring it? Notice that many people are demanding that Bibi draw conclusions already now, before he has even stood trial. In other words, they expect him not to fight the investigative system and the prosecution but to conduct his defense only in court, while at the same time demanding that he accept their claims and act accordingly—that is, resign. The meaning of this is that he is forbidden to fight these systems, but their decision obligates him to act. Is that not an absurd demand?
The basis for the feeling of distrust
It is no secret that today there is a growing lack of trust in the system. Barak’s faction in the party of the purse and the sword sees the public as the party to blame. According to them, for political and self-interested reasons, the public is not safeguarding the standing and power of the system. They accuse it of being driven by manipulations of self-interested politicians who prefer their own fate, power, and status over the state’s systems of law and justice.
But Barak’s people ignore the fact that the system has honestly earned this distrust. I will not elaborate here on the exploits of the judicial system and its conduct: the discriminatory treatment of its own members (closing cases, dragging its feet in dealing with failures, resistance to scrutiny—see Hila Gerstel), the nepotism of the guardians of the moral flame, who issue rulings about conflicts of interest and disqualification of appointments while themselves treating the system as their private estate. The preservation of the power to appoint people in the hands of the people of the system itself (appointment of judges, opposition to splitting the role of the Attorney General, granting binding force to the advice of legal advisers without any legal basis in statute, and more), and the outcry against every attempt by the public to bring about more reasonable representation. At times these are people who themselves are suspected of the very things against which they warn in their judgments, and not a soul says a word. And I have not even mentioned the judicial imperialism by which the court arrogates to itself (by force of the purse and the sword it supposedly does not have) powers that the legislature did not place in its hands, and so on.
By the way, contrary to the false picture they try to present to us, this criticism does not come only from the Right. Daniel Friedman is not a man of the Right. Nor are Ruth Gavison or Menachem Mautner. I would guess that Hila Gerstel is not either (in any event, her harsh criticism of the system did not come from a political place). The same is true of quite a few figures who were part of the legal and investigative system in Israel and are willing to come out openly and honestly against the systems in which they served. Only yesterday I heard Gadi Taub, a very wise and measured man, speak sharply against the silencing of present criticism, and defend the legitimacy of the demonstrations against the system (which are presented as violent and illegitimate, when in fact nothing could be more legitimate). At first I was sure it wasn’t him, because that sharpness did not seem to suit him. And he is certainly not a man of the Right (it is very worth listening here). There are quite a few others, although usually you will not hear them, or about them, in Haaretz, which is of course not surprising,[3] but not on the main broadcast slots on the public networks either. Criticism of the conduct of these systems regarding Bibi appears mainly in right-wing and sectoral media outlets (Israel Hayom, Channel 7, Makor Rishon, Galei Israel). Most of the major media outlets make very little effort to present such criticism, and usually do so from a hostile perspective. Our society is splitting into closed groups, each nourished by its own sources of information and its own columnists, with no awareness of or consideration for the arguments of the other side. Thus everything turns into a political struggle between Right and Left, and then, of course, it becomes easy to complain that the critics are engaged in a political rather than substantive struggle.[4]
Many of these critics are first-rate legal experts who are no less concerned for democracy, and perhaps more so, than the party (or gang) of "Rule of Law," but usually they are silenced and presented as extremist voices, and sometimes are virtually ostracized within their community. Within the legal guild there is a lively and sharp dispute over Barak’s policy, but heaven forbid that any of this be let out to us ordinary people. Our splendid ignorance must be preserved, lest we fail by lowering the standing of the judicial system in the eyes of the "Indians"—that is, the wider public. The same is true in the journalistic world, where care is taken to present the picture as though this were a struggle between the children of light (the enlightened Left. Ah, and Menachem Begin too, of course—"There are judges in Jerusalem"; the Right of old was enlightened, unlike the Indians of today) and the children of darkness (the dark Right. The Right of today).
The "people without purse and sword" are currently waging a war, which I cannot refrain from calling violent, to silence critical voices. Demonstrating is forbidden and criticizing is forbidden. One must bow one’s head and be silent. If they do not enjoy the public’s trust, they try to train the public to give that trust and to scold those who do not. There is here a systematic policy of silencing which, paradoxically, precisely leads to the intensification of the revolt among that part of the public that does not trust the system. It is being required to give the system that trust without the system itself being willing to do what is necessary in order to earn it.
If you are so weak, and if you really have no purse and no sword, if you truly depend only on the public’s trust and it matters so much to you, I would expect more attentiveness to what the public feels and says. I would expect greater sensitivity to criticism, and greater willingness to examine your own afflictions and correct them. Certainly not a policy that merely rebuffs criticism and places responsibility on the critics.
Critique of the new and manipulative meaning being attached to the maxim
On the face of it, they really have no purse and no sword. On the face of it, they really are weak, unlike the politicians. After all, the judicial system has no army or police of its own. It is not part of the executive branch, which commands those forces that are subject to its authority.
No illusion could be greater than this. Today more than ever it is clear that there is no system with a stronger purse and sword than the judicial and law-enforcement system. With a mere breath it decides whether to open an investigation, how to conduct it, whom to put in prison, how to interpret the law, or perhaps to nullify it without real authorization from the legislature. All this is done by the "weak and powerless," those who supposedly are built solely on the foundation of the public’s trust (which, to a large extent, no longer exists).
One can of course argue that the instruments of power are not really entrusted to the judicial system. It has no army or police of its own, and in principle those systems could turn against it or refuse to obey it. Indeed, the foundation of its power is the public’s trust. But this is a demagogic argument, since by the same token the politician also has no purse and no sword. By the same token the army can also turn against him and refuse to obey him. The Chief of Staff also has no power, since he depends on the soldiers obeying him. This is an almost empty statement. Within the framework of the governmental and democratic system these institutions have power, because it is not so easy to go against them. And the same is true, even more strongly, with respect to the court and the judicial system.
They have purse and sword no less than the political system, and in truth much more than it. The judicial system can eliminate a politician within the framework of the law (that is what Bibi claims is being done to him in practice. Even if he is wrong, this is certainly a possibility that exists in principle). By contrast, I do not see how, within the framework of our governmental and democratic system, any politician can do anything to a judge or to the Attorney General. Just remember Moti Yogev and his statement—entirely legitimate in my view—that one should go up to the court with a D9, and see where that got him. To this day his name is invoked by all as a symbol of disgrace, as though he were a violent man attacking the institutions of the state and democracy. (By the way, despite all my disagreement with his views,[5] he is the most statesmanlike and gentle fellow I know. To my mind this is actually repellent statism.) Even though it is clear to any reasonable person that he did not mean to carry out an actual deed. What military bulldozer operator (as far as I know, a D9 is a military bulldozer) would have gone with him? Would the army have joined him? On the contrary, his statement expressed frustration in the face of the disproportionate power of the judicial system, which possesses purse and sword and uses them against public opinion and without public trust (at least in Yogev’s view). What is illegitimate about such a statement? The criticism directed at him is part of that same silencing by Barak’s faction.
At the end of the day (and we already saw in the previous column that this is what matters), the politician’s fate is in the hands of the judicial system, not the other way around. The self-righteousness and feigned innocence involved in the inverted use of Hamilton’s maxim are manipulative and intellectually dishonest. Barak and those who share his view are trying to arouse pity, but their words amount to the proverbial robbed Cossack.
What Stalin has to do with all this
This is the place to recall what I wrote in columns 34 and 67. There I described the lesson I learned from reading Stalin’s biography. A huge and powerful state, with a mighty army, stands entirely facing one man, Stalin, whom everyone wants dead and fears to death, and it cannot overcome him. The second strongest army in the world, with enormous and powerful police and investigative systems, all submit to one man who has no purse and no sword. How does this happen? Very simply: this is the secret of the power of a modern state and of government. A single individual cannot act against them for fear that harm will befall him. Organizing several people, or an organization (like the army), is extraordinarily difficult because of this fear. And so, although the purse and the sword are in their hands and not in his, in truth he is the one who holds the purse and the sword, and with them, in his bare hands, grips all the purses and swords by the throat.
This is a parable—an exaggerated one, of course—for the absurdity of the claim that the judicial system has no purse and no sword. It certainly does. The entire governmental and state apparatus stands at its disposal, and it uses it. If that is not purse and sword, I do not know what purse and sword are.
Distrust: back to the purse and the sword
Among significant parts of the public today there is a very deep lack of trust in the judicial system. Even if one does not agree with it, and even if one does not like this state of affairs, it is a fact. The attitude toward Bibi is only an indication that arouses very deep feelings among a considerable portion of the public. I speak with many people, by no means extremists, who express revulsion at what is being done here. They do not have a drop of trust in the findings of the investigation, in the indictment against Bibi, or in the judicial system in general. But this distrust does not begin with the fact that they are people of the Right. That is an easy explanation, but not a correct one. It begins with the problematic conduct of the judicial system: feelings of selective enforcement, of improper and unbalanced conduct, all the failures I described regarding the system, and many others I did not mention. When this strikes Bibi, the darling of many hearts, it falls on fertile ground. But it is a mistake to bite the stick. One must examine the hand that holds it. After all, the same distrust arises from the Left when it comes to mistreatment of Ethiopians or Arabs. There everyone sees the blemishes of the system and criticizes it sharply for them. There too one finds police manipulations, the impotence of the Police Internal Investigations Department (Mahash), selective enforcement, unjustified and improper arrests, and more.
It is worth noting that, ironically, precisely today, when there is such deep public distrust toward the judicial system, the very fact that it continues to function with such force and to do as it pleases proves as clearly as a thousand witnesses that the main infrastructure underlying its power today is… the purse and the sword. In the absence of public trust, its ability to function is based only on the purse and the sword and not on public trust. If one needs proof against Barak’s faction’s interpretation, or connotation, of Hamilton’s maxim, the current situation gives it to us clearly and sharply. The state system succeeds in overcoming all centers of power and even public distrust. Apparently no purse or sword is needed at all; public trust alone suffices (even when it does not really exist).
Conclusion
Needless to say, this situation is very dangerous. In the final analysis, all systems of government really do depend on the public’s trust. Anarchy crouches at the door, and if the system continues to abuse the public and not take its views into account, the public will indeed go up against it with a D9—and this time physically.
Today it is closer than ever. Manipulators cannot move the public if there were not already an authentic feeling within it, if the public’s feelings were not fertile ground that sprouts these seeds of calamity. If the media systems continue to be tendentious and biased, and if the judicial system does not learn to draw conclusions about itself as well and not only about the public, if transparency and proper procedures are not maintained, then we are not very far from the anarchy against which all these people warn us. Already today the public is fragmenting into parties, each of which has its own values, media systems, and leadership, and there is no real discourse and no minimal trust between them. The next step is to dismantle the whole package, and to move from the present condition—a federation of monads, a collection of groups and narratives that do not speak to one another—to anarchy that will shatter and break the system. I do not think anyone wants such a collapse, but preventing that outcome is work for all sides in the discussion.
I have written here more than once what I think of Bibi. In my view he should have gone long ago, and I do not have a drop of trust in him. In my estimation he will indeed be found to be a criminal, and I even suspect that somewhere there are other problematic matters that will not be uncovered or that cannot be proven regarding him. This fellow feels at home in the Prime Minister’s residence, and perhaps in the state in general, as though these were his private estates, and that alone is enough to tell him to go home. In short, I am really not one of his supporters. But precisely because of this I feel an obligation to write about the state of mind of the public that feels differently about him. I do not agree with them in this case, but it is a mistake to see this as only the result of manipulations and a political agenda, or as merely the result of stupidity and naiveté. These are very authentic feelings, and it is fitting for all of us not to ignore them. In truth, it is even dangerous to do so.[6]
In recent days it was reported that Rabbi Yaakov Medan and other rabbis appealed to the President of the State with a request that he pardon Bibi if the latter undertakes to retire from political life. From my perspective, this appeal is infuriating. A person who has committed crimes (and as stated, in my estimation Bibi is indeed such a person) should stand trial and answer for his deeds. The law should be enforced against all of us (the "Buzaglo test" of equal enforcement). But it is worth noting that such an appeal is based on the shaky standing of the judicial system. The need for a pardon is to restore the torn and fractured social fabric. If there were not such deep public distrust of the judicial system, no one would see any need for such a proposal, or even think to make it. Once again, paradoxically, the law-enforcement systems, through their conduct, are producing precisely the opposite results (that is, that the law will not be enforced).
In passing: a note on the film "Joker"
As an aside, all this reminds me of the film Joker that I saw not long ago. A powerful film. I thought of writing a column about it, and in the end I did not succeed. But the truth is that the present column is more or less my lost column about that film.
Many have written[7] that the main message of the film concerns the treatment of the weak and those at the margins of society, or the gravity of the conduct of the rich and the powerful and their disregard for the weak (the disadvantaged?). These are fashionable social lessons, but I do not think that this is what stands at the center of the discussion there. The main lesson that emerges from the film, in my opinion, is the fragility of our social structure. One sees there how arbitrary, forceful, and inconsiderate conduct by the strong toward the weak can cause one small and weak person to explode, and how this process can ultimately lead to a violent eruption of frustrated masses in the streets and the breakdown of all the social and governmental systems. This could leave our society a heap of ruins. Beneath the thin veneer of norms that wraps around us and preserves the social fabric, bubbling lava seethes, and if it is allowed to erupt it will sweep everything away in its path. The fragility of this veneer certainly places a question mark over the public’s trust in the systems of government and administration, which are the strongest purse and sword we currently possess, and it is worth preserving them as such. The lesson is that we must return from Aharon Barak’s manipulative interpretation of the maxim of the purse and the sword to the original interpretation that Hamilton intended.
[1] We are accustomed to accusing Barak of claiming that Gavison has an agenda, as though he himself (or anyone else) has none. But he was precise in his wording and said that she has an unworthy agenda (and he did not disqualify her merely because she has an agenda). Once again, this is a common quotation used for routine polemics, all of it based on error and quotation out of context. Of course, none of this means that I agree with his claim that her agenda is unworthy, but it is still important to place his words within the framework of the relevant discussion.
[2] And of course they always qualify this by saying that there is no problem with substantive criticism. But incitement is forbidden. Except that criticism coming from one side of the political and ideological map is always incitement in their eyes.
[3] Except when the legal and investigative systems do wrong to their own camp or to Arabs. Then you will hear resounding criticism there as well.
[4] By the way, the right-wing sectoral media tend to remain silent in the face of wrongs done to Arabs and to the Left. No one is free of this tendentiousness.
[5] Which was publicized in the media in a highly amusing way. See some echoes here.
[6] I certainly share, at least partially, some of these feelings. Perhaps even with respect to the investigations of Bibi, but certainly with respect to the law-enforcement systems in general.
[7] There are many reviews and critiques of the film, and you can find them online. It is worth seeing, for example, the one here, which is more balanced and also contains something of the angle I presented above.
Discussion
About Gadi Taub – https://m.maariv.co.il/amp/news/israel/Article-660377
I sent a comment yesterday, and I see that for some reason it didn’t go up. Not that there’s much here to respond to…
Gadi Taub is not a right-winger. That is what I wrote, and it is a simple fact. Ask him where he places himself on the political map.
As for Haaretz, a tendentious newspaper to a degree that is hard to imagine an equal for (it seems to me that only Haredi newspapers compete with it in this respect), there is no need to elaborate. The fact that from time to time it lets two very right-wing liberal writers say a few words within its jumble of propaganda means nothing. It is worth checking the ages of Haaretz’s two right-wing talents to understand what is going on. And also the frequency and volume of their writing. Israel Hayom and Makor Rishon, politically identified newspapers, surpass it tenfold in balance and openness, and also in the level of fanaticism of their church of readers.
I am still trying to process your outburst about the High Court petitions department. So far I cannot even understand what in my remarks it refers to. As far as I can tell at this point – nothing.
In general, it is easy to see that I am among those who very much appreciate decisiveness, but only as an addition to relevant arguments, not in their place.
Netanyahu must go to trial, with no pardon. He owes that to the right: so that all the filth and corruption of the State Attorney’s Office will come to light. Rabbi Medan’s proposal is disgraceful and suits the national-religious public: conformism, subjugation to the system bordering on fascism, and sanctimoniousness. If Netanyahu believes in his innocence, why the hell would he ask for a pardon (which is essentially an admission of guilt)?
https://www.maariv.co.il/journalists/Article-732356
"He claims they stitched up a case against him and that the investigation against him is being conducted in a disgracefully and scandalously biased way. If he is doing this only as a public-relations tactic and a public struggle for the sake of his status – that is justified criticism. But at the moment none of us (perhaps aside from the State Attorney’s Office and the police, who are the object of the criticism) can really know that."
Really? No one can know? Open your eyes a little.
There is a rotten, corrupt body here with a proven record of framing people: Yaakov Neeman, Rafael Eitan, Ruby Rivlin, and Kahalani. Even if everything they are accusing Bibi of is completely true – he is a rank amateur compared to them.
The sword of the court is so sharp that these judicial pirates have allowed themselves to take the law into their own hands time and again, by seizing powers they do not have, in the knowledge that the executive branch would never dare put them in their place and say, ‘Enough,’ even once.
https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/419717
A bit exaggerated, but there is something to his description.
Israel is not like the U.S., because in the U.S. there is a constitution, and both the branches of government and the nation as a whole are bound by the constitution, and the judiciary has the greatest power to enforce it. By contrast, in Israel there is no constitution, and what is called "the will of the people" usually reflects views agreed upon by part of the public and not all of it. As a democracy, Israel has too much power in the executive branch (because it is not separate from the legislative branch), too much power in the legislative branch (because it is not limited by a constitution), and too much power in the judiciary (because it interprets the law in an activist way). The main indicator for the test of the purse and the sword is the head of the executive branch. Is he wealthy, or a military man? Do military men or wealthy people have excessive influence over him? How would the submarine affair have been received by the public if it had occurred in countries with a genuine democratic tradition?
You really can ask him, and he will tell you that he is on the right.
It is amazing how you can go on confidently writing errors after people corrected you.
In the end you will presumably say that it really doesn’t matter (and therefore you also have no need to update yourself about the change, just as you have no need to update yourself about reality regarding anything else), but that is precisely the point – since reality generally does not interest you, you should know in advance that you are very likely to have errors in your grasp of it.
This is nonsense, and you are simply insolent. Does a constitution not arise from the will of the people? What you call "part of the public" is the majority. The will of the people is always determined by part of the public, namely the majority, and therefore it is what represents the will of the people. Unless not all human beings are equal in your eyes. Or unless there is no such thing as a people or any collective at all. If the majority does not want a constitution, then it is not just for someone to impose a constitution on it. If the majority does not want democracy, then it is not just for you to impose democracy on it. Don’t like it – then go away. And that is exactly the example of the insolence of the courts that Rabbi Michi is talking about here. A minority in the public is not supposed to tell the majority of the public how to run its life and who will stand at its head and how much power he will have. If they don’t like it – let them leave. Or separate.
An important and correct column that describes the situation accurately. But Rabbi, I have a question for you: according to your approach (which I completely agree with), the democratic majority is supposed to reflect the will of the majority, the majority elects representatives to legislate the laws it wants, and in essence the laws themselves express the will of the majority. My question is whether, according to this, the laws need to be coherent, just, or moral at all. If law and justice are ultimately only meant to reflect the will of the people – today the people may want one thing, and a few days later they may want something else that contradicts their earlier will (for example, the people want the demolition of terrorists’ houses, but not the demolition of the houses of “ordinary” murderers without creating a clear distinction between terrorists and murderers. So today the people want the house of a terrorist from Shechem destroyed, and tomorrow the people will oppose destroying the house of a murderer from Bat Yam who killed an Arab worker). If that is indeed what should be (and I am not sure it is not), then hypothetically, at the level of principle, in every situation and legal case that comes before the court one could decide by a democratic vote of the people. But for some reason our feeling is that this is not so; the intuition is that laws should be coherent and just (even if the majority of the people wants something that does not seem very just), and when a judge comes to rule – what is he supposed to do if not follow his own conceptions of justice and morality? (Even when they go against the will of the people.)
Aylon, the will of the majority is very important, especially in a democracy. But if the question is one of moral validity, surely you do not think that if the majority wants something (for example, that there should or should not be a constitution), then automatically that is the right thing to do? You can easily imagine a situation in which the majority wants there to be a constitution that is immoral in your eyes. Would you then support it? On second thought, it seems to me one does not even have to imagine.
Yishai, I see you are still upset. That is not a recommended prescription for forming positions and raising arguments. Go look at Wikipedia, and see how he defines himself (and I heard him say it with my own ears):
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%92%D7%93%D7%99_%D7%98%D7%90%D7%95%D7%91
As far as I know, this is true both economically and diplomatically. But be strong and of good courage: do not let the facts confuse you.
"Dictatorship of the majority" or "dictatorship of the minority" is not democracy. A genuine democracy is supposed to protect both the rights of the minority and the rights of the majority. In the modern era most nations conduct themselves by the democratic system after reaching the conclusion that it is preferable to dictatorship. In any case, whether under dictatorship, democracy, or other systems of government, the quality and stability of governing systems depend on the humility, honesty, and vision of those who stand at their head, and on the character of the public as a whole.
I troubled myself to read the indictment against Netanyahu, turned over 63 pages one after another, and asked: "Suppose all the facts detailed here are true (and I definitely doubt most of them) – so where exactly is the criminal offense here?"
And suppose that nevertheless the facts described there do constitute a criminal offense – where is the evidence? After all, under the Criminal Procedure Law the indictment is supposed to contain the evidence and the list of prosecution witnesses. But the story told by the “evidence” detailed in the indictment sounds roughly like this: "In a certain town there is a bank. This bank was robbed on day XXX. In that town lives so-and-so. So-and-so was in town on the day of the robbery. Conclusion – so-and-so robbed the bank."
For example: Netanyahu complained about hostile coverage of him on Walla. Netanyahu signed several documents and approvals at Elovitch’s request. Elovitch told Walla’s editors to balance the coverage of Netanyahu. Conclusion: bribery!
Well, this is nonsense. You have to prove that Netanyahu’s signatures were conditioned on favorable coverage. You have to prove that Walla indeed became a favorable site. You have to prove that another communications minister would not have signed the requested approvals because they were unreasonable and contrary to the position of the professional ranks in the ministry. But, believe it or not – there is not the slightest trace of all this in the indictment. It simply is not there! (I read it!). What there is are all sorts of speculations in the style of “Elovitch understood that,” “the defendant Netanyahu understood that,” and so on and so forth.
Moreover, some of the things brought in the indictment against Netanyahu actually work in his favor. For example, the approval he gave Elovitch to sell the “Yad2” website to a German investor. True, Elovitch used the money to pay off his debts. So what? Would it have been preferable for him to go bankrupt and for the creditors not to see a penny? Why not approve a German investor to bring about 800 million shekels into the economy and thereby save a huge infrastructure company from collapse? How does a welcome step become a corrupt deal? Someone in the State Attorney’s Office has gone mad, and this is not the only example.
The same applies to the gifts from Milchan. There may be bad taste in this conduct, but where is the criminal offense? Ah, Netanyahu acted to restore Milchan’s visa to the U.S. So what? What did the Israeli public lose from that? Would any other prime minister not have acted that way for someone who contributed enormously to Israel’s security and because of that lost his U.S. visa? (Hint: Shimon Peres also acted in this direction on Milchan’s behalf.) Where is the proof that this was in exchange for that? Where is the proof that absent the gifts the action was improper and would never have happened? Why is this even an improper action at all?
And more and more, and more and more, and more and more. The whole indictment is built on chicken legs like these. Add to this the mafia-like conduct toward the state witnesses, the leaks (a felony punishable by 3 years in prison – meaning the prosecuting attorneys are themselves criminals), and you will get the trust this system deserves.
So contrary to what was said above, I am really not sure that Netanyahu committed even a single criminal offense. (An indictment is not supposed to deal with matters of character, morality, bad taste, and the like.) But regarding his accusers, I definitely suspect that they are in fact criminal offenders.
P.S. When a prosecutor leaked something against Sharon, Elyakim Rubinstein activated the Shin Bet and the leaker was caught immediately. By contrast, Mandelblit refuses to investigate the criminal leaks against Netanyahu. Boaz Golan claims to have evidence that Mandelblit leaked criminal leaks when he was Military Advocate General, and the State Attorney’s Office rushed to impose a gag order on it. Could it be that the leaks came directly from… no. Impossible. That would just be incitement against the rule of law.
The rule is: “Justice, justice shall you pursue.” Only people of justice are capable of doing justice. A situation of “a generation that judges its judges” teaches of an absence of justice; not necessarily that judges are always wrong and those judged are right, nor that judges are always right and those judged are wrong, but that the system is mediocre. Just as judges are required to be people of justice, so leaders are required to be capable men, God-fearing, men of truth, hating unjust gain.
Maybe after all do a column on the Joker?
To Yaakov and Doron
I truly do not understand (and also do not believe) why such simple things need explaining. Morally speaking, for individuals, as long as you are not harming others, whatever you do is not immoral. And so too with nations. As long as a nation does not harm others, it may legislate whatever laws it wants among itself and live however it pleases. And what determines the will of the nation is the majority. This has nothing to do with the importance of the will of the majority. As long as one believes in equality, there is no other way to know the will of the nation. If there is an individual who is unhappy with how it relates to him, as long as it does not force him to live under it (as the communists did), he has no claim against it, and he should leave. Every nation has ownership of its land that precedes the real-estate ownership of any individual over his land. And as long as it does not rob him of his property, he has no claim against it regarding how it treats him, and he may not tell it how to live among itself. Democracy is not God, and there is no sacred obligation to live under such a regime; one can also live under a dictatorship (monarchy) if that is what the people want. In any case, what determines whether life will be good in any society is whether the people in it are good. If they are, then even under a monarchy things will be good. If not, democracy will not help either. It is only a method, a procedure. Not an essence. And today it has become just another idol.
Personally: if something does not please me (even morally), then I have two choices: either accept the decision of the majority and remain part of the nation, or withdraw. And if the nation is immoral toward its fellow societies, then I have a duty to withdraw from it (as in Nazi Germany). But to impose my opinion on it about how it should live its life among itself is even more immoral. It is simply the exploitation of the collective by individuals. It is like taking away the personal freedom of a private individual – taking away his free choice. It is utterly unthinkable. The left in the world is simply unbelievable. Either it is no less dictatorial than the common dictators around the world, or it is feebleminded and mindless.
Aylon, if so then you too agree that the will of the majority, which can be expressed in a constitution, is not sacred.
Democracy certainly is not sacred. Who even claimed otherwise?
But in the example you gave from Nazi Germany, you already went really far… It appears from your words that you think it was immoral for a German citizen in World War II to fight the Nazi majority in his country and “impose his opinion on it.” As though in your view the evil Nazi ethos is less bad than coercing the majority. Very strange.
All the other talk about the defects of the left, etc., neither adds nor subtracts for the purposes of the discussion (even though I tend to agree with it).
The main thing I had to say is written here. I have no interest in artistic criticism of the film.
Just one remark: a few days ago I heard on some television program that an indictment is actually not supposed to contain the evidence but only the facts (he claimed this against Bibi’s indictment, which also contains evidence, and that this is against the law because it allows witnesses to synchronize themselves, and so on). If that is true, a substantial part of your criticism of the indictment falls away. But I am not a lawyer and have not read the indictment.
That is, how can we accuse the judges and say that they are acting wrongly if they indeed think that the people are truly mistaken?
I did not understand the question, that is, how it connects to the discussion taking place here. We are not dealing with the question of whether the judges express the will of the people, but whether they act honestly and according to the law (even by their own lights). The heavy-handedness of preventing criticism, for example, is not the will of the people. It is not fair and not proper regardless of the people.
Aylon,
Morality is between a person and himself, between a person and God, and between a person and his fellow. What is the morality of a nation? Saadia Gaon says, “Our nation is only a nation by virtue of its Torahs.” Therefore, in Israel from the outset a king “like all the nations” is not desirable (I Samuel 8:8), and the only permitted king is one whose qualities are good and who walks in the way of the Torah, and there is no monarchy without prophecy, whose role is to instruct kings in the way of God and rebuke them if they do not walk in it. In most monarchies of the nations of the world, the king’s will was considered a divine command and the will of the people trampled underfoot, even if the king was foolish and the people right in their demands. The ongoing injustice of the kings of the nations eventually led to the establishment of democracies. And indeed, if in a monarchy the king is the tyrant, then in a democracy the mob is the tyrant, and that is not necessarily any better. The tyranny of the mob can be expressed in the executive system – by choosing unworthy leaders, in the legislative system – by enacting immoral laws, and in the judiciary – by perverting justice. In any case, to our sorrow today throughout the world large corporations have more power than governments, legislatures, and courts, so most theoretical discussions of democracies deal with the desired and not the actual.
More water has passed down the Jordan.
The man speaks out a great deal. One only has to listen or read. Today, he clearly sees himself as belonging to one camp fighting another camp. That camp includes your beloved Bibi. I assume he still is not spraying graffiti saying “Kahane was right,” and does not even believe in Greater Israel as the sole ideal, but he clearly affiliates himself with one of the sides on the map. You want to call that camp “center”? Fine, rhetoric is a good tool for avoiding mistakes.
And I am not upset at all. I only stopped by here to catch up, and it made me laugh.
Laughter is nice. Only between the bursts of laughter that seize you, I hope that this time you will nevertheless manage to notice that our argument was whether Taub belongs to the right-wing camp (as you claimed) or not. Now you are using every word combination of the type “the _ camp,” and filling in the blank with everything except “right.” But the main thing is that in the end you are right.
It seems that you prefer the following interesting definition: whoever attacks the State Attorney’s Office belongs to the right-wing camp. And now it is no wonder that you criticize my claim that even someone who does not belong to the right-wing camp attacks the State Attorney’s Office. From your perspective, rightly so. According to your definition, that is an oxymoron. That is indeed a very intelligent argument. Except that the definition underlying it seems to me, in my poverty, somewhat odd, and even odder to me is the assumption that I too use this absurd definition. But to each his own, and to each his definitions and assumptions.
As for the waters that have meanwhile passed down the Jordan and accompanied the change in Taub’s views since the Wikipedia entry was updated (again, do not get excited by facts, for as is well known I do not relate to them, so why should you?!), I am a little embarrassed. The change you are talking about is his shift from supporting territorial compromise and a center-left outlook to attacking the State Attorney’s Office (= according to your definition: belonging to the right). That is indeed thought-provoking. The axis you describe is remarkably straight, but the space in which it is situated is no less remarkably crooked.
In any case, may we all continue to laugh pleasantly.
To Doron
Indeed there was no moral problem with Hitler coming to power through elections. One may oppose him beforehand or not vote for him, but from the moment he was chosen by the majority, that is what Germany chose. And whoever does not like it should leave (as Albert Einstein did). And whoever does not accept this and tries to undermine the elected regime is an exploiter and immoral himself. Germany’s problem was that it decided to invade and conquer countries outside it. And also to kill all the Jews in its territory and in Europe. Again, this is a simple truth, and I really do not understand what there is to discuss here. There are many primitive peoples where there are no human rights, and countries where people are stoned. Anyone who chooses to live there and violates the laws there knows this and accepts the punishment awaiting him, and has nothing to complain about after the fact. It is no different from Nazi Germany.
To Yaakov
There is also morality among groups of people, and likewise among nations. What is the problem with that? Everything else you wrote besides that is irrelevant because we are dealing with morality, which is part of the way of the world that preceded the Torah and also belongs to common sense. And by the way of the world, our nation is also a nation even without its Torahs. All the sons of Jacob are the people of Israel just as all the sons of Esau are the people of Edom. One cannot quote Geonim and Rishonim superficially without understanding their words. What R. Saadia Gaon was speaking about is something that belongs to a deeper layer of reality (Kabbalah), about which I have nothing to discuss with someone who does not understand it or believe in it. After all, the whole discussion in this post is about things that belong to common sense (which is relevant to all the inhabitants of our land and to human beings generally), and not only to believers.
Michi, the basic question is whether there is constructive criticism or destructive criticism.
Coming up with a D9 bulldozer – that is an example of destructive criticism. And it comes from very specific circles on the political spectrum…
The central claim against criticism from some people on the right is that they come to bash and destroy, not to build and improve.
And when that is your agenda – it is hard to be tolerant of your criticism, even if here and there it is seasoned with sensible remarks.
Ayelet Shaked, despite all the criticism of her agenda, tried in her way to change the system from within through building and expansion – not through belligerence and self-destruction. And for that she deserves great respect (although I oppose her agenda by almost 90%).
A demonstration of support for a prime minister under indictment, ascribing personal motives to public officials, and petitions against the rule of law – that is to crumble the foundation that holds us together.
Those are your assumptions. The critics claim that they come to build, not to destroy. Or to destroy a problematic system that refuses to improve, in order to improve it.
Sorry for the many spelling mistakes at the end. It was late at night… At the end it should read: “What R. Saadia Gaon was speaking about is something that belongs to a deeper layer of reality (Kabbalah), about which I have nothing to discuss with someone who does not understand it or believe in it.”
I do not know what you heard on a television program, and it is not really important.
Section 74(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 1982, states that upon the filing of an indictment the prosecution is required to make available to the defendant and his counsel all the investigative material, as well as a list of all the material collected or recorded by the investigating authority, etc.
Section 85 of that law states that an indictment shall contain the list of prosecution witnesses. This is important because once a person’s name is included in the list of prosecution witnesses, the defendant has the right to summon him to testify and cross-examine him even if the prosecution ultimately decides to forgo direct examination. This is a fundamental right of a defendant.
The only explanation I can think of for omitting the witness list from the indictment is that the State Attorney’s Office is hesitant to include key witnesses such as Yair Lapid, Gabi Ashkenazi, and Bogie Ya’alon. But of course, under the law these very understandable hesitations are not grounds for failing to comply with its provisions. Evasion of detailing the prosecution witnesses testifies more than anything to the prosecutors’ craftiness and scheming.
Failure to comply with any one of these conditions is grounds for dismissing the indictment outright.
Since I am not a lawyer, I see no point in entering a discussion on a subject I do not understand. I found a brief mention of it here (I saw this on a TV panel):
https://rotter.net/mobile/viewmobile.php?forum=scoops1&thread=587820
Hitler rose to power by mafia methods, which have nothing to do with basic decency. Incidentally, the German intellectuals who left Germany called the intellectuals who remained in Germany, and supported Hitler or kept quiet and did not protest, traitors to the German nation.
Rabbi Michael Abraham, how does one distinguish between critics who seek to correct and improve the judicial system and critics who seek to replace it with a much worse system? As a reminder, in his time Absalom went out against David’s judicial system, and when he came to power his court permitted prostitution.
Aylon
This is getting stranger and stranger.
According to your approach, even if Nazi ideology is wicked, it is still not legitimate for a German citizen of that time even to challenge it. Why? Because of the supreme value of the will of the majority… More “wicked” to challenge Nazism than Nazism itself…
With this claim you are coming very close to all those you criticized who find “sanctity” in democracy.
What you and they share is the sanctification of procedure and turning it into the whole picture. The substance does not matter, only the how.
(Let it not be understood from my words that procedure – or this procedure of choosing rule by the majority – is unimportant. It is very important. It simply does not have total importance, as emerges from what you are saying.)
Doron, precisely in light of the history of the discourse between us, it is a pleasure for me to join your astonishment at the bizarre things written here by Aylon.
To Yaakov
What does that have to do with anything? I am speaking about the principled aspect, and I have no interest in discussing historical exactitudes. I am talking about a case in which Hitler was elected in a valid election, and that’s it, not by any other method. Obviously if that were not the case, then that is not what I am talking about. After all, he is the left’s favorite example of why democracy should not allow anti-democratic parties to run in elections. I argue that this is of course a joke and mindlessness. It is of course not democratic (in the deep sense of the word) to decide for a people from the outside what type of government it will have.
To Doron
What is not understood here? What is strange? What is this nonsense? It makes no sense to speak of an ideology as wicked if it harms no one other than the one who holds it. And I argue that if the majority of the German nation holds such an ideology, it is allowed to do so (and should even implement it, assuming it truly believes in it) among itself so long as it does not harm any other nation besides itself and does not force any individual who does not hold this ideology to be part of it, and he can leave. It is simply first-rate insolence for a group of individuals to tell others how they should live as long as they are not harming him or forcing him to be part of them. If he chooses to live with them, he has no grounds to complain about their laws and way of life. Majority rule is not a procedure. It is an essence. As long as one believes in equality among human beings (and in there being nothing more than the sum of the individuals themselves—two sacred beliefs of the global left; I, by the way, do not believe in the sanctity of either of them), the logical conclusion is that the will of the group is expressed by the will of the majority. Period. By the way, all this is under the assumption of those two sacred axioms of the left, as I mentioned (along with the axiom that you are permitted to do whatever you want so long as you do not harm others—also a sacred working assumption of secularism; this is really connected to morality, but I too largely believe in it at the level of basic decency, as stated). I only want to show how simply these people (the global left) fall into logical contradictions without even noticing them – mindless, as I said (or else they do notice and lie to the masses – wicked).
To the rabbi
Only now did I notice that you joined the discussion. So first of all, I suggest you read my last comment (from 11:22). I truly cannot believe how you fell for this nonsense. Did you not even understand what the discussion here is about? What does this have to do at all with Nazi ideology? After all, the discussion here is in principle whether the majority wants a king. Are individuals allowed to oppose the will of the majority, as long as they are not forced to live with them? What is this gibberish? My words are bizarre?!! What nonsense is this?! Fine, I do not really believe how many feebleminded people there are in the world, but the rabbi joined the party too? Et tu, Brute? Well, if so, then this indeed joins not a few other foolish things of his (like his idea of helping in the Syrian civil war—even at the price of our own casualties—or his craziness regarding eating animals)
But indeed yes, a society is allowed among itself to behave however it wants (again, as long as it does not force anyone to remain in it). That is, if the Eskimos believe they should kill their elderly (or the disabled, since we already mentioned Nazi ideology), then that is fine from their perspective. And if suddenly the elderly regret it, then they should leave. It is like there being no moral problem with a person committing suicide or maiming himself. If those are the laws of the society, then whoever chooses to live in it knew and accepted. Or he should leave. I really do not understand what needs explaining here. Is a nation not allowed to be primitive? Are the Chinese and the Arabs not allowed to live according to their own laws? What is this nonsense? Whoever is not primitive should not live among them, but what is the relevance of trying to educate them if they do not want that and he has no responsibility toward them (unlike a father-son relationship).
If the rabbi does not think this way, then he has a very big problem. In fact, of anyone who does not think this way, one cannot really say that he thinks differently. He does not think at all. More than once I have told the rabbi that he is influenced by his leftist friends. (And proof of this is the word “bizarre,” which they so love to use for anything they do not understand.) That is the only way to explain his joining the nonsense Doron is writing here.
Michi,
What can I say? If I can give you pleasure—dayenu 🙂
Aylon,
At least one compliment I can give you (I know full well that my compliments are not really a sought-after commodity..): you have a lot of self-confidence. That is assuming the emphatic style is genuine and not covering for something else.
More power to you.
To Doron
By the way, notice a few terms from your last comment. The will of the majority is not a value at all, and it does not override anything. It simply defines the will of a group (assuming equality and so on). The value of the group’s will is examined in terms of values generally. If the group wants to eat a hamburger, then there is not much value there, but no one will tell it what to do on that issue, and whoever does not want to eat should not eat, but he certainly should not tell others what they must or must not eat. If the group wants to kill someone, one may fight it. But it makes no sense to try to be part of it and by force compel the others from within not to act that way. Let him withdraw and fight. The value I am speaking of is the value of personal and collective freedom. A group has the freedom to do whatever comes into its head so long as it does not harm someone outside it and allows individuals to leave if they wish. Period.
In addition, as I said, there is nothing wicked in an ideology if it does not harm someone outside. Nazi ideology did harm someone outside, therefore it was wicked and one could oppose it. Obviously a German was allowed to fight the majority in his country because they really were wicked and wanted to harm those outside them. And him too. That has nothing at all to do with our topic. The example with the Nazis is only an example; as I said, I do not know what they thought in 1933 when they rose to power, but if they did not intend to harm anyone outside themselves (of course they did, but again this is only an example—suppose they did not, and only wanted a king), then a German would have no grounds to challenge the election results. He should leave. Your move to focus specifically on the Nazis is the same type of mindlessness and lack of desire to try to understand something simple, just in order to advance the religion of democracy.
In addition, who cares if a person is a German citizen? Why would anyone care about citizenship at all? What matters is whether he is a member of the German people or not. And if the majority decided something regarding its own way of life, then either he leaves or joins. Or the minority group splits off. We will solve the real-estate issues afterward. The minority can of course say that any decision not to its liking harms it, but of course any person in the world can tell his fellow that if he does not support him financially, that harms him.
All these terms (value, citizenship, the procedure of the majority is important…) all belong to matters of procedure and not of essence. Yes, even the word “value.” It is a word of leftists who love form. A word of modeling. One should speak about goals, not values. This of course also applies to the value of collective freedom I spoke about earlier. All this is said on your contradiction-ridden view, without your noticing it. For me, freedom is not a goal but a means to whatever the goal of existence may be. And you still accuse me of not noticing that I sanctified procedure and committed the very sin I accuse you of ….
How much can one explain such simple things? This is simply an exploitative diasporic Jewish mentality, which by the way very much characterizes American Jews, who do not care about the American nation but only about their own small lives (they want quiet). And also the Haredim. But really, if the rabbi does not understand these things, then perhaps I am the last person in the world who has any understanding.
To Doron
“Never let the blessing of an ordinary person be light in your eyes”… Therefore I will accept your compliment on condition that you begin thinking about the things I said. If so, then my self-confidence does not help me all that much (well, that is not true. It helps me not be influenced by anyone. I am simply not afraid to think—sometimes I am afraid to speak; there are many religious people in the world, and as long as I want to live in society I must not annoy them). I have never cared about saying methodological nonsense as long as it brings me closer to the truth. I have no friends, so I do not need to please anyone. Not even the rabbi, though he annoys me quite often).
To the rabbi
Please take my previous and following remarks in the proper proportion and with a smile. Although I respect you (and perhaps because of that), I am collecting one by one the times when you say ridiculous things (my equivalent to the rabbi’s wording “bizarre”).
At the moment, there is this list:
1. The “Holocaust” of animals in our time (influenced by his daughter, whom I do not know who she is). Not exaggerated at all…
2. What he claimed, that the German soldiers in World War II had the argument that they were obeying orders and that one had to find a legal reason why that was not okay…
3. His recognition of the ridiculous concept of an “illegal order” instead of an immoral order. This is related to the previous point (and the previous one stems from it). But in my judgment it deserves its own separate item.
4. The conclusion of his logic (which I do not remember so well; it was related to whether if I had the possibility to make them disappear from the face of the earth without being harmed, would I do it. But the conclusion should have led him to the conclusion that something was flawed in the argument) that one should help (even at the price of human life!!) the Syrians in their civil war… (He just forgot one small detail—that they are still our enemies—but I also forgot that in that conversation.) This outdid what Rabbi Cherlow said, that one should pray for them.
5. His trust in the press and in the State Attorney’s Office regarding Bibi (not that I think Bibi is pure as snow, but the truth is that one cannot know at all what he is right now. He did indeed do something wrong, because there is no smoke without fire. But one can rely on the leftist State Attorney’s Office to turn a sneeze into a hurricane). I am not even sure one can rely on the court. Will they really put into prison a person who is not guilty of the crime with which he is charged? I hope not. But they have been deteriorating over the years, and it is very possible that this will happen. In fact, it is only out of my desire not to descend into paranoia that I still give them some trust on this matter, even though they proved themselves dishonest in the whole matter of setting policy.
6. This is still pending, but apparently if he agrees with Doron then it will also enter the list…
There are other things I do not remember at the moment, and I would be happy if the rabbi would help me….. (There is supposed to be a smiley face here, but I have given up trying to do it properly; maybe like this 🙂 or like this (:)
I replied in the wrong thread (by now, from so many long and exhausting comments, I do not remember where I am….) Therefore I will copy the comment here too, since this is its proper place:
To Doron
“Never let the blessing of an ordinary person be light in your eyes”…. Therefore I will accept your compliment on condition that you begin thinking about the things I said. If so, then my self-confidence does not help me all that much (well, that is not true. It helps me not be influenced by anyone. I am simply not afraid to think (sometimes to speak, yes. There are many religious people in the world, and as long as I want to live in society I must not annoy them). I have never cared about saying methodological nonsense as long as it brings me closer to the truth. I have no friends, and so I do not need to please anyone. Not even the rabbi, though he annoys me quite often).
To the rabbi
Please take my previous and following remarks in the proper proportion and with a smile. Although I respect you (and perhaps because of that), I am collecting one by one the times when you say ridiculous things (my equivalent to the rabbi’s wording “bizarre ”)
At the moment there is this list:
1. The “Holocaust” of animals in our time (influenced by his daughter, whom I do not know who she is). Not exaggerated at all…
2. What he claimed, that the German soldiers in World War II had the argument that they were obeying orders and that one had to find a legal reason why that was not okay …
3. His recognition of the ridiculous concept of an “illegal order” instead of an immoral order.. This is related to the previous point (and the previous one stems from it). But in my judgment it deserves its own item.
4. The conclusion of his logic (which I do not remember so well. It was related to whether if I had the possibility to make them disappear from the face of the earth without being harmed, would I do it. But the conclusion should have led him to the conclusion that something was flawed in the argument) that one should help (even at the cost of human life!!) the Syrians in their civil war… (He just forgot one small detail, that they are still our enemies, but I also forgot that in that conversation). This outdid what Rabbi Cherlow said, that one should pray for them.
5. His trust in the press and in the State Attorney’s Office regarding Bibi (not that I think Bibi is pure as snow, but the truth is that one cannot know at all what he is right now. He did indeed do something wrong because there is no smoke without fire. But one can rely on the leftist State Attorney’s Office to turn a sneeze into a hurricane). I am not even sure one can rely on the court. Will they really put a person who is not guilty of the crime he was charged with into prison? I hope not. But they have been deteriorating over the years and it is very possible this will happen. In fact, only because I do not want to descend into paranoia do I still place some trust in them on this matter, even though they have proven their lack of integrity in the whole matter of setting policy
6. This is still pending, but apparently if he agrees with Doron then this too will enter the list…
There are other things I do not remember right now and I would be happy if the rabbi would help me….. (A smiling emoji is supposed to be here, but I already gave up trying to do it properly; maybe like this ? or like this (:)
Aylon
Since you wrote that you are willing to accept my compliment on condition that I think again about my remarks, I am immediately hurrying to enter a feverish thinking session.
I want to feel worthy of the compliments I give others.
To Doron
Blessed am I and blessed are you that we have merited this.
And so that you will have more to think about in the intensive thinking session that will pass over you in these sunny days, I will also say that my main claims against the global left, which is a minority, are not about its desire to rule over the rest of the public, which is the majority. It may be (it may not be; it is indeed true) that it thinks it is not fitting for the majority to rule over it because the majority is not intelligent enough or moral enough to tell it what to do, or to run the state in general, and they feel more worthy. That is fine by me. That is aristocracy or rule by the enlightened dictator (which is fine as long as the condition is fulfilled. There are only two problems with it, which are really one problem: 1. the lie. The unwillingness of the left to put it on the table and say it explicitly, and this really stems from the second problem, which is the real one: 2. it wants to rule without taking responsibility. That is, it is not enough to be smarter than your fellow in order to be his ruler (and yours as one body); you must care about him.
Beyond that, of course, it is necessary that fundamentally the people indeed want this, as in the days of Saul. But if there is genuine caring (not just fantasies of caring—that is, not merely disguised lust for power, which is what I claim regarding the global left, assuming it is not wickedly mindless), then in some cases, and even there only up to a certain limit, this can justify coercion by such a regime. By the way, this is what justifies parental coercion over their children.
Again, a mistake in the last comment:
In the middle of the comment it should read: …that is aristocracy or rule by the enlightened dictator (which is fine as long as the condition I mention later is fulfilled: responsibility). There are only two problems….
Keep burying your head in the sand. It is amazing how you are able to get reinforcement for a simple factual question from my phrasing.
Taub right now is a Bibist, and he is one of the noisier voices of the right. I do not know what his view is on every issue, but I find it hard to recall any issue on the agenda on which he expresses left-wing views.
The question whether in principle he thinks the commandment to settle the Land of Israel overrides saving life, or whether he thinks that if there were a partner then one should make a peace agreement with him, is really not relevant to his classification. I am afraid that anyone who lives in reality knows that already 30 years ago there were people on the right who said that in principle they favored territorial compromise. That did not make them centrists.
But for someone living in some imaginary bubble (except that from time to time he replaces it in a way that arouses admiration—how a person who realized he had no clue about reality simply invents a new reality instead of trying to update himself), perhaps indeed the question of theoretical support for dividing the land is the criterion. Who knows, maybe you will also prove from that that he supports the Reparations Agreement…
Fascinating.
I very much agree with your words on this painful issue
except for the statement that Yogev’s remark about the D9 was legitimate.
I will note that I loathe the current situation, especially the false presentation put on by supporters of the Barak method,
who attach great importance to the Judicial Selection Committee and its decisions
and at the same time also claim the Supreme Court is absolutely objective once it has already been appointed.
There is a vast difference between voicing criticism, however justified, about specific cases and carrying out a delegitimization of the entire judicial system as a whole, as Bibi and his companions are doing. This is a very dangerous game when these things come from the head of the executive branch, and it has the potential to undermine all the foundations of social order. We have not yet heard concrete claims against the facts in the charges themselves, only general claims against the system. This raises many doubts about the cleanliness of Bibi’s hands. As for the internal review so badly needed in the judicial system as in any system, these are mere calls. What is lacking is genuine fear of Heaven as a foundation for proper conduct—in every sphere, of course. This is something entrusted to a person between himself and himself, and depends on him alone.
Here is a tweet by a centrist – https://twitter.com/GadiTaub1/status/1222760821476003840
By the way, recently I heard him say in his own voice that he is new to the right-wing camp.
You will of course say that this does not matter at all to anything principled, and I already agreed in advance, but the point of this argument was to explain to you that you have no clue what reality out there is. That was true 20 years ago when you said there was no economic problem with Haredim not working, and it is still true today.
One does not have to know what reality is, and one can certainly get along excellently in Torah scholarship, philosophy, and science. One should only know the limits of one’s knowledge, and if one wants to break through them, one should first study. That is true of every subject connected to reality that you write about. It is very saddening when smart people write nonsense, sometimes harmful nonsense, simply because of contempt for reality and for the people connected to it.
With God’s help, 4 Shevat 5780
It is worth reading Amir Ben-David’s interview with Prof. Menachem Mautner: ‘Prof. Mautner warns: the Supreme Court is a closed sect, the State Attorney’s Office is corrupt,’ on the Zman Yisrael website.
In my humble opinion, the High Court and the State Attorney’s Office can rely on the Sages’ guidance: ‘Let him wear black, wrap himself in black, and do what his heart desires’ 🙂
Regards, S.Z.
"Gadi Taub is not right-wing."
Look, this is not a philosophical analysis. It is simply a straightforward tracking of political views. And Gadi Taub is a very, very moderate centrist, if not fully right-wing.
Your mistake about Taub is very typical of all your writing when you move to realistic analysis. That is, you have no clue.
And by the way, your argument about the newspaper Haaretz is also ridiculous. A paper that for years gave Moshe Arens a platform for his opinion column on page two! A paper that to this day gives Israel Harel a regular column.
A paper that gave space to every (far-fetched) column by Gadi Taub…
And in general, what you wrote about the המשפט system is unfounded in so many ways that there is no point responding. It is enough to mention the makeup of the High Court petitions department in the State Attorney’s Office, and Ayelet Shaked’s close adviser, the private adviser appointed to oversee the state’s responses to petitions against the settlements. A clearly right-wing man