“Turn from Evil and Do Good”: Notes on Bennett’s Move—and on Us (Column 394)
Dedicated to Naftali Bennett, our new Prime Minister, with wishes for success in his role
Let me begin by saying that the day before yesterday was an historic day, which can be summed up in two aspects: “Turn from evil” and “Do good.” We finally got rid of Bibi, and the Bennett era began. Regardless of what happens next, I can already say this much: what a joy!
“Turn from Evil”
First I’ll get the “turn from evil” off my chest. Bibi was finally booted from office. From now on he can manage his web of lies, his incitement, and his trial from the opposition benches—at least until the spineless in Likud come to their senses and fling this burden off their backs (and ours) to the ends of the earth. Despite considerable talent and a rather impressive list of achievements that he leaves behind (which he made sure to enumerate at length in his final speech), the damage he caused is vastly deeper and greater than the achievements (though in that speech I missed any reference by him to those damages). The fellow wrecked not a few aspects of the state and its regime, and in particular our political norms and social fabric.
Books will yet be written about his corrupt conduct and his Stalinist suspicion toward everyone around him. About his megalomaniacal inability to work in a team and to empower capable people to advance our interests. Everyone around him now are inferior people, lacking independence, spineless, non-entities. Every worthy person in his orbit left him (usually with his “helpful” assistance), and typically became an opponent. If you pay attention you’ll see that almost all of his opponents are refugees from his close circle. These are top-notch people, and the more independent and competent they are, the less chance they have to survive near him without being eliminated, of course. What says more about a person than those he surrounds himself with? Tell me who your lapdog (or poodle) is, and I’ll tell you who you are. And who is more credible than the refugees who left and were cast off by him after working closely with him as trusted confidants, to testify—with personal knowledge—about his twisted and vile conduct?! Needless to say, the moment such a person leaves him, he instantly becomes a dangerous radical leftist: see Bogie, Bennett and Shaked, Yoaz Hendel and Hauser, Gideon Saar, Mandelblit, Alsheikh, and more—a very partial list of these “leftists.”
This man constantly engages in conflict and polarization among different parts of society, endlessly deploying divide-and-rule tactics. He channeled his great talent mainly into Machiavellian and scheming directions, instead of using it for the benefit of the state and its citizens. When he signed a rotation agreement with Gantz, the entire country died laughing and mocked Gantz. I don’t know a single person (except Gantz) who imagined Gantz would actually become prime minister in his turn. The man, utterly unrestrained, elevated deception, intrigue, and mendacity to lofty peaks we could only have dreamt of. Bibi even corrupted our conceptual vocabulary: Bibi—who did nothing in the right-wing directions he so loftily speaks about—became a synonym for “right.” While his opponents, including those decidedly to his right, turned into a shunned and dangerous “left.” He succeeded so well in his trickery that today it feels as if we no longer have the usual complications in defining left and right (social, economic, diplomatic, religious, or otherwise), since it’s now clear that “right” means supporting Bibi and “left” means being anti-Bibi. That’s all. Thus the government formed now—whose large majority clearly belongs to the solid right or the center—is, in the eyes of many, a radical left government. Orwell already taught us in Animal Farm that if you repeat a lie enough times it sinks in: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” So there are a few things this “right-wing” Bibi did learn from the left after all.
Those future books will surely also address the crude incitement he wielded against anyone who opposed him; his deliberate fear-mongering against every force under the sun, within or without (some of which are indeed worth fearing, see: Iran); the family meddling by the collection of crazies who lived in his Cuckoo’s Nest on Balfour Street and brutally interfered in governance as in a Byzantine court (appointments, meetings, media manipulation, etc.). And we’ve not yet mentioned the hedonism, the exploitation of state resources, the disgraceful conduct at the Prime Minister’s Residence and the abuse of the staff there, the brazen cynicism and lies he sprayed at every moment in every direction, the exploitation of his position for personal gain while extorting gifts and benefits from anyone nearby, the corruption of the legal system and the cynical use of law—including amending Basic Laws on the sly for his personal aims. Today, law in Israel doesn’t really exist, thanks in no small part to him. The delightful irony is that Bibi himself was ousted thanks to the Basic Law on the Government that he himself rammed through. What satisfaction!
By the way, some of his complaints about the improper treatment he receives from institutions, officials, and the press are justified. But these phenomena too stem at least partly from the frustration of people who felt there was no other way to remove him. For that reason some decided to act against him improperly. I don’t justify this, but Bibi is the father of this method, and his actions and conduct carry significant weight in all that led to these counter-actions. Thus he sawed off the branch he tried to sit on—“Don’t cry, Roni Ron, every balloon meets this end.”
I haven’t even mentioned the way he is handling the transfer of power these very days, his lack of generosity and ungentlemanly behavior toward his successors, the problematic handover he is doing for his replacement, the ugly shouting in the plenum during the swearing-in of the new government—in other words, his and his colleagues’ tantrum when democracy dared take from them their ancestral estate (the jobs, the power, and the residence on Balfour). Of course all these are mere peanuts compared to his true failings, but they reveal how much importance he assigns to the state and its institutions and how much he cares for them when set against his personal interest. As far as he’s concerned, once he’s no longer in the game, let everything be destroyed at once—“Let me die with the Philistines,” and “Neither mine nor yours shall it be.”
If he truly cared about the country’s good, he would have vacated his seat long ago of his own accord, even if he were perfectly pure and even if all claims against him were baseless. We must remember that the long and deep constitutional and governmental crisis that endangers our society and governance is the product of one man’s deeds: Bibi. Had he stepped down, not only would there have been no crisis, we would have had a “full-on right-wing” government, as he himself (another blatant lie) declared he sought to form and that this is what Israel needs. Such a government could have had eighty MKs and could have ruled with an iron fist, abolished the Supreme Court, and annexed Baghdad and Moscow to Israel. Were it not for this corrupt man, we could have had as much right-wing as you please. But he couldn’t care less.
Moreover, an honest person in his situation had good reasons to go even beyond that. When governance and policy in Israel are held hostage to the interest of a man on trial, the decisions he makes cannot be reasonable (the source of this is Bibi himself, of course, who said exactly that about Olmert—and later proved it true in his own body). This too suffices to resign if he truly sought the country’s good. For even if he were an angel and all his deeds for the sake of Heaven, there is no chance that any citizen would believe in the sincerity and purity of his intentions. Lack of trust in a leader is incalculable damage to governmental stability and functioning, whether justified or not. But for Bibi, let the country burn to ashes so long as not a hair of his ruling head falls, and the ancestral estate on Balfour remains in his and his wife’s blessed hands.
Of course, none of this troubles his admirers, who follow him as if hypnotized, as though he were the Pied Piper. On the contrary, they dutifully repeat the false messaging page he feeds them, word for word and with a sense of exclusive righteousness (after all, Bennett is a wicked man who stole the election, and the government is radical left born in sin, the worst since we became a people), without sensing that what they say is illogical and baseless—and certainly not necessary (see below). This herd has full faith in the purity of their king’s intentions, when in his situation even an angel could not act with pure intentions. But in their eyes it’s Bibi and not an angel; Bibi and not a seraph; he and no other.
To sum up this section: when I heard his promises in his wrap-up speech in the Knesset—and especially the “we’ll be back,” ostensibly addressed to Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas (who already miss him; Bibi built and sustains them with his own hands)—I truly panicked. He might yet return, so what am I celebrating? I suppose that was precisely his intention (his words were aimed at us, not at Iran). I could, in theory, take comfort that the man cannot utter even by accident a true word, so why should this promise be any different?! The problem is that his return to power perfectly suits his and his despicable allies’ interests (the Haredim, Ben Gvir, and other assorted produce) and the desire of his voters/admirers, for whom their idol—their Messiah son of Ben-Zion—has not yet disappointed and never will.
A bit more “Turn from Evil”
Part of the “turn from evil” is Bibi’s partners. We got rid of the rule of racists à la Ben Gvir, but even more so we rid ourselves of the Haredim in the coalition. We’re dealing with a pack of extortionists who act with cynical malice and do not utter a word of truth. A band of wicked men who monopolize God and Judaism for themselves. They are convinced that anyone who doesn’t include them in a coalition is an antisemite, and anyone who doesn’t pay them harlot’s hire and the price of a dog is violating a landed right they received directly from God to keep extorting us all without fulfilling even their most basic obligations. Their “right” to live as in the Middle Ages while counting on others to support them and save them from themselves—and of course without a drop of gratitude. They speak as if the subsidies for yeshivot and kollelim—granted by an entire public that doesn’t want this, astonishingly enough—are Judaism. In their view, anyone who doesn’t continue this is an antisemite and an enemy of Judaism. If you don’t go on supporting me and giving me a horse to ride through no fault of my own—you’re an antisemite. Naturally you won’t hear a word of empathy or thanks for the fact that others carry them and provide all their needs. No one should dare imagine what a state would look like if run by them, but that doesn’t stop them from making adamant demands for charity without going out to work. They insist on their historic right to keep supporting thousands of idlers and draft-dodgers, as if we all bear a moral duty to perpetuate this disgraceful and appalling reality.
Although I’m rather allergic to pathos, I actually enjoyed listening to Matan Kahana’s speech, where he gave Gafni and Litzman a short lesson on sanctification and desecration of God’s name, and briefly explained what he thinks of them and of their Judaism and of the primitive tribe they represent (a sect almost closest to Judaism). As is known, his words came in response to an unprecedented hysterical barrage from the Haredi party leaders against “Yamina” and Bennett (see for example here, here, and here, and Bennett’s response here). Dust to the mouths of those scoundrels. A collection of black-clad figures who do as they please—I only hope (for us and them) that they go far away, as Rabbi Ilai instructed, and that we won’t see them again. Among Litzman’s “pearls,” he called on Bennett to remove his kippah, and I heard that Meir Shalev nicely continued and demanded he return his foreskin as well. Gafni, for his part, explained with fine taste that Bennett is wicked, and even blessed him with the charming epithet “May the name of the wicked rot.”
What really troubles them about this situation? Where is the blatant antisemitism of the new government and its heads, ministers, and advisers? One thing is clear: it’s not anything connected to Judaism or the state. These folks have no connection to Judaism or to the state, aside from using its swollen teats for their needs (not for nothing did these starlings flock to the crow described above). What troubles them are the budgets and jobs for their people, and apparently also the threat of establishing a commission of inquiry into the Meron disaster—God have mercy (which they shamelessly oppose—“Have you murdered and also inherited?”). But behind the hysteria there is likely another juicy detail I heard in Bennett’s inaugural speech.
He said in his speech that his government plans to lower the age of military exemption for Haredim from 24 to 21. On the face of it, the Haredim should cheer, but anyone who knows the situation understands this is the most grievous blow to them. They will fight it to the bitter end. Some of you surely wonder: why? Ostensibly they’re being given a blanket exemption and can now study to their pure hearts’ content and heroically uphold the country’s Judaism (yeah, right). Isn’t this the Haredi dream? Is that why one should tell Bennett to take off his kippah (and return his foreskin)? For those who still don’t get it, the explanation is very simple. This way the Haredim lose the main cudgel that gives them control over the community’s youth. The Haredi society needs the army like air to breathe. And no, not to defend and fight and protect them—that’s not their problem and doesn’t interest them (see for example here). That, like securing money, is our problem. They need the army because it gives them the ability to control their people and force those among them who neither want to nor are fit to study Torah their whole lives to keep being free-riders in kollel and live off budgets procured by their MKs. This keeps them devoid of life and independent thought (see, for instance, the brainwashed nonsense of “Israel Saba” here on the site—and that’s after I deleted several other disconnected pronouncements). The whip they use is the draft threat: a man must sit in kollel, otherwise he’ll be drafted. So what happens if the exemption age is lowered? You can figure it out.
I’ve long wished for a blanket exemption for Haredim from military service (I believe Meretz once proposed such a law, and as far as I recall it was rejected under Haredi pressure). If it complied with equality (are there any such rules for Haredim at all?!), it would be a wonderful law. Such a law would “uproot Judaism” far more efficiently and effectively. If there were no draft obligation, the kollel world would likely be emptied of many of its current occupants. Do you really think they oppose secular studies because of bitul Torah (time wasted from Torah study)? Nonsense. Secular studies grant independence to young people who gain a profession, and then—heaven forbid—they won’t need the flesh-and-blood handouts (literally) of Litzman and Gafni. Later they might even develop independent thinking and criticize the society they live in. So here’s another vital task for the “uprooters of Judaism” in the new government: do not fund institutions without core curriculum. And in general, if the outrageous budgets transferred to this corrupt and manifestly immoral world are cut off, the effectiveness of “uprooting Judaism” will soar (see Column 34).
However, in my estimation there’s no chance any of this will happen, since the Haredim will fight with all their might, complete with the wails of the robbed Cossack that are their art in this world and the next. Who would dare not hold aloft those who revile and curse him and refuse to shoulder the common burden? Why, that’s blatant antisemitism. So here’s another forecast: I think there’s a pretty good chance at least one Haredi party will join the coalition soon, and this ridiculous and infuriating saga will be behind us. But at least for now I take a bit of Jewish satisfaction in hearing their hysteria and howls, as the saying goes: there is no joy like rejoicing at another’s misfortune (there, there).
So much for “turn from evil,” and now to “do good.”
“Do Good”
The day before yesterday Israel also swore in its first religious prime minister, Naftali Bennett. From what I can tell, he is an idealist, honest and decent, who loves the People and State of Israel—and happily, he is also talented and a doer. For some reason I trust the purity of his intentions and his abilities, and I hope I won’t be disappointed. Contrary to Bibist propaganda, he of course sits to the right of Bibi, and his government is certainly not a left-wing government in any way I can discern—but I’ve already discussed Bibi’s propaganda. I very much hope Bennett succeeds in his role, as a condition for the survival of the government he formed (though I’m a bit skeptical). He surely won’t have an easy life. He begins his term amid severe criticism from all sides, especially from his voters and potential electorate. It seems he can only go up from here. Bennett’s leadership career is still at an early stage, and therefore, naturally, I have much less to say about the “do good.” We’ll see what the day brings.
In any case, in light of the above you can understand that on this historic day I sighed with some relief and even began to develop some hopes for our future as a state, despite the scorched earth that fellow and his family left us—like a cow coming to tidy up its calf’s mess. Even the union of left and right in the new coalition—obviously with explosive potential—could test Bibi’s apocalyptic prophecies and his choir of flatterers. I hope we’ll find that maybe not everyone is a demon, and perhaps cooperation can be created between different outlooks for the benefit of all citizens, even if there are serious disagreements in some areas. Fear not: the corrupt man and his aides won’t let us think so, but it’s worth keeping an open mind. Contrary to Bibi’s false propaganda, the wars and polarization between groups are not fate. Does this sound utopian to you? To me too. Largely thanks to Bibi, who worked to embed polarization and mutual suspicion between groups (he built his power on it). I actually think that, at least for now, there are quite a few good intentions on all sides of the coalition (unlike the opposition, which behaves like a pack of howling jackals), but time will tell.
So much for the preface. Now a few notes about Bennett—and about us.
The Claims Against Bennett
Various claims are raised against Bennett from several directions:
- The Haredim claim he is anti-religious (and that he should remove his kippah, per Litzman’s nauseating speech), acting against Torah and Judaism. This is nonsense, as I’ve already explained.
- Bibi and Smotrich claim that Bennett is a leftist, and the milder among them say at least that he is cooperating with the left and the Arabs and will act as a left-wing government. I’ve already addressed these foolish claims; no need to repeat.
- Finally, there are several claims on the moral plane. Bibi, Smotrich, and many of Bennett’s voters claim he stole the election, since he promised not to go with Lapid and the left and betrayed his voters.
The last claim speaks of votes given to him under a mistake, but it also hides the assumption that once his voters don’t want the step he’s taking, he has no legitimacy to do it. He must return to the public and receive a mandate for his new policy.
- Another moral claim is that it’s improper for the head of a relatively small party to serve as prime minister.
Some of the moral claims have merit, but it’s still worth noting several reservations.
“He should take off his kippah”
On the claims that he acts against Judaism I’ve already spoken above. Bennett is acting with all his energy (or Meretz) for Judaism, while they devote all their vigor to acting against it. Every one of their steps is a magnificent desecration of God’s name—against the Torah and against God. There isn’t a single one of their steps that strengthens anything connected to Judaism (aside from budgets for Torah study, but even that is done in a warped and harmful way, and it’s evident their motivation is not Judaism but maintaining power mechanisms).
As for the claim that Bennett must remove his kippah, many have responded. Beyond the rudeness, tactlessness, and falsehood of it, there’s the matter of optics. Let me just note that among these honorable and righteous critics, one is a convicted criminal who sat in prison (and more to come), and the other is indicted for bribery and helped a pedophile evade punishment in Australia as part of his “sanctification of God’s name.” The society they represent—under the leadership of their rabbinic sages, luminaries of the generation—led its people (and the surrounding public) to dreadful COVID morbidity through stupid disregard of common sense and regulations that harmed human life. But none of this, of course, requires removing a kippah. After all, that’s only murder, not cooperation with Lapid—God forbid. On the contrary, this is precisely the meaning of the kippah and Judaism for these folks: shirking duty, harming human life, stupidity and lies, slander, extortion, embezzlement and bribery, domineering control and preventing sources of information and livelihood from an entire community, a shocking lack of gratitude, brainwashing of the crudest and most aggressive kind, and more. But none of that requires removing a kippah. Their faithful partner in this path—beyond all his other virtues already listed—also committed adultery and betrayed his wife, who in turn abused her staff with his helpful assistance; their son frequents seedy clubs with state-funded guards (even after his father’s term), and these, of course, are Jews who “increase awe of Heaven.” With them it’s proper to walk, for they pay “no-questions-asked money” to the Haredim, which atones for all their sins (“with all your might”). Only Bennett, who forms a coalition with Lapid and Meretz, is a Reform Jew. He should remove his kippah and be ashamed.
I believe the MKs themselves are aware of the stupidity and cynical wickedness of their words and say them deliberately and knowingly (I’m left with an impossible choice between viewing them as fools or as wicked. Which counts as judging them favorably? I don’t know). But the public they represent—who repeats these malicious and idiotic mantras like hypnotized—truly arouses my deep pity. People walking like the blind down such a distorted path, unable to see its terrible crookedness—both logically and morally. I get the impression that at least some of them genuinely view this as expressions of piety, incredible as that may be.
The moral claim: it’s improper for a small-party leader to be PM
This claim requires a foray into democratic thought. At the outset I’ll say it is far from clear or unequivocal, for three reasons:
First, by this logic, no achievement gained through political leverage is legitimate unless proportional to seat count. Game theory teaches us that power is not a function of seat count but of the overall constellation (to what extent you are the balance of power, etc.), so achievements typically do not correspond to seat count.
Second, this amounts to accusing Bennett of being a successful politician. Who can accuse him of that? Certainly not his partners; nor the parties that joined him, for they agreed to it. So these are accusations from the opposition. The moral standing of such accusations is quite limited.
Third, behind him stand the leaders of many parties, and all, as representatives of their voters, agreed to give him the wheel. De facto, then, he has broad public support (all the “Anyone but Bibi” camp supports him—at least in his hat as “not Bibi”). Moreover, within the coalition as formed, Bennett is the representative of the right (and essentially also the center), which includes a large number of MKs in the coalition.
For all these reasons I don’t see any serious moral problem here. These are the rules of the game, and there is no particularly egregious abuse of them.
The moral claim: Bennett stole the election
This past Shabbat I spoke in synagogue about Korach’s claim regarding a garment wholly of techelet. It’s a rather silly claim, and one wonders: Korach was a great sage—what moved him to argue such oddities? I argued this is a very current phenomenon. Partisanship blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous. When a person believes in a certain agenda, even if he is a great genius, you’ll hear from him rather foolish arguments in its favor. First, not every genius is an honest person. Second, even if he is honest and doesn’t deceive deliberately, his agenda prevents him from seeing the other side, even when it’s clear as day before him in all its splendor. Any foolish argument for his position appears decisive to him. [1]
In our day you can see this at every turn. A few illustrations appear above. Beyond that, the moral claim here—which, as noted, has some merit—is usually delivered with sanctimony and bombast, as if it were “the greatest fraud in the history of Israel,” in the golden words of our “Bibienu” (=our Bibi). Somehow all those people forget that the very government they wished for was to be built on deserters from Saar’s party, which, recall, ran on the one and only ticket of not going with Bibi. Had that worked, Smotrich and Bibi would have danced for joy, and somehow wouldn’t have been bothered that they themselves were stealing the election. Moreover, for Saar this was his entire platform (Likud without Bibi), while for Bennett the promise not to go with Lapid was a technical and not very substantive campaign pledge (what matters is the agenda, not the man). As is known, stealing elections is a crime and fraud only when done against us. We’re allowed everything, since we’re right. We’re used to politicians speaking shamelessly from positions and bias (see e.g. here), but I hear this sanctimonious claim about Bennett from every second person in the street, not only from politicians. Strangely, none of them seem to think to ask this about the government planned for them by their representatives (Bibi and Smotrich). I’ve been wondering about this point for two weeks now, and I was very glad to see it presented clearly and sharply yesterday on Guy Zohar’s program here. Highly recommended. When a person has a position, don’t be surprised to hear biased and rather silly arguments in self-persuasion worthy of note.
But that’s only the symmetry issue. On the substance: yes, a promise was broken. But I’m not sure breaking a promise is so grave—at least in such a situation. We must remember that even before the election, anyone who bothered to think while listening to Bennett understood that it was impossible to keep all his promises. He promised to ensure that there would be no fifth election under any circumstances, and also to strive (though without committing) not to go with Netanyahu, and also under no circumstances to go with Lapid—not even in rotation. So what then? It was clear to me from the outset that these promises shouldn’t be given much weight. These were truly his aims, and that’s what he meant to say. But circumstances could force him to deviate. Indeed, he shouldn’t have promised, but politics is no place for the naïve or the pretend-naïve. Any reasonable person should have understood what was coming.
That pertains to the pre-election stage. After the results came in, it was now mathematically impossible to form a government without someone breaking a campaign promise. Everyone then faced a cruel choice: either go to a fifth election (which probably wouldn’t change much—and even that would break a campaign promise), or break a different promise. Bennett chose to break the promise not to go with Lapid, and to me that’s not the gravest sin, and certainly not the swindle of the century. His options were: go with Bibi and the Arabs (thus breaking a promise and entrenching Bibi’s corrupt rule), or break a promise and form a more reasonable and honest government, with a strong right-wing component alongside a center that is certainly not the left. That is the most right-wing he could achieve under the circumstances, and I don’t per se reject the legitimacy of that decision. He had to choose the least bad option for his voters among several worse ones.
We can’t ignore that going to another election (also, in a sense, breaking a campaign promise) would have been inconvenient for him; there was a fair chance he’d be wiped off the map. He had an interest not to choose that. Yet there is a reasonable justification for what he did—even if, ultimately, I’m not sure I endorse it. He did the best he could to represent his voters and advance the agenda for which he was elected under the existing circumstances. As noted, this is the most right-wing possible under those circumstances. Needless to say, the one who prevented a full-on right-wing government was, of course, Bibi himself—which doesn’t stop him from talking about Bennett’s swindle of the century and how he caused a left-wing government.
The moral claim: representing the voters
I already mentioned that within the moral claims appears the problem of representing the voters. People cite polls showing that most of Bennett’s voters oppose his entering the government. I’m not sure these are objective and reliable polls; it depends who conducted them and who published them. Moreover, I’m not clear how pollsters know which respondents voted for Bennett—Smotrich voters have a clear interest in presenting themselves as disappointed Bennett voters. Still, from what I see around me I suspect it’s probably true. The uniformity of opinion I see around me truly appalls me (I dedicated the above words in synagogue to this in the portion of Korach). That uniformity really reminds me of a herd, since, as I will now show, this issue has two sides and no simple answer. And if the public isn’t divided about it, then judgment is very poor indeed.
My discussion here assumes that most of his voters indeed oppose what he did: can there nonetheless be a moral justification for his decision to join the coalition? I must say I don’t have a simple answer (see here and here), but it’s not simple either way. Ariel Sharon already explained that what you see from there you don’t see from here. One of the privileges of an elected official is to take the agenda of his voters and advance it in ways that seem right to him—even sometimes when those ways don’t seem right to them. There are situations where the elected official understands that his voters’ views are formed by hysterical Bibist-Smotrichian brainwashing deployed against him for interested reasons. In such circumstances voters form an opinion against joining—even though they don’t really know the government’s agenda. If you want proof, note that many of them view it as a left-wing government when plainly it is not (recall: contrary to the Torah-true view of our teacher Bibi, “left” is not synonymous with “not Bibi”). In such a case, must the elected representative still take those views into account? Remember: he alone truly knows the plans of the government under his leadership and how much it will advance the agenda for which he was elected. Only he can properly assess what will happen. Hence, if in his view this government will indeed best advance his voters’ agenda under the current circumstances (this is the most right-wing possible), I don’t dismiss the legitimacy of deciding to join such a coalition even against the voters’ will. What you see from there you don’t see from here.
In any event, this question has two weighty sides, and therefore I would expect significant disagreement about it. But unsurprisingly, here too position decides everything. Bennett’s opponents explain that this is a blatantly immoral move—and strangely that lines up perfectly with their political agenda (see the phenomenon of spurious correlations in Column 41). Bennett’s voters repeat it as well, and in my impression many of them are unaware of the considerations I’ve raised here (from experience; when I presented them, some were a bit surprised). Position blinds and creates spurious correlations, and a political leader must sometimes understand this and act accordingly.
My conclusion is that there is logic to the view that he should act to advance his voters’ values and aims—even if they themselves do not agree with the method (especially if, in his view, their disagreement stems from ignorance and misunderstanding). This is precisely the division of labor between the public and its representatives. Something similar operates in the division between the Council of Torah Sages and the MKs of a Haredi party (an excellent model I very much like and appreciate). They outline the values and direction, and their representatives choose the way to implement them. Again, I myself am not certain that in this case it was justified, but it’s by no means a preposterous position. The wondrous uniformity of opinion I experience around me regarding Bennett’s move is a strong indication of intellectual ossification and an unwillingness to consider other sides. As noted, that very ossification itself constitutes a possible justification for his step.
I had wanted to end this column with a discussion of a passage Naftali Bennett wrote about what “Jewish” and “Israeli” mean to him. But this column has grown long, and I’ll leave that for another time.
[1] In my view this is connected to the distinction I made between derash and pilpul (see Column 52). Derash is a faulty argument that leads to a correct conclusion, and when we encounter such an argument we tend to ignore its quality so long as it yields the conclusion we favor. This, I think, is what the saying “One does not respond to derash” embodies. If the conclusion is correct, why should we care about the quality of the argument that supports it?!
Discussion
One of my first reactions to the current government was that I personally am happy about this step (full disclosure: I didn’t vote right-wing and certainly not for Bibi, and from my perspective any government without Bibi is preferable to a government with him, because I think he is personally responsible for this ongoing paralysis, consciously and deliberately, and that every day he sits on the prime minister’s throne leads us deeper into the abyss of anarchy or semi-dictatorship in which only one leader is conceivable — or both), and on the other hand — absurd as it sounds — I would like to see Bennett pay a price in the next election for this move. Because this reality, in which all the promises before elections are no more than hollow advertising, and nobody expects politicians even to try to keep their word, and they pay no price for their lies — that is a sad reality (another of Bibi’s rotten fruits, in my opinion, though he certainly isn’t the first politician to lie). And I would like to live in a country where politicians have a personal incentive to tell the truth and keep their promises. Right now that is not the case, and it’s not really Bennett’s fault. So I’m happy in this particular instance about the result of this move and about this government, but I really do not want such moves to become standard. I know this position contains an internal contradiction, but that’s what it is.
Another thing that seems important to sharpen here is the Bibist claim that “the ideology of the other camp is ‘Anyone but Bibi.’” As if that claim in itself is supposed to make people retract and support Bibi (as though he offers some grand ideology himself). It’s a very problematic claim because I see nothing wrong with an ideology that tries to remove from the center of power a man who managed to extend his arms into every corner and turn the government and the state into a circus for years, especially in the last two years. When there is one person creating such a severe problem, then removing that one person is an ideology in every respect, and a thoroughly worthy ideology, in my opinion. The proof is that this ideology is strong enough to unite in one government parties from every end of the spectrum, all containing people who have the good of the country before their eyes, from right and left (except for Lieberman, where it’s not at all clear to me who still votes for him and why).
As a Lithuanian Haredi and an influencer in this society, I want to say to you: more power to you for this column, and I express my identification with it.
“Although I’m fairly put off by pathos, I actually enjoyed hearing Matan Kahana’s speech, in which he gave Gafni and Litzman a short lesson on sanctifying and desecrating God’s name, and briefly explained to them his view of them and of their Judaism, and of the primitive tribe they represent” — how your hatred of the Haredim ruins the line. What is there between Kahana’s nonsense and sanctifying God’s name?? A soldier who eats cold food from plastic utensils (obviously this is speaking about Shabbat, and note this well) is really sanctifying God’s name, all the more so when he went to the edge of the base to wash his hands, and if he prays before going out to battle then wowww… almost on the level of a bad Hasidic vort.
Instead of a lesson in the laws of sanctifying God’s name, what I see, as in a mirror, is the Lithuanian arrogance of “only we study Torah” mirrored in the Religious-Zionist arrogance of “only we serve in the army” (and am I the only one this reminds of the story, if I remember correctly, in Duties of the Heart about the fellow who returned from battle etc.?), and let’s all pat ourselves on the back and be happy.
In short, one can really lick one’s fingers from Matan Kahana’s genius — a balm for the eyes. Come on, Michi, it doesn’t suit you. But we long ago learned that when it comes to Haredim, the schmaltz just drips out of you.
With God’s help, 6 Tammuz 5781
The government that has arisen is not Bennett’s government; it is an unequivocally left-wing government.
The important portfolios, from the perspective of secular politicians, are the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, and the Public Security Ministry — those that determine foreign and security policy — and these are held by the left: Yair Lapid is Foreign Minister, Benny Gantz is Defense Minister, and Omer Bar-Lev is Public Security Minister. The ministry that determines matters in the sphere of the economy and the distribution of budgets is the Finance Ministry, entrusted with a “high hand” to Avigdor Lieberman (while the Finance Committee that is supposed to oversee him is in the hands of his loyal servant, Alex Kushnir).
The right received ministries that in the past were given to the National Religious Party, Shas, and United Torah Judaism. Yamina holds, like the historic NRP (in the days of “Mapai shall reign in Zion” 🙂), the Interior and Religious Affairs portfolios; Sa’ar and company hold the Education portfolio (which for many years was in the hands of the NRP) and the Housing and Health portfolios (which Litzman held). The Justice Ministry, which Sa’ar holds, currently lacks a position of power, because on the Judicial Selection Committee there is an automatic majority for the “unholy alliance” between the three Supreme Court justices and the two representatives of the Bar Association. So the right has no position of power in any central portfolio.
The positions of Lapid and Gantz are unequivocal. Unlike Netanyahu, who dared confront the American administration and fight against it in Congress and in American and international public opinion, Lapid and Gantz are declaring unequivocally that they will not act contrary to the dictates of the American administration. In other words: they will “toe the line” with American pressure both in the sphere of returning to the nuclear agreement with the Iranians — which means lifting sanctions in exchange for mere empty words — and in “advancing the peace process,” which means moving toward a Palestinian state, without any real commitment on their part to abandon the path of terror.
And from Bennett’s advisers we may learn where he is heading. His strategic adviser George Birnbaum said in an interview to CNN that Bennett will change like Sharon once he comes to power. Bennett appointed as his diplomatic adviser Shimrit Meir, whose diplomatic positions are close to those of Blue and White. And Bennett offered the position of head of the National Security Council to Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, who had been Tzipi Livni and Buji Herzog’s candidate for Defense Minister. Yadlin’s leftist piety was expressed in 2014: nine years after the expulsion from Gush Katif and the transformation of Gaza into a Hamas- and Jihadist-terror state, Yadlin continued to praise and glorify the “disengagement” led by Sharon.
These are the advisers Bennett chose — and from them we may clearly understand what policy he will lead. Bennett is a “ceremonial prime minister.” The real decision-makers in this government will be Lapid, Gantz, Lieberman, and Michaeli. If Bennett succeeds in somewhat balancing Meretz’s influence, and in shifting the government’s policy from far left to a more moderate left, that will be some achievement. What do they call that in “spoken NRP”: “to influence from within” 🙂
Best wishes for salvation and consolation, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Hello,
1) I got the impression that you really dislike how trigger-happy people are with the concepts of incitement and racism, and it seems that here you went along with the guys from the left (not really 🙂 …). I understand incitement to mean a call to violence or solicitation to commit a crime, no? So where exactly did Netanyahu engage in “wild incitement,” as you put it?
2) Also regarding Ben-Gvir’s racism: the man has for years disavowed things his rabbi said (separate beaches for Jews and gentiles, imprisonment for intermarriage, calls for the death of Arabs) and many things he himself did and said in the past, and today, as I understand it, his great racism amounts to deporting anyone who is not loyal to the State of Israel, and anyone who does not accept Jewish rule here — and it makes no difference to him whether they are Jews or Arabs. What is racist about that?
3) In a weird world in which there was no Ra’am party, and Deri/Smotrich were joining Lapid with a small party in order to complete the missing mandates and bring down Bibi, but demanded a rotation arrangement — something tells me you wouldn’t be defending that. And besides, if the whole issue is a government of change that, with God’s help, will be good for the people of Israel, then why should Bennett be prime minister at all? Let him hand the baton to Lapid, since he is the head of the bloc, and all their complaints would be removed from him.
4) Was there ever a successful prime minister of whom you’d say: if only there were one like that again?
I’m just some guy forming an opinion… be gentle?
“Those books that will surely be written will also deal with the wild incitement he employed against anyone who opposed him,”
I’d be happy for one example, even just one, of a statement harsher than “the Arabs are flocking to the polls,” something in the style of “we’ll let these bastards run the country” (His Honor the Alternate Prime Minister, the noble one, the true genius Yair Lapid, may his light shine there, there) (which isn’t really incitement, but let’s assume it is for the sake of discussion), or “throw the Haredim in wheelbarrows into the dump” (His Honor the actual Prime Minister, the righteous genius Avigdor Lieberman, here, here). And one could continue from Ra’anana to Mara’ana (“we need to erase Zikhron Yaakov” there, here) among most of the components of the healing government (which is of course a unity government supported by 60 MKs, and certainly not, heaven forbid, a narrow government supported by only 61 MKs), whose mouths are full of refined language.
Or in short, how the hell does the man who is subjected to the most personal and low attacks in Israeli politics (see for example demonstrations with heart-warming art displays) and who speaks in the most statesmanlike way in the entire political cesspool become the demon and the great inciter? (Or if you want it even shorter: what is incitement in your view?)
The same goes for Ben-Gvir, whom you wrote is a racist. I’m not aware of a single racist statement by him. The man studied law and behaves and speaks like a suited attorney (that is, unlike the politicians with the trash mouths above, and certainly not like the noble corruption-exposers Sadi Ben Shitrit and Barak Cohen, and higher still in holiness, all of whose words are as joyous as when they were given at Sinai). What he thinks I do not know, but even from his actions one cannot infer racism (the only incriminating detail is the picture of the infamous doctor, but on that basis to call a person a racist?!).
Explicit quotations would be welcomed.
And blessed is He who directed me to the rabbi Eili’s view.
In paragraph 2, line 3
… and the Housing portfolio (which Litzman held) …
In paragraph 5, line 2
… to Bennett’s diplomatic adviser…
Comment:
It may be that Bennett’s meeting with Brig. Gen. Winter was an attempt to sound him out about joining Bennett’s circle of advisers, but the reprimand Winter received from the Chief of Staff made clear to every senior officer what his fate would be if he dared speak with “His Honor the Prime Minister” without the mediation of the Defense Minister.
Bennett once embarrassed Gantz when he was Chief of Staff, when he warned in a cabinet meeting about the helplessness in dealing with the tunnel threat, based on information he received from military personnel. This time it will not happen. Bennett as prime minister will be cut off from any information that does not accord with Gantz’s position.
In other words: Bennett’s role as prime minister is nothing but a ceremonial role, without any real authority. At any rate, his ceremonial appointment will be some small consolation for the religious-Zionist sector. If its representative Miriam Peretz was not chosen for the ceremonial role of President of the State, then we have at least merited the ceremonial role of prime minister, called in Yiddish: “kingdom president” 🙂
With blessings, Yifa’or
I recommend going over our position-taker’s column, no. 258, where he exonerated Bibi; I’ll quote him in a moment. He blamed Aharon Barak and his friends — after all, it’s always good to see the other side. (Full disclosure: I didn’t go over the present column; the title blessing Bennett was enough for me to understand where this is going, and my time is too precious. Everything is predictable in advance: no objectivity, only attacks on anyone who disagrees and keyboard-incitement and seeing reality according to the convenient position.)
Here is the quote; it is recommended to go over that entire column in full.
The elephant in the room: Bibi
Take as an example the claims against Bibi. He claims that a case was stitched up against him and that the investigation against him is being conducted in a biased, disgraceful, and scandalous way. If he does 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 (except perhaps the prosecution and the police, who are the objects of the criticism) can really know that. And yet nobody is bothered by going after him with the claim that he is inciting against the legal system and law enforcement, and that his criticism is illegitimate.
Imagine the hypothetical possibility that he really feels this way, meaning that in his view this really is the situation (that they are stitching up a case against him and behaving scandalously). And maybe it’s not only that he thinks so, but that this really is the situation. In principle, after all, that is possible. Even in such a case, is he forbidden to raise 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 is stitching up cases and acting unjustly supposed to do — keep quiet, become rhinoceros-like, and continue to respect it? Note that many demand that Bibi draw conclusions already now, before he has even stood trial. In other words, they expect him not to fight against the investigative and prosecutorial systems but to conduct his defense only in court, while at the same time they demand that he accept their claims and act accordingly — that is, resign. The meaning is that he is not allowed to fight these systems, but their decision obligates him to act. Is that not an absurd demand?
All right, it was hard for me to restrain myself, so I skimmed to see whether I might nevertheless find some sensible remarks that are not agenda-dependent and that do not distort the words of the sages….
As is my habit, I’ll give a tiny test of his words whitewashing the Bennett vermin in morality and in playing by the rules of the game. Here is the hatred- and envy-soaked writing as a defense of Bennett’s exploitation:
The moral claim: it is improper for the representative of a small party to be prime minister
This claim requires entering democratic thought. At the outset I will say that it is far from clear and unequivocal, for three reasons:
First, because by this logic no achievement attained through political pressure is legitimate unless it stands in proportion to the number of mandates. Game theory already teaches us that the power you have is not a function of the number of mandates but of the overall constellation (how much you are the balance of power, etc.), and therefore the achievements attained by each party generally do not stand in proportion to its number of mandates.
When it’s the Haredim — may God have mercy — it’s theft, extortion, and other words portraying them as crooks exploiting the fact that they are the balance of power. Fine: for them it’s forbidden. Why? Just because!! If it’s the rules of the game then it’s legitimate — again, only if you aren’t Haredi.
Second, this is an accusation against Bennett for being a successful politician. Who can accuse him of that? Surely not his representatives? Nor the representatives of the parties that joined him, since they agreed to it. So these are accusations by representatives of the opposition. The moral standing of such accusations is quite limited.
Apparently the Haredim are also successful politicians if until now they looted the public coffers because they exploited their political standing. Granted, not like Mansour Abbas who showed us how successful one can be, obtaining in one stroke with four mandates what the Haredim achieved over about fifty years in coalitions — and without even mentioning the half-billion distributed at your discretion — but successful people must not be criticized unless they are Haredi.
And third, we must remember that behind him stand the leaders of many parties, and all of them, as representatives of their voters, agreed to give him the wheel. Therefore de facto he has broad public support (all the “Anyone but Bibi” people support him, at least in his “Not Bibi” hat). Moreover, within the coalition that was formed, Bennett is the representative of the right (and actually also the center), and that contains a large number of Knesset members within the coalition.
What about all the “Only Bibi” people — why doesn’t that count as broad public support, God only knows. Besides, any sensible person understands that if Naftali the successful had presented himself as an “Anyone but Bibi” party, he would have ended up at best together with Bogie Ya’alon and Ron Balloon.
For all these reasons, I do not see here any real moral problem. These are the rules of the game, and there is no overly blatant misuse of them for ill.
After all, as noted, this isn’t about Haredim….
And here comes the wonderful explanation for all who wonder about Michi the intelligent and wise one, and how position blinds his eyes…
The moral claim: Bennett stole the election
Last Shabbat I spoke in the synagogue about Korah’s argument concerning a garment made entirely of blue wool. The argument is pretty stupid overall, and the question arises: Korah, who was a very wise man — what possessed him to make such puzzling claims? I argued that this is a very topical phenomenon. Position blinds the eyes of the wise and distorts the words of the righteous. When a person believes in a certain agenda, even if he is a great genius, you may hear from him rather foolish arguments in its favor. First, because not every genius is a straight person. Second, even if he is a straight person and not deliberately deceiving, still because of his agenda he cannot manage to see the other side even when it is as correct as the day is long and standing before him in all its glory. Every stupid argument in favor of his position seems crushing to him.
Michi, spare us a response and just look in the mirror once before you disqualify others for your own defect.
Has Michi already mentioned that the Haredim sanctify diaspora-mentality?!.. Or are you completing the thought for him?
Y, judgment is not necessarily consequentialist. Sometimes there are actions whose outcome is not terrible, but they testify more than anything else to the doer and to his nature.
I’ll just note that I explained in the column the considerations that can justify Bennett’s decision. It’s not quite as ugly as it sounds. He did indeed do something foolish when he made the promise, but given that this is the situation, it is a reasonable decision, or at least not a baseless one. There are more urgent things for which I would like to see feedback at the ballot box.
Imagine a situation in which the successful Haredi politicians demanded the premiership. Presumably the overriding goal of toppling Bibi would of course have allowed them to form such a government with Nitzan Horowitz, Lapid, without Lieberman, and the corrupt Gafni would be prime minister. Surely we would then get a wonderful column about the public legitimacy of all the coalition parties and what a successful politician he is… Despite the fierce hatred for Bibi, presumably here the Haredim win and the column would be long and tripled. Meretz can get along with homophobes who call them and their like perverts, and with anything that moves. There’s no problem here of contradictory agendas because there simply are no agendas. There are just a few people who couldn’t get to power with their merchandise, and therefore all options are kosher…
Have a pleasant rest of the day everyone, even the angry ones and etc.
1. You are speaking about incitement in its criminal meaning. But incitement in its verbal and everyday meaning is false slander that poisons someone’s reputation in the eyes of the public or of some group. And here is Wiktionary: setting one person against another person, or against a group of people. Temptation toward evil, urging to commit an offense.
As for “the Arabs are flocking,” I have already expressed my opinion more than once that this is a completely legitimate statement.
2. Ahmad Tibi also disavows many things. We all know what such disavowals mean.
3. Bennett wants to fulfill his promise to his voters and lead a policy that suits them. Therefore even if Lapid is a worthy man (I really don’t think much of him), it would not have been right for him to allow Lapid to be prime minister. After all, the whole justification for Bennett’s breaking his promise is that by doing so he realizes the policy his voters want. Without that, he has no justification for doing so, and then there would have been no coalition.
4. I am not knowledgeable enough to determine that. But there were upright and decent people. I got the impression that Begin and Shamir were such people (though Shamir too already said that he did not promise to keep [his promises]).
The concern you express at the end troubles me. It is also permissible to disagree, not only to form an opinion. I try to answer substantive questions substantively, even if done ironically.
I didn’t say others do not incite. But a prime minister whose entire life is devoted to incitement and divisiveness is judged differently from occasional incitements by people of a different standing. Beyond that, there is also a difference between incitement based on spreading lies — especially if this is done for a personal interest — and expressing an opinion, even bluntly, about people and groups.
As for incitement against Haredim, it is generally justified and true, and therefore is not an example of the matter at hand. These very days you could see fine examples of glorious incitement by Litzman, Gafni, and Deri (see references in the column). And if you add the ongoing conduct of the Haredim, it seems to me that the Haredim are the last people who can talk about incitement against them.
Hello Rabbi,
Just one remark: in the synagogue where the rabbi gave a lesson on Shabbat morning, I personally asked many people and did not find a Bennett voter who was adamantly opposed to the move. True, my surveys are patently unprofessional, but I’ve been looking among my whole environment — community/family, friends from high school, everyone I ask about the matter and among my friends who express themselves on Facebook — and the people I ask understand Bennett’s move. I barely found anyone opposed to it. True, it may not be the government of our dreams, but people really feel there is no choice but to try something else. And many of the rabbi’s words express my own feelings, even if I don’t agree with everything and not everything goes down smoothly. And I want to believe that with Bibi too, the sake of heaven prevails.
I personally missed the lesson because I was outside — I was in charge of the children’s prayer service.
Eili, I’ll translate his response for you simultaneously:
Incitement in its verbal and everyday meaning is false slander that poisons someone’s reputation in the eyes of the public or of some group. And here is Wiktionary: setting one person against another person, or against a group of people. Temptation toward evil, urging to commit an offense.
But only if you’re not slandering and poisoning the reputation of the Haredim in the eyes of some group — there it’s allowed. A. Just because! B. I think it’s true, and the devil revealed to me that Bibi doesn’t think it’s true. C. Because only I’m allowed. D. Setting one person against another is forbidden, but if I’m convinced that so-and-so is a baboon then it’s allowed. E. This requires further study, and may God enlighten our eyes. F. Position position position.
I saw a nice response to Bennett’s defamers written by Dr. Haggai Misgav:
“It’s a little funny to feel deceived when the one I voted for became prime minister, don’t you think? He reached the strongest position from which he can realize his policy, more than in any possible coalition in which he was only a minister. Can’t one really see the proportion here between what he achieved and what he sacrificed? After all, this is ultimately the goal — to realize policy. So all the criticism is that he won’t succeed — doesn’t that require at least giving him his grace period, and not tilting the expected result right from the start by this unprecedented opposition? Which in the end will harm exactly the thing we all want to advance?”
Rabbi Michael Abraham claims that there is no need to keep election promises if one thinks the voters are living in false consciousness. And on a completely unrelated matter: hell has frozen over.
I’m very glad. I truly didn’t know what the listeners’ views were. But in the neighborhood WhatsApp I got a completely different impression. It seemed like there was a general consensus there. By the way, that was the reason I spoke about it in the synagogue.
1. To say that every worthy person around Bibi left him is a bit of a sin against the truth. It makes a lot of sense that someone who has been in politics and in power for about 30 years would not manage to keep around him all the people, some of whom disagree with his decisions and some of whom have personal ambitions. His rivals have been in politics on average a quarter of the time he has, surrounded on average by a quarter of the number of Knesset members surrounding him (because they are small parties), and also have not been in power, so the intrigues are smaller. And still, Lapid parted angrily from Adi Kol, Ofer Shelach, and Benny Gantz, who called him a hater of people. Bennett parted from Yinon Magal, Alon Davidi, and Amichai Chikli. Benny Gantz parted from more people than those who remained with him.
2. The simple question regarding Bennett’s lies is this: how would the public have received going to a fifth election, and how does it receive his going with Lapid, Meretz, and Ra’am? If he had gone to a fifth election, the public would have been disappointed and understood that it did not depend on him. But his going with those guys left everyone, including me, jaw-dropped.
3. His breach is indeed severe, and the fact that it is impossible to keep all promises is precisely the problem. The political stalemate was known, and therefore Bennett knowingly lied in a cardinal way, and it sickens me. He tried to get votes from everyone and so scattered promises he could not cover. If he had said, “I want to avoid a fifth election and everything is acceptable,” ahlan wa-sahlan. But he saw he was dropping in the polls and then appealed to his base and said he would not sit with the Arabs or under Lapid. Therefore that was his central promise.
A small note — the quote “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength” is from 1984, not from Animal Farm.
A. “Bibi, who did nothing at all in the right-wing directions about which he speaks so loftily.” Such as what, for example? He spoke loftily about fostering diplomatic/economic/security power and opposing sweeping concessions to the Palestinians, and he indeed did so. He did not join the strengthening right-wing stance against the legal system and the prosecution, and he also didn’t talk all that much about annexation. Only in economics did he really abandon the classic right-wing positions that guided him as finance minister.
B. “The man is constantly engaged in conflict and polarization between different parts of society.” What is bad about that? [In my view, unfortunately he created too little conflict and polarization, much less than he was accused of, and that’s a shame. At present the different tribes in society are a danger to the welfare and long-term flourishing of the other tribes, and I at least would be pleased if the level of alienation grew much more (within each tribe it is worth maintaining a high level of solidarity)].
C. “The improper treatment he receives from state institutions and from the press … stems at least in part from the frustration of people who felt they couldn’t oust him otherwise.” Since 1996 he has received super-critical journalistic treatment, so it is quite possible that the current “improper treatment” also stems from that same significant reason (he displaced their camp from power and by and large pursued right-wing and conservative policy), and not from thin reasons like hedonism, corruption, and divisiveness.
D. If a Haredi party joins the government while Likud is waving angry fists in the opposition, and thus the emotional alliance of Likud with them is severed — that would be excellent. So why be sorry if a Haredi party enters? On the contrary.
E. Ruth Gavison said that Netanyahu would not be able to receive a fair trial. I get the impression (from reading the indictments, etc.) that the man is guilty, but I think Gavison was right. In matters that depend on inclinations of the heart and can be argued either way, much weight also rests on the judges’ position and the powerful spirit in their milieu. [I’m a small-minded person and I’m not especially interested in Bibi’s corruption, nor in the damage to the social fabric, nor in the deterioration of the rule of law, and the rest of the clichés. I’m interested in economic and security policy.] What is your opinion on that?
F. Something general. Smotrich explained his opposition to the inclusion of Ra’am. Now the question arises: why doesn’t Smotrich declare that he will give Bennett his party’s votes, from the opposition and while fiercely opposing every single vote, in order that Ra’am not enter? If the decision is going to pass with Ra’am’s help, then it is preferable that it pass with Smotrich’s help (who would vote without demanding anything, because if Ra’am were entering then Smotrich also could not demand anything), and thus Bennett would not have to pay Ra’am in any hard currency. I smell here something insufficiently non-consequentialist. If someone else is willing to be the sixty-first finger voting to give me a beating, then I would gladly replace him in that vote (and vote in favor of giving me a beating) if in return I could get a bag of Bamba.
Known. But the matter takes place in “Animal Farm,” that is, in the allegorical kingdom of the communist dictatorship.
To Rabbi Michael,
A saddening article,
The article looks like an indictment and a defense brief by a lawyer,
The prosecutor will place disproportionate emphasis on the bad without the full context of the whole story, so that the story will look really bad,
Whereas the defense attorney will place exaggerated emphasis on the good sides and minimize the bad ones so that the picture will look more positive in relation to the defendant,
On the one hand, the prosecutor accuses Bibi of every possible evil without giving a well-founded reason for each and every claim, but merely saying things as though they are known — for after all, we received from Mount Sinai that Bibi cares only about himself, etc. etc.
And the defense attorney further displayed amazing talent in presenting Bennett as upright and pure-hearted with pure intentions (blessed is he who believes). As for me, I would bet that Bennett’s motivation is mainly to be prime minister whatever the cost, but my beliefs do not interest anyone and I have no way to prove what I claim.
It saddens me that a site and person like Michael, whose purpose is to present well-founded views on important matters of thought, would publish a journalistic article biased according to the writer’s personal taste,
Why should I give you credit and try to take you seriously on matters of faith if you present here an insufficiently reasoned article with severe bias?
To take the claims of a thinker seriously, one must trust him; there is a chance he is saying sensible things if he is an honest person.
A biased thinker loses credibility. Who has the strength to start delving into a thinker who presents biased claims? Who has the strength to invest effort in claims that will very quickly turn out to be mere biased presentation?
As a devoted follower, this column is in my view among your less good ones.
In any case, in my opinion you missed one of the main reasons why what they did was wrong, namely the inclusion of Ra’am in the coalition.
For me at least, as a Yamina voter, that is the main thing that bothered me; all the rest I could have swallowed.
*Devoted?
A. Massive support for Hamas. Feeble responses and lack of policy toward it. Freezing construction. Preventing an override clause until it became his own interest. Fostering economic, diplomatic, and security power is not a right-wing slogan. Everybody agrees with that.
B. Probably a matter of taste.
C. Or alternatively, that already back then they identified what we see today.
D. Their detachment from Likud is one thing, but it won’t really happen. When Likud is in power they will return to it. Wherever udders are walking around, there they are found. By contrast, when they are in the coalition it is impossible to take needed steps, some of which I listed in the column.
E. I also get that impression. But he has contributory guilt in this. He created such an atmosphere that it is no wonder everyone is against him.
F. You are repeating my point. Likud and Smotrich could have joined Bennett, and then there would have been a right-wing government without Ra’am (headed by Likud).
I’m sorry I saddened you. I do not expect you to accept my words in any sphere. And if this column causes you to weigh arguments on their merits rather than by the speaker, that will be my reward.
Indeed true. They should have included Likud and Smotrich. What can one do — it takes two to tango.
F. Indeed. But ousting Bibi is a steep price in their eyes, especially if they think he will return. Supporting the government from the opposition while crying out in anguish carries no price, except for the utterly ridiculous difference (everywhere) between sitting and doing nothing and getting up and acting. In any case, the government has been formed, so at least let them neutralize Ra’am’s demands (some of which are in my view important. As long as we are here with the Palestinian citizens of Israel, it is useful to improve education and infrastructure there so as to get them out of the welfare cycle and increase GDP).
As a Bennett voter, I agree with the wonderful post and support Bennett’s move completely.
So I’m here in the role of the statistical outlier.
As a Bennett voter, let me reveal my view that Lapid is a completely legitimate coalition partner (though I do not think that about Labor and Meretz), even as prime minister in a rotation. Not ideal, but legitimate. And even so, Bennett’s lie seems to me so blatant, not to mention the paternalism (knowing better than us what is good for us), that I do not see myself voting for him in the foreseeable future. I of course hope he succeeds, because his success is our success, but that will not change my opinion.
A reasonable person should examine arguments on their merits and not according to the speaker,
But checking an argument requires time and effort,
A reasonable person will invest effort in examining the argument of a serious speaker,
And will not invest effort in an argument, even a good one, if the speaker is not serious.
A serious claimant has been lost ……
Bennett succeeded in crossing the electoral threshold by the strength of voters whose position was right-wing, and he took their votes in order to establish a left-wing government. According to the journalist Ayala Hasson, his agreement with Lapid was “pre-tailored.” There is a politician who makes promises that are his heart’s desire and fails to keep them, but here we are dealing with a “U-turn,” a substantive change in direction.
Whoever chose “Yamina” received “Leftward,” and therefore a considerable part of Yamina’s voters (I am not among them) are justifiably embittered. Had Bennett declared his tendency in advance, he would not have crossed the threshold. Morally speaking, this is “obtaining something by fraud.”
With blessings, Yippa’or
But Bennett is in “good company.” His Defense Minister was chosen as Chief of Staff thanks to a forged document that harmed his rival. The company he headed, “The Fifth Dimension,” received a contract with the police on the basis of false information. The “boss,” of course, knew nothing 🙂
And Bennett’s Finance Minister funded the salary of his election adviser George Birnbaum with public money transferred to him through the “World Ezra Movement,” in a bribery deal concocted by his deputy. The “boss,” of course, knew nothing 🙂
And his Foreign Minister was among the initiators of the “Israel Hayom Law,” which sought to shut down the only right-wing newspaper so that it would not compete with Yedioth Ahronoth. No one bothered to check how much “favorable coverage” the proponents of the law received from those who benefited from it. Only the one who fought against the “Israel Hayom Law” is standing trial over a “mere initial consideration” 🙂
After the praise you wrote about the Haredi public, I have to make two comments.
The reason they don’t want to lower the exemption age is in order to meet recruitment quotas. The more people liable for conscription you have, and in older age groups, the easier it is to meet the quotas — not in order to forcibly keep people in kollel.
B. The reason they don’t study English is certainly not the reason you wrote. Do you really think that the cheder principal and the parents don’t want us to study English so that Litzman can control our budgets? So for the same reason that we don’t study, the Knesset members also don’t want us to study.
My back started hurting me in the middle of work, so I leaned back and read Michi’s column and got a headache.
Michi — not nice! Plagiarism? So openly, without giving credit? Not even to the translator from German? (If this really is an original column of yours, Streicher is beaming with delight. His lips are moving in the grave.)
Your effort is wasted. You don’t persuade Streichers with logical arguments. The man is washed in pathological hatred. Truly a clinical case. Note that in all his outpouring of verbal filth against Netanyahu (the greatest of Israel’s prime ministers), there is not a single fact that justifies his accusations against him! Only Goebbelsian/Streicher-like slogans of the kind one could read in every issue of Der Stürmer against any Jew. (I’ve read some such issues.) Oh, the people around him left him. There can be many varied reasons for that, but Michi “knows” the reason is that Bibi is corrupt, just as Adolf “knew” that the many expulsions of Jews in history “prove” they are a cursed and intolerable race. (That’s what he wrote in Mein Kampf; I don’t remember which chapter — I don’t keep the book in my home.) Against such logic all claims are silenced. In any case, if you disagree with him then you are a Jude with a crooked nose and a “Bibist,” heaven forbid. By the way, it seems not for nothing that this column omitted any reference to including the Muslim Brotherhood movement in the coalition in exchange for a payoff of 50 billion shekels (a sum that makes the Haredim nano-extortionists) and legitimizing the Bedouin-Ikhwan autonomy in the Negev. Did not Adolf already say that the only religion he respected was Islam and the only prophet he admired was Muhammad!
What a shame Michi was not born in the right time and place, and to the right race. He could have gotten a terrific job in the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment in Berlin instead of living in a modest apartment in Lod, making a living teaching Torah to women at Bar-Ilan, and tormenting himself over a Nobel Prize in physics that the antisemitic gentiles, may their names be blotted out, failed to grant him.
About Michi’s pretensions in game theory I wrote in a response to another column, and Michi attacked me and came out — how shall I put it delicately — not as smart as he thinks he is… Suppose game theory teaches what he thinks it does (hint: absolutely not; see Shapley value, Banzhaf value, and more) — is game theory a moral doctrine?
All right, I have no time. My back has recovered a bit, my head still hurts (and also the Jewish heart, on reading such loathsome Goebbelsian/Streicherite propaganda signed by a “rabbi,” even if it is only plagiarism), but I need to get back to work…
A general note — when I bring examples, they are only examples, and to the best of my memory they are representative examples.
Bibi the swindler (……….. space for filling in derogatory nicknames) —
I do not believe that one person (who does not have dictatorial powers) can fundamentally change the character of the public, destroy political norms and the social fabric.
Political corruption was not born with him; he grew on fertile ground and learned from excellent teachers who knew how:
• to live well at the public’s expense (such as Shimon Peres’s birthday)
• to deceive the public [such as censorship of the photo of the burned Rachel Weiss before the elections, concealing the fact that Arafat smuggled terrorists in his car upon entering Gaza (actions carried out by the first secular rebbe), which was the foundational assumption for a culture of deceiving the public and laying the cornerstone of a policy of containment that ignores facts. For my part, I estimate this was done because Rabin had a clear political interest that the balloon on which he had built not burst].
• to take power through favors (Mitsubishi, Avsheh come home).
It was not only the politicians who preceded him — a considerable part of the media also did so in its struggle against Netanyahu, and it is hard to say there wasn’t such a struggle, a hypocritical struggle dripping with sanctimonious morality to the point of nausea (see an amusing example https://www.kan.org.il/Item/?itemId=107591 that says a great deal), truly incitement in its dictionary and everyday sense, accustoming the public to full handfuls of lies, quarter-truths, and built-in hypocrisy.
As for setting the people against each other — there is no doubt Netanyahu contributed to it as much as he could — there were precedents, and no need to drift back to distant days (I just read a book by Dennis Ross speaking inter alia about the peace process, and he explicitly notes that Rabin consciously steamrolled the weaklings and the right-wing public). It is enough to recall the statements sown in the media (also by the current alternate prime minister) before the disengagement that the time had come to show them who the boss is, and therefore even if the move was politically mistaken, it was good that it was done.
The legal system also does not even try to present an appearance of fairness (see the embarrassing interviews of Mazuz and the conduct of the prosecution in Netanyahu’s trial).
Nor are tendentious scare tactics his invention.
In short, Bibi is merely a man walking on a path paved long ago. Of course he is more cynical, smarter, and more uninhibited, but I do not think he is a trailblazer.
Money to Arabs goes toward improving education and infrastructure, which leads to getting out of the welfare cycle and increasing GDP. It is not at all similar to the continued inflation of the Haredi bubble (until they economically emigrate to the State of Israel — there is much potential there. The alternative to economic emigration is determined disengagement). Therefore there is no connection at all between the extortions. A “second Nakba” and transfer of the Palestinian citizens of Israel are not on the table, so economic development is necessary.
Surveys in general, and political surveys in particular, are a very problematic basis for drawing conclusions. But if you nevertheless want to use surveys, go to mandate polls (which are also not precise, etc.). In all the polls conducted after the government was formed, Yamina is in free fall toward the electoral threshold.
1. This is playing innocent. Go and see. By the way, they usually left him after not very long. Not one reasonable person remained there.
2. That is not necessarily the question. It may be that the question is what is more correct, not what the public wants more. See explanations in the column.
3. When he saw he was dropping in the polls, only then did he pull his main promise out of the attic? Strange.
That is of course legitimate. I too did not reject that position in the column; I only said that it is not self-evident and not necessary. But note that it would be worth your avoiding voting for the Knesset altogether. There is no party that does not do the same thing, and if you are not prepared to give your vote to such a party, then don’t vote. Likud and Smotrich and the Haredim wanted to build a government on defectors from Sa’ar, and there, as I explained, this is a much more substantive breach of an election promise. So there are no saints in Sodom.
And by the way, this is not paternalism but information that he has and you do not. After all, only he knows what was discussed in the coalition negotiations and what the agreed plans for implementation are. The agreements are public, but it is known that beyond them there are oral understandings, impressions, and mutual understandings. You, as someone who was not immersed there, cannot have all that. I explained this in the column.
Let me preface by saying that I stated only some of their praise.
As for your words, I disagree with you. They wanted this long before recruitment quotas were set. And the cheder principal implements a policy embedded in Haredi thought and worldview. They can dress it up as neglect of Torah study (the myth of returning the keys to heaven in Volozhin), but it is driven by a clear interest. For the same reason they shut down the internet and smartphones and the secular press. Not because of violence, and modesty is not the main thing either. The main thing is openness to other opinions and other fields. That could lead to critical thinking, heaven forfend. From there the road to hell is short.
How did I not think of that? Indeed, and let the many billions of dollars that the PA and Gaza received from all over the world — which went to improving infrastructure and education and turned Gaza into Singapore — bear witness… Genius! In general, evidence has accumulated aplenty throughout the world that pouring government money around makes pockets of poverty disappear instead of inflating them. A tried and tested remedy, by the agreement of our rabbis, the sages of the Council of the International.
And since this came to hand, here is a little story. It happened to me personally. One day in the mid-1990s, when I brought my daughters to the Noam school in Jerusalem, I found its principal, Rabbi Aryeh Betzalel, who told me that during the night the school’s computer room had been broken into and all its contents stolen. To my astonishment he explained that the insurance company had settled for only minimal security, because the computers were “old junk” and nobody imagined anyone would take the risk of stealing them.
“So,” I asked, “who would really risk stealing such junk?”
Well, as Rabbi Betzalel explained to me, the police and Shin Bet had no doubt. The thieves were envoys from Ramallah. The PA had received a handsome donation from the European Union for computerizing the schools in its territory. The money returned to Europe (more precisely — to shadowy bank accounts in Swiss banks) that very day! And then — disaster. The Union appointed a delegation to tour schools in the PA and examine the progress of the computerization project. What do you do?
The solution was simple. They sent “the best of our fighters” to Jerusalem to break into a few schools and steal the computers. Indeed, old junk. But what does it matter? They wiped, scrubbed, polished, and shined them, and showed the naive EU emissaries magnificent computerized classrooms…!
Suppose Bibi is such a crook; I don’t have the time or energy to delve into it.
But
Is his activity against the Iranian nuclear program not worthy of respect? Maybe that alone is enough for us.
Not only that. He has several achievements, and I noted that (and he of course details them well too). But the column is not devoted to summing up his accomplishments, but to the damages he brought (which he details less).
Better that they just detach from the state and establish a Haredi state in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak.
The rabbi gets his consciousness from Channel 13 / Ben Caspit.
It is saddening to see a rabbi who on the face of it is diligent and broadly educated (in the spiritual sphere) whose outlook in the political sphere — or more importantly, whose knowledge — consists only of propagandistic media content.
Without even asking, it is evident the rabbi is unfamiliar with content such as Adam Gold / the Mida website / Galei Israel / Channel 20 / Gadi Taub.
And therefore his political consciousness is derived only from the vile mainstream channels with their financial interests.
As a rule of thumb, it is better to listen to a poorer media outlet, because it is less bound to the interests of interested parties, as a paraphrase of the saying, “Be careful with the children of the poor, for from them Torah will come forth.”
One may say that the rabbi does not know the first thing, or half a thing, about Netanyahu’s legal process at trial. And what is becoming clear these days are the shameful blunders (done through much public money) of the prosecution / Project 315.
Likewise, the rabbi’s statements against Netanyahu are one-for-one Ben Caspit’s statements.
There is room to suspect that if the rabbi is familiar with the content mentioned above, perhaps he too has ulterior motives in echoing the propaganda (just as the rabbi suspects Netanyahu of interests).
Mordechai, I really don’t know how you didn’t think of it, but you didn’t answer the point.
The column is the verbal diarrhea of a man afflicted with the notorious, contagious, malignant, incurable disease of Bibi-hatred, developed by the finest engineers of consciousness. You fell into the net like the greatest simpleton, and instead of being ashamed of your weakness in standing up to transparent manipulations, you even publish it in public.
A complete recovery.
Said the clown who is immersed up to his neck in ridiculous Haredi propaganda.
The only virtue I see in this government is that a dear and wise Jew like you is happy about it, and what is better than making a Jew happy.
Your whole article is a great wonder to me about you:
1. You describe Bibi as Satan — as is well known, you are far from the only one. The man has been attacked and slandered nonstop from the moment he rose to power until his last day. Only an angel would not return fire, and in my opinion too Bibi is far from being an angel.
All the slanders about him concerning his wife and the employees are rumors in the air without practical basis. His son behaves like an average secular young man of his age more or less, and the security around him is not his choice (I assume that in the case under discussion he would certainly have gladly given it up).
2. Democracy is first and foremost rule by the people. At present the right to vote is given to everyone (I assume you support that), to the wiser and the less wise and even to outright fools, so the claim “what one sees from here one doesn’t see from there” is mostly irrelevant, certainly if we are talking about a political act (joining one coalition or another, yes or no). It may perhaps belong in a specific act, diplomatic/economic, where the public may not see all the circumstances and consequences, and even here in my opinion only with very limited warranty. The elected official is the public’s agent and should carry out his mission as the public thinks. What are the platform and the promises worth if not?
3. In my opinion Bibi is right-wing, precisely because nothing happened on the diplomatic front despite the great pressures from within and without.
The fact that nothing happened is no small achievement from the right’s point of view.
4. Bibi is very talented (in your view too). It is unclear why a public that supports a talented person is a herd. In the view of that public, a talented person who performs and largely supports their view is preferable to an untalented person who less supports the policy that, in that public’s opinion, is correct, even if he is a bit more polite and pleasant. What is wrong with that opinion?
5. Bibi did not act against the legal system, although that is apparently his opinion, apparently because of pressure. Here he was indeed pressure-sensitive. In many much more principled things he was not pressure-sensitive at all.
6. There is no unanimity about Bennett’s deed among his voters. Many support him (from personal acquaintance with them), though apparently most of his voters are very disappointed by his course, so there is no point at all in talking about a herd.
7. This government, no matter what we call it — right, left, center — in any case it is a complete salad of totally opposing views. It is a very narrow government (in the vote there wasn’t even a majority!! only 60). Regardless of any political opinion, this is a bad situation. And this is what Bennett achieved after blatantly breaking promises.
It doesn’t matter if smart people like you understood this in advance from Bennett; what is certain is that Bennett and Shaked tried with all their might to conceal it.
8. I’m also not sure Sa’ar’s voters understood that in any event and any situation Sa’ar would not go with Bibi. His voters and he thought he would get many more mandates, and Bennett too, and then together with another center party / Haredim they could establish a government without Bibi. That did not happen.
The democratic herd gave Bibi five times what it gave them. I assume that at least some of Sa’ar’s voters would prefer Bibi over anyone else in this situation. If we are talking about Bennett as a talented politician who managed to achieve so much with few mandates (my predecessors already mentioned that among Haredim this is not talent but extortion — I am astonished), then Bibi is a much more talented politician. Despite all the slanders against him from every possible direction, every fourth citizen in the country voted for him. He has a majority among Jewish voters and certainly among the victorious right-wing camp, therefore simple logic says he should be prime minister.
9. After you update me how much the state invests in art, sports, cinema, and culture; how much money creators/artists, actors, and education in general earn / receive — I can determine whether Haredim are extortionists and freeloaders and parasites etc. etc.
I completely agree that their Knesset members spoke disgustingly.
Defending him — apparently he has no time for exposure to other content besides the people around him.
With God’s help, 6 Tammuz 5781
Netanyahu is a unique figure in the Israeli political landscape. Unlike the Israeli political hack who grew from below, through constant subversion in order to seize positions of power against his rivals — hacks at his level — Netanyahu came to the “national league” from the “international league,” in which he swims “like a fish in water.”
Netanyahu came with an orderly economic and diplomatic doctrine. As finance minister, Netanyahu reduced allowances in order to lower unemployment, and as prime minister he acted consistently to foster the international economic ties of the State of Israel and to encourage entrepreneurs and investors.
In the diplomatic sphere, Netanyahu became an influential statesman on the international stage. He does not accept the position of the American administration and the international community as a given that cannot be changed. He is the one who warns with all his might against the danger of the Iranian nuclear program and Islamic terror, and fights for his position in the international arena.
Unlike the architects of Oslo, who were prepared to live with Palestinian terror and continue advancing toward a Palestinian state without a commitment to end terror, Netanyahu did not deny Israel’s obligation to agreements that had been signed, but firmly demanded that “the Palestinian side” abandon the path of terror and recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist; and when the Palestinians did not respond to this demand, Netanyahu for many years brought any “progress in the peace process” to a standstill.
And behold, despite Netanyahu’s stubbornness, Israel’s international standing was strengthened diplomatically and economically. Even with some of the Arab states, which fear Iranian and Islamic terror, Netanyahu managed to establish diplomatic and economic relations, out of an understanding that both sides are struggling against a common enemy that threatens their existence.
From a government of hatred made up of political hacks, each with his own reasons for hating Netanyahu, one cannot expect firm standing against pressure from the American administration and the European Union. All one can hope from them is a policy of “moderate left,” with Bennett and Sa’ar somewhat cooling the eagerness of their partners on the left to advance the “two-state solution” and reminding them that the security of the state and its national honor must also be preserved… if only.
Their rushing toward “advancing the peace process” will also be moderated by the firm stand of Netanyahu and Smotrich, who as a fighting opposition will warn against every defect and deterioration. One may hope that a forceful opposition will moderate the government’s rush leftward.
With blessings, Yifa’or
Another matter in which Netanyahu stood out as an influential statesman on the international stage was his handling of the corona crisis. Netanyahu was among the first to warn of the threat of the epidemic and the need to deal with it decisively. And thanks to his “obsessive striving” to obtain the vaccines, the State of Israel merited being among the first in the world whose majority of inhabitants were vaccinated and life returned to its course. Europe and the United States are far behind us. How much ingratitude there is in the “Anyone but Bibi” festival of hatred …
1. Indeed, I am completely not the only one. Therefore I am probably wrong. All the slanders about him are baseless gossip, except that about you and me they don’t say such things (or in halakhic language: there is a rumor that does not cease). If you think that only what has been proven in court is admissible in public discourse, you won’t get far.
2. Regarding the claim “what one sees from there,” I explained myself well and see no need to duplicate it. For some reason you are ignoring my words. Bennett best preserved his platform and promise to his voters. In contrast to Bibi, who betrayed it disgracefully when he himself brought upon the state a government that, by his own account, is a dangerous left.
3. The fact that nothing happened is indeed his art. It has no connection to right-wingness. Whether he is a man of the right should be tested in areas where something could have happened. I mentioned a few examples.
4. A public that follows a harmful man and echoes his statements even when there is nothing to them is a herd. That is true even if he is a genius and a saint.
5. Bibi is among the most pressure-sensitive people we have seen in politics.
6. Among his voters there is no unanimity. But there is among his opponents. And that too is troubling, because the moral question does not depend on the political-ideological question. Spurious correlations.
7. Indeed. This is the best that could be achieved, and that is because of Bibi, of course. Without Bibi there would be a full-fledged right-wing government with 80 MKs.
8. It may be that Sa’ar’s voters are deaf and illiterate (unlike Bennett’s voters), but even for them I do not see what there is in Sa’ar’s platform beyond the Likud platform except that Bibi isn’t there. Sa’ar is Likud without Bibi. Whoever voted for him voted for that.
9. Indeed true, Bibi is talented, and probably Bennett too. Political talent is not a sufficient basis to be prime minister. My discussion dealt only with the legitimacy of a small party receiving the office of prime minister. Beyond that, read the rest of the column explaining why Bennett has many advantages over Bibi. But whoever chooses to ignore all that — good health to him.
10. You don’t need any data, and it is also very hard to obtain them (the funding of Haredim is done in many indirect ways and not only through the relevant items in the budget book: support for nonprofits, support for the needy and economically incapable that this society produces in the masses, discounts for all those needy people in various fields, and more). I lived there, so I’m already accustomed to this ridiculous apologetics. But beyond the numbers, the state’s investment in those fields simply cannot be compared to investment in Haredim. Not only because of the difference in scale, but because of the implications. Investing in a parasitic society that encourages all its members not to contribute anything to society and the economy, but only to suck and suck — they and their children until the end of generations — and meanwhile disqualify everyone else and defame them, is not comparable to investment in fields like art, even if they do not yield direct profit to the state. When you invest in culture or sports, you are not thereby creating an entire society that it and its children will become a burden on the state. You gave a shekel in exchange for something non-economic. My salary too is not paid for economic profits to the economy, like many in the public sector. So what? And beyond that, I also do not maintain parties that extort the state so that they will pay me for no wrongdoing on my part and without any criterion or numerical limits.
All this is not very complicated, and one does not need a long day of study to understand the difference. Good luck.
Maybe it’s an anecdote, but you spoke so much about Yamina voters that I feel a need to share.
I’m Haredi and I voted for Yamina. The reasons are that I
1. Largely agree with the criticism of the Haredim (though the volume grates on me; you portray the political hacks as absolute evil even though they and the public have many positive things, and in general most of them are also captive to their own propaganda. It isn’t some system of elders in Bnei Brak sitting and planning how to suck the money of the miserable secular people. They really believe their beliefs).
2. Agree with the criticism of Bibi, and as a right-winger this seemed to me a fitting and clean-handed alternative.
On the substance of the claims, it was clear to me even before the election that there was a chance he would sit with Lapid (and maybe, maybe with Meretz too, though I really didn’t want that), and that could somehow be understandable. But the main deception is sitting with Mansour Abbas. For me that is something unforgivable, and it is far beyond just another “politician’s lie” — it is truly a wrong. I am also not persuaded at all that he thinks he understands better than I do (after all, he himself explained how terrible it is to sit with him because of his support for terror; this was not just some promise tossed into the air), but rather that the lofty chair deranged his mind.
This lie will corrupt the entire political system in terms of citizens’ voting (at the level of mistrust and the inability to rely on a politician), and in my opinion will harm the state far beyond Bennett and Yamina’s specific issue. In this he joins Bibi and Deri at the level of corrupting the system. I didn’t vote for Bibi 2. In fact, the motive of my vote was exactly so that there would not be a Bibi.
I answered very much to the point. Try again with lots of faith and courage and you’ll succeed. Not complicated.
Like Yerachmiel and unlike Yerachmiel, like Chayota and like A.B.
I know several Bennett voters around me; all of them are pleased, some are literally radiant, and a minority have everlasting joy upon their heads…
I don’t personally know even one who isn’t very pleased.
It seems to me the rabbi believes WhatsApp groups.
The complainers are often Smotrich, Ben-Gvir voters, and that fellow of Rabbi Tau’s… or mediocre people from United Torah Judaism, Shas, or poor old Likud.
Therefore it is appropriate to take all the complainers in proportion and ask them personally whom they voted for. It seems to me that if the rabbi does so he will see salvations.
I assume there are some who are not pleased. Also, some of those who bought Osem onion-flavored Bissli yesterday may not be pleased. So what? Osem doesn’t go bankrupt because of a tiny minority of a minority.
Tam, are you serious? Go over what you wrote again and see how you made yourself look stupid. In response to what he wrote about stealing the election, you wrote about stealing budget money. When did he complain about the Haredim stealing elections???
And he didn’t say that there isn’t broad support for Bibi…
For some reason my response isn’t attached to Tam’s comment. I don’t know what happened.
Why do you care how Bibi and Sarah treat workers at the prime minister’s residence??? I don’t understand how that affects how the man behaves as prime minister. This whole preoccupation with how they treat employees is so pathetic and ridiculous.
For the first time in my life (I’m 45) there is a government whose range represents what I think.
In the last election campaigns I voted for Labor, Yamina, Labor, Meretz.
Your post is excellent and sums up everything I think about the recent moves.
“To make you know the certainty of the words of truth, that you may return words of truth to those who sent you.” Thank you for a precise formulation of everything we failed to say clearly and aloud. What tremendous ability to isolate the shells of falsehood and analyze them with such precision.
With God’s help, 6 Tammuz 5781
Regarding the expected attitude of Bennett and his government toward the Haredi public — there is room for hope and also for worry. On the one hand, in the past Bennett and Shaked were the moderating force in the attitude of the “brothers’ alliance” toward the Haredim. While Lapid and Lieberman pushed for decrees and persecutions, Bennett and Shaked pulled in the direction of more moderate conduct, aspiring to gradual progress in encouraging integration into the army and the labor market and fewer sanctions and persecutions.
Also as Defense Minister during the corona period, Bennett tended in the direction of dialogue and cooperation between the Home Front Command and the Haredi municipal leadership. Coordination and cooperation that brought good achievements. The Haredi municipalities employed reserve generals as “corona project managers,” and together “joined hands” in the struggle while taking into account the unique situation and needs of the Haredi population.
Shaked and Bennett’s control of the Interior and Religious Services ministries can create a direct channel of dialogue and cooperation with Torah institutions, education networks, and the local municipal leadership — and may bring moderate but consistent progress.
The statistics show that in the years before corona there was a trend of moderate but noticeable increase in the number of Haredi men working (if I recall correctly, from 45% to 52%). By contrast, during the years of the “brothers’ alliance” decrees there was a retreat in Haredi integration into the army and labor market.
The question is whether the trend of cooperation and dialogue will continue also when Bennett and Lapid are in a position of strength and power. They have a political interest in adding the Haredim to their government as convenient partners, who focus mainly on seeking the welfare of the public they represent — nurturing education and religious life, housing, and health, and are much less interested in military, diplomatic, and economic questions. Indeed Bennett and Lapid called on the Haredim to join them.
On the other hand, there is concern both because of Lieberman and his colleagues, who rule without restraint over the state treasury, and because of Bennett’s partners from the circles of the liberal religious, who pull toward a forceful and stern attitude toward the Torah and Haredi public. Let us hope that Bennett will adopt toward the world of Torah the words of his colleague Gideon Sa’ar toward the legal system: “I came to repair, not to destroy.”
With blessings, Ami’oz Yaron Shnitzl”r
I may be a clown, but I do not engage in Haredi propaganda. I’m not even religious.
I’m just not a foolish devotee like you of Michael Abraham, wise in his own eyes and a coarse beast in mine.
From the article by Haviv Rettig Gur, “Lieberman Is the Stick That Will Bring the Haredim” (on the Walla site), it appears that Bennett and Lapid aspire to add the Haredim to their government. Bennett tends toward a more conciliatory line, while Lapid tends toward “shock treatment.” According to the writer, appointing Lieberman as Finance Minister and placing the Finance Committee in his hands was intended to exert pressure on the Haredim to abandon their alliance with Netanyahu and bring them into coalition with Bennett and Lapid.
With blessings, Yifa’or
Why “may be”?
You’re not even “religious”?!?! And you’re saying Bennett is a liar.
Did you answer substantively?!
Sandomiloff wrote that the money to the Palestinians is meant to get people out of the cycle of poverty and that we have no other option, whereas with the Haredim it goes to perpetuating unemployment. And you, Mordechai, answered him that this doesn’t work + some strange story — that’s not substantive.
He merely said that the comparison to the Haredim is incorrect, and you produced about 30 lines about how money to Gaza doesn’t do its job. A claim, by the way, that doesn’t need much proof.
Indeed.
I didn’t write that they scheme everything deliberately, but that is what they in fact do. When there is a system captive to its own propaganda, it bears guilt. See column 67.
As I wrote, this corruption is not done only by Bennett but by everyone. After all, Bibi and Smotrich wanted a government with defectors and also with Abbas. Therefore Bennett corrupted nothing beyond the disappointment of his voters (which I can absolutely understand). I don’t see in it such a catastrophe. Although, as I wrote, I have no clear position whether this was indeed the proper step under the circumstances.
Thanks
Thanks
I mentioned that there are polls saying so (though they are dubious in my opinion). But that is also my impression in my own surroundings, though I truly do not know whether they are Bennett voters. Maybe I was mistaken and they are Smotrich voters, and they naturally surely feel that way (wrongly).
Rabbi Michael,
I read all your words in astonishment and with a feeling of choking in my throat, with immense pain, incomparable frustration, and repeated verification that I am not dreaming and that it is indeed you, “my rebbe” in rational thought and devotion to truth without partiality. And to see that even among the cedars a flame has fallen, and even his orderly and logical row has been spoiled by emotional hatred.
The only consolation I found was precisely in your own words (a quote from the article): “Position blinds the eyes of the wise and distorts the words of the righteous. When a person believes in a certain agenda, even if he is a great genius, you may hear from him rather foolish arguments in its favor… there are several demonstrations of this in my words above.”
In pain — one of your most faithful readers
What do you think of the revolutionary idea of writing arguments?
Gilboa, you took the words right out of my mouth. 🙂
I wanted to formulate it this way: expressing pain is not an argument. But we meant the same thing.
First, arguments are ineffective against emotions. (Honestly: I can’t identify in the whole article a single substantive argument that would pass “Rabbi Michael Abraham’s test” in his books, almost all of which I have read and made into my creed.) Second, does anyone really need my arguments? Everything I could argue is known and accessible and has been chewed to pieces, and at least in my opinion it follows almost by itself for anyone who employs the tools of reason.
The purpose of my response was and remains truly only the expression of pain, and I regret using the platform for a purpose for which it was not intended.
To Sand’ — greetings,
Indeed the money flowing to the Palestinians is intended for technological development, and they have shown impressive abilities in developing an infrastructure of tunnels and long-range rockets. Instead of spending the money on Psalm-sayers, we’ll spend it on developing missiles 🙂
With blessings, Ilan Spiegel
You too, Spiegel?
A catastrophe will break out and Likud will return to power.
Haim Ramon proposes exempting the Haredim on the basis of freedom of religion. It seems to me this is the most logical. It would also separate the issue of Torah study in yeshivot from the question of exemption from conscription:
https://dyoma.co.il/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F/669-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%99%D7%92%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%E2%80%93-%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%92%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%94
With God’s help, 7 Tammuz 5781
To Y.D. — greetings,
It is hard to assume that the High Court would swallow an exemption for Haredim on religious grounds, when there is a large public of religious people who do enlist. I once proposed that they recognize that two or three years of Jewish studies, whether in a religious institution or in a secular institution, should count as one year of army service, on the assumption that Jewish study strengthens the learner’s bond to his people and his land, and thereby strengthens national resilience.
In that situation, both secular and religious people would be able to include within their years of compulsory service a period of Jewish study. This would also benefit the army, whose soldiers would be more highly motivated as a result of the strengthening of their bond to Judaism. Greater familiarity with the “Jewish bookshelf,” even if not accompanied by halakhic commitment, would increase the fighter’s pride in the heritage of his people.
In parallel, one must encourage and strengthen the frameworks that enable a Haredi soldier to serve in the army or in “civil national service.” And this is no new invention. Until the political upheaval of 1977, there was a limit on the number of yeshiva students receiving deferments, and the “Haredi Nahal” was a legitimate framework encouraged and supervised by Torah greats, including Rabbi Mendelson of Komemiyut.
There are not a few young men in the Haredi public who are not capable of full-day Torah study, and instead of wandering the streets as “shababniks,” a military framework (or civil national service) in which they remain in a religious society and atmosphere and engage in important and useful activity would benefit them greatly.
But the way to increase the move to military service and work among those not built for Torah study day and night is not through sanctions and persecutions, but through encouragement and cultivation. As in everything, coercion achieves the opposite.
With blessings, Ben-Zion Yohanan Korinaldi-Radetzky
I once proposed establishing a yeshiva for army cooks, who serve “week on, week off,” so that they would be one week in the army and one week in yeshiva, and thus the level of kashrut observance in army kitchens would also be improved. In the yeshiva the emphasis would be on studying tractate Hullin, which concerns the laws of kashrut in the kitchen. I suggested the yeshiva be called: Rabbi Cook Yeshiva 🙂
Could be. That was my automatic response, and I’m not sure I stand behind it after thinking about it. Still, it’s sad that this is the political culture we have reached, where it is obvious that promises aren’t kept.
Paragraph 1, line 2
… that two or three years of study…
Wow, you’re a genius!
Now after 25 years I understand that actually I’m delighted that Alex Goldfarb was appointed minister and even got a Mitsubishi(!).
Michi at least bases his claim on the idea that “Anyone but Bibi” is also worth something. But you? On what? Is there even such a claim as “Only Bennett”?
Patheeeetic.
What
I voted for Bennett, and I would also have supported him if he had said in advance that these were his intentions, so overall I’m fairly pleased with the result. Mainly because of Likud-Haredi rule. Still, I think that by the Korah test you presented, you yourself didn’t really pass. I think it is fairly clear that Bennett planned in advance to prefer the current government over a Likud-Smotrich-Haredim government. That’s also what I heard from an MK on the list who supports him, and that is also what Smotrich said even before the election — that this is why he split from him, because Bennett told him his face was set toward such a government. On this assumption, there is in essence no difference between his party and Sa’ar’s party, and Bennett presented a different picture during the elections. What remains is to say that this lie was the only way to defeat Bibi’s well-oiled machine, because if he hadn’t lied everyone would have been swept along by Bibi’s lies and they needed to be saved from themselves. That is very, very paternalistic and I am inclined not to accept it. Especially since support from Ra’am would not have passed among most voters (nor through Bibi, etc., which was not on the table). Therefore, sadly, he really did not have a mandate to do it, and it is very problematic to give approval to such conduct.
And behold, this is the realization of the license to alter for the sake of peace, for this “change” was done for the sake of “advancing the peace process,” which Netanyahu stalled for 12 years with his insolent demand that the Palestinians abandon the path of terror and recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Now the “refuser of peace” has been removed, and Lapid, Gantz, Meretz, and Labor, together with President Biden, will return to advancing a “peace of the brave.” Indeed, “something new is beginning” 🙂
With blessings of peace, Shalom Pepper
To our dear master, who has strayed from the path and turned his skin from rational to astonishingly emotional writing (take off the kippah! You fooled us!):
There is much to comment on in your words, which in my opinion completely distort things, are mistaken, err in exercising proper judgment and a balanced perspective on matters. Instead of multiplying introductions full of “superlatives,” I will write my claims briefly, and this is the beginning (with the help of His blessed Name, who according to your view no longer watches over us):
A. Regarding Bibi, I would like to raise one claim that in my opinion tips many of your claims against him:
Everyone agrees that in many spheres Bibi Netanyahu led the State of Israel to dizzying successes; there is no need to list everything. Many therefore think, and perhaps everyone concedes, that on the practical and professional plane he is the best prime minister, certainly in terms of proven experience on the ground (and even though one might say maybe there are better than him, certainty and uncertainty — certainty wins).
Now come arguments about Bibi’s level of morality. And behold, even if one were to imagine that the man is personally hedonistic and corrupt, etc., and also acts only out of interests (this is nonsense, and as you yourself wrote in one of your columns, every person has interests but also a truthful point that leads him), still in practice we see that he functions at the highest level as prime minister. At the time (when Blue and White still threatened Netanyahu’s rule), Avri Gilad already rightly remarked that he prefers a hedonistic prime minister with cigars and gifts who actually succeeds, over a stammering and incompetent Gantz and Lapid the dwarf who has to stand on a can during every speech so people will listen to him, and so on, if only. In my opinion this is a claim with real substance, sufficient to reject all the claims about Bibi’s moral level. Add to this also the claim that other prime ministers brought only damage, as is remembered. Therefore — indeed, I prefer a corrupt prime minister who advances Israel in every respect and who surpasses other prime ministers by several levels.
And indeed you claim that Bibi causes destruction and ruin of the social fabric and political norms. Well, every politician, even in the pre-Bibi era, was viewed as not honest and upright but as someone with an agenda who would lie in order to achieve what he was elected for (and would that it were for such a lofty purpose). What can be done that those same politicians, in addition to our media and in addition to humanity itself, cause the destruction of that social fabric you spoke of. In addition, that fabric is ruined anyway, and none of us can measure who is responsible for destroying the social fabric, and what the level of that destruction is, etc. etc. So this is a claim with no basis at all, which in my opinion is untrue and misleading.
B. There were many many more ridiculous claims that in my opinion are symptoms of the main claim you presented concerning Bibi’s character traits. But it was impossible not to ignore claims such as your claims about Likud MKs, whom you said are inferior Knesset members. But what can one do when wonderful Knesset members like Amir Ohana, like Nir Barkat, like Yoav Kisch, Tzachi Hanegbi, Ofir Akunis, and many more are excellent Knesset members who do not fall short of, and even surpass by several levels, other Knesset members. Obviously there are MKs like David Amsalem and Miri Regev to whom your claim may be true, but come on — they are only part of the party, and they are representatives of the voting public (let us not forget there are primaries).
Likewise your claim about the way they protested and interrupted Bennett’s speech. Really now — did you truly think such a step, which was perceived in the largely right-wing public as a criminal act without precedent (and it doesn’t matter right now whether you agree or not, or whether it is true or not — the fact is that this is how it is perceived), did you think such a step would pass in silence? The representatives protested and expressed the feeling of anger that existed and still exists in the broad public. Besides, should I remind you how Miki Levy (the new speaker!) of Yesh Atid behaved when Benny Gantz left Yair Lapid? Should I remind you how Knesset members of Yisrael Beiteinu behave in their protests? You are speaking about a Knesset whose conduct is like this.
And there is more to comment on regarding many things you wrote, but as said, these are only consequences of your main claim about Bibi’s purity of character.
I’d be happy to hear your comments and your opinion, and with God’s help after these words I will write my comments on what you wrote regarding Bennett.
And now I’ll finish off with a deep vort: What you complained about regarding Gafni, who spoke against Bennett and said of him “the name of the wicked shall rot” — in my opinion you failed to understand his intention. For Gafni was troubled by the following question: it is an established principle (and so accepted in the public) that Bibi is Messiah son of Joseph, who is destined to lead us to many victories, and of whom it is said that he will die at the hand of Armilus the wicked. But behold, we find that Bibi was removed from the office of prime minister and thereby became like a poor man with respect to that office, and a poor man is considered as dead; and in addition, given the notion that publicly shaming a person is like killing him, then by being removed from the premiership he is as one actually murdered. But this troubled Gafni, for how is it that Messiah son of Joseph was murdered not by Armilus the wicked but by Bennett? Therefore Gafni came to resolve that there is no difficulty at all, for Bennett is “the name of the wicked shall rot,” meaning that he is Armilus the wicked! And everything is settled beautifully.
With God’s help, 7 Tammuz 5781
The miserable situation in which a politician can “thumb his nose” at the will of his voters without batting an eyelid grows out of a reality of parties ruled by a “single ruler,” who determines who will be the members of Knesset on his list, thereby obligating them to unconditional loyalty to his will, which can “zigzag” and reverse itself freely without having to render an account to his voters.
In Likud there is elected leadership. There is a convention and a central committee; there are primaries for party chairman and for its representatives in the Knesset. In such a situation there is oversight and criticism by party members of the leader, and he is not free to do as he pleases. Responsibility toward the voter gives rise to trust in the elected leader, and that trust proves itself in all the election campaigns.
In contrast to Likud and the Labor Party and Meretz, in which the tradition of commitment to democratic procedure is preserved and the leader needs the consent of his party’s elected institutions, Bennett, Lapid, Gantz, Sa’ar, and Lieberman are single rulers, all of whose faction members are obligated to follow them without any criticism. And where there is no criticism, the leader is as if all-powerful, and “who can say to him: What are you doing?”
With blessings, Yifa’or
Even if I agree with most of what was written in the post, I must note that it is somewhat disappointing to see how a person of stature formulates and expresses his views in such a shallow language, which would not have shamed an anonymous Ynet talkbacker. I know that saying such a mode of expression does not suit you at all is not really relevant (because the issue of honor is far from you), and that is a good thing. But when one takes into account your students or readers of your posts, I think this point has significance and should be weighed seriously.
On the substance. Of all the arguments, I was very disappointed to read the analysis regarding Bennett’s selection, especially the point touching on the moral question in Bennett’s breach of election promises (in my view this is the main problematic point, if not the only one, in the whole story here).
A. As a Religious Zionism voter, I must say that every time people spoke about the possibility that Gideon Sa’ar would “come down from the tree,” I felt very uncomfortable, for the simple reason that he is not on any tree, since the only election promise he had was to replace Bibi. As I understand it, the move Smotrich ultimately tried to lead also involved a definite shift, even if temporary, of Benjamin Netanyahu from power, and in my opinion here one can already say that there is no blatant breach of the election promise (assuming there is no real alternative). Alongside this, I admit that I find it hard to believe that if Gideon Sa’ar had joined a government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, we would have seen him crying out about stealing the election (after all, we live in this world).
B. Regarding the contradictory promises: in the end, factually, it seems that quite a few Yamina voters feel deceived. One can attribute this to their failure to understand the words of the leader they chose, since, as you noted, he made two promises, one of which almost certainly would not be fulfilled, and if so, why prefer one over the other, etc. Even so, in my humble opinion there is a significant difference between the two promises. The promise to prevent a fifth election is, in essence, a generic promise. In that promise Naftali Bennett was essentially saying in simple words: “I will be prepared to compromise in order not to go to another election system.” For he cannot really commit to preventing a fifth election, because there is no guarantee it will be in his power. And of course it is clear that he did not commit to preventing elections at any price, but with certain compromises, otherwise that makes all the other things said in the platform superfluous, or at least dramatically reduces their significance.
If so, it seems that other than the man sitting in Balfour and his friends, in my opinion there is not a single Knesset member who is not signed onto such a promise. Therefore, when I as a voter hear Bennett’s campaign of persuasion, it is clear to me what the “core” promise is, in his golden phrase.
C. As for the claim that a public representative sometimes knows better than his voters how to realize their own ideological aspirations (because he is, for example, exposed to details they are not exposed to): if one accepts this claim, then the whole matter of election promises collapses into the pit, for a candidate who broke his promise can always cloak himself in such an argument. If so, we might as well move to the wonderful proposal offered here by Akiva Novick, may his light shine.
Why is the rabbi generalizing about Haredim???
I completely agree.
Beyond the insults and diagnoses, do you also have any actual argument? You should present it. After all, presenting arguments has a certain charm.
And even regarding the learned diagnoses you presented, are you sure your words have any connection whatsoever to what Chayota (or Haggai Misgav) wrote? I don’t see the slightest connection. It may be that only “Anyone but Bibi” clouds your eyes. Pathetic.
This is really a criticism I do not understand. You assume that he planned to do this before the election and then accuse him of lying. Don’t assume and don’t accuse. The fact that his opponents say so is of course no evidence at all. They also say many stupid and false things about him today. By the same token, I could assume that you steal other people’s money in your spare time, and then come out against you and claim that you are a thief and disqualify you from one office or another.
As for the matter itself, everything was explained in the column.
1. You answered yourself. We are not speaking only about bad character traits but about an unreasonable combination of all the faults together. By the way, I also do not accept that his achievements are all that exceptional. Really not. Especially since his blunders are as numerous as pomegranate seeds. But that is another discussion.
You claim there is no way to measure the destruction, and I claim there is. The fellow corrupted the state to the root, with no comparison to what his predecessors did. Of course I don’t know how to present a formula that calculates this, and it is very easy to argue about it.
2. I will not elaborate on the bunch of nonentities you brought here. The fact that they remained there only says what they are. Otherwise Bibi himself would have thrown them to all corners, as he did to anyone who showed the slightest spine and intelligence.
3. I said that the manner of the transition and handover is just peanuts compared to the other defects. Therefore I see no point in discussing it. Even so, it testifies to the attitude of that collection of scoundrels (headed by Bibi son of Joseph) toward the state and to how much they care about it.
In Syria and Russia too there is elected leadership and parliament, etc. When a gathering of Indians freely chooses a dictator who has cast a spell over them, that is only the appearance of democracy.
Let me preface that in my words there is no shallow language whatsoever. This is an almost factual description of the conduct of those under criticism. If someone kills a person intentionally and I say he is a murderer, is that shallow language? His deeds are shallow and I am merely describing them. Do you think I am supposed to describe it thus: “So-and-so delicately separated the soul of so-and-so from his body, and respectfully brought him to his eternal rest”? One cannot judge linguistic style in itself. It should always be considered against the contents being described in those very sentences. In short, when I say someone is a vile criminal and he really is a vile criminal, that is not low language but an almost factual description. So much for refinement of taste and language.
A. You are repeating my words and for some reason ending with a question mark (as though there were criticism of me here). Strange. After all, you yourself say that everyone would have been prepared to accept a breach of an election promise by Sa’ar, and then turn around and accuse Bennett. You even sharpen the point (and again repeat what I wrote in the column) that in Sa’ar’s case it is more serious, because in his case the whole platform was “not Bibi,” which is not true of Bennett (not sitting with Lapid was not the core of his platform). So what exactly is your criticism? We are left with the fact that, as a Religious Zionism voter, you criticize Bennett in a dishonest way, just like everyone else. That is exactly what I wrote the column about.
B. Here we return to what I wrote. I did not say all promises are of equal status, but I did point out that those who feel deceived are simply naïve or pretending to be naïve.
C. But what can one do — that is the truth! The elected representative knows more than his voters about facts not exposed to everyone. True, this impairs the quality of our choice, but that is the factual situation whether you like it or not. Therefore it is no wonder that there is no public representative who does not break promises to one degree or another, and we all accept this. Do you think all secret information — political, security-related, or otherwise — can be exposed to the entire public? The fact that you choose someone is supposed to reflect trust that he will make optimal use of information not exposed to you but only to him. That is the essence of representative democracy.
The claim that because of this there is no point in elections at all is nonsense, because it takes a correct fact and draws from it a sweeping conclusion (a common demagogic trick). The important question is how many promises you break. The question is whether after some time it turns out the breach was justified, and so forth. As I explained, promises to the public are supposed to concern the content of your policy, not the personalities involved or the way you choose to implement it. The policy itself is a core promise, and therefore Ariel Sharon in the disengagement probably acted outrageously. But promises about personalities, or about the way to implement the agenda, are by their nature not core promises. Very sensible and very reasonable.
A wonderful post.
With all the bad things Bibi has brought upon us, and the paralysis of the state’s institutions, I wonder how most people (including MKs) who speak in favor of replacing Bibi mainly mention the fact that he is corrupt and charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. That’s the main reason to replace him?! The man is inculcating a culture of lies, hatred, and stupidity here. He doesn’t pass a budget, didn’t function in any way during corona (“Oh, I didn’t know there was no legal obstacle to requiring isolation and tests at Ben-Gurion Airport” — his quote), capitulated to the Haredim during corona, and more and more — and you mention first and foremost the champagne and the other petty offenses?!
Maybe the rabbi has some illuminating explanation for this delirium?