A Proposal to Prime Minister Bennett (Column 474)

Why do you think Bennett is an honest person?????

1. There is no real chance that Likud would agree to a rotation with Lapid.
2. The moment Bennett resigns, according to the agreement with Lapid, Lapid immediately becomes prime minister until the new government is sworn in

Therefore, the result would be that Bennett would just resign for nothing, hand the keys to Lapid, and we would still go to elections because Likud would not accept your proposal (Bennett’s proposal).

It’s worth it for Bennett for the sake of the voters—after all, it’s all ideology, right????????????

A suggested title for the speech – “Have you murdered and also inherited?”

Regarding what you wrote: “In order to establish it I was forced to break quite a few promises I made before the election, which in my view was justified under the circumstances that prevailed at the time” — do you agree with this sentence? And if so, what is the justification for breaking an explicit promise not to sit with Lapid under any circumstances?

The idea that Netanyahu should step aside (“Bibi, step aside”) has been stated and repeated since the beginning of the deadlock and the elections, up to and including Gafni and his associates, as was recently published in their name. But in such a situation you don’t need Bennett and his speeches. The opposition (Likud, Shas, Religious Zionism, Smotrich + Shikli and Silman; 54) can add Gantz (8) and maybe Sa’ar and replace the government through a constructive no-confidence vote. True, they would have difficulty with the committees and the Knesset Speaker, but everything can be changed through legislation. But Likud voters apparently oppose this idea, both because they support Netanyahu and as a matter of principle—preserving what they see as their gatekeeper against the gatekeepers in the eyes of the others.

You wrote all this??
Wouldn’t it have been enough to write simply:
“Proposal to Prime Minister Bennett — Just Not Bibi”
or even this:
‘JBB-JNB’
Pathetic

Interesting points. But it probably can’t happen because Bibi has systematically gathered yes-men who will never go against him.
In any case, I would suggest a different proposal to Bennett. As is known, Bennett took off his kippah during his military service, and put it back on after Rabin’s assassination as a kind of protest against the persecution of the religious-right public by the left, which claimed they had led to the murder through systematic and ongoing incitement.
The bitter irony of fate echoes now, since Bennett has become a central target of wild incitement by that same religious-right public.
Therefore, I would suggest that he take off the kippah and join Yair Lapid’s party.
The right-left question regarding the territories is pretty passé anyway, and what matters most is to present an alternative to the Haredim and the Hardalim.

I think your basic assumption, that Bennett is fundamentally an honest person, has been proven completely wrong. He lied to us (I naïvely voted for him) in an utterly cynical way over a significant period of time, and if you say he did it for the good of the people — it is clear that the current government is incapable of strengthening security, fixing what needs fixing, or even improving the existing situation.

As for the will of the voter, it seems that the Likud voter’s will is first and foremost to put Bibi in power; only after that is he interested in Likud ideology, if at all. So your proposal doesn’t really reflect the will of the people. Also, according to the polls, if there are elections it seems that Bibi will win this time and be able to form a coalition with the parties in his bloc (Likud, Smotrich, the Haredim, Yamina).

I think you are mistaken. The problem is not Bibi and the disgusting gang of sycophants around him, but more than a million Israelis who unfortunately choose that option. The political tie is real and enduring, and it reflects the divide between those who believe in a properly functioning democracy and a sane state, and those who willingly enslave themselves to a personality cult around a charismatic and corrupt man (incidentally, a fairly common case in history). The second camp is joined by those whose Zionism is religious and whose religion is Zionist, plus the Haredim, for whom properly functioning democracy is, to put it mildly, not their cup of tea. What they clearly share, in my unsympathetic opinion: a distorted value system.
Because of the nature of this split, more fundamental and older questions, such as the separation of religion and state, also partially overlap with these two camps.
In conclusion, I do think a political tie exists, though not around the traditional right and left, and removing Bibi from political life will not move his more than a million supporters, and certainly not the “religious guys,” in your golden phrase. Still, it may be a first step toward uprooting the thorn called Netanyahu (assuming the political putsch succeeds, and Bibi’s magical influence fades once he no longer lurks in the political swamp).

I don’t agree with the basic assumption that Bibi is everything. Bibi is the valve that drains the systems’ attention… once Bibi goes, they’ll latch onto the next person as “the problem.”

All right-wing leaders are liars. Begin, who promised the whole Land of Israel, gave back Sinai.
Ariel Sharon, who said “The fate of Netzarim is the fate of Tel Aviv,” gave back Gush Katif. Netanyahu gave back Hebron. Why do you pick only on Bennett, who deceived only 6 mandates’ worth of voters? Likud voters’ memory is poor. Their leaders use them for election purposes and afterward claim that what one sees from here one doesn’t see from there, and they become pragmatists.

An impression

Yes. The justification is that the alternatives are worse.

Bibism, at least in its hardcore nucleus, is Sabbateanism in every respect, and therefore it does not seem that Likud is going to give up its messiah anytime soon.

1. Regarding what you wrote: “In order to establish it I was forced to break quite a few promises I made before the election, which in my view was justified under the circumstances that prevailed at the time” — he didn’t break quite a few; he broke all of them except the one that said he would try to prevent a fifth election. In the two days before the election, when he signed the document saying he would not sit with Ra’am and would not let Lapid be prime minister, he emphasized what the truly core promises were.
Beyond that, he knowingly made contradictory promises despite the political situation, and the election results surprised no one, certainly not in light of the previous three election results and the polls.
Since the political deadlock was known, if he had said he would prevent a fifth election and that all alternatives were on the table (except perhaps certain boundary lines like excluding the Joint List or others), he would have put me, as a right-wing voter, into a dilemma over whether I wanted repeated elections or support for a right-wing man who would try with all his might to be a significant force in a hybrid government. But, as said, he lied, because the election results did not throw anyone into shock, and nothing changed.
2. Mr. Bennett received 7 mandates, of which 3 have already left him (including Alon Davidi). And several more left him further down the list. Bennett’s move is disgraceful, and in fact they reflect (not even fully) the dissatisfaction of his voters with him.
3. I am not one of Netanyahu’s admirers, I did not vote for him, and as far as I’m concerned he can be replaced tomorrow. But to tell him to vacate his place, when he is almost the only one who becomes party leader through primaries, and when he clearly wins suitability-for-prime-minister in every poll that asks that question — that is outrageous and an assault on democracy. Let Messrs. Lapid, Sa’ar, and Lieberman, whom no one specifically chose within their parties, and whose combined suitability ratings for prime minister (though they presented themselves as fit for it) are not even a quarter of Netanyahu’s, vacate their places in the Knesset before asking him to vacate his place as head of Likud. Where does this bizarre demand come from to change the will of the voters? Where does this condescension come from on their part (and forgive me, perhaps on yours as well)? I don’t suspect you of being left-wing, but you should not suspect many voters of political ignorance on that basis.

There is one basic misunderstanding in your argument here that brings the whole thing down.
The demand that Bibi be replaced is unrelated to the degree of his legitimacy. Nor is it because people are complaining to Likud for appointing Bibi or to the voters for voting for him. They are simply saying: with him, we do not form a coalition. That contradicts our position and our value system, and that is our right. That’s all. If you don’t want to — then don’t.
It reminds me of the whining of the Haredi parties, who say that anyone who doesn’t want them in the coalition is anti-Semitic. He isn’t. His position contradicts theirs, and therefore he doesn’t want them in the coalition. Nothing could be more legitimate than that.

Excellent, Mendy!

The entire post and its central argument are a deep failure in understanding democracy, and in addition contain blatant lies about Netanyahu that are simply not facts. Just random heart-growls of personal taste. It is so disappointing every time to see this from you, Michi. Full disclosure: the writer has never voted Likud, the writer voted consistently for Bennett since he entered politics, the writer thinks Netanyahu made several serious and fundamental mistakes as prime minister and as a senior minister in Likud, and to a considerable extent would have been happy if someone else from Likud had replaced him and formed a broad right-wing government here.

What exactly is the failure in understanding democracy in the post, and what are those outrageous lies about the defendant Netanyahu?

“There is no tie — there is a huge right-wing majority if only Bibi goes” — how is that different from saying “there is a huge majority against invading Jordan and against the vision of both banks” or “there is a huge majority against nationalizing industry and in favor of a market economy”?
You cannot impose yesterday’s disputes on present reality. Like it or not, attitudes toward Bibi are the burning issue today in public opinion and in party policy.

One thousand percent right.
Bibi is only an excuse.
For a brief moment the dance of madness around Bibi will stop, they’ll load the disks with defamatory information about his successor (who too will in advance be corrupt and vile), and they’ll continue the “celebration” around his successor.

Deleted because it was duplicated elsewhere. Please do not do this again in the future. Michi

With God’s help, 24th of the Omer, 5782

Since “the law of the kingdom is the law” has determined that a public official’s decision made in order to obtain “favorable coverage” is a criminal “conflict of interest,” and since in a democratic regime every decision of a public official receives “favorable coverage” from part of the public and “unfavorable coverage” from another part — it follows that every decision by a public official is tainted by a criminal “conflict of interest.”

And since according to halakhah every citizen is obligated to uphold “the law of the kingdom is the law” — it follows that no elected official may make any decision at all, for his aim is to win public approval. There is no escape except that the government, any government whatsoever, remain stuck and refrain from making any decisions, and everything will “remain set aside until Elijah comes” 🙂

With blessings, She’altiel Haim Blau-Weiss the Bluish

1. It works the other way too. The other side can come and say: Netanyahu was lawfully elected, he is willing to take far-reaching steps and to give first turn in the rotation for prime minister to Sa’ar or Bennett, and they are unwilling; and then they go further and blame him for the deadlock. Netanyahu was elected, here are the proposals; if you don’t want them — that’s your problem. Just don’t whine.
2. And the more substantial point in my view: suppose the national camp were to present a counterproposal: we do not want Bennett to head Yamina or serve as a minister because he is a crook and a liar, nor Lapid, who is a corrupt liar since everything he complained about he himself did, only worse. He took coalition funds, appointed himself alternate prime minister, formed the huge and unnecessary government (per coalition MK), appointed cronies, etc., etc. — personal disqualifications, but not disagreement with the party’s general positions. If in your view this proposal is not similar and acceptable, then why not? If it is, then would you want this to be our politics — not the “art of the possible” but the art of climbing trees? The crises will only deepen and we will all lose. Once an MK is elected by the public, he should not also have to be elected by the members of Knesset.

A rather moving proposal, it must be said, in terms of its expectations of leaders and people, and yet I do not see a weighty argument pointing to an issue or issues in which the government is not functioning. They passed a budget; what is it impossible to do now that a Likud government would do? Sixty mandates are shaky support but also a kind of balance of terror. True, this requires a tightrope walk that is not simple, but the polls that opened an inconceivable gap regarding Netanyahu and his suitability for prime minister (46 percent, leaving the rest far behind) will not allow such a proposal.

The failure is that an anti-Bibi spirit blows from here. As is known, that is a failure in understanding democracy and also a gross lie.

I disagree. The question of being for or against Bibi is not important (at least the “for” side is not), and it is important to make clear to people that it is better to focus the disagreements on substantive questions. It is as if the dispute here were to center, as in Kishon’s book, on a goat — to Azazel. Am I supposed to accept that there is some huge dispute between goats and bald people? Is the State of Israel supposed to be stuck over the question of Bibi or not Bibi? This is nonsense.

His suitability for prime minister does not indicate support for him as prime minister. People answer that question differently, and rightly so.

This government cannot legislate anything, and its every move in every field depends on the support of a party like Ra’am, which will not give support because of Al-Aqsa issues and their other nonsense. They submit to every capricious demand of a single MK and waste our money to the winds because they are only 60 MKs. One has to remember that it may perhaps be possible to function with 60 MKs when there is alignment of views among the components. But a government like this one, which prides itself on the lack of alignment, will not be able to function. Not for nothing do all those who know estimate that it is on the verge of collapse.

A naïve proposal that misses an important point — the distinction between politics and ideology. Ideologically this proposal works; politically not at all. Most Likud voters are first of all Bibists (politically) and only afterward right-center (ideologically). In their eyes this proposal is absolutely illegitimate, and by the way — in practice Smotrich functions as one of them.

Beyond that, if Bibi goes, no one needs to give Lapid anything. Beyond the fact that you don’t just hand someone the prime ministership out of niceness, it also isn’t justified. Without Bibi you don’t need Bennett or Lapid, and the next Likud chairman can do whatever he wants.

I’m trying to understand and failing.
The rabbi deals in the column with the proper political round and argument, and it is certainly an interesting and refreshing proposal. I hope in Ra’anana they will read the column and think again about what can be done for the people.
But the main thing is missing from the book: how does a nation that is supposed to be a light unto the nations reach such a morally and ethically low state?
And especially the part called religious and Haredi, rabbis and rebbes, who are supposed to be the leading segment of values in the nation, have become those on the low side?
Is not the Torah of God supposed to lead us to something better?
Or at least to a moral average among the families of the earth?
To be specifically the morally and ethically backward ones?
How does this happen?
I’ve been going around in recent years and I can’t understand either the moral lowliness, or no less, why the segment of the people from which one would expect better is precisely the less healthy segment.
Does the rabbi have a few comforting words?
Or at least a few words that explain the absurdity?

Absolutely not. It is moral blindness. But I really do not expect them to be the moral avant-garde. Not for a long time now.

Of course Bennett is an honest man and Bibi is corrupt. Against Bibi and his wife absurd indictments were filed over food trays and bribery that never existed except in the deranged minds of criminal and corrupt investigators and prosecutors, while against Bennett, who made a crazy “exit” of 50 million shekels for renovating his private home while committing serious building violations (not including spending on “Wolt” and lavish meals, all at the taxpayer’s expense), no charge was filed and no investigation was opened.
Conclusion: Bibi is corrupt and Bennett is pure as snow. QED.

I don’t know whether you follow Netanyahu’s trial, but Case 4000 breathed its last long ago, and even the resurrection of the dead won’t help it. I have no doubt that the prosecution knows this but is forced to continue, because admitting to a judicial putsch is beyond its capacity. (I also recommend watching Ayala Hasson’s film on the Gal Hirsch affair.) In this case crimes (yes, crimes!) by the prosecution and the police were uncovered, and Bibi’s innocence was proven beyond any doubt. Only someone blinded by hatred would fail to see this. (Ah, but I’m the knight of hatred, how could I forget…). That does not mean, of course, that Bibi will be acquitted. One must not forget that the trial is being conducted in an Israeli “court of law”!

And one more thing about the trial of the “corrupt” Netanyahu. My niece suffered for years abuse by a mentally ill and violent husband who threatened to murder her and their five children (there are chilling recordings). She and her father (my brother) filed countless police complaints, which were not treated seriously. With the help of a senior acquaintance in the police, I managed to arrange for them a meeting with some commander in Lahav 433 who went through all the recordings and other evidence they had submitted and remarked: “This is horrifying, extremely serious, but I cannot help you. All my manpower, down to the last one, is enslaved to the investigations of Case 1000.” (Case 4000 had not yet been born then, and Bibi’s cigars and champagne are more important than protecting a woman and five children under death threats, aren’t they?).

And another thing — is Bibi the obstacle? The one two million citizens voted for? So perhaps, if some promise has to be broken, Bennett and his associates should break the “just not Bibi” promise? Tibi and the Muslim Brothers are preferable in your eyes? Or did you get confused and this column was actually meant to be published on the eve of Purim?

Actually, not necessarily. Bertrand Russell too was a genius in logic and a complete idiot in politics. (“Awestruck” by Stalin and by “the achievements of the Soviet revolution” during his visit to the USSR, and he never sobered up until his final day.) I don’t know if you are a genius in logic like Russell, but your political understanding is quite similar.

Indeed, I am old enough to remember what the left said about Begin (“murderer,” “fascist,” and more) and what Ben-Gurion said about Jabotinsky (he called him “Vladimir Hitler” and opposed bringing his bones to the הארץ on the grounds that “even a dead Jabotinsky is unnecessary on the soil of the homeland”). Today the fascist left waves “statesmanlike Begin” and “democratic Begin”…

There is nothing personal or substantive here. The left’s problem is that for many decades now it has been unable to win democratic elections (for good reasons, apparently), and that drives it out of its mind. So if it can’t be done through elections, they will fabricate cases, and if necessary — as Yeshayahu Leibowitz already said — he would have been willing to head an armed revolt had he not been (then) 80 years old.

Sorry.
What is a moral avant-garde?

And why is it specifically and mainly the supposedly more religious part that suffers from value blindness much more, relatively, than the rest of the people?

Bennett needs to resign and give Yair Lapid the prime ministership. What happens afterward — whether Bennett is defense minister in Lapid’s government (which would appease Idit Silman), or a government is formed with Likud, or elections are held — does not matter. His continued conduct right now is simply disgraceful. Yair Lapid is much more suitable to be prime minister.

An avant-garde is the segment of the public that serves as a pioneer in some area.
It seems to me that the reason is that religious people have agendas, and in their name and for their sake they justify every wrong. If there is a corrupt criminal who will advance budgets for the Haredim and religious coercion, they will support him. And likewise regarding settlements and Jewish tradition. The left also suffers from such tendentiousness, but you are right that it exists more among rabbis, and particularly there it is also more painful (to me).

The left had a prime minister, but investigations began against him.
Again, just investigations immediately sent him flying like a rocket.
(“To the benefit” of a decade of Netanyahu)
It seems the left is more decent and honest than the rabbis who keep appointing and inciting in favor of a defendant charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

I meant Olmert.

When there were rumors that Bibi was heading for a plea deal that would require him to retire from political life, Bennett made clear that he had no intention whatsoever of vacating his chair (https://www.ice.co.il/media/news/article/842115), so the whole assumption of the column (strikingly naïve, in light of Mr. Bennett’s actions since he burst into public life) is unrealistic.

As for the proposal itself, there is no point at all in any proposal Bennett might make. The man has lost his credibility, even in the eyes of those who trusted him from the start. His only political chance of survival is if Lapid or Gantz annex him to their lists; on his own he won’t cross the electoral threshold. The left too has no reason whatsoever to give up its partnership with Bennett. He gave all the important positions in diplomatic terms — foreign affairs, defense, and internal security — to the left, and appointed as his diplomatic adviser Shimrit Meir, who is identified with Gantz. Bennett’s position as prime minister is representative only, and in his condition he won’t dare stand up to Biden’s pressure.

It is certainly harmful for Likud. Succession battles would splinter Likud and weaken it. Nor is there any candidate to replace Netanyahu in leadership, not in his diplomatic abilities, nor in his determination and courage. The man is cast in iron. A man who stood against heavy pressure from the president of the United States and not only did not yield, but fought him in Congress. A man who stood firm in refusing to give way toward a Palestinian terror state, and despite the pressure brought the State of Israel to a strong diplomatic and economic position. Where are there any more people like that man? Could anyone else withstand the media and legal persecution Netanyahu went through and remain steadfast in his political path?

Therefore, my advice to Bennett is to continue clinging to the chair. The glory of a successful leader he will not have. At least he can enjoy the pleasures of his status as prime minister 🙂

With blessings, She’altiel Haim Blau-Weiss the Bluish

And Bennett is now trying to add United Torah Judaism to his coalition instead of Ra’am, as described in the article “Source in Bennett’s office: We are going all out to replace Ra’am with ‘United Torah Judaism’” on the Arutz 7 website? Presumably such a move would also encourage Shas and/or parts of Likud to join.

With blessings, Chashba”h

Even if Lieberman and Meretz oppose it, they may find themselves in a situation where the coalition does not depend on them.

The government’s moves that harmed religion in general and Torah scholars in particular — such as the harm to the kashrut and conversion systems, the cut in daycare subsidies for kollel wives, the harm to the “kosher phone floor,” and the like — can serve as a “goat” that, once removed, will let the Haredim breathe a sigh of relief. If Netanyahu defined Bennett as his “student” or “imitator,” then joining with the Haredim is a move fitting the path of “Bennett’s rabbi” 🙂

With blessings, She’altiel Haim Blau-Weiss the Bluish

I can understand the idea that it is permissible to break promises in order to escape worse alternatives. I don’t agree, because in my view a public official who breaks many promises to his own voters (!!!) violates the most basic rules of democracy, but let us leave that aside for a moment. After all, this was not a technical matter. Bennett did not say he would not form a government with Lapid, Meretz, and Ra’am because his spin doctor told him to. He had very clear reasons for it, and they were value-based. By the way, he also viewed being prime minister with fewer than 15 (!) mandates as undemocratic (in another interview he went so far as to say that even 20 would not be democratic), and suddenly 7 and then 6 and then 5 is fine. *And here is the question*: what is the justification for forming the government at all? After all, it contradicts Bennett’s values. So why was it formed at all? Because there needs to be a government? But Bennett knew the political situation before the election as well. Nothing changed in the two weeks before and after the results. So what suddenly happened? Rather — Bennett lied from the outset. And that is something different from breaking promises. I argue that he did not break a promise, but from the outset made a promise he knew he had no intention of keeping. What is the justification for that? And how can one relate to such a person positively as you do? After all, he lied all the way to the prime ministership, didn’t he? I’m asking seriously, not provocatively. I’d be happy to be persuaded that he is a good person. I voted for him because I believed that. By the way, I voted for him not because he promised not to sit with Lapid etc., but despite that. Lapid is fine by me. But I was disappointed by the fact that he lied so blatantly. And I stress again — to his own voters. Not to the voters of some other politician

However, Rabbi Moshe Gafni denies the rumor of an imminent joining of the coalition, and says: “There is no cooperation and there will not be. Bennett harmed our children.” See the article in Srugim under that headline.

With blessings, Chashba”h

https://www.israelhayom.co.il/news/politics/article/10799503 This article is worth reading. Although it does not explicitly mention the former prime minister by name and does not focus on him, it moves in the same direction as your post, Rabbi Michi. Broad agreement, from the right.

Rabbi Michi’s proposal requires leaving behind the sense of being right and agenda-driven righteousness, leaving behind the foolish game we have entered into of “left” and “right” (parallel to “yes Bibi” and “not Bibi”), and seeing the overall good of Israel under the circumstances. In practice it calls for a moment of truth and a test: how much are we willing to give up for the sake of continued proper functioning, by moving aside the trigger that distorts everything. It requires giving up the “wet dreams” of every sector, the narrow view through the glasses of the sectarian business (LGBTQ, Judea and Samaria, Haredi issues, etc.) for the sake of something greater — the people of Israel.
Is that still possible in our generation?

Olmert’s corruption was known at least a decade or a decade and a half before the investigations against him began. (I knew this back when I worked in the State Comptroller’s Office. Every low-level government clerk knew how to tell me that “Olmert takes bribes easily.”) But that corruption did not bother the prosecution and the police, because Olmert positioned himself “on the right side” and was protected.

Olmert’s mistake was that after many years of corruption, in which “Aliza sold works of art to contractors” for hundreds of thousands of shekels (which those enthusiastic art lovers threw in the trash outside Olmert’s house), he believed he had bought himself substantive immunity, and then made the mistake of his life. He appointed Prof. Daniel Friedman as justice minister, and for the prosecution that was a red flag. At first, as Friedman recounts in his book (The Purse and the Sword), they tried to frame Friedman and the investigations against him almost reached his kindergarten teacher. But what can you do—against Friedman they found nothing, so the prosecution had no choice but to go after Olmert’s own head, even though it knew the result might be the fall of the government. Never mind, they said there in the prosecution; we’ll deal with Bibi afterward…

Ah, and why did Olmert resign? Because he thought that would save him from prison. It almost worked, until Shula (whom he had turned into his handmaid for corruption matters) decided she would not go to prison alone, and the Lord opened the mouth of the she-ass… (Another factor that helped him was the death of the state witness against him before cross-examination began.)

The prosecution was certain that Bibi would never actually get to court and would hurry to close a plea deal that would keep him out of politics, but also out of prison. No one there anticipated that he would wage such a heroic struggle and pulverize the indictment into nano-particles, as has been happening since the trial began. (I recommend following it, despite the tedium involved.)

We agree that it is impossible to run a government under blackmail by individuals or parties. We disagree that the problem is Zionism and fighting for the state. Those are Bibist demagogies. The problem is not Abbas but a government of 60 MKs subject to blackmail by every MK. The problem is Nir Orbach and his opportunistic colleagues in Yamina, who extort exactly like Abbas.

As I wrote, this proposal has to be examined on three levels. In my opinion accepting it is a necessity of reality, but here there is great doubt whether the people there would be willing and capable of accepting it. But the very fact of raising it would also help Bennett on the political level, even if it is rejected. Therefore, in my opinion, raising the proposal is not a naïve matter, since the goal is not necessarily that it be accepted (though that would be very desirable).

In short: Bibi is lord of all, a necessity of reality, was, is, and shall be; there is none beside him, and he alone is worthy of worship. The contraction is not literal; there is no place devoid of him. And those who persecute him are antichrists who oppose the manifestation of God’s throne in the world.
You only forgot to add that you’re not a Bibist and didn’t vote for him at all (like Tzvika Bar-Lev, your fellow hasid).
Sorry, but this is really just pathetic.

I ask mercy only from the Master of mercy, crowned with the thirteen attributes of mercy, and not from any human being.

What is pathetic (or contemptible) is your narrow, hatred-soaked view of Israeli politics, which recalls the Western intellectuals who were “awestruck” by the gospel of Marxism and by the “achievements” of the Bolshevik revolution, and no testimony from the horrific reality in the socialist paradise states caused them so much as a second thought. (I mentioned Bertrand Russell above, but he was by no means unique in this. In their honor Lenin coined the phrase “useful idiots.”)

Of all the nonsense you wrote, the only thing that is correct is that I have never voted for Likud in general or Bibi in particular. (I am not a member of any party.) I have much criticism of him (for example, over the Hebron Agreement, his surrender to Meir Dagan and cancellation of a planned operation in Iran, his surrender to the legal gangsters, and more), but anyone with a minimum of integrity cannot deny him his phenomenal achievements (and this time really phenomenal!) in the economy and in restoring Israel’s international standing. For example: when Bibi became finance minister (a cynical move by Sharon, who hoped to bury him there), the State of Israel was on the verge of insolvency and there were fears it would not be able to pay for wheat (!). In recent weeks we were informed that Israel’s GDP per capita has surpassed Germany’s (we overtook Italy and Britain long ago). Netanyahu succeeded in removing the “Palestinian problem” from the world agenda and signed four historic peace agreements, and he was within a hair’s breadth of a no less historic breakthrough with Saudi Arabia. But none of that matters, because the consciousness engineers determined that he is “hedonistic” (as opposed to the ascetic Bennett and Lapid) and “corrupt” (as opposed to the clean-handed Bennett and Lapid).

And from you I learned that someone who diverts the discussion to ridicule and rag-bag cleverness testifies that his arguments have run out.

To Y.D. — greetings,

Will Lapid and Gantz let Bennett be defense minister? After all, all the centers of diplomatic-security and economic power in this government were given to the left. Bennett and his party were left with the interior and religious affairs portfolios. Exactly what was given to the National Religious Party under Mapai rule. In such a situation Bennett’s tenure as “prime minister” is representative only. The only thing they were happy to give him was handling corona, which everyone was glad to get rid of.

With blessings, She’altiel Haim Blau-Weiss the Bluish

Rabbi Michi,
I think that because of your important pursuits, you follow what is happening in politics on a day-to-day level only a little. Of course there is nothing wrong with that; unfortunately I am a bit (or a lot) “addicted” to politics and would be happy to stop.
In any case, this causes you to rely on assumptions that are not correct about politicians, out of insufficient familiarity. I fully share your opinion about Bibi (including his questionable right-wing credentials and all the rest of his virtues), but regarding the supposedly right-wing parties in the government you are making a serious mistake. Anyone who follows them closely easily sees that all their right-wingness is sleight of hand, and that they are much more comfortable and pleased to sit with Lapid and Labor than with Likud (quite apart from Bibi). It is very hard not to be tempted to say that in the end this is much more about sociology than about political positions.
Therefore Bennett will never leave voluntarily, and therefore one must understand that despite all the revulsion from Bibi (and thank God there is plenty), they are still bigger frauds and have no interest whatsoever in the “right” so long as it does not bring them votes.

Amazing, the level of lying by the admirers of the purple-haired swindler, who invent one story after another out of their fevered minds and then swear on an open Torah scroll on Yom Kippur that falls on Shabbat that their lie is absolute truth.

Bibism is a cult worse than Sabbateanism.

The lie is the determination regarding corruption, when every day in court it becomes clear that there is nothing at the base of the accusations, beyond the formal fact that only after a conviction can one really speak of someone as corrupt. And regarding the democracy failure — it’s obvious. The man was seriously and consistently chosen by a huge number of legitimate and rational voters no less than anyone else. The man is also acceptable to voters of other parties, not only those who voted Likud. Therefore his personal disqualification by a small number of personally frustrated people on the right (I’m not talking about parties in other blocs) is explicitly an anti-democratic message in my eyes.

The existing division in the government today is real, and aside from Ra’am, which entered as the swing factor, the coalition is homogeneous on the things that really matter.
The coalition represents half the people who serve, study, work, pay taxes, and believe in democratic government and individual rights.
The opposition, aside from a few exceptions, represents half the people who do not serve, do not study, do not pay taxes, and despise democracy and individual rights.
Everyone is clear about Shas and Agudah’s positions on all the issues above.
If you look at the “Religious Zionism” party, you see a collection of draft-dodgers (all the party’s members together served in the army less than Merav Michaeli, who is the left-wing marker in Bennett’s government).
If you continue and check the difference between Bennett voters and Smotrich voters, you see that Yamina was voted for by the upper deciles — high-tech workers, doctors, professionals — while Smotrich voters are lower deciles receiving stipends…

Likud voters are mostly a population in transition toward the Haredi-Smotrich model, who in another generation will live on stipends.

By contrast, New Hope voters are again upper deciles — professionals, doctors, high-tech…
In short — the First Israel versus Second Israel theory that Avishai Ben-Haim stole from the progressive left in the U.S. (critical race theory)

I may be less old than you, but because I do not worship your purple-haired idol, I am capable of remembering that Aharon Barak brought Begin to power after investigations against Rabin and a collection of ministers in his government.
I remember that no investigation was opened against Begin.
None was opened against Shamir either.
I remember how that leftist-Israel-hating-religious-apostate-take-off-your-kippah crowd made do with a light reprimand to Bibi in the Bar-On–Hebron affair, which is a classic breach of trust.
I remember investigations against Sharon that led to an actual prison sentence for Omri Sharon.
And I also remember a whole collection of investigations against members of the Kadima government and Ehud Olmert that led to Bibi’s rise.

But memory is not something that works well among Bibists.

To Gabriel — greetings,

And the necessary conclusion: only the upper deciles should have voting rights? Thus Bibi, Nir Barkat, Dichter, Steinitz and the like — all idlers, draft-dodgers and ignoramuses… — will be removed from political life.

With blessings, Oleg Erich Plutokratskovsky

I disagree with you. They are more right-wing than Bibi, and their only problem is Bibi. There is of course an issue with the religious, but that is not connected to the right.

Where did I write such a thing?
Of course someone who dodged military service, doesn’t work, and doesn’t pay taxes also has the right to vote on how much tax the workers should pay and how many stipends should be given to him.
In Israel even a murderer, rapist, robber, and thief has the right to vote, and you are welcome to check which camp gets 90 percent of prisoners’ votes…

Now I would be glad for a learned explanation of what connection there is between a right-wing worldview and handing out stipends.
How is it that the critical race theory of the progressive left is the official ideology of the “right-wing camp”?

In any case, the phenomenon of a rabbi advising Prime Minister Bennett how to conduct himself in political matters is in the right direction. At the moment there is only one party in the coalition that holds regular consultations with religious sages, namely Ra’am, which consults with the “Shura Council.” Mr. Bennett would do well to consult with the sages of his religion as well, “so that grey hair may reach the row” 🙂

With blessings, A Citizen from the Row

Meanwhile, the Shura Council’s decision was published to “give the government another chance.” That is indeed the right advice for all coalition components: to avoid shocks that would bring an explosion, which would bring elections, which would bring their political end. Of course no benefit can be expected from such a government, but in its shaky condition its members will also be cautious about dramatic steps, and therefore this government’s destructive power is very limited. As the defense minister said: “Neither right nor left — survival before everything” 🙂

With blessings, Shraga Feivel Halevi Conectator

Peace to Rabbi Michi.
I am among the minority who voted for Bennett, and I justify the trickery because of the alternatives.
The camp of JBB (Just Bibi) is convinced that the JNB camp (Just Not Bibi) has dragged the situation into the present “no way out.”
Therefore, if there is moral plausibility to your proposal, it must include an equal counterweight.
Just as Bibi is moved aside, so all the heads of the JNB camp should resign from their positions of power.
And then meet again in the next elections.
What do you think?

The problem is not only Bibi or only not-Bibi. The problem is Bibi himself.
Therefore this is a demand that does not concern who is right but the balance of power. Bennett would offer Likud the prime ministership in exchange for giving up Bibi. He is giving up the prime ministership, so they too need to give up something. Therefore it is fair as well. Of course, if Likud presents a counter-demand that all the heads of the JNB camp resign, that would have to be discussed and decided. That would be a game of chicken.

With God’s help, 10 Iyar 5782

Now that we have reached the point that the whole dispute is whether “just Bibi” or “just not Bibi,” it follows that in the two words — just Bibi — there is full agreement between the two camps, and the entire dispute is only about the word “not.”

If so, why throw out Bibi and his rivals, all of whom are capable men of action? Let’s have a rotation: for two years a person from the “just not Bibi” camp will serve, and for two years a person from the “just Bibi” camp will serve.

For example, in the “just not Bibi” camp there will be a rotation between Bennett and Lapid, so at the completion of Bennett’s year, Lapid will replace him for a year, and afterward Bibi will be prime minister for the next two years, and so on in turn until the coming of the righteous redeemer speedily in our days.

With blessings, J. Not-Bibinger

Another possible direction is to unite “Bibi” and “not Bibi” into “Bilbi,” and appoint a strong female prime minister who will know how to bridge the two camps and be both inside and outside at once—and who is more like “Bilbi” than Idit Silman, and enough hinted 🙂

Paragraph 2, line 2
…and for two years a person will serve…

Note:
My proposal to appoint “Bilbi” as prime minister is contingent on the agreement of both the Torah sages and the sages of the Shura

I can’t understand why, in your opinion, the blame for the political tie rests on Netanyahu and not on Sa’ar or Lieberman.

There are two parties here: Likud with 30 mandates and New Hope, which is scraping the electoral threshold. Likud voters want to see Netanyahu specifically in power and no one else, and believe me, they have good reasons for that. On the other hand, New Hope voters do not want to see Netanyahu in power (for supposedly value-based reasons, like “personal quarrels with Netanyahu”). In your opinion, the desire of Sa’ar’s voters is super-legitimate, values-based, moral, liberal, etc., and the ones who need to compromise are Likud voters.

Maybe you can explain to me why?

By the way, I would suggest you retrain as a political adviser or at least write speeches. Wasted talent..

I didn’t say it was Bibi’s fault. I said it was the fault of Bibism and anti-Bibism. The dispute is around Bibi and not around substantive issues, and that is what creates the tie. I suggested demanding his departure as a condition, and that would solve the political deadlock. It was pointed out above that he too could demand their resignation and that would also solve it. To that I replied that Bennett is giving up the position, so Likud should give up Bibi. Of course, if you think Bibi is legitimate (unlike me), then the situation is symmetrical.

I already do. It’s my final project in my studies.

Can the rabbi define what an honest person is? Then we can see whether Bennett fits the definition.

No

I kept silent about your first Streicher-like response above, since it was unworthy of a reply. (Replace the word “Bibists” with “Jews” and you will struggle to find the difference. A collection of insults with no substantive engagement with anything.) Here you at least raise “arguments.” Well then,

They tried to murder Begin over the Altalena (as Rabin himself, may his name be blotted out, testifies in his impure book Service Record). True, no investigations were opened against him or against Shamir, so what? That is not always possible for various reasons. But the long line of false suspects (and false convicts) proves that it was not the honesty and innocence of the prosecutors that prevented them from trying to eliminate Begin and Shamir judicially as well.

For example: Rafael Eitan, Yaakov נאמן, Avigdor Kahalani, Ruby Rivlin (who coined the term “gang of the rule of law”), Haim Ramon (who today is clearly understood to have been framed), Moshe Katsav (ditto), Yoav Galant (against whom accusations were raised similar to those raised against the prosecutor in Netanyahu’s trial and Supreme Court President Hayut, yet no investigation was opened against them…), Gal Hirsch — and these are just the names I pulled instinctively from memory. No doubt more and more would be uncovered by a more thorough dig. Their common denominator — criminal judicial sabotage of lawful democratic appointment.

One can shriek like a stuck pig “Bibism” (what is that?), but one small question still pecks away — do the shriekers (including Michi) bother to follow what is being revealed in Netanyahu’s trial? Are they aware of the fact that the investigation began contrary to Basic Law? That forbidden and criminal tricks were used in it? That the investigators tried with all their might to induce the witnesses to give false testimony through mafia-like threats? That all the prosecution witnesses so far have ultimately turned out to be defense witnesses? That the “favorable coverage” neither was nor existed (see Project 315)? That the “quid pro quo” was a series of steps that severely harmed Bezeq economically? And above all — that from the outset the indictment (which I troubled myself to read in full) does not contain facts that constitute criminal guilt?…

Or maybe the facts don’t matter. The target was marked in advance and the goal (bringing down the elected government) sanctifies all means.

And following our line, one can propose a linguistic innovation: the budgets given at Ra’am’s demand are “Shura fees” 🙂

With blessings, Shiba MiShura

Rabbi, attached is a text published this morning by Matan Kahana.
I’m not getting into who’s right or wrong; that’s not the issue.
One question: in the rabbi’s opinion, is this a right-wing text? And I mainly mean the part about giving trust.
(Just a moment earlier, by way of background, I’ll remind that Mansour Abbas has not condemned terror attacks for quite some time, takes part in spreading the libels about Israel’s actions on the Temple Mount [libels that are, as is known, the background to the recent attacks], and in practice subordinates Israeli policy on the Temple Mount to the king of Jordan.)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=451674280095837&id=100057598052804

Word for word. Whether it is right-wing depends on definitions. In my opinion, yes. Completely. Abbas has not changed his narrative, and anyone who expects any of them to do so is not right-wing but foolish, as Kahana writes. The question is what to do in the given situation. Exactly what he proposes, and what Bibi and Likud also tried to do unsuccessfully.
It is completely right-wing in my opinion because rioters and terrorists should be dealt with harshly. He is also against concessions to the Palestinians on the diplomatic-security level. He is in favor of changing the attitude toward Israel’s Arab citizens despite their absurd narrative. Why is that not right-wing? Is a right-winger someone who expects them to overturn the world? That’s not right-wing, it’s idiotic. Someone who wants to throw them all into the sea? Even Ben Gvir does not promote that. So what is a right-winger supposed to do? Keep boycotting them and leave them in the hands of extremist and non-pragmatic leadership? Has that ever produced any result? It only worsens the situation.
Incidentally, in the long run only living together and mixing may perhaps change their approach, if at all. When you meet people eye to eye and get to know them personally, a connection and empathy are created that do not arise through a thousand negotiations. That is what happened to Matan Kahana and Abbas, because they meet and work together.
The realistic right-wing expectation is pragmatism and not ideological revolutions. In many cases, the heart follows the deeds.
So there you have it, a left-wing text from me.

By the way, the one who subordinated the Temple Mount to the king of Jordan was Bibi in the 1994 agreement. It is anchored in a formal diplomatic agreement that Bibi even expanded. See Guy Zohar’s program “From the Other Side” from yesterday.
So is Bibi right-wing?

In a WhatsApp group of religious journalists of which I am a member, most of the members (not all) attacked this excellent post by Matan Kahana, and I rubbed my eyes: what is happening here—have all right-wingers suddenly become Itamar Ben Gvir? This will end in civil war; afterward they will look for culprits, and I admit I definitely have a few ideas who those culprits are.

Here is the link: https://youtu.be/VqcfDdVF0Wo

According to their proposal, a right-winger is someone who works from the gut and ignores facts and rational considerations. There you have a wonderful consensus between right and left on one issue: who is right-wing.
As usual, when there is a consensus, it means everyone is wrong. In my eyes, the right is one who works with his head and the left works with the heart/emotion. This is a principled statement, not a description of reality of course. In reality everyone works from the gut.

We can sum up the discussion with the ultimate “gut verdict”: Kahana is ri(g)ht! 😉

Absolutely.
I would even say: M. Kahana was right.
[On the pattern of: A. Einstein is great]

I see you’ve started foaming at the mouth and resorted to the last refuge of the scoundrel — accusing people of Nazism, so there really is no one here with whom to conduct a discussion.

I’ll just help you out, and next time you invent lies out of your fevered mind you should know that the Lahav unit does not deal with domestic violence offenses. In addition, about ten investigators from the Lahav unit participated in investigating Case 1000, which left 30,000 regular police officers to deal with violence in your family.
Have a magical day.

With God’s help, 11 Iyar 5782

In his article “It’s unpleasant — but I told you so, though sometimes there’s no choice,” Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun states that Cases 4000 and 2000 have turned out to be a complete failure of the prosecution, and if there is a drop of integrity in the prosecution and the new attorney general — they should stop the disgraceful trial and allow Netanyahu to end his political career honorably.

Rabbi Bin-Nun links his proposal to his long-known position that Netanyahu has completed his historic mission, and that it would have been better for Likud and Religious Zionism to join with Yamina and New Hope in a government in which the right’s strength is strong and which does not need the people of Ra’am and the Joint Arab List.

What Rabbi Bin-Nun understood is that the attempt to eliminate Netanyahu by improper means through absurd cases whose baselessness is becoming clearer from hearing to hearing only strengthens his political power, since the right-wing public, which understands well that there is no substance to those cases, “seeks the persecuted” and rallies to his aid. Once the legal-political persecution stops, Netanyahu will return to his “natural size.”

With blessings, Haim She’altiel Blau-Weiss the Bluish

Closing the absurd Cases 4000 and 2000 would bring to the court’s agenda Case 1000, in which Netanyahu’s situation is less bright, since he received gifts worth substantial sums from Milchan. Even if he gave no significant return and even if Milchan is his friend, the high value of the gifts may lead to his conviction for breach of trust. The very testimony that will be heard in this case will not benefit Netanyahu in public opinion, and will hurt him if “elections now” are held, and thus it may also be preferable for Netanyahu to “get off cheaply” through some kind of plea bargain.

https://www.inn.co.il/news/549535

The one who signed the agreement with Jordan was Rabin (true, Likud supported it), and in the agreement the Temple Mount was not subordinated to the Jordanians; rather it was written that Israel recognizes Jordan’s “special role” regarding those places — a very vague wording, and not by accident.
Even in the Guy Zohar item from yesterday that you linked, it is evident that the precedents were far more sporadic and brief, and he referred only to the matter of the flag, not to the general approach.

As for the substance of the matter, the right-wing expectation is not to fall for the smooth words of Islamic leaders, and to grant benefits only in exchange for deeds on the ground and not for talk. That is the lesson from all the riots from Tarpat until last year’s riots, with Oslo in the middle.
Another important lesson from there is that, at least regarding the Palestinians, the theory of moderation as a result of personal acquaintance does not hold water — regards from your city last year and from Tarpat and from countless attacks.

When Mansour Abbas in practice heats up the arena with blood libels and harms state sovereignty on the Temple Mount, that is not pragmatism by any stretch. Pragmatism is an Arab who thinks a compromise should be reached but in the meantime it is not legitimate to murder Jews or to encourage it in practice or by omission.
There are not many such people, but the solution is not to imagine what does not exist. These fantasies about moderate leaders brought Oslo upon us. What may perhaps produce such leaders is Arab despair of the chance to throw us into the sea, and now everyone needs to answer honestly whether Abbas’s inclusion in the coalition brings that despair closer or pushes it farther away.
And I’m not even talking about what will happen if there is a need for a military operation, and one of the prime minister’s considerations will be whether his coalition will survive, because he brought in someone who clearly supports the other side.

These are the facts.

In passing on Rabbi Bin-Nun’s words, I would note that I do not share his view that “Netanyahu has completed his historic mission.” I still do not see a replacement for Netanyahu’s leadership. Bennett and Sa’ar, in the trick of joining with the left when it was possible to establish a solid right-wing government, only proved how much we need Netanyahu.

What in my humble opinion needs correction in Netanyahu is the ability to work in cooperation with senior figures on the right. Had he given Bennett and Sa’ar the position of a senior minister that they deserve in terms of their experience and abilities, they would not have reached that abyssal hatred that led them to “cross the lines.”

In my humble opinion one should bring Likud to a leadership of a team of senior leaders making policy decisions as a collective in which the “chairman” is “first among equals.” The old and good method of “factions” within a party represented in the leadership according to their power in the convention.

The split between Likud and Bennett and Sa’ar is not good for anyone. Not for the Land of Israel and not for the traditions of Israel. And as one who appreciates Netanyahu’s leadership, I would be glad if Sa’ar, Bennett, and Shaked were together with him. As the Sages already said: “It is better to sit as two” 🙂

With blessings, Chashba”h

Paragraph 4, lines 1-2
…not for the Land of Israel and not for the tradition of Israel. …

Paragraph 4, lines 1-2
…not for the Land of Israel and not for the tradition of Israel. …

Hello Rabbi.

There are several points in your words that are unclear to me, and I would appreciate your response.

1. In the last elections I voted for Bennett for two reasons. The first was because I thought he understood well the political conflict that had been created, and truly wanted, and perhaps was also capable of, solving it.
The second reason was because I thought he would not be prime minister, and that was a good thing.

(In the past, that was also why I voted for Feiglin, but not for Gantz.)

2. Is it correct to say that the main obstacle to forming the government was actually Smotrich, who did not want Ra’am in the government? After all, if he had given his agreement, a wonderful government would have been formed that represented the majority of the population.
Haredim, secular right, Arabs, and religious right.
In addition, we would also have benefited from the continuation of the Abraham Accords process led by the right.

3. After Smotrich’s refusal (it is not clear to me why), if we argue that Netanyahu should have allowed another representative in Likud to lead, against that I will argue that my assumption is that the public that voted Likud did so because it specifically wants Netanyahu. Because they think he is smarter than everyone. And Netanyahu himself probably thinks so too, and therefore did not allow himself to be replaced.

4. On what is the simple assumption in your words that Netanyahu is corrupt based? Is it because of the indictments?
Is it only because that is your impression? Is it because he betrayed Gantz, or all together?

If because of the indictments, I would argue that my trust in the police and the prosecution is not especially high. See the Zadorov case, Gal Hirsch, and surely there are others.
More than that, some of Netanyahu’s own cases have already collapsed. Even the Bezeq-Walla case, where he is suspected of bribery and which the court is now dealing with, is being completely undermined by Filber, the chief witness.
In addition, even the judges themselves are not the straightest people (see Kalman Liebskind’s investigative reports.)
If so, would it be correct to say that the media reporting the accusations against Netanyahu is itself tainted by that same lack of integrity?

5. Why is Bennett forgiven for betraying the right because of the constellation that emerged, but Bibi is not forgiven for betraying Gantz?

6. In the past you wrote that you do not vote in elections because in your opinion the argument of “the lesser evil” is not sufficient. Is that correct?

Thanks in advance.

You see as you read — from your hallucinations…

If you call your collection of low insults a “discussion” — well, nu, all right. May God have mercy on your soul… What stands out is that you “elegantly” ignored the facts I flung in your face… (Or do you call facts “foam”?)

Thank you for the lesson in the structure of the police and the roles of its units. (For fair payment I am willing to expand your knowledge on this matter and on the structure of additional government units and their functions…) But here I wrote nothing at all about the structure of the Lahav unit and its functions. What I noted is that I used an acquaintance with a senior police officer who arranged a meeting for my brother and his daughter with a commander in Lahav. (The reason was that the family of the violent husband is loaded with money and influence and succeeded in paralyzing the local police station. We therefore tried to raise the fear of murderous violence to higher ranks while bypassing the obstacles set up by the husband’s family, rich in money and connections, and enough said.) You ought to improve your reading comprehension (and wipe away the foam, etc.).

Where did you get the utter nonsense that only ten investigators took part in investigating Case 1000? (And you dare call me a liar.) Hundreds of investigators took part in the Netanyahu investigations (even before they were given names and numbers), and in total about a quarter of a billion shekels was wasted on them. Are you sure that if such resources were invested in investigating you, they wouldn’t find a little more?… At that time there was “Case 1000” and there were fishing expeditions in every imaginable and unimaginable direction, in which hundreds of investigators took part. All the investigations and the fishing were conducted without the attorney general’s approval, in blatant violation of Basic Law: The Government. They were forced to close the submarine case (not out of mercy for Netanyahu but for fear of harming matters that must not be discussed), and so they continued with the other cases. The prosecution simply did not imagine that Netanyahu would prefer to fight in court instead of closing a plea bargain or simply adopting the left’s positions (like Sharon and Bennett) and receiving closed cases (cf. the Greek Island affair) and media protection. I don’t know whether you are lying maliciously, brainwashed, or hallucinating, just as you hallucinate about me and about what you read in my words.

And there were 30,000 police officers left to deal with my niece’s family? Are they all skilled investigators who deal only with problems of that type? Or is that in your opinion the number of investigators in Lahav? Did you forget your pills today?

If I were American in my soul, I would have a case here for a huge defamation suit against you. (Everything I wrote is documented, certified, filmed, and recorded.) I am not drawn to brawling in court, and I do not chase money. But there is a limit.

2. No. A government would have arisen that did not represent the center, which would not have joined, nor the right that did not want Bibi. The coalition that would have arisen would have been about the size of the current one (sixty-something MKs).
3. That is a hypothesis with no basis. I assume that most Likud voters would support it even if Likud had a different head. So it will also be after Bibi (assuming he is not immortal). But even if you are right, that public is 29 MKs and not the majority of the public. I explained this in the column.
4. Both the indictments and the undisputed facts regarding his gifts and his hedonism.
5. Ask whoever did not forgive him. By the way, I don’t recall there being any compulsion there because of which he betrayed Gantz. He was simply a liar even without any need. Everyone told Gantz in advance that he would not be prime minister, long before anyone knew whether a new constellation would or would not be created. Bibi doesn’t know how to spell the word “truth.” It seems to me he has never heard of it in his life.
6. That is correct in many situations. I wrote about it in column 189.

With God’s help, 12 Iyar 5782

Perhaps the perpetual “deadlock” of endless “games of thrones” would end if we adopted the Swiss model, in which the government, the “Federal Council,” contains representatives of all the parties in parliament (the “Federal Assembly”) according to their size, and all of them together share in running the state.

According to the constitution, parliament elects the members of the “executive council” by secret ballot. Ostensibly there is a possibility that only some of the parties will be represented, but de facto the Swiss reached the conclusion that instead of perpetual rivalry between “coalition” and “opposition,” it is preferable that all the parties representing parts of the people should share in government according to their strength, and thus the way is opened to understandings and agreements, and disagreements too become much more substantive.

When it is clear and agreed by everyone that no part of the people can be excluded or “thrown to the curb,” there is no choice but to function together. If “in Basel we founded the Jewish state,” perhaps we should also learn methods of governance from the Swiss? 🙂

With blessings, Sigmund Hermann, Man of Louvingen

Actually, we had something similar. At the founding of the state we had the “People’s Council,” which was the legislative authority, and the “People’s Administration,” which was the executive authority.

In the “People’s Council” there was representation for all the parties, but in the “People’s Administration” there was representation for almost all. But Herut and Maki were left outside. There was representation in the “People’s Administration” for 89% of the parties in the “People’s Council.”

Today, when Maki is already a legitimate partner in the “government of stitching and healing,” perhaps one can think about removing the boycott from Herut as well 🙂

With blessings, Zeha”l

There definitely is a political tie. Opposition to Bibi is opposition to the Jewish majority. They think that if he moves, the Jewish majority will fall. They don’t understand that we hold him up, not he us.

It is not clear to me why you insist on burning your reputation as a second-rate philosopher, third-rate rabbi, and fourth-rate physicist, in order to be a seventh-rate political commentator.
Actually, maybe you’ve decided to become a Bennettist cheerleader in the style of Caspit, Verter, and co. — at that you actually excel.

I think that the political tie today is between the believing camp (religious or traditional) and the non-believing camp (secular people, and religious people like you who think they have proofs; I once wrote to you that in my opinion that is not faith). This division is the most important thing for each camp, and therefore reaching compromise is so difficult and does not seem on the horizon.

Brilliant. The secular people and me and two others against the religious. “Half and half,” as the Gashashim said. So my party and two others would be the swing vote between the secular non-believers and the religious. Wow, I’m off now to extort Bennett.
I assume the nonsense you wrote here was only meant to make clear your opinion of me and those like me. There, I judged you favorably.