Animal Farm: A Coalition of Horror against a Hysterical Opposition (Column 532)
This time I’m hitting you hard. Because of its length, I first thought to split this column in two, but in the end I decided that wouldn’t do justice to the argument, since presenting the full picture matters here. So here it is before you, my second manifesto (the first appeared in column 500). And just as I did in the first, so I do now: I shoot evenly at both sides of the dispute. Before you fire off an angry talkback about my “leftism” (or my “rightism”), I highly recommend reading to the end, despite the length, to see the whole picture. May we have success.
“Out of the storm”
In the land of the dwarfs there’s a noisy commotion, armies don uniforms and go off to war. After the establishment of the current coalition of horrors, on the most recent Thursday yet another nail was driven into the apocalypse unfolding before my astonished eyes: a new-old government was formed. No wonder criticism is swelling and raging, with apocalyptic prophecies about the destruction of democracy and the state being proclaimed far and wide. And this morning (Thursday) that only intensifies in light of the High Court of Justice hearing on the appointment of Deri and the (non-personal) “Deri Law.”
At the outset I’ll note that I too think the government that was formed (which in my view is staffed by quite a few intelligent and capable people—more so, in my estimation, than other alternatives currently available) represents a moral low, disgraceful cynicism, and an insult to intelligence of a sort we haven’t seen here in a long time (and there is indeed plenty to compare it to in the past). At the same time I think much of the criticism of it is unprincipled, merely incendiary, and focused on irrelevant matters (much ado about very little). So I want to give a survey—balanced, but lashing out without favors to either side—of the coalitionary horror on the one hand and the oppositional hysteria on the other.
I will also preface what I’ll return to at the end. In my opinion, the disputed issues are relatively marginal. These disputes fuel themselves, and the more one side becomes extreme and unprincipled, the other side responds even less principled, which in turn fans the flames more and more—thus every mouse becomes an elephant. Liberal leftists persecute the conservative right in a very illiberal manner, and it’s no wonder the latter responds with absurd counter-measures. The reverse happens as well. Cool, balanced thinking can show us how high we’ve climbed up our trees and how relatively marginal our real disagreements are—maybe helping both the hysterics and the horrors climb back down.
The background to this column is a series of WhatsApp experiments I ran with a good friend who is very liberal and a clearly active man of the left. To our surprise, we reached very broad agreements about what is proper and improper, and even more so about what is acceptable and unacceptable. It’s important to understand that parts of my positions that he does not deem “proper” can still, after our discussion, become “acceptable” in his eyes—and that too is something. At least he can live with such decisions when they’re made by a majority (which cannot be said for some decisions being made now). I stress: I’m not speaking about style but about substance. I’m not speaking about invective and the style of discourse but about its contents. If we focus on substance and think about it coolly and logically rather than brawling, we’ll discover distances shrink drastically.
Again and again I reach the conclusion that similar experiments would greatly benefit our public discourse, though the chance of that is near zero (one of the main aims of this modest site). My assumption is that people of common sense will reach conclusions not so far from each other if they are willing to listen with an open heart. More broadly, I’ve written more than once that in philosophy and ethics there are almost no polar disagreements; I think the same holds in ideology and politics. The noise and commotion result from the absence of dialogue and an attachment to slogans and placards. Given our current state (with all of us up trees), the chance is sadly near zero, but it’s not upon me to finish the work, nor am I free to desist from it.
On Right and Left
This government is anything but a national right—neither “to the full” nor “to the empty.” It contains quite a few left-leaning features, and central components that are anything but national. For example, here you’ll find a clear presentation of Degel HaTorah’s principled refusal to sit on the security cabinet, on the grounds that they are not citizens of the State of Israel but of the Land of Israel and of the Almighty (behold the so-called “national camp”). True, there are right-wing elements in the government (as in the previous one), but I doubt how far their agendas will be realized in practice. We will quickly discover there is a reality here, not only parties and slogans—and perhaps that’s a good thing. So the statement that what has actually been formed is a kind of populist left government is no less accurate than calling it a fully right-wing government.
From this you can see that criticisms of this government aren’t necessarily coming from the left. Not everyone who opposes Bibi or the Haredim is left, despite what those parties tirelessly try to sell us. It’s more accurate to describe the struggle as a war between horror and hysterical opponents. Not promising for either side. Horror is undesirable, but irrational hysteria is not a recommended way to confront it. I, for one, am troubled precisely by the leftish features in the new coalition—those that advocate centralizing various aspects of our lives, denying freedoms (mainly of Haredim and those needing religious services), granting unreasonable support to parasitic, non-productive populations not in order to lift them out of their situation but to entrench it. I’m troubled by populist (and left-ish) promises with no economic or other feasibility (I mean the promises themselves; in many cases they won’t be realized), by control over our way of life, marriage and prayer rites, and by the threat all this poses to society and to the public purse now and in the future (since sadly some promises will indeed be carried out). In short, my critique of the government comes mainly from the right and less from the left. So spare me the accusations of leftism (which, even if true, are slogans, not arguments).
The hysteria
Before my critiques of the coalition presented below, I must preface: most of the criticisms being voiced are hysterical, baseless, and unfounded. Contrary to the cries of doom, I’m fairly sure Bibi’s appointment as prime minister will not change much regarding his trials. Nor do I see a great chance of some apocalypse befalling civil rights and democracy. I think almost no one, from any side, truly wants such an outcome. Racism likely won’t reign here either (the proportion of racists in the new government is quite low, though it exists). Oh, and fear not: the general education system will not be affected or changed in any way (not for the better either), except for the Haredi system, which will deepen its failures with over-funding. You know what? Even our failing judicial system will not collapse; actually, it might even strengthen and improve in several aspects in which it has struggled to date (the guiding lines presented yesterday by the new Justice Minister Yariv Levin are mostly reasonable and acceptable; the package as a whole is less so). There are even aspects of the new government’s policy that might give reason for hope, like governance and security. But I don’t expect substantial improvement there under the new rule either (let me remind you: the May 2021 riots occurred under Bibi, Bennett, and Smotrich). Time will tell. All this greatly troubles the opposition, but it’s not what troubles me.
There are some aspects, admittedly quite minor, in which the declarations (if realized) would actually correct past wrongs—and there there’s even a chance it will happen (because it really should). They’ll permit the use of public facilities for gender-separate events; more gender-separate beaches will open; perhaps some improvements will come in the legal system and in its relations to the government and Knesset (following the aforementioned press conference by Yariv Levin, it appears they’re serious—see caveat in column 517)[1]; they’ll open discussion of conversion therapy, of trans and queer phenomena, and lower, somewhat, the LGBTQ and progressive tyranny that sets the terms of public discourse on these topics, and more.
None of this stops critics from lumping these together with the more problematic steps expected. In their eyes everything is horror; the hoofbeats of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are already sounding. So why do I too view this coalition as horrifying? Because despite the critics’ hysteria, there are indeed a few serious problems (as they say: the fact you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you). I must say their essence is conduct rather than outcomes. I don’t foresee harsh, irreversible outcomes to most of this government’s policies; but its conduct, its agenda (most of which won’t be realized), and of course its staffing are the main problem. Beyond that, some harmful results are expected from what will be implemented, as I’ll detail now.
What, then, is horrifying here
First of all, the very appointment of such a crew—an astonishing blend of the corrupt, benighted and primitive, petty and vindictive—is a primary harm, even if it yields no concrete outcome. Consider changing Basic Laws without a moment’s thought and without staff work, just to seat a twice-convicted criminal as a minister, and just to split portfolios, ministries, and powers without logic and without any substantive review (likely with significant administrative downsides)—that’s problematic in itself, not only in its results. Someone convicted of tax crimes will be the finance minister who prosecutes us for tax offenses and demands that we obey the laws—especially the tax laws. And I haven’t even mentioned the inciting, corrupt prime minister we’ve received again.
The scandalous way laws have been passed for conjunctural needs has already eroded the rule of law for years, as governments play with the legal system at will and according to their needs, changing it without thought, without staff work, and without regard for the state’s real needs. I’ve written more than once that one of our regime’s foundational problems is that in Israel there are only two branches of government: the judiciary and the executive. Because Israel lacks a Knesset (in the real sense), we have no legislative branch and no independent sovereign (see, for example, column 300), and thus the government does as it pleases with us and with the Knesset, without any check or protection from the Knesset (and soon with less oversight from the courts; it seems some yearn for us to be left with a single ruling branch). The main problem in all this is not the outcomes but the conduct itself—though in the long run there will also be problematic effects on the rule of law and public trust in it.
It’s hard to see how one can take seriously laws enacted so scandalously. I find it hard to believe citizens won’t draw the obvious conclusions and try as much as possible to circumvent the laws, beyond what already happened. For instance, to evade taxes, or to avoid military service. If law-makers are above the law, and if laws are made with no connection to the state’s or the public’s interest but only to personal (not even sectoral) interests, I see no value or logic in expecting any citizen to obey them. I don’t see why taxpayers, especially large business owners, would continue throwing large sums into the public coffers when it’s clear that much of the money is used mainly for harmful, corrupt aims of parasitic, self-interested groups that contribute almost nothing to the coffers they plunder—to swallow their money. If I were a tycoon, I suppose I would do all I could to avoid it (yes, many try even now, but I expect much more. Not all of them are wicked. I personally know some righteous people who pay taxes and don’t try to evade them out of civic commitment). Similarly, I don’t see why youth would be motivated to enlist when there is a privileged group receiving a sweeping, utterly illogical exemption from service, and all this with ever more generous, indiscriminate funding (and I am indeed in favor of a reasonable quota of exemptions; see column 34). So even if in the short term nothing dramatic happens, if these processes continue, I do expect long-term consequences.
Beyond the looming budget hole from funneling billions to baseless, irrational purposes, it’s hard to see moral or economic sense in groups contributing almost nothing to GDP taking over the coffers and emptying them for their needs. Yes, it’s perfectly legal—but it’s utterly illogical and unethical. We can’t ignore data on the Haredim’s negligible contribution to GDP (which, in my impression, is borne mainly by secular Israelis and, among them, by leftists beyond their share of the general population). Think of the appalling Shas videos about the cost of living that make Der Stürmer pale with envy (I highly recommend watching, for example, this one), remembering that it’s produced and circulated by a party whose entire mission is to entrench the poverty and backwardness of its voters and of the population at large. They create poverty and backwardness and then “care” for the weak and “invisible” in a way that ensures they will always remain so (to fulfill the verse “the poor shall never cease from among the land.” Restoring the crown to its former glory, did I mention?). They repeatedly push transfer payments that will never give any citizen fishing rods—heaven forbid—but only fish, at the expense of those being fished.
Note that the vile video above speaks of pet ownership as a typical secular-antisemitic trait—and then you immediately grasp how the counter-steps arrive: there’s no sweeter revenge on antisemites than imposing an exorbitant, unrealistic levy on pet ownership (see here). Someone must fund the increased yeshiva stipends, right? Again, this too of course won’t happen (likely just trolling—see here for Shay Niv’s comments), just like most coalition agreements, because, thank God, there’s also reality on the field of our battered pitch. But the very discourse and conduct are a moral horror, vindictive meanness, and unprecedented intellectual lowness.
These delusional groups freely label various measures as antisemitic and then launch a total war against them. Thus the tax on disposables and sugary drinks became red rags before the Haredi bull—veritable 17th-century decrees in our day. One can debate whether the state’s role is to paternalistically impose health through additional taxes or otherwise (opinions differ worldwide), but for the Haredim such measures are inherently illegitimate, seen as distilled antisemitism. Hence their cancellation is a Jewish day of victory. For some reason the plastic bag law and bottle deposit law passed quietly for them, though based on a very similar rationale. Oh, I forgot—those weren’t imposed by Lieberman (the “new Hitler,” in Haredi argot which, as is known, tends toward understatement and reasonableness). It’s a crazy world, and it turns out many bubble-dwellers buy this infantile incitement.
Consider, for example, the demagogic comparison between the funding (which I support) the previous government earmarked for Arab citizens (following its predecessor, which had already decided so)—which of course Bibi and his friends continue to lie about in terms of scope (but which, I estimate, they too will pass)—and the current massive budgets (which I strongly oppose) being transferred to the Haredim. Again and again we’re told that if Arabs “get,” then Haredim should “get” too (unlike the “leftists” Bennett, Sa’ar, and Lapid, who “gave only to Arabs”). One need not have passed kindergarten to grasp how foolish that comparison is. For those who don’t understand (and it turns out there are quite a few toddlers among us), I’ll elaborate.
We can divide a state’s budgetary investments into three categories: beneficial, necessary, and harmful. Beneficial funding contributes to future GDP (infrastructure, access to education, etc.). Necessary funding is directed to necessary goals even if it doesn’t contribute to GDP (e.g., support for the elderly or disabled, perhaps also cultural investments). Harmful funding is expenditure that, beyond wasting money per se, is meant to produce negative, harmful results with no current or future benefit—a measure with all the downsides.
In this terminology, the budget for Arab citizens was meant to improve their economic and educational situation and integration into general society, address violence in Arab society, and thus bring long-term social and economic benefit to them and to all of us: increased output and reduced violence, perhaps also some increase in identification with the state and reduced feelings of discrimination. That sort of funding is expected from a right-wing government (which is why I think Bibi will continue it). One can’t deny there are perfectly reasonable worries about its use. I’m far from thinking it will all go to terror, as Bibi’s propagandists threaten, but I do think some improper or unhelpful uses will likely be made. In any case, at least by its stated aims, this belongs in the beneficial category. By contrast, almost every shekel now given to the Haredim is dedicated to weakening them economically, educationally, and vocationally; to separating them and preventing their integration into general society; and to pushing them backward as far as possible. These budgets are meant mainly to continue the control of their corrupt, benighted political establishment, enabling it to keep its people in a chokehold (which, frankly, they deserve, since they voted for that junta). The (not great, to be sure) progress achieved regarding them in recent years is now in real danger. Needless to say, the contribution of this budget to current (and of course future) GDP is negative. It’s an “investment” where every penny yields negative returns. No wonder some call it “output-eroding funding” (as opposed to necessary funding that also reduces output but for justified reasons). Needless to say, this is, of course, distinctly left-wing activity. I recently heard in an interview with Yehuda Sharoni (Maariv’s economic reporter) that the coalition agreements promise Agudat Yisrael alone the equivalent of ~40 billion shekels. It’s signed in the agreements, but we can rely on Bibi that this will of course not be fully realized. Still, these are the orders of magnitude and this is the conduct.[2] Now revisit the comparison between Arab funding and Haredi funding and consider what you think of it.
But my main concerns relate to religion–state issues and what will happen to the Haredim themselves, not to direct effects on general society (though I already discussed the indirect, long-term social and economic impacts). Effects on the status of women (such as their ability to serve in various religious roles), the functioning of rabbinical courts, staffing the Chief Rabbinate with benighted conservatives (a continuation of what we’ve had), deepening the Haredi establishment’s control over its people (the “kosher” cell-phone reform), blocking the paths of enlistment and education for Haredim who want them, continued persecution of ex-Haredim, harm through continued strengthening of conversion and kashrut monopolies, and much more. It’s worth noting what has emerged in recent days—that this government is acting to preserve legacy cellular infrastructure (for the sake of “kosher” phones) in a way that will prevent the country from advancing to 4G–5G networks needed for fast, modern devices, which will seriously harm us and output.
Canceling the kashrut reform was the first step of the coalition and new government, in partnership with the Chief Rabbinate. The conversion reform will of course not happen either. Various Western Wall arrangements and the attitude toward non-Orthodox Jewish movements will only regress. All these are expressions of a coalition of political horrors with rabbinical horrors that, in remarkable cooperation, bring upon us a frenzied conservative darkness. The Rabbinate and the government, hand in hand, have democratically seized power and the coffers, collaborating to create regression (what has recently been dubbed “regressive derangement”) and to extend their distorted norms over the religious aspects of our lives. One must understand that at least for some in this gang (the Haredim), this cooperation does not stem from genuine belief that kashrut will improve (there are naïfs who truly believe so; the Rabbinate has always proven itself an effective, professional body—ask the Haredim who so support it why they insist on consuming only private kashrut in addition to the Rabbinate). This is about jobs and control through entrenching the conservative-Haredi monopoly in key positions. In short, they will use secular leftists’ money to persecute them and strengthen Haredi separatism from them.
Chillul Hashem (Desecration of God’s Name)
I decided to dedicate a separate section to this aspect of the horror, due to its importance and essential nature. Generally I strongly oppose using “Chillul Hashem” as an argument against worthy—even legitimate—religious steps. It’s a common tool among religious leftists, and at times the sense is that “Chillul Hashem” serves as a fig leaf for the desire to curry favor. I oppose such considerations about conversion, Shabbat, observance, etc. Yet one cannot deny that such considerations are important in halakhah and at times decisive—even when opposing legitimate steps—and certainly when opposing the horrors I described.
From all I described (just the tip of the iceberg), a picture emerges of a terrible desecration of God’s Name being caused and to be caused. Think of the big picture: the religious and Haredi parties, of all shades (!), have united to zealously enthrone criminals and indictees over society and the state, and to brazenly plunder the public coffers for delusional, benighted aims and to fortify their civil privileges and special rights. In this framework, Aryeh Deri and Bibi swear allegiance to serve the State of Israel and guard its laws (which they themselves set at will). Spare me. In their hypocrisy the Haredim appoint an openly gay Knesset Speaker, then ostentatiously turn their heads aside when he gives his opening speech (see here, and Rabbi Amar’s critique here), as if their hands were not in it. But when Sabbath-breakers and adulterers rise to speak and lead us by their agency and power, none of them turns his head, of course. Apparently their captive public buys it. See the absurdity: we’ve reached a point where the state’s hope for sane, enlightened steps and for preventing part of this darkness rests with Bibi and his gang. Unbelievable—but alongside the others, Bibi is the enlightened part of this coalition.
Here, for example, is a column I just received by one Ofri Ilani (see also here), and I gather there are many others like him among the public:
| We stand at a fracture line. It’s time to turn our backs on Judaism
It seems to me that Hanukkah is my favorite holiday. I love the candles burning in the winter dusk and the festive, beautiful songs. This year I lit Hanukkah candles with people close to me, and I watched the flames with sadness. Because next year I will not celebrate Hanukkah. I also won’t celebrate Purim, and certainly not Passover. I do not intend to mark Jewish holidays. Many around me ask what can be done. They wonder when we will take to the streets against the decrees and injustices of the far-right government and the Haredim. Those are understandable questions. But the current challenge is also an existential one. However you look at it, right now it’s shameful to belong to the State of Israel. It was not infrequently shameful in the past, but now it’s a true disgrace. This place is hostile and vile. And yet, I live here. Some propose leaving. “It’s impossible here anymore; we’ll renew the tradition and go into exile,” wrote Ze’ev Smilansky. If I had an option I might leave, but experience has shown there is no other place that wants me. For its own reasons the international community is rather apathetic to the frustration of Israelis who oppose government policy, and there’s no reason it will grant us asylum in the foreseeable future. Another proposal is to hole up and declare a secular-liberal autonomy in Tel Aviv and other cities. It’s a nice idea, but hard to see it coming to pass. Israel is too small and too centralized for visions of liberal separatism. We’re stuck up each other’s backside. There are also other kinds of proposals. Anat Kam suggested in this newspaper placing a decorated Christmas tree on every secular balcony. An amusing thought, but paradoxical. Christmas is a Christian holiday, and Christianity is much more than gifts and shopping. Christianity is a serious matter; it is also the wounds of the crucifixion and the mysticism of the victim, and I am not sure my secular friends wish to identify with those messages. And yet, Kam’s proposal touches on something essential. Revulsion from Jewish identity is a powerful sentiment, now felt by many. We are standing at a fracture line after which many will turn their back on Jewish identity entirely. There’s no need to convert to Christianity: I know many who would never consider baptism, but would gladly embrace Buddhism in one of its versions. I also tend to believe that many secular people who were hesitant until now will decide not to circumcise their sons anymore. And rightly so. Even secular Jews in Israel preserve many Jewish components in the life cycle. But not all will continue to stick to them. Some will say the current rule in Israel does not represent “true Judaism.” They will call on us to draw inspiration from progressive or alternative Jewish streams and invoke “the ethics of the prophets.” That option is indeed available to liberal Jews in the U.S., but not so much for us. There is no point in inventing a private version of Judaism—a religion whose whole essence is its tie to the people of Israel. The Judaism present in the space around me is not that of queer synagogues in San Francisco. It’s the Judaism lessons in elementary school, the Rabbinate’s kashrut supervisors, and Chabad’s jelly doughnuts. These are all elements of my identity I no longer want. As a rule, the claim that Israel does not represent Judaism is absurd. As a historical phenomenon, Judaism in any given period is the organization of the politics, religion, and culture of the Jewish people at that time. Judaism is the polity of the Jews. Hence today Israel is the embodiment of Judaism. Perhaps some will think the correct step now is to strengthen Jewish identity in an enlightened or subversive version. To me that is not the urgent response to the fracture before us. Judaism in contemporary Israel behaves like the Catholic Church in Franco’s Spain. It’s time to turn our back on it. To drop out. A necessary renunciation I do not write these things lightly. I have always been interested in diverse religious traditions, but at the same time—from the moment I came of age—I identify with Jewish history and the Jewish story, a Jewish element in my identity. In my research I dealt with Jewish history, and in courses I taught I insisted on teaching topics in Jewish history even to indifferent Tel Aviv students with no interest in the Book of Job or in Lurianic Kabbalah. Whether we like it or not, I believe the Jewish people has a special role in history. But the renunciation is necessary. It is enough for me to be formerly Jewish, like many illustrious figures in history. My disengagement from Judaism does not stem from indifference. For now I believe this is the proper response to the arrogance of all the parties comprising the government—each proudly waving the banner of Judaism. I do not want any tie to Kahanism, not even symbolically. The vile plans to strengthen Jewish identity require a sweeping boycott and even a sharp counter-movement. If that is the direction Judaism has taken, the result will be that many will not want to take part. Under the current conditions I do not want to say “Who has sanctified us with His commandments,” and to proclaim the might of Israel. I yearn for better days, in which Judaism “will return after a thousand deaths,” in Paul Celan’s phrase. Then I will once again be able to light a Hanukkah candle. But that time is nowhere in sight. |
I wrote to the person who sent me this column that I have similar feelings, even if you can gather that they stem from somewhat different reasons (though fairly close). For me, Judaism is faith, not merely an ethnic culture (which in my view has little value), and therefore I have no option to abandon it. I do, however, have the option to abandon the deranged groups that have seized it and are perceived (with some justice) as representing it. But I dedicated the first manifesto to that.
In my estimation, what I quoted above is not a standard leftist, secular despair. It reflects authentic feelings that exist to some extent even in me, because sadly this time they are justified. I think we must take seriously a situation in which the actions of the religious public arouse, abroad and at home (among secular Jews and among the sane segment of the religious public), feelings that identify Judaism with corruption, brutishness, and privilege. This time it can’t be pinned on antisemitism alone. Even someone who justifies parts of the government’s steps cannot deny that these feelings have real basis.
I know that God and the Torah are the last things that interest this band of “righteous” who take Judaism’s name in vain. Not coincidentally, in Israel and around the world, religious Jews are now becoming synonymous with corruption, primitivism, and racism—and to a considerable extent with justice (beyond the exaggerations, which I’ll address later). To our shame, many of the ignorant (including rabbis and public leaders) in the religious and Haredi worlds are exulting and proclaiming “ours has triumphed,” whereas in truth the formation of this disgraceful government is a historic rupture that calls for rending one’s garments. The day the government was formed should be set as a day of fasting and lamentation over a desecration of God’s Name the likes of which we haven’t seen since the state’s founding and long before. If you next hear an “X, how pleasant are his deeds” about any representative of the religious parties in the Knesset—please notify me. If there is a World to Come and reward and punishment, as these folks tell us, I wouldn’t want to be around when they receive what’s coming to them (though I won’t deny some schadenfreude).
The problem with hysterical critiques
Despite the harsh criticism I’ve dealt out here, note that the aspects involved are quite specific: they concern conduct more than outcomes, and the rather minor results that will come will concern mainly the Haredi public, which will eat what it has cooked (and indirectly all of us, in the longer term). The historical pendulum will likely keep swinging; subsequent governments will fix what this one distorted, and so on ad nauseam. As I wrote above, most of the fears expressed in the media and street do not concern these aspects; in my eyes they express groundless apocalyptic hysteria.
Undifferentiated hysteria neutralizes the ability to voice real critiques. When people cry “the destruction of democracy” over every legitimate and even desirable step the government declares, or even over a step whose harm is minor, the correct, substantive critiques are not heard or accepted. People ascribe everything to leftist hysteria—and to a large extent rightly so—the boy who cried wolf.
Indeed, it seems our leftist cousins have now completely lost what little connection to reality they had—and thus the correct criticisms that should be levied at this coalition of horrors (some of which I listed) aren’t heard. These hysterical, unintelligent critics shoot themselves—and all of us—in the foot. I was just sent an op-ed in Haaretz,[3] titled “Still not like in dark regimes,” where Carolina Landsmann, who appears to be decidedly left, warns that these hysterical, false critiques also harm our global image (including that bizarre New York Times piece, which surely feeds on the hysterical portrayals read in Haaretz).
The rest of the column is dedicated to three concrete examples of hysterical criticism. It was important for me to state my principled view of this government of horrors before addressing the opposition’s complaints. Even if the critics are headed in the right direction (in my view), and perhaps precisely because of that, we should put things in proportion to distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit and make the discussion saner, more balanced, and more substantive.
Two for the price of one: Merav Arlosoroff on numerus clausus and apartheid
Merav Arlosoroff published a screed in Calcalist here, arguing that the new government’s policy combines numerus clausus and apartheid. Well then, all the dark regimes now have something to aspire to. Let’s examine her two claims.
Numerus clausus is setting limited admission quotas for students based on belonging to an ethnic or religious group. In parts of Europe this was done to Jews. Arlosoroff claims the expected decision to prefer military veterans for university admission is de facto numerus clausus. Such a step, she says, is directed mainly against Haredim and Arabs, but since Haredim hardly seek university admission, de facto it’s numerus clausus against Arabs.
This preposterous argument suffers from several serious methodological problems. First, numerus clausus is not judged de facto unless you have proof that the outcome was intended in advance. By her logic, locating a university in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem is numerus clausus against those in the periphery. Not to mention numerus clausus against children who can’t get in. If the consideration is substantive, and the problematic outcomes are only a side effect, you can’t call it numerus clausus. Moreover, one can study in colleges as well as universities; but in universities students receive government subsidies. It is entirely reasonable to give preferential funding to those who gave three years of their lives and/or risked their lives in the army, over those unwilling even to perform national service in their own communities (Haredim and Arabs, as well as Jews who dodge service). True, the practical effect disfavors Arabs—but the step is justified, and again the effect is only de facto. Those who won’t agree with the step because of its outcomes still cannot deny its logic and legitimacy. By the way, Arabs can perform national service, and I assume those who do will receive parity with Jewish servers. They don’t do it, and then they wail as usual. And leftists as usual side with the “weak,” in their familiar way of practicing the racism of low expectations. Moreover, such a policy “disfavors” quite a few Jews who dodge service—so it’s hard to call this an anti-Arab step. That’s for “numerus clausus”; now to our favorite, “apartheid.”
Arlosoroff claims the government plans to stop the over-funding given to Arabs and Arab municipalities, and thereby discriminates against Arabs. Behold apartheid, in the hysterical left’s version. A grave slander upon South Africa. For Ms. Arlosoroff’s information, there is a logical and conceptual problem here: canceling affirmative action is not discrimination but entirely legitimate policy. If there is discrimination, it stems from prior governments’ policy; affirmative action is not a basic right. If Arlosoroff had pointed to current discriminatory treatment there might be room for discussion—though even budgetary discrimination is not necessarily apartheid—especially when aimed at a hostile population that has tried and still tries to annihilate us (I do not claim all Arabs are terrorists; but the collective is our declared enemy). That does not justify discrimination, but it certainly renders it more understandable and further from apartheid. Beyond that, again: canceling affirmative action is simply not apartheid. Incidentally, in recent days it’s been reported that Bibi plans to transfer the same budget to Arabs, as he has decided and done in the past (ignoring his lies and demagogic, violent incitement against them during the previous government).
Of course one can debate each of these steps—ethically and consequentially. Perfectly legitimate debate. For example, I truly support massively increasing support for Arab citizens, but equally support preference for military veterans. If Bibi ultimately transfers the budget to Arabs, then on both counts I would be with him—on the “apartheid” and on the “numerus clausus.”
I ask myself: from whence grows this demagogic, hysterical critique? It’s wild incitement, quite typical of leftist punditry (and in truth also of Bibism). I suppose there’s a bias that begins with real criticisms and worries about the new government and, in the leftist way (and Bibist too), instantly turns into “apocalypse now,” whether or not there’s any basis. Arlosoroff’s article is a paradigmatic model for dozens and hundreds of fear-mongering pieces now being published, all seeking to destroy the government of horrors but actually shooting its opponents in the foot. After reading a ridiculous, biased, unintelligent article like Arlosoroff’s, no wonder even substantive critiques (like mine) are immediately classified as hysterical leftism. The “boy who cried wolf” syndrome, as I said.
Now to the second example: the “discrimination law.”
Background to the discussion of the “Discrimination Law”
What has dominated headlines in recent days (until last night when the discussion shifted to judicial reforms) is the amendment nicknamed the “Discrimination Law.” Critics claim it would allow service providers (physicians, business owners, psychologists, etc.) to act in a discriminatory manner under cover of law—i.e., to refuse service to those they dislike or whose values differ from theirs. The carnival around the “Discrimination Law” is a towering peak of groundless hysteria and demagoguery.
It’s worth understanding the background. Some years ago there was a case of a print shop in Beersheba refusing to provide service to the LGBTQ community requesting flyers for their event. The owner refused, claiming it violated his values, and was sued. The court fined him, and naturally it caused a great uproar. It was seemingly a case of progressive coercion that unjustifiably favored the client’s values over the provider’s, and in effect sought to force him to act against his conscience (see column 296).
In that column I cited a well-known case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court about a Christian baker named Phillips who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple in Colorado. His argument to the prospective clients was very relevant here: “I can make you a birthday cake, cookies, or brownies,” he told them, “but I can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.” Phillips’s case wound through the courts for about three years (2012–2015). At first the Colorado court ordered the baker to bake for such events and to change his policy. This was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. But eventually the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and recognized the baker’s right to freedom of religion (and also freedom of expression; if a cake counts, then a sign all the more so), and ruled that this outweighs the value of preventing discrimination.
In her ruling the Israeli judge wrote that things are different here because we have an anti-discrimination statute obligating her to rule as she did. But as I explained in that column, to my best judgment the statute doesn’t truly mandate that. It’s a rather sweeping interpretation by the judge herself; in that sense, the American precedent is indeed relevant. I am not impressed that our situation is essentially different.
The current amendment arises from conservative religious anger at that case and others like it (for some reason, liberals were silent in a thousand tongues here; in fact, they didn’t remain silent—they preached for ignoring others’ values, like banning gender-separate events in public facilities, and more). I think any rational person understands this amendment is called for, as it corrects a very faulty state. Even the moniker “Discrimination Law” smuggles in a “liberal” (so-called) connotation; in my view it’s a law in favor of respecting the values of different groups. A deeply liberal law. I’m entirely for it.
Now I want to revisit a distinction I made in that column and sharpen it for our case.
A distinction between the nature of the service and the identity of the recipient
A very basic distinction, oddly absent from almost all the critics’ “discussion.”[4] There’s an essential difference between refusing service to someone because they are LGBTQ—which is inherently improper—and refusing to provide service to LGBTQ activities because they contradict the provider’s values—which is entirely proper. To my judgment, everyone should agree to this regardless of their view of the phenomenon itself. If the print shop refused to provide printing service to a person because of his sexual orientation—that would be improper discrimination. But if it refused to provide service for an LGBTQ movement conference promoting its values—this is perfectly legitimate. The second case is not discrimination of any kind. The client’s values do not override the provider’s; liberty should be granted equally to both. I can’t see how anyone calling themselves liberal fails to recognize this distinction.
Everyone understands a physician may refuse to perform an abortion when his conscience forbids it. Another example: suppose at some point an effective conversion therapy for sexual orientation is found (assuming anyone would dare report such knowledge, since that would be strongly tabooed), and a doctor refuses to provide it to someone who wants it. I suspect even the great liberal sages would side with him and argue passionately for his right to act according to his values. For the benefit of the Haaretz readership, more examples: what about printing invitations for a racist organization’s conference? Must every printer produce invitations for Lehava or even a neo-Nazi group? And what about printing their brochures? What would our liberal cousins say about printing invitations or baking a cake for the infamous “wedding of hate”? I allow myself to assume they’d certainly defend the provider’s right to stand on his values. So where did that liberalism go when it comes to other groups’ values?
Rocinante and the windmills
The example most invoked these days is that of a doctor who won’t treat LGBTQ patients. There are letters by physicians and fervent declarations opposing the law, as if they are fighting a holy war for righteousness, justice, and ethics. We were solemnly read the Hippocratic Oath, and one could be impressed by festive loyalty rituals to liberal values. Add to that the letters from businesspeople, pilots and officers, jurists, and more. Perhaps most prominent was the storm, only a few days ago and already forgotten, around Avi Maoz. The hysterical letters and protests by educators, principals, and municipal leaders arose against the imaginary threat of Avi Maoz receiving responsibility for the Education Ministry’s enrichment programs. Here, finally, we have a truly benighted and racist person, with appalling views and severe detachment from reality. But of course he posed no real threat to anything (see for example here in Davar, not suspected of closeness to the Noam party). That didn’t prevent all freedom fighters from standing as one to wage a hysterical holy war. No wonder the storm passed as it came—and so will all current tempests.
All these try to instill in us the sense that we’ve been blessed with thousands of Joan of Arcs, Emile Zolas, Nelson Mandelas, and Martin Luther Kings under every leafy tree. A truly impressive cohort of martyrs. Well, no wonder—we are the chosen people, after all. There are only two minor differences between all these ass-riding paladins and the original Joan and Emile: in our case there’s not a gram of price they are willing and/or will be required to pay for their “stalwart courage,” and there’s also no real enemy to fight. Poor Israeli Rocinante, forced to carry all these Don Quixotes as they march to total war against the fearsome windmills of their imagination. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at these pathetic, pitiable spectacles.
A glance at medical ethics
Returning to doctors and psychologists—our cousins somehow forgot (not for the first time; see e.g. column 225) that clause 16 appears in the Israel Medical Association’s ethical code (read aloud in the Knesset by Michal Waldiger—see here, and needless to say it continues to be gloriously ignored in the public debate):
16. A physician’s refusal to provide medical treatment.
- The physician is permitted not to provide medical treatment at the patient’s request if the request contradicts his professional judgment, conscience, or faith. In such circumstances, the physician shall, as far as possible, refer the patient to another appropriate physician.
- The physician shall oppose medical treatment forced upon him for administrative or economic reasons if such treatment contradicts his professional judgment or conscience.
Thus medical ethics itself recognizes this distinction as basic. It’s common sense, understood by any reasonable person. So why the outrage? Pure, groundless incitement, nothing more.
Of course one can raise slippery-slope concerns that this law will lead to discrimination based on the recipient’s identity, especially in light of past statements by its promoters and their associates. But the proposers themselves (Orit Strock and Simcha Rothman) repeatedly clarify that this is not their intent—yet interviewers won’t let them speak (see, for example, this interview with Amalia Duek, who refuses to understand the basic, self-evident distinction). Needless to say—none of that helps. The “liberal” justice warriors will continue their deranged campaign to force people to act against their conscience.
The discrimination paradox
The crowning peak of this bizarre carnival is an amusing phenomenon I’ll call the “discrimination paradox.” Some righteous souls outdid all others and announced they would not provide services to bodies that practice discrimination in providing services. See here, for example, the “courageous” step by Discount Bank, whose ethics and morality are always lights unto its path—especially when this “remarkable courage” yields free PR (for the absurdity see Ofra Lax’s segment here) and costs not a gram (if only because it will never be implemented). But Discount isn’t the only brave one in our Sodom. Facebook—the charity—joined the party and so did others, including a group of justice-seeking, ethical attorneys (but apparently not the sharpest pencils in the box), who published the following letter:
| Letter from law firms: Commitment to non-discrimination in providing services
The undersigned law firms have emblazoned on their banners the values of tolerance, equality, and human dignity, as well as support for the foundational principles of democracy, including the principle of judicial independence. Recent calls in Israel’s political arena to erode these values are of sincere and deep concern to us. We are committed to doing all in our power to prevent discrimination of any kind, including on grounds of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. Therefore, we find it necessary to clarify that even if the relevant legislation is amended, our firms will not represent clients, and will not do business with entities and companies, that discriminate against people on grounds of race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. We believe and hope that our clients, as well as the companies and service providers with whom we engage, share our basic values; and that through collaboration and joining forces we can help preserve an equal, tolerant, and respectful society in the State of Israel. We intend to bring this notice to all entities with whom we work. |
What righteous folk! Note they do not announce they won’t discriminate even if the law allows it—that isn’t stated at all. On the contrary: they absolutely will. How do I know? Because the letter says exactly that: they intend to use the law to discriminate against people solely for their views—and, ironically, this is written as part of their opposition to the “discriminatory law.” I rubbed my eyes in disbelief. While opposing the law, they announce they will discriminate based solely on worldview. Moreover, they don’t distinguish between services that violate their values (i.e., that would assist discrimination those entities practice) and denial of service to entities just because they are discriminatory. The upshot is that these esteemed jurists oppose a just, rightful law that contains not a whiff of discrimination, while the measure they take is itself crude discrimination—under the banner of fighting discrimination. Apparently even the sky is not the limit for folly and tendentiousness. You might want to keep that list of signatory firms; if any of us ever needs a lawyer, it’s useful to know in whose hands not to place the case (or is that unlawful discrimination based on ability—“ability-ism”?).
The fanatical brainwashing sweeping along our “liberals” has turned them into an extreme church no less than the religious churches they attack. It’s hard to believe this reflects their true intelligence level. The alternative conclusion is that the most basic capacities for thought and distinction are completely neutralized within that church. Now try to present a substantive critique of government policy and point to real problems when those are your “colleagues.” You present as an idiot among idiots and have no chance to gain even a crumb of attention.
A note on the gray zone
Undeniably, many gray cases exist in the realm of discrimination. Consider hosting an LGBTQ couple in a hotel. By hosting them the owner enables actions that, in his view, are forbidden. Does this fall under discrimination by client identity, or under refusal due to the nature of the service itself? Not simple. How about printing an invitation for a science-popularization event held under the auspices of an LGBTQ organization with its logo? Even baking a cake for a wedding, as in the American case, isn’t easy. Beyond that, clearly one can hide racist motives under the pretext of value-based objections. But to my judgment such concerns don’t justify forcing someone to act against his values. We need to think how to define the law and prevent problematic cases. But as always, we mustn’t let the black zone conquer the white in the name of worry over gray. I’ve noted more than once David Enoch’s point that “slippery-slope worries” are themselves a slippery slope that paralyzes us too often.
Another example: consider someone whose racist values forbid marriage between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi, or between a Hasid and a Lithuanian Jew. Should the “Discrimination Law” protect him too?! In my view, yes. With all the contempt and rejection I feel for such values, I think I must not force someone to act contrary to his values. Likewise in marriage, it’s unreasonable to force a rabbi to marry a kohen to a divorcee, a Jew to a gentile, or a same-sex couple; I hope (though I’m not certain) even great liberals wouldn’t support that. Of course it’s important to provide these populations with alternative options outside a rabbi’s auspices—something our conservative intellectuals don’t always ensure. I think this, among other things, drives the unreasonable demands of the “liberals.” Again, you can see that on this playing field there are hardly any righteous on either side.
Even regarding the print-shop case, I saw a few days ago a clip by Haim Levinson in which he quotes the ruling, claiming the judge (religious, he says) justified the fine because the discrimination there was based on the client’s identity, not the nature of the service; hence she fined them. From what I’ve read (see again column 296), I was not at all persuaded. But this deserves checking, since we must beware of drift in both directions. Either way, what matters for us is that, in principle, one should not coerce someone to provide a service that violates his values—and the gray zone requires careful case-by-case handling.
Finally, I’ll end with another example of inflammatory criticism—this time from both sides.
The “beasts’ parade”
In recent days Rabbi Mazuz’s remarks about homosexuals and their “parades of beasts” were published. These remarks evoke in me a sense of revulsion toward the speaker, who clearly does not understand the phenomenon and speaks without comprehension. Style is not the issue (I certainly have no standing to scold others for coarse style), though referring to a person’s orientation (as opposed to opinions or behavior) as “disgusting” or “repugnant” is truly improper. See also Rabbi Amar’s remarks in this context (to me more severe and problematic). The tone and tenor of both again illustrate the gap between Torah knowledge and talent and plain logic and common sense. Recall these words come a few years after a murder occurred at such a parade in Jerusalem.
Having said all that, despite my complete lack of sympathy for the rabbis’ remarks, I must draw a distinction. In many cases (and as far as I understand, also for Rabbi Mazuz), the reference is to the parade, not to people. Calling the parade a “beasts’ parade” doesn’t necessarily mean gays are beasts. Just as when I say someone behaved like a beast, it doesn’t mean I view him as a beast. This is harsh criticism of behavior, not necessarily a description of the person. The term “beast” or “bestial” doesn’t necessarily refer to the LGBTQ demand for rights and protest against their treatment (which to me are entirely legitimate and justified), but to the manner in which it is carried out in some of these parades (mainly in Tel Aviv, but not only). Many people—like me—who watch some pride parades are filled with disgust. The flaunting of sexuality is indeed bestial behavior (to remind us: only beasts mate in public; shame and modesty are human traits). These are repugnant provocations in the public domain, imposed on the general public who do not wish to see them, including children. That may justify calling it a “beasts’ parade.” Moreover, license for provocation should not be reserved for only one side in this game.
True, norms of modesty differ between sectors; but the marchers’ lack of consideration (I refer to those parades conducted provocatively) for many people’s norms—especially when done blatantly in public—can justify such expressions. I suspect many liberals would join such a description for an act of full sexual intercourse in public. In Rabbi Mazuz’s eyes (and a little in mine), the Tel Aviv parade is quite similar. Still, a few caveats: first, this doesn’t characterize all parades in the country—some are very moderate and focus on the message and rights rather than on flaunting sexuality. Second, remember this is a reaction (wild and improper) to long-standing discrimination, still ongoing—often inspired by the same conservative folk now protesting against it. The provocations are meant, among other things, to jab at those they see as discriminators, which is understandable even if not acceptable. Again we see both sides fueling each other’s attitudes; I’ll return to this.
I do think Rabbi Mazuz’s words involve improper generalization and implied degradation, seemingly born of ignorance of the phenomenon and perhaps prejudice (and also a mistaken categorical conflation between halakhic prohibition and moral baseness, as seen in his attitude toward Amir Ohana). Still, examined on their own, at least parts of his words are within a reasonable border.
Nor is his claim that it’s a disease problematic to me. I’ve explained more than once (see e.g. columns 25–26) that the term “disease” is a matter of perspective, so it needn’t carry any negative connotation. Someone who believes the act is religiously and/or morally forbidden will indeed regard the phenomenon as a disease—just like kleptomania, a tendency to desecrate the Sabbath, an obsessive desire to eat pork, or any other negative inclination. Those who see the orientation neutrally or positively, of course, won’t see it as a disease. Thus the term “disease” merely expresses one’s stance toward the phenomenon (pro or con), and nothing beyond that. The automatic offense in debates around this seems to me like a tool for silencing—though at times the use of the term “disease” is exactly that (for those who use it know what reactions it will arouse, even if unjustly).
In this example we see inflammatory rhetoric from both sides of the divide. A more balanced view could yield mutual understanding and more measured, reasonable criticism with a chance of acceptance. I’ll stress again what I’ve written repeatedly: I’m not dealing with style but with content and arguments. Questions of style are tactical; hence they don’t interest me much.
Conclusion: back to conduct and discourse
So what did we have here? A heated struggle between a benighted coalition of horrors and a hysterical, biased (and far from liberal) opposition. Both sides talk nonsense and do nonsense—and above all don’t reason. It’s very hard to insert substantive arguments into this inflamed, unprincipled “debate.” In my opinion, the core problem is not positions but the mode of discourse—the shouting and silencing that prevent level-headed examination and formulation of positions. The positions are an outcome and a symptom of the discourse.
If the discussion were substantive and people were willing to think a moment—to raise arguments and give reasons before writing hysterical, pathetic protest letters—then (recalling my WhatsApp experiments) it would become clear that the gaps between the sides aren’t so great. In most areas the disagreements aren’t that big, and extreme steps by both sides usually occur as reactions to the other side’s extremism. The hysterical side fuels the horrific side, then the latter becomes more hysterical, which increases the horror—and back again. Understand that in the past there were statements by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir that indeed deserved to be called “racist,” though I think they have since moderated and not only tactically but in essence (see column 507). So it’s no wonder the world senses—even if wrongly in my view—that beneath the legitimate steps in the “discrimination law” lie racist motives, and responds hysterically.
Personal legislation by Bibi’s opponents itself triggers an even more extreme counter-reaction (including, again, personal legislation by the other side), which again outrages—and so on. Likewise, the steps of progressives who seize norms and public discourse and deny Haredim rights (like using public facilities and public funding for gender-separate events, separate study in academia, etc.) beget extreme counter-steps (most of which won’t be realized) from the other side—like a 30,000-shekel tax on having cats. Lieberman’s attitude toward Haredim (even if not baseless) arouses their hysterical counter-reaction, which turns disposables and sugary drinks into a battle over a Jewish article of faith against an antisemitic persecutor (whereas charging for bags and bottles is merely unpopular policy)—and so on.
To understand the conduct, see for example this article describing the to-and-fro color changes in the Transportation Ministry under ministers Michaeli and Regev (including a festive press conference to announce it), and marvel at the stupidity on which these “ladies” are spending their time, energy, lack of talent—and above all our money. If you wish, here are more pearls here from our transportation minister Miri Regev about Greater Tel Aviv (of course none will be realized). Why think deeply or do staff work if you can just let a spoiled child spout populist slogans, brawl with leftists, and commit a multi-billion-shekel attack on Tel Aviv?! Likewise, Smotrich’s first step as finance minister is canceling the disposable tax (after deep study, staff work, and impact review), and the religious affairs minister’s first step is canceling the kashrut reform at a festive ceremony in the Chief Rabbinate’s office (surely after they deeply examined the implications in the half hour since taking office). I suspect even this cohort of the challenged doesn’t think these are the most necessary steps—but the brawling matters to them far more than substance. It reminded me how we once laughed/cried when the corrupt council head of Yeruham, who replaced his loathed predecessor, surprised us all overnight by repainting all the street rails (installed by his predecessor). Now this nonsense happens turbo-charged at the national level. Did it happen—or was it a dream?!
One cannot fail to mention in this context the “wondrous victory” and “public sanctification of God’s Name” by our Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, who went up to the Temple Mount the day before yesterday (Tue., Jan 3) like a thief in the night through a side gate for a few minutes and fled immediately, then proudly announced that with this we defeated Hamas. I protest the ongoing discrimination on the Temple Mount and the capitulation to Hamas, and I also think the left’s repeated warnings about the collapse of the Middle East and the entire universe (see “Har Homa”)—repeatedly disproven—are hysterical. Still, such a Pyrrhic “victory,” a spectacular capitulation to Hamas as here—I can hardly imagine. Because of their small threats, a minister in Israel’s government must sneak in for a few minutes at dawn using a decoy operation involving the entire system up to and including the prime minister, just to plant a flag on the other team’s turf. A truly marvelous display of sovereignty. Who could see this and still claim we aren’t sovereign there?! Clearly, yet again, we are playing children’s games of who is stronger and who won and who surrendered—games of sneaking in and stealing the flag—instead of dealing with substance. Here too both sides share in the hysteria and childish foolishness.
So what’s the prospect?
Perhaps I’m naïve, but I suspect on both sides there are (well-hidden) quite a few sane people. We don’t see them because this discourse drags everyone to places that, absent it, they themselves would understand and agree are unworthy. I estimate a rank-and-file Haredi understands that parasitism and sweeping shirking of burden are not moral conduct and that he is not truly comfortable with it. At times his reaction—both extreme and offended—results from that discomfort and a lack of better answers to his critics. I’m fairly sure he also understands that a society built on coercion, on narrowing horizons, and on clamping down on anyone who thinks a bit differently—one that has serious problems in the realm of harassment and sex crimes, private gangs of thuggish enforcers, and many “virtues” and their deficits—is far from a model society, despite its (real) merits. Likewise, I believe a reasonable secular liberal understands that such capture of discourse and norms and public resources and the shape of the public square is unworthy. Deep down he also feels there is no such thing as a secular Judaism without Torah and halakhah, and that he takes Judaism’s name in vain. The profusion of writing and talk about “secular Jewish identity” (which yields mainly empty, circular slogans) testifies to that feeling’s strong presence. I also think a sane liberal would even agree to the distinction I presented above regarding the “Discrimination Law.” Every person—even non-Haredi—understands that today’s core studies and education system don’t bring us to lofty pinnacles of achievement and scholarship, and that our secular society is also far from being an open, tolerant, enlightened model society. Moreover, I’m quite sure—naïf that I am—that deep down both sides want to be such: tolerant, open, educated, wise, enlightened, contributing to society, good and considerate.
But we’ve all climbed trees because of steps and counter-steps, and now the storm howls around us—much ado about almost nothing. What’s called here “discourse” or “public debate” consists of media proclamations and collective hysterical, self-righteous letters from the gut, filled with slogans, without discussion, argument, or reasoning. The sense is that everything is agendas and there’s simply no one to talk to. Amid the cacophony of hysterical cries, I can hardly discern one substantive argument—something with a reasonable explanation—from either side. The emotional shouting from the gut deafens the ear and drives normal people to close up in despair.
As I wrote at the start: if we could manage a sane conversation, we’d find the disagreements aren’t as polar as they seem; usually what one side sees as necessary and proper, the other would at least see as acceptable. The escalation that drives us up trees none can defend might be averted; we’d return to ordinary political disputes—without apocalypses, without horrors, and without hysterias. How do we get there in the age of shouty, populist social networks—in the age of “media” without communication? I don’t know.
Finally, like Cato the Elder, I can’t avoid noting that this too relates to our prevalent preference for Hasidic “vorts” and existential psychologism over logical philosophical considerations, conceptualization and analysis, and systematic intellectual study. From this I infer that publishing a long, exhausting column (that also manages to anger all sides) on an obscure site won’t really change the situation. I simply see no other way to try.
And to the listener—may it be pleasant.
[1] As I wrote there, every clause in the proposed reform sounds reasonable to me and defensible in democratic theory; but the package is very problematic—especially in our circumstances, with only two branches and a coalition that may be quite unrestrained.
[2] Part of this goes to commemorating Haredi figures (Rabbi Ovadia and the Lubavitcher Rebbe), and my understanding is that we’re talking about very large sums there as well.
[3] Many of the sources I cite are Haaretz pieces; I use them even though a subscription is required to read in full—mainly because my debate partner (mentioned above) sends them to me.
[4] See, however, here a rare column by Zohar Lederman that recognizes this and writes in Haaretz much like what I write here.
Discussion
The amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Law permits discrimination only on religious grounds (and it is clear to all of us that this means the Jewish religion in its Orthodox version).
According to the example given by the initiator of the law (Rotman), a religious Jew will be able to refuse to rent a hotel room to an LGBT person.
It is clear to all of us that the law will not allow a hotel owner not to host Haredim / religious people / settlers…
So this is not a jungle law that will allow everyone to behave disgustingly with their private property, but rather a law that will permit one-sided discrimination.
I’ll remind you that Itamar Ben-Gvir is currently suing a private company (Facebook) to force them to let him publish his views and musings under the Anti-Discrimination Law.
Wow, every word! Can I become your devotee? (the religious version of “have my baby”). You even managed to convince me regarding the discrimination law, although my criticism of it is that as explained by Rotman and Struk, the law was not convincing at all (I heard Struk and Rotman; they didn’t succeed in convincing me the way you did here. The fact is that I needed this article in order to agree with it), and when a law is not explained well, it draws negative reactions—especially since there is already so much hostility and disinformation toward every move by the government, so a mistaken interpretation of the law can only bring more alienation, deepen hostility, cause a desecration of God’s name, and so on.
You assume there will be a pendulum that returns the situation to what it was before.
My concern is that because of demography there won’t be a pendulum, and this government really will take small steps, and the one after it will continue in the same direction in small steps, and in another twenty years the reality will already be unpleasant.
Orit Struk said in an interview that she thinks a doctor will be allowed not to give fertility treatment to a gay man.
In my opinion she is more interested in the Palestinian issue – I wonder whether she thinks that someone concerned about Palestinian reproduction is entitled not to deliver Arab women’s babies.
An opportunity has arisen to drive change in the judicial system. For that we will indeed have to swallow a few frogs, most of which (such as the Haredi economic conduct) we have in any case been happily swallowing for many years. It is all a question of how important this reform is. In my view, it is worth it. The same applies to the character of the reform: it is not perfect, but the situation after it will be far more balanced than the current one. We will fix the rest over time, as in any pendulum process.
The distinction you made between discriminating against a person and refusing a service is of course correct, and the value judgment is, in my opinion, also agreed upon (refusing a service is okay and refusing a person is bad). But there is a hidden assumption here, that something bad must be dealt with by law, and that is not so. Apart from extreme cases (refusing to provide an essential service to a person), such things should be dealt with in the free market, through the pocketbook. State intervention is wrong on the value level, creates juridification of gray areas, and neuters the ability of the invisible hand to handle matters, for example through a consumer boycott. We do not need this.
Quote: “and a clear, active leftist, with whom, surprisingly enough, we reached very broad agreements.”
What is surprising? That you reached agreement with a leftist? Is he much further left than Hadash?
And over the horrors one should recite the blessing:
“Whose power and might fill the world.”
So, a few corrections:
First of all, in the end they did not stop the shutdown of the 2G and 3G networks. The Haredim gave that up in exchange for canceling Hendel’s reform of the “kosher” cellphones.
The Arabs are enemies of the people of Israel—some in actuality and some potentially. They have no choice in the matter at all. (Like the rest of the gentiles. When it comes to hatred of Israel, gentiles in general have no free choice, and all the more so the wild and barbaric Arabs.)
In my assessment, the secular leftists (this is redundant; a religious leftist is an oxymoron) are not loyal to the people of Israel. They consciously or unconsciously serve the god of equality and anti-racism. And since that is so, I am very glad that the money of these feeble-minded fools, who have no commitment whatsoever to the Jewish people, instead of going to the enemy who would use it against me (in general it should be said that an educated Arab is a murderer with greater capabilities—say, a German. Perhaps more civilized, but he will hate you no less than the Nazis), goes to the Haredim, who at least have not lost common sense and basic sanity.
There is no point coming with complaints to the Haredim. What do you want them to ask for besides budgets? They do not believe in this state and have no policy on any issue of foreign affairs or security, etc., and aside from money they have nothing to gain from being in the government. So that is what they ask for. It is ordinary supply and demand. They did not extort it, threaten for it, or seize it by force. This is the choice of the secular public and its representatives—to give them freedom of choice. They are the ones who serve the empty god of democracy. Equality instead of justice. So let them complain to themselves. Of course, if they do that, then we can also happily revoke the Arabs’ right to vote. I for one am very much in favor. But on that the left will never be willing to give up.
All the accusations of corruption are, of course, begging the question. The ones accusing others of corruption are people of the left, in whose world there are no concepts of truth at all (postmodernism). The moment someone rubs them the wrong way, they invent facts (with the help of the police and by threatening pseudo-witnesses), or invent norms and believe in them with all their hearts (for truly there are no objective norms and facts).
The truth is that there is no morality, justice, or sanity in the left. There is nothing in them. They are completely empty. Just power-hungry and eager to rule without taking responsibility. There is no point speaking of desecration of God’s name because of what they will think of us, since they do not think. The left complains about forcefulness, but it is a thousand times more forceful than its communist forefathers, and is even unaware of it (which is even worse).
In short, this column is just more consciousness engineering (sophisticated, it must be said) under the guise of supposedly objectivity.
With blessings for the success of the people of Israel against its enemies
It really is unbelievable. I don’t understand how he lost his basic critical sense. Falling for brainwashing like this would never have happened to the old Michi. I know he had a bad and bitter experience with the Haredi world and was burned by it (and justifiably so, it must be said. I really understand why he was angry with them in that specific case), but I did not expect that it would cause him to join the enemies of the Jewish people (or strangers, at best). Maybe it’s dementia. I don’t know. Really not.
The amount of lies, evil, and obtuseness in the left is a thousand thousand times greater than what exists among the Haredim. No wonder they feel as though they are in exile (today I feel that way too, even after the right-wing victory. In fact, the real victory will be when all the bureaucrats in the state are lovers of the Jewish people). It is permissible to deceive the violent, evil lord (and also the Jews who help him).
It looks as though the state was established by people who did not care at all about the Jewish people, but only wanted to rule over other human beings, and since they got a kick in the backside from the gentiles (Dreyfus, etc.) after their attempts at assimilation failed, they decided to lord it over the only suckers left—namely, the rest of the naïve Jews, who in their innocence think about solidarity among Jews. Notice that the left always talks about the state and contributing to the state and betraying the state. Have you ever heard them mention the word “the people” except in the sense of a collection of “citizens”? That is, the people of Israel? It is a disgusting word from their point of view (the progressive religion of anti-racism and anti-nationalism. The holy empty equality—in which, of course, some government still has to be run with the left at its head to decide how to impose that equality, because as we know all are equal but they are more equal). I now really understand Rabbi Tau.
By the way, this is part of the emptiness of the global left with its bureaucratic mentality. The law is important, not justice. The state is important, but not the nation. Procedures are important, not the goal for which they were created.
Who cares in such a reality whether these people go to the army or not? For whom is this army fighting today? It is already on the way to becoming the Red Army. Who cares whether they pay taxes or not if in any case they are held by infantile people with no opinion who will give them to our enemies?
Dear Mordechai, perhaps you didn’t notice, but the subject of this column is the current debate. In the current debate, the opposition is not the topic, but rather the criticism it directs at the government. If you had bothered to read, you would surely have seen that I criticized the opposition for incitement and tendentiousness, called them a fanatical church, etc. So the conclusion that these are upright and pleasant people who are merely hysterical is apparently a hysterical conclusion born of your own tendentiousness. As usual, I must say.
I still haven’t seen an orderly draft, and in any event it certainly has not been passed. But the criticisms of it do not presuppose such a wording, and therefore everything I wrote still stands. If indeed a law is proposed and passed that permits discrimination only on a religious basis, then my remarks will be directed against it as well.
What “is clear to all of us” is the royal plural, I understand. That means you, and you alone.
They explained exactly what I wrote here, and very clearly. I heard it with my own ears. But apparently you were not prepared truly to listen to them, as is customary in our districts. I am glad that you read this column with a willingness to listen.
I’m not a great believer in forecasts. We’ll wait and see.
You didn’t address the override clause, which theoretically would give the Knesset the power to enact any law it wants without external review or annulment by the High Court. For example, they could decide on a law ordering the extermination of a specific person and his family and burning them alive, a law canceling elections and appointing a dictator for an unlimited time, a law allowing a prime minister to declare war and opening the door for a crazed leader who one day declares war on the whole world, a law granting special rights to a certain group, who would even be defined as citizens while all the others would be defined as subjects without rights, and other insane laws.
With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf,” 5783
Our local master already taught us in column 287 that a clash of titans between the High Court and the Knesset/government is a case of a ‘game of chicken,’ where each side loosens the rope to frighten the other in order to improve its position in negotiations. No one really thinks of ‘breaking all the tools.’
And here too, the two Benjamins – Gantz and Netanyahu – really want to sit together in government, but both are constrained by their voters. This one is beholden to his voters’ demand for a ‘full-fledged right-wing government,’ and that one is beholden to his voters’ demand for ‘anyone but Bibi.’ And both are waiting for a ‘national crisis’ that will allow them to establish an ‘emergency unity government.’ Last time it was the ‘coronavirus crisis,’ and today it is the ‘threat to the judicial system’ that will allow them to join up out of ‘necessity and lack of choice’ 🙂
Regards, Yaron Elimelech Zorkin the Zehavi
I didn’t address many other things either. My purpose here is not a detailed critique of the whole judicial initiative. But an argument from extreme cases is a weak argument. There is no orderly system that can stand up to extreme cases. Overcoming extreme cases requires a violent revolution, and that’s that.
Take for example the current situation, which in your eyes is better, that is, one in which a forceful takeover is impossible. But here you see that it is possible even in the current situation. After all, right now it is taking place. Except that it requires one additional step (carrying out Yariv Levin’s reform, and from that point onward declaring an eternal dictatorship). So what? That’s not a principled difference.
Well said; I agree with the criticism in both directions.
Following the public “discourse” is apparently indeed a waste of time; shouting and hysterical reactions will always prevail over things said with thought and measured judgment.
What is more troubling to me, as a Jew living in this country and wanting it to succeed, is that the demographic trend is clear: the Haredim and the Hardalim are growing exponentially. By contrast, the left is dwindling away, as the younger generation looks for relocation. The mainstream in Israel has already changed direction accordingly, and there is no reason to assume that this trend will reverse.
As someone who lives in a religious community, I have seen over twenty years how the dynamics tilt in favor of the extremists, because liberals will not fight to the bitter end for their outlook. And the silent majority is silent…
I find it hard to foresee a future in which the state produces a sane mainstream.
Would that I be proven wrong.
With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, “Gather, O sons of Jacob,” 5783
But the problem is a real one. Just as the situation is intolerable when the court turns itself into a legislative authority, making all decisions of the elected institutions contingent on a handful of jurists – so too it is intolerable that Basic Laws are changed according to coalition needs.
And we already saw in the previous government the tyranny of the majority, when the opposition factions needed intervention by the High Court in order to receive proper representation on the Knesset committees, and how the wives of kollel students were saved from the cut in daycare subsidies thanks to a High Court ruling that determined that a cut made from one moment to the next, without allowing time to prepare, was unreasonable.
Perhaps the preferable solution is that review of the branches of government be carried out by a broad elected council, whose members would be elected by the public but serve for a long period of time and would not be able to receive government posts. For example, ninety members, one-third of whom would be elected every five years for a term of fifteen years. Thus their considerations would contain an element of stability and objectivity, but also responsibility and attentiveness to the will of the voting public. And they would constitute an ‘upper house’ that would oversee the substantive reasonableness of the considerations of the various governmental authorities.
Regards, IZH
And thus Jacob in his blessing corrects his exclusive preference for Joseph. He creates a balance in leadership between Judah the lawgiver and warrior, and Joseph, the ‘prince among his brothers’
One of the banes of the judicial system is the handing over of judicial authority in fateful matters to a ‘sole judge.’ The ‘Attorney General’ has the authority as a ‘sole judge’ to file an indictment or close a case; the chairman of the Central Elections Committee can, as a ‘sole judge,’ decide whether or not to impose moral turpitude; and the president of the Supreme Court can predetermine the ruling, since he alone has the authority to determine the panel of judges that hears any given petition. It would have been proper to follow the counsel of the Sages: ‘Do not judge alone.’
Regards, Eliz"h
As a kollel student, I feel a certain discomfort with what you noted, but I still can’t explain it well enough. Maybe you can help me answer the following questions:
A. A stipend of 500 or even 1000 shekels does not really support a household, so that is not what causes an avrech not to go out to the labor market.
B. Likewise, it is clear that the Haredim spend far less and make do—relatively—with little. Their economic conduct is also institutionalized and organized (gemachs and the like). Maybe this is not parasitism but proper economics?
C. The government also funds unproductive studies such as history and the like; is a professor of history also a parasite?
Here’s some free help.
A. Who said that this is what causes an avrech not to go out to the labor market? Raising the stipend will change the number who leave. It is not deterministic causation.
B. It is not proper economics for several reasons. Here are two: they contribute nothing to the GDP, even if they themselves manage somehow. They receive support at the expense of all of us, and from that they run their ‘proper economics.’
C. There is a difference in quantity and a difference in selection. In kollels, nobody checks who is suitable and who is doing what is required of him, and the numbers are not limited. How many professors of history are there at universities? A reasonable dosage of learners is very positive, and I am completely in favor of it. I referred to a column that deals with this.
Hope I helped you understand.
Thank you, Michael. I was in great anxiety over the past few weeks, and you really succeeded in bringing a bit of order into my thoughts.
You are truly doing holy work.
Dear Michi (beyond all price), I did bother to read the entire column from beginning to end. When I don’t read everything, or when I read hastily, I say so (so as not to mislead). My cognitive limitations are known, and my calluses hurt when they’re stepped on… But in this case my question was simple—do you really believe in the dichotomy that emerges from your words, namely that the coalition is made up of corrupt people, thieves, and “horrors,” while the opposition is made up of pure and honest people who merely suffered from excessive panic? If not, you could simply have said that your words were written in your usual sarcasm, that you exaggerated for the sake of the discussion, etc., and that you didn’t mean it. If so—well, I already said above.
Speaking of corrupt people, I don’t know whom you mean in this column, but in other columns you have been careful to refer to Netanyahu as “the corrupt one, may he live long.” In one of them I asked you whether you had bothered to follow his trial and the hair-raising revelations that emerged in it. Are you aware that although around 30 witnesses and more have testified so far, not one of them contributed even an olive’s bulk to the prosecution’s case, while every one of them (some of them like an evil angel forced to say amen) contributed quite a bit of material for indicting the investigators and prosecutors for all manner of very serious crimes (bordering on treason, and it still requires examination on which side of the border).
You ignored my question then, or perhaps it escaped your notice. So I ask it again, please, in the hope of an honest answer.
Order is my middle name 🙁
The initiator of the law, Rotman, is leading the campaign for a legal prohibition on boycotting settlements.
The same Rotman says that the law he is promoting will allow a hotel owner not to host LGBT people.
If I connect these two Rotmans—the one producing laws that forbid boycotting settlement products and the one passing a law that allows boycotting LGBT people—the picture is very clear.
True, once the High Court would have blocked such an unequal law, but for that they invented the override clause.
Let us recall that the coalition agreements added a prohibition on ‘racism’ and ‘incitement’ against Haredim, so one has to be very naïve to believe that Rotman’s law will allow a hotel owner to bar both Haredim and LGBT people alike.
My previous comment was immeasurably shorter (or longer) than the column, and it is quite evident that you did not read that either. If you did read it, that is much more worrying, so I’ll judge you favorably.
I have written here more than once that I am not following the trial. The judges will say in the end what picture emerges, and categorical statements like yours are also made from the opposite side. Though it is clear that for the devotees of that corrupt man, even a convicting judgment would not help. They would hang that too on a conspiracy.
But my claims are not on the criminal plane, since I do not deal with it. The man is corrupt to the marrow of his bones regardless of convictions in his trials.
And I have also written here more than once that there is no doubt that the media and the legal system are persecuting him and behaving improperly toward him. And unrelatedly, the man is corrupt to the marrow of his bones (as they say: just because you’re being persecuted doesn’t mean there’s no reason to persecute you). And perhaps that is the reason they persecute him so obsessively.
As someone from the Haredi public, I know it well and know that it contains much light and no less than that dark shadows. (Did someone say 50 shades of black…?) I fully share the criticism of the Haredi leadership (spiritual and political alike), and even when I was a student in a Haredi yeshiva I was considered a strange bird (and hated) because I did not agree to see Rabbi Shach as the leading sage of the generation. In fact, I saw no greatness in him at all. But I was never party to the blind and fanatical hatred of the Haredim. They are my brothers.
The way out of the trap in which the state on the one hand and the Haredi public on the other are caught is not through columns dripping with hatred and sarcasm, nor through budgetary decrees that will drive this public into even harsher poverty than it is already in, and a comments thread is not the appropriate arena for clarifying this issue. Even so, I can testify that in private conversations with heads of yeshivot I found them to be far more sober than they allow themselves to reveal publicly, and they definitely understand the above trap.
As for the left, here too the story is longer and more twisted than you describe. The root of the evil goes back to Karl Marx (a descendant of Rashi…), who developed a bizarre and deranged theory of a worldwide conspiracy of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. After Marxism suffered humiliating defeat everywhere it was tried, the Marxists shifted the ideological focus to conflict between “the privileged” and “the oppressed,” which developed into the immense lunacy of “intersectionality,” etc., and the matter is lengthy, wearisome, and astonishingly stupid. The tragedy is that this idiotic progressive madness stormed through American academia, and from there sent cancerous metastases in every direction, and also reached our Holy Land and sowed destruction wherever it touched.
Replace the word “Netanyahu” with “Jews” – how does it look now? How do you know that he is corrupt “to the marrow of his bones”? What do you know about him beyond what was published in the media, most of which is, of course, gossip, slander, and lies?
Apparently nothing. You do not follow the trial, because you can’t confuse a philosopher with facts. There will always be some philosophical pilpul that renders them irrelevant.
When I mentioned what was revealed in the trial, I meant, of course, the way the investigation was conducted, or more properly, the stitching together of the case and the frame-up. Even if you are right and “Netanyahu is corrupt” (something that so far has been supported by no evidence!), the systemic corruption of the prosecution and the police is far more grave and alarming. What chance does an ordinary, innocent person who gets caught in this Kafkaesque system have? Is it for nothing that criminal conviction rates in Israel have reached 99% (compared to 50–60% in Western countries)? Is the prosecution in Israel so talented that it knows how to pick out only the guilty in order to indict them (as in its pathetic excuse)?
From someone who demonstrated in front of the Chinese embassy on behalf of Falun Gong (whose persecution is criminal, though they too are not innocent saints), I would expect him to demonstrate in front of the prosecution and the police in protest against the methods of framing and case-tailoring that have been exposed there—a sort of hybrid of the Stasi, the KGB, and the Securitate all together. This is not Netanyahu’s problem. You too may find yourself at the center of a Kafkaesque frame-up that you will not be able to escape from (God forbid), so long as this is the nature of the system.
Hello and blessings.
After reading from beginning to end and from end to beginning, I came up empty-handed and concluded that the main thing is missing from the book.
What is true in the above reflections is not new, and what is new is not true.
As a former atheist and a present-day person who keeps commandments (trying as best as I can manage) – may the Merciful One save us – I very much hope that besides attacking an entire group, which is of no use (an old argument; the facts are different, but we won’t get into trifles), your intention is good.
Wishing you a peaceful Sabbath.
My conclusion*
Just a factual correction: the riots of 5781 did not happen under Bennett and Smotrich, who were in the opposition at the time. They definitely happened under Bibi.
The problem with this column is not the facts in it, but the field in which it operates: ideological criticism of political conduct.
That is criticism that is inherently ‘correct,’ roughly like economic criticism of going out to expensive restaurants.
In the political world, people conduct themselves politically. This is not especially new.
In that context: the letter of the ‘rabbis’ (for lack of another name) against the government, which the rabbi signed, does not correspond at all with this column, and constitutes cooperation with the opposition’s hysteria (demagogic and false). It is a great shame and very sad to see that even when there is so much justified criticism of the government, the leaders of the religious-liberal public choose to do everything in order to become a ridiculous sub-niche of Meretz (and in the process to succeed in collecting both the evils of the coalition and the evils of the opposition, and that without political constraints).
As usual, as Mordechai said. All this talk about Bibi’s “corruption” is simply consciousness engineering (repeat a lie a thousand times in the hope that your listeners will adopt it). You do not know Netanyahu firsthand, only through the media. And that is corrupt from firsthand knowledge (see Nahum Barnea and Arafat, and from daily deeds). Rabbi Michi simply wants to be part of the “enlightened” (in their own eyes), among whom this is something simple and known (after all, in their world there is no objective reality, and in any case they can be convinced of this without any pangs of conscience). Bibi is no more or less corrupt than any politician present or past, or soldier, or judge, or lawyer, or common salesman. In fact, than any ordinary person here בארץ who has no fear of God. By these standards of corruption, the legal system and the prosecution and the left in general are a thousand times more corrupt (not to mention the media). These are the spiritual disciples of Stalin and his successors on steroids—the progressives. In general, the word corruption has been debased into prostitution. Better not to use it anymore.
You’re going around and around, instead of citing Leibowitz, who says: human decisions have no rational justification whatsoever…
A person decides not because something in the world moves him, but because that is what he wants!
It goes out from him to the world.
And everything he receives from the world is only a conclusion!
The world and nature have laws, unlike human nature, where the soul and the spirit decide, and there is no way to measure the human soul!
But in the physical world I can measure and investigate everything…
People go to his lectures and buy his books, unlike a kollel student who studies for himself and produces no output whatsoever. I find it hard to believe that these two simple facts escaped your notice. He doesn’t need to advance the world of science; it is enough that people want to pay money to hear what he has to say in order to place him in the group of productive people, and it does not really matter whether in your eyes his words “contribute” and are “valuable” or not (so long as there is a public willing to pay for his content). And if your opinion still stands, then you should simultaneously criticize everyone who does not contribute to a breakthrough in computer science or physics, including Netflix and Wolt and every writer of science fiction and romance, and consider them all “parasites,” which is beyond me.
Ofri Ilani is Haaretz’s reporter on intellectual fashions (in fact he is a very nice person, and I published a few posts on his and Gal Katz’s blog, Eretz HaEmori). As such, what he says should be taken with a grain of salt on the one hand, but on the other hand he definitely knows how to identify intellectual fashions. Unfortunately, there are elements of desecration of God’s name in this coalition, even though I voted for it and support the moves I hope it will make vis-à-vis the judicial system. In this context, it is clear that economically this is a Haredi left-wing coalition with libertarian elements for decoration.
I will qualify my remarks and say that I truly do not know whether there is consciousness engineering here (even with the left I do not know whether they are aware of the consciousness engineering on their part), but I do not think this column is logical (and therefore not objective either). I have no idea how one can prefer Haredim to Arabs. Truly none. Everything the rabbi sees as bad in the Haredim exists among the Arabs squared. They may still have been somewhat nice last time, but the moment they feel they have power in their hands, the extortion will shoot to the skies. And if they are able to impose their culture/religion on the Jews, they too will be very happy to do that (as can be seen in their other countries). They are not a particularly liberal public. And I do not know what the Arab public contributes to the GDP, whereas what it contributes to crime I do know very well. And in general, what logic is there in investing in Arabs, even if in some bizarre world they actually want to care for themselves instead of hating us? They will still be indifferent to our fate (would they join us to defend us against those who hate us?). So why should we invest in them, and what kind of investment is that? One with a negative return? Where is the logic?
Rabbi Michael Abraham is apparently a nice person, and perhaps for this reason it is hard for him to come to terms with the situation in Israel. Today Israel is a Khomeinist state in the making, similar to Sabbateanism, Nazism, Khomeinism, Haredism, and similar episodes in the history of Israel and the nations. What all these have in common is the inability of good, solid, educated people to understand that Smotrich and Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira are not merely somewhat unsympathetic types, but figures of the same kind as Savonarola, Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein. The only way to deal with them is with a great deal of force, as much force as possible, legal and illegal, until their total defeat.
Good luck. All in all, hysteria is pretty popular these days in our parts.
In my opinion you are mistaken in your understanding of Rotman. He is indeed in favor of discriminating against the person and not the service. And according to his view, a grocery store owner would indeed be allowed to refuse to sell round chewing gum to an LGBT person. And the “market forces” would take care of condemning the grocery owner.
Attached is a quote from an interview with him. He is influenced by and belongs to conservative libertarian groups in the US (what does that have to do with the spirit of our forefathers? what does that have to do with the most elementary kindergarten education to be a good person? I am too small to say).
https://m.ynet.co.il/articles/sjuaknh5j
“When Rotman was asked whether a religious hotel owner could choose not to host a group of homosexuals, he replied: ‘Yes, if it contradicts his belief and hurts his religious feelings’ – and caused an uproar….
My principled position is that the law prohibiting discrimination in products and services should apply to the state and to public service providers with a monopoly, but not to private businesses. A private business should do as it wishes, and I believe in market forces that will ensure that arbitrary discrimination against people does not pay.”
And on Twitter he also wrote this arrogantly:
“We’ll make it simple.
“Liberty means that people can also do things I don’t like.
Freedom of speech means you can also say unpleasant things about religious people, about Arabs, or about LGBT people.
Freedom of occupation means that a person can also behave badly toward customers, and boycott or not, and the customers will punish him, or not.
That’s what freedom is. Shocking, right?”
The media / center-left / soft right –
are not just hysterical!
Amit Segal and Friedman and Talia Einhorn and Irit Linur all dismiss the extreme cases with smugness, with the genies: “if they want to wipe out all the genies then no court will help anyway,” but that is not an argument. Because the extreme case is meant only as an illustration. But there are many intermediate degrees—and there דווקא a court really would help!
Rotman himself clarified the matter, and I heard it with my own ears, and I assume that extreme libertarianism was his starting position, which moderated during the discussion. In any case, that is not what the proposed law is about. No one is contemplating a sweeping libertarian permit, and that would not pass either.
And by the way, I do not categorically reject that libertarian position either. But that is a different discussion.
He is not in favor of discrimination; he is in favor of a person’s freedom to provide service to whomever he wants. Just as you are not obligated to buy from someone something, so too he is not. Whether that is okay or not is not the government’s business to intervene in, and it is society’s responsibility to take care of the good. The left (communism) is a control freak that wants to control everything. So it turns out that I agree with you regarding the state and public service providers or monopolies of various kinds. The left is hysterical about exactly this.
Correction: just as you are not obligated to buy something from someone, so too he is not obligated to sell you something or provide you any service whatsoever for whatever reason. Whether that is okay or not is not the government’s business to intervene in, and it is society’s responsibility to take care of the good.
In fact, that is my principled opinion. In practice, one has to examine the implications of discriminating against a person (as opposed to discrimination in service, which certainly should be allowed), and based on that decide whether to prohibit it by law or not. Like prostitution and drugs, which in principle I oppose prohibiting by law, but in practice, because prostitution and drugs involve crime and health damage and death, I support prohibiting them by law (but oppose, for example, prohibiting by law the consumption of prostitution and the use—not sale—of light drugs, again after examining the health damages that the state will afterward have to finance treatment for).
I’m not with you on this; it’s extreme. There is no symmetry between the recipient of a service and the provider of a service. The source of the law is the bouncer-style selection they used to do at clubs (not that I’m some huge clubber, but I have been filtered out before). What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow—and therefore the law at root is a good one, and there was no invisible hand and no market forces that condemned the phenomenon or prevented club selection against those who didn’t look like affluent northerners—and they didn’t have the power, patience, or resources to build clubs of their own. Come on, drop it. It has nothing to do with left and right.
And what is even more puzzling to me is that religion is not so libertarian that in private life every man does what is right in his own eyes; on the contrary, it enters into every tiny detail and educates the person. So I do not understand this extremism on the part of the party that appropriates to itself religious Zionism.
Why drop it, and why back off? This is also what I believe in. And this is also what the economic right and the political right are built on (the freedom to organize and live as a people that prefers its own members over others). One must not enforce by law “what is hateful to you.” Unless there is a Torah state (what is mistakenly called a halakhic state). The enforcement of that command is the Holy One’s responsibility through reward and punishment. Or a Sanhedrin that can enact ordinances. Religion is not libertarian because there is God, and His commandments are like laws of nature such that whoever violates them is punished by the consequences. But we do not punish in our courts someone who violates the laws of nature, because reality itself punishes him.
It was bad that they prevented selection at clubs. And anyone who wants to enter such a club has no pity from me if selection prevents him from doing so. As far as I’m concerned, “I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as a member,” or to a club that builds its prestige on empty selection (having no content other than that it admits only a few people). This is part of the emptiness of the secular world (not necessarily sociologically; I mean a world without God in which there are only human beings. Many religious and Haredi people also live in such a world).
Until he sees a Haredi, and then he becomes more Bolshevik than Stalin. His tweets on Twitter give him away. A libertarian he is not. Very far from it.
I don’t see how this connects to laws of nature. In halakhah there are court-imposed punishments. It’s not like a person who ignores gravity and jumps off the roof, where he also isn’t punished after being convicted by a rabbinical court.
Such an approach to Torah and commandments—that the laws of halakhah are laws of nature and a person is harmed by transgressing them, and is not truly judged—is an esoteric approach of Maimonides and the extreme rationalists on the one hand, and of certain kabbalists on the other.
And even there (at least according to Maimonides), he does not harm himself by transgressing the laws of halakhah, but at most prevents himself from attaining the intelligibles. And that is not for everyone, and a person can attain them even without halakhah.
That too is not similar to transgressing laws of nature.
Likewise, even when there is no rabbinical court, there are sanctions that apply to sinners, such as “raise them up but do not lower them,” bans, treating them as apostates and gentiles, and more.
What does he think about a Muslim doctor who does not want to treat a terror attack victim because in his opinion jihad has been declared against him and he is marked for death?
Well, this is a somewhat long topic. The conception is that court punishments are as if emissaries of the Holy One to purge evil from our midst. If we do not do this, then the Holy One will judge us all as a collective, and we will all be guilty of the individual’s sin because of our silent support for his deeds.
The Holy One’s punishment is like the laws of nature. That is, it really is like a person who jumps from the roof. It’s just that there is a distance between the (visible) result and the deed. It is more similar to the (statistical) law of nature that someone who eats unhealthily will eventually become sick. That is a biological law of nature. There is also the possibility of repentance. That is, the illness can be reversible (so long as we haven’t reached a certain threshold—death, for example) if the person changes his ways.
I have no interest in discussing the man himself (I don’t know him personally and I have no Twitter, etc.). I am interested in discussing principles. After all, the war is against libertarianism and not against hypocrisy or lies. Hypocrisy and lies (or lack of self-awareness) are the possession of the overwhelming majority of human beings. And that indeed should be corrected first. But in any case he will not be able to legislate laws that are inconsistent or unjust (there will be no public support for that even from the right and religious side of the map). If a hotel owner refuses to host LGBT people because of his religious faith (in which case he would also be forbidden to host secular people because of the prohibition of nidda), then an anti-religious hotel owner who hates religious people (for whatever reason) would also be allowed not to host Haredim because of his anti-religious belief.
In any case it is intolerable to legislate that it is forbidden to hate someone. It is like legislating that it is forbidden to insult people. Wait—there is already such a thing. The courts already do this under the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (a person has a right to dignity). That is of course completely ridiculous. How can one enforce such a thing equally? This is a way for left-wing judges to silence the right. And beyond that, it is an inhuman demand.
I’m not Tzachi and my opinion wasn’t requested, but my answer to your question is that although this is an extreme case, it depends whether he is private or public. If he is private, I would already be very happy simply that he is not trying to kill me actively. If only that’s what all Muslims would do. If he is public, then why should Jews pay him a salary? I truly oppose Muslim doctors in our public healthcare system (they have many countries).
There’s no way around it: natural human society and the bond among its members is something that precedes the state or laws. You cannot live in one society with people who save your life only because the law forbids them not to save it. I want to live, and am willing to live, only with people who want to save me not because of some law but because I am like family to them. Part of libertarian freedom is the freedom to organize and live as a family or as a people. Of course that negates part of personal freedom, but the choice to negate that personal freedom is made freely, because there is more to gain in living with such people than in living alone. This is a limitation in reality and not one that harms personal freedom. Besides, freedom is not an end but a means (vital and necessary), but that is another topic.
So it is not like violating laws of nature. One can perhaps argue that a corrupt society will be “punished” and perish, but we do not see anything similar here.
It is hard to see judgment of the collective in reality. Perhaps one can argue that this is after death, but there it is for the individual, and it is hard to see how such a thing could be. Rather, you argue that the individuals will be judged for their silence. But here it is hard to see what the individual’s responsibility is for the public’s laws.
And in any case this is not libertarianism.
Nor is it at all similar to the approach of the socio-economic right.
There is also the view that a Jew who does not believe and actively leaves Judaism is regarded as a gentile, and the court does not punish him.
With unhealthy eating too, even if a person suddenly starts eating healthy, he does not erase his unhealthy eating.
It is hard for me to see violating halakhah as violating a law of nature. Perhaps according to the extreme rationalists as I said, but according to them it is not violating halakhah, but rather a person living incorrectly.
Halakhah, for the most part, is law in the legal sense, where there is punishment toward those who violate it. Rabbinical court punishments get even more attention than heavenly punishments, about which no one has any idea what they are, what there is after bodily death, how judgment works, whether there is judgment at all or whether a person harms his own soul, whether there is reincarnation or union with the active intellect, and so on.
There are dozens of different approaches and systems and sub-approaches and speculations.
According to our rabbi Michael, an example from an extreme case is a weak argument. Justice Barak disagrees with him.
His Honor, Justice Barak, said to Justice Elon:
“And if the secular majority decides to cancel the voting rights of the religious—would we not intervene even then?”
Justice Elon answered: in such a case, it won’t matter what the two of us rule.
These things appear in the book His Honor about Justice Barak. They can be seen here:
https://books.google.co.il/books?id=LwwpQ9OJ5pQC&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%97+%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F+%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F+%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A7&source=bl&ots=_mm-9LcTOe&sig=ACfU3U1ZcR_adyP3SGJRAyBJ_U5_tAAeGw&hl=iw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizkePQqL38AhXYSfEDHQORBXUQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%97%20%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F%20%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F%20%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%A7&f=false
Elon’s argument is foolish. Obviously if there is a forceful group that decides to crush us all by force, there is nothing to be done except by force. The question is how to prevent processes that take place within the framework of the law.
Hello again,
So here is Prof. Talia Einhorn using it at minute 9:30 (“if the Knesset wants to extend its term to infinity, no court will help anymore”), and similarly Daniel Friedman and similarly Amit Segal – a logical fallacy!
The Yoram Lass of the world of law
And if you have the time, there are also lectures there by Eyal Gross and Tzvi Kahana representing the prevailing opinion.
This reminds me of a colleague who once said to me something like, she has no problem with Bibi—he is allowed to think differently from her. But how did he manage to marry that crazy woman? So I asked her: what do you mean, crazy? And she said: come on, everybody knows Sara is not normal. So I pressed her: really? Everybody knows? How exactly? Did you speak to her? Meet her? Perform a clinical diagnosis on her? Her answer was simply to repeat the claim: everybody knows she’s psychotic. Not very convincing from someone who wants us to listen to him as the lone voice of reason in the chaos of emotional and unfounded reactions to reality (and who even accuses Netanyahu’s supporters that nothing will ever convince them otherwise, yet states without the slightest doubt that Netanyahu is corrupt to the marrow, wholly apart from the clarification of those accusations now taking place these very days).
A very weak claim. Everybody knows that people have intellect and will. Do you have proof of that? Even in halakhah it is accepted that there are things whose report has spread, and then one assumes they are probably true. Of course there is never certainty, but the burden of proof is on the one who denies them. He must prove that some conspiracy claim is at work here.
Without getting into clinical diagnoses, I have no doubt that this woman is unstable and suffers from many mental problems, and that we all suffer from them indirectly. What has been published about her, including recordings and testimonies, is enough. No clinical diagnosis is needed to say that, unless you mean to assign a specific diagnosis. Nobody means that, and I assume that includes your colleague as well.
In short, your colleague is completely right in my opinion.
I assume you mean the explicit recent court ruling that whoever called the Netanyahus mentally ill must pay them for defamation, yes?
From the little interaction I had with her (and even saying little is an exaggeration), it was very hard for me to discern instability and many mental problems—things that are totally obvious to you because that’s what the newspaper says.
Well, it turns out that others did succeed in discerning it. Perhaps there are times when one is sound and times when one is a fool.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. The “voice” here “comes out” through people from one camp who echo one another. There is no conspiracy here at all. There is simply a group of feeble-minded people with no backbone. There is simply a desire to belong to the right social group, plain as day. If someone was recorded shouting when angry, by that standard you would have to say that all women are crazy (that’s how it feels, in any case, to men). And all the testimonies are voiced according to the witness’s ego-needs when he wants publicity in the media. And if Netanyahu sent her to interview someone, that probably has to do with matters of loyalty (to Netanyahu or to the people of Israel; nowadays every officer—at least those of senior rank—is suspect until proven otherwise of disloyalty to the Jewish people), and women actually understand that very well.
His colleague is not only not right—she isn’t even wrong. From her response, she is simply mindless, that’s all.
It is like violating laws of nature, which include spiritual nature (the laws of the spiritual world), which of course is connected to the physical world. What is the problem with formulating a statistical law of nature? (A statistical law like the laws of thermodynamics when formulated within statistical mechanics.) Aren’t there such things as laws of biology and laws of medicine? Smoking causes lung cancer with high probability? And I told you that in biology too there is the possibility of repentance (starting to eat healthy), except that this too is only up to a certain threshold. And so too in halakhah.
I am not arguing with you at all about matters of Judaism (you are apparently not a religious person and are not sufficiently familiar with it). This is the accepted conception: the individual is responsible for the deeds of the many among whom he lives and is punished for them in heavenly judgment. This is explained in the midrashim on the portion of Nitzavim and on the covenant of Moab. And in Kabbalistic teaching there is detail about these matters of providence. Like a cell in an organism that sickens and dies together with the organism even if it itself was not personally sick, so too. And perhaps you do not know, but from what I have seen it seems that the kabbalists really did know these matters of providence (they were the biologists of the organism that is the people of Israel) and knew of the connection between the sins of the individual and the illness of the collective (as in statistical mechanics). And I am certainly speaking about this world and not after death, which pertains to the judgment of each individual person separately. But a collective does not die.
In short, this is indeed not libertarian, but I am not speaking in terms of Torah law but in terms of basic human decency. In general, Torah laws of mutual responsibility are not socialism; they are intended for Jews according to halakhah and for those who are not apostates. Mutual responsibility does not derive from equality and all sorts of such nonsense, but from the understanding that we are one organism and must work for the good of the collective (the body), and this is expressed in that we must also see to the good of the other individuals—not because they are others, but because this is the good of the body, just as cells in the body produce materials that go to all the body’s cells according to the role they fulfill in the tissue to which they belong. And accordingly, by the way, there are those who forbid giving gifts to gentiles and doing them favors because that is a loss of the body’s resources to foreign bodies. In fact, according to the Torah, when I benefit other Jews I am really benefiting myself, in light of this organism-conception. Even according to libertarians there is freedom to organize as a people and as a family, and that imposes restrictions and constraints, and this does not contradict libertarianism.
Elon argues what you argue.
Barak brought the extreme example that you reject –
It seems to me there is a typo here.
But why are you dealing with the issue of “that woman”?
Why did they deal in such a minimal way
with Sonia Peres? Things there too did not all go smoothly.
There is a widespread report that the press
is against Netanyahu, and therefore lashed out at his family.
I hope at least our rabbi sees that
I didn’t understand.
Of course there are biases, but that is precisely what a persistent widespread report is. And it comes from people of his who served in his office and his close surroundings. So it seems to me that the feeble-minded ones here are not them.
I was responding to Rabbi Michael Abraham’s comment.
He wrote “Elon’s argument is foolish.”
But it was Barak who raised the “what if…” argument.
Apparently a typo by our rabbi.
Wow, you really showed me. Very mature: “No, you yourself are feeble-minded.”
Sorry, but this is nonsense. I knew that you meant his conflicts with people in his office. All those people from his office sang to the media exactly what it wanted to hear for the sake of publicity or advancement. Starting with the arch-swindler Bennett and ending with the pair hopping from party to party of Bogie and Bogie himself. All of them showed disloyalty to the Jewish people or betrayed their voters in order to get approval from the left that controls the state bureaucracy and its institutions. People without backbone. Fine, let’s say they hate Netanyahu for his centralism—but why betray the Jewish people? Why this spinelessness? Beyond the fact that none of these people are credible in my eyes, even the words corruption or madness have no meaning at all when they come out of the mouth of anyone interviewed by the media or from media people, especially on matters of Netanyahu or the right. Those words have been debased into prostitution for them. One can inflate anything in order to sell what one wants to sell. That is called consciousness engineering. There is no persistent widespread report here. That belongs in a society that has a certain measure of objectivity (which stems from some connection among its members). Which is not the case with us. Here there is a collection of a bunch of feeble-minded people and liars in all 248 of their limbs. It is not even a conspiracy because they tell themselves a story and then choose to believe it, like lawyers or salesmen. “If you believe it, it isn’t a lie,” in the words of George Costanza. I really do not understand why the rabbi does not see this. It seems as though he wants to be connected with them (after all, for them it is an axiom that Netanyahu is corrupt. It is a principle of faith that precedes the world. And anyone who dares question it is either crazy or a heretic). Maybe he wants to sell them his wares. So it’s not worth it. I despise this bunch of feeble-minded people. One should keep away from such people. I do not agree with them, nor do I “not disagree” with them, on anything concerning politics or Netanyahu. In their world there is no truth—see the idiotic cries of “the death of democracy” by the great philosopher Lapid and by Gantz. Levin’s “revolution” is altogether just restoring the situation before the revolution of the great dictator (and one lacking self-awareness) Aharon Barak. It seems that in general there is no connection between their words and reality. The Haredim separated themselves from them justly.
This is a reply to Rabbi Michi in the thread that began with the first comment, but there is no more room to write and the site won’t upload the answer there.:
Wow, you really showed me. Very mature: “No, you yourself are feeble-minded.”
Sorry, but this is nonsense. I knew that you meant his conflicts with people in his office. All those people from his office sang to the media exactly what it wanted to hear for the sake of publicity or advancement. Starting with the arch-swindler Bennett and ending with the pair hopping from party to party of Bogie and Bogie himself. All of them showed disloyalty to the Jewish people or betrayed their voters in order to get approval from the left that controls the state bureaucracy and its institutions. People without backbone. Fine, let’s say they hate Netanyahu for his centralism—but why betray the Jewish people? Why this spinelessness? Beyond the fact that none of these people are credible in my eyes, even the words corruption or madness have no meaning at all when they come out of the mouth of anyone interviewed by the media or from media people, especially on matters of Netanyahu or the right. Those words have been debased into prostitution for them. One can inflate anything in order to sell what one wants to sell. That is called consciousness engineering. There is no persistent widespread report here. That belongs in a society that has a certain measure of objectivity (which stems from some connection among its members). Which is not the case with us. Here there is a collection of a bunch of feeble-minded people and liars in all 248 of their limbs. It is not even a conspiracy because they tell themselves a story and then choose to believe it, like lawyers or salesmen. “If you believe it, it isn’t a lie,” in the words of George Costanza. I really do not understand why the rabbi does not see this. It seems as though he wants to be connected with them (after all, for them it is an axiom that Netanyahu is corrupt. It is a principle of faith that precedes the world. And anyone who dares question it is either crazy or a heretic). Maybe he wants to sell them his wares. So I tell him it is not worth it. I despise this bunch of feeble-minded people. One should keep away from such people. I do not agree with them, nor do I “not disagree” with them, on anything concerning politics or Netanyahu. In their world there is no truth. See the idiotic cries of “the death of democracy” by the great philosopher Lapid and by Gantz. Levin’s “revolution” is altogether just restoring the situation before the revolution of the great dictator (and one lacking self-awareness) Aharon Barak. It seems that in general there is no connection between their words and reality. On these issues they do not count as human beings at all, and they are not counted in a voice that does not cease (to which certainly one should also not relate when such a voice comes from haters of the man about whom the voice is spread, or from those who want to curry favor with the haters). The Haredim separated themselves from them justly.
Of this it is said: one does not conduct oneself with fools. It is hard to discuss drugs with people for whom every fact that doesn’t fit has a conspiratorial excuse. Only withdrawal from addiction to Bibism. Good luck.
But it is hard to see reward and punishment in this world, certainly at the level of society. Even statistically I do not see a difference between a society that lives a Jewish life and a society of gentiles or Jews who do not keep halakhah. It is commonly accepted that reward and punishment are in the World to Come, and even laws in which the reward is written as being in this world the Sages expounded as referring to the World to Come (such as honoring father and mother—“that your days may be lengthened”).
You claim that this is a statistical law, but can you point to an example? Or provide evidence?
To make claims without support is not serious.
That is, given a society that sins with a certain sin, say Sabbath desecration, what is the probability that a certain bad thing will happen to them, and what is that bad thing?
What is the average percentage of those harmed? What is the variance and standard deviation?
If society will fall and not the individual be punished, then what is the probability that that society will collapse?
In what were those kabbalists right?
When you referred to a certain threshold, you mentioned death. Therefore I assumed this was judgment after death. If the judgment is in this world, then what does death have to do with it?
I am trying to think rationally and do not accept every claim a person makes without evidence. From what I understand, that is also the essence of this site.
But the discussion is not about me or you, so let’s not go in those directions.
Now that you clarified, I understand. I thought you were claiming that the Torah is libertarian.
But I do not think the division here is dichotomous. That is, whatever is not socialism is capitalism, and vice versa.
These are modes of thought and modernist ideologies. Judaism preceded them and cannot really be fitted into one of those templates—not in a biblical agricultural society, and not in an urban society living among the gentiles and not dealing too much with social and economic matters beyond the community.
Likewise, according to your view, is a conception of mutual responsibility, supporting the weak, and increasing taxes on the rich, out of a conception that all human beings are one organism and all humanity one human fabric and one body—is that not socialism?
After all, here too no issues of equality enter as you present it.
In my opinion there is no difference based on what the practical actions stem from.
In my opinion, increasing taxes, tax brackets, and welfare policy is moderate socialism; nationalization of property and means of production is “heavy” socialism;
Economic freedom, little state intervention in the economy, low taxation, and reducing regulation is capitalism.
It does not matter whether what leads to this is a desire for equality, simple envy of the rich, settling accounts with weak populations that vote differently from how you vote, because it is written somewhere, or a conception that we are all one human fabric, or alternatively a conception that sees the individual at the center. Or even simple pragmatism of bringing society to economic prosperity.
The Haredim, in my opinion, are much closer to socialism than to capitalism. And in religious Zionism too I do not really see capitalism.
The way I see it, there is not much difference between right and left in Israel (except perhaps at the extremes), and even in the world it is sometimes hard to see the differences.
And many people who pride themselves on one approach act contrary to that same approach they espouse.
By the way, in Judaism there is also reference to gentiles and a commandment to compel them to keep the seven Noahide laws. When Jewish power is strong, there is an obligation to compel them. How does this fit with libertarianism and the right of gentiles to organize in their own society?
From the standpoint of libertarianism, they have the right to practice idolatry; from the standpoint of Judaism there is an obligation to kill them and smash their idols. And for this one does not even need a rabbinical court.
I didn’t understand the question. Where are the rights of the Jew who desecrates the Sabbath and is stoned? Where did you invent this libertarianism in halakhah from?
This is not a substantive answer. And it should be said that anyone who disqualifies others does so through his own defect. I gave good reasons for my words. Nor did I deny the reality of Bibi’s conflicts with those under him. It simply says nothing about corruption, which in any case has lost its meaning in the public (“everyone is corrupt.” Why is Bibi corrupt and the High Court and the media are not? What is the difference between them? The media hides information—see Nahum Barnea and Arafat, etc.—and the High Court simply does whatever it wants with no connection to justice at all (the expulsion from Gush Katif; there was that judge who went on the radio and laughed his head off because of it) according to those same standards for the word corruption). From the outset I do not believe leftists or those currying favor with them. There is no conspiratorial excuse here. I do not agree with them, and I do not “not disagree” with them. I simply do not come into contact with them by choice. I think it is quite clear that this is not Bibism but hatred of the disloyal left. And I have no need to look for excuses to despise someone. It is the rabbi who keeps repeating this mantra regardless of the facts.
A Bibist would justify every step Bibi takes (for example budgets for Arabs). Most of the time I am angry at him because of his cowardice toward the left and the world, but apparently the rabbi is not interested in facts and has decided that hatred of the disloyal left is called Bibism.
That is exactly consciousness engineering.
I have excellent instincts for seeing whether someone says something (when he has not really devoted thought to the matter) because he truly thinks so or because he fears the society in which he lives and does not want to be considered exceptional (crazy or heretical). That colleague there is an excellent example, and I know many leftists and all of them are like this without exception. And that is very telling. I did not think the rabbi too would be one of them.
I do not understand the idea of being in the middle between right and left and trying to find dialogue. One need not force anything on everyone. As stated, one does not conduct oneself with fools. Why do I need dialogue with people who are clearly incapable of thought (the rabbi called them hysterical. They do not listen. In other words, fools)?
To answer all this (the ways of providence versus what our eyes see) I would have to write a book, and even then it would be only the merest edge of the truth.
That is what all of Kabbalah is about..
Naturally it will be more complicated than biology, and biology itself is many times more complicated than physics (biological systems are immeasurably more complex than simple physical systems).
One can only assume that systems that include such things as free choice together with an individual’s responsibility for the collective would be even more complicated… In any case I will only say that the present situation (in which there apparently is no providence) is the worst there is. If the Holy One punishes someone, it is in order that he repent (that is something supernatural), and then the punishment will turn into reward (itself supernatural). Indifference is the worst thing. That is, to be subject to the laws of nature with no ability to rise above them is death itself. Reward and punishment in this world applies only to one collective, the people of Israel (not just any community, etc.). And there are many things in matters of reward and punishment that take precedence by far over Sabbath observance (as in medicine, where treatments in the same person are prioritized according to what is more critical, according to his medical condition. For example, if he has no pulse and is bald, resuscitation comes before treating his baldness).
So there is one sin (really the neglect of a positive commandment) that takes precedence over all commandments between man and God (though all commandments are between man and God), and that is baseless hatred (the neglect of the commandment “love your fellow as yourself”). Of course there are sins such as murder, theft, etc. that take precedence over baseless hatred, but in the Torah it can also lead to those. As for evidence (that which relates to my personal experience) and the other things you raised—
I will continue answering you tomorrow, God willing.
It is somewhat difficult to criticize an article that contains, on almost every issue, both a thing and its opposite. For example, your attitude toward budgets for Arabs, where you claim both a thing and its opposite almost in the same line—a contradiction that you yourself noticed, and yet somehow managed (?) to produce some strained excuse for that contradiction then and there.
You are apparently in a period where, from your point of view, what matters to you at this time is to play the role of the responsible adult (according to what seems to you to express that role).
I think your difficulty in criticizing the things stems from your severe limitations in reading comprehension. Is this a lack of intelligence or typical Bibist tendentiousness? I do not know.
Ofir comment test
Although a staged abyss yawns between us, between our beliefs, I am nevertheless obliged to admit that reading your articles is always a pure pleasure for my mind, and at times for my heart.
You lost me here
“I did not mention the inciting and corrupt prime minister we got again.”
Irrelevance and use of the language of the anti-Bibi camp
Sorry
Again, thank you for wonderful words. More power to you.
I’m only quoting:
“It is worth recalling what has become clear in recent days: that this government is acting to keep the cellular infrastructure from the older generations (for the sake of the ‘kosher’ phones), in a way that will not allow the state to advance to generation 4–5, which is needed for the fast and advanced devices, something that will severely harm us and also the GDP.”
You are invited to read that the minister actually approved the shutdown….
Here are two nice examples of the discrimination paradox:
https://g.kipa.co.il/1150213/w/
Sharki shared: “Friends, we are going crazy. A close friend of mine, an educated and curious guy, a true man of books, and yes, also with a beard and a kippah, is now reporting from Tel Aviv.” Sharki added a screenshot his friend sent him, in which he said, I just entered this store, the man simply threw me out of the store. “There are no religious books here.” I tried to tell him I didn’t come for religious books. “It’s a kind of statement.” When I left he gave me the finger.” Sharki responded: “I am shocked.”
Storm online: “I got rid of a right-wing hardal customer because I couldn’t stand her views”
A business owner recounted how she stopped giving service to a customer solely because she was, in her words, “a right-wing hardal.”
https://www.inn.co.il/news/590007/?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=1674564993397
It is also presumptuous to think that jurists who lack experience and professional expertise should determine what is reasonable and what is not in the fields of foreign affairs and security, economics and health, and the like. An effective oversight body should be divided into committees for each field, in which experts and experienced people would sit alongside elected representatives, and together they would have the tools to conduct a reasonable examination of the reasonableness of decisions made by the state authorities.
Regards, Yanai Elimelech Tzveiblinger-Dishonsky
You mean Barak, not Elon, I assume.
In line 1
… to think that jurists who are not…
It is hard to answer properly to such a long column and argue with every error and distortion (which it is full of).
And yet, one cannot simply leave it unanswered.
A “coalition of horrors” made up of “corrupt people, criminals, thieves,” etc. etc. etc.
And opposite them – “hysterics.” Meaning, good, wise, honest, devoted people, but, well, they got a bit too frightened.
Years ago I read chapters from Mein Kampf (the whole book is pages and pages of confused nonsense and not worth the effort), and also some translated articles from Der Stürmer. This column, well, reminds me of those same demagogic methods, the same sarcasm and desperate attempt to appear as an “honest critic” of a grave social phenomenon… the same argument of “there are stupid Germans, but the Jews – they are the corrupt and demonic ones.” (Well, one mustn’t generalize; as Adolf said: “There was one decent Jew who eventually killed himself,” meaning Otto Weininger.)
So the opposition’s problem is… “hysteria”? That’s all? Aside from that, were they the very symbol of integrity, decency, and efficiency? Do you really believe that? I won’t bother here to list like a peddler all the lies and deceit of Lapid and company in setting up the previous government (there was not one commitment of theirs that was not broken, and they did not refrain from using public funds—see Bennett’s house in Ra’anana), nor will I dwell on Lapid’s embarrassing ignorance (speaking of “benighted” and “ignorant,” Lapid and his friends—one of whom even compared him to the Creator of the universe—are of course the very symbol of enlightenment and phenomenal knowledge). But do you really believe in this deranged division of the Israeli public that came forth from your pen? (I almost wrote “poisoned,” but that wouldn’t be nice…). If so, then you yourself are a victim of brainwashing. The spectacle of nonsense you presented here damages first and foremost your own reputation. How can I trust someone who purports to make deep and difficult philosophical texts accessible to me, when in matters I actually can judge he displays the stupidity of an American or British intellectual from the early twentieth century?
And one more thing. I’m reminded of a conversation I had in the late 1980s with a man who claimed he was in the Shin Bet (to this day I don’t know if that was true). He “explained” to me the genius of Rabin’s decision to support Hamas financially (which at the time was a new and little-known organization). According to him, Rabin understood that it was preferable to fund religious fanatics “so that they sit in their yeshivot and kollels and stay out of politics.” All my attempts to explain to him that not all religious people and not all religions are cut from the same cloth, and that behavior characteristic of a Jewish religious fanatic does not necessarily characterize a Muslim religious fanatic – fell on deaf ears. (“You think you understand better than all the heads of the Shin Bet and the security establishment?”) Young people today who did not know Isaac do not believe me when I tell them about the generous sums Defense Minister Rabin transferred to Hamas on the basis of this bizarre and deranged “conception.”
And why did I remember this? Because I prefer the Arabs sunk in the mud of ignorance and illiteracy, uneducated peasants struggling to get by, and as little educated as possible. The experience of the last hundred-plus years has shown that the more educated they are, the bitterer and more dangerous enemies they become. A bit of history study (and a bit of scholarly literature on the connection between terrorism and education, etc.) would not hurt.