On the Duty to Demonstrate Tomorrow (Column 544)
Contrary to my usual practice, this time I have decided to address a concrete political event and even to recommend taking a specific stance. The situation requires it. Tomorrow a mass strike is planned across all sectors of the economy with large demonstrations in various locations, and it is very important that there be significant participation and presence of citizens—including citizens associated with the ostensibly pro-Bibi camp—because the situation is truly on the brink. I won’t go on at length here, but I will sketch the picture in broad strokes, and explain why in my view it is so important to go out and take part.
- All the problems in the legal sphere and in the realms of governance and security that the government points to are real. I think this is true down to the very last one. This is to be distinguished from its other actions (cash transfers and deranged religious legislation that rises and falls anew every day).
- But the solutions are outlandish. Each one, taken on its own, could be acceptable (sometimes in a less extreme formulation), but the package created is insane. Full government control over everything that happens, without the Knesset (which already today barely exists) and without effective checks by the court, could produce complete chaos here.
- I am entirely in favor of reform, even reform along the lines proposed by Yariv Levin. I also do not estimate that there is a significant danger to democracy even in the more radical formulations of the reform, and I do not think the disaster reaches the levels described in the media and by the opposition.
- But I am definitely worried about our democratic future (and it is wrong to assume it is self-evident; without getting into comparisons with Hungary and Poland, one must know that nothing is guaranteed. Even today we are not exactly a democracy at its best). Again, I am not entering the definitions of democracy, because that is not the point at all. Call it “Yekum Purkan,” for all I care. I mean a properly ordered state. We are not that, and things will only get worse if we do not go out and fight this. This, despite the fact that I do not think our democracy is about to collapse entirely.
- I also do not agree with the claims that the entire reform is intended to influence Bibi’s trial. That is nonsense in my eyes. In my estimation, nothing will happen in his trial even if the reform passes in full force. To date I have not heard a convincing scenario of how it could affect it, apart from conspiratorial and unconvincing fantasies. It is clear to me that Bibi is not really pushing the reform and does not really want it. In my view it will only harm him personally. Therefore, dragging anti-Bibi sentiment into the battle against this reform is mere demagoguery.
- There is, of course, the damage to our international standing, which currently rests on the existing esteem (rightly or wrongly) for our judicial system—its independence and non-dependence. People who have dealt and still deal with this say that the moment the status of our judiciary is harmed, international investigations and the prosecution of our politicians and soldiers around the world will greatly intensify. We will become a pariah state among the nations. And I know: even now there is a great deal of antisemitism, bias and unfairness, and even now there are people for whom we are pariahs; but at the level of states this is still not the case. One must understand that this is what is expected, and this too must be taken into account. These are not children’s games.
- The economic concerns are very significant in my eyes. Even if one thinks the flight of businesspeople and investors is unjustified and baseless, and even if it is political boycotts, this is the situation and it must be acknowledged. These are forces one should not ignore. The budgets for the Haredim also cannot be granted if there is no money in the coffers.
- But what worries me more than the concerns for democracy is the government’s conduct in other areas. Here are a few examples:
- The country is in security and governance chaos, yet the coalition deals only with judicial reform and changes to Basic Laws whose aim is to make the appointment of criminals “kosher.”
- The casual tinkering with Basic Laws for local conjunctural needs, particularly when those needs are “needs” in the usual sense (a chamber pot—see the previous item).
- The appointment of ministers and the division of authorities are completely deranged, deviating from everything customary until now (and even that was pretty dumb). The feeling is that now it is done brazenly, “from the diving board,” and the substantive considerations that once were at least somewhat in the background have now disappeared entirely.
- Ben-Gvir’s despairing and hysterical declaration of “Operation Defensive Shield 2” in Jerusalem, made on the sidewalk immediately after an attack, without examining matters with the professionals, without plans and without intelligence. The TikTok minister.
- Add to this the genius Miri Regev, who floats proposals every Monday and Thursday at the pace of her media interviews—and sometimes rescinds them immediately. You hear the intelligence of this dimwit and realize that children are playing with our fate and our money according to whims on the level of kindergarteners.
- Think of the blanket cancellation of all decisions of the previous government with no distinction between good and bad (see the tax on sugary drinks, which Deri announced he was considering keeping after declaring it a Nazi, antisemitic decision—until he was scolded and put in his place). Simply because “they” did it. Don’t tell me stories; there has never been anything like this. I am not naive—there has always been politics and irrelevant considerations. Now it is done brazenly, in your face.
- The passage of a hefty tome of an Arrangements Law (the omnibus budget law) that hides insane reforms inside it without anyone paying attention to them (for example, eliminating the participation of professionals and environmental experts on planning committees, and more). Again, such things have happened before, but to my judgment we have never reached the kind of rampant extremity we see today.
- Ignoring warnings from professionals across the board (and yes, I know there are also a few other opinions that don’t receive proper media coverage) in the security, economic, and legal arenas. Even if there are biases—and clearly there are—you cannot ignore such a broad consensus. It is irresponsible.
- Ignoring the economic dangers, which have already begun with the transfer of funds and businesses abroad, and are expected to intensify.
- And we have not yet spoken about the transfers of funds to parasitic Haredim, entrenching their backwardness and ignorance and their lack of contribution to GDP, and of course rolling back the little progress achieved until now. Everyone involved in the matter predicts a catastrophic economic future in light of Haredi demographics that sustain themselves at the expense of those who disagree with them and with whom they do not participate.
- It must be understood that this money is in the state treasury mainly thanks to the public protesting against government policy; it certainly did not come from the parasites who are going to exploit it for their needs. No wonder these taxpayers are angry. And no, this is not about whether money grants them special rights. It is about common sense. I, as a business owner and a big taxpayer, would have left here long ago. They are absolutely right. If the state and its treasury are seized by force against my will, it is no wonder I also act forcefully; and as the Gashash say: “We’ll see who gets there first.” It takes two to tango. It seems to me that a right-wing government (“to the max”) should understand and acknowledge the power of money, initiative, and entrepreneurs. But our “hard-right” government is behaving like a far-left government.
- Insane religious bills, such as imprisonment for someone dressed immodestly at the Western Wall or someone playing a musical instrument there. A takeover of religious institutions and running them according to the most conservative and benighted criteria, which will deepen alienation and the rift with world Jewry.
- All this is done with the full backing of rabbis (the “greats of the generation,” yeah right) and their representatives—that is, all (!) the religious parties in the Knesset. A heavy-handed coalition of the corrupt with the religious. This is a truly horrifying combination. Understand that in these crazy days, dark and primitive rabbis like Shmuel Eliyahu the idiot (see the previous column) are charting the path of Judaism and of the parties now leading the country. Yair Sherki wrote very well and expressed my feelings precisely: they hijacked our state and our Judaism.
Today, in Israel and across the world, Judaism (in its religious sense) is synonymous with corruption, heavy-handedness, racism, childishness, and primitivism. Is this not a terrible desecration of God’s name, beyond the outcomes themselves? Shouldn’t we be rending our garments over this and declaring fasts and days of mourning? In my opinion there has never been a colossal, worldwide desecration of God’s name like what is happening these days.
- These are only a few tiny examples (because I don’t really follow the details of what’s happening). The feeling is that this is the unbridled rampage of irresponsible children who decided to change the entire universe in two days, as if they were playing in their sandbox and not with the fate of us all.
- In light of these steps, of which I have brought only a small sample here—and all this in just one month—think what awaits us going forward. This connects to the earlier items above: if there is no balancing factor (because of the steps—mostly justified—that are intended to diminish the influence of the judiciary), and if such steps and even worse are expected, where are we headed?!!!
- Polls show that even Likud voters no longer stand behind these decisions. Sane right-wing journalists (there are such, as opposed to Irit Linor, Bardugo, Erel Segal and their doped-up friends), like Yair Sherki, Shlomo Piotrkowski, and Amit Segal—who definitely support this government and even the principles of its judicial reform—are coming out against it and against some of its actions (mainly in the religious sphere, and not only there).
In a poll by Mano Geva that I heard this morning, it was published that 62% of the public supports stopping or delaying the judicial reform. So the slogans about the will of the public and the people, and about accepting the election results, have gone into the trash. But it seems that this runaway train is stopped by nothing.
- All this is accompanied by a terrible desecration of God’s name. Demonstrating about Sabbath desecration or about granting rights to LGBTQ people by the government is a tasteless joke compared to what is happening here. I am prepared to publicly desecrate Shabbat by a Torah-level prohibition before the whole world, with witnesses and warning, and to enter the Western Wall in a swimsuit with a piano on Shabbat, in order to bring down this evil government. If that is not a “sin for the sake of Heaven” and a sanctification of God’s name, I don’t know what is.
- Until now I recoiled from participating in the protest because I disagreed with the various nuances that were dragged into it. I did not like the preoccupation with questions of the occupation and other leftist vegetables (Palestinian flags) in these demonstrations. I also do not like the fact that the leadership and spokespeople there are mainly people of the left, and I did not like the tendentious and hysterical presentation of the problems and fears—talk of the collapse of democracy and the loss of freedom (academic, press, civil rights) in an “Apocalypse Now” style. As noted, I do not agree that this is the situation, but even without the collapse of democracy the situation is horrific. Unfortunately, until now I have not found demonstrations with which my heart was fully at peace, and so I stayed home.
- But no more. My feeling is that staying home because of such reservations is like the reprehensible conduct of the Haredim, who opposed the establishment of the state and Zionist activity, tried to torpedo it in various ways, and certainly did not assist it; and when they saw that it was succeeding against all odds, they joined—mainly to milk the cow that was created here. They, of course, did not forget to point with great criticism at the secular character of the state and its problematic conduct (for this reason they do not say Hallel), while ignoring their vast and singular contribution to this very situation. As surprising and disappointing as it is, when you leave the arena to the secularists, it becomes secular.
This is exactly how I feel about the leftist character of the demonstrations these days. I ignore them because the leftist nuances don’t suit me, but that very indifference is, among other things, what creates them. When you leave the arena to the left, it becomes left. Whoever does this cannot later complain about the work of his own hands.
- In my eyes, all these reservations are nuances. The situation requires giving up on fine distinctions and excessive purism. Now we must go out and voice protest loudly—some against the occupation, some against the rampage, and some out of fear of the collapse of democracy. In the final analysis, all these are characteristics of this government, each according to his concerns. If we do not come out now, forcefully, against this insane government, beyond the severe damage that awaits us, things could indeed reach the use of actual force—and voices to that effect have already been heard (which I fully support).
One must understand that a clash with the High Court is now almost the most plausible scenario, and when that happens there is no way out without the use of force. Consider a situation in which the government passes the “corruption law” (barring the High Court from intervening in the appointment of a minister—Deri 2) now on the table, and the High Court then strikes it down, as of course it should. Note that this is the striking down of a Basic Law—problematic in itself, but necessary at this time. The government has already declared that in its eyes this is tantamount to a military coup. Very well—so it happens anyway. Now consider what a policeman or a soldier (and also a citizen) will do when he receives an order from such a minister or prime minister. Should he obey it? Or should he go to prison? There will be soldiers and policemen who obey the High Court, and those who obey the government. I will add: in my view the High Court must strike down this law even if it finds no legal justification for doing so, despite the fears about the situation that will arise—and perhaps precisely because of them. Yes, yes: this is the use of force to lead and to save sanity. In a situation of lost sanity it is permitted and proper to consider illegal actions. Absolutely.
- Beyond the horrors themselves, the terrible desecration of God’s name caused here, the absolute loss of direction of all rabbinic and political leadership—religious and Haredi (!)—who all now appear, with complete justification, as a gang of corrupt desecrators of God’s name—this has never happened here. The black rabbinic frock has become a symbol of corruption, primitive falsehood, and heavy-handedness—and the worst part is that this is entirely justified. This is no longer mere antisemitism. Who could fail to understand and justify the prevailing sense now that Judaism means primitive darkness, corruption and lies, force, parasitism, and childish derangement? This is a religious and spiritual crisis, and whoever sees it and does not come out against it is collaborating with it. If there is judgment and a Judge (if not in this world then perhaps in the world to come), I have no doubt that all these are destined to give an account. They will sit in a nice place in Hell (if there is such a thing) together with all their great ones and rabbis, who will set up a yeshiva on their graves and on our graves. Best of luck to them—and to us.
Go out and demonstrate, friends. Raise your voice and bring the ark out into the public square (this is not about stopping rain, or the contempt for God’s name that incurs excommunication, but about things far harsher and more serious. This is truly a case of spiritual crusades). We must not remain indifferent to all these horrors. We are in a situation in which the leaders and rabbis who, for some reason, are considered the “greats of the generation”—through no fault of their own—have almost all gone rotten, and salvation must sprout from below, as per (Sotah 49b):
“The wisdom of the scribes will go rancid, and those who fear sin will be despised, and the truth will be absent.”
And it will not be pleasant to the listener!!!
Discussion
I agree with every word, but I really recommend removing the derogatory labels attached to the people mentioned in the article.
Does a rabbi speak like this? In street language:
Bibists, parasites
Quite apart from the many contradictions in the text itself
Shameful
"With full government control over everything that happens, without a Knesset (which already today doesn't exist) and without effective judicial oversight, complete chaos could arise here."
It amazes me that an intelligent person, who has seen what happened in Israel over the last two years, can seriously claim that 'the Knesset does not exist.'
It is the government that does not exist. It is absolutely dependent on the Knesset. If the Knesset wants, the government is dissolved; if it wants, it exists. If the Knesset wants to replace one person in the government, or all of it – it can do that too with no problem at all.
The ability to write this absurd sentence comes solely from the aggressive brainwashing of Levin's opponents.
We all saw the junior MK Idit Silman fire Prime Minister Naftali Bennett along with all the members of his government.
This remark is very wrong, very bizarre, and stains the entire column.
And as for the column itself: damage, damage, damage.
This column may be right (it isn't), but it is definitely not wise.
No sane person will read this cesspit and be persuaded. On the contrary. Even a religious person who was on the way to the protest will see the pathetic reasoning alongside the sick terminology and back away inward. Words of the wise are heard when spoken gently, and these things are certainly not heard gently, and they are certainly not wise (even if they were written by a wise man).
Insane. I can't believe I've reached the point where, between Miri Regev and Rabbi Michael Abraham, I would prefer the former.
Every word of the rabbi's!! More power to you!!! I've already been in Tel Aviv for several weeks against this government of malice, incitement, and destruction.
I am proud to be your student.
More power to you.
1. It might create the impression that one must support this government through thick and thin, or demonstrate, but that is not so. Much of what you wrote is indeed correct, and as a Likud voter I am very far from proud of some of what is happening. And nevertheless, the suffering is worth the king's damage. Of the feasible projects, the judicial reform is the most important thing on the table today. More than the cost of living, more than education, more than a revolution in the police. In such a case, you hold your nose and run to get it done before the window closes.
2. The reform looks extreme because this is an opening position. Yariv Levin is a sane person, and the final version will look accordingly.
3. The statements about businesspeople leaving are utter nonsense, and it's unclear why anyone buys them. First, there are investments in countless countries that are as far from democracy as Alaska is from Australia. Second, if there is such a danger, it is only if the changes are marketed (falsely) as harming business stability and democracy. The opposite is true. And third, one does not cement a defective system of government because of tycoons' threats.
4. As for an international diplomatic response, that is a serious claim worthy of examination, but all these statements come from people who oppose the reform in any case. When it comes from impartial experts, it can be considered.
5. Nobody called the ruling against Deri a "coup." The High Court's ruling on that matter was completely justified. They called it a coup when there was the bizarre attempt to declare Netanyahu incapacitated.
It's really worth your checking how you got there. Definitely.
This nonsense has already come up in the talkbacks on previous columns. I won't repeat that discussion here.
1. We disagree greatly, since the reform itself is also problematic.
2. I wrote before that I too think it will be toned down in the legislative process. And still.
3. You're arguing about facts. I explicitly wrote that the departure is indeed related to position, political motives, and messaging, and still, ignoring the result is problematic.
4. This is really wonderful. Anyone who opposes it is by definition biased, and you are waiting for an unbiased opinion that will oppose it. Splendid. A logical structure completely immune to refutation.
5. Netanyahu's incapacity is bizarre in about the same way that 2+3=5 is bizarre. What is bizarre is that they didn't disqualify his candidacy from the outset.
This 'nonsense' is an unequivocal fact.
You won't return to this discussion because there is no answer to it.
Every mature person understands logically, and explicitly saw, how the Knesset dissolves the government.
The change didn't happen in me or in Miri Regev.
The gap between the content of this site two years ago and its content today – unbelievable.
No wonder that when this is the alternative being offered – Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu's popularity is soaring.
Everything I wrote is a plain description of the situation. So there is neither gutter language here, nor slander, nor abuse. When one says of an idiot that he is an idiot, or of a corrupt person that he is corrupt, and likewise a parasite or a primitive, that is not gutter language. It could be considered gutter language if it appeared as slander or a superlative (actually an underlative).
I did not notice any derogatory name in my words. See my response to the next talkback.
In a democratic state – who is supposed to have the authority to declare a prime minister incapacitated?
In your deranged coordinate system, I have indeed gone crazy. And that's a good thing. As is known, a straight line looks crooked in a crooked coordinate system (which is why there one speaks of a geodesic line, not a straight one).
The court, of course.
A few points for thought –
A. The Knesset is meaningless because all cabinet ministers hold an MK membership card in their pocket and can vote (or toss out the Norwegian replacement and then vote).
B. Israel's output is different from Arab countries (oil) or China (cheap labor), and is based on an educated, advanced public.
As we have seen, the educated and advanced public in the despised high-tech sector feels that the governmental coup is a step beyond dictatorship.
There are 300,000 high-tech people who, if they pack up and go seek their fortune abroad, Israel will become a third-world country that looks up at Turkey's GDP from below.
Well, well
Regarding the economic damages: it seems very funny to me that when there is an almost absolute consensus among economists in Israel and around the world (including Nobel Prize winners) that the reform that cripples the judicial system harms the economy, people with no economic understanding immediately declare with certainty that it's complete nonsense.
The ridiculous examples about countries like Singapore, etc., prove nothing.
Prof. Omer Moav (a serious economist, and a man of the economic right) wrote that:
"The empirical research on economic institutions shows that severe harm to the system of checks and balances, excessive power to the government, and certainly harm to democracy, damage economic growth."
And he also addresses the claims about Singapore, etc. It's a shame to belittle the intelligence of every single professional in economics, including Nobel Prize winners and economists around the world
No slander?
1. In your words, "Bibists" is a label for a person who does not think for himself but follows Netanyahu blindly; do not demean any person.
2. Haredi parasites – what percentage of Haredim work (men and women)? Do you also refer to Arabs as parasites? Is a secular person who goes to study history and government, or work in professions with no livelihood, also a parasite? Would you dare call them parasites?
Instead of adding light, you add darkness.
Of this it was said: "The wisdom of scribes shall stink."
These concepts can be put out of bounds.
Regarding point A – remind me who exactly dissolved the Bennett-Lapid government?
From where does the court derive its authority? Who appoints it in a democratic state?
"Crazy religious legislative proposals, like imprisonment for someone dressed immodestly at the Western Wall or someone who plays musical instruments there. Taking over the religious institutions and running them according to the most conservative and benighted criteria, which will deepen the alienation and disconnect from world Jewry."
More than anyone, you know that these proposals are meaningless, and are intended only to reap political gains, not to be implemented. Therefore your argument on this issue is not legitimate.
Tremendous more power to you, Rabbi Michi! Because of your words I decided to take part in the demonstrations.
In short, all Bibi needs to do is swap the names "Chief Rabbinate Council" and "High Court," and then he can do whatever he wants.
The truth is – there isn't much difference between the institutions. Both are anti-democratic and tainted with nepotism to the roots of their souls.
I don't understand what you are getting tangled up in. There is a law that deals with declaring a prime minister incapacitated. It is not unequivocally clear from the law (because it depends on interpretation) whether a situation in which a prime minister inherently violates the court's ruling on conflict of interest falls under it. The court has the authority *by law* to interpret the law.
You are rude and a complete idiot
Unlike you, what was laid out here was a learned and multifaceted opinion, whereas you are the one who cobbled together a pile of unreasoned nonsense saturated with slogans and clichés
Take off your shoes
It seems to me that what the rabbi wrote is a huge desecration of God's name. Like a cow that kicked at a fly in the bucket of milk.
A shame…
After reading what you wrote, and especially how you wrote about Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu and also here, I am amazed that there is not a single sensible person in your surroundings, a person with a little compassion and composure, who can take away your site's password for a cooling-off and calming-down period, which you undoubtedly need very badly. Even the best need to get themselves back in line from time to time, and there is no reason to fear or be ashamed of that.
Two comments, or really questions
1. Should desecration of God's name be a consideration? Judaism is portrayed as dark, primitive, corrupt, and racist many times by many statements that get published and things that are written. When news was published abroad about the book Torat HaMelekh written by famous rabbis, I am sure assimilated and/or secularized Jews and non-Jews who read the book's introduction in the press already thought back then that in Israel there is a tribe of underdeveloped chimpanzees. I am also pretty sure they thought so when news was published abroad that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory, stated that non-Jews were created only to serve Jews. Or when Yaron Yadan published videos in English about the status of women, secular people, and gentiles in halakhah. Or generally when apostates or formerly secularized people used to publish books about this in the past. In any case, if I were a second-generation assimilated or secularized Jew, or a Westerner, I would long ago have looked at Israeli Jews as mindless apes. This government would neither add nor subtract from that. At most it would only confirm it for me.
2. Following on the previous section with a similar principle: the people are the ones who decided that they want corrupt people in government, people who can legislate religious coercion, people who can make changes that will increase budgets for Haredim and decrease their own budgets. And still, most of the people chose this government, including me. Among other things because there were no other alternatives, and it seems there still are none. If so, what good will the demonstration do? Maybe those who so badly want to lead change should start thinking about how they advance their liberal-democratic/humanist values in their own camp, and find a broad alliance with other camps including the liberal secular right and modern Orthodox, instead of demonstrating and shouting and hoping that something will change in the country that way?
"Add to that the genius Miri Regev, who raises proposals every other day at the pace of media interviews, and sometimes cancels them immediately. You can hear the intelligence of this idiot."
This idiot? Your jumble of words is a disgrace and an abomination and a desecration of God's name. Repent, take upon yourself a fast from writing, and then go back to writing.
In case you really don't understand:
The root of the discussion is whether the current authority of the High Court is legitimate.
The claim is that the High Court took powers that were not its own, and therefore those powers must be taken back. If we allow the High Court to retain the powers it stole from the public – then the public can never free itself from the prison of the High Court. Any elected official who tries to strengthen the public at the expense of the High Court will be struck down by the High Court. Understood?
It saddens me that in history the people did not see the Temple gates opening by themselves forty years before the destruction, symbolizing the destruction that was approaching, and interpreted it as a good sign.
It saddens me today that part of the people do not understand the destruction that Bibi and his gang and those attached to him are bringing upon the people dwelling in Zion, and still think things will be better.
It is some small consolation that our rabbi is beginning to understand the coming destruction to which Bibi is leading us (even though in the past the rabbi was unwilling to hear in that direction).
At least our rabbi has become a penitent and decided to look reality in the eye, and if destruction is approaching, to admit that this is the situation.
I do not know you. But in the future I will know to be careful when nonsense from your mouth is quoted.
As for the matter itself: Barak's judicial revolution has meant that for 30 years we have been stuck in place on the verge of decay. Even if along the way there are bizarre legislative proposals, that is part of a maturation process we must go through. Otherwise we will remain stuck forever.
And yet, Rabbi, are we able to distinguish ourselves from demonstrations with LGBT flags and cries of the end of democracy? It feels unjust to me to participate in a demonstration whose organizers cry out for such things.
You too are multiplying bloodshed in Israel. A demonstration tomorrow will encourage the court in its disgraceful attempt to depose Prime Minister Netanyahu by declaring him incapacitated. That will certainly lead to an attempt to depose the Supreme Court justices and bring bloodshed here in the Land of Israel. Instead of calming the situation, you are exacerbating it. What is required, and all influence should be brought to bear on the president for this, is granting a pardon to Netanyahu and Deri that will change their incentive structure and lead them to calm the reform and achieve it through national consensus.
Long live the new Leibowitz!
Itai, the government also needs officials… and talented, professional officials. Not just yes-men. That is the essence of the matter. That is the danger. That there will no longer be any professionalism. Only power and the personal interests of a ruler.
Regarding 4, I didn't claim that everyone who opposes it is biased. I said I'm waiting for an expert who is in principle in favor of the reform, but thinks it should be stopped because the diplomatic damage will be too heavy. Someone who in any case opposes the reform for ideological reasons – I find it hard to rely on his assessment of the diplomatic situation. I understand nothing about foreign policy, so I have no ability to assess that issue myself.
But as for me, I am full of power, by the spirit of the Lord, and of justice, and of might–to declare unto Jacob his transgression, and to Israel his sin. {S} Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and rulers of the house of Israel, that abhor justice, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money; yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say: 'Is not the Lord in the midst of us? No evil shall come upon us.' Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest.
We're all trembling…
You expect that from him? Truth is the farthest thing from him.
He'll always say: 'He understands, but in the end he's left. Extreme left. With the Arabs. He's in favor of… but…' … as was said, any lie that does not begin with truth is not heard.
And it won't help. The reform is tied to Levin, to the Haredim, and to Religious Zionism. No pardon will affect that, thank God.
Honorable rabbi, with all due respect, it seems that your arguments are reasons to go out and protest against the government, not against the judicial reform. In my opinion, none of the reasons you gave raised any substantive argument on this issue.
If this is about the right to demonstrate against moves the government makes contrary to public opinion, on any issue one disagrees with, whether justified or not, then I'm with you. It is a right, but that says nothing at all about the content of the protest or whether every clause you mentioned is sufficient grounds for it. There is a discussion to be had on each of those clauses, and it is not taking place; moreover, those who attend the protest are not outraged over that. This is a collection of anxious people who are attacked daily by the agents of a frustrated opposition.
Briefly, on most of the issues that the rabbi supposedly uses to justify the protest, there has been no discussion and no weight is placed on them. On the face of it, you ought to encourage the protesters to demonstrate outside the homes of opposition politicians who are not raising these issues and are not expressing a position on them, apart from Twitter clucking.
As for what is being discussed, there is no reason to go out, because it is a justified reform even according to the rabbi.
In short, and with all due respect, you are simply barking up the wrong tree.
Sure. Why not. A truly reliable poll. Right-wing voters opposing a reform that would allow their representatives to do what they elected them to do. Very reliable. From now on there really is no reason to believe these pollsters.
Rabbi Michi has definitively joined the forces of falsehood. In seductive, deceptive language he tries to entice right-wing people to listen to leftists under a guise of objectivity. A real serpent's tongue (for those who know, from Lord of the Rings).
The economic damage may be real, except that it is created by the protesters themselves who go "tell on us" abroad. In any case, the independence of the Jewish people is what's at stake. That overrides any economic harm of this sort.
See here who the leftists are, Rabbi Michi's friends. See whom he is calling on you to join.
No. Just not that. Don't do this to us. How will we go on living without you?
All these experts (in economics) are a bluff. They have no expertise whatsoever. They create the reality they purport to describe. Like stock pumping, which creates value for valueless things by creating demand based on fantasies. Empty people. And anyone impressed by them testifies to his own emptiness as well.
None of these fears justify this unbearable dictatorship. What is at stake is the independence of the right and of the Jewish people in general. By your logic, it would have been better not to establish the state at all.
Legal experts are an even bigger joke. But they are not what was being discussed here.
What are these differences you're talking about? How lacking in self-awareness can you be?
Because only the left is allowed to do whatever it wants: kill Jews (the Altalena, the Saison), hand over parts of the land at the price of war and the killing of settlers (Oslo and Rabin; documents were revealed showing that Rabin was willing to pay with the blood of settlers), expel Jews who have no right to vote (Gush Katif).
Arrest demonstrators who block roads on charges of sedition, etc. etc.
I agree with every word of the rabbi except for one point:
I think there are things in Levin's reform that are problematic in themselves, regardless of the broader context. For example, a Judicial Selection Committee controlled exclusively by the coalition is not proper in any way, even if that were the only change.
That is also not proper comparatively. People like to cite the United States as an example, but there is no connection at all between Levin's insane committee and the American version:
First, in the U.S. there are separate elections for the executive and the legislative branches. In that model, where the president is elected directly by the people, the American Constitution splits the authority to appoint judges between the president (the executive branch) and the Senate (the upper house of the legislature).
The president has authority *to propose* judges for appointment, but the entire Senate, by a majority of its members, must *approve* the appointment. In Israel, the executive branch is not directly elected by the people, so the basic separation of powers that underlies the American method of selecting judges does not exist here.
Second, their proposal for selecting judges does not transfer the authority to the Knesset in its full composition, but distorts the balance of power on the committee in a way that gives the coalition a much larger majority than its real share in the legislature. The American model is built on giving equal weight to the two branches, legislative and executive, in full accordance with election results in judicial appointments.
The government is supposed to govern the officials, not the other way around. The role of officials is to advise and carry out the policy of the voters. If they oppose the policy, let them resign. It's like a refrigerator technician whom I ask to fix my refrigerator, and he decides on his own that I need to throw it out. And by force. And he won't let me hire another technician. And then he'll drag it to court, etc.….
And as if these people have no lust for power or interests…. They are simply pure….
How stupid can you be?
Really? Such feeblemindedness. It's simply unbelievable.
Is your goal in demonstrating to bring down the government or something else?
Do you think such demonstrations will lead to the government's downfall?
And if so, do you believe the opposition will get a majority in the next elections?
How does the difference materially change the claim that judges should be elected by the people? What difference does it make that there they elect a president and Congress and Senate separately? It's just one more complication.
You are simply a pseudo-intellectual.
All these experts (in economics) are a bluff. They have no expertise whatsoever. They create the reality they purport to describe. Like stock pumping, which creates value for valueless things by creating demand based on fantasies. Empty people. And anyone impressed by them testifies to his own emptiness as well.
None of these fears justify this unbearable dictatorship. What is at stake is the independence of the right and of the Jewish people in general. By your logic, it would have been better not to establish the state at all.
Legal experts are an even bigger joke. But they are not what was being discussed here.
I hope you have at least a minimal level of reading comprehension to read what I wrote and understand it. Quite apart from the fact that there are countries whose format resembles the Israeli one, and in general there is no country whose format resembles Levin's. People like to cite the Americans, and that is of course nonsense. It may be beyond you, but I highly recommend trying to understand the differences.
Who is supposed to have the authority to declare the High Court incapacitated?
I would say the people. But apparently they are appointed by the Holy One, blessed be He.
Don't you understand that this is a bluff? Who cares about the system in the U.S.? What matters in the end is that the court there is chosen by the people, because that is justice. Who cares about the level of balance? Justice requires that a court which strikes down laws be chosen by the people. Who are they anyway? Moses our teacher?
There cannot be balance between a branch that is elected and a branch that chooses itself. There is really no point comparing to the U.S.; this is simple justice, period.
You are simply feebleminded.
Consciousness engineering on steroids. Implementing the will of the voter is called a governmental coup. The Knesset and the government are one branch elected by the people, and here in fact by the absolute majority of the Jewish people, for whom the state was established and to whom it belongs. And they really care for us primitives. So what's the point of holding elections, then? They want to appoint a council of high-tech sages to run the country, and that's it. He who has the money has the say. Too bad they didn't say that before the elections.
And if that's what they think, then they are a bunch of fools. Dictatorship is called democracy. Tomorrow they will call slavery freedom, etc. In that case, the Haredim and the religious will replace those high-tech people as well.
They won't find their fortune abroad. In such numbers they will face antisemitism there in the style of 1930s Germany. And that is already happening in the U.S., especially in academia.
It is astonishing how the rabbi managed to take so many varied and diverse claims against the current government and accept all of them, including implausible ones (gloomy economic forecasts from "wall to wall"?!), while admitting, as required, that "I am not versed in the details." Well then, one ought to be versed in the details.
The very heart of the discussion is, as the rabbi himself notes, the following point: "The overall picture that has arisen is insane. Full government control over everything that happens, without a Knesset (which already today doesn't exist) and without effective judicial oversight, complete chaos could arise here." Of course, if one thinks this, then it is logical to argue that there will be severe economic consequences, etc. But that is precisely the whole discussion – and one must first answer the fundamental question: who is sovereign in the State of Israel? In practical terms: who has the final decision-making authority – the court or the Knesset?
To many people's surprise, once all the background noise is cleared away, it turns out that the answer of very many people is – the court. To a body that was not selected in any sensible way, whose members in worldview represent Meretz and everything to its left, and which took for itself unprecedented powers (the ability to intervene in any case [standing], the reasonableness of the enlightened person, hollowing out explicit laws, inventing for itself the right to strike down laws under the pretext of Basic Laws and now also the possible authority to strike down Basic Laws, intervention at every step of the elected Knesset and government) – to this body they give the rule.
And that rule has a clear agenda, and in practice it neuters elected officials, does not let them act, throws obstacles into every possible wheel, and effectively makes decisions on a host of core issues – immigration, security, citizenship, religion and state, and more.
Yariv Levin has been crying out about this for twenty years. Simcha Rothman too, for more than a decade. I too have been troubled by it for years. So there are people who are fine with a dictatorial rule of an enlightened aristocracy. Not me. Thank God – not the coalition today either, which represents, whether one likes it or not, the majority of the people.
I prefer a government that controls everything to a court that controls everything. I prefer a government and Knesset that one can elect, can replace with another government, that is accountable to the public, rather than a group living in an ivory tower, making decisions in the dark and not needing to spit in the public's direction.
Before Aharon Barak's revolution, were we in more insane chaos than we are now?! Can a holy mouth utter such a thing?!
With God's help
Itai, the rabbi said wonderful words of wisdom.
Rabbi, you spoke the truth
Elad, the rabbi spoke words of wisdom
Elad, Miri Regev is indeed low-grade, a disgrace to the Knesset of Israel
Nadav, the column convinced me. The rabbi spoke wise words; how are you blind to reality?
It's not advisable to demonstrate; it will create deep heartache for you. The reform will pass, and it will finish you off for many years. There is no one wiser than the experienced. I was in Kfar Maimon, Ofakim, and elsewhere; nothing helped us then. You can protest, mourn, and hope you will win next time in the elections. Yes, yes, we too then thought that if there were bloodshed – say, if a soldier shot a demonstrator daring to leave the borders of Kfar Maimon – that would stop the disengagement. I learned then on my own flesh the power of government. It's a shame, really just needless heartache.
In my opinion, the main point of those who disagree with the experts is not that harm to democracy would not harm the economy, but that the reform would strengthen democracy, so the views of the economics experts (at least those who say things of the kind you quoted) are indeed irrelevant to the discussion.
In my opinion, the claim of the reform's supporters is not that harming democracy would not harm the economy, but that the reform would strengthen democracy, so the claim of the economics experts you brought is meaningless with regard to their argument.
One may of course discuss whether the reform would strengthen democracy or harm it, but that is another discussion, unrelated to what the economics experts say.
Nechama, the rabbi is saying excellent sensible things, and it is not right to disparage him.
Blessed are you, Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev, that such disciples have arisen for you.
Dear Yossi. This reminds me of the rebuke I got from the rabbi of the Haredi community in Yeruham when I spoke out against their corrupt coalition with the head of the local council (who was later removed). He told me that I was speaking lashon hara and committing a desecration of God's name by criticizing them. I told him I disagreed. In my view, the desecration of God's name is doing those acts, not the one who condemns them. The desecration of God's name is rejoicing over Turkish babies being buried alive and over the suffering of thousands of people whose world was literally destroyed upon them. And if that remains without condemnation, or only with a substantive debate, that only intensifies the desecration of God's name involved. I did not kick the bucket of milk but the two-legged cow that produced it.
Indeed
You need to distinguish between people who do not like what the Torah says and people who do not like the approach of those who represent the Torah. If in someone's eyes a certain law is unappealing, that is certainly not a reason not to observe it. But if people view rabbis as representing corruption, bullying, racism, and lies, that is a desecration of God's name.
Indeed, many of my remarks are also directed at those who voted for this gang.
Those are not its organizers but some of its participants (and probably not even the majority). As I wrote, your absence (and mine) is what makes the demonstrations into that. By the way, the holy coalition of the Haredim and the Hardalim let a gay MK into the Knesset. I have no objection to that, but certainly demonstrating against them while there are people next to me with an LGBT flag does not impress me much in the current situation. Moreover, LGBT flags fundamentally seek to express a demand for rights for those people, not halakhic legitimacy, and I am entirely in favor of that.
I discussed the reform in a previous column, so I did not get into it here. I definitely think one should demonstrate against it as well, at least as they want to enact it. But this is a demonstration against the entire mode of conduct of this horror of a government.
Emmanuel, facts have never impressed you. Good for you. Today more polls were published saying this even more sharply. But everyone (except you and Bibi) is a liar, as is known. It's hard to discuss things with drugged people.
Here דווקא I do not agree. I do agree that it is not right for the government to control the committee, but I am definitely in favor of greater influence. But that is not the issue here.
I read what you wrote and don't understand how, from your collection of arguments, the conclusion is specifically to go out and demonstrate tomorrow. The demonstration tomorrow is about the reform; from your arguments it emerges that we should have already been demonstrating since yesterday and it would be proper to continue until these things pass.
I agree with most of the arguments, so it is a bit unfortunate to me that this is reduced to tomorrow's demonstration about the reform. We should demonstrate against the moral and almost childish deterioration of our public representatives, but the judicial reform is precisely critical, so it is a pity to dump all the other current maladies onto the one important thing this government can do (though it would be very advisable for it to do so more moderately). It doesn't seem to me that tomorrow's demonstration is proposing moderation, but rather an aggressive rejection of the proposal, as well as of everyone sitting in the current government and probably many of its voters.
To Uri – more power to you for the reasoned response. I was almost ashamed to hold these views in light of the commenters above here who expressed the same views in a way that would make any sane person ashamed.
And regarding the matter itself, a question that in my opinion everyone expressing an opinion on the reform should ask himself:
Assuming Miriam Naor were prime minister, and Netanyahu / Smotrich / Deri / Gafni (choose your favorite / most hated) were president of the Supreme Court, would your position on the reform still remain unchanged?
That is a good way to see whether your argument stems from a political consideration (I want to transfer the power to the hands of those who think like me), or from a principled one (I think one must not give elected officials such power / that rule should be returned to the people).
My goal is to stop its rampage. If I could bring it down, all the better. But the chances of that right now are quite slim. Still, longer-term processes are possible. By the way, in my view toppling the primitive, benighted conservative hegemony in the religious world is no less important a goal.
Of course. There is only one multidisciplinary expert in the universe: Emmanuel. Ah, actually two: Bibi as well.
Uri Yaakov,
The argument is not who is sovereign, but whether the sovereign needs checks, and what kind of checks. Beyond that, the sovereign is supposed to be the Knesset, but today there is full sovereignty of the government. A reminder: the court does not make decisions, it at most strikes down decisions, and even that very rarely. The government makes hundreds of decisions every day. So these despicable comparisons are just demagogic nonsense. And I wrote both here and in the previous column that I am in favor of reform and agree with all (!) the problems they raise. Just not with the solutions.
Rabbi Yehoshua, you are sowing fear in hearts. Quite apart from positions, I hope the despair will not be so deep. In my opinion there is a good chance of changing the reform (the question is not whether it will pass, but what will pass). I get the impression it is already different from what they originally wanted. The demonstrations will not affect it directly, but they will create processes (economic and legal) that can have an effect.
First, that is not correct. This is a demonstration against the government and its conduct. The reform is the cause that unites most of the public, but it is really not only that. And of course these are not two separate issues.
Beyond that, the reform is important, but not in its current outline and form, and therefore it is precisely important to demonstrate in order to balance it. The demonstrations will not cancel it; there is no such fear. But perhaps they will help moderate it.
Seeking, there is no need to be ashamed of any opinion, so long as it is reasonable and well argued. It seems to me that your question (the veil of ignorance) should also be directed at the government. Would they support the reform if the court were staffed with militant right-wing religious judges and the government were left-wing? Positions exist on all sides, and by the way here it is not entirely a failed test. The governmental structure definitely depends on the character of the system and the people in it. Therefore, when I see who the current government is, it greatly strengthens in me the position (which for me is also principled, and also behind the veil of ignorance) that the reform is going too far.
Michi
The intention in section 1 was probably, with great exaggeration, to say that for an outsider, radical statements are not a pleasant matter anyway. For if a person speaks in a radical and extreme way out of belief, and even if his intentions are good and do not stem from racism, such a statement will look terrible to someone who does not hold that same world of values. But for someone who is already within the believing position, or at least a sympathetic or non-rejecting position toward that faith, the harsh style will not necessarily create antagonism. And in the end I really do not see why the fact that Amichai Eliyahu, for example, is in the government while his father speaks the way he speaks (for example), or the fact that Deri is in the government while he behaves corruptly as he does, is different from and a greater desecration of Heaven than a rabbi in a Haredi Jewish community abroad who suddenly got into trouble because he was involved with minors while all the gentiles see and hear about it.
For in the modern age, everyone's deeds are exposed to everyone, and everyone's opinions are exposed to everyone. If a rabbi or senior Torah figure behaves forcefully or represents racism, and many are perceived that way, millions of people are already watching it and aware of it now, whether they are in government or not.
Regarding section 2: indeed, the people may make mistakes, and not every choice is wise. Therefore the big question that should be asked is whether those who desire change should demonstrate against the government and the institutions, or whether more credit should go to seeing how one speaks to the ordinary person or citizen and tries to change the situation through contact with the public, since in the end it is the public that gives the mandate and determines things, and the Knesset members and government are only representatives, nothing more. That is: wouldn't it be preferable, instead of going out to demonstrate, to understand why the public alternative today is Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and Shas, and not moderate religious representation, for example? Why is the traditional public automatically drawn to these directions and not even willing to hear, assuming it is even aware of its existence at all, of a modern religious outlook? Or leave modern aside – a more tolerant religious outlook toward others at the very least. Why does even the most secular public prefer what is perceived as religious coercion and not a center-right government in partnership with Lapid and Gantz? Has there not been educational neglect / neglect in imparting knowledge about the value of tolerance, the importance of a complex and non-fundamentalist conceptual world, presenting alternatives, and the like?
The claim is not directed at you, because you are not among the organizers or initiators of the protests, but it is a question for the public that initiates and carries them out. It seems to me rather puzzling and unreasonable to think that by means of a demonstration one could change the character of entire populations in the country.
Thank you, Rabbi, for the response.
Here there is seemingly a factual disagreement. Unfortunately, the sentence "A reminder: the court does not make decisions, it at most strikes down decisions, and even that very rarely" is very mistaken, in my understanding. The court has indeed struck down only a small number of *laws*, but it has struck down many more decisions, hollowed out many laws, and even more laws, regulations, and decisions were struck down or changed by legal advisers; and many, many more were rejected in advance or neutered in advance because of fear of the High Court. The court determines, as stated, Israel's immigration policy, the arrangement regarding enlistment of yeshiva students, the boundaries and rules in the war on terror, allocation of land, religion-state relations, allocation of funds in culture, and much more. And in the end, in every matter they have the last word; even laws that require tremendous effort by the Knesset can be waved away in an instant.
In any case, what I wrote is more or less what the leaders of the reform have been saying for more than a decade. Therefore it is, in their eyes, urgently necessary, and without it there is no value to all their attempts to fix things in one field or another. In their view (with which I agree) – in the end every bill, every decision, is only a springboard before the truly decisive instance, which is the Supreme Court. And that is what they are coming to change. And all credit to them.
Regarding the relationship between the government and the Knesset – I admit this is a problem I haven't thought about enough, and it truly bothers me less. In my view the Knesset is sovereign, and if it decides to establish a government then that is what there is. In this case the reform was indeed presented by the justice minister, but it is supported by a clear majority of Knesset members, who are the representatives of the people. They have effective tools to advance their view, and as we saw in the previous Knesset – when there is a government without a majority in the Knesset, or a fractured Knesset, it does not work.
Wishing you a good night, and taking the opportunity to thank you for the long hours of challenging, enjoyable, and meaningful reading of your books and writings over the last decade, with which I have had the privilege to become acquainted.
A community rabbi abroad or in Israel who harasses minors commits a desecration of God's name, but the deeds of the current gang are in newspaper headlines all over the world. Moreover, they are led by rabbis considered important, much more than some community rabbi or other.
In the end, the goal of the demonstration is to change the government's conduct, not the public. As I wrote, and more data were published today, a clear majority of the public opposes the government's conduct, including those who voted for it. Here, specifically, the target of the action is the government and not the public. And I write this as someone who usually writes to the public and not to its rulers, because I too believe more in bottom-up processes.
Thanks for the encouragement!
As the rabbi also replies, indeed if the situation were reversed there would be fewer supporters of the reform. I, in any case, prefer that the people rule even if it is not always to my liking, rather than a group of non-democratic aristocrats. Democracy is probably not perfect, but it is far preferable to dictatorship.
[For example: I think the expulsion from Gush Katif was a crime and a horror and immoral etc., but I do not think the court should have annulled it. It had no authority to do so or even to discuss it.]
I think that if you try to think about it again you will see that there is no room for disagreement. The decisions that were canceled are a negligible minority compared to the government's decisions. Letting the government decide without limitation is far more dangerous than giving the court more power than it ought to have. That is because of the differences in their roles.
By the way, the legal advisers indeed delay quite a few decisions, and sometimes unjustly (and by the way, one can always petition the court or proceed anyway). The alternative is that the minister does whatever he feels like and the adviser merely advises. From my experience in Yeruham, I know very well what the problem is here, and many do not understand it. In practical administration, every minister makes hundreds of decisions all the time. There is no one who can track all the decisions and check their legality and petition the High Court over each such decision. We're talking about hundreds of petitions every day. That requires enormous time, money, and resources, and therefore the argument that one can always turn to the court stems from a lack of understanding. In Yeruham there was a council head who made dozens of blatantly illegal decisions, and we had documents and clear evidence of it, and we had no way to petition the High Court over all of them. In the end he did as he pleased and flouted the law without batting an eye. Dozens and hundreds of blatantly illegal decisions, and nothing could be done. Therefore there is no option of making all legal advice everywhere voluntary. That reflects a lack of understanding of the practical functioning of such a governmental system.
And unfortunately, most of those demonstrating and opposing the reform do not think like the rabbi, but think (in one way or another, in one wording or another) that it is preferable for the court to be the final arbiter.
I am really not getting that impression.
Where are the facts here? Why should I believe the sacred word of leftists, Geva and company, who are presumed in this case to lie? I read the news every day, and the amount of lying and consciousness engineering is simply unbelievable. All the media and all the pollsters operate in the service of the communist left. The elections reflected very well the view of the right-wing (and Jewish) public on the judicial system. No one distinguishes between the whole and the details. Perhaps there are those who were alarmed by the threats. It does not seem to me that under a gun to the head (literally. You supported armed resistance) such opposition represents the will of the right (in this case, "If he is hanged and sells, the sale is not valid").
And what facts impress you? The lack of self-awareness surprises me anew every time. Is there even a gram of truth in you? Even one bone?
You are simply engineering consciousness. An outright liar. There's no other word. What sane voter of Bibi's (at this stage, after all the trials against him and who still stands by him), or of Religious Zionism, or a Haredi, would oppose the reform of his own free will? Oppose ousting Aharon Barak, enemy of the Jewish people, and his obtuse and wicked disciples? Whom are you trying to smear? Whom?
I am rather amused to recall how you said there was no point voting for the right because in any case they would do nothing against the judicial system. So here they are doing something, and now you, in panic and stress like someone whose cheese has been moved, begin in a frenzy trying to smear right-wing people here as if we too are supposed to be at the demonstration. Then you threaten resistance with weapons, and in the end whoever is frightened suddenly opposes it, and behold, once again the right does nothing against the judicial system. You are simply a dictator like all your friends on the left. And simply a liar. There is no other word. You are probably also very stupid if you think this is supposed to make an impression (well, in any case you think right-wingers are stupid, and therefore that the nonsense you wrote here will work on someone, or else it's your classic obtuseness). Sure. We'll all go tomorrow. Why not.
You even call on Bibists (!!) to come and oppose it, as if you are on their side and want their good. Why not. What feeblemindedness.
By the way, I have no interest in debating with you, only once again to prevent people who are alarmed by words from being swept after you out of discomfort and a desire to please.
A very mature response, no doubt.
And to the point: there is no expertise in economics (they are experts on the past like historians). None of them knows how to predict the future. I understand a bit about economics (I studied some, especially the stock market). It's an inflated field where mountains of words hang by a hair (it depends a lot on crowd psychology and investor psychology. To say that one of these people… the value of companies can rise and fall by 40% in a single day. It's a lot of hot air. And economics in general combines many issues of policy and values. For example, the decision whether building a railway to Eilat is worthwhile depends on policy – whether it is something of value in your eyes or not. If it were up to economists, the State of Ishmael would not exist at all. So in any case there is no expertise in values, remember?).
In short, these experts don't produce very much (if anything. None of the books I read helped me invest in the stock market. Lots of airy rules and lots of advisers, and reality does its own thing). By the way, all these so-called "senior" people want to keep preserving their own rule over the stupid masses. With common sense one can manage just fine without them. Even if they were right, there is a question here of the Jewish people's independence to choose its destiny and its values. People spilled blood for that. Are you trying to frighten it with money? I told you that you're a fraud. Unfortunately, Bibi too gives weight to these puffed-up empty people. But thankfully no one in the coalition takes him seriously. I wish he would stay away from the judicial reform. I wish they would ignore everyone, just as in Gush Katif. The left must learn in its own flesh the consequences of its obtuseness. As the wise man said: "Wisdom is found on the lips of him that hath discernment; but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding." And whoever is merciful to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the merciful. I am very glad you supported resistance by armed force here. You exposed your lie once again. I have already stopped counting.
As for jurists, there's nothing to discuss. I am in favor of all of them leaving the country. With their money too. Beyond their emptiness, they are all soldiers of evil. The Holy One, blessed be He, will make up what is lacking, with a bonus. Likewise the journalists of all kinds; the overwhelming majority are leftists or flatterers. I'd almost prefer propagandists. At least they don't try to hide the filth they are trying to sell.
So what? This trolling, at a time like this, shows either total detachment or a huge "go jump in the lake" toward secular people (a more accurate description would require inappropriate language). Someone who stirs up fears without restraint for political gain is dangerous.
Since time immemorial, if the head of state is an upright person, then the ministers are upright, and the officials are upright, and so on. And if not, then not. These are truisms that hold for every nation. Since time immemorial, the masses tend to be drawn after leaders who magnify their self-love. Thus, for example, most of Israel loved Ahab very much (who in the view of the sages of Israel was utterly wicked), but rebelled against David (the standard of a worthy leader according to the prophets of Israel). If David needed Nathan the prophet to set him straight, then all the more so Ahab, and much more so leaders in recent generations. In democracy, the more proper form of government in recent generations, there are neither kings nor prophets, but public emissaries are chosen by the people; it is the role of the legislative and judicial branches to restrain the executive branch, and every person is entitled to criticize the government. The responsibility of every government is to hear all voices, preserve unity, and act with moderation. The greater a government's majority, the more carefully its leaders must act, lest the majority pull them in an unworthy direction. When there are substantive disputes among the people, they must speak patiently and strive to reach agreement. God forbid they should behave arbitrarily. The world endures only for the sake of one who restrains himself in a quarrel. "Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace."
What does it mean to be ashamed to hold an opinion? Is it a suit or a garment? Is it a matter of fashion? If these are your friends, then perhaps you really should be ashamed. An opinion is like sight. Will you deny what you see because of fashion? Are you 13? Waiting for the left to grant you a certificate of sanity? Please, do confirm my sanity as well. Please.
By the way, yes, I would support the reform even in the opposite case (unlike Rabbi Michi). The question doesn't arise at all. It's just that the left is obtuse, and in the opposite case I am convinced that דווקא the right would listen. And in any case it would presumably be conservative from a legal standpoint – meaning it would respect the choice of the people (that is the meaning of right-wing; otherwise it's just another group, greens versus blues). What is funny is that I personally do not especially like Smotrich, or Netanyahu, or Deri, and certainly not Gafni. But I can make deals with them. The left is unbearable, simply loathsome.
Here's more consciousness engineering. A small number of laws, but very important ones, were struck down, and a thousand others were never even brought for discussion because of fear they would not pass the High Court test. And all the other government decisions were not principled but merely administrative. It's like complaining about a tyrant that he only killed five people, but by doing so managed to cast terror over the rest of the people.
This whole discussion about Yeruham is a bluff. If that is the situation there, and despite that the residents keep electing him, then you should lift up your feet and leave there, not impose your morality on the residents by force of arm. I am in favor of your leaving the country if you don't believe in elected officials and try to impose yourself on the public by force of arm. The judges and legal advisers also do whatever they please without batting an eye. And they were not elected at all. And they are also stupid and corrupt and lacking in self-awareness. At least the council head is only corrupt, that's all (maybe also lacking in self-awareness, but not stupid like the jurists of all kinds).
You simply want an enlightened dictatorship. So do I. Only I think that you and your friends are not enlightened at all, just infantile and obtuse.
More nonsense. Only the left is allowed to behave arbitrarily. Amona, Gush Katif (which the leader of the opposition claimed they did just out of spite), the Oslo accords, you name it. They steamrolled the right with force, with obtuseness and wickedness. And you talk about preserving unity? Caution? Moderation? What a joke. What is wrong with you? Suddenly we need to talk patiently. The left never talked with anyone. In its world only it exists, and it talks only with itself. Everyone else is decoration for it. It immediately threatens civil war. What cheek. They really should leave the country with their money. The left is bad company and one should separate from them and from their masses. We have only the Holy One, blessed be He, and ourselves.
What is there to talk about? That the elected government should be able to carry out the policy for which its voters elected it? To compromise on that by a third, by a half, by a quarter? When did the left ever do such a thing? These people despise the right and do not see it as having a legitimate right to be in power, and we are supposed to talk about that? What is wrong with you?
What you learned in Gush Katif was the power of the obtuse leftist government. The left has no heart, so nothing influences it. If only the left would get hit as in Gush Katif. Unfortunately right-wingers have soft hearts and are not obtuse, and in daily life they are nice and gentle people. They do not understand what kind of evil they are facing. There is a chance they will be frightened. I very much hope not. One must not be merciful to the left. They should be allowed to fight, and no response should be made in return, only self-defense against their savagery. Self-defense. They should be allowed to make chaos. That way they will never be in power again.
I don't remember in Gush Katif that the High Court listened to anyone. It said it does not intervene in policy decisions (here I laugh). And even Cheshin said that Ariel Sharon was not put on trial because that was the will of the people (!). Such a glorious example of balanced government power. Truly the rule of law and justice. As it is said, all are equal but some are more equal. There is no question here of balance at all. When the left ruled, the court only helped it and granted it even more power. All this talk about balance is a bluff and a smokescreen. There is a dictatorship of the left here that needs to be smashed, and with full force. Sell your ideological garbage to other weak-minded people.
You've completely lost it.
Instead of fighting the corrupt judicial dictatorship, you cobbled together all kinds of bizarre arguments from every which way, most of them not relevant at all.
The most delusional text you've ever published.
History will not forgive you for standing with the corrupt dictatorship.
Segal and Bardugo are preferable in their sanity to Sharki and the whole self-righteous crowd. If the reform doesn't pass – this is the point of no return. This is the end of the democratic Zionist state (I'm not sure we've already passed the point of no return. A generation of idiots has grown here, convinced that democracy means rule by unelected bureaucrats; surprising that you're one of them).
This is the basic point: who is sovereign, the public or an unelected junta.