Haredi Voices for Integration (Column 558)
A few days ago I saw a post by a man named Rabbi Michael Nachteiler, who goes by the name “Haredim to the Pilot Corps,” calling for the integration of Haredim into all of the state’s systems, following the protests by pilots, economists, and academics that succeeded in pausing the government’s judicial reform. I’ve already read and heard such voices in the past as well, and I’ll use this opportunity to examine a few points that are worth discussing.
And here are his sacred words:
| So we told them, “Go jump!”, and they jumped.
They jumped on our state, on the economy, on the army, on the law, on the streets, and above all on every possible sacred convention. They jumped and proved to us that the majority here does not decide. A liberal minority that lost the elections by a knockout, a group that is shrinking demographically and in identity, yet ruled all along, held the blue-and-white flag and never let go of it. It was there the whole time, letting the children play within the borders of the square, making sure here and there to straighten the deviants, to clarify to them that there is a master above them—permitting, but a master. And it is not to blame; for the most part it is not corrupt; it was simply there before us, in consciousness and in deed, letting the lads play before it so long as they do not change the rules of the game—first and foremost: its rule and the rule of its values. And as long as they are there and not us—as long as the little offices in Tel Aviv towers are filled with full-throttle liberals, as long as the cockpits of the air squadrons are manned by the children of “first Israel”, as long as the keyboards of the cyber warriors are manned by the descendants of Savyon, as long as the “falafel”-pin wearers in the police and army, the robe-wearers in the halls of justice, and the fluent English speakers in the Foreign Ministry—as long as these are their representatives, this will not change. To change the game into a democratic game, to move into the driver’s seat and touch the pedals of the state, so that we can begin to instill our values in a way that is not merely cosmetic—demography is not enough; sacrifice is required. Responsibility is required. We, as Haredim, must be there with our best sons—in the offices and in the squadrons, in cyber and in headquarters, at police stations around the country and in Israel’s missions abroad—we need to be an elite. Until we are there, reality has proven that we have no ability to instill our worldview. We will continue to play within the ever-shrinking boundaries of the game that will be defined for us, and to wait for them to allow us perhaps a bit more air and playtime. The call from the past month should not be for democracy. It does not really exist, as the Ayalon Highway proved. The call is to climb the mountain and touch its edge; the call is to conquer the elite. Despite the difficulty, despite the ideological distance, despite the sociological gap, and despite the fact that these are processes of decades—if we truly desire freedom, if our values really matter to us and we think they are critical to Israel’s future and to the future of the Jewish people—then the time has come to call out loudly within our community, inwardly: The good Haredim—to the pilot corps! |
Preliminary Analysis: Stealing the Elections
His words reflect the same frustration underlying the new protests by supporters of the reform that began this week, who claim that the protesters stole their vote. They won the last elections, expected constitutional change as promised, and now the government is acting according to the dictates of the minority that lost.
I’ll just note that this distorts the facts, as is customary in our parts. I won’t enter the debate over whether this was indeed clarified in the campaign and platform ahead of the elections (in my view—actually yes), but it is important to know that at least today it is clear that a large majority of the public (including over half of Likud voters) supports pausing the reform and entering dialogue toward agreements. Still, I can understand that this creates enormous frustration among the voters of the present right-wing coalition. This can be grasped well through the viral conversation of an aircraft mechanic with Erel Segal which, when I heard it, truly broke my heart. It’s worth listening, for those who haven’t already received it on WhatsApp. Despite the pain, I must say that in my opinion he is not right, and his comparison is incorrect. And yet you can hear words of truth from the heart. A similar feeling exists among Haredim, and there’s no doubt that even today there is a very large majority of voters who expected the most extreme reform and were disappointed.
Nachteiler, as noted, also laments the hijacking of the elections, and argues that what made it possible is the power held by pilots, hi-tech people, academics, police and army, legal figures, and so on. Therefore he calls on Haredi society to enter these fields, so that next time such hijackings won’t occur (and perhaps so that next time they will hijack their opponents’ voices in their direction). In his view, this is essentially a Haredi interest.
I must say that on a first reading I wasn’t sure he truly meant to call for a change in Haredi policy. I suspected this was sarcastic writing (in which case the headline missed the point entirely), whose aim is actually to protest the theft of the Haredi voice. But a search of the web about the author gave me the impression that it was indeed written seriously. Moreover, he seems consistent in his efforts to balance Haredi society, and it may be that his call is not really directed at advancing Haredi interests, as might be inferred, but at advancing Haredi people and opening options in the Haredi world. He hangs this on the interests of Haredi society because that’s how one writes there, but he actually means to say that this is what is right. One has to recognize the characteristics of Haredi writing, especially when it deals with radical ideas (like going to work, acquiring an education, thinking, or contributing to society—Heaven forfend). In such cases it uses a double language—arguments acceptable to the Haredi ear are written, behind which lurk critical arguments addressed to those who understand (I have personally heard in the past from writers at “Tzarikh Iyun,” from Nachteiler’s circles, that they do indeed write in such double language). In any case, I will address the content itself and assume it was written seriously. His words are merely a trigger for discussion, and that is what matters to me here.
Did the Pilots Really Steal His Vote?
As noted, most of the public today wants compromise and a pause. From this perspective, it is actually the supporters of the reform who took to the streets during the pause (Monday) who want to “steal the country” from all of us. The coalition indeed has a majority and did indeed win the elections legitimately. One can argue how legitimate it is to act now on the basis of a majority you received at the ballot box when it is now clear you no longer have a majority in the public (incidentally, perhaps not even a majority among Likud MKs, if the collection of rabbits there were willing to state their views openly and honestly, and not only off the record). But it is certainly unreasonable to call such a thing “theft.” This is coercion, using civic means, applied to the government with the goal of bringing it to represent the will of the majority of the public. That sounds a bit different from theft, doesn’t it?
Of course there is room to discuss the means of coercion. In my eyes, most of them are entirely legitimate. Economic-political pressure and protests, however stormy, are quintessentially democratic tools. That is how the public expresses an opinion, and the more extreme the situation seems to it, the more justification there is for extreme steps. This is not the first time roads are blocked here (yes, they were blocked during the disengagement as well. And no, I didn’t count how many times. Haredim blocked, Ethiopians blocked, and the disabled blocked). Especially since, as noted, most of the public today does not agree with the government’s headlong rush, it is certainly reasonable to claim that its actions have no moral validity, even if they have legal force.
Regarding refusal in the army, I personally thought there was no problem with it under the extreme circumstances that arose (at least for those who concluded that democracy itself was in danger and that the rules had changed in a way that substantially violates the social contract—even though I am not among those). But in recent days I have had further thoughts on the matter (among other things because of listening to the mechanic mentioned above), and I do not have a clear position about it. Clearly it also depends on an assessment of the risks expected, and on this I part ways with most of the protesters (in my opinion there is no danger to democracy even if the reform had passed, certainly in its limited form). I also think they arrived at the assessment of a danger to democracy with far too much ease; there is definitely a measure of negligence in that.
However, the Haredim are the last who can complain about refusal to enlist and serve in the army. Such complaints are the height of hypocrisy the likes of which I have yet to see. You not only shirk and condescend, not only receive rights undeservedly, you now also come with complaints against those who refuse to risk their lives for you, and you complain about the privileges of your faithful servants. They dare to use the power they have lawfully accumulated—power that you do not have because you are not willing to bear the burden—but you have no problem complaining about that. It’s a wonder they aren’t demanding to give weapons to yeshiva boys too, in the name of equality before the law. The Haredim insist on their right to use the money produced by hi-tech and the economy for their sectarian needs, without being willing to contribute anything to it. And then they complain about those who use their financial power or their sacrifice and volunteerism to influence. There is no limit to the obtuseness.
It is worth remembering that Yitzhak Tshuva pays taxes roughly equivalent to an entire city. Why don’t we complain about equality before the law there as well? Why do we take more from him than from any one of us? Is our vote worth more than his? In my view, just as it is reasonable to take more taxes from him, it is also entirely reasonable that he has greater influence due to his economic power than an ordinary citizen. Not at the ballot box, but in democratic struggles—definitely yes. I already mentioned in a previous column that the U.S. has veto rights on the Security Council and Belgium does not. Where is the equality? Apparently it’s merely credit given to power. But the critics of this forget that the U.S. is the one that sends soldiers and invests fortunes in international missions, not Belgium and not Israel either. Therefore there is indeed justice in giving it extra power and influence in international decisions. Whoever pays the price and bears the consequences deserves influence accordingly.
A Moral Note
By the way, if in Nachteiler’s view Haredim can enlist in the pilot corps (many years of service, including a lot of reserve duty) in order to influence their interests in the state, and if they can enter hi-tech and the economy in order to influence, I do not understand why they cannot enlist and contribute to GDP even now—simply in order to fulfill their duty. Even if no one were “stealing their vote,” they can and should contribute their share. Perhaps we should remind them that it’s permissible to fulfill your obligations even if it doesn’t advance your interests. For such an esoteric and contested value as fulfilling a moral and civic duty, apparently there is no justification to bear any burden. That’s what the suckers around were born for. The problem is that sometimes the suckers forget their obligations, and they have to be put back in their place.
This is a morally appalling conception in my eyes, though it does not surprise me. Incidentally, I mentioned above the Haredi double-speak, and I suspect that Nachteiler actually wants to say that one ought to contribute to society and bear the burden, but he writes it in the conventional Haredi way (=this is our interest, therefore we must and it is right to do so). Look—I even judged him favorably. And truly, I think this is a reasonable interpretive possibility for his words. More than once in the past (see for example in my article here) I have explained that one should not “judge favorably” by using incorrect arguments.
Will the “New Haredim” Still Be Haredim?
The interesting question that arose for me regarding this post is whether those Haredim who will integrate into all spheres of activity will still be Haredim—and in what sense? Will they not say Hallel on Independence Day? Remember that today the Haredi parties are “the National Camp.” Practically radical Zionism. I encounter this question whenever I hear Haredim calling for a substantial change in Haredi society: in its attitude toward work and education; toward the army; toward women; toward state institutions; toward external values and openness to the surroundings; toward art, and so on. After all of that changes, what will remain of the “Harediness” of these groups? The gartel and the kapote? Not saying Hallel on Independence Day? Perhaps absolute obedience to the “Gedolei HaDor” (who of course will also change—or at least their opinions will—since today they oppose all these proposals). By that criterion, one could even dispense with Torah and mitzvot entirely, obey our master Rabbi David Grossman and the Council of Elders of Meretz, and after all that still shelter under the label “Haredi.” In my manifesto (Column 500) I noted that Harediness—if we ignore the kapote and the gartel—is a fusion of two almost independent ideas: opposition to Zionism and opposition to modernity and its values. From this angle it is even clearer that the Harediness proposed here does not meet any of the substantive criteria that characterize it.
I wish to sharpen that this is not a criticism. There is no obligation to remain Haredi, and there is no sanctity in names and terms. One may certainly propose to oneself and to us all not to be Haredi (I also warmly recommend it), neither in relation to Zionism nor in relation to modernity. But the feeling I get in most cases is that the proponents of these proposals want to change Harediness rather than step out of it. To me this is akin to proposing to a mathematician that he engage in poetry because that would be more fitting for mathematics; or like proposing to a Jew to adopt Hinduism and give up Torah and mitzvot because that would be a truer and more fitting Judaism. Incidentally, quite a few propose similar proposals. Thus, for example, most of the proposals for a secular Jewish identity[1] say roughly this: my Judaism is a set of liberal values (plus some ethnic and cultural components, like speaking Hebrew, serving in the army, “they murdered my grandfather in the Holocaust,” etc.). The pseudo-sciences likewise propose that they be seen as science. Some of those engaged in them propose to conduct qualitative rather than quantitative research and insist on seeing that as science as well, and so on. The common denominator to all these proposals is that they may well be worthy, but there is no logic in insisting on seeing them as a change of the existing state/field and not a move to a different state/field.
These proposals amount to emptying Harediness of substantive content and remaining with an empty term—or clinging to sociological definitions (which will also change considerably). This is an obstinacy that insists on continuing to be called Haredi even when you are not. Perhaps these people feel a deep sentiment for the word “Haredi.” But to me it is just using a word. A semantic discussion that is of little interest. Note that if this was his intention, then Nachteiler is actually proposing that everyone “convert out” (according to the conventional Haredi conception) and not merely change Harediness. As I said, I don’t know if that is what he means (remember the matter of double language).
The Logical, Moral, and Psychological Problem
So far I have described a logical-conceptual problem. Beyond that, there seems to be a psychological problem underlying the logical-conceptual issue. A person is unwilling to detach from his place, or to acknowledge that he has detached, and therefore insists on entering conceptual contradictions. But above all, in my eyes there is also a moral problem here, and I will now address it.
Many of those who spoke with me about these issues expect others to do the work for them. Again and again I am asked: how will the revolution happen? How can the distortions of Haredi society and outlook be changed? It seems the questioners expect that I, or someone else, will do the work for them. “Change Harediness for us,” they say, “and then we can comfortably remain Haredi.” This is a desire for revolution without a willingness to pay a price. A revolution from the couch. I tell those Jews that in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century people gave their lives for a revolution. They took risks; compared to them, what a Haredi “revolutionary” in our days takes upon himself is a petty and miserable joke. If it is important to you to change things, if you want to express your views and act on them freely—please, take risks with a willingness to pay prices. You cannot expect a comfortable life with all the (dubious) “Haredi luxuries,” while asking or expecting that a revolution be carried out for you, without you.
Again and again it becomes clear to me that there is quite a large (?) Haredi group within which each individual wants a revolution, but they have no ability to organize because none of them is willing to be first. My son once told me about a failure known as the “fax problem.” Suppose I just invented the fax machine. I have no way to start selling it, because to use it there must be at least one more person who has a fax (preferably someone I’m connected to). Such a process has no way to start. In Column 67 I discussed a similar problem regarding rebellion against tyrants (like Stalin). This really brings us back to the Haredi revolution (only on a negligible scale compared to the original).
This reminds me of our Palestinian cousins who wail incessantly that everything was taken from them; they are unwilling to pay any price and expect others (us, for example) to sort everything out for them. As Yoram Arbel said: “That’s not how you build a wall.” Changes like these are made by people who are willing to pay prices. If it’s important to you—go for it. If you are not willing, then apparently it’s not really important to you, so eat what you cooked (or refused to cook).
My Proposal to the National-Religious (Religious Zionism)
I think that if we apply Nachteiler’s proposals as written, they are very relevant to the national-religious (Religious Zionist) public. There they will not run into the problems I described regarding their application among Haredim. All those in the national-religious camp who raise the very same complaints—that their country and their vote were “stolen”—should please go and assume the positions of power that enable influence. Here there will be no conceptual contradiction, and the way is indeed open. Religious Zionism has often taken upon itself new missions (settlement, senior command in the army, integration in academia and the legal system, in journalism, and more), but apparently it has not reached positions of sufficiently significant influence, and therefore precisely these days the “minority” that lost the elections still manages to defeat it. It seems we are on the way, there is indeed progress, and yet the distance is great.
Perhaps it will surprise you, but in my estimation this applies mainly to the hi-tech field. Many years ago I was invited to the hesder yeshiva in Ma’ale Adumim for an alumni conference. I spoke there about enlisting in hi-tech. I told them we’ve become accustomed to the idea that it is permitted and necessary to forgo family values and Torah-study values and the like in order to enlist and contribute in an elite commando unit or in senior combat command in the IDF. But for some reason there is no legitimacy for this in hi-tech. One must understand that founding a startup is not money dripping from one’s sleeve. Even after you have an idea and you have talent, it’s a tremendous effort, with Sisyphean work, taking great risks, losing years of life and a lot of stress—and all of this, of course, comes at the expense of the family. There is no way to enter this field unless you are willing to sacrifice in a way similar to military service.
A good friend of mine in the field once told me that there is a very large gap between secular and religious hi-tech people, and it’s no wonder there are very few startups led by religious folks. It’s probably not a difference in talent but in devotion. A religious worker is more loyal (so he said), no less dedicated and no less smart, but he has a family, limited working hours, divided attention across various fronts (at whose house are we doing the Seder? What about Daf Yomi?), and this doesn’t allow him to invest most of his head and heart in work. You can work in hi-tech like that, but that’s not how you build a startup. He told me that the typical Tel-Aviv hi-tech person is a young man who gets up at ten, dreams about what happens when you press CAPS LOCK together with SHIFT-8, swaps experiences with the guys at the bar about these topics, keeps up with everything going on, marries very late—if at all—and after a few years he has an idea and invests his entire being in realizing it. Meanwhile his religious friend works about ten hours a day devotedly, but in the rest of the time he takes care of the kids, prepares the Seder night, studies Torah, and so on. He has no real possibility of entering the startup world.
I told them that in yeshiva we are educated not to abandon learning even when we go out into the marketplace of life: not to give up spiritual and religious elevation, and to know how to combine the realms; to raise a splendid family and educate children. And in general—work is not everything. Ah, there is also Heavenly assistance; with true fear of Heaven we will succeed even without investing as much as “the accursed wicked.” “The Lord is near to all who call upon Him.” Well, apparently that doesn’t really work. Thus, my friend told me, we arrive at a situation in which among the newly wealthy in the hi-tech and startup world there are relatively few religious people. This has very broad implications. For example, it affects the ability of the religious public to stand on its own two feet (there are no major donors), and it becomes dependent on the generosity of others who don’t really believe in its values and therefore will donate less to them. Who exactly will sustain the yeshivot if there are no new religious tycoons?! There are of course other implications as well, and I told them there that it’s worth paying attention to this direction. The heroism of the army must be expanded to additional domains.
These days we have seen that there is another kind of price to the absence of religious startup founders: socio-political influence. We saw that the economic and public power of the protesters was a decisive factor in their strength. Holding the key positions—pilots, prominent academics, hi-tech figures and major CEOs—gives you tremendous power. That is how they “steal” your vote, friends.
I do not mean that it is right to aim the entire public in this way. This is suitable for only a few. But those few carry the entire economy on their backs (apropos the protests), and therefore in my opinion we must give legitimacy to those who are suitable, talented, and willing to make the sacrifice—to go for it. It’s like a commando unit or pilot training, and the public needs it no less, perhaps more. Yes—not only for the people of Israel but also for the religious public. Incidentally, that is indeed a sectoral interest, but it is entirely legitimate and even proper—so long as it is done in a straight way and not at the expense of the rest of society, but for its sake. Startups contribute tremendously to Israeli society as a whole, and if the religious community takes a more significant part in them, it will benefit society at large and also its religious part. Legitimate and worthy.
So then—forward: the best to the pilot corps and to startups.
[1] See on this in the article here, in Column 425, in the series of columns 336–339, and more.
Discussion
Michi means to say that one should also take national responsibility in the sphere of high-tech, but in the religious public you have to speak in terms of ideals, so he expresses himself in a double language, meaning “arguments legitimate to the religious ear, while behind them are hidden critical arguments directed at those who understand.”
I too am among those who prefer agreement, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t steal my vote through enormous pressure and perhaps outright extortion, forcing me to support a compromise.
If the opinion of wealthy people carries more weight in decisions that are supposed to derive from the election results, that logically means their vote at the ballot box is worth more.
The Security Council is a voluntary body of a completely different kind, with entirely different goals from a state parliament.
Personally, I was and still am in favor of pausing the legislation (although I’m saddened that they didn’t try to reach dialogue even without a halt) in order to achieve broad agreement, and yet I still feel a very sour feeling—not that the election was stolen, but that there was an illegitimate use of force. And this is not only about refusal to serve, regarding which I’m glad that you too are beginning to reconsider whether it wasn’t too extreme a step; shutting down flights was also a bizarre absurdity. A person holds power given to him by society as a whole and dictates to part of it by using power that does not belong to him. Blocking roads, which I think is a legitimate tool—but it is important that people pay for the illegal act. Here there was a feeling that they were being let off. I’m a veteran of Haredi demonstrations; this looked fundamentally different. The sight of people calmly placing blocks on the road with no police on the scene never existed. Commander Amichai Eshed walks among the demonstrators standing calmly in the road and everyone applauds him.
I think there are many right-wingers who favor broad agreement, and still feel that we are a step away from a situation in which political decisions will no longer be made through the use of political power, which is decided primarily in elections, and will turn into forceful struggles that slowly erode the impact of the electoral decision.
Finally, regarding the Haredim: I’m not sure about what I’m saying, mainly because I don’t know Religious Zionism well enough, but I think modern Haredism agrees with the Zionist idea, yet is deeply divided over the religious status of Zionism—“the beginning of the flowering of our redemption,” the prohibition on relinquishing territory in the Land of Israel, etc.—and in my opinion that is a significant change. In addition, the idea that Torah scholars and Torah students are the elite of society, and that Torah study is greater than all the commandments—most modern Haredim agree with this. They think not everyone needs to sit and study, but they do think that those who do are superior, etc., and that every person is obligated to study as much as he can, even if he works. Religious Zionism, in my opinion, gives more weight to character refinement and perhaps also to prayer and faith, similar to Hasidim. And in general, there is the Lithuanian outlook on religious life, the mode of study, halakhic ruling, etc.
P.S. I support integrating Haredim everywhere for the real reason that we cannot be a burden on the public and we must take an equal share with everyone else, and in my opinion that is an outlook shared by the overwhelming majority of modern Haredim.
Hello Michael,
I didn’t see any reference here to the fact that:
A. The IDF critically relies on the obligation of reserve pilots and 8200 personnel (who receive from the army a very significant springboard into civilian life) to report for reserve duty.
And therefore the meaning of their collective refusal, with political coordination, is a passive-quiet military coup, which, if not eradicated, means that from now on they know their hand is on the state’s switch for any political demand.
(For example, the trigger for the 8200 people was the incapacitation law, which is an essential law in a situation where the Attorney General can at any moment declare the Prime Minister incapacitated with no possibility of appeal.)
🙏 for the tremendous enterprise.
In fact, those who received a public appointment to the state’s switches:
the reservists, Ben-Gurion Airport, the Histadrut strike, are using this power to impose their political position.
How can one describe such mafia-like conduct?
*those
No. What I suggested to them was to participate so that they would have equal standing with others and wouldn’t have to whine that they have no power. That is beyond the simple need to contribute our share. As I wrote in the column, power reflects contribution and therefore it is justified.
And Moshe rightly observed that there is a double language here, but I did not hide it, because in the case of Religious Zionism they really are partners and contributors and there is no need to hide (as there is among the Haredim).
I did not deal with the issue of refusal to serve. I only mentioned it in passing.
Indeed, and in my opinion their vote is worth more, and rightly so. No one stole your vote, because as I explained, power represents justice.
And furthermore, as I explained in column 553, a minority has the right to protest forcefully when the rules of the game are changed. The ballot box does not determine the rules of the game. But I won’t repeat the details here.
The power was not given to him by society; rather, he volunteered to take it on, and therefore he received it. Anyone can do that, and that is exactly what I wrote regarding the Haredim and the Religious Zionists.
As stated, this is about changing the rules of the game and not about ordinary legislation or a regular political decision. See column 553.
As for the differences between Haredim and Religious Zionists, in my opinion you are mistaken, but that is not the subject here.
I think that to some extent the responsibility really does lie with you. Many modern Haredim really do not want to be Haredi; their problem is that there is no alternative outside. None of them care about matters of redemption, Zionism, and the like—they simply want to live here in this country like a normal person. So from their perspective Hardal and the like is Haredism with an additional layer that is very foreign to them, and the liberals are stuck in that same idea of redemption and so forth, and therefore they too are foreign to them [aside from enormous cultural differences like Bnei Akiva and the like]. Therefore, for there to be something shared, it requires you, because you know both sides: liberal – modern Haredi. Upon you [of course not only you] is concentrated a far greater amount of responsibility than upon me or any one individual, and as long as you do not stand on the same stage with modern Haredi rabbis and liberal rabbis and decide to establish a new movement, nothing will happen.
Good luck.
Regarding startups,
as you wrote,
it’s different from more conventional jobs (for example, an engineer at the electric company or a programmer at a bank).
For a person who wants to maintain a life full of Torah and mitzvot + raise a large family, his chances of integrating into high-tech decrease significantly.
There is a good chance that in a startup they will demand very high availability including on-call duty (a religious person can be available less than 24/6).
Beyond on-call duty, they will ask for many actual work hours, while a religious person invests over an hour a day in prayer and at least another hour in setting fixed times for Torah study.
And I’m not even talking about other things like managing a large family—usually the family is much larger for the religious person, and he certainly marries at a much younger age than his secular counterpart.
In short, a startup is less practical for a religious person. Beyond a few individuals who really want to sacrifice (and it’s a shame to sacrifice family life or Torah).
It’s simply not really possible.
It should also be noted that an overwhelming majority of startups fail completely (not only in the current difficult year for high-tech, but always).
“He was hanged and sold—the sale is valid.”
After the riots of the “legitimate means,” the public is ready for a compromise.
Makes sense. And even halakhah recognizes that.
And even our Rabbi Michael.
But this is not a discussion by Rabbi Michael Abraham. The letter serves him, as usual, as a peg on which to hang his hatreds of the Haredi public.
So let us quote Professor Mautner—a meticulous leftist—and let the rabbi please respond to his words:
The quotations are from an interview in Haaretz:
“The Supreme Court was warned—but it sealed its ears.”
“The left got used to fixing politics through the High Court; that no longer works.”
“The former hegemons shifted much of their activity to the court via the High Court, which cooperated with them” (he details the ways of cooperation).
“The Supreme Court turned itself into an institution that writes the constitution” (there are details).
So Professor Mautner thinks that indeed they stole democracy.
Recommended reading—Haaretz, 03.03.2023
From what it looks like, the Haredim will remain in bad shape for a long time. These articles are one in a million, and even this one is seen by them as heresy, if they read it at all.
That is a different claim that can be discussed separately.
If the claim is that indeed the vote of the rich is worth more at the ballot box, we can talk about that, but it is important to call a spade a spade.
My response regarding vote theft referred to the claim in the article that the majority supports a compromise and therefore this is not vote theft.
If the agreement to compromise is only because there is no strength to fight, that is the definition of vote theft—or more accurately, vote robbery.
The main part of the social contract is that every citizen has one vote, and those elected by that vote are the ones who determine the state’s strategy. Thanks to this agreement, Yitzhak Tshuva has workers who generate taxable income for him, and the startup entrepreneur has devoted developers who arrange an exit for him. If that agreement is broken, and certain groups have more influence, there will be no workers, no developers, and no airplane mechanics. No one will live for long in a country where he has only half a vote.
It is too early to say what will happen, because there is no way to know whether a reform will pass and what kind. But if it turns out retroactively that a lawfully elected parliament failed to implement policy because of violence, the rupture we will reach will be far more severe than what the reform in even its most extreme version could have caused.
The argument is over who changed the rules of the game.
Many fine people—not “Bibists”—claimed that Barak is a “legal pirate.”
Including Professor Shlomo Avineri.
The reform is meant to restore the old legal situation.
Actually, why am I bothering—after all, our rabbi explained that he is in favor of the reform, but demonstrates against it because he is against the government.
I don’t understand this claim about stealing votes. Stealing votes is when you vote for party A and they count your ballot as if you voted for party B. No one is claiming that. So what exactly is the claim? That you wanted to advance some policy and therefore voted for a party that would advance that policy, and even though supporters of the policy won a majority, the policy still wasn’t advanced.
So now you are complaining about the opponents of the policy, who interfered with their ability to advance that policy? That’s a bit funny, isn’t it?
What are the complaints? That they are not allowed to oppose, using all the tools they have, a policy they feel is terrible? Why not?
Why don’t you complain to the politicians you voted for, who failed? Couldn’t they have done things better, or alternatively recognize reality and not sell their voters promises they can’t keep?
I didn’t say a word about stealing votes. I said that the side that lost the election is forcibly imposing its positions on the side that won. Of course they are not allowed to oppose government moves with illegal means.
I definitely think the government could have behaved better. There is no contradiction here at all. If I walked through a high-crime neighborhood shouting that I had diamonds in my pocket and got robbed, I behaved very badly, but the robber is still a criminal.
A. It seems quite clear that were it not for the violent and illegal protest, the majority would have supported immediate reform. The fact that out of fear and a desire to prevent civil war they agree to freeze the move is itself election theft. Just as if, because of left-wing violence, Bibi had resigned.
B. It is well known that many excellent people from Religious Zionism tried to reach key positions in the military, the media, and elsewhere, but the ruling leftist elite do not let religious people (and right-wingers in general, but especially religious people) advance.
Never forget the Haredi glasses—ours—from our perspective, we know that our contribution to security, as a pure corps of Torah, is immeasurably greater than that of any F35 pilot, even a decent pilot who does not serve conditionally, like the refusers mentioned above (and likewise regarding high-tech, “The whole world is sustained for the sake of my son Hanina”—you can include even the most successful startups). You may, mistakenly, disagree with this determination, but not come and claim to us that we are dodging, and that they are suckers for us. That would be like someone from the Zulu tribe, who has never seen an airplane in his life, claiming about a pilot or a fighter in the cyber array that they are playing make-believe and not sharing the burden. What can I do with him? Either send him to wise up, or suggest he wait until after 120, when the bitter truth becomes known to him. And regarding the argument you wrote about changing the rules of the game, and therefore that it is not refusal—this is a demagogic slogan, which I hear from the refusers themselves, but it does not hold water. Everyone has his own conditions for when he will declare every little thing to be a change in the rules, and the slope is slippery, toward the destruction of the army. One of the heads of the army, from the Air Force array, told me that when Bennett stole the heart of his voters and formed a government with the Arabs, they felt in their hearts and were angry—far more strongly than some pilots today feel over the selection of one or two judges by representatives elected by the people in democratic elections—at that terrible injustice, and yet they went on serving and did not threaten refusal. And finally, some time ago a pilot who had become religious told me: what caused him to become religious? He was used to the fact that everywhere he went, people would flatter him, as is well known in our circles. Once his friend took him to visit Rabbi Steinman, and when he introduced the pilot to Rabbi Steinman of blessed memory, our rabbi responded, “another wagon driver” (meaning: there is a small wagon driver with a few passengers, and a big wagon driver with many passengers). And the pilot said: for the first time I saw a man of truth without false flattery.
You didn’t use the phrase “stealing votes,” but that is the content of your message about there being people whose vote is more “equal.” Equality in the value of the vote is true at the ballot box, and it definitely exists there: they counted your vote exactly like mine. Beyond that, of course there is inequality in life, so I do not understand the complaint about votes being more and less equal.
What do you mean by “not allowed”? How will you forbid it if people are willing to pay the price? The more terrible the policy is, the stronger the opposition will be, and people will use all the tools they have—whether taking money out of the country, refusing to volunteer (or perhaps even refusing to serve and going to prison instead), or anything else. I don’t understand who you are to tell someone opposing it how to oppose it.
In your example, the robber is a criminal, that’s true—but your diamonds are still gone, so what good are your complaints against the robber?
And I want to stress that in my opinion it’s not only that the government could have behaved better (to put it mildly—this is probably the worst government since the establishment of the state), but that the politicians you voted for are selling you illusions, and when they can’t realize them (or when realizing them encounters difficulties) they blame the whole world (the court, the left, money, the army, the U.S.) and set parts of the nation against each other. This is a policy, not an accident. I’m sorry—it’s really depressing to feel that you were fooled, and I completely identify with that, but I think it’s time to wake up.
“How will you forbid it” is a matter of enforcement, not legitimacy. If the army took over the state, I would have no way to prevent it, but that would not make it legitimate. From the moment that happened, the social contract in the state would unravel, and the side overpowered by force would try to accumulate power in order to break free.
That is exactly what could happen here. If the reform does not pass, what will prevent right-wing battalion and brigade commanders from saying that enough is enough and they refuse to serve? Nothing. After all, winning elections did not work for them. The result will be that whoever is stronger will win, and the other will wait on the sidelines until he accumulates enough power to strike back. That is not the country I want to live in.
Excuse me?! He volunteered?!
So if he doesn’t like it—let him resign (as Assaf Zamir did, and that seems completely legitimate to me). Where does he get the nerve to shut things down?! Let him come and say: I agreed to work under such-and-such conditions; they changed—find someone else to run the Airports Authority.
Just as Bogie refused to command the disengagement—and was fired (but when Gallant is fired then oh no, the end of democracy). He did not shut down the army in protest over his principled opposition to the idea, even though he ‘volunteered’ (I wish I had such volunteer work with that kind of salary and pension) for the position.
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Do you think it would have been possible to enforce on the “refusing” pilots that they come to training? How? Put them in prison? Do you think that would have worked?
And how did we get to this situation where if the reform does not pass, etc.? Who knew that this judicial reform was the heart’s desire of all right-wing voters? Who turned it into the be-all and end-all? From the moment Levin put his proposal on the table, it suddenly became the heart’s desire, the hill to die on, of all right-wing voters.
Do a thought experiment with me for a moment: imagine that Levin had offered a much more modest proposal, something dealing only with the Judicial Selection Committee (without all the other things), and a much more reasonable proposal like Gideon Sapir’s, which does not give control to the coalition—would the right suddenly have felt that this was not what it went to the election for?
If your answer to that is “no” (that is, the right would not have felt betrayed), then isn’t this once again the case I pointed to—in other words, that basically you were fooled? (and also those battalion and brigade commanders and everyone else in whose bones the reform is now burning)
Contrary to your fantasy or those who want to offer us a new way, they already tried this many years ago and it really did not succeed—there is even a holiday about it once a year called Hanukkah. And on the contrary, I have a feeling that after the left sees where it has deteriorated to, with its fake Pyrrhic victory for the time being, and is now doing damage control and soul-searching, and is ashamed of where it dragged the people here—its empty chirping will burst like an inflated balloon, and everything will collapse like a house of cards, like communism in Russia in its time. That’s it, they’re sick of it; they feel very hollow and violent, and the empty, hollow slogans they have voiced up to now do not align with inner integrity, and they feel disgusted with themselves. That is exactly the empty wagon the Hazon Ish once spoke of to Ben-Gurion, who was offended. That is what we see before our eyes today in 2023: an empty wagon in the plain sense. People are suddenly realizing that for years we lived here in the lie of so-called democracy, but under the control of all those little people whose whole essence is eat and drink for tomorrow we die—money, lust, and honor, and the perversions of male homosexual relations in the style of Sodom and Gomorrah. And if suddenly they feel that something threatens the continuation of the dictatorship disguised as democracy, they burn down the whole world, run wild in the Knesset, curse, and last but not least—even the army, which in their eyes was holy of holies, they have now desecrated. And it all converges into one great feeling of disgust, ahead of the celebration of the 75th year of the State of Israel. People are really, really depressed inside (I am speaking only about the secular people of course). Certainly, on this empty wagon one should not even think of saying Hallel. More fitting is what one of them said last week—Kaddish over this lousy state. Well, maybe this brings us closer to the true redemption, because this is not the child for whom we prayed: “May His great name be exalted and sanctified.”
Sir, you are not up to date. Perhaps this is only in the initial stage, but Haredi yeshiva high schools for younger boys (including 5-unit mathematics and the accompanying studies) are now springing up like mushrooms after the rain. Blessed be His name; perhaps in another 10–15 years we will discover that the format turned out more successful than the yeshiva high schools of Religious Zionism.
Rabbi Michael, I have a friend who often refers me to read you in discussions around various topics. Especially current affairs, but not only. She sends me links to your columns expecting me to read them. Unfortunately, I have never read one through to the end.
It’s not because you don’t write well or because your ideas don’t seem intelligent to me. It is written excellently, and from what I have read it is clear that your analysis is both very creative and very deep. And that you see our country in breadth and at a distance with a clarity and honesty that is uncommon today. My problem is with the length.
Whereas an average content article on the internet is, even in extreme cases, up to 1,000 words long, and usually limited to 400 words (I used to work in content writing, I know a bit), your average article is 3,000 words long. That is not slightly longer than usual—it is disproportionately long for the format. And except on Shabbat, I do not have free time to read something of that length. In fact, writing 3,000-word opinion pieces on the internet is a bit like a director releasing 8-hour films for the cinema. Presumably there will be those who find that genre interesting. But the overwhelming majority of the potential audience won’t even enter the screening hall.
And in my opinion that is a shame. Because as I said, it is evident that I am missing out on not a little by “being lazy” and behaving like an average Western person. And I am sure I am not the only “follower” you are losing because of your current writing style.
I would like to ask you to write in the normal standard, or at the very least give a summary of the main points at the end of each column.
The most successful solution in my opinion is that you should start putting these things out as a podcast. In the style of “The Party of Thought” or “History Bits.” That way you can preserve the length and the breakdown of each point into its components, but your followers will be able to follow (because listening to a podcast does not require special time; it is done while driving).
In the hope that I will be able to follow your words in the not-too-distant future, Elad.
I talk, but nobody responds. Everyone stays underground and wants the work to be done for them without paying any price. If there are enough people who want this, why don’t they organize and create a place and a society that suit them? Why should someone else act on your behalf?
It seems to me that you need to read again. Anger may have blinded your eyes.
It seems you did not read what I wrote.
Anger is blinding your eyes. Things completely unrelated to the issue. By the way, Menny Mautner is a friend of mine and I know his views very well. No need to read this article.
Avi, this is a classic communist argument. By all means, let the workers resign and good luck to them. I already answered all your points long ago, and it seems you mainly want to vent anger. Good luck.
Of course. It’s all the elite. We are perfect and they are evil. Good that you explained it; now I understand everything.
First of all, the anger of the reform supporters (I personally am not angry. I gave up long ago. Anyone who goes to the army is a sucker. I’ve effectively become Haredi) is over Gallant’s betrayal and that of a few others, and Netanyahu’s surrender and contempt for his voters. The left is not expected to do any better. They really are a bunch of thugs. And not because of taking money out of the country, refusing to serve, and the demonstrations. All of those are completely legitimate. The problem is with the attempt to terrorize the Jewish people (the right). And of course with the obtuseness and the lies. After all, the reform really would end the (leftist) bureaucracy and begin real democracy (at least more real than the existing situation. Judges have nothing to look for on the committee for appointing judges. Only Knesset members according to a key based on party size in the Knesset), in which the people choose the professionals who work for them (the judges), and not the professionals appoint themselves. And these dimwits call that a dictatorship, when they are bigger dictators (the dictatorship of the bureaucrats) than any dictatorship that might possibly arise here because of the loopholes in the reform. And if they cancel the override clause, then there is nothing to talk about at all (it is not so important to me; what really matters is the honesty of the judges, which is completely lacking among progressive judges, who as stated have no truth or justice in their world because they are postmodernists). It’s like (post-)modern art—scribble something on a canvas and put it in a museum and there you have a work of art. You simply cannot talk with such people.
Second—the problem with the left is that they use their “higher” status (in their own eyes. They may be a more educated public, but a public of fools (obtuse), idiots (infantile), and people without judgment (that is, without even minimal self-criticism, without self-awareness, not sane)), in order to educate the “inferior” class in the name of none other than the sacred “equality.” Suppose the right agreed to an inferior status at the ballot box, but then it would justly demand a higher status than that of the Arab public, which is “anti-contributing.” But what actually happens is that the upper class specifically gives preference to Arabs in the name of “equality” over its “brothers” on the right, whom it does not see as brothers at all. In short, either they are super-corrupt or they are fools on a grand scale. Personally, I do not believe in equality and do believe in hierarchy among human beings. The hierarchy is determined by the “understanding” a person has. Mark this well: understanding, not education. A crazy Einstein (“out of his mind”) is worth less than a sane bus driver. Of course, there are things for which hierarchy is irrelevant, like the redness of the blood, etc., but regarding authority and government it is relevant. Like in a family: the parents decide in a dictatorial way in relation to the children. In short, it is simply hatred under the guise of justice. Let them remove the disguise and say “we hate you.” That would already be better. From there one could move forward.
We’re looking for a supervisor to spout empty and demagogic slogans in the yeshiva next to ours. Are you available?
Blessed are you, mighty Hasmoneans. Wonderful. A splendid illustration of what I wrote.
Indeed, I was not up to date. I’m very glad.
Hello Elad. I’ve been asked this more than once. My answer is no. The length has a purpose. My aim is to teach analysis and thinking, not merely present bottom lines (like the Gemara). Whoever doesn’t want to read, shouldn’t read. There are many Yosefs in the marketplace.
And let us say amen.
You live in a world of your own. Anyone who reads Israel Hayom, Besheva, and Makor Rishon has been waiting for this reform for years. And people on the right too who understand nothing about legal matters—if they read about the exploits of the High Court (which really are wicked, meaning the disciples of Aharon Barak and those who flatter them)—would agree to it wholeheartedly. In fact, they would demand it with even greater force.
How can one be so obtuse and tell oneself such stories? And how do you think right-wing voters are so stupid that if you tell them this there is some chance you might fool them? I have never seen such detachment from reality. I hear the ridiculous claims of leftists who think right-wingers are so stupid that they start explaining to them what Likud promised in the elections—as if it is any leftist’s business what Likud promised its voters and what it does. After five election rounds and Bibi’s trial, it is clear that whoever voted for him in these elections has no trust in the legal system at all and in the rest of the state institutions in particular (the police, the prosecution certainly, etc.). There is no need to say this at all.
I return and again ask you to consider doing a podcast in the style of “The Party of Thought.” Maybe together with a student of yours who lives nearby. The people of Israel, and I among them, are missing out on you.
And what is no less bad is that this lie and façade come in the name of equality itself. It’s not as if they will be harmed. Those who may be harmed are the Arabs. But in their eyes the Arabs are equal to the right. Yet when it comes to themselves, suddenly there is no equality. They are simply people of falsehood, and one should separate from them as much as possible. This was in fact the trigger of Haredism. During the state’s founding period, Haredim generally worked, and there were also quite a few among them who served in the army, and none of the great rabbis said anything and it was natural. But the moment the problems in the army began—disrespect for kashrut (a famous story), etc., cutting the sidelocks of Yemenite children, forcibly secularizing Sephardi Jews, the red ledger, etc.—they withdrew into themselves. As for me, I too withdrew years ago when I understood who really rules here. And if only it were dictatorial rule that at least cared—but this is a foreign and hostile rule. So indeed, good for them to go into high-tech, but in order to separate from the secular public and from their army. Establishing private militias would protect far better than the IDF (which today it is no longer clear whom it is protecting. The officers, certainly).
And thanks to the representatives of those puffed-up riffraff, you and your children have food in the refrigerator.
With regard to the national-religious public, it was not volunteering so much as taking over. At least in the army and the senior bureaucracy. Presumably they intentionally prevented capable religious people from advancing to senior command. There is always some pet religious person who nullifies himself before them, but they appoint him precisely so they won’t have to appoint according to real qualifications (like the pet Muslim judge). I heard that at this very time Supreme Court justices intentionally prevented the appointments of religious judges to the district courts.
As for changing the rules of the game, that is already really a joke. They changed the rules of the game, and because the right sat quietly (and it took time until it understood what had happened under its nose) and waited to change it at the ballot box and not through violence, now when it is trying to change back—by authority—the rules of the game that were changed by force and without authority, because of that it is the one changing the rules of the game?!
How can one be so obtuse?!
Lev,
In short: reading comprehension.
“It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.”
Where did our rabbi explain that? Since I too am one of his devotees, I would be happy to see a source.
Beyond that, next time I recommend raising relevant claims, and if possible also not false ones. That can definitely improve the discussion.
The reform does not restore the old situation. I myself have written more than once that Barak was a legal pirate. But don’t let that stop you. If there are no relevant arguments, it is always good to toss general sentences into the air.
Actually, it is possible to remain Haredi and go out to work. The essence of Haredism is not necessarily opposition to modernity. There are quite a few Haredim (Lithuanians) with an American orientation who work in high-tech or are scientists; less so in Israel. There is a famous Haredi female mathematician at the Hebrew University (Ruth something, I don’t remember; I studied with her), and there are several more black-kippah wearers (with a modern mentality) in the physics and mathematics departments at Hebrew University. In short, there are the modern Haredim, as they are called in Haredi society. The main point of Haredism is separation from secular people in order to avoid bad influence (for them this is because of contempt for Torah; for me it is already because they are people of falsehood—yes, including secular right-wingers. You can’t trust anyone). This is impossible in the army, but possible in the employment sphere. One can cooperate in work matters and not be friends and socialize in matters unrelated to work. In general, it is justified and right not to sacrifice family on the altar of the startup (and also not on the altar of the army). In the long run this too does not contribute to the resilience of the state (as the state of the Jewish people). All those high-tech people are people without identity, and therefore without loyalty to any substantive collective. They could also establish a private army that would protect Haredi settlements with its own morality, and not something imposed on it by Asa Kasher. I don’t think the great rabbis would object to that.
To Itai,
I referred to what I referred to.
What the right-wing public has been waiting for is the principle, not the details. And yes, the fairest thing is that the coalition should control the appointment of judges, even if they appoint poor judges (right now it’s worst), because it has the responsibility and the authority over the judges’ decisions, while the judges have no responsibility for their own decisions, so in the next elections the coalition will be replaced.
And yes, any official who tries to take over and thwart right-wing policy because of his own views—there is an expectation on the right that a law will come and constrain him. Tailor the law to the needs. In short, in any case one cannot leave the status of the legal advisers as it is, because it really is ridiculous and fabricated. The legal adviser was in practice the lawyer of the government and represented it in the High Court. Now imagine that you hire a lawyer and suddenly he becomes your policeman and your judge. Instead of you being the boss, he becomes the boss. The golem has risen against its creator.
And if what is needed for the government’s decision to be accepted, so that it can bear responsibility for it, is also an override clause—then so be it.
In any case, why do I even have to explain such obvious things to someone?
Between 80% and 90% fail. No person in the world needs to sacrifice family on that altar. Maybe for science, yes. But for technology? There are a very few geniuses for whom maybe this is suitable (Newton and Paul Erdős, for example). They are antisocial and solitary people anyway. And they are not sacrificing anything. For them, science is like air to breathe.
“In my opinion, just as it is reasonable to take more taxes from him, so too it is entirely reasonable that he has greater influence because of his economic power, more than an ordinary citizen has. Not at the ballot box, but in democratic struggles—certainly yes.”
Could you please elaborate a bit more on this sentence? What exactly does ‘democratic struggles’ mean, and why in practice distinguish between them and ‘a ballot slip in the ballot box’? Personally, I definitely understand the logic of the thing—namely, that a person with greater power / who contributes more should have greater influence on the conduct of the state. But as far as I understand, that is not democracy (not that there is any reason one must govern a state democratically, but as you yourself argue, these are the ‘rules of the game’ that were set and must be respected).
I don’t know about our perfection. But they really are wicked. In any case, they let the rest of the public believe that they really were equal to them, and at the critical moment they suddenly cry out when people want to do what would allow the right-wing public to realize its policy. The “change in the rules of the game” to which they are sensitive, and which is the apple of their eye, with which we are supposed to “take account,” is simply the actual relinquishing of power. That’s all. For decades the right-wing public—national-religious and Sephardi—in innocence served in the army, shed soldiers’ blood, and fulfilled its role as the cannon fodder Ben-Gurion imported from Arab lands, without which there would have been no state here. And yes, they also worked in necessary jobs. Maybe they did not bring in much tax money (which mainly finances the bureaucrats, the public sector), but they did work that the economy needed. And all this from the belief that their vote counted equally (after all, this was the communist mentality—everyone is equal, each gives according to his ability and receives according to his need). Now suddenly, when it is inconvenient for them, there is no equality? They can leave the country, and that is their right. But to use violent means and lie and manipulate and play innocent—that is forbidden. One may decline to show up for reserves and that is fine. But to send a letter, publish it, and threaten—that is already chutzpah. In short, they are people of falsehood. So yes, they are wicked. Besides that, he made good arguments. How can you develop and achieve independence when the other side is trying to prevent you from it? The left needs the Haredim and the right to remain underdeveloped so that it can continue to rule. Only Arabs somehow have rights.
In fact, it looks as though even the columns here on the judicial revolution are part of that same foolish brainwashing that, under a guise of supposed neutrality, is actually trying to continue subjugating the right (though not me personally).
The truth is that for the first time this year—and actually already a few months ago, before all the turmoil—I thought of not celebrating Independence Day and certainly not saying Hallel (I don’t know about Tachanun). I knew that now the democratic lie would come to the surface (I don’t know how people didn’t realize this for years. Maybe they thought the left were decent people. The left had many opportunities to draft Haredim in those forty years, and because of their hatred for the settlers and the Likudniks they were actually happy to use them and give them more budgets: Rabin preferred Deri over Raful for the Oslo accords; Sharon and Olmert included Haredim in order to evacuate settlements; even in the previous government they did nothing, out of a reality-detached hope that the Haredim would break their alliance with Bibi)), and the rule of the bureaucrats would be revealed in all its nakedness, and therefore there is not really any independence. But I had hope that at least the Knesset would legislate the laws, and only then these bureaucrats would not carry out its word but the word of their Sanhedrin (the courts). Then it would be clear to everyone—including the left—that there is a dictatorship here (enlightened and necessary according to them), and finally the lies and manipulations would stop. The pretense is the real problem.
In fact, the Haredim are not the issue at all. More than the left hates the Haredim, it hates the national-religious. And more than it hates the national-religious (who do not serve under it as in Mapai days), it hates the Sephardim. And more than it hates the Sephardim, it hates the secular Ashkenazi right—Herut people. And the liberals among them are servants of Satan altogether. And Bibi (who is most like them)—Satan himself.
Lev,
So culture of discussion, or even responding to the point, is not something important.
There are answers to all the things you wrote, but what is the point of answering at all?
You are projecting, B.
You have assumptions that I attacked. And that is relevant. You wanted to claim that the right-wing public did not wait for the reform and therefore that its vote was robbed, at least by its representatives in the Knesset. And the pilots indeed do not have to show up. Although for every little thing that someone doesn’t like today he can say this is a dictatorship and I do not serve a dictatorship. That is excellent advice for people trying to dodge the draft at the induction center. There is no need for there to be any connection to reality. Is the weather hot? That’s a dictatorship, and so on. And here it is the opposite in any case. In any event, the problem was with the attempt to intimidate the Knesset members and ministers. And with informing foreign countries, etc. You are allowed not to serve, but you are not allowed to try to make someone think that without you they won’t manage and that it is the end of the world, when clearly you want to force your view on him. That is not democracy. That is terror. By the way, in my opinion these pilots really should be dismissed—without prison and without noise and without anything. Just do not call them up for reserve duty, that’s all. In any case they are disloyal people. The Holy One, blessed be He, will in fact be more with us without them. Maybe at last we will be able to launch cheap missiles at Gaza and Lebanon instead of sending expensive flights to blow up empty buildings or dunes with costly bombs, and use Iron Dome missiles that cost tens of thousands of dollars each (we won’t need the tax money of high-tech people).
By the way, a pilot is not an ordinary reservist. Pilot training is expensive and operates on the assumption that you will also serve in reserves, not that you’ll be doing them favors. In the U.S. enlistment is not compulsory, but once you enlist you cannot just stop. That is desertion and you go to prison for it. Here it is not desertion (because it’s reserves), but it is fraud.
Yehuda,
By the way, the one who foresaw well this emptiness of 2023 was Rabbi Michi himself in Two Wagons (and indeed throughout the quartet). He also connected the concept of content to Jewishness (the Hebrew auditory logic). Then, even though it was largely empty, the left still had some spark of content (a Chabadnik still had a way to persuade him to put on tefillin…). They still believed in the Jewish people at least. The current generation is completely empty. Not only does it not have the Jewish people; it does not even have objective truth. It has no reality at all. Emptiness in its highest embodiment. And look who leads this camp in the Knesset. And apparently the secular right also has no content, and that too will be revealed at some point. I hope I’m wrong.
By the way, I am not sure the left has a feeling of disgust with itself, and certainly not inner integrity. For that you need at least a bit of a soul. I don’t know whether they really are not zombies, because they seem genuinely to believe in their ridiculous slogans.
You wrote that the shutdown is legitimate because he volunteered to receive this power and it was not simply given to him by the state. If you have no answer to the reasonable claim—then let him resign, and not shut down Ben-Gurion Airport—you can simply say that you need to think about it instead of accusing me of not having read.
More power to you.
If Religious Zionism were as strong as Michi wants, then in all likelihood the reform would have passed in its original format.
Although he opposes the current reform, in my opinion he does not sufficiently understand the dangers inherent in it.
Lev,
I knew what I was writing when I wrote “reading comprehension.” That is not what I argued—read again.
In any case, good luck with the Holy One, blessed be He, and all that; it’s a great way to run a country.
This is exactly democracy. I’ll try to explain a bit.
As for the ballot slip versus power, there are no sharp distinctions here. The decision is that everyone gets one ballot slip because it is hard to quantify it otherwise. Beyond that, economic status and power also change over time and are hard to quantify, so one cannot set criteria that reflect them. So they decided to let market forces determine it (the invisible hand). A person will exert power according to his ability (within minimal framework rules), and if he succeeds, he probably deserves it. Therefore there is a basic one vote in the ballot box for everyone, and from there onward there are games in which people seize positions of power and try to influence. Whoever succeeds, succeeds.
That is precisely democracy: a game in which power is exercised within a given framework, and decisions are made by elected institutions that take account of the forces on the field. Identifying democracy with majority rule is simplistic and incorrect. Democracy is a framework that allows discussion and discourse (see my columns on what public discourse looks like), and these determine the decisions.
These absurdities testify that you still haven’t read. Because of your impudence in insisting and not reading, I will not answer you. You may continue thinking that I have no answers to your crushing (and irrelevant) questions.
B, you are beginning to approach the point where I will delete your trolling. We understand that everyone is evil and stupid and the facts are fake and you are right and everyone else is wrong. There is no point repeating it again and again. That does not make these absurdities any more persuasive. This kind of repetitive tediousness will not continue here. Consider yourself warned.
Michi, it is advisable to distinguish between people who contribute in things that are truly essential for the Jewish people (at crazy hours), and people who sacrifice for advertising, marketing, and sales systems.
Even regarding science, I am not in favor of sacrificing even one percent, unless it is something that truly benefits the world.
If someone wants to be a scientist who searches for fossils in all sorts of holes around the world (there are quite a few such people), good for him. It is not worth it.
Even in the exact sciences, I am not in favor of sacrificing normal family life, except where it truly contributes to the Jewish people.
So yes, developers of Iron Dome, Ofek 13, or other critical systems, people like the brilliant physicist Rabbi Dr. Doron Ledwin, may he live long and well (you are invited to look at his LinkedIn and the recommendations he received to understand what a genius the man is) are entitled to sacrifice. And it is even desirable that they do so. But these are not startup people.
But sacrificing the family and reducing the value of religious life for a startup like a “sophisticated sales app” or a “sophisticated advertising app” (which, by the way, do advance the world) is a critical mistake, and a serious mistake by the writer. That is no small part of startups, by the way.
Also, most cyber-systems startups are not really critical things that require sacrifice.
Ah, once again, let us note that statistically an overwhelming majority of startups fail completely.
Of course there is priority for contents that truly advance the world. But startups advance the economy, regardless of the value of their product. In my opinion, a society that seeks life needs startups for its economy, regardless of their products. I only remind you that the product created in the army is the ability to hit a target, carry stretchers, and kill people. Is that something for which it is worthwhile to sacrifice life and family? The value lies in what it contributes to us (security). Exactly so with startups.
And the fact that most of them fail is well known. How is that related to the discussion?
Typo in the article: gartel and kaptan (or kaftan), not khaftan.
Several times the idea has come up here of organizing a joint lesson with the rabbi [not through Zoom], so that people could connect and form a group [and from there the sky’s the limit], but the rabbi said he has no time. Yet in my opinion [even though the giant sees higher than the small person, he cannot see what the small person sees], once there is a cohesive and serious group, everything will move on its own.
So when do we start???
You jumped too quickly. Unfortunately I have no time, and I also don’t think a new religious movement comes out of a lesson (rather, it comes out of the site and all the other contexts. You know what? Start creating a new religious movement, come out of the closet, and then I’ll join. 🙂
See the example of Hasidism, which arose through little rebbes who made noise, and boys ran away from home and came to learn with them, and thus today there is Hasidism [don’t be offended that I compare you to Hasidism; it is only for the sake of discussion]. Today, by contrast, no one needs to run away from home; one simply needs to sit and learn with a Torah scholar [you] and make a lot of noise [today that is very easy].
A lesson creates direct connection with human beings, and in order to build a religious movement that is the minimum required.
I assume that in principle you would agree with me that the following sentence:
“But startups advance the economy, regardless of the value of their product.”
Products with saturated fat and all kinds of junk foods also contribute very, very much to the economy here. And still, I would not want to produce and import products that do not bring health to the world.
But let’s assume I gave a bad example, because junk food is indeed usually a negative thing, whereas startups are usually good things.
The point is that even if the startup product itself is something positive, and even if it contributes to the economy (it contributes a great deal), it is still not something worth giving up things like family and quality in one’s observance of Torah and mitzvot for.
For producing weapons for the holy IDF, however, it is indeed worth giving things up. In my opinion this is true fear of Heaven, if it comes from a place of acting for the sake of the collective. And additionally, as stated, when the product is especially high-quality—yes, one that spies on murderous terrorists, smashes the skulls of murderers and those who send them, or intercepts the missiles of murderous terrorists.
You wrote in the past that a Jew is essentially measured by observance of Torah and mitzvot.
Does it not follow that you are basically telling Jews to compromise on their essence in exchange for a wealthier society (and for a certain interest that would emerge from that for the religious public in general)?
Someone who chooses to give career a lower priority will pay for it in that his chances of reaching the top will be lower. That is a completely legitimate choice (in my opinion it is also the more correct one for most human beings), but in large numbers—a sector most of whose members choose this will have less influence.
Contrary to what was written in the column, I don’t think this is supposed to affect things in the way it happened, but there will certainly be some influence. It cannot be otherwise.
- Judaism is measured by observance of Torah and mitzvot, not necessarily a Jew. See the previous column about Einstein and the sextons.
- Quite apart from Judaism, in general not the whole group is supposed to engage in the task that it sees as most important. Otherwise all the people of Israel would engage either in medicine or in Torah study. There is a collective division of tasks, and for the group to function properly, some of its members need to engage in matters that support others even if for them personally those matters have lesser value.
What you wrote here in the first paragraph of your remarks is a summary of what I wrote in the column. Therefore I do not understand your final comment.
“The decision is that everyone has one ballot slip because it is hard to quantify it otherwise.” Nonsense. And the pretension to define “democracy” as a mathematical concept with one and only one meaning is nonsense too. Democracy has many forms that have been expressed throughout history in all sorts of different regimes, each with a different cultural, value-based, and ideological background. The democratic thought of the French Revolution was very different from the parallel thought in Britain or Germany, not to mention the “original” democracy of the Greek city-states, chief among them Athens. You are trying to provoke a critical and impartial discussion, but you quite consistently ignore the fact that concepts from the domain of society and state have a rich historical background and very great diversity. The determination you present as though it were a kind of Cartesian insight into the “essence” of democracy is a very partial reflection of British conceptions of the role of the state and the place of the economy within the political-social world. In Israel, the overwhelming majority of the founding generation (except perhaps Weizmann) drew from entirely different traditions, and therefore our regime is not at all like the one in Britain. That is to say, one cannot understand anything without understanding its context. Want to know what Western liberal democracy is? Don’t sit by the fireplace and think hard like Descartes; go read some history books. This determination is consistent with the categorical imperative. If everyone were to learn to understand the contexts of concepts and the development of phenomena, and less to turn immediately to abstract “logical,” “mathematical” thinking, then at the very least public discourse would be saner.
*If everyone were to learn…
If you enjoy writing forcefully, then I’m glad I enabled you to do so. That’s what we’re here for. But beyond forcefulness, it would also be worthwhile to improve your reading comprehension.
You are conflating historical claims with claims about essence. In order to make a historical claim, one indeed needs to examine history. But here I was not dealing with history, and therefore your claims are beside the point. Good luck.
Assuming both are formally (halakhically) Jewish, who in your eyes is more Jewish (or “more Judaic”)—
a secular Jewish startup entrepreneur or a Jew who observes Torah and mitzvot in light and severe matters alike?
The latter. What is the question here?
You identify yourself as a rabbi, and you advise people, “study less Torah.” In other words—“be less Jewish.”
You may say that other rabbis also tell their student to enlist in the army, and clearly that involves compromising the quality of mitzvah observance (certainly the mitzvah of Torah study). That is true, but for those rabbis the state has religious value, and therefore according to them there is not really a sacrifice here.
The same applies to Haredi rabbis who tell a student to study medicine or become a Magen David Adom driver (which involves compromising the quality of Torah study and other mitzvot). That too is true, but it is because they see value in saving lives. Religious value.
And what is your value?
To build a stronger economy for the state?
It is very hard to say that this is a religious value.
In your view Judaism is only halakhah, and going to develop startups is certainly not a halakhic matter, and there is no religious value here (not even the excuses that the state will be wealthier).
So where did you draw this very unusual philosophy from?
I will try not to put words in your mouth, but if your answer is “I am a Jewish-liberal-modern person,”
then with all my impudence I will answer you like this: come on, leave it, for heaven’s sake (this is not a curse, of course).
It just doesn’t sound good.
Right, for example here in Wikipedia—kapota, and the source of the word is French.
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%98%D7%94
In Yiddish it is pronounced kaptn (with a soft p), or kapite (with a hard p).
I am really restraining myself from writing what I think about your abilities, in the field of reading comprehension and in general. So I’ll stop here.
Regarding this sentence:
“But it is important to know that at least at present it is clear that a large majority of the public (including over half of Likud voters) supports pausing the reform and engaging in dialogue toward agreements.”
It is possible that support for the pause and the dialogue stems from the threat by the left-wing camp of refusal to serve and other forceful steps.
Regarding this sentence:
“In this view it is even clearer that the Haredism proposed here fulfills none of the essential criteria that characterize it.”
I think one of the essential characteristics of Haredism that you forgot is especially strict observance of the commandments.
That is certainly possible. And still, under these circumstances that is the view of the majority of the public.
Strict observance of the commandments is not a Haredi characteristic, and certainly not a unique one.
At least that is how many in the public perceive Haredism. See, for example, the first sentence on Wikipedia about Haredism: “Haredi Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism characterized by relatively strict observance of the commandments and halakhic practice, and by conservatism in its culture and way of life.”
I refuse to cooperate with the propaganda that anyone who is not Haredi / me is lightweight.
Maybe he is simply suggesting that they be more contributing and more significant to the people also in the spheres of the ‘secular’?
And like Nichtler, with the Haredim he makes internal arguments that will be accepted,
when his malicious intention is nothing less and nothing more than the good of the people, really.
Oy gevald.
As a friend of heavily built Savyon types,
it would be fitting for the rabbi to comment on the mockery regarding military service.
It is just a lying stereotype.
They serve in combat units in very dangerous places,
and a significant part there are very patriotic.
They are hurt that people casually attach to them a stereotype that is not true in reality.
The recording by Segal with the said mechanic is false and has many holes in the story, as is well known to anyone who serves in the air force; some of them are basic and embarrassing.
It is doubtful whether Segal cooperated with a liar or was innocently duped.
My daughter showed me the list of falsehoods in the story he told there, things that were not and will not be possible in reality.
Maybe later I’ll send it.
A mistake fell in my name.
My full and exact name, as is well known, is:
I don’t like bloopers, especially not the sloppy ones among them
I don’t want to ruin the celebration for Haredim and Hardalim who might perhaps be persuaded to contribute more of their own accord to the nation through the temptation that they will in the future have more power to influence…
It’s just that everybody knows Bibi stopped his plan when he saw the crowds going out into the streets that night…
and especially the poll the next day showing that 2/3 of the people were against his plan.
That is, he was left only with the Haredim and the hard-core national-religious and a bit more…
He understood that he had lost big, and that the people were unequivocally against him; only for that reason did he put it aside for the time being.
The point of the column is really a decree of religious persecution.
Obviously, whoever goes seriously and advances in the squadrons will become wiser, learn a lot about the world, and be on a very certain side.
And so too in high-tech in most cases, and in the elite generally—see, for example, central bank governors.
See also chiefs of staff, attorney generals, doctors, and every other serious professional field that truly requires talent and years of investment.
All of them are against the plan.
In effect the column calls to send our sons to think, to be serious and industrious,
so that in the end they will belong to that political side.
It comes together with wisdom, seriousness, learning, and investment…
If so, what good did the sages do?
Surely what is meant here is a decree of religious persecution.
You figured us out.
I would be very glad to receive this analysis.
Deleted because he answered a fool according to his folly. M.A.
Here it is: https://www.makorrishon.co.il/opinion/599185/
Maybe this is what was meant: https://twitter.com/shailevy6/status/1640729102788198405
It’s quite astonishing: are you suggesting that Religious Zionism should become stronger and wealthier so that the next time it gets annoyed it can be more violent / more insubordinate? That’s absurd beyond belief. In my opinion it’s completely irrelevant, since this proposal runs contrary to the core essence of Religious Zionism, which is statist by nature and by definition. But this is a reason to go into high-tech??