On Monadology in Our Public Discourse (Column 664)
In this column I wanted to address the fanaticism that is taking over our discourse, where on each side there are unquestionable dogmas, prohibitions on heresy and on engaging with materials that don’t suit those dogmas (“do not stray”), and on exposure to heretical views that might, heaven forbid, reveal some complexity in the situation. My sense is that over the past two years the situation has escalated, mainly on the secular-left side.
Monadology in a Nutshell
The philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz saw the human soul as a monad, that is, a unified, closed unit that is not in contact with other monads. Each operates independently, and what appears to be connections between them is not the result of directedness toward one another but of correlations—random or non-random. He viewed these correspondences as God’s action, but argued there is no need to assume He is involved in the process at every moment. In particular this applies to body–soul relations. To illustrate, he offered the parable of the watches. Imagine two clocks that, at every moment, show exactly the same time. How is their correlation produced? Either one influences the other, or the second influences the first, or there is a third factor coordinating them: the watchmaker who built them. This watchmaker is not involved at every moment, but constructed the clocks in such a way that a correlation would arise between them (both move at the same pace according to the hours of the day).
This philosophical theory is, of course, utterly bizarre and full of shortcomings. Beyond its lack of logic and its incompatibility with our common-sense worldview, it is also based on mistakes (some in calculus—which is quite surprising coming from someone considered, together with Newton, to be a founder of the field) and in fact solves none of the problems it purports to solve. Still, the concept of the “monad” seems to me very useful with regard to our public discourse.
A Look at Our Monadic Discourse
We talk and argue with one another, but this is usually an illusion. We behave like monads that do not truly speak to each other. Each is trapped within itself, and what looks to us like discourse is but a (weak) correlation, nothing more. Each monad is composed of people with similar views who echo for one another arguments and facts that reinforce the sacred dogmas of the monad’s priests and their believers, and thus each monad entrenches the absolute sense of righteousness among its members. I have dealt with this more than once regarding social networks (see for example Column 335), but it is also true of traditional media and of social groups in general.
This is a well-known phenomenon among religious groups, and in particular Haredi ones. There a formal prohibition on exposure to other views is customary, based on the verse “do not stray.” There are principles of faith that crystallized over the generations, in which one is ostensibly forbidden to disbelieve. On the (usually baseless) pretext that all of them were received directly from Heaven, they are not subjected to the test of critical thinking, even though their formulators (like Maimonides) actually felt quite free to establish them. I have often pointed out that this is an absurd prohibition, since you cannot limit a person’s freedom of thought and demand that he adopt a given position just because someone decided that this is what he must think (see for example Columns 6, 75, 576, 657, and more). My claim was that such a prohibition does not and cannot exist.
Yet in recent years it has become clear that this phenomenon exists—no less intensely—on the secular-left side of our social–ideological map. Later in the column I’ll bring an example of such a podcast that truly reached inconceivable levels of dogmatism and shallowness, and it is what prompted me to write this column. But we have a daily, obvious example of this: the newspaper Haaretz. It is a tabloid whose main concern is to meticulously and zealously maintain the community of believers and their dogmas. It is Yated Ne’eman on steroids.
I must say that on that side (=the sitra achra) the phenomenon is even more worrying, because there it comes with complete blindness to its very existence. The religious and Haredim are at least aware that they are prohibited from meeting other positions and facts. My feeling is that many of them inwardly also become insecure because of this; they fear encountering other arguments, positions, and facts because they estimate they won’t be able to cope with them. This is a case of positive feedback, where the trend of isolation feeds on itself.
By contrast with the “dosim” with kippot, the “dosim” without kippot—that is, seculars and leftists—operate within a monad no less closed, but they live with a deep self-conviction that they are precisely the ones open to all opinions, arguments, and facts, and that they form positions independently. All the while, in reality we are dealing with a fanatic religious sect in which there is a severe prohibition on raising opinions, facts, and arguments that do not fit the dogmas. A monad in every respect. George Orwell already noted that if one repeats some preposterous mantra enough times, the obedient public will embrace it as unalloyed truth: “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength” (from his 1984). Haaretz, for example, is careful to have a token religious-rightist, usually moderate enough (Akiva Novick, Israel Harel, and the like—Gadi Taub, who strayed, was of course booted) who is given a platform from time to time so they can wave him about as a grand expression of their sacred openness and balance. I’m surprised that Yated Ne’eman hasn’t yet hit upon this brilliant idea that allows you to create within your fanatic community the illusion of openness. It’s a powerful fortification for your one-sided ignorance. You’d do well to learn from the very best. I must say: if Bibi and his friends are a “poison machine” (and they are), then those who use this expression are a poison machine on steroids (condemning others for their own flaw).
Let’s now look at a few examples.
The Podcast That Wasn’t Aired
There’s a podcast channel called “Radikal,” whose purpose is to bring the gospel of the far left and its ideas to the knowledge of the ignorant masses. I understand they feel that these ideas are not heard enough in Israeli public discourse and that it’s important to surface them for the audience’s consideration so it can form a position about them. They purport to focus on arguments and intellectual discussion—again, in contrast to the prevailing discourse. I’m not familiar with this channel, though I did now browse a bit among its nooks and was not impressed. Nor did I see anything there that doesn’t appear morning, noon, and night in all the mainstream media. At least in the particular podcast I deal with here, I did not see a single word that connects in any way to an actual argument or to the intellectual plane at all.
What brought the sad fact of this channel’s existence to my attention was an article I came across on Srugim, which described a podcast they recorded with MK Zvi Sukkot. Impressive openness for a leftist channel, no? Except that in the end they decided not to air it because it turned out too successful. Sukkot turned out to be someone who can present arguments, not the certified idiot they thought he was (this is what they themselves say). They decided to spare their intellectual listeners this painful information, and the arguments they offered for that decision are mainly of interest to scholars of religions and various fanatic sects (see a particularly brutal summary here, sent to me by my friend Roy Ozvits, who runs his own successful podcast channel and contacted me about precisely this while I was corresponding with Jeremy Fogel).
No wonder this has become one of the most illustrious failures in podcast history. By the way, for some reason I didn’t find reports on the matter anywhere that isn’t right-wing or religious. Besides Srugim I found reports on Channel 7, on Haredim10, on ICE, on Kipa, 103FM (of course with Arel Segal), and that’s it. I found no further hint reporting it. Ah, sorry, I also found in Maariv a report on a complaint filed by the “Religious Zionist Youth” about incitement against Zvi Sukkot. There too you will not find even a hint of the shelved podcast in which all that incitement took place. Is that not of interest to Maariv’s readers? This phenomenon merits a very extensive article, but I’d have expected at least a small mention in a piece dealing with the subject anyway. No wonder this glorious failure is not very well known in the media and among the public—it’s part of the monadic censorship phenomena I described above.
In short, Dr. Jeremy Fogel, a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University, interviewed MK Zvi Sukkot on the above podcast on the topics on the agenda. After the interview they decided not to air it, for assorted reasons (we must not give a hand or a platform to “Judeo-Nazis,” he came out too polished and articulate, it turned out he isn’t an idiot, and so on). They even went one better: instead of airing that podcast, they aired an episode about the episode with Zvi Sukkot (which itself was not aired). That podcast features Fogel speaking with Itamar Weitzman (the channel’s manager) and with someone else named Hila in the background (apparently in their religious sect they don’t show pictures of women)—they present selected clips from Sukkot, but not before “vaccinating” their benighted audience, i.e., bad-mouthing him and only then playing the clip. This is to inoculate their audience against Sukkot’s dangerous ideas. They clearly underestimate their believers, who supposedly require protection from heretical arguments, but the comments show that at least those who responded weren’t so stupid and didn’t buy this nonsense.
By the way, Weitzman was an adviser to Ehud Barak. No wonder that in their conversation two august figures were posed as counterweights to Zvi Sukkot. You won’t believe whom they chose: Yair Golan and Ehud Barak. I think that even if I tried very hard I wouldn’t be able to find two bigger fools more devoid of integrity. For some reason I didn’t see any disclosure there of the connection to Ehud Barak. Well, but those are truly trifles.
This podcast reached peaks of ignorance and shallowness that, in my opinion, are unknown even in the Israeli media swamp. Watching it is recommended only for the stout of heart. Since I previously knew Fogel (he moderated my debate with Enoch, and did four podcasts with me on God: “The Metaphysical Circus” A and B, and a debate with Eilam Gross on physics and God A and B), and I actually appreciated his integrity, I approached him appalled by what I had heard and raised my objections. We exchanged a few WhatsApps, and among other things he wrote to me that on some points I am right and there are parts he sees differently, as he may explain later. Meanwhile, I haven’t received explanations, and I decided to lay out the matter here. As I also wrote to him, my claims dealt only with the central points raised in the conversation. I am prepared to show anyone who wishes that there is almost not a single sentence there, even those uttered in passing, that holds water. It’s a collection of ridiculous comparisons, clichés, labeling, null arguments, ignorance, propaganda, and more. I’ve already spoken about the sect’s fanatic closedness and bias. Needless to say, all this is said with supreme certainty and sanctimony—truly Amnon Yitzhak for the believers of Haaretz. This is a clear, even if extreme, example of the monadology of the secular-left church.
My Words to Fogel
I will simply paste here the main message I sent him after organizing my arguments.
| Hello Jeremy. To say everything I have to say would require an encyclopedia. So I thought to present just a few general points. Afterwards I expanded a bit because I couldn’t help myself. But this is still only a tiny fraction of what I have to say. About almost every sentence that came up in this podcast, in its various parts, I could show you that we are dealing with crude logical errors or just a lack of knowledge. I apologize for the bluntness of my words, but the horror (yes, no less) I just listened to demands it (I am still truly shaken by this experience. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen something so low). I wrote at greater length and detail than I had planned because of the shock I experienced, and I write this out of respect for you. I came to know you as someone attentive and seeking real discussion, even though what emerged here was the exact opposite. Therefore I hope that nonetheless you will read my words despite their length (I listened to the entire podcast, and that took me much longer, because I wanted to be honest and form an opinion after listening to all of it), and try to truly listen to this critique. It really comes from a pained heart.
1. I will preface that it was very hard for me to listen. Not because of the views expressed there, and not because of my sympathy for Zvi Sukkot and his fellows in view and party. I strongly oppose them and write so at every opportunity. It was the manner in which the matter was conducted that was appalling—in style, in shallowness and superficiality, and especially in the great fear evident on your side. And of course in the lack of integrity: the moment you discovered that opposite you was someone who can present an argument and is not an idiot, you decided not to air it (you wrote to me that you didn’t censor him. Of course you censored, and you did much worse—as I will detail below). You yourself say you brought him just to present him as an idiot. I needn’t tell you that this is not what one should do if one is seeking serious discourse, as you purport to conduct there. Is that how one clarifies issues and positions? Invite an idiot to ridicule him and make him a laughingstock? Well, but you were disappointed. To your chagrin, it turned out he is not an idiot. I must clarify: I’m not dealing here with etiquette. I am no Hana Bibi, and I have no problem with cynicism and jokes. But only when these are your and my way to express arguments. I do have a problem when all those come instead of arguments—and that is what happened with you. Under a pseudo-intellectual guise, you didn’t raise any real argument, and what did come up was preposterous to an embarrassing degree. Such detached leftist smugness—as if everyone else is stupid—and what is most puzzling is that all this happens when everything (!) you yourselves say is downright silly. 2. I was bothered by the childish mockery in the style of “Tzvikush,” “dumb-bear,” and “no, no, not cute,” when we’re talking about an MK who represents a public, and when you yourself admit you discovered he isn’t an idiot as you thought. So why do you continue to treat him as such after you realized you were wrong about him? You admit you were smug and were proven wrong, but you continue with the same smugness also in your words after the interview, and when he is no longer in front of you, you laugh at him after he left. Where is your basic fairness? As a dime-store armchair psychologist I would say that this artificial smugness expresses fear and insecurity and covers embarrassment. And you certainly had reason to be embarrassed. By the way, there is here truly disgraceful unfairness. The interview is filmed, in which you and Sukkot discuss on equal footing, in real time, face to face. But after the interview, you and two other brainless clowns sit separately (without Sukkot) when everything is already filmed and available to you, and then you raise critiques and broadcast them before the interview within the same video, without Sukkot having any opportunity to address and respond. Do you understand that this gives you an unfair advantage over your interlocutor? This is really not done. What would you say about a filmed dialogue in which one person presents a position and, after he finishes and leaves, the other takes his words and makes fun of him and doesn’t give him a chance to respond? That’s exactly what you did. Incidentally, to our shame, despite the unfair advantage you took for yourselves, he beat you—and more precisely, it’s more accurate to say you beat yourselves. 3. I won’t repeat my critique of the avoidance of airing the interview in full. It’s truly shameful. And certainly when it is done under a liberal and intellectual guise. The podcast’s comments (I assume you read them) did this better than I could. There is an impressive consensus there, and it is evident that even your audience understood that what happened here was a colossal own goal for the left. Incidentally, the fundamental reason is that your views truly have no intellectual cover, despite the massive and disconnected hubris that radiates from every word of yours. 4. Your insistence on presenting every clip from the interview only after prefacing it with a “foreword” whose purpose is to inoculate the stupid public that watches you (that’s apparently how you assess it) against what is about to come, attests to extreme insecurity and contempt for your audience. If your contempt is justified, I would shut this podcast down right now. Why speak to such idiots? Is this “Pravda” come to educate the ignorant leftist masses? That’s how it looks. In any case, from the comments it is plainly evident that you erred in your assessment. 5. Your lack of attentiveness is truly disgraceful. You simply do not listen to your interlocutor. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and not listening to him and digging in again and again to arguments that were answered long ago. See examples below. 6. Your nitpicking at trifles—within a framework that purports to touch precisely on the issues’ intellectual aspects—was truly embarrassing. Here are a few examples: a. His Twitter joke on which you wasted a lot of time at the start. Who hasn’t told jokes in Israel since October 7? Are you serious? Two months after October 7 you have a complaint against someone who told a joke?! Is there anyone who doesn’t do so?! Do you sit at home and cry all day? Incidentally, it wasn’t even a joke but an ironic response to a current topic. It’s just a mode of expression—the most legitimate in the world. Do you really want to claim that one may not respond cynically or ironically as long as there are hostages in Gaza? If so, you can shut down all the media and all the living rooms in Israel. We are human beings, and human beings grow accustomed even to difficult circumstances. There’s even something positive in that. But even if you think not, you cannot deny that this is human nature. We all do it. After all, you yourselves are whooping it up there and mocking the whole world. For your information, the hostages are still in Gaza. So is it permitted or forbidden to joke in this period? And you insist on this stupid point as if you caught him in disgrace, as if you pulled a joker, and he has nothing to answer you—to our disgrace. Truly bizarre. b. Your harping on the term “brigade.” Are you serious? You really think that’s the issue? That’s the question you managed to prepare in order to trip him up? Most of those who served in the army do not know how many soldiers are in a brigade. Most would answer as he did, and they do not know there are thousands besides the combat soldiers. Incidentally, in the background someone pointed out that he was right regarding an armored brigade but not infantry. That didn’t stop you from laughing at him as if he didn’t know (incidentally, I think that’s a mistake even regarding an armored brigade). Is this the question that matters for decisions in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee? Do you really think all committee members over the years were greater experts than he is? You made me laugh. c. Your assumption that military service grants expertise for the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. This is truly nonsense, and again you insist on it as if you had pulled a joker. What does a private, corporal, or even a lieutenant in the army (like Amir Peretz) have to do with the issues raised there? Nothing. I don’t think that I, having been a junior armored corps commander, have any advantage whatsoever over Zvi Sukkot on those matters. And in general, did you check all the committee members (also on the left) to see whether all of them have military training, or whether they bothered to make it up from professional literature? So why is it precisely Zvi Sukkot whom you accuse of not having done so? He answered nicely that even a general has no real advantage in those discussions, and these days prove it. But you dragged him down to the service of a private or a corporal. Do you really think such service gives any added value for membership in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee? I find it hard to believe you yourself believe such nonsense. Incidentally, Shimon Peres was Director General of the Defense Ministry, Defense Minister, and Prime Minister—and he never served a single day in the army. Just note that these three points are more or less all the clips you brought from the entire interview (apart from questions on Judaism—see immediately). Are these the points that expressed the intellectual aspects you purport to focus on? You want to probe Sukkot’s worldview in depth, and you focus on the question of what a brigade is and why he wasn’t a private in the army? Or why he tells jokes on Twitter? Are you serious? 7. Well then, a few remarks on your critiques of Judaism. a. Your question regarding “a woman is acquired” is based on a misunderstanding. The term “kinyan” (acquisition) in halakha means an act that effects a legal status. That is, an act that validates a legal situation (for example, establishing ownership over a field or an object, or separating terumah, or betrothal between spouses, divorce, and many more). In halakha, in order to create a legal status one must perform an act. That’s all. It is not necessarily about ownership. The Talmud’s comparison of betrothing a woman to the acquisition of a field at the beginning of Tractate Kiddushin is a lexical comparison, not a substantive one. It’s important that you understand this is not modern apologetics. I can prove it to you from the sugya itself and from many commentators across the generations (long before there was any need for apologetics vis-à-vis modern values of women’s equality). I wrote a detailed article about this in a debate I conducted in the journal Akdamot with Rivka Lubitz on this very topic. b. Male same-sex relations are defined in the Torah as a “toeva” (abomination). But there are other instances in Scripture of the term “toeva” that are not at all connected to moral wrongdoing. The Talmud in Nedarim explains the term “toeva,” and it is not what you think it is in modern Hebrew. In general—and I have written several articles and posts about this—the halakha does not deal in morality. This has two main implications: when it rejects some act, one cannot infer that it deems it morally wrong. It is non-halakhic but can be morally perfect. Conversely, there are acts manifestly immoral that are halakhically permitted. From this it follows that even if the Torah forbids male same-sex relations, this does not mean it sees them as a moral wrong. It is a halakhic prohibition. In light of this, all your questions become irrelevant. You can of course disagree with halakha and the obligation to it, but even one who is bound by halakha is not obliged to see male same-sex relations as a moral problem. (Incidentally, you say you drew from the Torah the love of the stranger and the like. Bubkes. These are values you believe in on their own merits as a moral and liberal person, and by chance—or not—they also appear in the Torah. In my estimation, you drew nothing from it.) c. You found a contradiction in Sukkot’s words between his attitude that everything in the Torah is sacred and binding (what you mistakenly called “fundamentalism”) and his statement that there is also an Oral Torah with binding interpretations. Here too you err. This contradiction does not exist. Indeed, he said that everything written in the Torah is sacred in his eyes, but the question you must clarify is what is in fact written there. You assume that what is written there is the literal reading (according to your Hebrew and the meanings you assume, and without the tools of midrash, etc.). But he thinks that what is written there and what is sacred in his eyes is what is interpreted by the Oral Torah. You of course assume the Oral Torah is apologetic inventions, i.e., that the sages do whatever they want by means of a toolkit that they invented. But that too is ignorance. If you knew, you would know there are quite a few examples that contradict this thesis (for example, cases in which the sages very much want to do something but do not “succeed” because they lack a midrashic tool that enables it). But even if you were right that everything is the sages’ inventions, still, according to his view there is no contradiction in his words. He is bound by what is written in the Torah on the basis of the Oral Torah’s interpretations. That’s all. I wrote that the term “fundamentalism” is mistaken, for two reasons: the fact that I am bound by the Torah does not mean I do not apply critical thinking to it. If I reach the conclusion that it is not true, I will not be bound by it. You are bound by morality, or by the laws of the state—so are you a fundamentalist? The second reason concerns the interpretations made to Scripture, as I explained above. That is not fundamentalism. d. You found a contradiction regarding building the Temple and suspected he was lying to you. That’s the easiest move—when something doesn’t fit the conception and the persona you are trying to impose on your interlocutor (the terrible demonization you did to him, and that is done to him in general), then apparently the interlocutor is lying (true, you—unlike Itamar—were more honest; you also raised the possibility that perhaps you misunderstood his position, but it is clear you did so only to discharge an obligation). The truth is that you only had to listen to what he explained to you. What he said is that he has a mission to build the Temple and it will not descend from heaven but will be built by human beings. But at the same time he is aware of the constraints—internal (within the people and state of Israel) and external (the Muslim world and the world at large)—and he does not aspire to build the Temple at the price of internal or external war. He told the truth, but you decided he is lying. For he must be a fundamentalist and messianic, and if what he says doesn’t fit such a persona then he must be lying. As someone who knows these folks (and disagrees with them), I can tell you he told the truth. Well, maybe I am lying too. That’s how you—or you plural—build a thesis that cannot be refuted and thus you always emerge right. 8. Your definition of your interlocutor’s “defensive liberalism” is ridiculous. Intolerance toward intolerant positions should lead to intolerance toward you. The party that was intolerant in this discourse was you, not Zvi Sukkot. Incidentally, the condemnation of the breach into the Sde Teiman base and the distinctions drawn vis-à-vis other disturbances at demonstrations, etc., were truly tendentious and embarrassing questions-begging. Suddenly the left ascribes sanctity to army bases. Amazing. And we haven’t yet discussed Itamar’s foolish claim about the security risk created by that breach. Just compare it to the security risk created by the refusal to serve during the struggle over the reform (which, by the way, I supported—in the refusal). Do you even compare the level of risk?! 9. Your comment on thinking within or outside a conception was also simply logically wrong. You began by saying there is a problem with thinking within a conception but it’s impossible to think without a conception. But there is no contradiction. The problem currently under discussion is not thinking within a conception (for, as you rightly said, all thinking assumes conception(s)). The problem with conception is when you are unwilling to examine your conceptions critically—i.e., when you cling to them excessively and do not let facts confuse you (i.e., you do not listen to other facts—confirmation bias). The problem is not the very fact of thinking within conceptions, so why does that contradict the fact that it’s impossible to think without conceptions? (Incidentally, this is exactly what is manifested in your discourse, in which under no circumstances are you willing to subject your conceptions to genuine discussion.) Therefore there was no need at all to resort to moving to many conceptions instead of a single conception, as you proposed as a solution to the contradiction. There is no contradiction and no solution is needed. 10. In conclusion, if you wish I am willing to sit with you and go through every sentence in this podcast—yours and the other two’s. Sorry if I sound arrogant, but I promise to show you that there was almost not a single sentence there that holds water. But this can be done only if you promise to listen seriously and be willing to accept the critiques. I already say that I will be willing to do so. To conclude, from the comments I learn that the public watching you is not as stupid as you think (and therefore try to protect it from other arguments and positions). It seems you scored an own goal—and you earned it honestly. I must say that contrary to what I gather from the tone of your words, you should understand that this is not a small or incidental mistake. We are talking here about a colossal failure. For the horror that happened in this podcast I would establish an investigative committee on behalf of your editorial staff to re-examine all your editorial (and ideological) conceptions. The entire conduct here was a glorious failure the likes of which I don’t think you’ll find in the history of podcasts. I hope my words will be received in a good and substantive spirit. They were not written to hurt but to illustrate to you and yours the depth of the problem—of which, in my feeling, you are unaware. |
On the margins of my words so far, I will now bring two more examples of such monadology, which I will address very briefly.
- Problematic Sugyot in the Talmud
The first example is a lecture by an ophthalmologist named Yitzhak Isakov in the “Coming to the Professors” forum, in which he talks about problematic sugyot (passages) in the Talmud. Here too it was quite shocking to hear a truly childish lecture by a person with very limited capacity for thought (he claims to have researched the topic for many years), who takes a complex text like the Talmud, extracts from it a few grotesque examples, and pronounces judgment on the whole. Beyond the fact that even the examples he brought are not really grotesque, and beyond his lack of reading comprehension and his childish approach to and interpretation of this text. The Talmud is an enormous corpus containing a vast variety of ideas and interpretations, in my eyes among the most splendid in the history of human culture. True, it was written in another time and place, but precisely its persistence and relevance to this day mean it must not be treated anachronistically. To form a position on such a text on the basis of a simplistic and childish reading of a selective, biased sampling of esoteric examples is truly foolishness. If there is anything one cannot call an academic discussion, it is this lecture.
What further horrified me were the audience’s reactions, which I understand was composed of professors. They sounded like a bunch of kindergarten children who were handed a punching bag to pick on. It was evident they don’t really know the text in question, and it was very convenient for them to join in the mutual echoing of contempt for the Talmud’s low and anachronistic chauvinism, for the primitive discussions found in it, and of course for the extrapolations made to our day. No one there really bothered to distinguish between the text and a few selected interpretations offered for it (which were also misrepresented). None of this stopped them from speaking with smugness and arrogance, with full self-confidence arising from not hearing other views and interpretations. Truly magical ignorance and academic thinking at its finest. This is the result of life in a monad in which only one kind of voice is heard. A tried-and-true recipe for shallow, one-dimensional thinking. It reminded me of the statistical argument I brought in Column 506, where I showed how five professors who came to a conference on statistical inference discuss the existence of God and fall into disgraceful statistical fallacies—all with assertiveness and arrogance arising from that same monadicity. Life in their monad includes echoing, dismissing, and essentially not hearing the rival views (incidentally, there too it was written following a podcast of Jeremy Fogel, in which a debate was held between the physicist Prof. Eilam Gross and me).
I do not feel the need to write a detailed response to this pitiable lecture (I’m trying to suggest that they invite me to present another position). I can only present the lecture to you so you can listen and form your impression.
- Yaron Blum on the Hostage Deal
I will conclude with a completely different example. I have a feeling that the discourse in most of our mainstream media regarding the hostage deal is downright psychotic. There is a mass psychosis regarding the deal, and it rides on compassion for the hostages and their families, and no less on the fanatic religion of anti-Bibi-ism and anti-Ben Gvir and Smotrich. Within this abysmal discourse, anyone who opposes the deal is presented as someone who simply does not care about the hostages’ lives. The standard is to add that he is also messianic, fascist, etc., and is motivated only by political and coalitionary interests (as if consideration of coalition parties’ positions and ideologies were not legitimate for a government that operates by virtue of that coalition. Bizarre). Almost no one in the media (except Ayala Hasson and Channel 14, who of course are biased to the other side—who would have believed I’d speak in their praise, and in praise of Smotrich and Ben Gvir) raises the question of the price, and asks whether caring about the hostages’ lives justifies any concession, including leaving Hamas in place, conceding entire regions of the country (in the south and the north, which will of course then seep into the center—but then we’ll respond firmly with preventive actions) and the loss of civilian and military lives in the future. It is quite amazing that a huge population in Israel, including senior officers, security experts, journalists and commentators, politicians, celebrities of various stripes, and just plain people, raise—like a Greek chorus singing in unison—a preposterous and internally self-contradictory position, and do so with assertiveness and sanctimony as if anyone who opposes it is delusional and messianic (and betrays Judaism and the foundational values of Zionism and Israeli society). Of course, almost no interviewer tries to ask them a little question about their delusions. This is crazed brainwashing—truly a psychosis—exactly like we experienced around the Gilad Shalit deal. A fascinating example of monadic behavior.
One of the peaks of this sealed, stupid, monadic discourse was an interview conducted by Kalman Liebskind and Akiva Novick on their morning show on 25.8 with Yaron Blum, who was responsible on behalf of the Shin Bet for our prisoners and missing and for the negotiations for their return—among other things, in the Gilad Shalit deal (which also comes up in the conversation). He speaks about the hostage deal now on the table and his red lines. I highly recommend listening to this gem. Anyone who wondered how we reached the absurdity of the Shalit deal and indirectly what awaits us if the government does not withstand the psychotic pressure from within and without also in these days, will find the answer here. You can find the full interview here (on the program from 25.8, about ten minutes starting at 1:01), and some of the main lines you can also hear here on Twitter. If this is the intelligence of those charged on our behalf with negotiations and the war, no wonder our situation is what it is.
Make no mistake. Although in this interview the contradiction in the position of the pro-deal movement is expressed grotesquely, these contradictions exist in almost every spokesperson of theirs on the subject. The difference is that Liebskind and Novick (who belong to a different monad) asked and did not let go. Other hosts and journalists do not bother to ask these questions because they belong to the same monad as their interviewees.
And Finally, a Word About Military Commentators and Experts and… Bibi
In the past two years I have taken part in quite a few meetings with figures and leaders from the protest side—the Kaplanists, Brothers in Arms, etc.—even before October 7 (remember, there was the struggle over the reform, which now returns). I told them again and again that they are bringing Bibi upon us with their own hands in the next elections. They laughed at me in light of the polls in which Bibi was at a low (quite rightly). I told them that their psychotic protest would cause a trend reversal (it’s also written on the site more than once). And indeed in recent weeks the change occurred and the polls show there is a real danger that we will get again that same dreadful coalition in the next elections. Incidentally, if they continue with the hysteria around the reform (as they have now declared), they will bring that upon us too.
I myself have lately begun to debate whether to vote for Bibi just to stuff all these demons back into their bottle and shut them up. Well, I’m not there yet—there are limits. But I’m simply fed up to the gills with them. All these ridiculous officers and commentators who exploit their authority and their professional expertise—a’ la—only show us anew every day how much it’s worth. For many years I’ve said and written that there is no such thing as a military expert—or at least that his opinion has no added value regarding the issues on the agenda. I think that over the past year anyone can see it.
Discussion
Alright, so I’ll try nevertheless to represent the other side’s position.
I’ll focus on the issue of releasing the hostages, because regarding the podcast with Sukkot I agree with you.
You assume that the discourse from the “left” is lacking and presents a shallow picture that doesn’t take the full range of considerations into account, but that is not so. In my opinion, it is דווקא the discourse on the right that ignores the full range of considerations:
First, the very question of whether toppling Hamas is even feasible. On the right they like to say that it is, but even assuming it is, that would only be through a governing alternative. Israel is not acting to offer a governing alternative, and at the same time it is dragging out the war and not bringing back the hostages. It gives the impression that there is no substantive management of the fighting. If you want to topple Hamas at the expense of the hostages, that is a legitimate position, but it really does not look like they are acting toward that; rather, they are just trying to drag things out and avoid taking any step that would anger the base.
The economic consideration—Israel is in an economic collapse that is getting worse (among other things because of Smotrich’s reckless conduct at the Finance Ministry, but first and foremost because of the duration of the fighting). Why is no one talking about this? Why does no one say that a very prolonged IDF campaign has a heavy economic price that we will pay with interest in the future? One can say that toppling Hamas is worth the economic cost, but I really do not hear any discussion of the economic cost in right-wing propaganda. International cost—Israel is paying a heavy price in the international arena, and that will only intensify. These costs have very significant security and economic implications. Why is this absent from the discourse?
There is also the social price, which could likewise be discussed at length, etc.
It is very plausible that right now there is American credit to keep fighting and dragging out the war only because of the elections there, and the moment the elections are over, assuming Kamala Harris is elected, she will end the war aggressively and without much sentiment, and we will come out bald from both sides.
I also really struggle to understand what is so disastrous about giving up parts of the land in a deal with Hamas. Would Israel really not be able to prevent another 10/7 in the future with more responsible conduct by the IDF and the relevant authorities? This discourse about an existential threat from a weak terrorist organization that has been greatly weakened sounds very bizarre to me. After all, even Hamas of 10/6 could not have done what it did but for an IDF blunder that no one is promising will happen again. And what about the risk of a regional war? And what about the north, which is being destroyed in the meantime? These are enormous prices we are paying.
But the most important point in my view, which really pains me to see ignored, is the issue of the lack of trust in the leadership today. That is really what accompanies the entire discourse about ending the fighting (a hostage deal) from beginning to end. Is it even possible to topple Hamas? Could it even have been done more quickly through a governing alternative? Are they dragging out an entire country for the chance that Trump will be elected (that’s a position one can at least argue about), or simply out of a desire to postpone the elections? And in general, try to imagine what would have happened if such an event had occurred under Bennett’s left-wing government. Would the then-opposition have given such prolonged wartime credit to that same failed leadership?
If there were an accepted leadership, with basic integrity and a reasonable level of trust, then people would know that the war was being managed reasonably and on substantive grounds; that is not what things look like right now.
Excellent! We’re waiting for Jeremy’s response, which apparently won’t come…
Hello Rabbi, you wrote something very interesting! Thank you very much!
Where can one find material on Leibniz? Especially on his contradictions regarding infinitesimals.
“This is a phenomenon worth a very broad article”
I think there’s a wording mistake here.
I’m not familiar with the details.
Maybe they did all this for the publicity.
I agree with a large part of what you say, but most of it is not related to my discussion.
First of all, because on some of the points you are talking about the government’s conduct, and that is not the subject here. Did I write that it is conducting itself correctly (apart from the point that it is not surrendering to the hostage psychosis)?
I also of course agree regarding the monadology on the right, though each of the points you raised needs to be discussed on its own merits.
For example, the possibility of eliminating Hamas later is nonsense repeatedly peddled by the protesters and the opposition. Forget it. Hamas in the meantime looks much more intelligent than we are (which is not saying much); they will not make any deal that leaves us such an option (which is why it is also clear that they will never return all the hostages). They will demand international guarantees. What you fail to do now you will not do later. An opportunity like this probably will not come again.
Clearly the threat posed to us by Hamas is not existential. Who said otherwise? That is why I wrote that we are talking about the loss of tracts of land, because it will be impossible to live there (people will no longer accept the situation that prevailed until October). And we have not yet touched on the north.
In any case, my subject here was monadology, and I focused on the discourse from the “left” (actually it is not the left but the anti-Bibi opposition), mainly because they are the ones accusing the right of stupidity and bubble-thinking (projecting their own fault), and also because they suffer from this much more than the other side.
I don’t know. But if you know a little infinitesimal calculus, read the Wikipedia entry I linked to and you’ll see it immediately.
I didn’t understand.
It should read “article.” I fixed it. Thanks.
In order to get a column on the site.
🤣
So people would talk about their stupid podcast
and in fact it worked.
People were talking about it on social media.
Come on, really. Just glance at the talkbacks there and you’ll see what an own goal it was.
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the subject with us.
In my opinion, a large part of the rise in popularity of Channel 14 is the public’s reaction to these phenomena (as in the comments on the podcast).
Assuming Channel 14 sins in the same ways as, say, Channel 12’s studios, only from the right-wing side, do you see a situation in which the overall result would still be preferable? Or perhaps the existence of another monad only intensifies the polarization?
I tend to think the situation is healthier despite the polarization.
I’d be happy to hear what the Rabbi thinks.
It is probably better than having one monad. But best of all is to be honest, meaning without a monad. Someone who comes to correct a distortion should not create an opposite distortion. That does not repair anything; it deepens the destruction.
If there were a balanced channel, that would be a better correction to the monads on all sides.
As I tend to say about the saying that it is better to fail in baseless love than in baseless hatred: best of all is not to fail in either one.
Obviously Bibi and Trump and Bolsonaro and the rest of the populists rise as a reaction to the silencing and delegitimization by the poison machine on the left.
There’s another mistake: it’s Amir Peretz, not Amir Peretz.
Thanks. Corrected.
Is there no military expert who can say that it is impossible to both eliminate Hamas and free the hostages?
It seems to me that this is the dispute between them and Bibi: that Bibi is lying when he says both outcomes can be achieved, while those experts (who, as I understand it, really can be experts on this issue and have an informational advantage over me or you) argue that the hostages can only be freed alive through a deal.
It seems to me that you agree with this remark; it just would have been worth putting it nearer the end, to explain that not everything is pure on Bibi’s side in this issue, and that he too bears responsibility for blinding the public on this matter.
Indeed, and I have written that more than once on the site.
I’ll try to respond separately to the column itself, but it amuses me that your columns open with “With God’s help” when you openly declare that you do not believe in any such assistance at all.
Hi Michi, in principle I agree with what L said, but I noticed that you did not really answer the question at all: assuming Hamas is no longer, and in fact never really was, an existential threat (unlike Iran or even Hezbollah), what causes us to keep fighting?? Why is the death of one more Arab baboon more important to us than 107 living, breathing Israeli citizens?? In addition, you did not take into account at all his other points about the economy, the international situation, etc. If Kamala is elected in November and Bibi doesn’t change course, in my estimation this is the end of our relationship with the United States. I’d be happy if you would address this.
I answered him. You just need to read. This is not about the death of so-and-so (who are human beings, not baboons). It is about removing a threat from entire tracts of land with tens of thousands of residents. And of course deterrence against future actions.
Incidentally, Hezbollah too is not an existential threat, to the best of my understanding. There too the situation is similar, although their power is greater.
As for our relations with the US, I disagree with you. Beyond that, even if they worsen, I do not give up tracts of land because of that.
And as stated, none of this is related in any way to the subject of the column.
I disagree on two points:
A. Lack of trust in the very feasibility of toppling Hamas. Feasibility is not only a question of capability, but of willingness to carry out the right actions to make it happen, and of the existence of international legitimacy that would allow it. It is quite possible that if Harris is elected she will simply stop the war with tools she has not even begun to use until now. In practice, it is not a matter of a foreign-relations crisis; it is simply not feasible to topple Hamas if there is no American veto in the UN Security Council, for example. *Therefore* the public sees fit to demand the return of the hostages, because they understand that we are in a situation where we may come out bald from both sides.
B. On the contrary, the continuation of the fighting in Gaza is what is preventing the crisis in the north from being resolved (whether militarily or diplomatically).
We can plainly see that Israel refuses to go to war in the north, and that is for one of two reasons:
Either the damage will be greater than the benefit (and in any case it will end in a deal),
or there is no international approval, especially American approval. How is that supposed to change? If there really were a serious confrontation with the reality of giving up tracts of land, something should have been done about it over the past year, but the fact that nothing is being done indicates there is no intention of doing anything in the future other than a deal, so it is already better to advance it because of the economic reasons etc. mentioned above.
All this still certainly connects to the issue of trust. We have a government of corrupt people, and I personally do not have an ounce of trust in their motives (in my impression, and apparently in the impression of about half the nation).
What I am trying to say is that half the nation that is demonstrating in favor of a deal is not demonstrating for it despite giving up on toppling Hamas; it is simply very skeptical both about the desire and the ability to topple Hamas at all, and therefore at this stage, when Hamas has been significantly weakened, prefers to bring back the hostages. Likewise regarding giving up tracts of land: the part that is in favor of a deal understands that there most likely will be no solution to that, and a government that wanted to solve it would already have initiated fighting in the north; one cannot say it has not had time to do so. The fact that this has not been done only shows that there is really no intention or ability to do it. So again, what a waste for the hostages.
This argument is pointless. We are repeating ourselves.
I’ll only note that it is not half the nation that is demonstrating. Far from it. Whoever belongs to that monad is certain that the people are with him, because that is what he sees around him. The same is of course true in the other monad. Factually, support for the coalition has grown over time, and it seems to me that so too has opposition to a hostage deal. The content of what the protesters say, hanging the blame mainly on Bibi, shows that they are in a monad that is unwilling to weigh costs.
What amuses me is your agreement that Bibi and his friends are a “poison machine” (as something bad). After all, that machine was established in the first place to fight the left’s poison machine (which of course, as you say, is on steroids), which since I started reading Yedioth’s weekend supplement at age 11 in 1991 has been operating for 32 years non-stop, 24/7, against the right (back then it was against Shamir and the Likud Party of that time—Amos קינן, Silvi Keshet, Haim Hefer, Didi Menussi, B. Michael, and Meir Shalev (who was still relatively restrained), and all the rest of those with venom in their blood whose names I do not remember. There was also some token right-winger whose name I do not remember). And then, with unbelievable lack of self-awareness, they stick on it the label “poison machine.” Why is it forbidden to fight poison with counter-poison? There is no other way to fight poison except by living in total disconnection from the poisoner (that is, not listening to a word that comes out of his mouth and completely boycotting him, to the point of not even saying bad things about the poisoner but simply ignoring his existence), or with counter-poison. In our reality, if you do not respond—forcefully—things will be interpreted as an admission. Demonization is fought with reverse demonization, just as one cannot really fight terror except by counter-terror. Lies are fought with lies. And the right is not even all that successful at this, because basically what runs in its veins is still blood and not poison. With the left I absolutely agree on one thing—in the short term the broad public is stupid and will follow whoever shouts the loudest and with the greatest confidence (which can only arise from total detachment from reality). And so the right loses from this, because by virtue of being right-wing it believes in an objective external reality, whereas the postmodernist left is precisely what believes in monads (since there is no such external reality. So there are only narratives, which make communication impossible—because there is nothing to communicate about).
It is easy for you to criticize the right over the “poison machine” (a left-wing invention as a label) because you are not the one being attacked but merely an observer from the side. If you were attacked like Bibi, you would become a poison factory yourself. Were it not for Bibi’s poison machine, the progressive religion would already have cast its terror over the land and we would be living in 1984.
You say it is better not to fail on either side, but in our reality I do not believe that is possible. There is a level of resolution at which it is possible, but at the beginning—at low resolution—you almost always have to fail in something at first. If you win, you will fail in nothing. In the end there are almost always two sides, and one is more righteous than the other. And in our case the right is the righteous one. The Ukrainians are wicked too, but in the war with Russia they are the righteous side. In the end, whoever tries to belong to the UN is always on the side of the wicked. One must choose a side without being ashamed.
Indeed, just as you say. But you should not be surprised: most philosophers and most scientists, like most rabbis, are complete fools—far below the level of the simple man in the marketplace—when they leave their field of expertise. It is hard to digest, but that is reality. Michi is at least a little better than the statistics.
The poison machine of the hostages’ families and the protest has completely lost the plot this morning. The other voice is not heard in the media monad.
So here, for the public’s benefit, is another voice:
https://hamal.co.il/main/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%9D-129895
Can you explain what makes the protest “psychotic,” when it is directed against a coalition that you yourself call a “coalition of blood”?
First, as far as I recall, nowhere did I call it a coalition of blood. I wrote that it is a coalition of horror and the like.
Second, what does one have to do with the other? If I oppose the coalition, does that mean that everything it does is wrong? Must I automatically be against it indiscriminately? Adopt stupid arguments—or rather, the absence of arguments—just because they are against Bibi and Ben-Gvir? Are you serious?
What makes the protest psychotic is the psychosis of those leading it and most of those participating in it.
From what I understood, you think the current coalition is shocking and leading to disasters and is irresponsible. It sounds as though very intense opposition to it is called for. So what, then, is psychotic? Could you be more specific about the acts of opposition that you call psychotic?
I was specific enough in the column and here. There is no point discussing it with someone who is unwilling to listen. I’m done.
I didn’t understand. Is the behavior of Jeremy Fogel that you brought as an example in the column something you were aiming at as psychotic behavior? The criticism of the Talmud at the low level of the doctor mentioned there? I’m trying to understand where the psychosis is that makes you want to vote again for the “coalition of horrors”; where here are the things that carry such great weight?
I simply can’t understand the comparison between the anecdotes you mentioned (embarrassing though they may be) and the horrors the coalition is producing.
I listened to almost half an hour of Dr. Iskov’s lecture, and I’d bet my head that he copied all his words from Yaron Yadan. I’m not saying this as a guess; I know Yadan’s arguments and examples very well, and it is almost word for word. Not that I have a problem with Yadan (I even appreciate him to some extent), but it is ridiculous to present this as some independent research of many years, etc. Besides, it is hard for me to believe that Iskov—who may be a very intelligent person in his field but by his own account had not even opened a Jewish book until a late age—suddenly became a kind of autodidact Talmud scholar who found all these examples. In general, Alex Tseitlin brings interesting people, but one has to take him and his channel in the proper context. He is an admirer of the dubious Yigal Ben-Nun (he calls him the greatest biblical scholar, haha), who also introduced the ophthalmologist at the beginning of the video. These guys detest Judaism. That is of course their right, but as I said, one should watch them (if one is interested) in the proper context. In any event, I’d be glad if the master of this place would address the issue of the Talmud’s strangeness and the odd style of reasoning of Hazal, which is certainly a subject of interest to many.
Another thing related to the column—similar to the case with Zvi Sukkot, Alex Tseitlin, who runs “Coming to the Professors,” previously interviewed Yehoshua Inbal and did not publish the video, apparently also because he thought Inbal came off too well (and Heaven is my witness that I think Inbal is a demagogue and I doubt I myself would interview him, but the censorship only shows who these people are). In the end Inbal himself uploaded a recording of the conversation to YouTube.
Has there been any change in your policy בעקבות the recent events?
As I understand it, you are arguing that there is a problem of shutting oneself inside a system of concepts, values, truth. An inability to step into another’s shoes, to understand his values, the rationality behind his positions. This is a very important and very correct point. I, for example, prefer to speak with someone whose opinion is the opposite of mine. It is an opportunity to learn something new (even though it is more “pleasant” to speak with someone who shares my opinion—the echo-chamber effect). But a threshold condition for such a fruitful dialogue is the use of clean, precise language. In my humble opinion, with respect, I found in your article use of coarse language (“…Yair Golan and Ehud Barak. It seems to me that even if I tried very hard, I would not succeed in finding two bigger idiots…” “What makes the protest psychotic is the psychosis of those leading it and most of those participating in it.”). If I belonged to that group, it would be very hard for me to separate the chaff from the wheat. You surely do not seriously think that most of those participating in the protest are psychotic, and you do not think that someone who served as Chief of Staff, Minister of Defense, and Prime Minister is an “idiot.” You are welcome to argue that he is not such a genius—that’s fine—but an “idiot”? A psychotic person is someone suffering from severe mental illness. The percentage of psychotics in the population is very low, and a considerable part of them are hospitalized. You are using these expressions as insults. In doing so, you undercut the main argument of your article, namely that it is important to listen to opinions different from your own and to open yourself to arguments that oppose your position.
Particularly outrageous is the label “sitra achra” that you attribute to the liberal left. In common usage, that expression means evil, Satan, the angel of death, impurity. That is an exaggeration.
A second remark. You argue and keep arguing that we are living in “monads.” And as stated, that is an important point as a way of conducting oneself in life. But in your article you weave in arguments about the substance of the current public controversy. These arguments provoke opposing responses, some of them justified—that is, according to those responses, you are simply wrong in what you claim. To those claims you do not respond substantively, but wave them away by saying your article is not about that but about the question of monads. It would have been better had you separated the two topics: set out the thesis of “don’t be blocked inside the box of ‘your truth,’ and be open to things you hadn’t thought about,” and in a separate article address the arguments against the protest and the other current claims. That would spare the scolding of commenters who respond to the actual current claims that you yourself advance.
First of all, the big problem is that there is no one to talk to among these people. That is precisely their psychosis.
Beyond that, this is a public-collective psychosis. That does not mean these are psychotic individuals.
The term “idiot” does not necessarily indicate IQ. It is a mode of conduct.
None of these are insults in my eyes but descriptions of fact.
I used the term “sitra achra” here, as also in the past, in its literal sense (the other side).
The arguments on the merits were not presented here systematically. They came in order to say that there is also another side (which I also think is right). Seeing things as though there is no other side is a monad. Where there is no sensible other side, ignoring its arguments is not monadology. So this is not a conflation.
You incite and revile and lash out and insult in disgusting language in a way that any halfway educated person can see is emotionality, and then tell your readers these are descriptions of fact. So that someone can update you on how your reflections appear to an intelligent reader:
Your column is absurdly long for the scant and misleading content it contains. A strange collection of three examples intended to support your claims, one that is forced and does not survive even minimal analytical criticism. Your column obsesses over some “insight” about a “monad” that pretends to be philosophical and intellectual but contributes nothing to the discussion, and under this disguise you write banal claims that confuse the essential (a government that is objectively failing) with the marginal (an esoteric podcast). You need a strict editor who will delete 90% of what you write and confront you with claims that slip out of you and that you have not thought through to the end.
At the beginning of the article it says “rules of communication” instead of “media outlets.”
Thank you for the constructive and analytical comments. I have been enlightened.
Could you… try again and come back?
At the beginning of episode 13, Fogel responds to the reactions to the episode with Zvi Sukkot:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/79K3DMy7SfFOFSXYTTsPQX
At what minute?
You did it better than I did:
“You incite and revile and lash out and insult in disgusting language…”
“A column absurdly long …” meaning—an excess of truth weighs on you.
Many thanks. I corrected it.
Regarding Yaron Blum—
in the words of Groucho Marx:
“These are my principles—and if you don’t like them,
well, I have other principles.”
I disagree.
Total disengagement as a response to poison—legitimate.
Counter-poison—not legitimate.
If terrorists from Jenin randomly kill children from Israel, will you go into Jenin and kill random children walking down the street?! You do not fight terror with terror.
I’ll give two examples that come to mind right now of poison from “Bibi and his friends”: they edited a video of Gantz saying that he was proud that he endangered Golani soldiers, when in fact he said he was proud that Gazans had entered Israel for medical treatment…
They edited a video of Rabin’s granddaughter in which she describes Arafat as a good and nice person, when in fact she said that about the president of the United States.
You do not fight lies by means of lies, but by means of truth.
A lie is wrong, and it does not matter if the other side uses lies.
According to your method, every lie can be justified by some prior wrong.
Well said.
You are the liar. It is true that Bibi’s campaign sometimes distorted things a bit (less than his rivals in any case), but the two examples you gave never happened.
In any event, the whole approach of turning the other cheek or (to put it differently?) not protesting wickedness but adding justice, etc., is contrary to all realistic logic and also to the morality of the prophets.
“Distorted things a bit”—you could be a comedian. Both cases absolutely happened. My username contains my number; send me a message and I’ll show you (you can’t send files here).
I didn’t say not to respond; I said not to respond to a lie with a lie.
And if you want to test what is realistic, look at what happens in reality: in which countries would you prefer to live—those that “turn the other cheek” because they do not kill randomly in response to random killing, or the “realistic” countries according to your method?
Maybe you’re a teenager.
Otherwise I don’t know how it’s not clear to you that the countries that “turn the other cheek” would not turn the other cheek at all if they were attacked as Israel is. The fact that you don’t understand this on your own says something about you. Just to remind you of Hiroshima and Britain’s bombing of Dresden (70,000 were killed).
The opposition is automatic. There is no judgment. There are (almost) no opinion pieces saying—the government is right in 30% of its actions, but badly wrong in 70%, and therefore it should be replaced. Everything that comes from Bibi’s hand is toxic, self-interested, and in the test of results always mistaken too (his interests never coincide with the right thing). Really a villain out of Marvel movies.
Look at the days of the judicial reform. I followed the conduct at the time closely. Aside from a few righteous people in Sodom (one must mention, as always, Neta Barak-Coren), no one bothered to go over the reform and write a counterproposal. Everything there was presented as dictatorship, including proposals that the opponents themselves had proposed in the past.
Do you really not understand how pathetic that is?
Regarding Yaron Blum, he insists that releasing arch-terrorists is a red line, and at the same time refuses to say that he would blow up a deal over that. Apparently a contradiction. But my impression is that he simply assumes he will always be able to reach a deal even without accepting such a demand (through offering concessions of another kind, for example). He should have been asked directly about a case in which Hamas is unwilling to budge from that demand—what then.
https://youtu.be/7jrX_iMhO4g?si=dW2u6EtT9cbf5-tv
Fogel’s response to the episode with Zvi Sukkot—at minute 9 he refers to Rabbi Michi, for anyone who wants to listen.
I have just received a link to a podcast in which Jeremy Fogel apologizes and brings the original podcast in full and in sequence.
https://youtu.be/7jrX_iMhO4g?si=Nd1ZijIssaobJEIK
I also have comments to make here, but I will not continue with it.
I decided after all to comment, because there is a very important point there. I sent him these comments:
Hello Jeremy. I listened to the opening of your recording and to the apology. First of all, I appreciate the integrity and the repentance. I still have comments, so briefly.
1. I was not offended at all, but disappointed. It seems to me that in your words there was an emphasis on the offense and too little on the disappointment (though it was indeed mentioned at the beginning). I’ll return to this in the last comment.
2. The apology, too, should first of all be to Sukkot himself. That was not emphasized there. The public is secondary in my eyes.
3. The Radical system is part of the failure. You had two interlocutors. So if you took everything upon yourself, that means they remain where they are.
4. I think your/your group’s fundamental approach is mistaken. There is no need or justification whatsoever to mediate “dangerous” opinions for the public. One should deal with them honestly and fairly, and the truth will chart its course.
5. If one deals fairly, it may become clear to you that your interpretation of those opinions is mistaken. Maybe they are not dangerous and Judeo-Nazi as is commonly thought in your monad?! To the best of my judgment, at least in some cases that is the situation.
6. I am against censorship and mediation even regarding Nazi opinions. In my view every reasoned position requires straightforward and fair discussion, so long as there are arguments there. The “religious” culture taking over left-wing discourse, according to which there are opinions one must not hear or voice, is destructive. It is destructive also toward the positions of the left themselves, because the public outside those esoteric circles understands that this is a religious sect and is not persuaded even if there are arguments there. This is part of the destructive PC culture.
7. And more generally, you keep talking about open and deep discourse, but censorship and mediation of opinions are the opposite of that. Even there, in the deep darkness of the right, there are opinions and arguments. It is worthwhile and proper to recognize this and to engage with them. It is not right to disdain the public, even if not all the pencils are perfectly sharpened.
8. Ultimately, you act as though you are the majority and one must not give a platform or legitimacy to a dangerous minority. One must not normalize such opinions. But the reality is that holders of those opinions are far more numerous than the holders of the opinions represented in Radical. Sometimes, when one lives in a bubble, one feels that the whole world is us, and that is a dangerous monadology. Not that the majority determines anything, of course (on the contrary, in my opinion usually the minority is right until proven otherwise). I brought this up because it further strengthens my claims about the proper way to deal with those opinions. The silencing will preserve the negligible minority that holds your views in its “purity,” but what about the rest of the public? Would it not be better to engage and raise arguments in order to try to persuade others? Incidentally, this is the Kaplan syndrome and Brothers in Arms syndrome: they are sure the whole world is with them, and in fact in their obtuseness they lose the public and remain a pure and shining minority. That is how they will bring Bibi upon us in the next elections. I have already been writing and saying this for many months (also in meetings I had with protest leaders and Brothers in Arms), and now the polls already show such a trend. But my feeling is that there is no one to talk to. Continuing the approach that a position held by tens of percent of the public is extremism that must not be given a platform and must not be listened to is a mistake on the strategic and tactical plane as well, not only on the ethical and intellectual plane. And I write this as a sharp opponent of those people.
9. In conclusion, the proper response to the failure is not only to apologize for hurt or disappointment, but to draw conclusions and examine your path courageously and honestly. In my view, the apology is of course worthy of appreciation, but in a certain sense it is the easy way. You have not done soul-searching about your principled approach. This brings us back to my first comment. You dealt with the hurt and apologized for it. But disappointment requires soul-searching, not apology. In my opinion, that was not done. Not inviting politicians does not correct the wrong and the failure. Invite people who are not politicians but think like Zvi Sukkot and know how to present a position and arguments. Such discussions would be a real correction.
Jeremy’s reply:
To the Rabbi!
As I say in the episode—breaking into Sde Teiman is a dangerous act. Not the views that Zvi Sukkot shares in the podcast. The danger is not from what the MK said, but from the gap between the tone of his words and the nature of his behavior. Moreover—I of course in no way think that my opinions are the majority’s opinions. I define myself as a crazy leftist because it is obvious to me that in most people’s eyes my opinions are crazy (proper absorption of war refugees in this country is a wonderful, Jewish act that will only benefit the state. A revolution in the conditions of teachers and health workers. All kinds of such craziness). It is clear to me that most of the country is elsewhere. Maybe that is good, who knows. But! Still! It is impossible to normalize discourse about genocide. You should know—people write to me in a horrifying tone, Michael, horrifying. There are people who respond to what I said not by saying that Bezalel didn’t mean it—and hopefully he didn’t mean it—there are also those who seriously write about the morality of genocide. I grew up on the question of the Holocaust. Among my earliest and formative memories are the stories my grandmother used to tell. I do not want to imagine that my people—even though I completely understand the suffering and the panic and the pain and the anger and the desire for revenge—will begin to accept as legitimate discourse a discourse that hints at genocide. And here I also want to ask you. I understand that you wrote about the episode affair on your blog. In the letter you wrote to me, you called this episode a “horror.” And perhaps rightly so! I say in the episode that I take your arguments and your views very seriously, and you know that. And when I apologize, I apologize from the heart. But Rabbi Abraham! Is talk about putting two million people to death not far more horrifying? Do such remarks by a minister not require your brilliant and important attention much more than a miserable podcast episode edited badly and in a crude and ugly tone? You have very great influence among people, some of whom vote for Religious Zionism. Will you, just as you wrote passionately against this stupid episode in a fairly lightweight podcast that most of this audience is only looking to dismiss, also write about the problematic nature of a minister in Israel, a leader to many of your students, who says that starving two million people to death is a moral thing?
With God’s help
Hello Jeremy.
Thank you for your words, which clearly come from the heart. I think they give me an opportunity to illustrate what I wrote to you in my previous message. Let me begin by saying that once again I’ve produced a scroll, but here the medium is the message. My message is about the importance of systematic discussion instead of cries of alarm and boycotts, even when dealing with opinions that seem to you wrong, dangerous, and illegitimate. Systematic discussion requires length and the raising of arguments.
[I will not address the break-in at Sde Teiman, because that diverts the discussion to a really unimportant subject. I will only say that in my opinion you blow it entirely out of proportion (interfering with the IDF during wartime because it has to allocate forces to defend its bases. Are you serious? The demonstrations on Kaplan and around the country take much more effort and far broader security-force deployments and interfere much more. And they are of course completely legitimate). Nor will I address the examples you brought as expressions of the extreme/radical left (absorbing refugees and improving conditions in the education and health systems). It seems very strange to me to present them as such. But none of that is the main point.]
A. First, who told you I didn’t respond? Why do you assume that I criticize your podcast but ignore the phenomena you mentioned? Without checking, that is not a serious statement.
B. In fact, I have responded more than once, and in very sharp words, to statements of that sort. My opposition to Smotrich and Ben-Gvir is sharp and is in writing, among other things because of issues of racism and attitude toward gentiles. In a moment I’ll send you a link to a detailed response of mine to Rabbi Mali’s remarks that were published in the media and caused a great uproar and criticism.
C. Here I come to illustrating what I said in my previous letter to you. My problem is that the criticism of such statements comes from the gut and is not truly willing to conduct a discussion. Note that even when I cried out about the wrong (or horror) in what you did in the podcast (and I am not comparing it to genocide), I did so on the basis of orderly and formulated arguments. I think criticism of that sort receives a more proper hearing and arouses discussion. By contrast, a mere cry of disqualification would not have achieved that goal. That is exactly what I wrote to you in my previous letter.
D. Note my critical column on Rabbi Mali’s remarks: https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/sy3bfhu6p
My critical column here:
https://mikyab.net/posts/85988/
I suggest you read it very carefully, because from it too you could extract sentences that might shock you. But if you read those words of mine carefully and pay attention to the course of the discussion and the arguments, you will see that this is an attempt to analyze the sides systematically and reach a conclusion (similar to yours, only without the alarms and labels). This is the proper kind of criticism.
E. To sharpen the message still further, I will illustrate the very same thing even regarding the horror you quote in the name of Smotrich. Let me preface by saying that I did not hear his remark and do not know the context. In my experience the context is very important, and the media’s way is to take sentences out of context and stir up cries of anguish. But from a philosopher I expect more.
F. You quote him as having spoken about starving all the residents of Gaza to death. I wondered to myself: why specifically by starvation? Someone else once mentioned an atomic bomb (and his words too were taken out of context). That is more efficient and easier, no? I would check Smotrich’s words in the original, since it is quite clear to me that what he meant was preventing humanitarian supplies from reaching the residents of Gaza as part of the war to free the hostages and achieve security for Israel. That is what is currently on the table. Note that even if you oppose this, it is very much not a statement that it is legitimate to commit genocide. Genocide is the destruction of a people on nationalist or racist grounds. Here we are talking about self-defense against those who want to destroy us and in fact are doing so. Not individuals, but a group whose declared goals are precisely that. I assume you oppose this, but please admit that this is a statement entirely different in kind from a call for genocide.
G. In the column I sent you above, you will see that I divide the discussion of these proposals into several levels, and if you are willing to listen to my arguments you will realize that there is no Judeo-Nazi moral horror here of the sort your interlocutor Weizman repeatedly declared in obsessive, contemptible demagoguery. That extreme thesis—that it is permissible to harm all the residents of Gaza in order to achieve security and the hostages—does have a moral basis (with which in the end I do not agree). Incidentally, balanced, sane, and ethical centrist figures like Giora Eiland have repeated this again and again. It is not only Smotrich and Ben-Gvir.
H. I’ll tell you more than that. Even the call to destroy the residents of Gaza as an eradication of evil is not genocide (I explained there why, though in the end I rejected that thesis). But you and your friends are careful not to notice that here it is not even about that. It is about a statement based on the assessment that our self-defense requires such an action. Smotrich apparently thinks that without this we will not get the hostages and will never achieve security for our own residents. Suppose this assessment is correct (in my opinion one should judge a person by his own method and assumptions, and I wrote a reasoned column about that too). Is it really so absurd in your eyes to say that if achieving those goals requires killing all the residents of Gaza, then it is legitimate? In my eyes, not at all. If the alternative is that they will forever shoot missiles at us and not allow people to live their lives, that they will forever murder, rape, and abuse—and all this with the support of their public that elects them (in Gaza and the West Bank), while they educate every child growing up there to commit such atrocities—then in such a situation, is it really so absurd in your eyes to claim what Smotrich claimed? To that hypothetical statement, incidentally, I myself also subscribe, as you will see in the aforementioned column. Maybe after I have written this you will think that I too am a Judeo-Nazi, but I am convinced that I am absolutely not. I am as horrified as you are by genocide or by calls to commit it. But I am willing to hold a discussion, make distinctions, and hear arguments from anyone, and I distinguish very well between genocide and the case before us.
I. I return to my main point. One needs to respond to statements and positions, and of course also to act, from the head and not from the gut. To discuss, not to disqualify. The picture comes out much clearer that way and always more complex. As a Talmudist and lover of philosophy, I have acquired the habit of discussing every claim and every statement on its own merits. Not to cry out automatically, even when the things are outrageous. I have discovered that in many cases systematic discussion reveals that these are not Nazis, in costume or out of costume. There are very few utterly wicked people in the world, even on the far right, which people here so enjoy maligning (including me). I again suggest that you adopt this policy. It is more ethically worthy, more intellectually serious, and ultimately also more effective. I’ll repeat what I wrote in my previous letter: if the goal is only to strengthen the believers in their pure path, then propaganda and alarm are one possible way. But if you want to change minds and persuade others, I do not think that will be your glory. Note the message I sent you before: disappointment is more important than hurt. For soul-searching and repair are more important than apologizing to whoever was hurt. That is so both on the merits and in order to prevent the next person from being hurt.
J. You wrote that I ought to cry out more about Smotrich’s remarks than about the failure in the podcast. Even on that I disagree with you. The failure in the podcast is what enables Smotrich’s remarks. In my eyes the main horror in our situation is not people’s opinions but the absence of the ability to conduct a discussion about them. Discussion and discourse are the foundation of everything, morality included. Therefore I cry out about the discourse, and the main aim of my blog is not the conclusions I write in favor of but the purification of discourse and discussion. You may be surprised, but in my eyes this is the problem of problems in Israel today. And from a philosopher I would expect you to understand this and join me in the journey to purify discourse. This does not normalize any opinion; it merely makes it possible to discuss it and thus also to fight it effectively. Cries of alarm and boycotts are not an effective way to fight dangerous opinions.
Jeremy:
Then explain to me how it is moral to destroy Amalekite infants? Just—throwing out an idea—why not give them up for adoption?
Do you accept as an axiom for your engagement with this question that there is some possible justification for destroying an Amalekite infant?
That is absolutely not an axiom for me. If I thought it was not justified, I would say it was not moral. I have written such things more than once about halakhah. The relation between halakhah and morality is a complex issue, and I have a very systematic view on it. It is hard to elaborate here.
But in my opinion it can indeed be justified morally, quite apart from the Torah, as I explained in that post. It is not an apologetic justification just because it is written in the Torah, but a justification ab initio.
The question of adoption is not relevant. Indeed, if there is such an option, there is no justification for killing. The discussion is hypothetical and principled: assuming there is no other option, is there justification? My answer is yes. And I think very many people would agree with the justification I wrote there.
After that there were only comments about minor matters.
I wanted to ask what you think about the uproar over the female mental-health officer and her dismissal.