Q&A: Thoughts About Bibi
Thoughts About Bibi
Question
With God’s help,
I, like everyone else, am reading about the developments in the investigation of the Prime Minister, and for some reason I’m shifting uncomfortably in my seat. In my eyes, Bibi is certainly a person worthy of appreciation, but even if we don’t judge it through my own lenses, he truly has done many things for the country and its security, and deserves at least a bit of appreciation for that.
I want to ask: in your opinion, wouldn’t it be proper in trials of this sort to waive certain counts in the indictment, in light of the many things he has done for us? Doesn’t strict justice itself allow for that, so that we don’t judge our Prime Minister like the lowest of criminals in Israel? Where is the line between the need and desire to fully realize strict justice, in the sense of “let the law pierce the mountain,” and the need and desire to do a favor for someone who has done so much for us?
I’d be happy to hear your answer (and maybe I’ve even given you an idea for another article, and we’ll all benefit even more..)
Answer
That’s what sentencing arguments are for. The legal discussion itself should be equal for every citizen. In sentencing arguments, they take into account background, contribution to society, character, and so on.
Incidentally, many citizens have contributed to the country no less than he has. In his role as Prime Minister, he isn’t simply sacrificing himself; he wants the position and the honor that comes with it. Bearing a role that is a job with a salary does not, in my opinion, confer special merit. Only someone who does more than his obligation, or volunteers, can be considered as having such merit.
Discussion on Answer
See the incident discussed in Sanhedrin 19a. However, the conclusion is that a king from the House of David judges others and is also judged, and only a gentile king and a king of Israel (as distinct from the House of David) are not, because of the incident that occurred (since he would not accept the judgment).
Okay, thanks. I didn’t know they really do take that into account in sentencing arguments.
In that context, a question occurred to me: why is the king of Israel neither judged nor judges others? Is it because there was a problem with one king (Yannai, if I remember correctly), and because he went bad we have to decree that no king is ever judged? After all, the implications of that are very dangerous when the king knows he is not subject to judgment at all. And what did the Sages see that led them to decree this?