I wouldn’t believe them either. Their motivation is obvious.
By the same token, there are also many people who glorify and praise him. Their motivation is obvious too.

If all we have are biased sources of information, full of interests, and a considerable portion of it is outright false—is that enough to form an opinion?
In my opinion, no. All the more so such firm opinions about him and about the question of whether or not to vote for him.

I agree that there’s a problem in that there isn’t objective information about him (or at least not much).
In my opinion, what remains is a general impression of the man, his ideology, his experience, etc.
True, those too should be treated with great doubt, but regarding those I accept that “a judge has only what his eyes can see,” and based on those one can judge—not regarding the above.

What is confirmed by everyone who worked with him? That he’s corrupt? How many people are we talking about? Did you meet them? Did you speak with them? Maybe they’re lying? How can you determine that a person is "corrupt and self-indulgent" on the basis of bits and pieces of rumor?
There were rumors about you that you’re a heretic (forgive me for saying so), but I went to check…. I didn’t rely on rumors.
And it would be appropriate for you not to either….
Who is your alternative? The political rookie Gantz who stammers in front of cameras, or the caricature Lapid?

We’ve exhausted this. I wasn’t talking about alternatives, so I don’t see any point in discussing that.

I agree with everything Michi said. But I don’t see a more worthy alternative (maybe, maybe Gantz, but certainly not together with his whole group). Michi, do you see someone better? Why not recommend him in the absence of any better option?

על ההצבעה: שיקולי הרע במיעוטו (טור 189)

The alternatives are a relevant discussion. It makes no sense to expect Netanyahu to be Ben-Gurion or Begin. He is a leader in a different league from everyone else around today, and naturally he is dominant. And every dominant leader is a bit (or a lot) of a dictator. Therefore, all the testimony about him, even by those who worked with him, is irrelevant even if it’s true. A dictator likes yes-men, and people don’t like being that. The only relevant question is whether he is successful in leading the country or not (and whether there is someone who would do the job better).

Beyond that, it’s obvious that all the discussions about Netanyahu’s personality are an attempt by the left to impose its failed ideas on the public. When they have nothing to sell at the level of their ideology (they don’t let reality confuse them), they turn to dealing with the figures of right-wing people. Has the Rabbi ever heard a good word from left-wing people about any other right-wing leader (who was successful)? They praise those who are incapable of leading and, God forbid, bringing the right to power. And they’ve done a pretty good job of brainwashing the Rabbi. My impression is that there is no one else whose personality is better than Netanyahu’s (except maybe Bennett. But I’m not sure that if he reaches such a position he’ll be any more noble).

I also don’t understand what the Rabbi prefers. Someone else instead of Netanyahu, who will evacuate settlements and cause more buses to explode and missile fire?

By the way, based on what people usually call (in the media or in conversations) "corrupt" (that is, someone who does what he thinks is right without taking the rules into account), in my humble opinion 95% of human beings are corrupt. It’s simply unbelievable how easily the Rabbi has been swept up by this sub-discourse. It borders on a mental laxity that is uncharacteristic of the Rabbi. They said in the media that he’s corrupt, so obviously it can’t be otherwise, right? It’s a basic axiom. It was even written in the newspaper. In my humble opinion, the prosecution, the courts, and the media are corrupt (as for the media, I don’t even know where to begin. All media people. Right and left. All of them are "the snake’s tongue causes" if the Rabbi remembers who that is. Propaganda machines). After all, they too do what they want, and the law is only a tool in their hands to achieve it. They will interpret it however they wish in order to impose policies they were never elected to implement. And in general, today the left is almost entirely corrupt (by these standards). I’m now in a state where I can’t believe any left-wing person. They’re a bit like the Haredim, who tell you what they think you want to hear but will secretly act differently. It amuses me that in the middle of all this mess the Rabbi thinks Netanyahu is some kind of exception. It’s already gone beyond not voting for Netanyahu to also not voting for anyone who recommends him. Meaning two-thirds of the parties that represent the people. (The Arabs don’t count.)

I just now wrote to someone that if she is worried about evacuation of settlements, she should vote Blue and White. Bibi and the right-wing coalition will be the first to do it. A left-wing coalition won’t do it (also because of pressure from the opposition on the right).

With God’s help, 4 Elul 5779

To Rabbi Michael Abraham — greetings,

After all, about half a year ago you proved with signs and wonders that there is nothing like the Zehut party under the leadership of Moshe Feiglin, that he is the only ray of light illuminating the darkness of our political lives,

and now Moshe himself (who instituted for Israel the blessing of “He who nourishes” 🙂 has transferred his support to Benjamin Netanyahu and is even expected to serve in his government as a senior economic minister. And who is it that sees Moshe going out and would not go out after him?

And seriously:

Even from the left’s desperate war against Netanyahu, it seems they understand that he is the one who is jamming the “peace process” with his maneuvers. I already mentioned in the discussion half a year ago Netanyahu’s proven ability to stand up to heavy international pressure for concessions and withdrawals, while advancing the state’s economy and foreign relations.

With the blessing of “Stav Shafir,”
S. Z. Levinger

It’s always a matter of trust. I have no reason to assume that if they haven’t evacuated until now, tomorrow they suddenly will. And if that happens, then I’d say that if the right evacuates, apparently there was no choice (as with matters of war). That’s how I thought in Sharon’s case (even though I opposed the evacuation, but not absolutely. I didn’t think Sharon had changed his skin. And that despite the legal claims brought against him).
But why should I assume that someone who says openly that he is going to do it won’t do it? If someone promises you something good, you should know it won’t necessarily happen, but if he promises me something bad, I can trust that he’ll try with all his might to do me bad. And if the Rabbi assumes he’s promising something he knows he won’t keep, why vote for him at all? The fact that Bibi promises nothing already works in his favor.

And in general, what is this obsession with evacuations and peace agreements with someone who has shown a thousand times that peace is not what he wants? Is it some kind of idol that one is obligated to mention by name from time to time? It’s pretty clear to me that if the Palestinians wanted peace, Bibi would already have made it with them. Why are people even still talking about this? Are we still in the 1990s? This obsession in itself shows me that these candidates are not worthy. We need candidates who know how to read reality and respond to it case by case. People who can make the right decision and do the right thing. Just as on the one hand we must not be led by opportunistic dealmakers without morality, so on the other hand we don’t need ideologues who worship idols. Rather, leaders. Statesmen (the middle line). And right now there is no one like that in the country except Bibi (and Barak is also made of that material, but he’s a little or a lot crazy), or Bennett, who lacks experience.

And it seems that from the perspective of what the left fears, the people of Yamina are far worse than Netanyahu. And Ayman Odeh’s testimony is trustworthy, since while he crowned Netanyahu as “the worst prime minister Israel ever had,” Ayelet Shaked is “very dangerous to the democratic space” and Naftali Bennett is “very dangerous, in the sense of multiplying settlements and being an obstacle to peace.”

So one should consider voting Yamina, and “it is good to dwell” 🙂

Regards,
the above-mentioned S. Z. L.

With God’s help, 5 Elul 5779

The widely publicized and systematically leaked cases are quite problematic.

For example, in Case 1000: gifts of cigars and champagne that a billionaire gives his friend are not a meaningful “grant,” and we also have not seen the supposed “quid pro quo.” On the contrary, Netanyahu also acted against the economic interests of his friend by breaking up one of his monopolies,

Netanyahu’s support for tax breaks for returning residents (an initiative that began under his predecessor Olmert) fits very well with Netanyahu’s policy of encouraging investors to operate in the country, and it benefits both the investors and the state’s economy. His involvement in security assistance to the State of Israel, and the prime minister’s efforts with the U.S. authorities so that they would not cancel his visa because of his actions on behalf of the state’s security—these are worthy and called for.

Case 2000 is altogether puzzling: they accuse Netanyahu that he “dug in his heels” and brought about the dissolution of the Knesset because of his opposition to the “Israel Hayom law,” which was intended to benefit Yedioth Ahronoth, when the fact that 43 Knesset members supported the law and were pampered with “favorable coverage” by the newspaper is obvious to all, and no one says a word,

and rightly so: exerting influence on the authorities by the media through favorable or critical coverage is the very basis of democratic government. When a newspaper exploits its influence to advance its own interests, that is a violation of journalistic ethics, but not the crime of “bribery,” since the newspaper is not a governing authority. If “favorable coverage” of government officials is considered bribery, we’ll have to imprison all the journalists and politicians in the country 🙂

Case 4000 is also extremely puzzling. Here there wasn’t even “favorable coverage.” The Walla website remained basically left-wing and hostile to Netanyahu. Efforts by politicians and communications advisers with journalists to get them to publish materials favorable to them are standard practice, and minor compliance by media outlets is not “favorable coverage” (which is also not “bribery,” as mentioned above).

There was no quid pro quo either. The merger deal between Bezeq and Yes received the approval of dozens of regulators and jurists, a process that began long before Netanyahu and Filber entered the Communications Ministry, and it is also reasonable from the standpoint of the public interest. See Eli Tzipori’s article “Selective Enforcement in Case 4000” and the many articles by retired superintendent Avi Weiss.

In short: one should not accept as Torah from Sinai everything being sold to us by the “gatekeepers” and their friends in the media, whose tendentiousness cries out from their actions.

Regards,
S. Z. L.

In paragraph 3, line 2-3
… and the state’s economy as well. Also the prime minister’s efforts…

This is what the media the Rabbi relies on is worth:

https://www.srugim.co.il/372025-%d7%9c%d7%90-%d7%99%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%9f-%d7%9e%d7%94-%d7%91%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8-%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%91-%d7%9e%d7%9e%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%a0%d7%aa-%d7%a2%d7%a6%d7%9d-%d7%a6%d7%a4%d7%95