Q&A: Politics
Politics
Question
Hello, what does the Rabbi think about the current political situation? Does the Rabbi think that in the current situation one can rely on a certain support from Ra'am or from the Joint List (morally / value-wise), or that according to his approach that isn't on the table at all? And if so, what is your proposal for the existing situation? Is it preferable to rely on Ra'am / the Joint List, or to enter a Netanyahu government? What does the Rabbi think? Thank you.
Answer
I do not see a moral or value-based problem in a political decision to rely on someone, so long as it is not a harmful and corrupt person because of the damage he will cause (not because of the reliance itself, which only looks bad and has an educational flaw, but not a substantive one). The agreements should aim as effectively as possible, under the existing circumstances, at the goals that the party wants to achieve. Therefore I see no problem at all with relying on Ra'am so long as the government's policy lines are the best possible under the existing circumstances. But I definitely do see a problem with relying on Likud.
Discussion on Answer
What wasn’t explained? I explained everything. What does this have to do with closeness in views?
Netanyahu is corrupt and harmful, and therefore relying on him is problematic. As for Ra'am, you don’t agree with their views; that is handled by the government’s basic policy guidelines. If they arrive at agreed and reasonable policy lines (relative to the alternatives in the current situation) — I see no problem at all participating with them.
But Ra'am’s views are harmful and corrupt views, aren’t they? A person who thinks a terrorist organization is fine—isn’t he a harmful and corrupting person?!
After all, supporting terrorism and taking bribes are both harmful and corrupting things, so “what makes you say rely on these rather than those?”
I’ll repeat myself once more, and then we’ll finish. Taking bribes and making improper appointments is corrupt and harmful, and therefore with Bibi the problem is not only educational but also substantive. As for Ra'am, there is no educational problem, because appointing them will not influence anyone to become a Hamas supporter (certainly not beyond the money that Bibi routinely transfers to them), and they themselves are not harmful if the policy lines are set in a way that suits the majority of the government. The discussion is not about who is morally better.
That’s it. We’ve exhausted it.
So if I understand correctly, the Rabbi is arguing that Netanyahu’s moral problems necessarily affect the government negatively, whereas Ra'am’s moral problems will not necessarily affect the government negatively (appointments, etc.)? Just making sure I understood correctly, and sorry for being a pain (it’s not to provoke, just to understand).
Indeed. I argue that the main criterion is not the degree of a person’s morality but the damage he brings and will bring. The degree of a person’s morality has some importance too, but even that is mainly because of the educational consequences (which, in Ra'am’s case, also do not exist).
You can learn an important rule from this argument.
The use an educated person makes of the word “morality” and its various derivatives is solely for the sake of the convenience that comes with the illusion it creates.
In practice, whatever his gut wants becomes moral on his lips, and the thinking part’s job is to draw convincing nonsense.
So don’t fall into the trap.
Yesterday they interviewed number 3 from the Ra'am party, and he refused to say that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Is there no problem with relying on people like that, and isn’t that worse than someone under criminal indictment? After all, the common denominator between them and the other Zionist parties (such as New Hope, which the Rabbi was warm toward, if I’m not mistaken) is, ideologically / morally, much more distant than Likud is (or more precisely Benjamin Netanyahu). I’d be glad if the Rabbi would clarify this. Thank you.