Q&A: The "Stolen" Election
The "Stolen" Election
Question
What is the Rabbi's opinion regarding the claims that Bennett "stole" the election?
That is, was the step Bennett took morally justified?
Answer
I don't understand this bizarre claim. He didn't steal anything. He said beforehand that he was open to both directions, and he chose one of them. There may be claims about various promises he made (some of them after the election) that he did not keep, which of course happens with everyone. But there is nothing substantial here that contradicts his platform. On the contrary, it seems to me that what he did was an optimal implementation of his platform under the existing circumstances. Show me one politician who kept all his promises.
Given that the current lying crook is not vacating his seat, and that really is an actual theft of the election (because by doing so he is personally preventing a right-wing government, contrary to what he promised his voters), Bennett had two options: new elections (in which he might have been wiped out, which certainly would not have led to implementing his platform) or going with Lapid and his crowd, which would lead to partial implementation. A sensible and obvious choice.
The propaganda portraying this as a left-wing government, or as one leaning on the Arabs who will run it (which Bibi himself, of course, invented when he himself decided to try it and failed), is nothing but another demagogic lie from the school of the lying crook and his spineless little lapdogs in Likud.
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi, I think this is really not the situation as you describe it, and if I'm right about what actually happened I'd be glad to hear your response:
There was a long period in which Bennett basically said he would sit with any government, but as the election got closer, when Bibi started with the spins against him, like about signing the document that they wouldn't sit with Arabs and so on,
then there was a turning point for Bennett. And as I recall, it was because at that time Bennett was afraid he would drop significantly in the polls (and maybe he already had dropped because of it).
And from that stage onward, he decided to sign the famous declaration on Channel 20 that he would not sit with Lapid as prime minister or build a government with Ra'am, etc. And from that moment he completely denied that he would sit with Lapid. It was pretty clear that he was trying to present himself as if he had gone back on the option he had raised earlier.
If so, I think there was clearly a stage at which Bennett preserved his strength only because of that signature. And in fact that is why some of his voters could comfortably vote for him. It's not just some campaign-platform promise; it was a turning point.
**All this is from memory; I didn't go back and check it**
Sando, you answered yourself.
The commenter,
and therefore? I said he broke a promise. But under the circumstances that arose, this is a breach that can be justified for the sake of optimal implementation of his platform.
As with everything, breaches of promise have degrees.
A promise made right before an election, several times and in an orderly way, all while he knew there was a very reasonable chance he would break it—ranks high on the scale. About like what Gantz did, only a bit worse.
With God's help, 30 Sivan 5781
See the article "Ayala Hasson: It was all sewn up in advance" (on the Channel 7 website), that on the day the president gave the mandate to Netanyahu, Bennett and Lapid had already finalized the formation of the "government of change." To Bennett's credit, it may be said that he faithfully kept his promise to Lapid 🙂
Regards, Shin Tsin Lin
Bennett knows that for a considerable part of his "base," their light-religious identity comes before their right-wing identity, and they will follow him even after his "break to the left," as will most of his "sponsors."
I cannot imagine that Bennett expects to preserve the settlement enterprise and Judea and Samaria in a government whose ministers are mostly leftists, and they control the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, and Public Security, and of course will not lift a finger against the pressure of the American administration.
But there are quite a few Yamina and New Hope voters who believe that the values of pushing the Hardal people aside and currying favor with the owners of the liberal-left hegemony take precedence over preserving the wholeness of the Land; the main thing in life is a good economic situation and freedom from the annoying hegemony of the Hardal rabbis.
In any case, those frustrated by the Bennett-Lapid government will find comfort in the legalization of cannabis to which the government of change is committed. Let's take a drag or a little joint and enjoy life 🙂
Regards, Shachtman Tsingalovsky
In the last line
… let's take a drag…
Have you considered treatment?
"A promise made right before an election, several times and in an orderly way, all while he knew there was a very reasonable chance he would break it—ranks high on the scale. About like what Gantz did, only a bit worse."
Did Bibi annex some piece of land after promising to do so and making a big delicacy out of it before one of the election campaigns he dragged us into? As far as I recall, no.
I've been saying for years that this country has exactly the politicians it deserves, no more and no less. Democracy in action. If the people treat their leaders with a double standard, why be surprised that politicians make promises, but not promises they intend to keep?
Bennett has a law degree from Hebrew University. He knows what he's doing.
With God's help, 1 Tammuz 5781
To Mr. 1 — greetings,
There is an immense difference between a politician's failure to meet the goals he set for himself and a "U-turn" that is 180 degrees opposed to his declared policy.
Netanyahu stands firm in opposing the "advancement of the peace process" as long as the "partner" is unwilling to abandon the path of terror, and therefore for 12 years he blocked any progress in the "political process"—or in less laundered language, handing over homeland territory to the rule of terror and destroying settlements.
Developing the communities of Judea and Samaria and increasing their security are Netanyahu's heart's desire, and he does what he can, but he faces not-so-simple constraints. The heavy pressures from within and without cause tactical delays, but the strategy is fixed and remains in place.
By contrast, what Bennett did was a complete U-turn. Forming a government most of whose members are leftists, and they control the key diplomatic and security positions—the foreign minister, the defense minister, and the public security minister are men of the left. While the chairman of the Interior Committee is a man from Ra'am. A commitment to regulate illegal Arab building without a parallel commitment to regulate the "young settlement." All this clearly shows that "Yamina" has become "Leftward."
Long live the immense difference 🙂
Regards,, Rieman Lovchevsky
See Danny Dayan's remarks in the article: "Danny Dayan's advice to Bennett: Don't be tempted to prove you're right-wing" (on the Channel 7 website) about how "right-wing" the two of them are. The combination of lukewarm right with enthusiastic left sadly signals who will lead.
And we have no one to rely on except our Father in Heaven, that He send His salvation (perhaps God will place it in Ayelet Shaked's heart to come to her senses before the dash to the left begins).
Regards, See There
Mr. T, you won't get from me any claim that Netanyahu is the king of reliability, but as I said, there are degrees. Bennett made the promise knowing that a government with Lapid was a deal-breaker for many voters. The possibility of keeping the promise was entirely accessible, unlike diplomatic circumstances that may have changed (although it may be that this would have led to elections).
In my view, nothing like this has existed in Israeli politics. And note: unlike many of the voters, I don't think a government with Lapid is something beyond the pale. He is a completely legitimate person (though far from my views).
With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, "and the blossom sprouted and ripened almonds," 5781
George Birnbaum, Bennett's strategic adviser, said in an NBC interview that Bennett is about to change like Ariel Sharon. See the article: "Caught in a lie: the documentation embarrassing the Yamina chairman," on the Kipa website.
So after all, the state will be run by B.B. Birnbaum & Bennett 🙂
Regards, Berry Galinger, Secretary of Forgotten Things
And see Kalman Libeskind's remarks, "His son and Yamina present: on lies, pursuit of power, and turning one's back on ideology" (on the Ma'ariv website).
Though it should be said in Bennett and company's favor that someone has to finance Birnbaum's services, and they are apparently committed first and foremost to their "sponsors," and those are apparently not necessarily right-wing 🙂
Regards, The Man with the Money
[What is meant by the argument that in new elections he might be wiped out and thus would not bring about implementation of his platform? If he gets wiped out, that means his current voters are not interested in his actions and therefore would not vote for him if he said explicitly that in such-and-such a situation he would form a government with Lapid, etc. So in order to realize their vote (which was given in ignorance, as would be proven if they retracted it), he ignores their opinion?
Maybe the meaning is that it is enough that a minority of his voters leave, and then he won't pass the electoral threshold. (But there is much to discuss about majority rule within a party, because that creates a pyramid in which ultimately a minority holds a core of political control as if it were a majority; I think this was discussed here once.)]