Question

Hello Rabbi Michael,
 
You raised the point (regarding the Ra’am issue) that in every party there is a difference between internal language and external language, and therefore one cannot judge the inner intention based on the internal discourse. And so too regarding the religious parties that, in their internal discourse, aspire to a state governed by Jewish law—the way to judge parties and public figures is only by their actions.
 
A reality in which there is a difference between internal discourse and public discourse is a fact of life that sometimes ends in a “betrayal” of the people who are part of the internal discourse, and usually loyalty is given to the “internal discourse”; in that sense, trying to infer the intentions of public figures from their actions can be misleading.
 
Therefore, your reliance on the above statement, and deriving from it a decisive conclusion, seems puzzling to me.
 
Since these are issues of great public significance:
 
Look at people’s fear on the political left that we will deteriorate into the reality of the drama series “The Handmaid’s Tale” (which also explains the discourse about abortions), and look at the different attitude, on the two sides of the political divide, toward Arafat’s internal discourse in the Oslo Accords—specifically his “Johannesburg speech,” in which he said that Oslo was a “Hudaybiyyah agreement.”
 
Therefore, because of the great significance involved, clarifying where public figures are headed is essential.
 
In this issue too, as in other issues that have come up on the site, the decisiveness, without room to open things up for clarification and questions, does not fit the spirit of genuine inquiry that comes through in your writings.


Have a good week, and thank you.