Q&A: Continuing the Protest
Continuing the Protest
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
I was interested to know whether, in light of the collapse of the talks at the President’s Residence, the Rabbi sees value and reason in going out to protests.
In addition, what does the Rabbi think about changing the reasonableness doctrine according to the Solberg outline? Does the Rabbi prefer the existing situation (in which the doctrine exists only for administrative decisions, but for all of them) or Solberg’s outline?
Thank you
Answer
Hello,
It is definitely important to go out to protests. What troubles me is not the reform in itself, but the government we have. We need to do everything possible to bring it down and limit its steps. Of course, against the background of the character of this government and this horrific coalition, the reform also looks more threatening, as I will explain immediately.
As for the reasonableness doctrine, on the principled level it is proper to act and make decisions behind a veil of ignorance—that is, to set the rules independently of the identity of the players on the field. If I were looking at it that way, there would definitely be room to accept what Solberg says about narrowing the reasonableness doctrine. But in our case it is hard to make that separation, because we have a horrific government here that is carrying out patently unreasonable steps and decisions. They make unreasonable and corrupt decisions, and to put in their hands the power to do this without judicial review by the court will bring us to the edge of the abyss (we are on the way there even as it is). The government itself legislates personal laws, including Basic Laws, solely for its own needs and interests, and has no concern whatsoever for the good of the state and its citizens. Beyond the corruption involved in this, by doing so it is itself disregarding the veil of ignorance. That is another reason why they must not be allowed to benefit from the veil of ignorance. In short, in a place and a society with integrity, where decisions are usually reasonable and one can trust the integrity of the politicians, there is less need for a broad reasonableness doctrine. But when there is an unreasonable government and an unreasonable coalition making unreasonable decisions, the reasonableness doctrine is essential in order to restrain their rampage.
Discussion on Answer
A. This is not a semantic question about the meaning of “veil of ignorance,” but a question of fairness. Obviously fairness dictates ignoring the players on the field, but not differences between fields. Ignoring the players is meant to ensure that we do not tilt the rules according to an agenda—that is, that the rules be fair and allow the different views to compete on the field on equal terms. But why ignore the character of our entire field? What fairness does that achieve? There is no logic in that.
B. Same thing.
C. I wrote this in my previous reply and in the previous sections.
Thanks!
By the way, I read Ben-Dror Yemini over the weekend, and it seems to me that he wrote it precisely. I’m attaching his remarks:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02LHbePeKBUEBTSTcpMXKW4fXQ1Ddt7Pswt4aqwpFxwx8Lxx238B4TtixKozFcE5wul&id=100044338243954
Thank you.
Regarding the “veil of ignorance,” I’ve always been interested in understanding what exactly is meant. Is it only detached from the personalities and the players on the field, or is it also detached from the governing culture in general? Does it also mean detachment from the specific political situation that characterizes that country?
I’ll try to explain my question:
A. Suppose that in Israel the political culture in general is more corrupt (regardless of specific individuals). So yes, with Bibi, Deri, and the rest of the gang ruling now, the situation is at an extreme point even by Israeli standards, but regardless, things here were bad compared to Britain and New Zealand even before the current horrific government. Isn’t that a consideration in favor of strengthening the court in Israel? Or is looking at our political culture in general, and not at specific individuals, also considered “not behind a veil of ignorance”?
B. Does “veil of ignorance” also mean ignoring our international image? Can Israel, which specifically has to deal with problems such as the Palestinians etc., strengthen the court and have that still count as being under a veil of ignorance? Or should the veil of ignorance ask what is appropriate for the British and apply that here?
C. Should the Israeli situation—in which from the outset there is a Chief Rabbinate that denies rights, and Haredim who exploit the democratic mechanism in a cynical and disgraceful way—justify strengthening the court, which somewhat neutralizes those bodies? Or are considerations of that kind also considered not to be under the veil of ignorance (even though again, there is no reference here to specific individuals and a specific government, but rather to the local culture in general and in a structural way)?
Thank you