Q&A: Your Position on the Judicial Revolution After the Events of November 7
Your Position on the Judicial Revolution After the Events of November 7
Question
Hello Rabbi,
If I’m not mistaken, in the past you explained that regarding the judicial revolution, the protesters had legitimacy to do extreme things like refuse to serve in the army and block roads, etc.
Unlike other cases, for example the disengagement—you explained that it wasn’t the same thing, because the disengagement, as hard as it was for people, was still basically within the framework of the law.
But here, with the judicial revolution, you explain that this is a struggle over the laws themselves, and therefore the rules of the game are different, and so there is legitimacy to break the law. (But I apologize in advance if I’m not explaining your words correctly—that’s what I understood from you, in any case.)
Looking back, and assuming I understood you correctly—and in light of the events of November 7—was that a mistake, and really there was no legitimacy for the protesters to do extreme things and break the law, like not serving in the army and the like?
Because, as we have learned, the enemies themselves tell us that this was one of the reasons for their attack, probably the main one: that they saw we were very deeply divided.
And I’ll add that I know your view that you are not in favor of pragmatism—but rather one should go with the truth regardless of the consequences.
But here we’re talking about the very survival of the state itself—and we saw what a cruel enemy we are facing.
Answer
There is no connection at all. My claim was that such steps are legitimate, even if in your assessment they threaten the survival of the state. That is the whole idea: the survival of the state is not above everything. Of course, when and how to do this depends on one’s assessment of the situation and on each person’s values—how dangerous it is, and how critical the situation is against which you are protesting. At most, you can argue that these events show that it is too dangerous, and they should rethink whether, in their view, that price is worth the future damage from the reform. That has nothing to do with the principled discussion.
Beyond that, there is enormous exaggeration about the damage of refusal to serve, as though it brought about these events. That is demagogic nonsense. This attack was planned before anyone had even dreamed of the protest or the government. Just as the terrible damage from the reform was propaganda of the protesters, your argument is propaganda of those who oppose them.
And finally, if that was indeed the expected damage, the government could have backed away from the reform, and that too would have solved the problem. Why are you placing the blame on the protesters? It takes two to tango. Moreover, the responsibility and the full information about the dangers are in the hands of the government, not the public. Again, this is tendentiousness, of course.
By the way, I am against pragmatism, but very much in favor of staying alive. So leave pragmatism out of this.
Discussion on Answer
Without a doubt. In the plan that was formulated two years earlier, it explicitly said at the bottom in these very words:
To be carried out when there is a regime-changing revolution and the protest divides the Israeli public. Once they reach refusal to serve (actually, stopping volunteer reserve service is enough), that is zero hour.
Timeline:
Zero + two hours — breach the fence with Toyota pickup trucks and balloons.
Zero + four — take over the Nova nature party, rape and massacre.
Zero + two weeks — Bibi resigns.
Zero + two weeks and one minute — return to Gaza and hand over power to our leftist protester allies from Brothers in Arms.
May Allah help us.
Those who hate Israel have always planned, trained, and looked for every possible way to harm us.
The only question is the timing, and according to the testimony of one or more of the terrorists, the demonstrations against the reform and the threats of refusal to serve encouraged them to act.
So it seems that one cannot dismiss the connection between the demonstrations and the timing and momentum of the attack.
If you try reading your own words again, you’ll see how tendentious they are and how there really is no question here. The discussion began with my attitude toward “refusal to serve” in light of the events. When you break it down, you agree that there is no real significance beyond what this or that one person said out of three thousand (is he their general who knows what the considerations were? His own impression? And all of this at most concerns the timing) in an interrogation that neither you nor I heard. From that, you draw strategic conclusions about who is to blame and what brought all this upon us. You also ignore what I wrote (for example, that it takes two to tango).
Well, this is very typical of the poor discourse going on here, where every baseless argument is harnessed to our wagon in order to prove what we already wanted to prove.
By the way, this is of course true of both political sides. As is well known, exactly the same claim is made against Bibi—that he caused the rift and the “refusal to serve.” And I haven’t even mentioned yet that there was hardly any refusal to serve. Mainly a cessation of volunteer service.
Indeed, it takes two to tango, and it may be that if we break it down, the architects of the reform are the primary ones responsible. And there are also those who would say that the High Court, with its overactive judicial activism, is the original cause (we’ve moved from tango to a Yemenite step).
In any case, it doesn’t seem to me that the judicial reform itself is what encouraged Hamas to act. I never dismiss what my enemy says / declares, or says casually, and they indeed told the Shin Bet investigators that the demonstrations encouraged them. I didn’t hear it with my own ears; those who did passed it on to the media.
*) Someone who disagrees with you is not necessarily shallow.
Sabbath peace and a happy Festival of Lights.
Thank you.
Indeed, the attack was planned before the reform, but the timing was probably because of the reform.