Upcoming Israeli Elections

[rylah]

All I'm saying is don't go into caricatures thinking about Monarchies,
they're liberal enough to be called 'western democracies',
practical and functional, some are even world leaders...




Practically I think we already function as a Parliamentary Monarchy,
This may sound absurd, but one has to wonder why
they call him king both on the left and the right...

Only our head of state, commander in chief etc.,is not formally a monarch,
neither immune from criminal persecution, but so long the result of
recent long series of elections is a Parliamentary Monarchy.

And another elections are about the same one person,
and regardless of office we vest with him that 'reserved' function.

 

[ESay]

All I'm saying is don't go into caricatures thinking about Monarchies,
they're liberal enough to be called 'western democracies',
practical and functional, some are even world leaders...




Practically I think we already function as a Parliamentary Monarchy,
This may sound absurd, but one has to wonder why
they call him king both on the left and the right...

Only our head of state, commander in chief etc.,is not formally a monarch,
neither immune from criminal persecution, but so long the result of
recent long series of elections is a Parliamentary Monarchy.

And another elections are about the same one person,
and regardless of office we vest with him that 'reserved' function.

I don't criticize monarchies at all, and never intended to. What I criticize is absolute monarchies, even in their 'mild' forms. Because it inevitably leads to autocracy.

My point is not about a monarchy per se, but about the real (I want to emphasize that - real) power that is given to the ruler. The same way I criticize presidential republics like Russia (but not presidential republics as a whole) and one-party regimes like China an NK.

European countries, and Spain and Belgium are among them, indeed have reserved power for their kings or queens. But this power isn't projected in everyday life and doesn't lead to autocracy.

You propose to give the monarch a right to raise or lower taxes, directly influence the economy and military, approve or dismiss the government. Not sure about the parliament. What his prerogatives will be over that?

In other words, to give him not reserved but real power on every day of a weak. That is a direct way to autocracy.

 

[rylah]

I don't criticize monarchies at all, and never intended to. What I criticize is absolute monarchies, even in their 'mild' forms. Because it inevitably leads to autocracy.

My point is not about a monarchy per se, but about the real (I want to emphasize that - real) power that is given to the ruler. The same way I criticize presidential republics like Russia (but not presidential republics as a whole) and one-party regimes like China an NK.

European countries, and Spain and Belgium are among them, indeed have reserved power for their kings or queens. But this power isn't projected in everyday life and doesn't lead to autocracy.

You propose to give the monarch a right to raise or lower taxes, directly influence the economy and military, approve or dismiss the government. Not sure about the parliament. What his prerogatives will be over that?

In other words, to give him not reserved but real power on every day of a weak. That is a direct way to autocracy.

Ok, this explains Your concern with autocracy.
And since we agree the potential of autocratic tyranny exists
also in representative Democracies, and other forms of government,
this raises a broader question about the very nature of govt as violence.

But our disagreement is specifically discussing - Constitutional/Parliamentary Monarchies.
When I suggest Thailand, Spain or Belgium as variations for example, for some reason You refuse to recognize them as actually functional parliamentary monarchies, it's like parliamentary monarchies must not be functional, only "ceremonial"...
And otherwise, if the monarch has any constitutional authority,
it's automatically absolute monarchy or autocracy.

Another point I'd like to suggest, the question about the very nature of rule,
on a spectrum, let's say between absolute tyranny and direct democracy,
or anarchy if that is even relevant to discussion. And all variations,
express certain true aspects of rule that have their place. But if
otherwise suppressed, weaken the society same as individual.

Maybe You see Parliamentary Monarchy as compromise,
while I see it's strength as a backbone to apply all
other forms - including Direct Democracy.

In such a monarchy, citizens actually have
more direct control over the economy.

Military is tyranny in all govt forms,
would You want otherwise?

 

[rylah]

Constitutional duties in Parliamentary Monarchies...

​

Mr. Netanyahu Posts His Phone Number - Gets 10,000 Calls in Half-an-Hour​

Watch: Bull storms bank in central Israel

Bull attempts to gore vehicles in parking lot, then enters Lod bank.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[rylah]

 

[rylah]

'Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben-Gvir speaks on upcoming Israeli elections​

These are the results of the Religious Zionism party primaries

Party's current MKs take all the top spots in the party list. Smotrich: We have a winning team.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[ESay]

Ok, this explains Your concern with autocracy.
And since we agree the potential of autocratic tyranny exists
also in representative Democracies, and other forms of government,
this raises a broader question about the very nature of govt as violence.

But our disagreement is specifically discussing - Constitutional/Parliamentary Monarchies.
When I suggest Thailand, Spain or Belgium as variations for example, for some reason You refuse to recognize them as actually functional parliamentary monarchies, it's like parliamentary monarchies must not be functional, only "ceremonial"...
And otherwise, if the monarch has any constitutional authority,
it's automatically absolute monarchy or autocracy.

Another point I'd like to suggest, the question about the very nature of rule,
on a spectrum, let's say between absolute tyranny and direct democracy,
or anarchy if that is even relevant to discussion. And all variations,
express certain true aspects of rule that have their place. But if
otherwise suppressed, weaken the society same as individual.

Maybe You see Parliamentary Monarchy as compromise,
while I see it's strength as a backbone to apply all
other forms - including Direct Democracy.

In such a monarchy, citizens actually have
more direct control over the economy.

Military is tyranny in all govt forms,
would You want otherwise?

Okay, let's take a look on more practical themes. Let's imagine Israel has got a king and all political and legal structure was reorganised according to your views.

After that, parliamentary elections are held. What the king's role will be? Should he approve the results and if yes what will be if the king refuses to do so? Does it automatically mean re-election?

Then, the newly formed parliament votes on the government. Should this government be approved by the king, and if he refuses to do so will it automatically mean a new government should be reorganised?

Will the king be able to unilaterally set up new elections, dismiss the government, block legislation, approve governors, judges, the head of Central Bank etc?

 

[rylah]

Okay, let's take a look on more practical themes. Let's imagine Israel has got a king and all political and legal structure was reorganised according to your views.

After that, parliamentary elections are held. What the king's role will be? Should he approve the results and if yes what will be if the king refuses to do so? Does it automatically mean re-election?

Then, the newly formed parliament votes on the government. Should this government be approved by the king, and if he refuses to do so will it automatically mean a new government should be reorganised?

Will the king be able to unilaterally set up new elections, dismiss the government, block legislation, approve governors, judges, the head of Central Bank etc?

Thanks, interesting questions.

First in my view, the order is opposite - the royal institute is legislated by the elected parliament and government, and constitution is the legal source of the monarch's responsibilities and authority.

Once there's already a monarch, the authority to approve results is such of a president today.
Who regardless of results has the authority to assign a candidate likely to form the govt.
The question is more specifically about refusing to dissolve a government.
Usually in such situations re-elections are kept as the last resort,
with the existing govt functioning as an interim.

Parliaments and governments swears allegiance to the monarch.
But on the other hand, if we apply Belgian and British practice, the authority to dissolve a government, appoint candidates and prime ministers, depends on both signatures. Meaning the monarch is reserved that authority, when he has a ministerial signature suggesting dissolution, or candidacy. In legislative procedure, the monarch can only promote a legislation, with the specifically involved ministry taking full responsibility.

Constitution can be a variation on these options, and this is common ground
of the seemingly contradictory positions of Dr. Bin Nun and Rabbi Cherki.

For me, frankly, what's important is we legislate the Temple construction,
and the royal institute, the constitution can be amended along the way.

 

[rylah]

Israel elections: Ben-Gvir, Smotrich unite again amid increased Netanyahu pressure​

Religious Zionist Party head MK Bezalel Smotrich and Otzma Yehudit head MK Itamar Ben-Gvir announced on Friday afternoon they would once again run in a joint list for the upcoming Knesset elections.

The announcement came shortly after they left the Caesarea home of opposition head Benjamin Netanyahu, who invited the two religious-Zionist leaders in a bid to push through a political union.

Netanyahu, who influenced the two to merge ahead of last year’s election, was reportedly wary of potentially losing a significant amount of voters in his bloc if one of the parties to his Right fails to cross the electoral threshold.

“Unity is what is needed to ensure a victory for our bloc and to establish a stable government,” the former prime minister said following the announcement.

The two have been embroiled in a battle of mind games and public perception to ensure neither of them is painted as the one who potentially endangered Netanyahu’s bloc.

In a celebratory tweet, Smotrich noted the two will continue to work on "further mergers."




The agreement between their parties will see a five/five split between the factions in the unified list, with Smotrich assuming leadership and Ben-Gvir once again his second in command.

After Meeting With Netanyahu: Smotrich, Ben-Gvir Agree To Joint Run - The Yeshiva World

Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday summoned Religious Zionist chairman Betzalel Smotrich and Otzma Yehudit chairman Itamar Ben-Gvir for a

www.theyeshivaworld.com

 

[rylah]

What Life Is Like On An Israeli Kibbutz | Zionism Revisited | Unpacked​

In 1909 when young Jews founded the first Kibbutz, they had no idea that they would be forming a symbol of Israel’s rebirth. These agricultural communities innovated the communal experience as an experiment in Democratic Socialism.

Jews from all over the world came to Israel in an attempt to find their identity and participate in advancing the country agriculturally, industrially and socially. Over time, as individualism grew, kibbutzim have changed and adapted in order to thrive and yet, the kibbutz movement will forever be known for shaping Israel as it is today.

Weekly Torah Portion - 'Shoftim' | Rabbi Shmuel Elyahu

The legal system - who appoints judges, prophets and monarchs?
And a deeper look into what is happening in the "Arab world".

Did you ever think what it means to be a people?
What defines a people? What is a people?

Are the Americans a people?
Are the Syrians?

Rabbi Shmuel Elyahu on Torah portion 'Shoftim'.

 

[rylah]

'Amichai Chikli, The MK Who Rebelled Against Israel's PM​

Back in May (2021), everything lay in the balance. Israel had just concluded its 4th elections in 2 years and it seemed as if it was in yet another stalemate - on the way to another round of elections. But then, at the last minute, we witnessed one of the craziest political twists this country has ever experienced. Naftali Bennett, leader of the 7-seat Yamina party, agreed to form a government with a coalition of center, left-wing and Arab parties… on one condition: that he serve as Prime Minister.

The entire country was astounded. Yamina which means Right (as in right-wing), ran on a traditionally conservative platform and on the explicit promise to not form a government with his rivals, Lapid and the Arab parties. Many, if not most, of his voters felt betrayed. But all of the elected MKs in Bennett’s party went along with his political coup d’etat. All but one.

'Amichai Chikli is a Jerusalem-born ex-Israel Navy officer and the founder of the Tavor Academy for Social Leadership. He has quite the resume but what took Chikli to the national stage was his decision to stand up to the leader of his party, (former) PM Naftali Bennett.

 

[rylah]

 

[rylah]

Hadar Muchtar on policy Referendum and Direct Elections | Knesset Channel

TikTok celebrity Hadar Muchtar shakes up Israeli election campaign

Unknown to most Israeli voters until just a few weeks ago, social media star Hadar Muchtar becomes a political figure to reckon with.

www.al-monitor.com

 

[rylah]

Concerns in Arab parties: first time since the establishment of the state none of them to pass the electoral threshold

On Arab Street, a battle rages over public opinion: in Balad they are trying to establish a narrative according to which PM Lapid tried to eliminate them | Ra'am and Hadash-Ta'al are disturbed and have recently recognized increasing support for Balad | The feared scenario: a drift of tens of thousands of votes to Balad will result in no Arab party entering the Knesset

N12 - במפלגות הערביות חוששים שלא יעברו את אחוז החסימה

ברחוב הערבי מתלהט קרב על דעת הקהל: בבל"ד מנסים לקבע נרטיב שלפיו לפיד ניסה לחסל אותם • ברע"ם ובחד"ש-תע"ל מוטרדים ומזהים לאחרונה תמיכה שהולכת ועולה בבל"ד • התרחיש שממנו חוששים: סחף של עשרות אלפי קולות לבל"ד יביא

www.mako.co.il

 

[rylah]

Blich High School Students Go Nuts for Ben Gvir Even as Leftists Curse Them Out​

When he finally took the podium inside, Ben Gvir told the adoring crowd: “I hear the voices outside, the same voices that, as far as they’re concerned, when Ayman Odeh comes, and he supports harming IDF soldiers, this would be freedom of expression. It is allowed,” he said. “When Yair Golan slanders the soldiers, when Horowitz says that the soldiers should be tried in The Hague, that’s fine. But me, they want to shut up.”

“I want to say congratulations to your principal,” Ben Gvir added. “She proves that she really advocates for freedom of expression.”




The principal, Hilaי Romesh, resisted pressure from around the political map demanding to ban the Otzma Yehudit chairman from entering her school. Romesh, who also teaches history, insisted that letting Ben Gvir speak was part of the normal activities in Blich High School.

אחדות בבליך: מפגיני השמאל ותומכי בן גביר שרו 'התקווה'

פעילי עוצמה יהודית פצחו בשירת התקווה מחוץ לבית הספר 'בליך', פעילי שמאל שהפגינו נגד בן גביר הצטרפו לשירה.

www.inn.co.il

Blich High School Students Go Nuts for Ben Gvir Even as Leftists Curse Them Out

The principal, Hila Romesh, resisted pressure from around the political map demanding to ban the Otzma Yehudit chairman from entering her school.

www.jewishpress.com

 

[rylah]

Hadar Muchtar on policy Referendum and Direct Elections | Knesset Channel

TikTok celebrity Hadar Muchtar shakes up Israeli election campaign

Unknown to most Israeli voters until just a few weeks ago, social media star Hadar Muchtar becomes a political figure to reckon with.

www.al-monitor.com

Hadar Muchatar - "Build in Judea and Samaria as crazy, but apartment buildings not villas, this is a fine solution to the housing crisis. I'm the vote Netanyahu needs, but only if my demands are met.

 

[rylah]

A very UNPOPULAR truth about ISRAEL

We've all heard about what's taking place in Iran, where young women are pushing back against the regime that is punishing them for not wearing proper head-coverings. Is that the only way to run a country with religious morals? Can the land of Israel ever be a Jewish State? Is it stuck working on being a democracy?

Tune in to some stark truths, and some unpopular opinions from YouTube's favorite Rabbi, as he sits down with Dr. Elad Ben Elul for a frank conversation.

 

[Pete7469]

I can't claim to know much about politics in Israel. Is there a treasonous criminal syndicate promoting bolshevism posing as a political party like the one in the US called the DNC?

All can really gather is that bed wetting pinko parasites in the US seem to hate Netanyahu, who appears to be very patriotic and has a low tolerance for Palestinian terrorism.

 

[rylah]

What is the validity of Democratic elections according to the Torah?
The value of minority opinion, source of authority and arbitrary

(Part b)

Where does this idea of a person of importance come from? That there's need to ask an important person? Where did we find a governmental authority given to a special personality?

Student: Reish Galuta?
R. Cherki: Reish Galuta (Exiliarch) isn't the same, Reish Galuta is a king.
Student: There are 2 Reish Galuta.
R. Cherki: What does it mean?
Student: There's one like a kind, and one who deals more with the community.
R. Cherki: I didn't hear about that, but in any way the Exiliarch is a king, he's isn't the most important person. There can be a stupid Exiliarch, he has authority. When saying 'an important person' means moral authority. That if such a person is present, we should ask him about everything. Where did we find this? Essentially, from the prophets.

The prophet has ruling authority, as to say he can instruct the king, sometimes to do different than the laws of the kingdom. He can even instruct the Sanhedrin to do different from the laws of the Sanhedrin, the laws of Torah.

Also here, is remnant of his, what is called an 'important person'.



What the Rabbi says, is that even if we said this wasn't according to law of Torah, according to the opinion of the opposing Rabbi, but eventually the people of the city have authority to make regulations.

Student: What Rabbi Kook says apparently looks dangerous for Democracy, because if the majority wants to crush the minority, it has its right.
R. Cherki: I don't understand what You're saying, Rabbi Kook says the complete opposite.
Rabbi Kook argues, that although the majority can crush the minority, if it chooses not to crush the minority, it has its right.
Student: If the majority decides to crush the minority?
R. Cherki: If they chose so, then it's no longer a Liberal regime, rather Tyranny of the majority. This exists as well, there're many regimes in the world. There's even Dictatorship in which one person decides for everyone, there's also such a thing.

Is Dictatorship illegitimate according to Democracy?

Student: Yes it's not…
R. Cherki: Of course it's legitimate. Let's say there's a Democratic state, which signs agreements with a Dictatorship. Are these agreements invalid according to Democratic elections?
Student: Why would it be relevant?
R. Cherki: Why? Because whoever decided there in a Dictatorship was a single person, and against the majority opinion.
Student: Let's say there's a revolution.
R. Cherki: But there still hasn't been a revolution. I'll tell You even more, You know that in the US, there was a period during which in the North the law forbade slavery, and in the South the law allowed slavery. Right?

And there was an occasion of a slave who escaped to the Northern states, and the court extradited to the Southern states – because of ownership laws, there was a decision that it was impossible to hurt the right to property. Despite this right to property didn't exist according to the North, but the North didn't rule that that right didn't exist.

Therefore I'm saying, the existence of various types of regimes in the world, we know this this isn't new.

Student: A person living in Democracy might tire out the minority rights, the representative right of the minority, because the minority also must have representation.

R. Cherki: The decision to grant minority rights is a decision, if it wasn't taken, then it wasn't. Very simple, meaning the Rabbi doesn't say that proportional elections is a natural right, like those who wanted to claim so, it's not a natural right, it's a legal right, either granted or not.

Here You're asking a more fundamental question about the philosophy of law – what is the source of authority of the regimes? This, already is something complicated.

Maybe we get into this question later – the authority source of a regime, the regime tells me to do something, but was I asked? According to what authority? This a question discussed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He has a book 'The Social Contract", a wonderful book – all of it is fictional, but it is wonderful. What is his fundamental assumption? That there's sort of social contract, meaning that all the variety of the state subjects, agreed to give up on their willpower for the state.

Ok? The bearing question is when was that?

Student: Who is the state?
R. Cherki: Who is the state, which is itself sort of fiction, and when did it happen that they've decided that? It's a fiction, but this fiction works, all the legal system and the political system is built on this fiction. Maybe we should have a lesson on what Torah says on this, where it really comes from.

Alright – "and truly from this law, that craftsmen in their craft, their standing is that of all the city residents on matter of 'to carry their ends'"

they have a right to issue fines,



Meaning the Rabbi says this isn't absolute proof, but it supports the idea.



What is a party, there's a party that supports a specific agenda, specific social status, specific community and alike. If so it's similar to craftsmen, since craftsmen too have an interest uniting them.

Once someone told me that elections were forbidden by Hebrew law, because of the prohibition "you shall not divide" (Devarim 14:1), not to divide into groups, but we see there are groups, what do I do…



Meaning, how did all the dry clean shop owners reach a decision? They have some committee, how is this committee run? According to elections.





Here's an argument according to a hypothesis - I didn't choose You, then why are You telling me what to do? Let's say I get an order from the minister of transportation… should check whether the minister of transportation was from the party I've chosen or not. If he is from my party then I do what he says, if he isn't then no?

This is the argument of that mistaken, so the Rabbi says –



How were the 70 nobles chosen of the elders of Israel? They took 6 from each tribe, how many tribes?

Student: 12
R.Cherki: 12*6=?
Student: 72
R.Cherki: Aahhh…so there're 2 who went out, right?

They made notes there, and took out Eldad and Meidad. When they've chosen 6 from each tribe, there were 6 from the tribe of Naftali – can a person from the tribe of Reuven argue he can't be judged before a sage in the Sanhedrin, because he's from the tribe of Naftali?

Of course it doesn't work, right?



Why did You take 6 from each tribe, for example the tribe of Yehudah, was a tribe with a lot of population, unlike the tribe of Binyamin, which was a tribe of small population. So why take 6 from Yehudah and 6 from Binyamin? Take 7 from Yehudah and 5 from Binyamin!

And despite that no one bothered.



R. Cherki: Alright? That's what the Rabbi brings regarding this matter.



What is this commandment to sit and judge his tribe? That they establish Sanhedrin for their tribes. Let's say I live in the tribal lot of Dan, for example, and I go to the local Sanhedrin of the tribe of Dan. If I'm from Binyamin, I go to the Sanhedrin of Binyamin.

Student: This is the reason that they were charged with annihilation, because they didn't judge their tribe?
R. Cherki: Correct, why did the entire tribe of Binyamin was charged with annihilation? Because they didn't agree to judge their own tribe, the Sanhedrin of Binyamin had to judge the criminals at the hill, and they didn't.
Student: They agreed, didn't agree to turn them to all Israel.
R. Cherki: No they didn't agree to judge them.
Student: The nation of Israel demanded they were turned over at the beginning, to judge them?
R. Cherki: No, the tribes of Israel demanded Binyamin to judge them, and they protected them. Because they protected them, they demanded to turn them over. May his honor look in the book of Judges, and pleasant will be to him the words.



R.Cherki: Meaning, also in ZBL"E You accept the authority of all the judges – right?



R.Cherki: Now, I can't without expressing my grave disappointment, I'm convinced that among those listening in this classroom, there's a suspicion that they don't know what is ZBL "E, and they didn't care to ask. What do I teach Torah for? So that You just sit politely? Ha?

Everyone knows, alright. What is ZBL"E?

Student: Rabbi what is ZBL"E?
R. Cherki: Why didn't You ask earlier?
Student: You were in the middle of a sentence.
R. Cherki: Ahh…ZBL"E is an abbreviation - 'Zeh' this, 'Borer' chooses, 'Lo' for him, 'Ehad' one.

This is what's called the laws of arbitration, when people don't want to go to the formal court, they want sort of arbiter. How is the arbiter made? This one selects one, another selects one, each of both sides chose one judge. And both of them choose the third. Who are 'both of them', this is an argument, either both litigants choose the third judge in agreement, or the two judges select themselves a third judge, in agreement. This is called a Court of ZBL"E.

The litigants won't say they only listen to the judged they've chosen, rather listen to all the judges together. So this is another evidence.



Meanwhile the Rabbi says, all the discussion is that it's actually
the way of Torah that there should be proportional elections.

However there's still the claim of the rabbi who claims it's
against the Torah law of "lean towards the majority".

| Part b |

A very UNPOPULAR truth about ISRAEL

We've all heard about what's taking place in Iran, where young women are pushing back against the regime that is punishing them for not wearing proper head-coverings. Is that the only way to run a country with religious morals? Can the land of Israel ever be a Jewish State? Is it stuck working on being a democracy?

Tune in to some stark truths, and some unpopular opinions from YouTube's favorite Rabbi, as he sits down with Dr. Elad Ben Elul for a frank conversation.

The Holiness Of Politics | Hosh'ana Rabah night lesson with Rabbi Cherki at Beit Yehudah, Jerusalem

When is the need for a Monarchy,
and for a Democratic rule?

 

[rylah]

Rabbi Cherki - is it slander to curse Lapid and Sa'ar? | OrotTV

Lapid: We won't allow Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount

PM makes appeal to Israeli Arab sector to vote for Yesh Atid in the upcoming elections.

www.israelnationalnews.com