"That is the challenge of Judaism in the state of Israel in our time. Its place is not in party politics. , not as an arm of the state, not as a set of segregated enclaves, not as an 'adversary culture', and not as a territorial ideology. Is role is to create, shape, drive and motivate civil society. If religion is not seen by Israelis as a unifying force in society, if religious Jews are not admired for their work with the poor, the lonely and the vulnerable, if Judaism is not the voice of justice and compassion, then something is wrong in the soul of Israel. To be sure, some of this work happens already; there are admirable examples. But there is much more to be done. Judaism in Israel today has lost the prophetic instinct when it needs it most. Judaism is about society, not the state."
Blah, blah, blah. Doc, sounds like you're bored again. This is umpteenth time you've written about Deri's corruption. Here, if you want something more exciting, check this out:
You really have no shame, do you? You fabricate a quote out of thin air, and then proceed to base an entire post on it. Deri never said "everybody does it", as you falsely misquote him in both your headline, and he never said "everybody fails to report income" either, as you again misrepresent him. Did you even bother to read the article you linked to? A guy has to be a fool to believe anything from you.
Either you're not being honest (again), or you really don't understand the problem with your post - which would be quite an indictment.
It's simple: You put in QUOTES "Everybody does it", as though Deri had actually said that. Then, lest you claim (as, amazingly, you actually do) it was merely a paraphrase, you also wrote "it is simply not true that everybody fails to report income", as though, again, Deri had made such a claim. Deri never said anything remotely similar to this. He said if the same standards were applied to others as were applied to him, then everyone would be found in violation of the law. In other words, the prosecutor had tried to use the wrong standard of law. That's a perfectly normal defense in financial matters. You misrepresented his words, and it was dishonest.
He claimed that there is no Israeli citizen that would escape guilt for "failure to report income", if they were investigated. Basically, "everyone does it, but I got caught because they investigated me". That's his claim.
There’s a soft antizionism underlying such comments. Endemic fraud on the public purse and tax avoidance are partly the result of ambivalence about the state itself.
Small quibble: I don’t think he was saying that everyone does what he actually did. He was misrepresenting what he did as a small underreporting of income or somesuch, so that people would imagine that the prosecution was political because many others do the same.
The income tax is legalized theft. The only problem I have here is that a lawmaker who has no problem robbing the public to pay for his government programs, has the audacity to not contribute himself.
Watching the commenters grapple with the proposed changes in the Israeli judicial system, a nagging question resounds in my mind: why must it be an all-or-nothing proposition? Why must we choose between a dystopian banana republic where the judiciary is a puppet of the leftist elite, or a bleak banana republic where the judiciary has been stripped of all its powers and is reduced to a mere bystander? Is it not possible to craft a more nuanced and sophisticated system that can strike a delicate balance between these extremes?
One possible model that comes to mind is the US judicial system, which is built on the foundation of checks and balances. In this model, the judiciary serves as a powerful counterweight to the legislative and executive branches, providing a much-needed check on their excesses and abuses of power. The judicial branch acts as a bulwark of the rule of law, ensuring that the rights and freedoms of citizens are protected, and that the government operates within the bounds of the constitution.
Of course, the US system is not without its flaws and imperfections. There are valid criticisms of the role of money in politics and the influence of powerful interest groups in shaping judicial appointments and decisions. However, these flaws do not detract from the fundamental strength of the US system, which is its ability to balance the competing interests of different branches of government and uphold the rule of law.
In contrast, the proposed changes to the Israeli judicial system threaten to upend this delicate balance and tilt the scales too far in one direction. If implemented, these changes could undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of any functioning democracy. It is imperative that we resist the urge to pursue short-term political gains at the expense of the long-term health of our democratic institutions.
Blatantly false dichotomy. The reforms will not make Israel "a banana republic where the judiciary has been stripped of all its powers and is reduced to a mere bystander." In fact, many critics say the reforms do not go far enough, as they will still leave the judiciary with more authority than other western countries, like the US.
Call a spade a spade. Barak and his acolytes pulled the judicial branch very far to the left, and the legislative and executive branches let it happen. What's happening now is a necessary check and balance, EXACTLY the type of course correction a functioning democracy must do from time to time. (Read the Federalist Papers, the US Founding Fathers were perfectly aware that the same thing would one day need to happen in America.) Anyone clutching at her pearls with cries of "Oh my goodness, democracy is threatened!" is either ignorant or dishonest, and in either case not someone to take seriously.
Oh, well isn't that just a delightful little tidbit of information? Actually, in the US, Congress CAN'T override the Supreme Court's rulings. Over in Israel, what they're proposing is a completely different story. The government wants to be able to just waltz in and overturn court decisions with a measly majority vote. As another commenter pointed out, whose to ensure that anarchy doesn't result?
And yes, I agree that we need to rectify the damage inflicted by Barak & Co - which caused an absolute disaster being that the judges are allowed to select themselves and interpret the law however they darn well please with absolutely no oversite. But hey, I guess we need some sort of balance between total government control and complete judicial chaos, right? Just a thought.
The Judiciary has no enforcement mechanism or funding mechanism. It relies on the executive for the former and the legislature for the latter. That's the check and balance upon them. The Chief Executive can simply refuse to enforce their orders, or not abide by any decision the court says is unconstitutional.
And what is wrong with overturning a decision by majority vote? The Court itself makes its rulings by majority vote!
Well, well, well, my friend. It appears that you are a bit befuddled. Allow me to enlighten you: the first half of your comment is precisely what I've been saying all along. The weakness of the court is a major issue, which is precisely why I'm arguing that giving the legislature unchecked power is a recipe for disaster. After all, the whole point of our Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances was to avoid exactly this kind of situation.
Let's be real here - politicians can be a pretty untrustworthy bunch. Just because they have a majority, that doesn't mean they should have carte blanche to do whatever they please. That's why the American Constitution empowers an independent body to ensure that the legislature stays within the boundaries set by the Founding Fathers.
But apparently, the proposed Israeli reform would do away with any such checks and balances. That means that even an extremist secularist government, led by the likes of Lieberman, could run roughshod over the Jewish status quo, or even commit atrocities against Chareidim - all within the bounds of the law.
Yes, I agree that the current system of the judiciary having unchecked power is also untenable and also very much unlike the American system. But why can't we find a balance, as we have here in America? It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I don't know anyone who would pay anything to the government, if he could help it. The government officials and rabbinical leaders should be doing so for obvious reasons, but they often don't. Nothing new or different from the DL, MO or chilonim here. Same goes for sex abuse and other vices which are genetic and distributed among population.
Was it only a few weeks ago that Deri was serving as the active PM in a temporary status? I don’t know how many politicians in Israel are qualified to do that, but evidently he seems to be an effective one.
The sad fact is that many people do not report income and many who have no choice because they are on salary wish they could. "The Marker" estimates it at 40%. This includes appliance technicians, teachers who give private lessons, and doctors who have all kinds of tricks. People justify it by saying that the state uses the money for all kinds of doubtful purposes , such as soccer on Shabbat (or at all )? Is doing what so many do or wish they coulkd a chillul Hashem.
“Shas chairman MK Arye Deri did not pledge that he would quit politics as part of his plea bargain from late January 2022, former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit said in a video clip from an interview with Channel 12's Ilana Dayan that was published on Sunday.”
The attorney general disagrees with you. He stated explicitly that quitting politics was not part of the plea deal. Read the article that I posted from the Jerusalem post.
In the first case, b/c he's a capable and effective politician. In the second, because the left made the tactical blunder of trying to force him out publicly. Now Shas and the right HAVE to keep him in, b/c anything less would be weakness. Political adversaries do not get to pick their opponents.
Rabbi Slifkin is clearly biased. Anyone can see it. I don't think he should be taken seriously. I just try to gain as much as i can from his articles, while knowing he has a agenda.
I read through your thoughts on this matter, and I wonder, could you enlighten me as to what the punishment was for calling someone a mamzer? Is it not forbidden?
Please be precise with the facts: Rabin was not caught with dollars in hand; His wife did not close a legal and government dollar account when they returned to Israel from serving as ambassador to the United States. Rabin resigned that day.
The investigations against Deri were opened three times because he had assets in his possession that there is no possibility that according to the income he reported they allowed him to acquire them. He was unable to show how these funds came to him. But it turned out that there were purchases and sales not according to the market value.
The facts are this: 1) Rabin engaged in negotiations with the PLO, which was 100% illegal under Israeli law. 2) Rabin also violated his explicit campaign promise of July 6, 1992, in which his spokesman stated "This government will not deal with a permanent settlement for the territories and will not be authorized to sign a peace treaty that involves withdrawing from any territories before elections are held."
Remind me again what the Israeli Supreme Court had to say about either of these?
Oh, how positively delightful. Richie, do pray tell us why Mr. Pharaoh's statement is considered "garbage"? I mean, it's not as if he's making an incoherent point. Even the great Dr. Slifkin acknowledges this, for goodness sake. But I suppose using the term "garbage" to describe well-considered comments is a clear sign of one's intellectual prowess, isn't it? Might as well just moo like a cow and call it a day.
We should remember what Rabbi Sacks z"l wrote:
"That is the challenge of Judaism in the state of Israel in our time. Its place is not in party politics. , not as an arm of the state, not as a set of segregated enclaves, not as an 'adversary culture', and not as a territorial ideology. Is role is to create, shape, drive and motivate civil society. If religion is not seen by Israelis as a unifying force in society, if religious Jews are not admired for their work with the poor, the lonely and the vulnerable, if Judaism is not the voice of justice and compassion, then something is wrong in the soul of Israel. To be sure, some of this work happens already; there are admirable examples. But there is much more to be done. Judaism in Israel today has lost the prophetic instinct when it needs it most. Judaism is about society, not the state."
Future Tense : from the chapter "A New Zionism"
it's entirely unremarkable that a scoundrel like Deri sees nothing wrong with what he does
The lack of public condemnation from the Charedi circles is far more disturbing.
Blah, blah, blah. Doc, sounds like you're bored again. This is umpteenth time you've written about Deri's corruption. Here, if you want something more exciting, check this out:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/natan-and-the-cavemen
Or, if you want something in the Adar spirit, try this one:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-halakhic-endorsement-of-coed-schools
Why is it that the excuse everybody does it only applies to financial crimes.
Why not use it for chillul shobbos or treif
This was not failure to report. It was concocting fake claims.
It was a lot more than just not reporting some income
You really have no shame, do you? You fabricate a quote out of thin air, and then proceed to base an entire post on it. Deri never said "everybody does it", as you falsely misquote him in both your headline, and he never said "everybody fails to report income" either, as you again misrepresent him. Did you even bother to read the article you linked to? A guy has to be a fool to believe anything from you.
The quote in my post was literally copied and pasted from the interview. The title is an accurate paraphrase. I have no idea what your objection is.
Either you're not being honest (again), or you really don't understand the problem with your post - which would be quite an indictment.
It's simple: You put in QUOTES "Everybody does it", as though Deri had actually said that. Then, lest you claim (as, amazingly, you actually do) it was merely a paraphrase, you also wrote "it is simply not true that everybody fails to report income", as though, again, Deri had made such a claim. Deri never said anything remotely similar to this. He said if the same standards were applied to others as were applied to him, then everyone would be found in violation of the law. In other words, the prosecutor had tried to use the wrong standard of law. That's a perfectly normal defense in financial matters. You misrepresented his words, and it was dishonest.
He claimed that there is no Israeli citizen that would escape guilt for "failure to report income", if they were investigated. Basically, "everyone does it, but I got caught because they investigated me". That's his claim.
What's the difference between:
"Everybody does it"
and
"There is no one like that"
Are you being serious? Do you not understand the difference between what he said and how Slifkin falsely misquoted him?
Please be precise with the facts: this is the address of the box, and the things are written there: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/366526
There’s a soft antizionism underlying such comments. Endemic fraud on the public purse and tax avoidance are partly the result of ambivalence about the state itself.
Small quibble: I don’t think he was saying that everyone does what he actually did. He was misrepresenting what he did as a small underreporting of income or somesuch, so that people would imagine that the prosecution was political because many others do the same.
Agreed.
The income tax is legalized theft. The only problem I have here is that a lawmaker who has no problem robbing the public to pay for his government programs, has the audacity to not contribute himself.
Watching the commenters grapple with the proposed changes in the Israeli judicial system, a nagging question resounds in my mind: why must it be an all-or-nothing proposition? Why must we choose between a dystopian banana republic where the judiciary is a puppet of the leftist elite, or a bleak banana republic where the judiciary has been stripped of all its powers and is reduced to a mere bystander? Is it not possible to craft a more nuanced and sophisticated system that can strike a delicate balance between these extremes?
One possible model that comes to mind is the US judicial system, which is built on the foundation of checks and balances. In this model, the judiciary serves as a powerful counterweight to the legislative and executive branches, providing a much-needed check on their excesses and abuses of power. The judicial branch acts as a bulwark of the rule of law, ensuring that the rights and freedoms of citizens are protected, and that the government operates within the bounds of the constitution.
Of course, the US system is not without its flaws and imperfections. There are valid criticisms of the role of money in politics and the influence of powerful interest groups in shaping judicial appointments and decisions. However, these flaws do not detract from the fundamental strength of the US system, which is its ability to balance the competing interests of different branches of government and uphold the rule of law.
In contrast, the proposed changes to the Israeli judicial system threaten to upend this delicate balance and tilt the scales too far in one direction. If implemented, these changes could undermine the independence and integrity of the judiciary, which is a cornerstone of any functioning democracy. It is imperative that we resist the urge to pursue short-term political gains at the expense of the long-term health of our democratic institutions.
Blatantly false dichotomy. The reforms will not make Israel "a banana republic where the judiciary has been stripped of all its powers and is reduced to a mere bystander." In fact, many critics say the reforms do not go far enough, as they will still leave the judiciary with more authority than other western countries, like the US.
Call a spade a spade. Barak and his acolytes pulled the judicial branch very far to the left, and the legislative and executive branches let it happen. What's happening now is a necessary check and balance, EXACTLY the type of course correction a functioning democracy must do from time to time. (Read the Federalist Papers, the US Founding Fathers were perfectly aware that the same thing would one day need to happen in America.) Anyone clutching at her pearls with cries of "Oh my goodness, democracy is threatened!" is either ignorant or dishonest, and in either case not someone to take seriously.
Oh, well isn't that just a delightful little tidbit of information? Actually, in the US, Congress CAN'T override the Supreme Court's rulings. Over in Israel, what they're proposing is a completely different story. The government wants to be able to just waltz in and overturn court decisions with a measly majority vote. As another commenter pointed out, whose to ensure that anarchy doesn't result?
And yes, I agree that we need to rectify the damage inflicted by Barak & Co - which caused an absolute disaster being that the judges are allowed to select themselves and interpret the law however they darn well please with absolutely no oversite. But hey, I guess we need some sort of balance between total government control and complete judicial chaos, right? Just a thought.
The Judiciary has no enforcement mechanism or funding mechanism. It relies on the executive for the former and the legislature for the latter. That's the check and balance upon them. The Chief Executive can simply refuse to enforce their orders, or not abide by any decision the court says is unconstitutional.
And what is wrong with overturning a decision by majority vote? The Court itself makes its rulings by majority vote!
Well, well, well, my friend. It appears that you are a bit befuddled. Allow me to enlighten you: the first half of your comment is precisely what I've been saying all along. The weakness of the court is a major issue, which is precisely why I'm arguing that giving the legislature unchecked power is a recipe for disaster. After all, the whole point of our Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances was to avoid exactly this kind of situation.
Let's be real here - politicians can be a pretty untrustworthy bunch. Just because they have a majority, that doesn't mean they should have carte blanche to do whatever they please. That's why the American Constitution empowers an independent body to ensure that the legislature stays within the boundaries set by the Founding Fathers.
But apparently, the proposed Israeli reform would do away with any such checks and balances. That means that even an extremist secularist government, led by the likes of Lieberman, could run roughshod over the Jewish status quo, or even commit atrocities against Chareidim - all within the bounds of the law.
Yes, I agree that the current system of the judiciary having unchecked power is also untenable and also very much unlike the American system. But why can't we find a balance, as we have here in America? It seems like a no-brainer to me.
I don't know anyone who would pay anything to the government, if he could help it. The government officials and rabbinical leaders should be doing so for obvious reasons, but they often don't. Nothing new or different from the DL, MO or chilonim here. Same goes for sex abuse and other vices which are genetic and distributed among population.
Why does everyone like to generalize?
I'm speaking from my expirience. Also, it's statistically true, it's human nature, it's evolutionary beneficial and it makes sense.
Was it only a few weeks ago that Deri was serving as the active PM in a temporary status? I don’t know how many politicians in Israel are qualified to do that, but evidently he seems to be an effective one.
The sad fact is that many people do not report income and many who have no choice because they are on salary wish they could. "The Marker" estimates it at 40%. This includes appliance technicians, teachers who give private lessons, and doctors who have all kinds of tricks. People justify it by saying that the state uses the money for all kinds of doubtful purposes , such as soccer on Shabbat (or at all )? Is doing what so many do or wish they coulkd a chillul Hashem.
A few points.
1. He did not renege on his plea deal. The Attorney General at that time stated that leaving politics was NOT part of the plea deal.
2. The attorney general also stated that the 6 year investigation was way too long and was עינוי הדין.
He did renege. The judge was explicit about it resting upon his retirement from politics. Deri now claims that he wasn't listening to that part.
From the Jerusalem post
“Shas chairman MK Arye Deri did not pledge that he would quit politics as part of his plea bargain from late January 2022, former attorney-general Avichai Mandelblit said in a video clip from an interview with Channel 12's Ilana Dayan that was published on Sunday.”
The attorney general disagrees with you. He stated explicitly that quitting politics was not part of the plea deal. Read the article that I posted from the Jerusalem post.
Yes, I'm familiar with Mandelblit's statement. Now read the actual court transcript.
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-731375/amp
https://www.timesofisrael.com/former-ag-proceedings-against-deri-were-too-drawn-out-law-enforcement-didnt-excel/amp/
Why do they need Deri in the coalition so desperately? Can anyone explain?
They need Shas. Without Shas, they're below 61. Shas insists on Deri.
Why do they insist on him?
In the first case, b/c he's a capable and effective politician. In the second, because the left made the tactical blunder of trying to force him out publicly. Now Shas and the right HAVE to keep him in, b/c anything less would be weakness. Political adversaries do not get to pick their opponents.
Rabbi Slifkin is clearly biased. Anyone can see it. I don't think he should be taken seriously. I just try to gain as much as i can from his articles, while knowing he has a agenda.
I read through your thoughts on this matter, and I wonder, could you enlighten me as to what the punishment was for calling someone a mamzer? Is it not forbidden?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/dry-deri-needed-an-onion-to-cry-for-rabbi-ovadia/
At best, all conjecture.
Please be precise with the facts: Rabin was not caught with dollars in hand; His wife did not close a legal and government dollar account when they returned to Israel from serving as ambassador to the United States. Rabin resigned that day.
The investigations against Deri were opened three times because he had assets in his possession that there is no possibility that according to the income he reported they allowed him to acquire them. He was unable to show how these funds came to him. But it turned out that there were purchases and sales not according to the market value.
The facts are this: 1) Rabin engaged in negotiations with the PLO, which was 100% illegal under Israeli law. 2) Rabin also violated his explicit campaign promise of July 6, 1992, in which his spokesman stated "This government will not deal with a permanent settlement for the territories and will not be authorized to sign a peace treaty that involves withdrawing from any territories before elections are held."
Remind me again what the Israeli Supreme Court had to say about either of these?
You are a great author, i love your books
Garbage.
Oh, how positively delightful. Richie, do pray tell us why Mr. Pharaoh's statement is considered "garbage"? I mean, it's not as if he's making an incoherent point. Even the great Dr. Slifkin acknowledges this, for goodness sake. But I suppose using the term "garbage" to describe well-considered comments is a clear sign of one's intellectual prowess, isn't it? Might as well just moo like a cow and call it a day.