The Other 800 Pound Gorilla in the Room - Small Parties and Government Stability

The recent elections in Israel have exposed several of those eight hundred pound gorillas that have been hanging about in the room.  But most of them, such as the potential power of the Arab vote, had been known, and conveniently ignored, for years. What amazes me, is the other eight hundred pounder, the one that people invented, which led to the birth of the United Arab Party.

From nearly every corner of Israeli society, there has been a constant call for government stability, which is political parlance for a limited number of large parties, as opposed to a collection of smaller parties which “hold the government hostage,” over their particular issues.

In fact, it was to fulfill this desperate need for eliminating smaller parties that the last government raised the threshold allowing a party to enter into the Israeli Knesset (parliament). And so, they were successful. In the last election, instead of three or four small Arab parties, Israel now has a large united Arab list, which represents more mandates than they did previously. In terms of government stability, this changed nothing. The Arab list had no intention of being part of a Likud led or a Labor led government, and therefore their unity has little effect on the executive branch of the government. Their unity may potentially help their constituency, as they will now be eligible for more seats on important parliamentary committees, but as far as forestalling early elections, it will have little effect.

In contrast, because of the raised threshold several smaller parties, principally YaHad, will not be represented, and this will surely affect the stability of the government, to its detriment. Further, the stability of Israeli society, it would seem, would benefit from the greatest plurality of representation, what we would call in any non- political venue, consensus.

But, before we talk about the stability of society, and what's best for the average citizen, I will demonstrate how small parties have the ability to make the government far more stable, though each of its constituents might have less power. This is, of course, is the eight hundred pound gorilla that no one wants to discuss. When the politicians talk about “stability,” what they really mean is more concentrated power. Stability has become a euphemism for control and rule, for the ability to push through what would otherwise be, unpopular agendas. In fact, especially in the early years of the state, the “instability” was the result of the prime minister not being able to bully his partners into complying with his will. In the early years of the state (when the threshold was at its lowest), only the fourth Knesset was forced into early elections. The dissolution of the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth , seventh,eighth and tenth governments all fell due to the Prime Minister being unable to force his agenda on the other members (and, the eleventh government fell because of Ben-Gurion as well, who was not the Prime Minister at the time). Fortunately, for the most part during these “unstable” governments, the citizens were saved from early elections. In fact, many of the newly formed governments consisted of the same coalition partners as before the government “fell,” making a mockery of the concept of instability.

In fact, the instability of Israeli governments has much more to do with the various mechanization of the politicians in the larger parties to gain and hold onto their power than it has to do with small parties' demands. There is absolutely no correctional between the raising of the threshold and the stability of the government in power. In fact, it might be the opposite.

The truth is that a plurality of small interest parties requires everyone to limit their appetite, restrain action which might alienate participants and try and arrive at a common consensus of policy - policy that, while not what everyone one wanted, would be what everyone could agree upon.

To demonstrate: Likud received thirty mandates, which is less than the number necessary it needs to form a government alone. It is currently courting five parties, Kahlon, Jewish Home, Shas, United Torah Judaism and Yisrael Beytenu, which bring another thirty seven mandates collectively. Yet, each and every one these parties can hold the rest of the parties, particularly Likud, “hostage.” Without their mandates, the government can not be formed. And if it is formed, then each of them can threaten to bring down the government by leaving. This is no more stable than the last government.

However, if the threshold hadn't been raised, then YaHad would also be a natural candidate for the government, and with its three mandates, no one party (other than Likud) could threaten the government by leaving. And if the threshold was even lower to allow for Yaleh Yaroq (The Green Leaf) party to have entered into Knesset, it is possible that their one issue could have been accepted to add even more stability.

In fact, if one looks at the previous governments of Israel, that is exactly how the more stable ones remained in power. They catered to a wide consensus of the electorate's will.

And of course the most stable government would be one in which the executive branch's role was not a vehicle of power and privilege, but fulfilled its limited but vital role to execute the will of the people, either expressed directly (though various methods such as a referendum) or via a legislature. In such a scenario, the largest consensus of society could be represented on each issue, as each representative or deputy of the people would vote based on the issue and not based on their position in a power base called a political party.

Which leads us to the idea of a stable society. In truth, the instability of the government is really only a reflection of the greater fragmentation of Israeli society. Israel society has become more complex, and its issues have become more varied and nuanced. The focus of the society is less on the country's survival, the question of its existence, and much more on the quality and character of the society. Stifling that nuanced and important discussion, by limiting opinions through raising the threshold will not make the society more stable, more homogeneous. Quite the opposite, those sectors who feel that they are not represented, who feel they have no voice, may resort to other methods of expressing their will.

And again, the recent elections are a prime example. A large number of people who voted for the ill fated YaHad, come from the same sections of society accused of “nationalistically motivated crime,” actions, which come about through feelings that their will is frustrated; that their voices are stifled. Silencing more voices, frustrating more people's political will, will not bring about stability. Rather, it has the potential to create an explosion.

If democracy means that everyone has a voice, then the ideal would be a mechanism that allows for the greatest plurality of representation, as in a referendum system. The opposite would limit representation and choice to as narrow a field as possible, as we have seen in extremes, with the one party systems of the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. It is true that a one part system will be a more stable, efficient government. But then again, all forms of dictatorship, including an oligarchy, are. Yet, it is also true, especially in the extreme, that the less pluralistic the system of representation, the further away a government is from realizing the collective will of its citizens. A pluralistic system might be less efficient, but it will certainly arrive much closer to an approximate consensus of the people.

A Tale of Two Zionisms

Since the advent of "modern Zionism" the political-social "ism" has been the subject of a very deep internal tension.  With the creation of the State of Israel, the military victories and acquisition of territory, the tension deepened.  The current "threat of peace," has created a crisis of dissonance that cannot be ignored.  At its root it is an identity crisis:  What is Zionism?  What is its purpose, its reason d'êtres?

This is why so many, speaking in the name of "Zionism," voice such disparate and contrary positions.  Even many individuals are found to sometimes speak in "two voices," as many individuals, particularly those involved in politics have affinities for aspects of both models.

On the one hand, according to the Herzelian model of Zionism, it has already fulfilled its purpose and has therefore become irrelevant.  This is the phenomena of the so-called "Post-Zionism."  Herzelian Zionism came into existence to answer the eternal and troubling "Jewish Question."  This wasn't only a question for Jews, as the world had for centuries struggled with the same question: What to do with the Jews?  While many of the "solutions" proffered to this question were quite horrendous, Herzl, in his monumental effort, did not radically stray from the basic parameters and constraints of the "problem."  The Jews, as a social religious national group, stood apart from the rest of civilization, unable or refusing to integrate with the rest of the world.  As a result, according to the model, Jews were subject to persecution.  The establishment of a modern "normal" state for the Jews was intended to facilitate the Jewish nation's integration into the family of nations, while at the same time provide a haven, and refuge from persecution.

Yet, there is another voice, an older, deeper voice of Zionism that resonates, and has always resonated in the hearts of even the most cynical and pragmatic Jew.  This is the voice of Redemptive Zionism.  Within this paradigm of Zionism, the State of Israel is but a step in the continually unfolding process of redemption, a redemption that is defined through the unification of the people of Israel with the God of Israel in the Land of Israel.  It is a process of Zionism that culminates in the fulfillment of Israel's role as a light, a teacher and example, a leader to the rest of the world, and is symbolized through the building of the Temple on Mount Moriah. 

When there are voices decrying that Jews cannot live under "foreign rule" (because it's not safe), or that they should refuse the Spanish citizenship (because we "can't trust the goyim), these are echoes of the Herzelian Zionism.  A Redemptive Zionist would not ask how Jews could live under foreign rule, but rather, how could the Land of Israel be under foreign rule?  And further, how can the Jewish State be run by foreign rules? 

Redemptive Zionists are not threatened by a government trying to make amends for its past.  They are not "afraid of the goyim," but rather recognize their mission to redeem the other nations from their spiritual and moral slumber.

For Redemptive Zionists, the State of Israel is not "compensation," for the crimes of humanity have perpetrated against the nation of Israel.  It doesn't see Israel as victims.  Rather, it sees the ingathering of the nation of Israel to the Land of Israel as the fulfillment of an eternal promise by Gd.  Redemption Zionists see it as incumbent to remain loyal to that promise and to help enable its complete fulfillment. 

Herzelian Zionism, particularly in the early years, siphoned the strong natural inclination of Redemptive Zionism that is implanted in every Jewish soul.  But the goals of Herzelian Zionism are a false destiny, and are therefore doomed to fail.  The miracle of Israel can not be truncated by the pragmatism.  Any attempt to do so will only set back the entire enterprise. 

It is time for the Redemptive Zionists to stop listening to the echoes of Herzl.  There is no Jewish problem to solve, only a Jewish promise to fulfill.

Towards an Authentic Jewish Spirituality

by 

Yoel Qeren

(reposted with permission from http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/component/content/article/34-featured/611-towards-an-authentic-jewish-spirituality)

What is Jewish spirituality? As with all Torah concepts, exile has clouded our ideas of what spirituality is and what purpose it serves. True spirituality is a personal experience of the ethereal universe and ultimately, of God Himself. In its highest form, Jewish spirituality is prophecy, and prophecy in its highest form will bring about the resurrection of the dead. Our sages tell us that this is the true goal of authentic Jewish spirituality. They called us "B'nei Nevi'im", the sons, or spiritual heirs of prophets. That is who we are meant to be.

Prophecy was once the driving force behind the nation of Israel, its leaders and its military. That was its purpose, to guide the nation according to the will of Hashem. Needless to say, we are a far cry from this lofty ideal today. However, it is our duty, as a nation reconstituted on its ancient homeland, to begin moving back toward this original spirituality, back toward the prophetic ideal.

To begin moving in this direction, we must take small steps. First and foremost is the study of Tanakh. This in and of itself is a great spiritual endeavor. Its pages are a window into the world of the prophets. We can see how they prayed, how they spoke, and the message they brought to Israel. From them we learn of the profound spiritual effects of music and that in addition to communal prayer, one must make time to speak directly to our Father in heaven. The importance of these concepts was recognized throughout history by such luminaries as R' Nahman of Breslov, who brilliantly expounded on the spiritual benefits of music and meditation, and taught his disciples to engage in free, unscripted conversation with God every day.

Next, we must immerse ourselves in the words of our sages, who imparted to us their knowledge of prophecy and its purpose. From them we learn that the prophetic experience exists on many levels. Our sages tell us that every dream is one sixtieth of prophecy. Stop and think about that for a moment. Something as mundane and routine as a dream is actually a small taste of the loftiest spiritual state attainable by man. Even though actual prophecy may seem out of our reach, we must know that it is always with us. And if we train ourselves to think, act and pray in a manner consistent with the way of the prophets, we may gain small glimpses, small flashes of light and clarity that can change us for the better.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly is the necessity of having a continual connection with the land of Israel. Prophecy is intimately connected with this land, and eretz Yisrael is the only aspect of Jewish spirituality that is tangible. The land itself is holy and unlike other aspects of qedusha, it can be touched, smelled, tasted. When you touch the land of Israel, you touch and experience holiness. The physical and spiritual planes are united here like nowhere else on earth. Yet they are united in a way that is simply and easily experienced.

Do not confuse this with the awe of creation that one might experience upon seeing a beautiful mountain or river. This is also a profound spiritual experience, but it can be found anywhere. The land of Israel is different. It is overflowing, not only with natural beauty, but also with an overpowering sense of history and purpose.

When one drinks from the same springs as prophets and kings, when one climbs to the caves his ancestors lived and even died in, he begins to feel a sense of continuity and connection with those who came before him. It is almost as if they are standing beside him. Their words come alive, echoing through the hills and valleys. The lines between past and present, between physical and spiritual, begin to blur.

It is at this point that a Jew begins to grasp who he truly is. He begins to understand his relationship with his maker and his people. He attains a clearer vision of his purpose in this world and where he should be headed. These are small yet vital steps toward the ultimate goal of restoring prophecy.

Immersion in Tanakh and Hazal, connecting with eretz Yisrael and engaging in honest, heartfelt prayer; this is the way of our fathers. It will do for us what no red string or swinging chicken can. This is authentic Jewish spirituality and like a fiery chariot, it waits to carry our nation to new heights.

Excerpts from "The First Tithe"  Israel Eldad

"Thirteen years have passed since the appearance of the first edition of the First Tithe.  The name and content of that book imply a second tithe; but there is none, not yet, at least not in any coherent way.  Most of my spiritual energy has been invested in twelve volumes of Sulam L'Malkhuth Yisrael (The Ladder towards a Sovereign Israel); which was established together with my friends, carriers of the soul of Lehi, carriers of the idea of complete Israeli liberation, of buttressing the concept of Jerusalem in the face of opposing concepts, in the face of empty concepts.

Unlike the years of the first tithe, these years have been without actual combat and without an official organization.  And while this is not a positive development, still, we do not wish to be numbered among those who believe that what we do is important rather than what we say.   We are descendants of a people who have at the beginning of their Bible and in the depths of their soul the declaration," And God said, let there be light and there was light," and we believe man was created in the image of God and we believe – we know – from the experience of man and Israel and this generation, the great strength of words spoken truthfully and their power to induce deeds; for only light itself was created by God out of nothing, while since then man carries the light and flame, the light of clear thought that clarifies; and the flame of a burning soul that ignites, the eternal flame.  The flame of necessity of bodies who want redemption will come even if it is delayed, even if it has fallen with us into the coastal plain and the valley.

On this side of the mountains, of the Mountain, in the middle of the journey, it has fallen into the material.  It may have fallen because of shortness of breath, or damned up soul, or weariness, or bounty - the body's satisfaction with its bounty, or the soul's satisfaction with what has been achieved so far – or perhaps because of the natural limitations of the achiever.  It has fallen under various and sundry kinds of inaction and non-fulfillment, of dropping of the initiative, and even of an honestly felt and easily adopted attitude towards the State of Israel.

This state is an achievement only if it is viewed as a stage, meaning as a bridgehead toward Malkhuth Yisrael, the Sovereign Kingdom of Israel, with all this entails in terms of strengthening its political position, especially in light of the hatred surrounding it and the dark treason and plotting within, even among former Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, and with all this implies for the importance of maintaining the spiritual tension that desires the great things which are to come, things necessary and beautiful, which means raising high the idea of Malkhuth.

We have come to the threshold of this Malkhuth for which we are destined.  That this is true can be seen in everything that surrounds us, from the confusion and continued desert and ruins in the geopolitical region waiting for Hebrew mastery, to our continuing social and spiritual oppression and servitude to both external and internal slavery – including the spiritual confusion within Israel on questions of Judah vs. Israel, Judaism vs. Israeli-ness, all of which are a sign that the process has come to a halt at its very beginning, a sign that the revolution is in its twilight and awaits renewal.  The Almighty is signaling – with lights and with shadows, with all the colors and in all the directions of the historical and political and ideal traffic lights – what must come next in the process of redemption, and without which what has already been attained will not last, and will become a modern version of Betar instead of a modern version of Modi'in.  And the fault lies not in the length of our arms, nor any inability, but in the fat that surrounds our heart and the fog in our brain. 

For today, our arms are not short, and great is the physical power in the hands of the Jewish people in Israel and in the Exile.  This was not the case in those days that are the subject of this book.  This is not the case of the Jewish people who were for the most part in cages and crematoria, slaughtered and shocked and shoveled  and burned, and only a few took their expansive souls in their little hands and set out to act, to begin the redeeming act.  And though the deed was great and holy, this book will tell of the constant gap between the idea and the song of the great Kingdom with their powerful desires and readiness, and the arms' inability to carry through, such that breath came up short and the soul turned asthmatic and the cannon, when it was forged, was given to those of little faith.

And so we have come this far, to the physical power of two million in this little parcel of land, who are equal in ability and science and organization to all the surrounding states, whoa are equal in meaning and purpose to ten million Jews in Exile.  In the land, we have the tremendous potential to manage our national and physical and spiritual powers in a wide expanse, yet we also see so many brains and hearts reduced to a lack of vision, or even an openly professed and exhibited anti-Vision of the type now expressed in what is called literature and art; a culture of content of which is abandon and which, in boredom and plenitude, mimics the wild and disturbed West which is actualizing the anthem of the East:  No god, no king, no heroes.

Therefore let this second edition of The First Tithe come not only to meet the need of a first edition that long ago sold out, but also to fill the need to return to the great days of desire and action and action –which-flows-from-desire.

The Lehi movement published more material than other movements in the 1940s, and its publications have even been collected in two large volumes.  This book does not purport to be the history of Lehi.  It is a personal memoir.  And if a baker may praise his own wares, let it be said that it speaks well of a book of this sort that after thirteen years, its author has nothing to change in its text,  excepting minor consequential corrections.  And though the words originally came close upon the organizational demise of Lehi, and though they came from the heart, a heat which is often burning and shaken, the author can sign off today on all the judgments and evaluations inside, which he judged the events, the movements and the people then and which – not this or that detail – are the stuff of this book.

From the perspective of thirteen years, from the permanency now attached to and the calm, for better or worse, attained regarding the past events, nothing stands out that obligates the author to say:  I erred in assessing it.  And the author is only able to take this view because he looks out from the Sulam, the Ladder.  As he is neither prophet nor son of a prophet, and is able to ascertain the end of things from the beginning, still he is able to see the beginning and what followed upon that beginning, the beginning of the ladder, the ladder towards which events moved, on which they climbed, even if they did not mount it; but all their value, and the means of judging them, is on this ladder, at the top of this ladder.  From this ladder the relative importance of what happened – and what may yet happen is judged, and this is done so that it may happen again on the coming rungs, and this is my wish for those who continue to climb the ladder."

-         Israel Eldad, 5723 (1963), Introduction to the Second Edition, The First Tithe.

Some of My Best Friends Are Lawyers עורכי דין והדפסות

(The English Version Appears After The Hebrew)

כמה חברים שלי, הם עורכי דין. אפילו יש לי חבר שנכנס ללימודי משפט בשביל לעזור לאנשים שנרדפו על ידי המערכת. ואני מכבד את זה מאוד

אני גם אוהב את המדפסות/תוכניות הדפסה. השתמשתי איזה סוג מדפסת/תוכנית הדפסה מאז שהייתי בן שלש עשרה. כמחבר, איני יודע מה הייתי עושה בלעדיהם.

אבל שניהם ביחד (עורכי דין והמדפסת/תוכנית הדפסה) הביאו דֶבֶר לעולם.

אני לא מגזים. תנו לי להסביר.

נתחיל עם ההוא היותר התמים הנראה משניהם. לפני המדפסת, החוזה היה בדרך כלל באורך של דף או שתים. בתקופה ההיא, שהיה צריך לתקתק את החוזה מחדש בכל תוספת וכל שינוי, כל אחד תמך בחברו להיות הגון וישר. החוזה היה הסכמה על העקרים שהיה בין שני הצדדים, לשניהם היו כוונה טובה לשמור אותם. אחרי זמן, נכנסה המדפסת, והיה אפשרות לשנות ולהוסיף את החוזה בקלות. אנשים התחילו לכלול כל פרט שאפשר בתוך החוזה. ואז החוזה הפך להיות יותר ויותר על מה היה כתוב מפורש, ואפילו עוד, על מה שלא היה כתוב מפורש. משפט החוזה הפך להיות משחק איך למצוא דרך לנצל את החוזה באותו זמן שקיימים פרטי תוכנו. נאמנות ושכל נשלחו לפח.

וזה לא רק בחוזים. אלא, היום הצעות לחוק כל כך ארוכות שאף אחד לא מופתע כל כך שמחוקקי החוק לא קוראים אותם לגמרי, אם בכלל. איך האזרח הפשוט יכול לשמור את החוקים והמשפטים אם הם יותר מדי מסובכים לאלה שמחוקקים אותם?

וזה מביא אותנו לחלק השני: עורכי דין, ובמיוחד עורכי דין כפוליטיקאים.

טבעי ביותר שעורכי דין יכנסו לתחום של פוליטיקה. מי שיש לו נטייה להסתבכויות של משפט, ירצה באפן טבעי בחקיקה. אבל התפקיד של עורך דין, הוא בעיקר לעזור ללקוח שלו להשתמש בחוק ולהציל אותו מהחוק כמה שאפשר. במילים אחרות, העורך דין רוצה, באפן עקרוני לנצח את החוק.

נראה לי שהמחוקקים הכי טובים יהיו אנשים שמעונינים בצדק, ולא בחוק. חוקים, וממשלות בכלל, הם הכרחיים להקים חברה יעילה של צדק ומשפט. אבל, ציבור שהעמיס בכובד של כללים מיותרים ומסובכים וסותרים הוא ציבור מסכן כמו אזרחים בתחת עריצות.

אנחנו חיים בחברה שחוקים הפכו להיות בלי משמעות. ריבוי חוקים מיותרים גורם לשימוש בהם שרירותי, הקיום שלהם קשה, והמציאות שלהם מדכא.

תשאל כל שוטר: אפשר לקבל עשרים דו"חים רק על נסיע מהבית למרכולת, בלי לסכן עצמו, את השכן או השכונה. שוטר הגון לא ייתן דו"חים על כל עברות הפיציות האלה, אבל הוא יכול. וזה אומר שכל אזרח הוא חי בסובלנות שרירותית של הכרח הכללים המגוחכים שאין להם סוף.

אנחנו חיים בעולם שהמגוחך הפך למציאות. הוא מנהג שחייבים לבטל.

אבל יש פטרון פשוט: לעשות הכל יותר פשוט.

איני אנרכיסט, אבל ברור לי שהמערכת כמו שהיא – השלטון הפקידים המפלצתי שבגדילה תמידית – עומד להיות איום יותר מסוכן מלחיות בלי ממשלה.

חז"ל אומר שבלי שלטון כל שהוא, אפילו שלטון רע, אזרחים "אוכלים" אחד את השני. אבל בעולם של שלטון הפקידים שיצרנו, המציאות היא כבר כך. אך בעולם הזה שיצרנו, האזרח "מתעכל" יותר לאט אבל הוא סובל יותר.

באמת, עודף של כללים וחוקים שכל אזרח פוגש יום יום גורם ביזוי עמוק למשפט ושמירת החוק בחברה. (אף אחד לא דואג לנסוע במהירות הרשמית אלא במהירות שאפשר לנסוע בלי שנעצור). הוא כבר לא על עניין שמירת החוק אלא על שלא ייתפס על ידי החוק.

למרות מה שנחשב, מערכת המשפט של התורה היא פשוטה מאד. באמת המוסג של עורכי דין מתנגד לעיקר התורה, שמבוסס על צדק, וגילוי האמת או הכי קרוב לאמת שאפשר. מערכת החוק של התורה, ההלכה, בנויה להיות פשוטה, שכלליה יכולים להיות מובנים ומשמעותים לכל בר דעת.

(היום שבתי דין משתמשים בחידוש של "טוען רבני" מרמז שאולי מערכת ההלכה של היום או לפחות בתי הדין שלהם תעו מכמה עיקרים שלהם.)

בנזקים, הנוסחה היא פשוט: המזיק משלם פיצוים לכל נזק משמעותי שהוא גרם. ובעיקר הוא אותו כלל לכל עניין חברתי. לדוגמה, מה בן אדם יכול לעשות ברכוש שלו מוגבל אך ורק אם וכאשר הוא גורם נזק ממש לזולתו.

לא צריכים לקבל רשות מוקדמת מאף סמכות לפעולות בסיסיות של חיים. לא מוכר לי שבתורה מישהו חייב לקבל רשות למעשה מותר, שנעשה בצורה מותרת, ובמיוחד לא לפני עשית המעשה. ההלכה כן מחייבת, במצב מסוים מישהו לקבל הסכם ממי שהמעשה יכול לפגוע בו. אבל הסכם כזה הוא מבוסס על כבוד הזולת וכל אחד יכול להבין שהוא הגון, כמו שבונים חומה בין שתי חצרות וכדומה. (אבל לבנות חומה בתוך חצר שלו בלבד, לא צריכים שום הסכמה).

אבל היום, בכל חברה מערבית, אי אפשר לחיות בלי לקבל (בדרך כלל בתשלום) רשות מוקדמת מאיזה סמכות (ובדרך כלל מכמה סמכויות לכל מעשה). זה לא מוגזם. לפרנס צריך רשיון עסק, או לפחות מספר זהות למס. ותלוי איך רוצים לפרנס, יכול להיות שצריכים רשות או רשיון מכמה סמכויות, רשות, משרד ממשלתי או שכה - כל אחד מהם עם הכללים השונים שלו.

צריכים רשות מהסמכויות לחנך את הילדים, לבנות בחצר, או לנסוע ברכב (אפילו בשטח הפרטי).

מישהו פעם שאל למה חייבים לקבל רשיון לנהוג, או יותר חשוב, רשות להיות בעל רכב? הרשיון לא מונע תנועת דרכים, ולא מונע שום פעולות פלילית, אלא רק הופך פעולה שלא עשויה ברשות גוף ממשלתי להיות פלילית ולא משנה אם היא פעולה מסוכנת או לא, אם היא גורמת נזק או לא. רוב האנשים יענו שואדי רשיון נהיגה ורשיון אחזקת רכב הם החרכים היום לחברה המודרנית. ואולי זה נכון, אבל נראה לי שהתשובה באה בגלל שהתרגלנו למוסג כזה והיא לא באה מתוך בדיקת העניין.

יש דרך יותר טובה. צריך לנהל ממשל כמו כל מערכת אחרת, כמו עסק או ארגון שצריך להיות יעיל.

בחברה כמו בחיים הדרך הטובה ביותר היא הדרך הפשוטה.

אין צורך ממש לשלטון הפקידים שמטריד את החברה שלנו. ובמיוחד כאשר כל העצה לשיפור היא להוסיף עוד כללים וחוקים. הזמן הגיע להתחיל מחדש. אפשר להתחיל בכלל אחד: אל תעשה נזק. ומי שעובר על הכלל ההוא, בשוגג או במזיד, חייב לשלם על הנזק על פי החלטת בית הדין.

חוץ מזה במקום שאין נזק, אז אפשר להבין שאין עברה.

Some of my best friends are lawyers. I even have a friend who became a lawyer in order to help people victimized by the system, which I think is admirable.

I also like word processors. I’ve had some form of a word processor since I was thirteen. As a writer, I don’t know what I’d do without them.

But the two combined, lawyers and word processors, have brought a plague on mankind.

I’m not overstating things. Let me explain.

Let’s start with the seemingly more innocuous of the two. Before the word processor, contracts used to average about a page in length. When a contract had to be retyped from start to finish just to add a few phrases or an addendum, everyone relied on his fellow to be reasonable. Contracts were letters of understanding that stated the principles of an agreement that both parties were expected, and intended to keep in good faith. Eventually, the word processor came along and, since contracts could be changed, added to, and adapted more easily, people started including every possible detail they could think of into their contracts. Contracts then became more about what was explicitly stated, and, sometimes even more, what was omitted. In many cases contract law turned into a game of finding a way to violate an agreement, or mislead one’s fellow, while remaining true to the letter of the contract, if not its spirit. Good faith and reasonableness were both thrown out the window.

And, it’s not only with contracts. Today, proposed laws are so long that no one is too surprised at the fact that lawmakers don’t read them in their entirety, if at all. How are simple citizens supposed to follow laws and statues that are too complex for the those that establish them to understand?

Which brings us to the next part: Lawyers, and in particular, lawyers as politicians.

It’s only natural that lawyers would gravitate to the field of politics. Someone who has an affinity for the intricacies of law would be expected to have an interest in its legislation. Yet, lawyers main role and function is to help their clients either exploit the law or to salvage as much of their clients interests as possible from it. In other words, a lawyer is interested, one way or another, in defeating the law.

It seems to me that the best legislator would be someone interested in justice, not law. Laws and government are a necessity in establishing a just and equitable, functioning society. But a public burdened under the weight of overly complicated, contradictory, redundant, superfluous, and excessive rules is as much a victim as citizens living under a tyranny.

We live in a society where laws and statues have been rendered virtually meaningless. Their excessiveness have made their application arbitrary, their fulfillment onerous, and their reality oppressive.

Ask any cop: You can get twenty citations just from pulling out of your driveway in the morning and running to the corner store, without endangering yourself, your neighbor or your community. (one absurd example is that it is illegal to back out of your driveway, but it is equally illegal to back into your driveway). Not that a reasonable police officer would stop you for such inconsequential violations, but he could, which makes every citizen the subject to the whim and arbitrary enforcement of trivial rules.

We live in a world where the absurd has become customary. It is a habit we need to learn how to break.

There is a simple solution: simplify.

I am not an anarchist, but it is clear to me that the system as it stands, the monstrous and ever-growing bureaucracy poses at least as large a danger as complete lawlessness.

Our sages teach that without government, even bad government, citizens would eat each other alive. Yet, in the bureaucratic, regulatory world we have created, that is exactly what is happening. Only, in our world, the digestion of the citizens is a slower, and possibly more painful process.

In fact the excess of rules and regulations each citizen encounters on daily basis has, in fact, bred a deep and profound contempt for law and lawfulness within our society (Nobody worries about driving the speed, but rather how fast one can drive without getting stopped). It’s no longer about being a law abiding citizen, but about not getting caught.

Despite what one might think, the Torah system of justice is a fairly simple one. In fact, the idea of lawyers contradicts a basic concept of the system: that it is meant to be fair, that it’s result is meant to approximate to the best that it is able, truth and establish justice, and, G-d Willing, righteousness.

The halakhic system is suppose to be simple, its rules understandable and realistically achievable by any reasonable person.

(That today’s halakhic courts allow, and some would argue require, the role of a quasi lawyer called a To’en Rabbani, would suggest that the halakhic system or at least its courts have strayed very far from their established principles.)

In the realm of torts, the formula is simple: the responsible party pays compensation for any real and reasonable damages that are caused. And, in principle, this same formula applies to nearly all other aspects of communal life. For instance, what a person is able to do with his person and property is generally only restricted if and when it caused reasonable and real damages to his neighbor.

One needn’t receive prior permission from any authority for any of the basic activities of life. In fact, I can’t think of one place, within Torah where an individual must receive permission for any permitted activity performed in a permitted manner. Though, the Halakhah mandates, under certain conditions, an individual receive consent from others whom would be directly affected by such activity, such consent would be considered a reasonable expectation by nearly anyone, such as building a wall on the property line between two homes. (However, a wall built within one’s own property needn’t receive consent from the neighbor).

Yet, today, in nearly any western society, one cannot exist with out receiving (and usually paying for) prior permission. This is not an exaggeration. To earn a living one needs a business license or vender’s license, or at the very least, a Tax I.D. And, depending upon the way one wants to earn a living one might need permission, licensing and registration from a half a dozen regulatory agencies, commissions and bureaus.

One needs permission to educate one’s children (as opposed to the state doing it), build on one’s own property, or to drive one’s own motorized vehicle (even on one’s own private property).

Has anyone ever bothered to ask why it is necessary to receive licensing to operate or more importantly, to own a car? Licensing doesn’t prevent accidents nor any other criminal activity, it only criminalizes activity when that activity is not done with the prior permission of a governing body, whether the activity was dangerous or not, whether it caused damage or not. Most people will automatically answer that a license and registration are absolutely necessary for a modern society. It might be true, but it seems to me, that such response is generally based on our conditioning, and not on a considered examination of the issue.

There is a better way. Governance should be handled like any other system, like a business or an organization, which needs to be efficient.

In society, as in life, the best method is to keep it simple (We all remember the K.I.S.S. method, right?).

There is little need for the complex bureaucracy that plague society. Especially when every proposal for improvement is to add more regulation, more laws. It’s time to do away with all of them, and start over. We can begin with one general principle: do no damage, and the corollary to this rule is: if damage is done, either intentional, or through negligence, the responsible party has to pay compensation according to the decision of a qualified court . That’s it. It’s that simple.

Other than that, we can assume where there is no harm, there is no foul.

To Vote or Not To Vote; Is that Really the Question

“By Not Voting, One is Voting for the Left.” That’s what all the big banners in the settlements state. Yet, to my mind, if one votes, no matter whom one votes for, one is also “Choosing the Left.” There is no qualitative difference between the so-called Left and Right of Israeli politics. Even “Katzaleh” will recommend to Peres that Netanyahu should be the Prime Minister. So a vote for the National Union, or any other party on the “right,” is a vote for Binyamin Netanyahu.

I don’t want to choose Netanyahu to be my leader. He isn’t any different from Sharon, Barak, Livni, or Yossi Sarid. He differs only in style. None of those leaders understood what it means to lead a Jewish nation. Frankly none of the candidates for Prime Minister, past or present want to be the leader of a Jewish nation. In fact, such a concept scares them, and is an anathema to their lives.

"Oh,” you’ll say, “We need to work with what has a real chance. We need to make the best of a ‘less than ideal’ situation.” Many people fear that a “left wing” politician will make political concessions that a “right wing” politician won’t. History proves otherwise. The reality might be that only a hawkish politician would have the clout to make real concessions. That’s what happened with stalwart “hawks” like Begin, Rabin, Netanyahu and Sharon. Netanyahu’s only saving grace might be that he is not considered hawkish enough to give away our national inheritance. He’s already used his clout when he gave away most of the hills surrounding Hebron. However, given his values, I’m sure he’ll find a way to “make a deal,” clout or no.

"Yes but, what about hishtdadlut?” the religious apologetic will intone. “Aren’t we obligated to make an effort in this world?” “Hishtadlut,” the battle cry of the religious movers and shakers seems to stop all other arguments in their tracks. For every red blooded Jew who dons a kipah or wears a skirt knows that we are obligated, actually religiously mandated, to make an effort in this world. “Act as if it all depends upon you, while recognizing that it is all in His hands.”

Yet, this true Torah concept, when not bandied about as a slogan, is the religious man’s pitfall. For true “hishtadlut” is only mandated when it is in consonance with the goal, and does not conflict with HaShem’s Will. Any effort that violates His Will, or even skews our achievement of the goal, would be, at best, misdirected energy - wasted seed. At worst, it would be akin to serving false idols.

The effort does not bring the goal. To suggest otherwise would be a blasphemy. We are required to strive, but the results are not a direct result of our efforts. We do not flip a switch, turn a dial and get the result that we seek. I can make every effort, strive with all my strength, and still not achieve the desired results if He does not Will it, even if the reality of the situation would suggest otherwise. At the same time, I can make minimal effort, or strive through non-corporeal means, and if He Wills, then the results will come. That is the essence of Faith. Our actions do have an effect, but their effect is in and on the Heavenly Court. Results, or more precisely the perceived results of our actions, are purely His domain.

Therefore, it is very important that my efforts are in consonance with Torah values. I need to conform my will to His Will. The more successful I am in doing so, the greater the chance will be that HaShem will bring about a realization of the goal.

And what is the goal, when we are talking about establishing political leadership?

As a Torah observant Jew, the goal is not a quasi-democratic judicial oligarchy that is ambiguous at best, and hostile at worst (more often than not), to Jewish values.

The goal is a realization of HaShem’s Will for His People as stated in the Torah. While it’s possible that the details of such a realization are open to form and function, it minimally consists of society that promotes its own realization as a Jewish Nation, and not merely a nation, whose majority is Jewish. The goal is a leadership whose decisions and legislation is consistent with Torah values, and certainly not antagonistic to those values. It is not a state of “all of her citizens,” unless of course, all of her citizens are Jewish.

So, in answer to the question, “Are you voting?” my answer is, “yes.” I’m voting for HaShem, for the realization of His Will. I am actively not participating in the State Israel’s national elections. Not out of despair, or lack of concern, but as a purposeful act of faith, and demand, of the Heavenly Court. May my efforts be a ballot cast in favor of true leadership who will redeem our People.