Government Grants for Northern Returnees
There is a ceasefire in the north.
The truce between Israel and Hezbollah went into effect at 4:00 on Wednesday morning, after the IDF used the last remaining hours before the ceasefire to deal a serious blow to Lebanon. In fact, rumor has it that the IDF eliminated one of the terror group’s massive arsenals at the last possible minute. Hezbollah, for their part, took the opportunity to fire missiles at every city in Israel, sending people all over the country scrambling to their bomb shelters and reinforced rooms. But as of 4:00 a.m., the firing ceased.
Does this mean that the residents of the north will now return to their homes? The ceasefire is certainly being greeted with a measure of hesitance. There are hundreds of thousands of people who left the cities of Kiryat Shemonah, Nahariya, and Acco, and possibly Tzefas as well, not to mention dozens of settlements and kibbutzim, and the northern residents are still hesitant to return home, since one can never really trust Hezbollah. In an effort to jump-start the return of the population of the north, the government announced that it would issue hefty grants to any residents willing to return home immediately.
At this point, it is still unclear whether the ceasefire is actually good for Israel or it is full of holes and the Israelis signed it for lack of an alternative. The American administration under President Biden had been exerting massive pressure on Israel to agree to a ceasefire, and the need to fight on multiple fronts has also been draining the country’s defensive capabilities. It is no secret that the fighting in Lebanon was even more complex and difficult than the combat in Gaza. The air force was much more limited in Lebanon, which meant that the soldiers on the ground were in even greater danger. Indeed, the death toll from the fighting in Lebanon was even higher than in Gaza. Every fatality is like the loss of an entire world, and when the numbers add up to about three or four deaths every week, it is indescribably painful.
The ceasefire agreement was approved in the cabinet by a majority vote of ten to one. The lone dissenter, of course, was Itamar Ben-Gvir. The cabinet members favored the deal since it was considered an accomplishment from Israel’s standpoint. After the ceasefire went into effect, the Prime Minister’s Office released a statement declaring, “Israel appreciates the contributions of the United States to the process while reserving the right to act against any threat to its security.” The statement adds that Netanyahu had spoken with President Joe Biden and thanked him for America’s involvement in securing a ceasefire in Lebanon, and for the understanding that Israel would retain freedom of action. This was a thinly veiled hint that if Hezbollah violated the ceasefire, Israel would respond with force. Biden even signaled his approval of such a move in advance. “I have good news from the Middle East,” he said upon announcing the ceasefire. “I spoke with the prime ministers of Israel and Lebanon, and they have accepted the United States’ proposal to end the devastating conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.” Biden went on to make it clear that if Hezbollah breaks the deal, Israel will retain the right to defend itself, but he added that it is equally important to maintain Lebanese sovereignty and to allow the country a “new start.”
It should be noted that Biden worked to promote the ceasefire together with President Macron of France. Israel wasn’t particularly pleased with Macron’s involvement, especially after he announced just a day or two earlier that France would honor the arrest warrants issued in the Hague against Netanyahu and Gallant. At the same time, Macron joined Biden in pledging to assist Israel in the event that Hezbollah violates the ceasefire.
The Provisions of the Truce
There are those who have speculated that Netanyahu’s criminal trial was one of the reasons that Israel agreed to the ceasefire. Nevertheless, it was certainly not the main reason. More to the point was the fact that Hezbollah has been deprived of almost all its weapons. Hezbollah’s troops have also suffered heavy losses (and I am sure you remember the beeper operation), and its military and political leaders have been eliminated in targeted killings. And Netanyahu admitted that there was another reason as well: The Americans threatened Israel with an arms embargo if they refused to sign a ceasefire. To be clear, they threatened not only to pause the weapons shipments to Israel but possibly to cancel them altogether, with no guarantee that the arms deliveries would be renewed. Are these the actions of an ally? That question is certainly highly debatable.
Here are the main points of the ceasefire’s terms: First, Hezbollah and the other armed groups in Lebanese territory will not take any offensive actions against Israel. At the same time, Israel will not engage in any military offensives against targets in Lebanon, whether on the ground, in the air, or at sea. These commitments, however, do not negate either country’s right to engage in self-defense. The official Lebanese military and security forces will be the only groups permitted to bear weapons or to operate troops in southern Lebanon. Any sale, delivery, or manufacture of weapons or associated materials in Lebanon will be under the supervision of the Lebanese government. All unauthorized facilities involved in the production of weapons and accessories will be dismantled, and any unauthorized weapons that are not covered by the terms of this agreement will be seized. Finally, a committee will be established that will be acceptable to both Israel and Lebanon to supervise and ensure the enforcement of the terms of this agreement, and Israel and Lebanon will report any violations of the agreement to the committee and to UNIFIL forces.
The United States also made a number of guarantees to Israel. First, Israel and the United States will share sensitive intelligence pertaining to violations of the truce, including any Hezbollah infiltration of the Lebanese army. The United States will be permitted to share information provided by Israel with the Lebanese government or the oversight committee to enable them to deal with the violations. The United States also pledged to collaborate with Israel to halt subversive Iranian activities in Lebanon, including withholding the transfer of arms or other materials from Iranian territory. The United States also recognized Israel’s right to respond to threats from Lebanese territory, in accordance with international law. In the southern area of Lebanon, Israel reserves the right to act at any time against violations of these commitments. Outside that area, Israel reserves the right to act against the development of threats against it, if Lebanon is not capable or willing to suppress those threats. If Israel decides to take such steps, it has also committed to notify the United States in advance.
On Monday, Hezbollah violated the ceasefire by shooting rockets into Israel and Israel delivered a heavy response. Since the ceasefire went into effect, they have been violating it and Israel has been monitoring their activities and bombing them when called for.
Did America Threaten Israel with an Arms Embargo?
The ceasefire evoked mixed reactions in Israel. On the one hand, the people of Israel are desperate for an end to the constant reports about soldiers killed in the line of duty. Moreover, everyone feels compassion for the people who were evacuated from their homes near the borders and who are longing to return to their normal lives. On the other hand, it is not at all certain that Hezbollah no longer poses a threat to the cities in the north. The real question is therefore whether this ceasefire will bring security.
“I promised you victory, and we will achieve victory,” Netanyahu said in his statement to the public. “We will finish destroying Hamas and we will bring our hostages home. We will guarantee that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel, and we will bring the residents of the north back to their homes in security. The war will not end until we have achieved all of our goals,” Netanyahu added, “It will not be over until we have brought the residents of the north home in security. And this will happen, just as it happened in the south. My friends, the residents of the north, I am proud of you and your endurance, and I am completely dedicated to your security.
“Hezbollah chose to attack us; a year has now gone by, and Hezbollah is no longer the same,” Netanyahu said. “We have set them back decades…. We have eliminated thousands of terrorists and destroyed the subterranean infrastructures that were near our border for years. We attacked strategic targets throughout Lebanon and demolished dozens of terrorist buildings in Dahiyeh. This may sound like science fiction, but it is not science fiction. We did this. At every moment while the battle was being waged, I monitored all the fronts. That was what I was doing when I decided at the beginning of the war to focus on Gaza and not to open a second front in Lebanon. That was what I did after the missile attack from Iran, when we meticulously chose the timing and nature of our response, and I am doing the same thing today. I am looking at the overall picture.”
Seeking to allay the concerns of the residents of the north, Netanyahu said, “If Hezbollah violates this agreement and tries to arm itself, we will attack. If they send a rocket, dig a tunnel, or bring in a truck with missiles, we will attack. We will respond strongly to any violation.”
Netanyahu went on to sum up his reasons for accepting the ceasefire: “First, we must focus on the Iranian threat, and I do not wish to elaborate about that. Second, we need to rejuvenate our forces and replenish our stocks. It is not a secret that there were major delays in the supply of weapons and ammunition, and those delays are due to be resolved shortly. This will protect the lives of our soldiers and will give us the power to achieve our objectives. The third purpose is to isolate Hamas. With Hezbollah out of the picture, Hamas is alone in this battle. The pressure on them will increase, and that will help us achieve our sacred goal of freeing our hostages.”
Hostage Video Shakes the Nation
The hostages in Gaza are perhaps the most significant issue of all. Netanyahu, the ministers of the government, and many others believe that the ceasefire with Hezbollah is a step toward bringing the hostages back home. Their rationale is that Hamas was able to remain intransigent and repeatedly refuse every deal offered to them because they had the backing of Hezbollah and Iran, their allies in the axis of evil. Other countries (the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and other Arab states, as well the countries of Europe) opposed Hamas and favored the agreements proposed by America and Egypt, but Hamas was satisfied with having the support of Hezbollah and Iran. Today, however, Hezbollah is out of the picture, and Iran seems to be on the defensive and possibly paralyzed by Trump’s victory in the election. Hamas is now effectively isolated, and there is every reason to believe that they will be ready to make a deal for the hostages’ freedom.
The one unknown variable is how many of the hostages are still alive. Trump recently released a very strange statement indicating that they had all died. Minister Ron Dermer, who met with Trump two weeks ago, then told him that at least 60 of the 110 hostages are still alive. And this week, Hamas reduced another video in an act of psychological warfare. Indeed, the video had a deeply unsettling effect on the entire nation. This video shows Edan Alexander, a 19-year-old lone soldier who was taken hostage on October 7. Alexander, who hails originally from New Jersey, made aliyah to Israel on his own, leaving his family behind. He was abducted on October 7, 2023, and has spent over a year in Hamas’s dungeons in Gaza along with the other hostages.
Alexander appears healthy in the video, although he occasionally bursts into tears, and addresses first Netanyahu and then Trump. “My name is Edan Alexander,” he says in Hebrew, “and I have been held in Hamas captivity for over 420 days. Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu, I hear you speaking to the people of Israel on the news, and I am very disappointed. I heard that you were prepared to give five million dollars to anyone who would return us alive to the people of Israel. A prime minister is supposed to protect his civilians and his soldiers, and you have abandoned us. Our guards told us about the new directives they have received in the event that IDF troops approach our locations. Our fear has reached its peak now; we die a thousand times with every day that passes while no one cares for us. People of Israel, do not abandon us! We want to come home alive. Fear and loneliness are killing us; please do not forget us. It makes no sense that we should have to pay for a mistake made by our government. Please, citizens of the State of Israel, go out and protest. Pressure the government every day. The time has come to put an end to this nightmare.”
Alexander then addresses Trump in English: “Dear President Trump, my name is Edan Alexander. I am an American Israeli citizen currently being held captive in the Gaza Strip. As an American, I have always believed in the power of the United States, and now I am sending my message. Please use your influence and the full power of the United States to negotiate for our freedom. Every day here feels like an eternity, and the pain from inside grows from day to day. Please do not make the mistake that Biden has been making. The weapons that he is sending are killing us, and the unlawful siege is starving us. I don’t want to end up dead like my fellow American citizen, Hersh Goldberg-Polin.”
Will the Ceasefire Help Bring the Hostages Home?
Alexander concluded his speech in Hebrew. “Abba, Ima, Sabba, and Savta,” he said, addressing his parents and grandparents, “with every day that passes, the pain within me grows. I miss you very much, and I pray every day that I will see you again soon. Please stay strong. It is only a matter of time until this nightmare is over.”
This video, which was publicized in Israel on motzoei Shabbos, definitely left the public reeling with horror.
Interestingly, Edan Alexander’s family held a religious event on Thursday night as a zechus for him. Dozens of women stood in the street and cried out the words of Shema Yisroel, which made for an especially stirring scene. And then, just two days later, a sign of life arrived from Edan.
On motzoei Shabbos, Edan’s mother spoke at Hostages Square. “The video that we saw isn’t some sort of Hollywood production,” she told her audience. “This is what we have been living through since October 7, a full 421 days ago. It has been 421 days since the last time that I saw or heard my precious Edan. This video left me and my family in shock. While it gave us hope, it also showed the dire plight of Edan and the other hostages, and the extent to which they are begging us to save them immediately. Edan represents all the living hostages whose voices cannot be heard; his voice should echo and send shock waves throughout the world. My beloved Edani, we all miss you with deep pain. I want to tell you that because of your request, Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu called me about an hour ago. He encouraged me and assured me that now, with an agreement having been signed with Lebanon, the conditions are ripe to secure your freedom and bring you home. Edan, this is also what the people want! The people are with you, and they understand that it would be total victory. I am turning to you, Mr. Prime Minister, on behalf of myself, my family, and all of Am Yisroel, and I want to encourage you. Keep your promise to me, because everyone’s hopes are pinned on you now. We are all waiting for you to make a courageous decision. Above all, be strong against the elements in your government that are opposed to a deal. The majority of the people supports it. Be strong like my Edani, who has survived there for so long. Be strong, bring them home, and restore this people’s unity, hope, and faith that this government is stronger now than ever. It is strong enough to finish this war and to make a deal that will bring them all home, including everyone—even my Edani—now!”
Netanyahu Asks to Postpone His Trial, State Resists
Next Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu will appear on the witness stand to testify in his criminal trial. This sounds like a fairly simple development, but it has actually been fraught with complexity. For one thing, the Shin Bet has given instructions for the hearing to be moved from the usual courtroom to a different location, for security reasons. Ever since a drone attacked Netanyahu’s home in Caesaria (even before a group of Kaplan protestors lobbed explosive flares at his home), security around the prime minister has been beefed up significantly. It is no secret that even the cabinet meetings have been moved to a different location and no longer take place at the cabinet room in the Prime Minister’s Office. And I will even reveal a little secret to you: When Netanyahu is in the Knesset, he does not sit in his usual office on the second floor; instead, he works in the corridor leading to the Knesset library, which is considered a more secure location, similar to the reinforced safe rooms in residential apartments. That means that the officials in charge of arranging for the prime minister’s security are concerned that a missile might fall on the Knesset, which isn’t exactly a very pleasant thought. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to anyone that Netanyahu’s testimony will not take place in the usual courtroom at the District Court in Yerushalayim. As of this writing, the actual location hasn’t yet been determined, but the Shin Bet and the court administration are due to make the decision soon.
But that wasn’t the only complication. This matter is even more complex because Netanyahu asked the court to postpone his testimony, explaining that Israel is fighting a war on multiple fronts (in the south, in the north, and against Iran) and he did not have the mental capacity or the time to invest the requisite energy in preparing for his trial. Testifying in court requires hours of advance preparation and more hours of review after the court sessions, and the prime minister of a country embroiled in such an intense and complex war does not have the time for such an endeavor. But I am sure you will not be surprised to learn that the prosecution was opposed to his request. When the court asked the prosecution to respond to Netanyahu’s petition, they replied through the attorney general that they felt the request should be denied.
This led to a debate over how long the testimony could be delayed, and the court ruled that Netanyahu must begin testifying next Tuesday, on December 10. This provides him with a postponement of eight days, meaning that the judges accepted his request partially. Netanyahu had asked for a 15-day delay, the prosecution insisted that there should be no postponement at all, and the court essentially imposed its own compromise. The prosecution’s argument, meanwhile, was that the public has an interest in the trial ending quickly and that Netanyahu and his defense team had been given a long enough period to prepare. “There has been no change in circumstances that would justify a postponement,” they added.
Can the Prime Minister Run a War and a Trial at Once?
If you think that the story ended there, however, you are wrong. Keep in mind that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara is making every effort to hamstring the government, and one of the reasons Netanyahu asked to delay his testimony was that he was afraid that she would use it as a pretext for declaring him unfit to serve as prime minister. The law states that a prime minister is considered incapacitated when he is unable to perform his duties, such as when he undergoes a medical procedure under anesthesia. This has happened to every prime minister, including Netanyahu. Well, Netanyahu feared that Baharav-Miara might adopt a loose interpretation of the law permitting her to declare him “incapacitated” during the course of his trial. And no one can blame him for suspecting her of having every possible malicious intent.
Netanyahu’s request to delay his trial may have given the attorney general the ammunition that she was hoping for. The prime minister had argued that he could not be expected to testify since he could not manage the war effort and deal with his court case at the same time. The attorney general seized that argument as evidence that, in fact, he will not be fit to serve during the period of his testimony and that he must recuse himself from duty at that time. Netanyahu argued in response that the truce with Hezbollah means that at least one of the fronts of the war is no longer relevant, and the burden of the war effort has therefore lessened. In fact, some have theorized that this is one of the reasons that he gave in to the American pressure to accept a ceasefire with Hezbollah—to avoid being declared unfit to remain in office.
As anyone could have predicted, petitions were filed with the Supreme Court immediately to order Netanyahu to recuse himself. Of course, the government’s response to the petitions was delivered by Gali Baharav-Miara herself. On Sunday night, the attorney general informed the court that she agrees with Netanyahu. “He is enough of an adult to decide on his own when he feels that he cannot continue to manage the government,” she told the judges.
Netanyahu Argues Against the Petitioners
Before the attorney-general delivered her response, Netanyahu announced his own position on the subject: He insisted that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to hear a petition demanding that the prime minister be forced to recuse himself from his duties. Netanyahu therefore called on the court to reject the petitions out of hand. Alternatively, he argued, the petitions could be rejected since there was no real legal basis to consider him “incapacitated.” The petitioners claimed that Netanyahu would be unable to perform his duties as prime minister because the court schedule calls for him to testify for six and a half hours a day, three days a week. They argued that it would be highly impractical for Netanyahu to repeatedly be replaced by a substitute during the hours that he would spend in court, and therefore they called on the court to order him removed from his position for a period of several months.
“This is a very serious attempt to drag the judicial system into politics and to cause it to decide, contrary to the law and the determinations of the democratically elected institutions, whether a prime minister can continue serving in his position,” Netanyahu asserted. “No word games can conceal the fact that this is an effort to uproot the concept of the sovereignty of the people at its source. If the Supreme Court accepts this petition,” the prime minister warned, “it will be a direct clash with the will of the voter and will be a constitutional nightmare that will plunge the court into a political storm.” Netanyahu also pointed out that the law states explicitly that a prime minister may continue serving in his position until he is actually convicted of a crime entailing moral turpitude, and added that the entire coalition has opposed forcing recusal on him.
Responding to the substance of the petition, Netanyahu argued that a prime minister is only considered incapacitated when he is in an objective state of inability to function, and that there is no legal basis for anyone, including the Supreme Court and the attorney general, to declare that status. If the members of the Knesset believe that a prime minister is unable to serve, they are the ones who have the ability to replace him. Netanyahu also maintained that the legal status of incapacitation relates only to the prime minister’s health or physical condition, and the law does not provide for him to be considered unfit to serve for legal reasons. Finally, Netanyahu pointed out that the court had ruled that he was permitted to be tasked with assembling a government despite the indictments against him, and that the court had already rejected previous petitions calling for him to be declared unfit to serve for the same reason.
In short, this situation is an absolute mess!
Justice Minister Refuses to Choose a Chief Justice
I haven’t yet written about this, but there is an ongoing conflict between the minister of justice and the judges of the Supreme Court over the appointment of a new chief justice. Amusingly, the judges have been issuing verdicts against Justice Minister Yariv Levin, even though they are personally involved in the issue and are obviously incapable of being impartial.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the justice minister must appoint a new chief justice. Ever since the retirement of the previous chief justice, there is an acting chief justice in her place, as no one has been permanently appointed to the position. Based on the traditional method of selecting a chief justice by seniority, the position should be given to Yitzchok Amit, but Levin does not want to appoint him. The Supreme Court recently tried to force the issue by ruling that the committee tasked with selecting the new chief justice must convene, but when the committee met, Levin simply stalled for time and insisted on discussing the dozens of reservations filed against Amit’s appointment. His obstinacy is driving the justices mad.
The next step was a petition submitted to the court claiming that the justice minister has been showing disdain for the court by ignoring its ruling. At the beginning of this week, the Supreme Court scheduled an urgent hearing to discuss the petition for Yariv Levin to be held in contempt of court due to his failure to appoint a new chief justice. The hearing is scheduled to be held on December 12, 2024, at 3:30 p.m. before a panel of three justices: Yael Wilner, Ofer Grosskopf, and Alex Stein. The court ordered the respondents, including the minister of justice and the attorney general, to submit their responses at least 72 hours before the scheduled court date.
The petition against Levin came in response to the recent committee session when he stalled for time and prevented the appointment of a chief justice. “For over a year,” the petitioners wrote, “the judicial branch of the government has been operating without a permanent chief justice, due to the deliberate actions of the minister of justice. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court expressly ordered the minister of justice to convene the Judicial Selection Committee so that a chief justice could be chosen, and despite the fact that the minister indeed convened the committee on November 28, 2024, he has actively prevented the appointment of a chief justice.” The petitioners asked the court to sanction the justice minister, possibly even by fining or imprisoning him, until he carries out the court’s verdict completely.
From Levin’s standpoint, Amit is not the only potential candidate for the position. Judge Elron has also submitted his candidacy for the office of chief justice, despite the fact that he is not the most senior of the judges. By accepting Elron’s candidacy, Levin has already created a rift between the judges on the Supreme Court. What has made the judges lose the country’s confidence and respect, however, is the fact that they decided that they were authorized to rule on a subject on which they are extremely biased. Nevertheless, the blatant hypocrisy does not seem to bother them at all.
Terror Attack Leaves Nine Wounded
Once again, I am rapidly approaching the end of the space allotted to me. I should really have written about the current events in Syria, where the rebels fighting President Assad have already taken over the city of Aleppo and seem poised to make further progress. The big question is whether this development is good or bad for Israel; bli neder, I hope to write about it at greater length next week.
However, I must write about the terror attack at the Giti Avisar junction near the city of Ariel last Friday, when a terrorist opened fire on a bus and wounded nine people. The terrorist was eliminated on the spot. One of the seriously wounded victims was the driver of the bus, an Israeli Arab from Umm el-Fahm, who was wounded because the gunman fired from the front of the bus. The terrorist, a resident of a Palestinian village south of Sh’chem, previously served time in an Israeli prison.
The bus involved in the incident was on the number 286 line, run by the Tnufa company, and was traveling from Ariel to Tel Aviv. The incident was reported on the Magen Dovid Adom hotline at 12:13, and MDA paramedics who rushed to the scene reported finding multiple victims suffering from gunshot wounds and lacerations from shards of glass. The victims were all conscious and were transported to Beilinson Hospital. The authorities concluded that the terrorist had arrived by car from his village via the Tapuach junction, where Palestinians do not undergo security inspections. He stopped his car about 150 meters from the bus stop at the intersection and then opened fire on the bus that had pulled up there. Six IDF officers who regularly patrol the intersection opened fire on the terrorist and eliminated him.
Shmuel Hillel, a 20-year-old resident of Kiryat Netafim in Shomron, was on the bus during the terror attack. “Fortunately, I was sitting in the middle of the bus,” he related. “I heard shots, and I turned to look straight ahead and saw the terrorist standing there, so I quickly bent down. Many people panicked, there were screams, and I was slightly injured in my hand and face by glass shards. This was a miracle; if it had happened a few minutes earlier, it would have ended very differently.” This was a reference to the fact that the bus stop had been crowded with waiting passengers just a few minutes earlier.
This incident left a couple of lingering questions: Why wasn’t the bus bulletproof? And why is there no army position in the area? One local politician declared that the terror attack should lead to an intensive counterterror operation: “There is no ceasefire in Yehuda and Shomron. This is the time to enter the cities and villages with great force, to go from house to house and purge them of weapons and terrorists. Instead of short-term operations, we should enter these areas and remain there, to guarantee security for the people who live in Yehuda and Shomron, on the seam line, in the Sharon, and throughout the State of Israel.”
Feldstein Law Approved
I am fond of reading new laws and discovering the innovations of the members of the Knesset (or their aides). In general, when a new bill is placed on the Knesset table, I find that it often says a good deal about its author. Dozens of new bills are submitted every week on Monday; over 5000 bills have already been placed on the table during the 25th Knesset. Shevach Weiss, who served as Knesset speaker in the past, used to refer to these bills as “declarative laws,” since almost all of them will never even make it to a debate in the Knesset, and even if they are brought before the entire legislature, most of them will be rejected. The purpose of these bills, therefore, is often just to make a statement.
I also enjoy reading the bills to see who has copied a previous initiative, and whom they have copied it from. Whenever a bill is submitted, its source must be specified in the explanatory notes accompanying it; the author of the bill must reveal whether it came from a legal or economic organization or anything else of the sort, and whether it was copied from a previous bill. This week, Tzvika Fogel introduced a bill calling for a freeze on funds paid to the Palestinian Authority by Israel corresponding to the money paid by the PA government for terrorist activities. Of course, Fogel’s explanatory notes reveal that the bill is a replica of a previous bill on the same subject submitted by Galit Distal-Atbaryan. But the chain of attributions does not end there. If you read the text of Galit Distal’s bill, you will see that she attributes it to another identical version of the law submitted in the previous Knesset term by Ariel Kallner, which means that Fogel’s bill is actually a copy of a copy.
But what is most relevant to us is a new bill submitted this week by MKs Chanoch Milvitzky and Amit Halevi, which would probably be fittingly nicknamed the “Feldstein law” and deals with the transfer of classified information to the prime minister and other ministers of the government. The bill calls for amendments to be introduced to the law of military adjudication, the Penal Code, and the General Service Law, stating explicitly that no person shall face criminal charges for transmitting vital information to the prime minister or the government minister designated to receive it. The explanatory notes claim that the Military Intelligence Directorate has concealed information from the prime minister when it contradicted their preconceived notions—the conceptions that led the country to be caught off guard when the current war began. Even during the war, the authors add, critical documents regarding the enemy’s intentions have failed to reach the desks of decision makers in the government. The purpose of this law is to prevent those who receive the information from being reluctant to pass it on. The debate over this bill is likely to be very interesting. Since the bill’s authors received an exemption from the standard 45-day waiting period, the law will be brought to the Knesset this week. On Sunday, the Ministerial Legislation Committee met to discuss all the laws that would be debated this week, and this particular law received their support. And the attorney general has already announced that she believes the bill to be unconstitutional….
The Steipler’s Prescient Comment
Forty years ago, the Steiper Gaon offered an explanation for a posuk in Parshas Vayeitzei that is uncannily relevant to our times. The parsha begins by telling us that Yaakov left Beer Sheva and that he went to Choron. The Steipler (in his sefer Birchas Peretz) explains that Yaakov had two goals in mind: to escape from Beer Sheva, as his mother had commanded him, and to travel to Choron, in keeping with his father’s instructions. For this reason, the posuk states both that Yaakov went to Choron and that he left Beer Sheva, indicating that both his departure and his travel to his destination were significant; one was in fulfillment of his mother’s instructions, and the other was due to his father’s command. For the same reason, the posuk specifies at the conclusion of Parshas Toldos that “Yaakov listened to his father and his mother,” implying that his intent was to obey both of them.
The Steipler then makes a chilling statement: “In earlier generations, when Jewish homes were solidly founded on the observance of the Torah and their surroundings were suffused with love for the Torah, even a person who did not learn in yeshiva and who went to work for a living at an early age, would at least remain an observant Jew with a connection to purity. Even then, parents were obligated to teach their young sons to learn Torah at a young age due to the obligation to learn Torah and the fact that an am haaretz cannot be righteous. Therefore, the purpose of traveling to a makom Torah wasn’t to escape from one’s father’s home and one’s previous environment; rather, it was to go to the place designated for him to learn Torah under the tutelage of a rebbi muvhak and was parallel to Yaakov’s act of ‘going.’ Today, however, when there are so many breaches on all sides, a person who does not learn in a yeshiva is in grave danger and likely not to retain much Yiddishkeit. Those who seek to attack the souls of Bnei Yisroel and to draw them astray have proliferated on all sides. In such a perilous environment, even if a person knew that he would not succeed in learning Torah in a yeshiva, he is obligated to spend his youth in a yeshiva, to be saved from the perils of our times that threaten his Yiddishkeit. Thus, even the departure from a secular environment is an independent purpose in its own right. However, the second purpose—absorbing Torah and yiras Shomayim and becoming an outstanding talmid chochom—can be achieved in a yeshiva only if a bochur learns with hasmodah, and he has gone to the yeshiva for both purposes”—that is, for the sake of joining the yeshiva and for the purpose of escaping from a pernicious environment.
