Haredi Members of Israeli Parliament Oppose Ousting Of Israeli President
The Jerusalem Post today tells us of both Shas and United Torah Judaism MKs expected opposition to the ousting of President Moshe Katsav after his charges for sexual misconduct.
The Katsav camp had hoped that there would be no rape charges in light of there being no "smoking gun" and all of the evidence against Katsav consisting of "letters and tapes" and no "stain on the dress" of Lewinsky fame.
But in the end, there was an official rape charge levied by Attorney General Mazuz and calls began to circulate around the Knesset for his impeachment.
And now Charedi Orthodox parliament members are opposing his ousting. But before any anti-haredi prejudice starts to foam at the mouth of any secularists, let's examine why they're opposed. And, why, in principle, I agree with them.
MK Avraham Ravitz (UTJ) said Wednesday night that he would not join the initiative to collect the 90 MK votes needed to force Katsav out of office."As long as the attorney-general has not indicted the president, he has no obligation to resign," said Ravitz, who said that the spiritual leaders of UTJ would not be involved in the decision.
"Even before there was such a thing as liberalism, the Torah taught that a man is innocent until proven guilty," Ravitz continued....
In a related story, Rabbi Ratzon Arussi, a member of the Chief Rabbinate's Governing Council and Chief Rabbi of Kiryat Ono, said Wednesday night that according to halacha (Jewish Law) Katsav was not obligated to resign.
Quoting a halachic decision written by Maimonides, Arussi, who was interviewed on the religious radio station Kol Chai, determined that Katsav was entitled to wait until he was convicted by a court of law.
"In the case of a synagogue cantor who was plagued by vicious rumors, Maimonides said that the community could not dismiss the cantor," said Arussi, drawing a parallel between the cantor and the president.
"Maimonides pointed out that this was particularly true if the cantor had known enemies who had an interest in seeing him removed." Arussi also said according to the halacha, if Katsav were punished privately and repented completely he would be expiated and be allowed to remain in his position as president.
Arussi prefaced Maimonides's opinion with the following statement: "Halacha's approach to the Katsav case is radically different from a liberal democracy's."
And I'll go further to say that halacha's approach to many cases in Israel is radically different than what they're doing now, the lack of voice given to Torah in Israel is a travesty for the "Jewish state".
No trial, no indictment. Only charges. The halacha states that he does not have to be removed from office without an indictment, and why should UTJ be expected to just go ahead and gather these signatures when the halacha says otherwise? I'm not suggesting that the UTJ is being currently led by Moses and Joshua bin-Nun, but there is this implied assumption that they should lead the charge for impeachment.
A Shas spokesman said that Industry, Trade, and Labor Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) would meet with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef after morning prayers at the rabbi's home to determine Shas's position.
And that's what determines what right and wrong is -- you go to a posek (ideally, getting the entire halachic process and not a curt "no" or "do this") to inquire as to the Torah Law on the topic and that is the moral high road.
The secular "ethicist" elite in the Israeli media routinely comes down on charedi "unethical conduct". And, to our chagrin, there has been no shortage of material as of late. But when things like halachic due process are called to be thrown away, in exchange for the "moral high road" of railroading someone out of office without even an indictment, this is when one really has to honestly ask if theocracy (and not an oligarchy of clerics), as a political option, really is so invalid.
