“Social Justice” ?

Some people describe “social justice” as “to each according to his needs”. I prefer this authors definition. Ted Belman

A question of priorities
Op-ed: Netanyahu knows exactly what needs to be done to help middle class, but isn’t doing it

Amnon Abramovich, ynet

What is this “social justice?” That’s another question. I would define it as follows: Society benefits those who benefit society, and grants fewer benefits to those who only benefit themselves. This definition is not binding; anyone is welcome to come up with his or her own definition.

One of the drawbacks of the wheels of justice is that they grind slowly. Netanyahu has established such slow grinder now, in the form of a committee. This government has created 20 committees since its formation, roughly one committee every month and a half. Around here, nothing has countered as many jokes and ridicule as the concept of a “committee.” One such dictum asserts that the establishment of a committee is only necessary in one case – when you wish to do nothing.

The starting position of Israeli society is frightening. Only 55% of Israelis work, that is, every working person carries on his back one who doesn’t work. This situation was produced and is encouraged by our political establishment. The worse news is that the non-working Israel is growing and reproducing three times faster than the working Israel.

Instead of setting up yet another committee, the prime minister should have stood up and said: From now on, we shall follow one decree – “A person shall be born to work!” It’s Jewish, it’s Biblical and it’s also social-democratic. The government would ensure that the reward for work is fair. We shall also make sure to put an end to corporate tricks and set sane salaries for senior executives.

On this festive occasion, Netanyahu should have also designated the Negev, Galilee and poor neighborhoods as our top priority.

What about defense budget?

We shall not ignore the defense budget, of course. Defense Minister Ehud Barak also established a committee some two years ago, to look into the operations of the army’s rehabilitation division. Its recommendations were not implemented. Had they been adopted and applied to the entire division, we could have saved billions of shekels, at least, in only one branch of the army.

When the defense budget is immune to cuts even at this time, it indicates that no change will be introduced. Various reports have characterized this budget as deceptive and manipulative. For example, look at the sixth submarine which the IDF is supposed to acquire from Germany. It costs some half a billion Euros, not including maintenance and operations. Most experts say we do not need a sixth submarine; there is no national security need for it. Nonetheless, it is being acquired.

Over the weekend, with social winds blowing at full force, the Defense Ministry cynically leaked its contribution to the social effort: An assortment of old ideas published regularly, such as giving up bases and land which the army has no use for and handing them over to the community. The next day, the Ministry asked the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs committee for yet another NIS 620 million (roughly $200 million.)

The prime minister, just like his predecessors, knows exactly what he should be doing. He needs no committees. What he needs is courage. Some eight years, a book called “While we were watching” by Moshe Pearl was published, recounting the story of the Israeli economy’s self-destruct mechanism. The book powerfully described the erosion of the middle class, stuck between the growing bum population and tiny nobility of the wealthy. The person who recommended the book to me at the time was then-Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

August 11, 2011 | 4 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. “Social Justice” is a buzzword that seems to disproportionately affect Jews (correct me if I’m wrong). The old idea of “justice” (sans the “social”) was that equal retribution and repayment were demanded and obtained, and that people of equal rank were treated equally. All the players involved were individuals. The adding ot “social” to the expression, as to say that individuals are no longer responsible; rather, an anonymous, amorphous “society” commits rights and wrongs and must be recompensed or receive retribution. Wherever that thinking came from, is beyond me. I suspect Jewish and European philosophers; but again, correct me if I’m wrong.

    What does “social justice” have to do with anything that matters? It’s simply a lie. The world is populated by people, not amorphous, anonymous “societies”. “Societies” don’t live, bleed and breed; people do. If you try to apply principles of “social justice” to people, it doesn’t work; because real people aren’t involved in any of its calculations.

    Back to the opening piece, “to each according to his needs” is Marxist philosophy — definitely European, with strong Jewish overtones, which suggests my assertion in Paragraph #1. It comes from a Jew who wished to be liberated from the tenets of Torah, by twisting them to mean something they don’t. The trouble with weasely Jews, like Marx, is that they tend to be brainy; and people tend to listen to them.

    It’s easy to understand about the Jewish weasels, though. Where do all the Goy weasels come from? I guess it’s from the same place — rebellion against Torah. Charles Darwin is the poster boy of atheists, though he himself struggled with the false doctrine all his life. He was a theologian, not (as our university elites would have us believe) a scientist. European scholarship began in the monasteries and churches, as did our music, drama and other arts; and look where it’s ended up! Harvard College began as a Bible School, and now it’s the main portal of Hell.

    Torah is an iron rod. When it’s embraced, it strengthens a man. When it’s shunned, a man is driven into the wilderness of insanity — into the land of ideas like “social justice” aka “La La Land”.

  2. We shall also make sure to put an end to corporate tricks and set sane salaries for senior executives.

    Setting salaries? Shouldn’t the market determine salaries.