There will now only be 119 morally challenged kleptomaniacs in the Knesset, as Moshe Bogey Ya’alon was kicked out for some reason and Rav Yehuda Glick will take his place. Since Glick is the 33rd on the Likud roster, he’s now in.

I have a lot of respect for Glick as of now. The coolest thing I’ve ever seen him do is say some Arabic prayer on Har Habayit with muslims. But I’m pretty sure that respect will fall away quickly and he’ll be absorbed by the system. He is good on one issue, and that is prayer on Har Habayit. There’s not much else I know about him in terms of his understanding of economics or his thinking about the State. I would assume he is your average Dati Leumi who believes the State is “Holy” and that the army is the hand of God.

Back in March there was a soldier who shot an Arab at point blank range in the head. The Arab wounded another soldier in Hevron by stabbing him and this other soldier shot him in the head after he was neutralized and supposedly no longer a threat. The debacle is what eventually somehow unseated Ya’alon.

The debate is being centered on whether the soldier thought that the Arab still had a bomb belt or not. But that doesn’t matter. That’s just smoke and mirrors, a legal defense being used to skirt the main issue.

The issue really is who has the right to seek justice. Most people say only the State, because otherwise we’d all be dead after shooting one another. That’s Hobbes’s point in the Leviathan. But the real answer is anyone has a right to seek justice. The case is complicated here though because occupied Arabs (the incident happened in Hevron) have a moral right to stab and kill the occupying force. Then the question becomes since the soldier did not have an intent to kill people before the stabbing, is he still a legitimate target? I don’t know. Maybe.

But let’s assume for a moment that the soldier’s presence in Hevron is morally justified, or at least that once attacked with lethal force, the soldier or his defenders have a right to fight back with lethal force. If he has the right by libertarian law even being an occupier, then his shooting of the Arab is no problem. Glick, however, doesn’t think so, because he believes that killing someone who sought to kill you, without first going through the state monopoly justice system, is immoral.

He’s wrong, and it shows that he is essentially a statist, like everyone else. הבא להרגך השכם והרגו does not have a caveat that we must wait for the State to decide.

And because Glick is a statist, he will meld into the system. His moves against the State, like praying on the Temple Mount, will be silenced, and he will go along with it, because he cannot challenge the state to the point that he would weaken its authority. His activism is probably just to make himself a name and once he has it he’ll back down. If he thinks I’m wrong I welcome his comment here and I’ll post it.

Glick would be a good force with Feiglin’s leadership, but his knowledge of economics is probably very weak. Don’t expect anything good to come out of Glick in terms of liberty, unfortunately.

I’m calling upon him publicly to reject coalition discipline, reject a Knesset salary, vote “yes” on all bills to reduce state power and money and “no” on all bills to expand state power and money.

But he won’t. He’ll start speaking politically correctly now, and he won’t go up to Har Habayit anymore, not without explicit permission from Netanyahu.