Equation stop the wolf and sheep policy

It is not forbidden for there to be a disagreement within the Council of Ministers between the Speaker of the Council and one or more ministers, but after examining the aspects of the dispute, it is forbidden for the Prime Minister to decide and the minister to refrain from implementing it, or for the minister to issue a decision that differs from the president’s decision.

This is what happened in the last two weeks in our Council of Ministers, when it was decided to pay the salary of the current month of April before Eid al-Fitr, but the Minister of Finance refused that, explaining that the employees do not need the salary, since they received the March salary in the first ten days of April. One of the prime minister's advisors broke his silence about this, describing the matter as "having reached the point of shame, even shame, and a killing blow to Fatah."

Counselor Abd al-Ilah al-Atira did not explain why the matter was flawed and defective, except for the reason that the minister did not comply with the implementation of the Prime Minister’s decision, which is a departure from unusual protocol procedures. In Netanyahu’s last government, Netanyahu went to dismiss one of his most important and close ministers, a minister The defense because he said something different, and put the entire government about the dismissal decision in the wind, the entire society on the brink of collapse, and the Histadrut, which represents all trade unions face to face in front of the government. The issue in the Palestinian government has not reached this limit, and it will not, as long as it is not elected, and is not subject to accountability and accountability by an elected "Knesset". Therefore, the solutions are carried out according to the approaches of "the wolf does not die and the sheep do not perish," as he was nominated. 30% of the salary will be paid.

But more important than the arguments of Arab governments in general, which end according to the policy of "the wolf and the sheep", is the minister's statement that state employees do not need the salary. Where did the minister come up with this deduction, and how did he know that they actually do not need their salary? The employees are not equal. Like the teeth of a comb, there are employees who have large families, extended families, debts, bank benefits, children studying at universities, etc. But what is more dangerous than that, in the minister’s statement, is a false premise. I do not personally know how it was born and grew until it became a component of society, the government and the ministry, stating that the employee’s salary is closer to a gift or even a favor that the Ministry of Finance bestows on him every last month once. That is why the quickest thing she does to solve her problems is this salary, so she spends it later than it is sometimes, and sometimes she does not spend it in full.

In other words, it does not deal with it as a right for the employee to be paid for his services that he provides to the state and the government willingly, what the state must do with the employee and his salary. Part of the aggravation of the teachers' strike, which has entered its third month, is based on this misreading. Neither the Minister of Finance, nor the Minister of Education, nor even the Prime Minister, or even the President himself, are paying the teachers out of their pockets, so why not approve an accurate budget for them that will be adhered to have it all year round.