How sad is the situation of the Jewish people!

How sad is the situation of the Jewish people! The right wing secularists believe that they could resolve all the problems with military and political force, despite the clear evidence to the contrary from the last war. Especially after the military and political defeat in battle, the immediate political strengthening of their immediate enemy, the appearance of Iran as a local super-power and the clear political power of the Muslim countries block. The left wing secularists believe that they may achieve peace with the Arabs despite the clear evidence to the contrary after the collapse of the Oslo experiment. The Religious Zionists believe that the settlements and the territories are the most important thing and maintaining them is an achievable goal despite, well, the clear evidence to the contrary after even the right wing Israeli government threw them out of some of the settlements and is planning to continue doing the same. And with the political power of the Muslim countries block, this goal is not achievable at all. The Haredi world, in its struggle to keep the principles of Judaism intact against any possibility of heresy, forbid any attempt to seek the truth as if the Satan himself is standing behind the truth. And the Moshiach Freaks (pun intended) in Lubavitch, they just worship a dead man instead of G-od and explain to anyone who listens that the man is still alive despite, well, well, the clear evidence to the contrary that the man is indeed dead and is buried in the ground.

And what about making peace with G-od, trusting in him and sticking with his seal, the Truth? Whoever does it must be, according to all the above factions, a heretic, primitive who believe in superstition and has lost any touch with reality.

כמה עצוב מצבו של העם היהודי

כמה עצוב מצבו של העם היהודי! החילונים מן הימין מאמינים שהם יכולים לפתר הכל האמצעות כח צבאי ופוליטי למרות ההוכחות הברורות מן המלחמה האחרונה שאין הדבר כך. ביחוד לאור המפלה שספגו בשדה הקרב, התחזקותו הפוליטית של יריבם המידי, הופעתה של אירן כמעצמת על מקומית והתחזקותו הברורה של גוש המדינות המוסלמיות. החילונים מן השמאל מאמינים שהם יכלים להשיג שלום עם הערבים למרות ההוכחות הברורות שגם זה לא יצלח לאור הכשלון המחלט של נסיון אוסלו. הדתים הלאומים מאמינים עדין כי ההתנחלויות והשטחים הם הדבר החשוב ביותר ושמירת השטחים הינה מטרה הניתנת להשגה למרות, נו, ההוכחות הברורות בשטח שאין הדבר כך אחרי שאפילו ממשלת ישראל העיפה אותם כבר מחלק מן ההתנחלויות ומתכננת להמשיך בכך. ובודאי שעם הכח הפוליטי של המדינות המוסלמיות, אין סכוי שמטרה זו נתנת להשגה. החרדים במאבקם לשמר על עקרונות הדת נגד כל אפשרות כפירה אוסרים כל נסיון לחתר אל האמת כאילו השטן בכבודו ובעצמו עומד מאחורי האמת. והמשיחיסטים שבין חסידי חב"ד, הם סתם עובדים לאיש מת במקום לקב"ה ומסבירים לכל מי שמוכן להקשיב כי האיש עודנו חי למרות, נו, נו, ההוכחות החותכות כי האיש אכן מת וקבור ד' אמות באדמה
ומה עם לעשות שלום עם הקב"ה, לבטח בו ולדבק באמת שהיא חותמו? מי שעושה כן חיב, לכל הדעות, להיות כופר בעקר, פרימיטיבי המאמין באמונות תפלות ומנותק מן המציאות

What is Wrong with the Israeli Government and Army

This post will not discuss any spiritual values. In this post I will explain what is wrong with the current Israeli government from political and military points of view only. And I post it based on my belief that dissenting is the highest form of patriotism.
When the state of Israel was young and both the politicians and generals were giants. They sought to maintain that greatness in future generations.
The Ministry of Defense had and still have a publishing house that would seek and publish the most important works on military history, strategy and so on. The officers in the IDF were required to buy such books and hopefully read them. Through these books I was introduced to the great military philosophers such as Liddell-Hart, Sun-Tzu and others. I learned about the campaigns of Ganges Khan and other military giants. I also learned about rigid minds as Von Clausewitz and Moltke and how their students brought Germany to its knees in WWI. And I learned how Goering promised Hitler that he could defeat Great Britain with the Air Force alone, without ground forces. The IDF officers were supposed to do the same, seek the truth, learn from previous wars, know the enemy and prepare for war as a vehicle for peace.
This ethos of learning from these great minds, analyze previous wars, analyze the enemy and preparing for the next war rather then to the previous one, this ethos was lost in the last so many years. The brilliant top brass of 1967 and 1963 gave way to mediocre people and their yes-men cronies. An d the great politicians statesmen gave way to this sorry character of Olmert.
There is one theme that the brightest and most successful among these military philosophers emphasize, especially in democracies; the political level may not let the army do whatever they want. The Israeli government committed the first mistake by forgetting this particular point. The second point was of course, the fact that they believed that Air warfare campaign would be enough and the third mistake was that they downplayed their enemy.
They should have known from previous conflicts with the Hezbollah that this is not going to fly.
I remember vividly, how several years ago an Israeli general whined that the Hezbollah are cowards and do not fight as an army but as a guerrilla and thus he may not really win against them. Now, would the IDF top brass be worth their breath, they should have learned the enemy and find ways to fight against them in a wining way. But no, the Israeli top brass look more like the rigid German generals of WWI then the Israeli generals of 1967.
And the Israeli politicians of today look like dwarfs even comparing to those politicians who brought upon us the disaster of 1973.
It is the whole concept of their operation that is wrong and these people are too rigid to change their concepts. The top Israeli politicians and the top of the IDF brass must go, disappear into the history as a bad dream and give place to better people, better politicians and better generals.
Don't underestimate the enemy, they do the same analysis as I do and they will prepare for the next war based on these parameters. If we want to win, we must change these parameters now.

After Qana

Several days ago I saw a bumper sticker on a car, saying that “Dissenting is the highest form of patriotism.” I hold this to be true and obviously I dissent. I hold an argument with many Israelis and many in the Jewish community here. This argument is going along several lines but I believe that my position is uniform along all those lines.
I initiated this debate about the disaster in Qana because obviously, the war is not going right, despite all the propaganda that the Israeli government is throwing on us. True to my belief about the value of dissenting and criticism and seeking the truth, even in time of crisis I will continue to debate in order to try to influence others and maybe, together, whether you agree with me or not, we could help to save Israel and the Jewish people. I will cover here only one aspect of this argument and maybe in the future I’ll touch other aspects.
The question here is: should we understand what the Torah says in Be-Hukosai and the prophets repeat each one in their own style and what the Midrash emphasize again and again. Should we understand those words literally and assume that they discuss what is actually happening TODAY, or should we understand these words in a more general context of reward and punishment (Sakhar Va-'Onesh.) I had this argument with quite a few people, all are righteous and sincere and I do not doubt their beliefs. I suggest that we all should actually read all the aforementioned texts in any depth and try to understand what those texts say in a literal form.
Just to clarify my approach; I believe that these old texts are clear, have one simple meaning that may not be interpreted in many ways. These texts discuss historical events that re-occur today in almost the same way that they had happened in the past and therefore and most importantly, suggest the only possible way out of the current crisis.
The approach that those old texts HAVE NO actual direct bearing over what is going on today in the current history that is unfolding in front of our own eyes, is easier to understand then the other way around. After all we are all, as Rabbi Kanarfogel used to say, rationalists, from the school of Maimonides. We already embedded into us the modern, secularist world, we think in terms of this world and we view Go-d as something far and remote that does not really intervene in this world on a regular basis. We are not used to see Go-d's hand in the actual world. Go-d's involvement in the world seems to us to be confined only into Hasidic stories and the Talmusd's Agadetha. Surprisingly enough, this happened to be an old approach that, in my opinion, is as FALSE today as it was 2500 (approximately) years ago in the time of Jeremiah or Isaiah.
I could give many examples, but I will use only two. In those two occasions the prophets involved took two diametrically opposing approaches in what they'd told the kings and how they said it. In both cases the kings, being rationalists and (shall we say) secularists, refused to listen and we all suffer from their refusal.
In the first case, king Ahaz was attacked by the combined armies of Israel and Aram. Isaiah tells him not to be afraid of them since Go-d will destroy them. In order to prove his words he directed Ahaz to ask for a SPIRITUAL sign from Go-d. Ahaz refused to even consider such a sign. For him Go-d was remote and not involved too much in this world (sounds familiar, isn't it - see above). Instead, he took a political approach and became a vassal of Assyria, allowing Aram and Israel to be destroyed and in the end paying dearly for his crime.
The second case is so sad, that I cannot read this story without shedding some tears. King Zedkiah is fighting a losing battle over Jerusalem. It is clear that the war is lost, but Zedkiah is more afraid of his secular ministers then of the king of Babylonia. He secretly calls Jeremiah to consult with him what should he do. Jeremiah answers the only POLITICALLY possible answer under the circumstances. He suggests that the king should surrender immediately. Zedkiah actually believes Jeremiah that the
Babylonian would not kill him but is concerned that they would give him to the Jews who had already surrendered to them and they would punish him for his responsibility to the grim situation. Jeremiah promises that this would not happen and shows much better political understanding then the king. Jeremiah puts all his weight as a prophet behind his words in the name of Go-d. Unfortunately the king does not listen and we will remember his stupidity coming Thursday - Tish'a Be-Av.
So, the old argument is going on and unfortunately, it seems, that as usual, the majority of the people like the other approach better then mine. Since I am not able to change people's mind, I just have one suggestion: maybe, for one day, only one day, let’s try to dwell into the aforementioned texts and believe in them (for only that one day) as much as we believe the news. It might change our view of the world.

The difference between truth and belief (in English)

Actually, it is not that hard to reconcile Religion (especially Judaism) and science. We just have to learn how to differentiate between truth and belief. For example, we could easily prove that there is DNA and this DNA carries the genetic code and functions as the blueprint of the body. This is science; it could be proven by repeatable experiments and observations. And most importantly for our discussion, there is nothing in the Jewish religion that would directly disagree with that fact of science. This qualifies as the truth.
On the other hand, none of us have been around in the time of creation. We do not have any documented direct observation about that event (the story of Genesis was committed to written form, even according to Judaism, many thousand years after the creation). The religion believe that the world was created by Go-d, in seven days, some fifty seven hundred odd years ago, while the scientists BELIEVE that the world was created in a cosmic event, named the big boom, some gazillion years ago.
Both belief systems have proofs from within their own systems, both are convinced that they are the only truth and both fail to convince anybody who is not a believer.
Let's get clear here; anything that could be observed and proved TODAY or based on credible witnesses or documents (that need always to be cross examined) is as close to the truth as possible and usually do not have any problems with both religion and science. Anything that is based on inter-system (from within that belief system) speculations about what could have, should have or might have happened in the past is a BELIEF and thus a religion, not science.
Evolution, like intelligence design, like Kabala, are all beautiful poetry, still they are not, as far as we could say, the universal accepted truth, they are all sorts of beliefs.

להפיל את הממשלה

יש להפיל את ממשלת ישראל הנכחית ויפה שעה אחת קדם, אפילו עם זה מצריך הפסקת אש בתנאים בלתי אידאלים ומשא ומתן לחילופי שבוים. הממשלה החדשה צריכה לעשות מיד שני צעדים חשובים
א. לעשות סוף סוף שלום עם הקב"ה ולהכיר באדנותו. אפילו בתנאי פשרה עם החילונים, זה חיב להיות תנאי ראשון והכרחי
ב. להחליף מיד את צמרת הצבא. ברור שהצמרת מלאה באנשים סוג ב', כל מיני יס-מנים שהגיעו לתפקידם על ידי ליקוק לאלו שמעליהם. השיטה הפשוטה ביותר היא לבדוק את הרשימה של אלו שדלגו עליהם בשנים האחרונות ולהחזיר אותם לצבא
ג. לשנות את מוקד הדיון החברתי בישראל. בשלשים השנים האחרונות המוקד היה שטחים מול שלום ודתיים מול חילוניים. המוקדים הללו של הדיון החברתי נבעו מכך ששני הצדדים בדיון הולכו שולל אחרי מנהיגים מרושעים שמנעו כל אפשרות של דיון חברתי בריא ונורמלי. כבר כתבתי רבות על נושא זה ועל מה שנעשה לא נכון. הצעות חיוביות למוקד הדיון יכולות להיות מה בדיוק המשמעות של אופיה היהודי של מדינת ישראל. האם יש להדגיש פתוח כלכלי וטכנולוגי או אולי לחזור לטבע, איך צריך להתאים את המשפט העברי לטכנולוגיות התדשות וכולי

אילו הייתי עכשיו בארץ ומפרסם את מה שאני אומר כאן הייתי בודאי יושב בכלא בגלל הפרסום הזה, אבל מאחר ואני בארה"ב אני יכל להגיד כל מה שאני רוצה. אני צריך למצא שיטה להגיע אל כמה שיותר אנשים ולשכנע אותם בנכונות טענותי

Coincidences

Several years ago, when Ehud Barak was at the helm, some secularists leaders in Israel boasted that once they would accomplish the peace with the Arabs, their next target would be to finish (i.e. eliminate) the frum people. In my opinion, Go-d did not want that to happen and inflicted upon them the Intifada that caused the "peace" with the Arabs and Barak’s government to collapse. Of course, the secularists would say that this was a mere coincidence. I spoke with many Israeli secularists about that event and the coincidence explanation was the overwhelming majority’s opinion (100%) among them.
In an unrelated issue, there was a Gay parade and festivities ready to be Metame Jeruaslam and the war actually prevented this from happening. I surveyed some of my secularist friends and all said that this was a coincidence and would not allow me to make the connection with the previous event.
I have here two options, I could refer back in a serious manner to Be-Hukosai and show why those occurrences fit the pattern that the Torah suggests about a series of events that the people would believe to be coincidences and that type of belief would bring more terrible events, again, believed to be coincidences and so on. Or I could shorten it and end with a statement such as “Well those who believe in coincidences could continue living in bliss”.

Truth in Time of War

The last two posts are excerpts from a community discussion board in which I am a member. My last post was not published and I was given these reasons:

Is there some way you can make your point without making statements about the people on the other side? For example, instead of saying "What I think is that all these people did never bother to actually read all the aforementioned texts in any depth and try to understand what those texts say," you might say "I disagree with these people," and go on to make your point.Similarly, you might avoid a statement such as: "one day, only one day, instead of reading the newspaper, try to dwell into the aforementioned texts and believe in them (for only that one day) as much as you believe the New York Times (or whatever)."

There were other points which I accepted anyway and are less relevant.

To that I answered initially:

Some of my flowery language could certainly be contained... However, I have a problem with one issue that you have raised. How could I make a point that people do not bother to read a specific text in depth without saying that they, mmmm, do not read the said text in any depth? Or how could I persuade people to read those same texts and believe in them literally, without asking them to read those texts and believe in them literally?I may avoid referring to specific people, I may avoid implying that people in the other side are not wise, etc. etc., but I need to make the point and THIS IS MAY MAIN POINT, that we should read those texts, believe in them literally and act upon that belief.

But then I spoke with my dear friend Fred and he explained to me why people may be insulted when I imply that their belief might not be full and their reading of the texts is not deep, etc. All this was fine and I accepted it (at least for the practical reason that I wanted the piece published.) But then we got to the point about asking the people to dwell one day (only) in those old texts and see them as if they were relevant to today, his reaction surprised me. He claimed that in time of war, I should concentrate in helping the people and their government and army rather then point what is the problem and how it should be fixed.
Several days ago I saw a bumper sticker that claimed that "dissenting is the highest form of patriotism." I hold that to be true therefore I dissent and I believe that by doing so I am giving the best service to the Jewish people. I have a great teacher, the prophet Jeremiah, who dissented before the war of his time and dissented throughout that war, telling the people what was wrong and advising whoever wanted or did not want to listen what should be done. I am not a prophet and I do not come even close to the toes of Jeremiah, but I dissent and I ask everybody to read him and what he had said then. I believe that what he had said is relevant letter to letter to today's situation and his advice should be followed.

The Argument Goes On

As a reaction to my previous post a critic of mine named Moshe wrote:
One would hope that the continued rocketing of communities in Northern Israel with the attendant killing and injuring of scores of Jews, the forcing into bomb shelters and the loss of livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Jews - not to mention the plight of Jews living in the shadow of Kassam fire in Israel's south - is what would compell a committed Jew living in the relative safety of America to turn introspective and perhaps offer some words of concern, prayer and chizuk to us and especially to our family in Israel. And this particularly during the Nine Days, when it goes without saying that a good measure of ahavat chinam towards every Jew – no matter his or her level of belief or observance, political affiliation, etc. - would go a long way towards correcting what brought us to the tragedies of Tisha B'Av. Perhaps by setting such an example we who benefit from a life of Torah commitment will inspire those who do not towards an acknowledgement of G-d.

To that I’ve answered
The argument between Moshe and me is very long and it always going over the same lines. Obviously none of us is able to convince the other, so be it. I will just say that to me the arguments sound like "do Good" propaganda that does not address any of the real issues.
The argument is actually deeper then it looks. The question is: should we understand what the Torah says in Be-Hukosai and the prophets repeat each one in their own style and what the Midrash emphasize again and again. Should we understand those words literally and assume that they discuss what is actually happening TODAY, or should we understand these words in a more general context of reward and punishment (Sakhar Va-'Onesh.) I had this argument with quite a few people, all are righteous and sincere and I do not doubt their beliefs. What I think is that all these people did never bother to actually read all the aforementioned texts in any depth and try to understand what those texts say.
Just to clarify my approach; I believe that these old texts are clear, have one simple meaning that may not be interpreted in many ways. These texts discuss today's events and most importantly, suggest the only possible way out of the current crisis.
The approach that those old texts HAVE NO actual direct bearing over what is going on today in the current history that is folding in front of our own eyes, is easier to understand then the other way around. After all we are all, as Rabbi Kanarfogel used to say, rationalists, from the school of Maimonides. We already embedded into us the modern, secularist world, we think in terms of this world and we view Go-d as something far and remote that does not really intervene in this world on a regular basis. We are not used to see Go-d's hand in the actual world. Go-d's involvement in the world seems to us as confined only into Hasidic stories and the Talmusd's Agadetha. Surprisingly enough, this happened to be an old approach that is as FALSE today as it was 2500 (approximately) years ago in the time of Jeremiah or Isaiah.
I could give many examples, but I will use only two. In those two occasions the prophets involved took two diametrically opposing approaches in what they'd told the kings and how they said it. In both cases the kings, being rationalists and (shall we say) secularists, refused to listen and we all suffer from their refusal.
In the first case, king Ahaz was attacked by the combined armies of Israel and Aram. Isaiah tells him not to be afraid of them since Go-d will destroy them. In order to prove his words he directed Ahaz to ask for a SPIRITUAL sign from Go-d. Ahaz refused to even consider such a sign. For him Go-d was remote and not involved too much in this world (sounds familiar, isn't it - see above). Instead, he took a political approach and became a vassal of Assyria, allowing Aram and Israel to be destroyed and in the end paying dearly for his crime.
The second case is so sad, that I cannot read this story without shedding some tears. King Zedkiah is fighting a losing battle over Jerusalem. It is clear that the war is lost, but Zedkiah is more afraid of his secular ministers then of the king of Babylonia. He secretly calls Jeremiah to consult with him what should he do. Jeremiah answers the only POLITICALLY possible answer under the circumstances. He suggests that the king should surrender immediately. Zedkiah actually believes Jeremiah that the Babylonian would not kill him but is concerned that they would give him to the Jews who had already surrendered to them and they would punish him for his responsibility to the grim situation. Jeremiah promises that this would not happen and shows much better political understanding then the king. Jeremiah puts all his weight as a prophet behind his words in the name of Go-d. Unfortunately the king does not listen and we will remember his stupidity coming Thursday - Tish'a Be-Av.
So, the old argument is going on and unfortunately, it seems, that as usual, the majority of the people like the other approach better then mine. Since I am not able to change people's mind, I just have one suggestion: maybe, one day, only one day, instead of reading the newspaper, try to dwell into the aforementioned texts and believe in them (for only that one day) as much as you believe the New York Times (or whatever). It might change your view of the world.