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.