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.