.Bonim Schreiber.

First, I'm passing here the link you sent in another question: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nylg-F09rqJZSTCYSMyyXXQuF1snvpoc/view?usp=sharing As for what he said, I didn't feel like hearing everything, so I'll address what you brought up on his behalf here. I'll start by saying that I'm very familiar with the Haredi way of thinking, and in particular the Lithuanian way, which combines cold intellectual analysis with childish formalism that leads to stupid and disconnected analogies, and actually also evil. Very typical, and I've heard arguments like these hundreds of times. some of my best friends are… George Orwell (another evil person) already said this, that there are such great nonsense that only intellectuals can say/accept them (I think I answered this in a previous question about Schreiber's words). I think that such poor arguments indicate that the man is promoting an agenda and not really making substantive arguments. He is under pressure from the awakening of a sense of partnership among Haredim and this is how he is responding to it. I think that his words will only increase this feeling (unless something is really screwed up from the root among Haredim). A. How does he know that the state dug the pit? And if it did (as it is said, "The hot shame dug the white"), is he not part of it? Every part of the public is responsible for what the public as a whole did. If he claims that he is not part of this public, that is a different discussion, but then he should be treated accordingly. It is like telling God, blessed be He, that these people dug the pit, and therefore He should not punish us with exile or destruction. Without the state, there would have been 1898 and 1909, the Holocaust, the Crusades, etc. There too, he says that all of these were wicked people who dug the pit, and therefore he has nothing to do with it? Does he mourn on Tisha B'Av? Does Av HaRahamim say on Shabbat? Did he regret the ultra-Orthodox who died from Corona as a result of their scandalous behavior? Does he think that a secular person should regret this, or take care of them? B. Here, one must distinguish between the question of whether they are brothers and the question of whether it requires participation more than any other private disaster. Regarding the question of whether they are brothers, this is an emotional question, and he reports that for him they are not brothers and therefore he has no problem with them going through such atrocities. I don't know, I am bothered by atrocities even among those who are not my brothers. And if they are my partners in the state (brothers or not), it is more bothersome. But that is just me, of course. Of course, the mere statement that they are not his brothers, after they protect him and finance him and treat all his patients, is outrageous. There is a shocking lack of gratitude here. Not the feeling, because there are autistic people in the world, but this ideological perception. Regarding participation in a public disaster, this is a somewhat correct claim. If one child's head had been beheaded, or one family had been through traumas like many families there, then we should have been equally shocked, because it hurts that family just as much. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't participate in the current case, but rather that we should participate in those cases as well. The conclusion is the opposite of his. Beyond that, there is of course a difference between a car accident, which is a natural disaster not accompanied by cruel abuse, and a disaster caused by a person, and in particular because they are Jews (although these are mistaken kidnappers, as you know. But it has nothing to do with feeling and participation). In general, the obligation to participate in the grief of another person is not a matter that depends on anything objective, but rather on the degree of grief and trauma that he or she is experiencing. In fact, the trauma here is much greater than in other cases, and therefore there is an obligation to participate. [In parentheses, I'll add that I assume he also refers to the Holocaust in the same way. It's just a lot of car accidents and there's no need to get excited about it.] C. When a terminally ill patient has no way to help his family. And if help is needed, then they really should be helped too. However, the scale of the phenomenon requires a more mass mobilization. Beyond that, most people also use slander, so shall we use slander? When people feel the need to help, even for unjustified emotional reasons, we should not take the wind out of their sails but encourage them. It is like acknowledging God after a miracle that He did not perform. It is an opportunity, because of our emotional structure, to thank Him for the very creation. Emotional opportunities to do a good and right deed are worth taking advantage of and not negating.

D. Here I can only cite the Sages and the moralists regarding the gratitude of Moshe Rabbeinu Lior. The illumination also hid it against his will. And so did R.S. and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the Romans and more. Beyond that, the fact that you evade your duty does not mean that others who do so are not entitled to gratitude. It is fine for a doctor who receives compensation and this is truly his work, but soldiers do not receive compensation but are called to fulfill a duty and fulfill it even though many others (like Schreiber) evade it. I assume that he also does not show favor to citizens who pay taxes from which he lives, since this is their duty (and it is his duty to accept their taxes without sharing in their grief and seeing them as brothers). This is the Jewish approach that brings me again and again to understanding anti-Semitism throughout the generations. This is how many of us have treated the Gentiles around us. E. Why was the public harmed by the coronavirus? I was not harmed. It was a major car accident. F. I referred to this nonsense above. As if throughout the generations they haven't killed us, but only since the IDF was established.

G. Indeed, the real reason is for fear that they will break down. No one really thinks that the non-conscription is because they are protecting us. This is the truth. But what he probably means by his words is that there is no obligation to conscript into the Zionist army at all, and in any case, there is no need for explanations for not conscripting. Therefore, there is nothing to point to as a real reason. Which brings us back to partnership with the public. In the previous question, I was asked if he was evil in light of these words (I deleted a question or two because of the wording). I said no, he is just an idiot who is under pressure because of his fear that his ideology is collapsing. But now in light of the detailed description, this is a level of stupidity and detachment that really has more than a hint of evil. An intelligent person who says such childish things and does not see fit to examine himself is definitely also evil. He is a bit of a prisoner of the infantile concepts on which the Haredim are raised, but I would expect a smart person to show a minimal ability for critical thinking, and certainly not to add to the stupidity and lead it. This is very reminiscent of the arguments of intellectuals (alek) from the 'enlightened' academic world around the world that are heard today in favor of Hamas and against Israel. It is so disconnected and stupid that, although it stems from brainwashing, it is impossible not to see it as evil as well.