.Bonim Schreiber.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
I wanted to ask if I could make a video response to what the rabbi wrote?

The Haredim are very angry with Bonim Schreiber. And because the change is happening very strongly.

In the synagogue on Shabbat, one Haredim who enlisted said that in his opinion one should enlist because it's fun. The public crushed him that one should enlist in order to contribute.

Then there were two who claimed that one should not enlist and there was a real war until those who were in favor of enlistment won.
What can be done, there is Rambam, etc.? They chirped until they surrendered.
Because they simply did not give in to them for the first time.

In my opinion, a large part of the reason for enlistment (apart from the war) is:

Many Haredim identify with Channel 14.

He never says a bad word about the Haredim, even when necessary.
Channel 14 brings in ultra-Orthodox soldiers and embraces them and makes them more valuable. And it works. It works.
It will take time. And I think an article about the obligation to enlist from a halakhic perspective could be very helpful.

I am Haredi and I am ashamed that there are such rabbis. I hope that the change will come from the Haredi public. It is very difficult since most of the public obeys the instructions of rabbis, most of whom, unfortunately, are stupid. But I hear other voices. I study in a kollel and there is already a change. It is not a shame. IDF uniforms and a lot of volunteering. A large part wants to be connected to the state and to the people of Israel as a whole.

The rabbi I couldn't understand what the problem was with his analogy with the cleaning workers.
He simply meant that they also need gratitude, so the same goes for the soldiers.

When the rabbi sees a cleaning worker, doesn't he feel all the respect? (At least that's how I feel, it's just unpleasant to tell them that)
——-
Second, don't you think the country suffers a lot from a lack of cold-blooded analysis?
I feel that in this war, the right-wingers are speaking more easily and thoughtfully (even if incorrectly) than the left, who seems to me like a vane of emotions.

Elhanan, I think you are innocent. The Haredim say what they say because we are at war, time will pass and they will go back to entrenching themselves in total non-conscription.

In my opinion, Channel 14 is more harmful to the effort to recruit Haredim, because it supports the widespread non-conscription of Haredi society.
Channel 14's support is for those few who do enlist, and that too to give the impression that Haredim are enlisting.

On the contrary, Akiva, you will know a big secret,
The thing that the Haredim fear most is a bear hug.
And Channel 14 does it to them.

(The success of the Haredi structure is that the seculars are against them, it creates the wall between them and the seculars. It is not for nothing that some people say that if they love you, it is a sign that you are on the wrong path).

Y’
The Haredim almost always speak in two voices.
In this matter, one voice is that of the rabbis, which is directed towards the public and is the voice of Rabbi Schreiber. This is also the voice that happens to distance itself from Channel 14.

The second voice is that of the Haredim politicians, journalists and activists. All the scum of the second voice are connected to Channel 14 and try to influence public opinion with Ali Baba stories about the widespread recruitment of Haredim or about contributing in other ways to the community and the protection that comes from studying Torah. Just talk to the close-minded viewers of Channel 14 and you will see how many excuses they have for the Haredim to evade.

Channel 14 is the most harmful channel. Because it legitimizes the Haredi by distorting the data and giving the average BIBist the general feeling that there is no acute problem here (moreover, that they are even superior to everyone else). This is the greatest danger because in order to address the Haredi problem, we need to cut allowances dramatically, not double and triple them. Arot 14 is Haredi budget propaganda

Dear Rabbi Akiva.
This is my impression. I see that when no one attacks, people start to move uncomfortably. Suddenly the excuses run out.
Suddenly the Haredim start asking the hard questions.

For my part, you can use it however you want.

“George’ Orwell (yet another evil man) already said this”

Why is he evil?

“Especially because they are Jews (even though they are mistakenly sanctified, as you know”

Why are these mistakenly sanctified?

There is a lot of contribution from Haredim, so why not show the good? It is true that there are a lot of idiots in society who are a herd of stupid rabbis.
But the majority, at least in the liberal Hasidic, Sephardic, Chabad, and Karlin Hasidic community, are helping the national effort.
There are leftists who are 40 percent of the people and they are harmful to the people of Israel, so we say that all secularists are harmful.
The bastard Haredim who are against the army at least think and talk, but do not do harmful actions. So please do not generalize. Let him tell me that my son and I are a guy in a Lithuanian yeshiva and we went out with some of his friends to distribute food to army bases.
And there are many more. I have friends who have been fasting for several weeks for the success of the people of Israel. Why generalize?

No matter,

What are you talking about?!
Haredim do not mobilize as a collective and do not participate in the war effort, and as if that were not enough for them, they also want to take credit for Israel's security.
Showing the good (Haredim contribute) when in reality they do not mobilize, is throwing sand.

Just a correction, he didn't say they weren't brothers and shouldn't be shown kindness.
All his distorted words were aimed at the questioners, so that they wouldn't confuse the minds that they care about gratitude (after all, garbage workers also need to be shown kindness and they don't) and that they don't care that they are their brothers (after all, in traffic accidents they are also brothers and they don't care)
And from here it must be proven that what they care about is because they have a distorted view, that they want to show kindness to the soldiers who are fighting “in their place” and they feel that they are the ones who should have fought, and the truth is that without the secularists they wouldn't have had to fight at all.
The rabbi who justifies the comparison to a private disaster and claims that we should also mourn traffic accidents accepts the argument, but it is clear that in public it is perceived differently, and there is a difference between a private disaster and a national disaster, and the large number of deaths gives it a completely different aspect and not just an addition of quantity.

Does anyone have an updated link? The video was deleted from the drive that the rabbi shared.

I would like to point out to Rabbi Michai Avraham that he needs to understand a few things:
A. Army soldiers do not protect the Haredi person. They protect their own public. What can be done when there are also a certain number of Haredim in this public, but no one would really give their life for them. Imagine a situation where there was a terminally ill Haredi patient who could be helped: do you really think that a soldier would endanger himself?
B. Besides the simple fact above that the soldier does not protect the Haredi except casually and without intending to do so, in addition to this, another important thing must be understood: even what he does protect, the soldier does because he has to and has no way of avoiding it. And those who do so for ideological reasons do so for the State of Israel and the integrity of the land, etc.’ – regardless of protecting specific publics such as the Haredi or someone with different opinions than theirs, who if they were isolated – the soldiers would not go out to protect them at all.
I don't see this as a childish point of view, but rather a calculated and cold one, without any excitement about "what they will say." A kind of leftist behavior, only in an ultra-Orthodox way.

MK
You are much worse than the rabbi…
Talk to people on the ground.
Now the disgrace is greater, not only is there no need for gratitude, but they don't do anything for me at all..
I think the state should make a transfer to such people or at least not give benefits…

In touch

Oren, this was written cynically. From the perspective of the Haredi, anyone who is not Haredi is evil, and certainly a gentile. Regarding mistaken sanctification, this is a term that is not mine and indicates the fact that someone who died for their Judaism is not a saint, and the tradition that sees them as a saint is a mistaken tradition. I expanded on this in a chapter in the second book of the trilogy.

MK, please forgive me, I will not comment on the collection of nonsense you wrote. It simply insults the intelligentsia.

Rabbi Michi, I did not state my words as fact, but rather made claims. I would really like to know why I am wrong and would be happy to hear a rebuttal to my words (these are claims I hear all the time). To dismiss this as a “collection of nonsense” is not an answer to my claims.
Thanks in advance.

Section D is complete nonsense. Most of the soldiers in Gaza are reservists. Rabbi Schreiber has no idea how easy it is to evade reserve service. There are soldiers who were dismissed for nonsense. Anyone can do something stupid and not be called up for the reserves again.
There are soldiers who returned from abroad just to fight.
And in general, getting out of combat or not being drafted into combat is also quite easy, and even evading service is not a big problem these days.

There are such nonsense that it's simply insulting to refer to them. If you don't understand it yourself, then it won't help to explain it to you.

As a Haredi (sociologically speaking) who thinks independently and does not identify with the Haredi perspective except partially, I will contribute a few comments to the discussion.
A. Schreiber is an antipath provocateur, in his classes he always likes to argue the opposite of what everyone else thinks and present annoying claims against the other side. He is a kind of genius with severe Asperger's syndrome, a kind of Haredi Yeshayahu Leibowitz. He is the type who likes to walk around with a sharp needle and prick everything that he perceives as a balloon with a little air.
B. From a perceptual perspective, he represents the fanatical stream of Haredi, who are convinced that there is an exclusive value or years and beyond that there is nothing (incidentally, such thinking is found among radicals in every society, from Samaria to Tel Aviv, from Alabama to California). In my opinion, this is a significant portion of Haredi society, but my impression is that most of the public is not there, even if a large part of it suffers from blind thinking. There are many who are short-sighted and short-tempered, but not antipathetic and ungrateful. Everyone I know was deeply shocked by the words of the scoundrels, although they are on the more open side (in terms of thought, not religiously).
C. The Haredi public is in a bit of a perceptual distress, because on the one hand it feels that it is dependent on the state and the army, and on the other hand it is educated to oppose them. Some deal with the problem by sweepingly denying the state's dependence, and some by inventing excuses like "we are also spiritually defensive", even though when it comes to elections or the city treasury, no one will accept the excuse that studying a page of Gemara is more beneficial than voting at the ballot box or donating 180 shekels to the Ninth Hour on the Ninth Day fundraiser, etc.
D. In my understanding, the real reason for opposition to military service is based on two principles: 1. The fear of the secularism of the army. 2. The desire to build a strong Torah world.
The fear of secularism is a very well-founded fear, and an honest person – whatever his views may be – cannot deny it. In principle, the problem can be solved by cooperation on the part of the army, but I have a hard time seeing that happening now. There will be a world war on the part of progressive organizations that are trying to impose their religion on the army. If a few thousand Haredim who insist on avoiding women's service and joint service constitute a serious threat, what can be said about Haredim who may require approval from the three parliaments before any military action…
The desire to build a Torah world exists mainly in the Lithuanian public, which is obsessively locked into the ’Nar Thira’ approach. In recent years, attention has been growing to the irritating fact that a significant portion of the yeshiva world simply does not fit this, but the difficulty of getting off the tree is great. It will happen, but it will take time.
E. In my opinion, there is no way to solve the problem of the Haredim and the state by force, and it is also unfair. What is needed is simply an insistence on separating religion from state and that anyone who wants to avoid military service or work will pay their share of the public purse's expenses. If they don't pay, they won't get it. In short, – capitalism. Socialist policies can work in a homogeneous society, not in a diverse society like Israeli (or American) society.

I would love to hear the opinion of Rabbi Michi and the other readers of this.

Listen Aaron. You're an amazing writer.
I agree with every word. You've just given me a good argument with the fact that in the upcoming elections I'll tell everyone I'm studying for a speech fast instead of going to vote.

Who are you? What do you do for a living?

If you're interested, I have a video I made of Schreiber's rambling speech. A quarter funny. Three quarters nerve-wracking.

In my opinion, Rabbi Schreiber's psychological profile is not difficult to decipher: he is a biologically adult, but in the guise of a smart first-grade boy who seeks to stand out by doing tricks that no other child in the class performs. The man is trying to present us with a false image of someone who can decipher in reality and around us, an additional dimension that no one outside of him notices. His impulses are nothing more than childish and stinking pride, which can be discerned and identified, even among respected professors in academia, who are driven by the same impulses.

Well, I see that everyone here is simply terribly emotional…
I understand the feelings raging in Aharon and Zevulun, but notice that you did not address Rabbi Schreiber's claims at all. Some of the claims that Aharon raised are of a completely different type and do not touch on Rabbi Schreiber's claims.
Incidentally, I should point out that Michai Avraham also answered claims here that reflect that they come from an emotional place, since his answers are weaker than usual in my humble opinion.

I will briefly summarize the background to Rabbi Schreiber's words and his claims.
A. We need to understand the Haredi point of view: The fact is that a state was created not as an initiative of the Haredi public but of the general public who saw it as necessary. From the perspective of the Haredi public, we would remain in exile living in the US, in Israel under Arab rule, and other countries – There is no problem with this, because in terms of loss of life, instead of the state, there were many more losses of life (and please don't make it difficult for me from the Holocaust and the like, which are completely exceptional events. Normally, there are no losses of life like in Israel). Therefore, the Haredi is essentially claiming: You established a state and want to fight, so you want to recruit me? That's your problem. Do you want me to do you a favor? And as far as I'm concerned, it's "closing" the state. Just like a person who fights with passersby on the street because he sees it as important, and he claims that if you don't help him, you're being rude, and if thanks to him you enjoy that there are no passersby near you, "do him a favor," who asked you to?
B. The main point of Rabbi Schreiber's argument is an argument that came to deflate the balloon of "gratitude" that has begun to be inflated here. After all, gratitude deserves everyone. Both for the garbage collector and the soldier and many other people. Rabbi Schreiber claims that just as you don't make a business out of it, don't make a business out of it either (not that he has a problem with it, but his problem is that for some reason this feeling suddenly arises in you). The same applies to sharing in the grief of the families of the kidnapped and so on. He addresses the public and tells them: You don't really share in the grief of all kinds of people who suffer and don't help those who could... Why did you wake up here? The bottom line: There is a feeling of inferiority here and also populism that invades the public who hear what they have taken and he is stirring up about it. Completely understandable!
C. Regarding the soldiers, in general, the argument is very simple and was raised here: The soldier is not coming to save Rabbi Schreiber and the public who hear what they have taken. If it were only the public... the soldier would not have gone to battle at all.

That's all. Simple and clear. I don't agree with everything he said, but most of what he said is very coherent and logical. Of course, unfortunately, everyone here made a fuss (including Rabbi Michi) out of emotional anger, but not because logic spoke to them.

The attempts to provide poor explanations for stupid statements
are even more annoying than the original
Anyone who knows knows and knows that there is some kind of obsession and addiction
to say the harsh statement that no one has yet dared to say
So here he said…
I have some kind of meritorious teaching
that in order to save the Torah scholars from approaching the Zionist idea in its secular composition
a crazy radicalization to the other extreme is necessary
But anyone who stays on that extreme and tries to explain how this is the straight path and the royal road
is not on the right track

I don't understand how a person who defines himself as religious/ultra-Orthodox can declare that he would have preferred to remain in exile. Even if there was a debate at the time about Zionism, is there any doubt in the world that the ideal is to be in the land of Israel? And aren't these things clear from the Bible to the Ramban and the Gra (I'm not going into the halakhic discussion and the words of the Torah in the Ketubah. I'm talking about the basic thing that was clear to every Jew in all generations)

Regarding Rabbi Schreiber himself, a wonderful post was published by someone who knows him well that describes well the place he comes from, there is also some study-right about him) However, since in parts of the post he finds a point of similarity in personality between him and Rabbi Michi, and since here it is Etria Demar, I will not publish it without his permission.
If he approves, I would be happy to publish the wonderful post here, it is simply a fascinating document

You can just send a link… I would love to see it.
By the way, I find myself identifying with what Moshe Yazdi wrote here.

Dear Moshe Yazdi!
Are you real???
What are these claims???

Your arrogance is exploding. You write here confidently as if you are the only reasonable and intelligent person. And you write nonsense that no one has the strength to even answer.

A.

Quote:
“You established a state and want to fight, so you want to recruit me? That's your problem. Do you want me to do you a favor? And as far as I'm concerned, “close” the state”

Was the majority of the Jewish people interested in establishing the state?
Yes!
Its purpose was to benefit the Jewish people?
Yes!
Today, the Haredi enjoy a state that protects them here in the Land of Israel? Not in Europe. Here.
Answer:
Most of the time yes! That's the aspiration!

What does it mean to close the state?!
Is it possible?! Even if Ben Gurion made a mistake, now we are all here????
You live here and enjoy a very high standard of living. You enjoy the independence of a people in your country.
Donate!!!

B.
What's the nonsense with gratitude for a garbage worker????
A garbage worker works for a fee for himself. He deserves a humble thank you. Politeness.

A person like Aner Shapira who volunteered without any obligation or reward to save lives. And died for Jews he doesn't know requires gratitude on a huge level that is impossible to describe. It's crazy that you have to say that.

The soldiers volunteer!!!! A lot of them volunteer for life-threatening positions!!! They don't do it because they have to. They want to protect the people of Israel. Hear them talk. Open News…
You have to be so dumb to seriously ask what the difference is between them and a garbage worker.

Regarding the grief of the families of the kidnapped:

Why did we wake up here???
Because it touched us very much. That's why. So what??? We are human and some things have more impact and some less. We got used to cancer.
Therefore, the feeling of pain is not real???
What kind of nonsense is this???
At most, ask that we also act for cancer patients.

The massacre is a shocking event and it triggers a stronger emotion in people. True.
Therefore, we can say that this emotion is fake???!!!
How did you come to this delusional conclusion???

C. The soldiers mostly give their lives for Jews. Or rather, residents of the State of Israel wherever they are. It is understandable that it is difficult for you to accept that there are secular people who are willing to die for the entire country and for the Haredim.
You probably are not used to thinking about giving that is not for your specific community…

Your arrogance is so stupid!

Rabbi Michael Bekiyat, don't delete this. He deserves that I entered it.

The post is well-known. And knowing Rabbi Michi, he would be happy to post it here:
Nevertheless, it might be worth outlining, at the level of a personal profile, the following outlines for those who don't know him:
It has a deadly combination of Dov Halbertal's trolling, Prof.'s fanaticism and sharpness. Leibowitz (Judeonazis, Judeonazis, Judeonazis - supreme pleasure in slaughtering sacred cows), the wild mischief of a Jerusalemite child, extreme rationalism in the style of Rabbi Michai Avraham (the superiority of reason, in the eyes of Rabbi Bonim, emotion of any kind, is a losing quality), the bitter mockery of the Neo-Hardokites (so-and-so thinks he is righteous, etc., etc., it's all imagination and self-love and ego, etc.), the extremism of Kottske's balloon-bursting, he has a hard time with moralists, he has a hard time with "acceptances" He has a hard time with overseers, he has a hard time with roasts, he has a hard time with the piyutim on Yom Kippur night (‘abolition of the Torah’, he sits then and tears down tents), in general he walks around with a big needle and enjoys stabbing everything that seems like a balloon. That's on the level of traits.

On the level of perceptions, he is an extreme fanatic, in this sense he does not represent or reflect any social trend, and he is aware of this, he is aware that he operates and functions in the Lithuanian sector and his worldview is to the right of any Hungarian or common Brisker, his father is from Tehran and this is a formative post-trauma in the family (they proudly tell how when the rabbi from Ponivz brought Rachel Yanait Ben Zvi to visit the yeshiva, and she asked to see his father – Pni’a who was from Tehran, the boy came up and spat in her face).

What he did there in those twenty minutes was to get on the audience and show them that he 'doesn't buy it', explaining that in his opinion there is no difference between a single car accident and a bus that overturns, the difference is quantitative and not qualitative, and that there is no difference in terms of 'empathy for pain' between terminal wards and those murdered or fallen in war, at the same time he said that there is no difference between what happened on Simchat Torah and the six million, and just as 'this has no message, that has no message either', he also got carried away by the twists and turns of the necessary (after protests and questions from the audience) and explained that fighters serve because they have no other choice, and in this sense they are similar to doctors who receive payment for treatment, and other nonsense and nonsense.
He is a troll, and he is mischievous, and he is a great fanatic who apparently feels very well that the public is going through a process that, for him, constitutes a glorious collapse into the lap of the evil Zionists.
In this sense, there is also a counter-reaction and fear of the collapse of the paradigm of Nar Teyra (who is indeed one of its greatest standard-bearers, his diligence is alarming in every parameter, he despises politics of any kind and especially rabbinical politics, he is terribly cynical in relation to almost every phenomenon in the universe except for Nar Teyra. And there is every reason to assume that this mental movement also embodies a kind of self-escape, he is so cynical, and so curious and talented, that the only escape from the possible consequences of cynicism, talent and curiosity, about his world of values and beliefs - Nar Teyra alongside absolute cynicism in relation to everything that he is not. In this [i.e.: a mental movement of upside down - dealing with a cynical mental structure, and a world devoid of beliefs and sacred values, through complete enslavement to a very narrow crevice of a certain worldview, and suicide over it] he is very reminiscent of Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Schulzinger. And Akmal.

And yet, what was there was a show of extreme irresponsibility and especially of a lack of control and restraint. He failed to overcome the urge to troll and be clever. Based on my acquaintance, it is clear to me that what was there was not the outburst of a crazy Hungarian rabbi from the circles of the ‘Eda’ who does not know what is going on around him and feels the need to shout so that the club does not burn down.
Rabbi Bonim is a very clever and sharp wise man, he is well aware of the meaning of things, of the Israeli ethos, and of public sentiment, it was impulsiveness but not outbursts. I mean, I don't think he thinks that way, it's not that what he actually thinks in his heart was revealed without him noticing, it was the annoying trollish hypnagogy of someone who can't resist walking by Schmanderik and giving him a pinch in the stomach or cheeks, he is allergic to carnivals of any kind.
If the public decides to accept Shabbat an hour earlier, they will ask why not start on Tuesday, and if there is a campaign of "You did it" as long as it takes, they will say that it is only the Great Court in Jerusalem (and if necessary, they will simultaneously sign what is necessary - let Caesar and the rest), and if the public thinks that the Pasha of Rabbi Elchanan, on the strength of the argument in Migo, is X, they will prove that it has never occurred to anyone that it is the Pasha, and if they ask what the Pasha is, they will say that they have no idea and that it is not interesting either, and they will belittle the questioner whether he already has a Pasha because the Magid does not repeat the Magid. And many other gems like the Bible.

Beyond all this, from his point of view, everything that cannot be analyzed with the tools of science is simply not interesting, in this sense he is indeed a literary character of Grada, why chat about things if they cannot be broken down in science, all His general lesson is a stand-up show that consists of ninety percent cow slaughter (all the accepted elements of the issue), five percent of a new proposal, and the remaining five percent is a heart-wrenching admission that this is actually what all the sages before him intended.
In this case, the time probably wasn't enough for the next ten percent that he is used to…
Anyone who is used to reading Rabbi Michai Avraham can be somewhat impressed by the method.
The autism that is expressed here is the lack of consideration (not understanding, because he is very smart) that such things (at all times) are sword stabs, and a crazy show of irresponsibility towards the listeners, not to mention wider circles, it is first and foremost a crime towards the listeners who were present there (he is indeed terribly cynical, and responsibility is not the strong point of such types).

On a personal level, and here the following description does indeed often not fit in with the media pattern above – But this is the reality – He is a very good man, simply a good man, there is not an ounce of pride or arrogance in him, he is very caring, he can talk to young boys at eye level with great patience and humor, in this sense, he is much sweeter than many well-known reshiba’s and supervisors.
Zero ego. Exceptional kindness. And a lot of caring.
He could crucify students with fire and brimstone for their invalid and rustic views (and he was eager to fight), and at the same time, in everything related to studying and other matters, he treated them with great kindness. I heard from students who called to ask questions during their military service, and he was very matter-of-fact, understood very well the halakhic meaning of operational activity (from a halakhic point of view, he even made it easier than the prevailing norm in the military rabbinate – and it is not easy – and he got angry when they asked him repeatedly whether he was convinced that apparently one can be satisfied with much less, including a good understanding of the ’matter’ according to which a military system and military routine [including aspects of research, etc.] are a matter of the rabbis), he could be very sincerely interested in what is happening and what the situation is and such, and at the same time take care to sign a few vigorous and juicy curses about the Zionists and the advice of Balaam and the gods of those who hate fornication and other such spies.

On a human level, there are captivating elements in him, and he is much more thoughtful and interested than the well-known and famous rabbis and rabbis who govern the public.
He is a common chelmaer (although he spent only a few years of his childhood there, his mother who was sickly was the sister of Rabbi Nachum Rothstein), he has no Lithuanian manners of honor nor social politics, the world Broadly divided into two: those who are shunned, and those who are abrogating the Torah. Guys who study seriously [and it doesn't matter if they are crazy ‘Mizrahi’s, Baalei Teshuvah, burnt-out high school students, and so on], and idlers [and it doesn't matter if they are privileged, yeshiva students, overseers].

Was I surprised by what he said yesterday? I was very, very surprised, I didn't think he was capable of it, it's possible that both his age and his complicated family situation in recent years (health) are giving their signs.
Can he be allowed to benefit from the principle of kindness – which he meant no and understood yes, or can he be allowed to benefit from the ’racism of low expectations’ – no, no.
He is very smart, and very sharp, and should understand very well the meaning of his words, both at the level of the objective (shocking) content and at the level of the public implications And the educational responsibility (he does not perceive himself as an educator, he thinks that education is a kind of manipulation – he entered a high yeshiva at the age of 13 and was a ‘wild man’). In conclusion, the evidence of character in the punishment phase, perhaps to also point out that this is what happens when you grow up in institutions without a guiding female hand (his mother was sick all childhood and they were reborn in homes and institutions for years, with a father who buried his parents in the woods at the age of eleven, and circumcised his little brother, and was a Torah junkie, so that particularly active parenting was not there).

Do I think he believes what he said? No and no.
I simply ‘don't buy’.
He is smart and sensitive (despite his vigorous denials) more than that.
So what is it?
Trolls. Deranged. Cynics.

By the way, for those who know, both Rabbi Schulzinger, and Rabbi Michi Avraham, and Yeshayahu Leibowitz, on a personal level, were unusually kind-hearted people, and on a public level, were often cynical, trolls, and irresponsible.

It's just that with R’ Bonim, the mobilization to maintain the paradigm is not entirely present, in this he does differ from the Gramm”sh, there is more cynicism, less transparency.
He will not be able to devote time to 'opinion meetings' or to conversations (there are conversations, but they are more like guest speakers than the moralistic genre, and unlike guest speakers, there is an infiltration of a lot of science there), anyone who deals with an opinion is suspected of nullifying it.
And all the craic of the edict is only in terms of time to do something for the sake of it.
The only one I have not heard from him with a hint of cynicism towards him is The prophet predicted that from the altar and above, which is the Holy of Holies, and he did not mention it almost in relation to the central place it occupies in him, perhaps fearing to fail in cynicism or humor.
By the way, if it helps, one of the gods of R’ Bonim's blessings is R’ Yaakov Blau and Do’k well.
And after all, love spoils the line, and indeed I have a great weakness for the teachings of R’ Bonim, I do not exaggerate in such matters, and his mastery of all the Torah's branches is simply frightening. Rule without Egypt. Babylonian Jerusalem, Safra Sefri, Mekhilta Mekhilatin, Toseftot and Baraitot, it is impossible to catch him on the answer of Rashba”a that he does not whistle on the tongue (more than three thousand and three hundred), there is no verse in the Hagar that he does not know To recite word for word, hundreds of stiklikahs about a cow, wounds and tents, beyond the fact that he is a true scholar.
He sits and types at lightning speed without books, sets of dozens of pages.
In this aspect, he reminds me of stories about Rabbi Ovadia (he was a slob).
And it is not just talent, he does not waste a moment and almost does not sleep, is not at weddings for more than a minute and a half, and is always tired, hoarse and sooty from chronic lack of sleep.
The only time I saw his eyes were white and not full of red, braided hairs was when he was sitting shiva and he held that he was not allowed to study carefully also the mourning and the muk because it makes him happy. He sat nervous, like an addict without drugs, but slept well.
The last lines indicate that it is also possible that one of the motives for him was the impression that people were slacking off from the Torah business and talking about the situation excessively and it was such a shame.

You can upload anything relevant. You don't have to ask me for permission.

Who wrote this post???

On the one hand, the writer is amazing. Phenomenal.

On the other hand, I always have a distance from psychologization.

It is to finish a person based on his qualities and weaknesses and not on what he said.

But who is the writer????

Hello Elchanan, I'm sorry if you were offended by my response, but I'm trying to be businesslike. Please note that your response is very emotional. Therefore, my main argument is that the opposition to Rabbi Schreiber's words is more emotional than logical and prudent (the need to make this ridiculous video indicates this even more strongly). I'll write you my response to your words and you'll understand that your and Rabbi Michai Avraham's arguments are not even close:

A. The main argument of my argument, unfortunately I didn't receive a response to it: The establishment of the state and the risks that come with its existence are a pit that the general public dug for itself. It is clear that the majority of the Jewish people are interested in the establishment of a state, and the soldier's goal is to benefit the Jewish people, and the Haredi benefits from the state that protects them. But, and great but! I'm talking about the Haredi, not the majority. The Haredi himself did not ask for a state and did not initiate it. He was in the country for many periods in history because it does not depend on a state. The state that was established aroused Arab anger against it, which necessitated an army to protect us from it. The fact that the Haredi is sitting here today and needs protection is because there is a state that is interfering with his quiet meeting here. Do you understand the absurdity?
You said that Ben-Gurion was wrong and in fact we are here. That is true, so raise a white flag and stay here under Arab rule or fly to the US and so on, who asked you to establish a state to risk your own and others' lives, to also establish a military body that will take risks and you are asking me to join this celebration of the dangers of life? This is really puzzling to me!

B. Regarding the gratitude and the Holocaust for the garbage collector, you wrote that the garbage collector works for pay and deserves gratitude, while soldiers are essentially sent to be killed.
Answer: It is clear that a soldier who finds himself in a situation where he is supposed to be killed may then perform a heroic act of trying to protect his comrades. But in the first place, soldiers go into this battle for reasons of necessity and obligation – as stated in the next section.

C. You claimed that soldiers volunteer for life-threatening roles and do not do so because they have to. They want to protect the people of Israel.
Answer: These are soldiers who have high adrenaline, love action, the homeland is important to them, they hate the Arabs, and they also want to protect the residents – all of which creates in them an urge to fight and no fear that others have of being killed (many claim that they wait for these moments, have trained for these moments, love the battles and the action, etc.). You probably don’t know…

D. You again repeat the claim that soldiers give their lives for the residents of the State of Israel wherever they are – it is clear that this is true and there is no dispute that soldiers are killed in battles to protect the State of Israel and its residents. I am just saying that there is no desire here to protect the ultra-Orthodox, but rather the rest of the residents from the general public. Come to your own conclusion: If 90 percent of the public were ultra-Orthodox, do you really think that soldiers from the secular/religious public would go out to fight for them?

Thank you.

Moshe Yazdi criticized the fact that I did not respond to Schreiber's claims. The truth is that he did not raise any logical argument, but only a bunch of nonsense, and in any case, Solomon's recommendation should be followed: "Do not answer a fool like his accuser." But since Moshe Yazdi raised the claims in a more logical and considered manner, the opposite recommendation should be followed: "Answer a fool like his accuser" (in the sense of saying foolish things, not about the writer).

A. I know the Haredi point of view well, I grew up with it. The problem is that one day I started to think about it a little logically, and discovered that it was a ridiculous self-deception. This is because the classical Haredi public did choose to live in the State of Israel, while we all know very well that it would not have chosen to do so if Israel had been under Arab rule (British colonization, however, would have ended within a few decades, like the rest of the world). And in any case, it had a simple choice: either choose to live in Western countries and be free from the obligation to conscript and all annoying ties with the Zionist regime, or live in the Land of Israel and pay the prices involved, one of which is military conscription. The Satmar Rebbe chose the first option, and therefore his community really does not participate in the Zionist state, neither in rights nor in obligations (the few who live in the country have long been here as Turks, so they would really have remained under Arab rule). Since the rest of the Haredi public chose the Land of Israel option, it turns out that it must pay the security (and economic) price involved, and in any case all the stories about "from our perspective, we can close the country" are nothing more than a fraud.
The real motive for avoiding conscription is based on the critical need to re-establish the Torah world after the Holocaust, and the fear of the influence of the secular army. Personally, I believe that these reasons are completely justified, but even those who disagree must admit that they are certainly consistent with the Haredi approach, which cannot be said for the ridiculous excuse of “We didn't want the state”.

B. Schreiber claimed something completely different from what was quoted here under his name. He explicitly stated that there is no obligation to show gratitude to those who fulfill their duties. Regardless of the question of the army and Zionism, this concept is contrary to the most basic human and Torah morality. According to his logic, there is no need to show gratitude to parents, wives, rabbis, doctors, cooks, teachers, garbage collectors, and in fact to anyone in the world who does not volunteer outside of duty. It is unnecessary to explain the magnitude of the scoundrels in such an ungrateful worldview. It is hard to believe that someone who has studied Torah would think this way, unless they studied for no reason, or worse, to tease.
The argument about what the difference is between the murdered and the kidnapped and anyone who suffers is ridiculous. Basic human intuition distinguishes between suffering that stems from human evil and suffering that comes at the hands of God. (Abarbanel discusses the verse “Let us fall by the hand of God and by the hand of man to Apollo.”) Also, everyone understands that the attack was aimed at all Jews, including Schreiber himself. We are all in the same boat. The same goes for gratitude for soldiers who give their lives (not Bnei Brak-style "dedication" to use only a generator, but real dedication), and do so voluntarily (because they could easily serve in a safer position in the army), which is very different from an ordinary employee who receives a fair wage for his work.

C. The claim that the soldiers are not interested in saving Schreiber and his friends may be true for (some of) those serving in the IDF and 8200, but not for the combat soldiers who tend to have a sense of Jewish security.

My arguments are relevant and therefore the emotion is in place. And it does not diminish their value, our emotion is a natural response to the silence.

A.

If you lived in a country of ultra-Orthodox people in Uganda, and the government made a mistake, even then you would say it's your problem???

No. Why???
Because this is your people. This is your home.

Why doesn't the national religious public say: the cleansing is what caused the whole situation and therefore it's your problem. ???

Because everyone except you understands that we are all one people and we must all help protect the country. Even if they made mistakes.

B. Nonsense. It seems that you don't know the area.
The soldiers mostly enlist to protect and save the home.

C. Yes. Just as I, as an ultra-Orthodox, will give my life if necessary to save the country even if there are 100 percent secular people here. They are my brothers.

The response above is from Moshe Yazdi.

Aaron you are amazing. Who are you?

From the perspective of the Haredi, anyone who is not Haredi is evil, and certainly a gentile.
Thus writes our rabbi.
Recently, Rabbi Yitzhak Pinchas Goldwasser, supervisor at Yeshiva Or Yisrael –
wrote the opposite. Quote:
“Among young children in Bnei Brak, every secular person is a gentile. Are we young children? ”
Long before the last Simchat Torah Day, he wrote about the duty to ”recognize the good”
to IDF soldiers and all state institutions!
and added ” They will say – The high school student is speaking. Let them say” (15 Menafah)

Hello, I thank you for your substantive response, so I will answer you and explain to you why your arguments are not justified in any way.
I will start with Aharon:
A. It is clear that the Haredim chose to live in Israel. They did not see this as any more disadvantageous than other places. Haredim were in Israel before and after the establishment of the state. But not because the Jewish state was established did they decide to come to the country, but because it is a state like all states and was also Israel, so why not? In general, you need to know: Their view says a simple thing: there is no permit for this state to exist and it was established in violation, and therefore it can be closed down. Obviously, this is less convenient, etc. But from the perspective of the Haredi ideology, it can be closed down literally. From now on, everything this state does or happens to us because of it is its fault, not ours. From the perspective of the Haredi, it will surrender to the Arabs.
B. Regarding the comparison of soldiers to garbage workers in terms of gratitude, there is no point in arguing because it is not essential to the discussion but rather an argument about what Rabbi Schreiber meant. We will leave that aside.
C. You said that the soldiers in my ranks have a sense of Jewish commitment. This is an interesting fact. How many of them are willing to do something simple like give themselves up for a terminally ill patient whom they can help? In my opinion, not many of them at all. The reason for this is that we must not forget that many have been poisoned by the whole thing of “giving the Arabs a head”, so it is a kind of pleasure and release for them. In essence, this is the payment they receive for their combat service.
So in essence, there is an argument here that there is no dedication for the individual, and evidence of this comes from ordinary cases in which the soldier is required to give himself up for the other if it were not for the military framework in which he is placed.

I will move on to Alhanan now:
A. If I lived in a country of Haredim, and the government was established according to my ideology and not against my worldview – it is obvious that I would be a supporter of that government and I must bear responsibility for the results of the establishment of the government. But here the government was established in a sin/offense/crime and I (i.e. the Haredi public) am not in favor of it and would not do it, so what do you want from me as a public, to participate in the failure that you have created out of necessity? In this respect, the state is not my body (the people may be, and even then, in what way).
B. Regarding the soldiers, I answered Aharon that the majority do not enlist purely because they have the value of protecting their people, but rather there are several things associated with that that take the main place. And so I say try to neutralize the surrounding reasons (IDF, Arab enemy, etc.) and go with a simple situation: give your life for your Haredi friend from Mea Shearim, whom I am against in every way, and you have to choose who will be killed. Do you think any of the soldiers who are not on duty right now will agree to give themselves up? I don't think so.

A.

Do you live here?
Do you benefit from the state's taxes?
Do you use traffic lights? Roads?
Medicine? From the police? From all the ongoing operations of a state?

Where does the money for this come from?

The money belongs to most of the Jewish citizens here in the state who pay for a Jewish state.

Doesn't suit you? Get up and go to Europe. There are no rights without duties.

The majority of the Jewish people have made a decision: to continue to operate the state. The territory is theirs. Therefore, its existence is legitimate.

Do you object? Get up and go.

You can't even get a driver's license here!

Now imagine that you are an immigrant in Pakistan, and the law is to enlist in the army. So you enlist.

B.
You really remind me of Schreiber! The same logic!
The fact that soldiers will not act for a terminally ill patient means that right now they are acting for the cause?!
Absolutely not!

Each one connects to a different good deed. And in the military, there is a strong sense of responsibility, I wish it were the same for terminally ill patients. This does not in the least undermine the value of soldiers who act out of a sense of mission!

C. I will absolutely not leave the point of gratitude!
I know very well what Schreiber meant.
And that is my problem, that it is a stupid idea.

B.
It would also be difficult for me to give my life for the ultra-Orthodox Pant from Mea Shearim. Who opposes my protecting him.

And when most of the country is not like that, I channel the feeling of protecting him that is weaker than I have towards him personally.

And treat him as part of all the citizens of the country.

And then all the more to make an effort for him.

I do not see any problem with this.

I live in a mixed-use building in Petah Tikva and I think that most of the building would give their lives to save me.

Maybe one day you will also feel feelings of self-sacrifice.

May we be rewarded…

about

Why don't the Haredim move to live in the Palestinian Authority? Even in the Land of Israel, even close to the Haredi centers? After all, the entire conflict with the Arabs is because of the Zionist state? The answer is clear: Today, without the state, all Jews will be slaughtered. The one who protects them with divine help is the IDF. What relevance does the question of whether it was right or wrong to establish the state 75 years ago have? Is there a practical possibility of bringing the English back here or becoming the 51st state of the United States, as suggested by Rabbi Amram Blau?
What is the Nordukian meticulousness in the motives of those who give their lives for us? Are the collectors of the city treasury inviolable? Would any of them rush to help a terminally ill person at the expense of their private pursuits? All the Torah reciters do so only for the sake of God, without any other motives?
As a mainstream Haredi, I am ashamed and embarrassed by these arguments, worthy of the definition of Rabbi Moshe Shapira, zt”l (in another context): ”It's not even nonsense”.

As an ultra-Orthodox, I feel obligated to address Moshe Yazdi's nonsense, as if Schreiber's words were simply words of reason without emotions. There is no reason in this, only mental distortions. As for the claim that the ultra-Orthodox did not choose the state, this is an unbelievable distortion. The descendants of the first Zionists did not choose the state, they were born in it, the reality now is that there are millions of Jews in a state that none of them chose but were born in. There is no state that will take all the ultra-Orthodox, not in Israel or anywhere else, so what are the possibilities now in the Land of Israel? Are the ultra-Orthodox willing to live under Arab rule? Certainly not. Are the ultra-Orthodox willing for all the secularists to leave the country and for the ultra-Orthodox to guard the country in their place? Certainly not! So in fact, ultra-Orthodox Jews owe their lives to the army.
The claim that we should be grateful to garbage collectors, yes, if the garbage collectors were risking their lives and limbs so that we could live, certainly! But they are not risking lives, so what is the affiliation? It is simply stupidity!
The claim that they are doing it for themselves, that they would not do it for the Haredim, that we are not moved by people who suffer in a different way. First, I will emphasize that this is a universal reaction, in Israel after the twin disaster, all citizens (including the Haredim) reacted this way, so it is so stupid to claim that it has to do with feelings of inferiority or a certain view,, The reasons for this universal reaction are many and here are some of them,, There are many and here are some of them, when there is a national disaster, then citizens feel the need to unite for many reasons and some of them are because instinctively we feel that a united state raises the morale of those involved in the war effort. When people advertise themselves as part of a broader system, they can find greater awareness and commitment to deal with difficulty and contribute. Also, a united state can have a psychological impact on the internal population and the enemy. It sends a message of strength and determination, which can affect the excitement of those involved in the conflict and provoke or prevent enemy attacks, and more directly, united action involves a common bond between the population. When people advertise themselves as participants in a common cause, they may be more willing to endure hardship and make personal sacrifices to meet the general need.
The reason why people all over the world get excited about national disasters is not because they are action-loving, how superficial! There are many reasons for this, one of which is that they represent a threat to the stability of the country, its security or its way of life. The emotional impact is not only about the immediate loss, but also about the potential effects on the future of the country. It concerns personal and national pain. In contrast, road accidents, although tragic, have less general consequences. All over the world, people of color have gratitude for the police and soldiers who risk their lives (in the US, the ultra-Orthodox do too). It doesn't matter if they do it for the neighborhood or for their community. In fact, they protect the population at the risk of their lives, and in most cases, in order to risk their lives to go to war, you have to add to it both a belief in sacrifice and an element of self-sacrifice. The truth is that they sacrifice themselves mostly for the general concept of a state that includes all citizens. We saw that in the massacre at Har Hanof, soldiers and police gave their lives for the ultra-Orthodox. What stupid and ignorant things.
I want to emphasize that all the ultra-Orthodox in the Middle East are so ashamed of Schreiber's words and don't feel that he represents them at all.

I want to add and emphasize that all the Haredim I know in the Land of Israel are ashamed of Schreiber's words, and do not feel that he represents them.

As far as I know, the basis of the Haredi claim is not related to all the above arguments, but rather the Jewish right to the land. The justification for arriving in the land and expelling the Arabs who were here before us is a historical justification. We were here thousands of years before them. The problem is that we were also originally occupiers of the land according to the Torah, but God gave it to us. If so, the question is to whom did God give the land, according to the Haredi? The land was given to the Torah-keepers, not to the secularists. If so, the secularists have no right to expel the Arabs, and only because of the Haredi does the state have a right to exist.
Anyone who does not accept the historical biblical story is supposed to claim that the Palestinians have the right to the land as generations of tribes who live in the land. The Jews are descendants of people who lived here two thousand years ago, and it is not clear whether they can expel someone who has lived here for thousands of years in this name.
I would be happy if one of the commenters would address this claim.

‘So did R”S and Rabbi Yehuda regarding the Romans’.
Can I quote?

I'm really surprised how the rabbi here criticizes Rashbi, who was a true man greater than all his friends and because of this story alone was awarded the discovery of the Book of Zohar? It's really ridiculous to come to him with allegations of ingratitude to the barbaric and murderous Romans. It's like the Jews of Germany showing favor to Nazi Germany for building public buildings...

Philly, first of all I don't understand the argument. Let's say that the right to live here is actually only because of belief in the divine Torah, so what? You're just claiming that there's a logical error in secular Zionism. What does this have to do with the need to show gratitude to soldiers and the state? What does this have to do with the discussion here? As for your words, I don't understand exactly why you claim that they don't have the right to live here, so what if they don't practice it, the fact still exists that the Land of Israel is a gift to all of Israel whether they believe in it or not. If you claim that only by observing Torah and mitzvot do we have a right in the Land of Israel, that means a religious claim. First of all, it's not just the Haredim who observe Torah and mitzvot. There are many Haredim who observe Torah and mitzvot who are not Haredim at all. So what are you asking? Except that even someone who is not called religious can still be, in heavenly calculations, fulfilling mitzvot with many benefits, such as if he is a soldier who sacrifices his life for all of Israel, who knows, in heavenly calculations, maybe that's all our right in the Land of Israel.
It seems that what you really mean to ask is whether there is a secular justification for the state, and the answer is yes, in the early years of Zionism the population was three hundred thousand people, meaning that the country was empty, and there was no rabbinate of a child nation in it, so it was a “land without a people for a people without a country”; later, because of the economy and the prosperity that Zionism brought here, many Arab immigrants came. There was supposed to be a division of the country for the two populations, the Arabs rejected the proposal and started a war, and ordered the Arab residents to emigrate from the country until the end of the war in which they lost, so it was their problem that we are not supposed to solve. In short, the argument is that we did not take the land for any people, we are a people without a state that returned to our natural home where there was no people, and those who left mainly left of their own accord.

A rat will come and bite his grandson, and we will hear other songs about cleaning workers. Just a bastard.

On the 17th of Kislev, 5724

On the duty of gratitude to IDF soldiers and their virtue, see the words of the Rabbis Auerbach, Rabbi Shmuelevich, and Rabbi Yosef, in the article by Yitzhak Horwitz, “Graves of the Righteous North of the Neighborhood,” on the website “Chadrei Haredim,” dated 20th Iyar 5724. And the words of the Rabbis Alter and Rabbi Goldwasser (superintendent of Yeshiva “Or Yisrael”) on behalf of Rabbi Povarsky. In Menachem Rahat's article, "Knowing Good: Saints of the Supreme or Workers of Garbage", on the "Channel 7" website.

Regarding the argument that there is no need to show favor to someone who fulfills the role to which they are obligated. It is customary to say "Yisher Koach" to the cantor and priests, even though it is their duty to do so. There are many stories about the great men of Israel who went out of their way to show favor to a craftsman who provided them with a service or to a doctor who treated them.

Of course, on the other hand, we should also show favor to those who diligently study the Torah. If IDF soldiers fight for the survival of our bodies, then Torah students stand guard over the spirit of the people of Israel. And the words of Rabbi Kook, who participated in the delegation of yeshiva heads who met with Defense Minister Moshe Dayan regarding the postponement of conscription for yeshiva students, are well known. The Rabbi said: “There are no two sides here. We need a strong army and we need a strong Torah world, and we are sitting here together to balance the two tasks.”

With greetings, Fishel

Rabbi Bunem Schreiber, his original thinking and broad horizons, alongside his extreme statements, Ramada also wrote in column 507, about the gap between ideology and pragmatism.

And as for the ‘garbage workers’ –

The work of cleaning is sublime. The daily work in the Temple began with removing the manure from the altar, and this work required priestly clothing. On Yom Kippur, the High Priest would bathe, sanctify his hands and feet, wear white clothing, and enter the Holy of Holies in a siloud to ‘take out the laver and the censer’.

There is a well-known story about a parent who came to the ’Talmud Torah’ of Kelm and saw his son sweeping the yard, and the head of the yeshiva was left wondering: ‘Is this why I sent my son to the yeshiva?’. The grandfather of Kelm answered him: ‘Who sweeps [sweeps] here – Parks [makes] the world’ – He who sweeps here – will turn the world upside down.

IDF soldiers cleanse the world of ’enemy and revenge’ and Torah scholars polish the spirit of the nation and distinguish good from evil. Therefore, perhaps ‘studying Torah is greater than saving lives’, for the Torah not only sustains life and teaches ‘to turn away from evil’, but also gives life content and purpose.

With greetings, Fish”l

From the ’garbage workers’ we also learn the virtue of work done persistently, day after day, without a halo of brilliance. Sisyphean work, because after cleaning everything gets dirty again, and the next day we have to wake up and clean again. But thanks to the constant labor of ‘transparent’ and unsung workers– we live in a clean and healthy space.

On Simchat Torah Isha, we witnessed the weakness of the brilliant generals and senior officials. Those who saved the situation were the local police, the emergency squads and ordinary citizens – those who have no halo of an ‘elite unit’. It was they who saved the situation in the difficult hours.

How much we have to learn from the ’garbage workers–! Happy Zevulun, you're leaving 🙂

Best regards, Fish”l

Similar things to those published under the name of Rabbi Schreiber were heard from Yaron London (see column 387: ‘Reflections Following the Meron Disaster’) and were widely understood by ‘Mara Datra’, and were heard a lot from London's brothers in the news during the period of demonstrations against the legal reform. Miraculously, both sides came to an agreement 🙂 that we are not brothers, and what happens to the other is none of my business.

The terrible disaster on Simchat HaTorah Day, when our cruel enemies attacked everyone without distinction of sect or viewpoint – brought us back a little to the healthy feeling that despite the sharp differences of opinion – we are brothers, members of one organism, that the pain of another is also our pain, and his joy – is our joy. ‘Who is like your people Israel, one nation in the land’.

Regards, Fish”l

To Shmuel Shohat
Thanks for the response
As I understand it, there are three arguments in your words
A. The issue of gratitude is not related to the question of who has the right to live in the land.
B. Even from a religious perspective, a Jew who does not observe the Torah and Mitzvot has the right to live in the land.
D. Even on a secular level, we have a right to the land, and according to you, even without regard to the history of the Jewish people.

I will start first with the third claim. I understand that this is a matter of international law, and as far as I know, the case of the Land of Israel is a classic case of a land that was for thousands of years a colony of huge empires, and as such, it is clear that it was quite neglected with a minor number of residents and a mainly rural and agricultural form of residence. The momentum for the development of the country began towards the Zionist awakening, of course, and received a major contribution in the Balfour Declaration. In other words, as soon as it was clear that the land was not going to be a British colony for a long time and that it would eventually pass into local hands, it began to be worthwhile for locals to develop it.
It is clear that at that time the Arabs did not have any ability to develop the land. They were ignorant peasants and the Jews were (relatively) educated Europeans, but there is no reason to think That the moment the country ceases to be a colony and becomes an independent state, it will no longer be the country of the natives who have lived there for a thousand years. All sorts of claims like they lost the war or we developed the country are simply irrelevant. The war itself is not justified at all. And of course, any development of the country by another people does not make it more of an owner of it than the native people who have lived there for a thousand years. And the numbers are generally the laughing stock of the whole business. It doesn't matter if a million Palestinians lived in the country or 200,000 are natives here and you are a foreigner.
Argument B. It is actually a collection of several claims of the type such as: A secularist can be more religious than a religious one or It has nothing to do with the ultra-Orthodox. Even Torah-observants enlist, and so on. These may be correct claims, but this is not the center of gravity of the claim. The fairly simple question is whether, from the perspective of the Bible, the Jews receive the land in exchange for their commitment to fully observe the commandments, and if not, they will be expelled from it. The unequivocal answer to this is: Yes, it is scattered hundreds of times throughout the Bible, so that it appears that a person who, from his perspective, is not obligated to observe all the commandments is not entitled to reside in the land.
Claim A. is a conclusion of the two previous claims. If both are correct, then a secularist does not have the right to reside in the land, and only Torah-observants have it. And if so, what makes the secularist righteous when he fights for the land is precisely what he protects the observant. This is of course not a contradiction of the fact that one should recognize favors, but at least there is no claim here for equality of burden.
And thanks again for the reference.

On the 22nd of Kislev, several heads of Lithuanian yeshivahs, such as Rabbi Binyamin Finkel and Rabbi Chaim Feinstein, took a complex stance on Rebbe Schreiber's statements. On the one hand, they firmly insisted on the obligation of identification and gratitude for IDF soldiers, and on the other hand, they believe that tying tzitzits and visiting the wounded, and not enlisting in the army, are not the proper way to identify with the fighters. In fact, strengthening yeshivah members in Torah study is the greatest contribution to security!

With greetings, Fishel

Their words, and those of other yeshivah heads, In Moshe Lifshitz's article, "We cling to the yeshivot; the war sharpens fanatical tendencies in the haredi community," on the Makor Rishon website [For correction, the subtitle is incorrect. Most of those quoted take a complex position: identification and gratitude for the soldiers while focusing on strengthening their Torah. Fishel].

On the trends in mobilization and practical assistance to soldiers, in Moshe Lifshitz's articles (ibid.): "This time it's different; the haredi sector is enlisting in the war effort," and "In the face of the horrors, young haredi are interested in enlisting in the IDF, and the attitude in the sector is changing."

Meanwhile, typhoid fever is raging in Bnei Brak:
https://bshch.blogspot.com/2023/12/blog-post_3985.html?m=1

The hand of God was also on Schreiber, who opened fire on IDF soldiers and is now critically ill. Maybe now Schreiber will understand why he was punished and why he was killed.