Monday, May 22, 2006
5/22/2006 12:39:00 PM | 
Posted by
JoeSettler
It annoys me that I keep harping on the same topic, and it only gets worse.
The Defense Ministry, in order to protect school children, has ordered schools to not use the top floors of their buildings, as they are too vulnerable to missile attacks (sic).
Additionally, they “plan” to fortify the roofs (like they did the Knesset), but apparently there isn’t enough money for the (periphery) cities to do that, so their school roofs won’t be reinforced in the end (let's wait to see what happens in Rechovot and Rishon).
It keeps going back to the Rashi when the spies were told to see if the residents lived in walled cities or open ones.
Until these attacks and the building of the fence, I always found that Rashi difficult and perhaps (shhh) even mistaken.
After all, how could a strongly walled city really be the sign of weak inhabitants, while unwalled, unprotected towns are the sign of a strong populace?
Could a town like Bat Ayin really be safer and stronger because it doesn’t have a fence?
We are unfortunately living through proof that this Rashi is absolutely correct and completely clear.
A strong Israel would defeat it enemies, and not build an imaginary wall to hold them back.
A strong Israel would be deploying unlimited resources to stopping the missiles at their source and not investigating some collateral damage that occurred from a once-in-a-while strike.
And a strong Israel would not be trying to reinforce the roofs, or tell schools to not use the top floors (and what about businesses, and homeowners, should they leave the top floors too?) it would be offensively stopping the attacks with ground troops.
Rashi is right because the wall is a downward spiral.
A weak people builds a wall because they are weak, afraid, and tired of fighting, but the longer they hide behind it, the more afraid they are to come out and fight what is besieging them.
The enemy certainly has no plans to disappear just because you stuck your head in the sand. The enemy sees that you are afraid and redoubles his efforts, which makes the residents even more tired and afraid.
So as a result the walled residents get weaker and more frightened the longer they stay in hiding. It’s a vicious circle.
To harp on it again, it is we Settlers who are not trying to hide behind a wall, and it is we Settlers who are not afraid to continue to fight for our homes and land, and it is we settlers who are not tired of the battle to acquire Eretz Yisrael.
Only if the State of Israel’s secular leadership decides to not attack the Settlers who are preventing their slow suicide, and instead aggressively and offensively attack the actual enemy who is attacking all of us, do they have a chance. But that won’t happen. Their value system can't find the morality in it.
The Defense Ministry, in order to protect school children, has ordered schools to not use the top floors of their buildings, as they are too vulnerable to missile attacks (sic).
Additionally, they “plan” to fortify the roofs (like they did the Knesset), but apparently there isn’t enough money for the (periphery) cities to do that, so their school roofs won’t be reinforced in the end (let's wait to see what happens in Rechovot and Rishon).
It keeps going back to the Rashi when the spies were told to see if the residents lived in walled cities or open ones.
Until these attacks and the building of the fence, I always found that Rashi difficult and perhaps (shhh) even mistaken.
After all, how could a strongly walled city really be the sign of weak inhabitants, while unwalled, unprotected towns are the sign of a strong populace?
Could a town like Bat Ayin really be safer and stronger because it doesn’t have a fence?
We are unfortunately living through proof that this Rashi is absolutely correct and completely clear.
A strong Israel would defeat it enemies, and not build an imaginary wall to hold them back.
A strong Israel would be deploying unlimited resources to stopping the missiles at their source and not investigating some collateral damage that occurred from a once-in-a-while strike.
And a strong Israel would not be trying to reinforce the roofs, or tell schools to not use the top floors (and what about businesses, and homeowners, should they leave the top floors too?) it would be offensively stopping the attacks with ground troops.
Rashi is right because the wall is a downward spiral.
A weak people builds a wall because they are weak, afraid, and tired of fighting, but the longer they hide behind it, the more afraid they are to come out and fight what is besieging them.
The enemy certainly has no plans to disappear just because you stuck your head in the sand. The enemy sees that you are afraid and redoubles his efforts, which makes the residents even more tired and afraid.
So as a result the walled residents get weaker and more frightened the longer they stay in hiding. It’s a vicious circle.
To harp on it again, it is we Settlers who are not trying to hide behind a wall, and it is we Settlers who are not afraid to continue to fight for our homes and land, and it is we settlers who are not tired of the battle to acquire Eretz Yisrael.
Only if the State of Israel’s secular leadership decides to not attack the Settlers who are preventing their slow suicide, and instead aggressively and offensively attack the actual enemy who is attacking all of us, do they have a chance. But that won’t happen. Their value system can't find the morality in it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
