Thoughts | Imamother

Tamiri

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 1:25 am

We are all horrified by the massacre in India. Here and there I am reading "if only the Israelis had gone in...."
Those are my thoughts exactly. I imagine that for the Indians, and most nations, getting the terrorists is the first line of duty.
For the Israelis, Pikuach Nefesh - saving a Jewish life, far exceeds that. Even if it means dealing with the scum of the earth. Even if it means Cheruf Nefesh - endangering one's life, for the sake of another.
It's amazing to me how quick some of the mothers on this board are to decry Israeli's right to exist as a State, and deny the importance of serving in Israel's army. Yet, when it comes to saving yidden, everyone is there to suggest it's Israel's job.
Don't you know that it's our boys who go out there are missions such a saving lives in India? Jewish boys, born to Jewish mothers like myself, who have to go do "the dirty work"?
Why is it okay to send them (it's my boys too) to save a Jewish couple, but it's not okay for your own boys to be sent out to save one of their own?
I really can't understand this.
Why is it enough to be learning Torah when they have a civil obligation/right to serve, but in times like these no one is saying that learning Torah is enough?
Does anyone have an explanation for me?

shosh

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 1:39 am

Firstly, Tamiri, one never knows what really went on behind the scenes.

Secondly, it's not so simple. It also crossed my mind that we needed another "Entebbe," but if you look at other statistics, it's really not straightforward. When we went in to rescue Nachshon Wachsman, Hy"d, for example, the terrorists shot him at the last moment. And when we went into Maalot, the terrorists shot up about 30 children.

In Mumbai they had the whole place wired, and they also had no mercy. In earlier times, no one would have shot a person at prayer. But these days, we've gone back to a ruthlessness that knows no bounds. If they had found little Moishe sleeping in his crib, they would have shot him too, ch"v, bc they have no compassion. And they are not afraid of their own deaths. If anything, the opposite is true.

My mother, who has amazing faith, said how this story shows the power of bashert. It was bashert that little Moishe would be saved and that a man called Moshe Visner of Bnei Brak left the Chabad House five mins before the attack began. And, sadly, it was also bashert that Benzion Kroman decided to drop in there for Mincha and meet his end with his Siddur still in his hand. And we will never know why.

And the fact that is that we stormed the Heavens, and even though it may not be apparent, our prayers were heard. For the terrorists planned to massacre around 5,000 people and they took out maybe a 20th of that. And as my mother also pointed out, if the Chabad House had been holding a massive farbrengen at that time, there may well have been hundreds of deaths, each person a world in himself.

Go know why, and understand the bigger picture. It is not in our hands ....

shosh

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 2:04 am

I just reread your post. You're right - I responded to the first bit and not the second.

With regard to the army, I do believe that boys should serve in the army. And I think that all of our soldiers should be treated with respect bc they put their lives on the line for all of us. The problem is the conditions that these chareidi boys would have to serve in. Mixed units, for example, is a huge problem for young guys brought up in a segregated world. However, these days, where the Nachal Hachareidit is much more organised and does cater to these needs, it certainly should be more of an option.

And needless to say, the hesder boys are known to be among the army's finest bc they have the motivation of Torah and love of the land behind them.

In Chabad, the boys do serve, but at a later stage, when they are married and a little older so that the religious/cultural problems are less. I personally like the idea also of National Service. If the chareidi boys could do things like ZAKA, chaplaincy, etc, which is more suitable to what they could contribute, that's also good.

And now watch everybody blast me off the board!

shalhevet

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 2:04 am

Tamiri wrote:

Why is it enough to be learning Torah when they have a civil obligation/right to serve, but in times like these no one is saying that learning Torah is enough?
Does anyone have an explanation for me?

Who says no one is saying learning Torah is enough? I have no problem at all with your son, and all the other boys in the army leaving and going to sit and learn in yeshiva right now.

In fact, the exact opposite is true. The way these animals behave today, when they don't even care about their own lives, just goes to show how all the armies in the world can only stand helplessly by. And how much we depend only on Hashem. What use is כוחי ועוצם ידי (my strength and the might of my hand) against one Arab with a tractor or a bunch of animals who will just blow up the whole bus or building with everyone in it, including themselves? Surely today, more than ever, we see that it is not the Israeli army protecting us, but only Hashem. Of course soldiers are His agents, and doing a mitzva, but it is not the army who will save us, but only Hashem using them as His tool.

Tamiri

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 2:25 am

My point was that mothers mentioned: "if only Israel had gone in"..... who do they think "Israel" is? Surely they didn't mean the yeshiva bochurs - they meant trained fighters. Serving in the horrible, tumah-dik Israeli army.
So, why is it okay to send those Jewish boys to such a dangerous situation, if, on a good day, people can't even acknowledge their need?
Do you get my point?
Either they are needed or they aren't. If they are needed, then EVERY boy should be involved. Don't send my child to be slaughtered saving Chabad shluchim, out of the goodness of your heart. Let us all be a part of the rescue.
And, if you don't even live here... why bring Israel up at all? Why not send in Navy SEALS to the rescue? Rabbi Holtzberg, and others in the Chabad House, were American citizens. Citizens of the greatest nation on earth. Did I miss a mother here wishing the Navy SEALS had gone in?

ora_43

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 2:36 am

Tamiri--I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure there was anyone saying "if only the Israeli army had gone in" who on other occasions has argued against army service. If there was, then yes, it's a bit contradictory, although logical for those who say everyone should go to the army but only when there's a proper misgeret (framework) (I know there's nachal hareidi, but I can also sympathize with those who say it's not good enough--it's not really mainstream enough that most hareidi families would be comfortable w/their sons going there).

Also, I don't think sending the Israeli army would have made a difference. The Indian army did what they could, the rest was in Hashem's hands. And not to be cynical, but the IDF doesn't have the greatest track record these days when it comes to releasing hostages.

Tamiri

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 3:29 am

Terror in Mumbai Haaretz.com

Israeli experts: Slow operation meant 'no chance' for hostages at Mumbai Chabad house

By Amos Harel

Tags: israel news, terror attacks

"To the Indians' credit, they were determined and sought contact [with the enemy] all the time," Tzur continued, adding that a terrorist takeover of a hotel is "the nightmare of every counterterrorism unit," because it is hard to effectively "cleanse" so large a site.

However, he said, this excuse did not apply to the much smaller Nariman House. The 12-hour battle to liberate the building was "unreasonable," he said, because "there's no chance in the world that captives will survive an incident that doesn't end within minutes of the break-in."

The Indians, he added, apparently assumed the hostages had already been killed.

Col. (res.) Lior Lotan, formerly a senior officer in the army's elite Sayeret Matkal unit, said the Indians had operated as if there were no hostages.

"When you're rescuing captives, you enter fast, with maximum force, and try to reach the hostages as quickly as possible, even at the price of casualties," he said. "Here, they operated much more cautiously."

Television pictures from Nariman House also raised questions about the professionalism of the Indian forces. For instance, it is not clear why the area was not cleared of bystanders, or why the comparatively risky option of a helicopter-borne assault was chosen.

Moreover, the explosion that blew in the ground-floor door occurred before soldiers landed on the rooftop, whereas for maximum effect, they should have occurred simultaneously, the Israelis said.

shalhevet

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 3:30 am

Marion wrote:

We were discussing this over Shabbat...we hadn't heard all the final news reports yet. And the conclusion we came to is that Entebbe worked because it was a hostile government; Israel didn't care what they thought and just sent rescuers. But India is a friendly nation, and Israel would have wanted things to be "on the books", with the proper procedures and authorizations. It wouldn't have worked, because the terrorists would have learned about it before they could be successful.

Very good point, Marion.

And it also made me think, that not only the countries are different, but also the mindset today. Thirty years ago Israel would go in to save Jews and who cared what anyone else thought? Today our pathetic governments are always looking over their shoulder to see what everyone else thinks of them, so everything has to be "on the books", even at the cost of Jewish lives. Crying

Tamiri

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 3:32 am

YESHASettler wrote:

Chava wrote:

Tamiri, are you saying you don't think boys - some, obviously, not all - should be dedicating their lives to Torah?

What she's saying is you can't decry what a horrible thing the State and Army of Israel is and then call for them to come to the rescue.

exactly.
And this does not count for Israeli citizens (including the Arab ones for better or for worse) who should be protected by their country.
If you are going to equate Israel with protecting ALL Jews, then some attitude out there need to change, pronto.

ora_43

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 4:03 am

Tamiri wrote:

They should have used the highly successful Israeli method of dealing with hostage-takers:

1. Assume the hostages are alive despite no evidence to the contrary

2. Start a large-scale battle targeting the group affiliated with the kidnappers.

3. End battle with hostages still missing.

4. "Gather information" for at least two years, still with no proof of life, allowing terrorists to booby-trap the building in which the hostages are located and possibly move hostage(s) to another country. Continue granting terrorists affiliated with hostage-takers visitation rights and free university degrees and holiday food and other privileges.

5. Give the terrorists everything they asked for in the beginning, get dead bodies. (Hopefully with Shalit it won't end this way, but that's where we seem to be heading).

I'm not saying this to denigrate the IDF stam--they do good work, and do the huge mitzva of protecting am yisrael 24/7. But for IDF officials to start criticizing the way India handled its hostage crisis is incredible chutzpa right now, IMHO, especially given our own recent track record. The Indian soldiers did what they could. They saved lives. Israel should let them at least bury their dead before starting in on "what went wrong."

gryp

Sun, Nov 30 2008, 10:06 am

Those who are living in present times and not in Entebbe-times know that the "if only Israel would have done the rescue mission" is a sadly laughable comment.
All Israelli hostages are still hostage! Except the various mixed-up body parts.
Personally, I think the Israeli government has a chutzpah to speak up and criticize. They don't lift a finger when it happens in their own country. The only thing they know how to do nowadays is destroy their own homeland.
I'm glad Israel wasn't involved. I'm sure the Indian commandoes did whatever they could have, and the outcome was Hashem's plan to begin with.