The Shmini Atzeres Stab in the Back: An Obvious Mashal
By Chananya Weissman
The Security Company
Consider the following scenario.
A man and his family lived in a dangerous part of the world, surrounded by savages thirsting for blood. Many of these savages were heavily armed and organized, and even the “civilians” among them supported their violent activities. It was part of their culture, their identity, even the focal point of their lives.
To make matters worse, this man and his family were in their crosshairs. They regularly issued open death threats to the man and his family, and attempted to carry out these threats on numerous occasions. They meant business, and there was no running away.
Being a responsible fellow, the man took these ongoing threats very seriously. He remained vigilant even during extended periods of relative calm. Everyone knew it wasn’t a question of if his enemies would try again, but when, and he could not afford to let his guard down for even a moment.
Fortunately he was a man of means, and he hired the best private security company to protect him and his family around the clock. This security company utilized the most sophisticated weapons and technology, its bodyguards received the most advanced training, and their intelligence gathering was the best in the industry. They knew virtually everything about the man’s enemies and monitored their every move.
Not satisfied with outsourcing his personal protection, the man received training from the security company and carried a gun – just in case.
One day officials from the security company came and demanded he surrender his personal firearm. They claimed that it would be unsafe for him to keep it with him, since there might be an accident, or enemy thieves might steal it. Besides, he didn’t really need it, since the security company had an elaborate defense system in place that far outclassed the enemies. The enemies wouldn’t be able to get near the outermost layer of the defense without being detected and neutralized, let alone the many additional layers.
The man was impressed with the security company, but uncomfortable relinquishing his weapon. There had been occasional incidents over the years in which enemy attacks had been repelled, or at least minimized, with the help of an armed civilian. The man didn’t want to be helpless in the unlikely but plausible event that he found himself in danger.
The security company suggested that he deposit his gun inside one of their bases, where it would be kept safe. If he were attacked by enemies, he could drive over to one of the bases to pick up his gun.
The man didn’t think this idea made any sense. When someone is under attack, they cannot hit the pause button to travel somewhere and obtain a weapon. Additionally, there was a disturbing history of large quantities of weapons being stolen from these bases, by the very enemies who threatened this man and his family. He insisted on holding onto his weapon.
The security company refused to accept this. Since the man’s arrangement with them stipulated that he could only carry a weapon with their approval, and he depended on their protection, his options were limited.
Finally they arrived at a compromise. The man’s weapon would be stored in an armory in his neighborhood. One authorized person in the neighborhood would hold the key to the armory. In the event of an attack, this individual would open the armory and local clients of the security company could retrieve their weapons.
The security company assured the man that if the enemy attacked, there would be plenty of time for the man to retrieve his weapon. After all, there were numerous bases and layers of defense between him and the enemy, and the alarm would be sounded the moment the enemies made a move.
Shortly after the man relinquished his weapon to the armory, surveillance balloons monitoring the enemy were removed.
Scouts who watched the enemy every moment of the day and night reported that the enemy was preparing for a massive attack. Their warnings were dismissed. The scouts continued to raise the alarm. The enemy movements were highly unusual and clearly indicated that an attack was coming. Instead of taking these warnings seriously, their supervisors threatened the scouts with severe punishment if they continued to raise the alarm. They did not explain this deviation from normal procedure, which nullified the very reason for the scouts being there in the first place.
A civilian radio operator had an excellent track record of listening in on the enemy’s radio communications and relaying warnings to the security company. At around this time, the security company confiscated his radio license and demanded he cease his activities.
Not long after, the security company moved large numbers of its forces far away from the border, leaving only a skeleton crew. They offered the vague justification that they were expecting trouble elsewhere.
The man and his family had little idea any of this was happening, and generally felt secure.
Soon thereafter, the enemies attacked. Although their weapons were far inferior to those of the security company, they somehow managed to breach a previously impenetrable border in record time, with no resistance. They breached a massive wall in dozens of places with no response. A slow-moving bulldozer drove up and broke through part of the wall. Truckloads of armed attackers simply drove right in, while throngs of looters gleefully followed. These included children and elderly men with canes. Somehow the door was wide open, and everyone could come right in.
The security company was very slow to respond. It took them many hours to muster a serious response. During this time, the attackers raided dozens of neighborhoods. They had their way with the local population, slaughtering massive numbers of people, torturing many of their victims, burning homes, looting, and celebrating as they went. It was as if they somehow knew the security company would not be rushing there imminently with a massive counterattack.
Meanwhile, the security company warned local media not to report on what was going on. The people were left to find out on their own – losing precious time, and, for many, any chance of escape. The people were also left to fend for themselves, with whatever small weapons they might have had.
The man tried to retrieve his weapon from the armory, but, by some tragic coincidence, the first person killed by the enemies when they entered his neighborhood was the one person who had a key to the armory. This coincidence occurred more than once. It was almost as if the enemies were informed who to target first and where to find him.
The man was fortunate to survive the attack, but many members of his family suffered unspeakable horrors.
In the aftermath of the attack, the man was livid with the security company. How could this have happened? He demanded immediate answers and accountability.
The managers of the security company insisted that now was not the time for questions. They first needed to wage a counterattack against the enemies. This would take many months, maybe even years. When all was settled, the man could ask his questions. The company promised to investigate themselves to determine what went wrong and share their findings (as long as they weren’t too sensitive) with the man.
They promised to learn from their mistakes and do better next time. The man should continue to trust them and give them another chance. He must continue to trust them and give them another chance.
They further insisted that all surviving members of the man’s family who were of fighting age should join this counterattack, under the direct command of the security agency. They too were expected to obey every order without asking questions. Under no circumstances, however, would they ever be permitted to rise to the upper echelons of the command structure, no matter how valiantly they fought or how successful they were. They would never be allowed to set the policy for the security agency that they supported with their money and their blood, but only carry out their commands. If they asked bothersome questions or disobeyed commands, they would be ruthlessly punished.
Additionally, if they defended themselves too well against enemy attacks, or if enemies complained that the conscripts were using too much force, the conscripts themselves would be jailed and tortured.
Furthermore, the security agency sent many truckloads of aid to the enemies on a daily basis. The mysterious coincidence that the enemy never seemed to run out of weapons and ammunition no matter how many losses they suffered was never seriously investigated.
The security agency demanded that the man occupy himself with worrying about hostages, commemorating the dead, honoring the fighters, and praising the occasional spectacular accomplishments of the security agency.
Somehow these spectacular accomplishments never managed to even briefly interrupt the activities of the enemies, who maimed and killed conscripts and civilians on a daily basis, and in fact only increased their attacks as they were supposedly being decimated and in hiding.
The metaphor might not be perfect, but it does not have to be.
Should the man accept the claims of the security agency that everything that happened was a perfect storm of intelligence failures, negligence, arrogance, and a long series of highly unlikely coincidences?
Should he entrust the lives of his remaining loved ones to these same people and send them into a war zone under their command?
Should he accept their argument that questions should not be asked and serious answers should not be demanded until some vague, distant point in the future?
Should those who conclude that the massive failure was the result of a widespread, deliberate betrayal on the part of the security agency, and that the man and his family were set up, be treated with hostility?
Should they in fact be treated with more hostility than the security company itself?
In light of all the facts, is the suggestion that the failure was caused by betrayal and collusion as part of a larger agenda unreasonable?
Should the man continue to trust this security agency and their management at all, about anything?
Should he continue to do everything the same as before, and expect different results?
If so, can we continue to think of this man as a responsible fellow?
__________________________
Buy my books on Amazon here or contact me to purchase in Israel.
Download Tovim Ha-Shenayim as a PDF for free!
If you received this from someone else and want to receive future articles directly, please send a request to endthemadness@gmail.com.
Sweet and Short: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs
Neal Boortz (Somebody’s Gotta Say It):
When I introduce myself as a card-carrying Libertarian, more often than not I get the same old response: ‘Oh, you’re the people who want to legalize drugs.’ Well, not exactly. We’re the people who understand that American taxpayers are paying absurd amounts of money to accomplish goals that could be met at a fraction of the cost. We’re the people who think it’s ridiculous that the majority of the growth in our prison populations in this country is due to slamming people in jail just because they were caught using drugs. We’re the ones who understand that so much of the crime on the streets of our country is drug-related–crime that would largely disappear if the massive profits brought on by drug criminalization were eliminated. We’re the party that understands that you can reduce drug usage more efficiently, and at a lower cost, through treatment than through law enforcement.