The Mirror Imaging Trap: Why Iran Won’t Become a Western Democracy

Prof. Mordechai Kedar, a renowned scholar of the Middle East, highlights a fundamental cognitive error made by Western policymakers: Mirror Imaging. This is the tendency to project Western values, logic, and aspirations onto cultures that operate on entirely different social and theological software. [We do this in relationships also, but that is not our point].

The Western Delusion

Western leaders—including figures like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu—often operate under the assumption that deep down, every human being is a "Westerner in waiting." They believe that if you simply remove a despotic regime, the liberated population will instinctively sprint toward the "Sunlit Uplands" of Jeffersonian democracy, free-market capitalism, and individual rights. The logic is simple: “If I were living under a repressive regime, I’d want a ballot box and a Starbucks. Therefore, they must want it too.”

The "Bnei Yishmael" Perspective

However, as Prof. Kedar explains, the cultural landscape of the Middle East (the Bnei Yishmael) is often built on foundations of tribalism, collective honor, and religious submission rather than Western individualism. In this worldview, the "State" is often seen not as a servant of the people, but as an extension of power and divine authority.

The user’s point is poignant: If the 90 million people of Iran thought like Westerners, a small clerical elite could never have held them hostage for 47 years. The longevity of the Islamic Republic isn't just a product of brute force; it is a product of a society where the concepts of "authority" and "rebellion" are weighed against a completely different set of cultural scales.

Why Change is Not Around the Corner

For Iran to transform into a "Western Utopia," it would require more than a change in leadership; it would require a fundamental cognitive revolution.

Entrenched Systems: Power in Iran is not just political; it is woven into the educational, religious, and social fabric of the country.

The Tribal vs. The Individual: Western democracy relies on the individual as the basic unit of society. In much of the Middle East, the basic unit remains the religious or tribal collective.

Stability over Liberty: For many, the chaos of a failed state (as seen in Libya or Iraq) is more terrifying than the predictability of a repressive one.

The Bottom Line: Placing Your Bets

Today, betting is a massive industry. But if you are a betting man—and we’ll ignore for a moment the halakhic status of the pasul l’edus (those disqualified from testifying due to gambling)—the smart money is on the status quo.

The expectation that Iran will suddenly pivot into a free-market, full-rights, democratic utopia is a fantasy fueled by Western ego. To bet on such a transformation is to ignore decades of history and the deep-seated cultural realities that Prof. Kedar warns us about. People do not shed their fundamental worldviews overnight simply because a "better" system is offered. They are entrenched in what they know, and what they know is a world where power, not the ballot, dictates the future.

Conclusion:

Until the West stops looking in the mirror when it looks at Tehran, it will continue to be blindsided by reality. Iran may change its face, but changing its heart and mind is a task of generations, not an election cycle.

פרופ' מרדכי קידר ואשליית ה"שיקוף" (Mirror Imaging)

פרופ' מרדכי קידר, חוקר מזרח תיכון בעל שם, מדגיש לעיתים קרובות טעות קוגניטיבית יסודית של קובעי מדיניות במערב: "שיקוף" (Mirror Imaging). זוהי הנטייה להשליך ערכים, לוגיקה ושאיפות מערביים על תרבויות הפועלות לפי "תוכנה" חברתית ותיאולוגית שונה לחלוטין. [אנחנו עושים זאת גם במערכות יחסים, אך אין זה נושאנו כעת].

האשליה המערבית

מנהיגים במערב — כולל דמויות כמו דונלד טראמפ ובנימין נתניהו — פועלים לרוב תחת הנחת היסוד שבתוך תוכו, כל בן אנוש הוא "מערבי בהמתנה". הם מאמינים שאם רק יוסר משטר עריץ, האוכלוסייה המשוחררת תזנק באופן אינסטינקטיבי לעבר "הפסגות המוארות" של הדמוקרטיה הג'פרסונית, קפיטליזם של שוק חופשי וזכויות הפרט. הלוגיקה פשוטה: "אם אני הייתי חי תחת משטר דיכוי, הייתי רוצה קלפי וסטארבקס. לכן, בטח גם הם רוצים זאת".

נקודת המבט של "בני ישמעאל"

אולם, כפי שמסביר פרופ' קידר, הנוף התרבותי של המזרח התיכון (בני ישמעאל) בנוי לעיתים קרובות על יסודות של שבטיות, כבוד קולקטיבי והכנעה דתית, ולא על אינדיבידואליזם מערבי. בתפיסת עולם זו, ה"מדינה" נתפסת לעיתים קרובות לא כמשרתת של הציבור, אלא כשלוחה של כוח וסמכות אלוהית.

הנקודה שהעלה המשתמש היא נוקבת: אילו 90 מיליון תושבי איראן היו חושבים כמו מערביים, אליטה דתית קטנה לא הייתה יכולה להחזיק בהם כבני ערובה במשך 47 שנים. אריכות הימים של הרפובליקה האסלאמית אינה רק תוצר של כוח זרוע; היא תוצר של חברה שבה המושגים "סמכות" ו"מרד" נשקלים במאזניים תרבותיים שונים לחלוטין.

מדוע השינוי אינו מעבר לפינה?

כדי שאיראן תהפוך ל"אוטופיה מערבית", נדרש יותר מאשר רק חילופי שלטון; נדרשת מהפכה קוגניטיבית יסודית.

מערכות מושרשות: הכוח באיראן אינו פוליטי בלבד; הוא שזור במארג החינוכי, הדתי והחברתי של המדינה.

השבט מול הפרט: דמוקרטיה מערבית נשענת על הפרט כיחידת היסוד של החברה. בחלקים נרחבים מהמזרח התיכון, יחידת היסוד נותרת הקולקטיב הדתי או השבטי.

יציבות לפני חירות: עבור רבים, הכאוס של מדינה כושלת (כפי שניתן לראות בלוב או בעיראק) מפחיד יותר מהצפיות של מדינה דכאנית.

שורה תחתונה: על מה להמר?

כיום, הימורים הם תעשיית ענק. אך אם אתה אדם מהמר — ונתעלם לרגע מהמעמד ההלכתי של ה"פסול לעדות" (בשל עיסוקו בהימורים) — הכסף החכם נמצא על הסטטוס קוו.

הציפייה שאיראן תחולל לפתע תפנית לעבר דמוקרטיה של שוק חופשי וזכויות מלאות היא פנטזיה המוזנת על ידי אגו מערבי. להמר על טרנספורמציה כזו פירושו להתעלם מעשרות שנים של היסטוריה ומהמציאות התרבותית העמוקה שעליה מזהיר אותנו פרופ' קידר. אנשים אינם משילים את תפיסת עולמם הבסיסית בן לילה רק בגלל שהוצעה להם מערכת "טובה" יותר. הם מקובעים במה שהם מכירים, ומה שהם מכירים הוא עולם שבו הכוח, ולא הקלפי, הוא שמכתיב את העתיד.

סיכום:

עד שהמערב יפסיק להסתכל במראה כשהוא מתבונן בטהראן, הוא ימשיך להיות מופתע מהמציאות. איראן עשויה לשנות את פניה, אך שינוי הלב והתודעה שלה הוא משימה של דורות, לא של סבב בחירות.

Seeking Solutions For Violence Against Women

From a UN report: “Violence against women is a global pandemic: Between 15 and 76 per cent of women experience it at some point in their lifetime. Violence against women is deeply rooted in discrimination and inequality between men and women. Ending it requires investments in women’s empowerment and gender equality, particularly in education, reproductive health and rights, and economic and political empowerment.”

The UN’s proposed solution to violence against women relies on a naive premise: that social equality acts as a physical shield. The logic suggests that a man on the verge of a violent act will suddenly restrain himself out of respect for his victim’s socioeconomic status. It is a fantasy to believe that an aggressor will stop and think, "I cannot strike her; she is my political equal."

Furthermore, this ideology ignores the immutable biological realities of the human species. Regardless of social engineering, men will generally remain larger, stronger, and more prone to physical aggression. No amount of "empowerment" changes the physical disparity in a violent encounter. The UN also suggests that education is a deterrent, as if a predator will be intimidated by a woman’s knowledge of Shakespeare or mathematics.

Most paradoxically, the UN advocates for the "right" to reproductive violence—the crushing to death of an innocent, pure, unborn baby—as a means to end violence. To suggest that we can foster a culture of peace by affirming a woman's right to destroy her most defenseless offspring is not just a contradiction; it is a moral inversion. Ultimately, the UN proves itself to be either dangerously out of touch or, more accurately, a source of perverse ideological harm.

The real solution is found in acknowledging the truth of the pasuk, עיר פרא אדם יולד: man is born as a wild donkey. Instead of secular 'empowerment,' we must focus on educating the next generation to control the 'wild donkey' within. This requires a global return to moral foundations: teaching that there is a God and that we all face Din ve-Cheshbon—accountability and divine judgment for our actions.

NOT BY MIGHT……

On the Sabbath after the fall of Paris, May 1940 

1 

IN the Haftorah of the day we read the famous sentence which seems to be the summing up of the message of Judaism to the world and which expresses the only hope of humanity in this hour of trial and suspense. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts”. 

Never have human hearts wished these words to be true more earnestly than they do to-day. On the other hand, never was the human mind more doubtful as to the essential truth of this sentence than it is to-day. 

“Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit” … there is comfort in this, there is hope in this. But is there more, more than mere comfort and, it may be, unfounded hope, cleverly devised only for those who are in need of such comfort and hope because they are without might and without power? Is there truth in this, truth that can be proved by the facts of our life? Is there historic truth in this? 

It is not a little pathetic to observe how obstinately we Jews—a nation that has long forgotten what real might and power are—have always insisted on the tenet of “Not by might”. 

Again and again in our history we have had to suffer the brutality of power. Again and again we have had to experience in our own life how might rules in this world and how dark and dreary a fate is meted out to those who have nothing more to rely upon than spiritual and moral strength. Never has there been a nation on earth with more reason to respect power than the Jews. But in spite of their experiences no nation has ever treated the exhibition of bare force with more contempt than the Jews. Again and again we witnessed the success of force and material might, again and again we proclaimed: “Not by might but by my spirit, saith the Lord”. 

How is such an attitude to be explained? How can it be so obstinately maintained in the face of innumerable facts that seem to stultify it? Do we Jews not know this world? Do we not know human nature? Do we not know life? Have we not witnessed the course of human history long enough? Have we not seen force march from triumph to triumph, trample upon the creations of the spirit, ruthlessly destroy moral standards of living, and break everything that in the name of justice or right or truth stood in its way? Have we not learned yet that the only thing that is able to humiliate force is more force? Do we really walk about the world with our eyes shut to the facts? Or do we perhaps cling so obdurately to this unreasonable belief of ours in the spirit because we are so utterly powerless that there is nothing more left for us but this comfort of the weak, this hope of despair? 

2 

I believe that Judaism knows man fairly well; it also knows history and understands it, and because of this Judaism declares: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit”. 

This is, indeed, our comfort, this our hope. Not the comfort of weakness, nor the hope of despair; but the comfort of fortitude and the hope of strength. 

Hope comes of strength, it is justified, when there is faith behind it. And it is the entire faith of Judaism that is the foundation of our hope for the ultimate victory of the spirit. It is our faith in God that stands behind it. Faith in God involves faith in life, it means faith in the ultimate value of life, in a moral purpose slowly but surely realising itself in life. Faith tells us that this world has been created by Him not for the purpose of being destroyed by the devil. Faith in God declares that the world can never be delivered up to the ravaging powers of darkness and destruction. 

Our faith in God, our trust in reason, our confidence in life, our unshakable belief in a moral purpose of history, all this has been summed up in the courageous words: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord”. For us who are Jews, this is the very essence of life. If these words do not hold true, life itself is nothing but a horrible nightmare. If the spirit will not conquer, life itself must perish. If justice is to succumb, mankind will be wiped out. If truth is not to be victorious, the whole of the Universe must disintegrate, fall to pieces, and vanish in the void. 

Our faith in the ultimate victory of the spirit is unshakable. It is as strong as life is, and it will last as long as life will last on earth. 

3 

But what about the facts of life? Do they not prove that we are mistaken in our faith? Does not life show that it is always the fittest that survive, the mightiest and most powerful? To this we Jews have lived the answer: No. 

Our own life, our own history gives evidence to the contrary. It is true, often we saw brutal force triumphant, but just as often we saw it humiliated, wallowing in the dust, trodden even by the feet of the weakest. Again and again we witnessed the success of barbarous might, but in many more cases we watched its destruction and annihilation. 

We Jews are the witnesses of human history. There is one thing that we have never experienced: the ultimate triumph of barbarism. Among all the western nations we are the one with the longest memory. We have known almost all the tyrannies of the world, we felt their whip on our own bodies, and to-day we can give evidence that there was not one among them that we have not seen totter and tumble, fall and crash. 

Our very existence, the fact that we are here to-day, able to witness the gigantic bid now being made by brutal force for domination over the spirit and everything that the spirit stands for, the very fact that the Jews are still able to feel the lash of the tyrant’s whip, is for itself proof enough that, at the end, it is not the tyrannies that survive, not barbarous strength that conquers. 

Napoleon said once—and he should have known if anyone—that there were two principles in the world wrestling with each other for mastery, the principle of the sword and the principle of the spirit, and that ultimately the spirit is always victorious. 

It is our deepest conviction that the eternal words of the prophet: “Not by might, nor by power” not only express hope and comfort but also state a fact, explain history and proclaim a truth which has always prevailed and will always prevail. 

4 

Of course, this does not justify complacency; it does not mean that we have nothing else to do but to sit back in our easy-chairs, waiting for the ultimate victory of the spirit. 

Whenever a generation facing a violent struggle between force and spirit trembles in fear lest the spirit might lose the battle, one thing is certain: that this generation has sinned against the spirit. And before the spirit can conquer, the sins must be expiated, the wrongs redressed. 

The sin against the spirit committed by our generation becomes clear when we compare ourselves with our opponents in the present struggle. On their side, the side of brute force, the struggle is carried on with a methodical ruthlessness the like of which the world has never seen. There is one thing of which the adversaries of the spirit know nothing to-day: compromise. They could have avoided this struggle, they could have achieved great advantages for themselves by negotiation and compromise. But, “No compromise” has been the watchword of the forces of darkness. And it is precisely compromise which has been the sin of our generation. 

Had we been as faithful to the spirit as barbarism has been faithful to its own intentions, the catastrophe would never have occurred. Had the democratic world been as sincere, as uncompromising, as thoroughgoing in what it tried to achieve as the world of darkness was in the pursuance of its own detestable aims, the tragedy would have been avoided. 

But, no. They were thoroughgoing and uncompromising; we were not. We adopted the cause of the spirit as our own, but we were not faithful to it. We professed high and lofty ideals, but we were not prepared to make the sacrifices demanded by them. 

We said: Justice! but did not care very much when injustice struck the neighbour down. We shouted: Freedom! and had only pity for those who had been robbed of their share in it. We acknowledged Truth, but were always prepared to accept the fait accompli created by falsehood, treachery, and the perversion of truth. 

There was much selfishness in all of us, and out of selfishness we were always prepared to compromise. This was the great sin of our generation against the spirit. To be sure, barbarism will not prevail; but the spirit can be victorious only through the sacrifices of a faithful and uncompromising generation. This is the only hope for the future. Faithfulness and no compromise. When this terrible conflict is over, there will be more faithfulness, more justice, more truth in the world. It may be that then we shall understand better why all this hardship and suffering and destruction was necessary to bring about that better world for which all mankind is longing. 

There is a saying in the Midrash explaining the deeper significance of the commandment of the M’norah, of which we read in the week’s portion of the Law. 

The question is: Why was it necessary to light a M’norah in the sanctuary? Is the Almighty, who is nothing but light, in want of the light we mortals are able to prepare for him? And the answer is: 

Rabbi Chanina said: The Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to man: That eye of yours, there is white and black in it, and you see with the dark part of your eye and not with the bright one. So am I, the Lord, nothing but light, and that is why I need the light which comes from you, the light that is perceived in the midst of darkness. Because there is no darkness with me, I need your help, for I need that light that breaks forth out of the darkness. 

This is the task of man: to create light out of darkness, order out of chaos, life and happiness out of destruction. 

Darkness there must be, that light may be created. 

Chaos there must be, that order may grow. 

And all this God has put into our own hands; all this depends on us. For all this God Himself is waiting that it may be performed by us; for light out of darkness, for new life and new happiness out of death and destruction; for that great day when it shall become manifest all over the world that it is not by might, nor by power, but by the spirit of God that human happiness can be maintained.

TOMORROW WILL COME

Pesach, April, 1941 

1 

THE other day I read a report in a newspaper of a meeting that took place in London. It stated that over the platform flew a banner bearing this inscription: “To-morrow will come, and we shall make to-morrow”. 

This meeting was not a Jewish one, but the banner bore the Jewish motto. Since the destruction of the Jewish State in the year 70 Jews have been marching to the rhythm of a hope that pointed to the future. We have no To-day; To-day is usually not worth living. We have only Yesterday and we live for To-morrow. We are great masters in the art of going on toiling and drudging in spite of and forgetting the wretchedness of To-day. We have survived utterly unbearable living conditions because we have always known that To-morrow would come, that we shall be there when To-morrow comes, and that we shall make To-morrow. 

All our prophets spoke of To-morrow, of the “Great Day” that will come, that is bound to come because there is a God in the world, because there must be a meaning in life. 

In the Haftarah of Shabbat Haggadol, which heralds the festival of Freedom and Redemption, we read the words: “For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the guilty and all that work wickedness shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch”. 

For this day we Jews have been waiting all the dark years of our life in Exile, the day of the ultimate annihilation of wickedness, for which together with us the whole world is hoping at this moment. But do we realize as we should what our responsibilities are in respect of this day? Do we understand how to prepare ourselves for To-morrow, how to prepare ourselves for making To-morrow, when Tomorrow will be here? These are questions not for politicians only or for War Cabinets, but for everyone of us. And on the reply that every one of us will give to them depends the future happiness of our people as well as that of the whole of mankind. 

2 

There are two things that Jewish tradition teaches us regarding To-morrow. The prophet calls it: “the great and terrible day of the Lord”. Secondly, we are told that God will send us “the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day”. Two questions arise from these statements. First, why is it to be a terrible day? A great day, yes. A glorious day, yes. For wickedness will be destroyed and justice will triumph. But, why a terrible day? Why not a day of joy and happiness? And then, why is it Elijah who will be sent to herald this great and terrible day? 

To the first question we may give the answer that it will be terrible because To-morrow must not be the day of triumph for one nation over another, terrible for one and happy for the other; nor must To-morrow be a day of political and military victories alone; but a day of triumph for justice over injustice, for decency over brutality, for truth over lies. It will be terrible because wickedness will be so completely exterminated that, as the prophet put it, “neither root nor branch will remain of it”. Now, where are the branches and roots of wickedness? 

Let us not deceive ourselves. Let us not point to this or that country alone. The roots and branches of wickedness are very widely spread all over the world. They are here, there, and everywhere. In our day, Evil has become a world-power in the shape of Nazidom and Fascism. But it could become such a force in Germany and Italy only because it was mighty and powerful in all countries. When the forces of evil cautiously started to build up their power in Italy and Germany, they found, probably to their own surprise, that they had powerful allies all over the world. Their allies were the “roots and branches” of evil spread among all the nations. Instead of indignation, instead of the wrath of the civilized world, they met with encouragement, understanding, and sympathy, or, at the very least, with timid toleration. 

There was one sin of which the whole world became guilty in the last couple of decades: the toleration of evil. In diplomatic language it was called Neutrality. But are we allowed to be neutral towards wrong-doing, brutality, persecution and the suppression of justice, truth and freedom? 

The world was neutral, the nations were “tolerant” and did not want to realize that the toleration of evil is in itself doing evil. By tolerating evil we all lent a hand in making it the terrible power of destruction which we see it to be in these days. By tolerating evil the whole world has become accessory to the crimes which have been committed by the power of evil. 

Some years ago a famous American author wrote a novel in which he pictured a supposed successful Fascist revolution in the U.S.A. By the very title, “It Can’t Happen Here”, he satirized those people who thought to parry such an event by the constant repetition of this and similar phrases. People do not realize that, after all, there is but one human race and we are all made of the same stuff. It is not the case that one part of mankind consists of mere devils and the other of pure angels. Fundamentally, all men are alike. If wickedness is strong somewhere in the world, it only proves that it is strong in us human beings. And what happens in any one country can only happen there because it may happen everywhere. Only because it is a latent possibility everywhere can it be turned into triumphant actuality somewhere. 

We are accustomed to accuse the totalitarian States of having no respect for the sanctity of the pledged word or promise. But do we ourselves always honor our promises? Have we never broken our word? We call them brutal—and brutal they are—but is there no brutality in our own life? 

We call the dictators, robbers and exploiters, and rightly so. But, is there no robbery and exploitation in the rest of the world? 

They are unjust; are we always just? They know nothing of decency, but do we always act as decency would require? They are liars, it is true, but are we prepared to bring any sacrifice that may be asked in the interest of the truth? 

Let no one assert that there is a fundamental difference between these two sets of shortcomings. There may be a difference of degree, but essentially they are linked together, and only together do they represent the whole picture. Because evil has been strong in us it was able to become a world power in others. Had there been more justice exercised in our small individual worlds, we should have had more justice in national affairs. Had there been more love in each of the nations, we should have had more kindness and understanding between the nations. Had we been more truthful, truth would be mightier. Had we been more just, justice would be stronger. 

We have all become guilty, every one of us has his own personal share in the terrible crimes of our generation. Humanism died out because it died out in us. Civilization collapsed because it collapsed in us. Man has failed, and we all are responsible. Evil has triumphed, because it has its roots and branches everywhere. Yet, To-morrow will still come. In fact, it is already on its way. To-morrow has already started. For To-morrow is not only a great day, it is also a terrible day, for To-morrow will bring the extermination of evil. Unfortunately, there is to be extermination everywhere; the roots and branches of evil are widely spread all over the world. 

There exists a common guilt in all mankind, and we all have to expiate it. 

3 

To-morrow will come and, because of our sins, it is to be a great and terrible day. But, why will it be heralded in by the prophet Elijah? 

The explanation is comparatively simple. 

One of the most dramatic episodes in the life of Elijah was his throwing down of the challenge to the King and the people in the words: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord be God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him”. Strange words were these. If Baal be the truth, go and follow him. They did something that was even worse than the straightforward and clear acceptance of idolatry; they wavered between two opinions, between two worlds, God and Baal. The nation tried to serve both, God and Baal. It aimed at a compromise between God and Baal. And this, the compromise between the service of God and the service of Baal, is worse than the clear acceptance of Baal, for it is the distortion of the truth that is in God. Compromise between truth and a lie is worse and much more dangerous than a clear-cut lie, for it involves the misuse of the truth in the service of the lie. A mixture of light and darkness is worse than unmixed darkness, for it is the darkening of light. There must be no compromise between God and Baal; rather than compromise, serve Baal wholeheartedly. 

We have said that there is a common guilt in the world because the whole of mankind had—to say the least—tolerated the growth of evil and by toleration helped it to become powerful. It is well to realize that this blind toleration was only possible because, like Israel at the time of Elijah, the world was halting between two opinions, because we were wavering between the service of the truth and that of falsehood. We thought of compromise between justice and its violence, between the forces of freedom and the forces of slavery, without realizing that there are certain moral purposes in the life of man which do not admit of any compromise. 

Whatever good we have tried to do we have done half-heartedly. We had democracy, but democracy had no faith in its own destiny. We had a League of Nations, but one that was startled by its own boldness. We wished for peace, but did next to nothing to secure it. 

And if we think of our own Jewish affairs, it cannot be doubted that all our Jewishness bore the stamp of half-heartedness. Whether the issues were national, communal or religious; whether Palestine or the Community or Jewish Education was at stake—we have bungled everything, all our efforts have been covered with the pale cast of unhealthy compromise. 

It is an old Jewish custom to open the doors of our houses on the “Seder” nights to welcome the prophet Elijah. By this custom we wish to indicate that we are still waiting for To-morrow, waiting for Elijah to announce that To-morrow has come. I feel, however, that Elijah’s reply would be: Well, brother, To-morrow will come. But are you still wavering between two worlds, are you still trying to serve God and Baal? If so what is the good of To-morrow, what use are you going to make of To-morrow? 

To-morrow will come. But, are we prepared for Tomorrow, are we ready to make To-morrow? 

To-morrow will come if the common guilt of the past is succeeded by the common responsibility of the future. To-morrow will come if half-heartedness and compromise make way for faithful and unconditional service of God. 

To-morrow comes only to those who are able and prepared to make To-morrow. 

שלשה מעגלים של ביעור חמץ ותיקון העולם

ביעור החמץ, המסמל את הביעור של כל מיני הכיעורים הנפשיים, מן הכלל ומן הפרט. יש בו צד פרטי, מיוחד לאדם עצמו, וצד כללי, ההולם את הכלל, מצד אותו החיוב של הערבות המיוחדה לישראל, ומעורבה ג"כ בכל העולם כולו, מפני הפעולה הישראלית, הראויה להיות מקפת את כל האנושיות. ולעומתם נמצא חובת ביעור חמץ שלו, וחובת ביעור החמץ, שקבל עליו אחריות, בין של ישראל בין של נכרים.

1. חמץ כמטאפורה לרוע ולאגו (הכיעורים הנפשיים):

במסורת היהודית (ובפרט בתורת הסוד והחסידות), החמץ התופח מסמל את הגאווה, האגו, היצר הרע והמידות הרעות. לכן, "ביעור חמץ" אינו רק פעולה פיזית של ניקיון הבית מלחם, אלא תהליך רוחני של ניקוי הנפש מכל הפגמים, הרגלים רעים ו"כיעורים נפשיים".

2. שלושה מעגלים של אחריות ותיקון:

הרב זצ"ל מחלק את העבודה הרוחנית הזו לשלושה מעגלים, ומקביל אותם במדויק להלכות ביעור חמץ הנוגעות לבעלות ואחריות על החמץ:

המעגל הפרטי ("חובת ביעור חמץ שלו"):

האדם נדרש קודם כל לתקן את עצמו. לבדוק את "החמץ" הפרטי שלו, את המידות הרעות והמחשבות השליליות שמצויות בתוכו, ולבער אותן.

המעגל הלאומי ("ערבות מיוחדה לישראל" / "חמץ של ישראל שקיבל עליו אחריות"):

ביהדות קיים הכלל "כל ישראל ערבים זה בזה". האדם אינו חי בבועה. יש לו אחריות גם על מצבה הרוחני והמוסרי של החברה הישראלית כולה. בהלכה, אדם חייב לבער גם חמץ של יהודי אחר אם הוא קיבל עליו אחריות (כגון שומר). במישור הרוחני, זה מסמל את האחריות שלנו לעזור ולתקן את הפגמים בחברה שאנו חיים בה.

המעגל האוניברסלי ("מקפת את כל האנושיות" / "חמץ של נוכרים שקיבל עליו אחריות"):

כאן מתבטאת תפיסת העולם הרחבה של הרב זצ"ל. ייעודו של עם ישראל אינו מסתכם רק בעצמו, אלא בתיקון העולם כולו. "הפעולה הישראלית" צריכה להשפיע לטובה על כלל האנושות. בהלכה, אם יהודי לקח אחריות על חמץ של גוי (למשל, קיבל אותו כפיקדון עם אחריות כלכלית), הוא חייב לבער גם אותו. במישור הרוחני, זה מסמל את האחריות המוסרית של עם ישראל כלפי אומות העולם – לבער את הרוע והשחיתות מהעולם כולו ולהביא אור ומוסר לאנושות.

לסיכום:

הרב זצ"ל מראה כיצד פעולת ביעור החמץ לפני חג הפסח היא למעשה קריאת כיוון לתיקון עולם בשלושה שלבים: תיקון האני הפרטי, תיקון החברה והאומה, ותיקון האנושות כולה. ההלכות המדוקדקות של פקדונות ובעלויות על חמץ משקפות, לפי ראייה זו, את רשת האחריות המוסרית שאדם נושא על כתפיו בעולם.

Complete Victory

Substack

“When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right.”

-Jeff Bezos

"You know, Iraqis don’t really seem good at fighting, but then they never really completely surrender either.”

.........

One can see this blindness expressed clearly in Israeli hasbara, propaganda directed at the outside world. Looking at this material, you can see that it is directed at a moral, reasonable and rational audience which simply does not exist. Messages such as “our enemies are cruel,” “they’re shooting missiles at us indiscriminately,” “we are reasonable and restrained,” “we are targeting our enemies’ leadership, not their civilians,” “we’re the good guys here” are inherently insane. The people who are receptive to these messages simply do not need them. The rest perceive them as cynical lying or an admission of weakness to be exploited.

Our actions reveal this same obtuseness. Killing our enemies’ leaders doesn’t work-they have an endless supply of biomass with which to replace them. Wrecking their infrastructure doesn’t work-they wreck it themselves on a daily basis. As long as there are a few hours of electricity every day and water to drink, we can’t offer a meaningful degradation to their quality of life.

A great illustration for this is Hezbollah. After the pager operation and its walkie-talkie follow-up killed and crippled thousands of its operatives, after Israel invaded South Lebanon and caused its Shia population to flee last year, the IDF withdrew from most of the terrain it had captured, allowing the Shia to return. It now holds only tens of square kilometers along the border as buffer zones and occasionally kills a Hezbollah operative or two. The result is that with the opening of the war with Iran, Hezbollah has once again began firing rockets into Israel. For now, the volume of rocket fire is low, but given a few years, Hezbollah will rebuild its stockpiles and we’ll be more or less back where we started.

Therefore, all our enemies have to do to win is not to lose all the way. A defeat one doesn’t perceive as such is not a defeat. Even if we kill tens of thousands of them while losing a handful of our own soldiers, their mentality is such that they do not feel any empathy for each other, and thus no sorrow for their own losses, but only joy at ours. The second that there is a ceasefire, they reframe it as a tremendous victory, and begin to rebuild and rearm for the next war, aided by our intellectual elites, who will reframe their own traitorous behavior as the reasonable thing to do in the pursuit of a lasting peace. We can win the next round, and the one after that, and the one after that, but eventually we will drop the ball.

In the event that we do recover from our social insanity and begin to perceive our enemies as they are, we should rethink our entire approach. To demoralize our dumb enemies and get them to abandon the hope of victory driving their attacks, we need to stop defeating ourselves by overintellectualizing. We need to model our enemies accurately, as the idiots they are, and tailor our actions to create the desired impression on them based on their actual capacities, not based on how we ourselves would react in their place.

The main change we need to make is to abandon the concept of temporary advances. These do not make any real moral impact. What does: conquering land and keeping it permanently, settling it with Jews, using it as a foundation for controlling surrounding areas. This is why the rate of terror attacks on the roads of Judea and Samaria has collapsed with the explosion of hilltops in the last two years; small groups of Jewish civilians living in tents and shacks easily achieved what tens of thousands of IDF soldiers in watchtowers and guard compounds failed to do over decades. When I ask the Hilltop Youth why the Arabs have stopped attacking traffic, they tell me that it’s for two reasons: “first, they’ve lost hope. Second, when you cause problems for somebody, they don’t cause problems for you.”

Specifically with regards to Iran, the idea that the Iranian people are wonderful, put-upon heroes, oppressed by a foreign body of mullahs and IRGC terrorists strikes me as self-defeating baloney. If the Iranian people were as dedicated to the overthrow of the current regime as they had been to the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranian army would long ago have joined forces with the Iranian protesters to take power, and we wouldn’t have had to go to war. I assume that the regime has many supporters, and that without American boots on the ground or a serious Israel/US-managed insurgency, it will sign some sort of ceasefire, reimagine the war as a heroic victory spoiled by a stab in the back (“the Zionists were on their last breath!”) and gradually begin to rebuild and rearm. If so, our goal in the remaining portion of the war should be to weaken the regime long-term, destroying its revenue-producing infrastructure and demoralizing it with spectacular and humiliating decapitation strikes which will be difficult to explain away.

An auxiliary, supporting goal is to rework the concept of hasbara. The very word, which means “explaining”, or apologetics, is a misnomer. We do not want to explain or justify our actions to our enemies, to explain to the world that the war will end when they love their own children more than they hate ours. Decades of this cringe have borne no fruit. Millenia of it could bear no fruit. We want to explain to our enemies that we are nuts, unpredictable, that demoralizing us is a hopeless task, that we enjoy all of this and think it’s funny. If there’s one talent the Zoomers have, it’s making memes. We should leverage this ability and use it to the fullest against our enemies.

People Just Love Their Dogs

Every woman who says she doesn't want children ends up with a $3000 dog that sleeps in her bed and has its own Instagram.

The maternal instinct doesn't disappear, it just gets redirected toward increasingly depressing substitutes.

Better to admit you want a baby than pretend your goldendoodle fills that void.

---

This thought [expressed by a woman] on social media garnered some approval but also a great deal of anger and vituperative comments.