An Ode to the Almost Impossible and a Vision of Victory

 

“Without a vision, the nation will perish.” (Proverbs 29:18)

On a quiet Shabbat evening in 2002, Dror (a Hebrew word for freedom) Weinberg, aged 38, was enjoying the company of his wife, who was pregnant, and their five children in Kiryat Moshe, a Jerusalem neighborhood known for its understated piety. Suddenly Weinberg got an emergency call. Worshipers leaving Shabbat prayers in Hebron had been attacked by terrorists. As the colonel in charge of the Hebron brigade, Weinberg quickly donned his uniform, grabbed his assault rifle, and sped to the scene of the attack. As an observant Jew, Weinberg would not normally drive on Shabbat, but when it is a matter of saving lives, you are obligated to breach Shabbat (Sabbath) law.

Weinberg led the assault on the terrorists and, tragically, was killed. His eulogy included this tribute: “He always strove to be the leader, and not dragged along; he was an initiator. His style of command was an almost impossible combination of strictness and rigidity together with humanity and empathy, and he always looked forward to victory.”

Weinberg had “an almost impossible style of command” that, no doubt, had everything to do with his indomitable vision of victory. Yet embracing the “almost impossible” is what makes Israelis tick. Israel’s very existence, considering the 500 million hostile neighbors who would like to extinguish it, is an ode to the “almost impossible.”

Dror Weinberg’s son, Yoav (whose namesake was the commander of King David’s army), was fifteen at the time of his father’s death. Ten years later, he had assumed command of an elite and secretive unit that his father had led early in his own career. Yoav possesses the same leadership qualities of his father and is acknowledged as someone who will go far in the IDF.

Today, the Weinberg style — and the vision of victory that goes along with it — is increasingly found among those living in the Land of Israel and soon, let us pray, will spread to the four corners of the earth as well.

And any nation with such a vision of victory, predicated on ideals of the “almost impossible,” will not perish.

* * *

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
“A shining city upon a hill.”
“A thousand points of light.”
“No child left behind.”
“The forgotten will be forgotten no more.”

Here is the famous “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” (at 2:00) speech of Churchill and his vision of victory (at 2:50).

If you have a vision for your nation, you are invited to share it here.

There are 10 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    Amein v’amein.

    • #1
  2. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Vision must be supported by (a crafted) narrative:

    This was not a “Sabbath Massacre” of civilians, as the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed on Friday. None of the dead were worshippers. Most would have returned to Qiryat Arba before the attack took place, which would explain why only soldiers and those helping them were killed.

    Still a man killed, leaving behind a young family.  Still.

    • #2
  3. Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu Member
    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu
    @YehoshuaBenEliyahu

     

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Vision must be supported by (a crafted) narrative:

    This was not a “Sabbath Massacre” of civilians, as the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed on Friday. None of the dead were worshippers. Most would have returned to Qiryat Arba before the attack took place, which would explain why only soldiers and those helping them were killed.

    Still a man killed, leaving behind a young family. Still.

    Here’s the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs report.  The incident was not called a massacre in this report but 12 Israelis, including 9 soldiers and 3 civilians from an emergency response team, were killed.  Also, nothing in this report claims that worshipers died.  I would caution against quoting from The Independent, a virulently anti-Israel scandal sheet.

     

    • #3
  4. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Was it an attack on soldiers or on civilian worshippers? I think there’s a meaningful difference, even in Hebron.

    An attack is an attack is an attack – it’s just the packaging of this seems so…inaccurate?

    (The Independent is a Scandal Sheet?  Shocking!!)

    • #4
  5. Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu Member
    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu
    @YehoshuaBenEliyahu

    Zafar (View Comment):
    (The Independent is a Scandal Sheet? Shocking!!)

    Their Middle East expert is Robert Fisk, a rabid anti-Zionist.  As such, I question anything that newspaper writes about Israel.  Here’s a sample of Fisk’s misrepresentation of facts.

    • #5
  6. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    (The Independent is a Scandal Sheet? Shocking!!)

    Their Middle East expert is Robert Fisk, a rabid anti-Zionist. As such, I question anything that newspaper writes about Israel. Here’s a sample of Fisk’s misrepresentation of facts.

    Yehoshua, are you unfamiliar with Zafar?  The Independent is a step up, or at least pretty typical.  Usually he links al Jazeera and the like. 

    • #6
  7. Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu Member
    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu
    @YehoshuaBenEliyahu

    Caryn (View Comment):
    Yehoshua, are you unfamiliar with Zafar? The Independent is a step up, or at least pretty typical. Usually he links al Jazeera and the like. 

    Thanks for the heads up, Caryn.  I was wondering what he was doing here.  Now I know.

    • #7
  8. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    (The Independent is a Scandal Sheet? Shocking!!)

    Their Middle East expert is Robert Fisk, a rabid anti-Zionist. As such, I question anything that newspaper writes about Israel. Here’s a sample of Fisk’s misrepresentation of facts.

    Meh – it’s a disagreement with his opinion, no argument about why it’s wrong.  Which seems  to be quite typical of “Fisking” (whoever does it), which is a pity.  If something was self-evident it wouldn’t be disagreed with, would it?

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    Caryn (View Comment):
    Yehoshua, are you unfamiliar with Zafar? The Independent is a step up, or at least pretty typical. Usually he links al Jazeera and the like.

    Thanks for the heads up, Caryn. I was wondering what he was doing here. Now I know.

    I’m usually here to understand different (even very different) points of view (like yours, perhaps), to disagree with assumptions I find invalid, to put forward my own points of view.

    (And, of course, to provide links to Aljazeera and The Independent as I see fit.)

    Why else would anybody be here?

    • #8
  9. Mole-eye Member
    Mole-eye
    @Moleeye

    @Caryn and @Yehoshuaben-eliahu, I didn’t enjoy reading your comments about Zafar.  You can pm one another if you must engage in digs about another member.  Arguing with another’s opinion or the accuracy of another’s source of information on the main forum is fair game, but questioning another’s reasons for participating at all shouldn’t be, imo.  Everyone brings something different to this picnic, which is part of what makes it so much fun.

    Fwiw, I was confused by YBH’s original post, too, about the details of the conflict in which Col. Weinstein was slain, and appreciated Zafar’s contribution to the discussion, even though I still don’t have a clear enough picture of the circumstances to satisfy my curiosity.  No matter, I can go elsewhere for that info.

    The immense variety of views and life experiences here makes Ricochet a rich and fascinating place, a living museum of the mind.  We all add to that.

    • #9
  10. Mole-eye Member
    Mole-eye
    @Moleeye

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    (The Independent is a Scandal Sheet? Shocking!!)

    Their Middle East expert is Robert Fisk, a rabid anti-Zionist. As such, I question anything that newspaper writes about Israel. Here’s a sample of Fisk’s misrepresentation of facts.

    Meh – it’s a disagreement with his opinion, no argument about why it’s wrong. Which seems to be quite typical of “Fisking” (whoever does it), which is a pity. If something was self-evident it wouldn’t be disagreed with, would it?

    Yehoshua Ben-Eliyahu (View Comment):

    Caryn (View Comment):
    Yehoshua, are you unfamiliar with Zafar? The Independent is a step up, or at least pretty typical. Usually he links al Jazeera and the like.

    Thanks for the heads up, Caryn. I was wondering what he was doing here. Now I know.

    I’m usually here to understand different (even very different) points of view (like yours, perhaps), to disagree with assumptions I find invalid, to put forward my own points of view.

    (And, of course, to provide links to Aljazeera and The Independent as I see fit.)

    Why else would anybody be here?

    Nice parry and riposte, Z!

    • #10

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.