Dear Avira,
I don’t care what you or anyone think they should believe about Zionism or anything else. Personal business. And this is not a personal conversation. This is an historical discussion.
Rav Kook was not a philosopher. He was not systemic thinker. You posted about ion and philosophy in the past. This is how I knew you had no clue about him. His outlook is in the form of describing historical events. Not explaining the directives. Something like Carlebach teaching through stories. All the nationalistic essays of George Orwell would be incomprehensible to him. He was writing about the nationalistic fever that he was witnessing. I have no idea how you could confuse this. Unless you have no background in philosophy.
He was not the father of anything. He was more detached than Herzl. Almost no following. Wandered around between cities and continents.
“One who…” I meant those who try to understand the depth of his messaging are not Zionistic about the State. Their realistic.
If you need a direct quote, Your messing up your argument. Rav Reinnes is a great example of Torah talking absolute precedence over Zionism. And if was actually part of the Mizrachi Movement. Unlike Rav Kook.
“Beautiful…” Thanks! It would be great to write another hesped on a less controversial gadol.
I wasn’t trying to negate your critique, as much as I was trying to demonstrate that the controversy was about supporting the irreligious. Not what the approach of the Torah True should be to their own tasks. Nobody then was telling boys to leave yeshiva and in work for the betterment of secular society. Unlike today. By the frummest of the frum also.
Rav Shachter was discussing the halachic allowance of the State to fight wars, even though Jews will die. Maybe I have the wrong quote.
Melamed is discussing an issue of statehood. How should they accept the non religious as citizens? You could say they shouldn’t. But then there will be more assimilation in the diaspora.