The Israeli Settlers

Some areas are questionable. The Promised Land extends to the Euphrates and as far north as southern Turkey. However, no one considers them part of EY for settlement today. While some areas are definitely EY there is some connection to Jewish sovereignty. David considered himself to have made yerida when he went to Gat and the first Mishna in Gittin says that Acco was then considered the border.

If the Israeli settlers are truly interested in settling in all parts of Eretz Yisroel, even if risking Jewish lives by doing so, why don’t they as well settle in Southern Lebanon — which is as much a part of Eretz Yisroel as Judea and Samaria?

I don’t understand. You say “if they are truly interested…” as if you think there is really a different motivation, which explains why not southern lebanon.

Well, let’s hear the other explanation.

I think that both for the purpose of a more accurate translation, as well as for P.R. purposes, the term ‘settlers’ should be replaced.

It is being used as a translation for the Hebrew ???????.

The word ??????? would be better translated as ‘inheritors’.

Aside from the fact that the word ‘settlers’ has taken on (though not true) the negative connotation of people settling on OTHER people’s land, the term ??????? or inheritors, gives the message that the people live there by right of legitimate inheritance.

If the Israeli settlers are truly interested in settling in all parts of Eretz Yisroel

If American Jews are truly interested in the mitzvah of pidyon shevuyim, why don’t they take up arms against the American government and storm the prisons where Jewish prisoners are kept?

The Wolf

In 1982, the Zionist rabbi Tzefaniah Drori paskened exactly so, Southern Lebanon is EY and appropriate for Jews to settle in. It never got started because everyone knew the army wouldn’t allow it.