- This topic has 75 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Thank you, Joseph. I appreciate that.
The answer to op is quite simple: unlike everyone else who remains beholden to politics, Chabad (in this arena) strove for emes. They recognized that the zionists were wicked people and so they were anti. they also realized that after the creation of the state, zionism ended and was replaced by a sovereign, democratic, Jewish state that will be what WE make it and decided to work hard to make it a place of Torah and Emes. BH, they were widely successful while the pro and anti Zionist remained stuck in the past.
Jdf, nobody said it’s assur to live in Israel. I don’t know where you got that idea. The controversy is about establishing statehood.
Joseph: Litvaks take money from the state; that’s a pretty huge difference. Unless you’re only referring to the ones associated with Eidah Chareidis.
Re: catcalls, alter ego, Hakatan, welcome back. .etc
Rebbetzin Golden:
This is too funny.. You’ve stolen all the thunder with or w/o Puppick, posters wondering who you are etc… arguing, agreeing, hocking, throwing chairs….
So poor Joseph ventriloquist is trying to stay relevant , inviting back his Charlie McCarthys all saying identical things.. Welcome, Miriam.. 🤣😃besalel:
Zionism ended with the State? From where did you draw that conclusion? Certainly not from the Zionists who might know better about Zionism?But if you would know what Zionism is, then you would know just as well as any Zionist that, unfortunately, Zionism has most definitely NOT ended with the creation of the State.
You would also know that the larger issues with Zionism revolve not so much on its proponents and founders but, much more so, on the idolatry, heresy and identity theft of Judaism that is, liHavdil, Zionism.
Sorry, meant to say brachos but it was changed to beach. Hides as in animal hides
The Chasam Sofer explains the argument between Amram and Miriam was that Amram divorced his wife to bring the geulah as all neshomos will be used up in the guf. Miriam argued that this works only if everyone follows your lead, otherwise the tzadikim will refrain fron having children and all births will be rashoim. The same argument was whether to join the Kneses. If the religiious don’t join, they will do whar they want without objections.
Comedy: The debate on how Chabad holds about Zionism. 25 voices, 45 replies. LOL
Why is it so funny?
Because many threads have these people and their buddies calling Chabad “kofrim”, going against the 13 ikrim, not keeping halacha (sleep in sukkah, eat cake before davening), comparing Chabad to MO or even Notzrim…yet, these people must know the shitah of Chabad about Zionism. Why would it matter what a “kofer” thinks about Zionism????
Would it matter one way or the other what Reform holds about Zionism? (“Who would care to discuss: Are they pro or anti and why the change”)?
On the one hand, many consider Chabad as not part of Klal Yisroel, assume that is a position that a frum yid is allowed to have because he has a hetter for sinas yisroel, yet, he needs to know their shitah and get into a pilpul about their shitah!
Is that not totally comical?! LOL
Were you trying to make a point?
Ziongate: what makes you so sure RGP isn’t actually Joseph?
“Why would it matter what a “kofer” thinks about Zionism????”
Did the inquisitive OP ever express the belief that Chabadniks are kofrim? Have any of us who did argue against Chabad in other threads actually expressed any interest in Chabad’s shittah here? Like I said, I know Chabad’s shittah on Zionism. It’s the same as the Litvish (just like havarah). The majority of this thread turned into Zionists vs Anti-Zionists, Satmar/Friends-of-Satmar vs. Anti-Satmars, etc.“The same argument was whether to join the Kneses. If the religiious don’t join, they will do whar they want without objections.”
That’s a fine logical/political argument, but it’s not a halachic one. If it’s assur to serve in the government, then it’s assur. Doesn’t matter what the chilonim will do without you being there.“we must not squander this gift”, which is a Religious Zionist/Nationalist view”
Rov Soloveitchik z’tz’l was one of the gedolim and supported Land for Peace, but he was also the official world leader of Religious Zionism.
“what makes you so sure RGP isn’t actually Joseph?”
Maybe Mrs Joseph!
And RGP’s husband’s name is Shaul,
Could Joseph’s name be Shau?
Their last name: Golden, or
Goldenberg.
or
Goldenbergerer,..
or
maybe Miriam..Goldstein…Nev, what I mentioned before the logic from Amram and Miriam is not mine but the Aim Habonim Samecha Shaar 3,12. about the building of EY used by the talmidim of the Maharam Shik.
“the zionists were wicked people and so they were anti”
Uh, the Rebbe had a great relationship with Rov Soloveitchik z’tz’l who wasn’t just a Zionist but the leading Religious Zionist in the world.
“the Zionist movement was founded and led by people who hate the Torah”
There were religious people who loved Torah and Mitzvot from the very beginning of modern Zionism.
Hakatan:
Zionism was a 1800s European movement whose dedicated mission was to create a state for its followers. Once the state of Israel was created, the Zionist mission, by definition ended. What the Zionists created was a Jewish, democratic state called Israel which the Zionists tried to control (and still try to control) but whose fate ultimately lies in the citizens.
When certain citizens of the state, i.e., non-European Jews and other non-Zionist Jews – use both the democratic process and extra-governmental public programs (Yeshivas, Kiruv) to move the state and its citizens towards a Torah life they lessen the influence of Zionists and their unstated goal to create a new, non-religious Judaism. There is no reason (other than this concept that we are not permitted to anger non-Jews – a laughably silly concept, in my view) why anti-Zionists cannot emulate the non-Zionists in this regard and Chabad so chooses.
charliehall: it is very naive to deny that the movement, as a whole, was rooted in anti-religion sentiment. They may have had religious people as decorations but the Zionists believed that the religious voice will be quashed and eliminated – something that never happened. If you need further evidence of this I suggest you read Shimon Peres’ autobiography. He makes it pretty clear.
Saying Zionism ended with the creation of the state is like saying feminism ended with women’s suffrage.
When these movements get what they ask for, they don’t go away. They just become empowered and turn into monsters.
besalel:
From where do you get that alleged definition of Zionism? It is simply not true and is also so simplistic that it couldn’t possibly be true. What would drive anyone to make a state only to immediately abdicate? Why would the Zionists insist on forced conscription of women, when that puts them on par with North Korea? Etc.Zionism was a Nationalist movement of the 1800s that sought to redefine Judaism and the Jewish nation from being one based on the Torah, to a nation based on a land. None of that has changed, unfortunately.
As Rav Chaim Brisker noted (way before the State was founded), people think that the Zionists shmad the Jews in order to achieve a State. In reality, it is the opposite: The Zionists need a State in order to shmad the Jews. Shmad is the goal. The State is merely the vehicle through which they perpetrate that shmad, R”L L”A.
“They may have had religious people as decorations ”
Rabbis Reines, Kook, Uziel, Herzog, and Soloveitchik should not be denigrated as “decorations”. And some of the RZ *political* leaders like Rabbi Dr. Yosef Burg were talmidei chachamim.
“sought to redefine Judaism and the Jewish nation from being one based on the Torah”
Exactly. Who was the Prime Minister or President who famously said at the Olso accords something like “this is a big victory for Israeliism over Judaism?”“people think that the Zionists shmad the Jews in order to achieve a State.”
It’s also worth pointing out that this original aim of Zionism has been proven wrong. They were correct that the goyim viewed us as unwelcomed guests sitting on their land, but they were wrong in assuming that would halt if we established a state. The goyim are no less Antisemitic on account of the state.Neville/Hakatan: My definition of zionism is an organization formed in 1897 by Europeans and for Europeans that accepted dues and had meetings and held conferences and had a charter and a structural hierarchy and for which there are recorded minutes and whose only stated goal was to create a state. That Zionism does not actually exist any more. Once the state was created, that organization no longer served any purpose. It was replaced by the State which is made of citizens and democratically elected leaders, an overwhelming majority of which were either not invited to be zionists (because they were not european) or were invited but rejected the invitation.
As to Rav Chaim’s quote, I am sure the Zionists are greatly disappointed that the state did not take on the values of the movement. This is largely due to the makeup of the people of the state and the values they embraced (and which ones they rejected).
charliehall: they were decorations and that is not denigrating to them at all. It denigrates the fools who had sages at their disposal and instead of using them for their wisdom and leadership, used them as decorations.
Charlie:
You seem to be conflating Zionism with, liHavdil, Chovivei Tzion, about which, incidentally, Rav SR Hirch and others were very against, and about which its founder ultimately expressed his regret.It’s simply impossible for any “Orthodox” Jew to be a proponent of what I wrote above – replacing Judaism with, liHavdil, an almost pagan land-based nationalist idol with some “Jewish” themes, etc.
Rabbi Soloveitchik proposed ideas (like Modern Orthodoxy and “Religious” Zionism) which were condemned by gedolim. So you can’t bring him as a support for Zionism. But even if you would bring him as a support, his students espouse positions about Zionism with which even he explicitly disagreed, and his stated reasons for supporting both “Modernity” and Zionism have been shown to be either irrelevant and/or wrong – certainly nowadays.
The Modern Orthodox “foolishness bordering on heresy” to quote Rav Schwab) has long been recognized as the silliness that it is, and the Zionist ideology and State/idol have long been exposed for the brazen heretical and idolatrous identity theft of Judaism that they are. Unfortunately, many are still taught this same “fossilized” (again, quote from Rav Schwab) nonsense with which no gadol even agreed.
In a fascinating overview, Rabbi Yitzchok Naparstek, shliach in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, explores the Rebbe’s stance on Zionism and the State of Israel.
The Rebbe’s approach to the State of Israel is complex. On the one hand, the Rebbe strongly supported Eretz Yisroel and assisted the Israeli goverment. On the other hand, the Rebbe said that he is staunchly opposed to Zionism like the Rebbe Rashab and more so. What exactly was the Rebbe’s stance?
Preface
1. Chabad’s task is to build and illuminate, not chas veshalom to destroy and foster divisiveness. Therefore the Rebbe once instructed: מיעוט הויכוח בכיוצא בזה ישובח – by remaining apolitical and not isolating any group, political or nonpolitical alike, Chabad remains in the position to engage all circles of Jews in matters of Torah and mitzvos.
2. Historically, prior to 1948 most Gedolei Yisroel were opposed to the creation of a Jewish State.
3. The opposition was primarily based on two factors:
a. The efforts to create the State were coupled with the desire and hope to be redeemed through our own force and powers. This constitutes a rejection of Mashiach and the Redemption as promised by the Torah (hence these efforts were also not in the spirit of the shalosh shevu’os). This is true regardless of how religious the envisioned state would be.
b. Jewish nationalism—the foundation on which the State is built on—sought to transform the Jewish people into a nation like all nations of the world, ככל הגוים בית ישראל, by substituting Torah and mitzvos with nationalism (Jewishness would amount to “national affiliation” without the requirement of belief and performance of Torah and mitzvos), thus “normalizing” the Jew. The reality, however, remains that the Jewish people are the am segulah and, as Rav Saadia Gaon taught .אין אומתינו אומה אלא בתורתו
The Existence of the State
4. The dire circumstances in Eretz Yisrael in 1948, constituted piku’ach nefesh and necessitated the establishment of a Jewish government; by Divine Providence—not chas veshalom by our own force and powers—large parts of Eretz Yisroel were returned to the Jewish people. As such, the existence of the State is not in violation of the shalosh shevu’os.
5. The State of Israel provided and provides a makom hatzalah for Jews. This makomhatzoloh could have been established elsewhere, but Hashem granted us the wonderful zechus (and great nisayon) by allowing the creation of the State in Eretz Hakodesh.
6. This positive development and tremendous opportunity, has no relation to the process of ge’ulah; no ge’ulah—or any stage thereof—transpired in 1948 (or in 1967). Rather, the State is a technical instrument through which we experience a greater measure of autonomy and self-governance during our final days in galus.
The Nature of the State
7. Even though some of the Jewish laws are upheld by the State of Israel, it was not founded on Torah law; the State adopted the British common law. To this day, the nature and character of the State is defined by nationalism in practice. Hence the State is not governed in the spirit of Judaism. (This is also, and foremost, evidenced by the tragic law of mihu Yehudi.)
8. The events that transpired in 1948 were an opportunity missed. Had the Jewish leadership established a government based on Torah and mitzvos, it would have been an unequivocal positive development.
9. Miracles occurred for the Jews in Eretz Yisroel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and in the years that followed. Hashem performs miracles through the unrighteous as well. While we must be grateful to Hashem for these miracles, they by no means sanction the State.
The Appropriate Approach
10. As several million Jews are governed and protected by the State, for all practical purposes, we must support and encourage—physically and spiritually—the continued existence of the State, and its positive dimensions, as a Jewish state. In short: we recognize and support the de facto State of Israel, though it falls short of the way it ought to be, a truly Jewish state.
11. The Rebbe rejects the view (espoused by Satmar and the Edah HaChareidis) that ignores the very existence of the de facto State and doesn’t grant recognition to the State even b’dieved. The Rebbe stridently rejects the view (espoused by the Mizrachi movement and religious nationalists) that sanctions the State and considers it a step in the process of ge’ulah.
12. The Rebbe showed affection and honored the personnel of the Israeli government, its elected and security officials. Perhaps this was based on the Talmudic statement, “Rebbi mechabed ashirim”. The Rebbe also reached out to draw them closer to Torah.
Through הפצת היהדות והמעיינות – locally and globally, individually and collectively – we will merit the true and complete redemption through our righteous Moshiach.
Click here to view in PDF format and to see sources/footnotes
Syag “Were you trying to make a point?” yes, it appears that some are OCD about Chabad. If not a Disorder, certainly Obsessive and Compulsive.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.