Zionism, Why the Big Debate?

Zionism is not extreme. There are so many reasons to prompt a national return to EY. For example, it is the land promised to us by God. I want to take Him up on that offer.

Also, the historical background to the founding of the medina cannot be overlooked. When Jews were in DP camps after WW2, they were asked to fill out a form of which countries they wanted to move to. Over half of the people responded with first choice of EY, and second choice, being the crematoria. EY was the only place that Jews could feel at home. And it should remain that way.

eek- im not saying zionism is extremism, i’m saying for those people who are so pro it they cannot see anyone else exists, just like neturai karta, which cannot see anyone else exists because they are so against it.

voos- I am comparing you to them only because honestly you guys have more in common than me and you do. You both hate each other and love your cause. The rest of us just try to be the best jew we can and make the most from life. Why cant you just love your fellow Jew for one minute. If you truley wanted to make Hashem proud in that aspect (you cannot deny it it is a mitzva dioraysa “veahavta leryacha camocha”) then you would say ok I hate Israel, but first and formost I love my fellow Jew.

All I am saying is that If you truly believe you are right, you wouldn’t try projecting your emotions and beliefs so much. That is usually a sign that you are uncomfertable deep down with what you are doing so you try to get others to agree with you. If you were comfertable with what you did, you wouldn’t need to project it. You’d recognize that other people do not see life the way you do, maybe they have never heard your side of the story. But burning their flags, things they grew up knwoing surly will not help your cuase.

Think about it.

Joseph,

You left out a key word in your translation. It’s who is an apikoros “in our generation?”

That may make a big difference, now that we are 2-3 generations later.

What may have changed?

“You’re grasping at straws. “

No, I am trying to be medayek in the lashon, which is what we do in learning all the time.

__

“What may have changed? “

Zionism is no longer a movement by apikorsim who are choteh and machti lahachis. It’s now secular nationalism run by am haratzim who are generally indifferent to religion, like most western countries.

I understand if you disagree.

I still don’t get all the commotion. Religious Zionism is simply the belief that the Jewish people belong in EY… not because of any nationalistic reasons, but because Hashem gave us EY as seen in the Torah. At worst, it’s a violation of the 3 shevuos which is not one of the 613 Mitzvos, it’s not one of the 13 ikkarim of the Rambam, and it’s not even brought down lehalacha by most poskim. The machlokes between Religious Zionists and Religious Anti-Zionists is simply how to understand that Gemara, which like I said, isn’t brought down lehalachah by the poskim. It’s such a small betail within the world of halachah and hashkafah. Why does this tiny disagreement cause such a huge machlokes among Klal Yisroel? It doesn’t make sense!

Frum Zionism exists today, however, and to lump ALL Tzionim with the ones of whom you disapprove from nearly 7 decades ago, is really inappropriate. The frum people who are settling in E”Y have brought with them many positive things, and there are more Yeshivos with kids from all over the world, than ever before. And before you write off the secular zionists, THEY gave blood, sweat, and tears to build up E”Y. They may have been lacking in some significant aspects of Yiddishkeit, but their love OF and devotion TO the LAND was never in question. They deserve better than the contempt in which they are held by some people who never could or would have done what they did. Were the secularists’ actions the ideal? No. But it surely was a start.

Satmar holds that the issue of the shavuos is a big problems. Others hold there are other big problems even though the shavuos are not.

My dearest OURtorah,

I hope you have changed your views from those of five months ago because what you said is appalling and psychologically incorrect. First off, to compare Zionism to the neturei karta is ridiculous and shameful. Zionism does not burn flags and outwardly protest against the chareidi community. Also, you talked about us not being so vocal about our beliefs because it shows that were uncomfortable. However, this is not the case in any sense. We speak out not only because we speak about things we believe in like any normal person but we have to because people like yourself put us down. I’m sure you would appreciate it if we would keep quiet while you talk about zionists not recognizing other Jews but I don’t think that it is possible.

The truth is, I have seen many good arguments of why the three oaths are binding.

Joe: No, actually, I can’t verify it, and neither can you. In fact, the more I think about that story, the more preposterous it sounds. First of all, of all the brisim that must have taken place over the years since 1948, at which, undoubtedly, many anti-Zionist gedolim were present, we’ve never heard of the Brisker Rebbe saying tachanun, Satmar Rebbe, Rav Amram Blau, Rav Shach, etc. Only this one story.

Second, it’s part of a whole section of not being mechadesh a ta’anis on 5 iyar and not be mechadesh a ta’anis for the victims of the holocaust. So to say that he decided to declare some sort of “eis la’asos” in this case seems fanciful.

So long as you know better than the gedolei hador who were actually there, who is anyone to argue on you? You can determine the veracity, or lack thereof, merely by the “sound” of it!

“The truth is, I have seen many good arguments of why the three oaths are binding.”

It seems to me that the 3 oaths are not binding anymore, since the UN resolution. Before that, though, the 3 oaths were a historical fact from 1882 until 1945. We violated it, and we were punished.

MDG, as I have previously posted, the three oaths are not paskened in any of the codes. No surprise as Rav Chaim Vital says that they were only for 1,000 years. Besides, the other nations ratified our right to a state in the San Remo conference a few years after WW1. Acording to Rav Teichtal (Em HaBanim Semeicha) we were punished for NOT MAKING ALIYA. He says that this was a manifestation of the sin of the spies.

Rebbe Yid,

Thank you for discovering the lack or veracity. I was suspect, so I looked up the source. But I did not go far enough. I appreciate your intellectual honesty and diligence.

___

One of the sources that I see as holding of the 3 Oaths is the RambaN at the end of the RambaM’s Sefer Hamitsvot. In the section of mitsvot that the RambaM forgot, the RambaN includes yishuv ha’arets. In that paragraph, the RambaN uses the lashon of “conquer” 11 times. However, 2/3 though the paragraph he changes gears and says that even today there is a mitsvah for every individual to live there and inherit it. He changes from plural to singular (first shavua -lo ya’alu bachoma), and he changes from conquering to living & inheriting (2nd shavua – lo yimradu).

____

“Besides, the other nations ratified our right to a state in the San Remo conference a few years after WW1.”

AVI K,

Thanks for that info. That really blows a hole in my theory of history. Tiyuvta.

_

Dr Hall, good to hear from you.

Just to add, I know some people here are not big fans of the Frumteens Moderator, but please be respectful.

MDG, YW. Your proof is not a proof. The mitzva of conquest is on Am Yisrael not on any individual. However, every individual has a mitzva to live in EY. There is also Rav Chaim Vital’s opinion that the oats were only for 1,000 years. If we say that they began with the churban Bayit Sheini that brings us to just before the Crusades.

“PAA, why don’t you debate him directly on Frumteens? “

I think PAA’s point is that it’s not worth all the debating anymore, so to PAA it’s pointless debating the frumteens mod.

___________________________________________________________

“MDG, YW. Your proof is not a proof. “

Which proof? The Ramban? My point about the Ramban is that he changes his definition of the Mitsvah (FROM conquering as a tsibur TO settling as a yachid) when going from antiquity to modern times. I see that change in wording as significant, and I am linking that change with the 3 Oaths. To me that change in the Ramban fits well with the 3 Oaths.

If you disagree, please elaborate.

______________________________________________________

“Besides, the other nations ratified our right to a state in the San Remo conference a few years after WW1.”

I have been thinking of this since last week. The San Remo conference would not undo the 3 Oaths because there was nothing tangible. Even after the Balfour declaration and the San Remo conference, there was still limitations on immigration (1st Oath – shelo yaalu behoma) by the ruling powers (2nd oath – shelo yimradu). In my opinion, as I wrote above, the 3 Oaths were not absolved until May 14, 1948.