Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just Emes:
Again, not emes and, it seems, you are the one who “missed the point”.
According to this article, these rabbis somehow concluded that this would not be “denying the belief in the coming of redeemer”.
But this does not at all mean what you claim regarding the oaths.
It absolutely still was a problem of the oaths, even according to those rabbis.
But, again, regardless of this point, read the rest of the article.
There is no justification for Zionism and the State. This is getting beyond absurd.
DaMoshe:
Why should you care what I personally hold of Chassidus?
My personal opinion is that I don’t know enough about Chassidus in general to espouse an opinion.
ROB;
Who said “no connection to it?” I simply quoted Rav Saadya Gaon that our nationhood is not determined by any land but by the Torah.
It’s really astonishing how you’ve so internalized Zionist kefirah as, lihavdil, Torah.
You seriously believe that this quote of yours is Torah hashkafa?
“From the meraglim onwards, throught [sic] the centuries,klal Yisroel shed its blood to come back to -yes- the land of Eretz Yisroel.”
Contrary to the kefirah in haTikva, we have been davening for the geulah, not for a State at any cost.
And now you’re also arguing with Rav Saadya Gaon.
I’m sorry to hear that.
DaMoshe:
Your post may be venturing towards kefirah, so you might wish to be careful in what you write.
I did not insult Rabbi JB Soloveichik. I merely repeated what gedolim held of him and/or his positions and that his own words are that he broke from his mesorah.
Regarding Chassidus, ad haYom, Agudah’s moetzes has both Chassidim and non-chassidim. Whereas Agudah’s founding premise was to fight Zionism and gedolim until this day have confirmed that opposition to Zionism has not changed other than in tactics. Clearly, the two (Chassidus and, lihavdil, Zionism) cannot be intelligently compared.
But if your LOR cannot help you answer this, then I guess you will learn the answer regarding the halachic validity of Chassidus and everything else, BE”H, when Eliyahu haNavi tells us all BB”A.
For such enlightened and intellectually well-rounded people, some of you “MO” are way too easily insulted.
GAW:
It seems you are confusing Nationalism with Jewish Nationalism.
Of course, the Torah obligates us to be loyal citizens of the country in which we reside and, specifically regarding the USA, Rav Moshe famously called it a malchus shel chessed. This is all fine.
But Jewish Nationalism, however, is assur. We are a nation, as Rav Saadya Gaon wrote, based on the Torah, not any land including E”Y.
Just Emes:
This is still not emes, and I already pointed this out to you earlier.
If you read the rest of that article, you will see that their “support” for a State was predicated on the assumption that it was going to happen regardless of their support and also based on their expectations of the Zionists.
As the Brisker Rav pointed out, they were wrong on the former point because Hashem doesn’t look at what reshaim do, but at what tzaddikim do and, as you like to quote, the “B”D” of Klal Yisrael” is what caused the State to be created, (and the Brisker Rav seems to agree that this and the tefillos of misguided Jews in meah shearim were the true catalysts).
And as history more than amply pointed out, the conditions these rabbanim set for their acceptance of a State, like the condition how the Zionists would not interfere with religion in the new State, were very much not met.
Again, there is no halachic basis and also no mesorah for any flavor of Zionism.
ROB:
I’m not sure why I’m even bothering, but you are misrepresenting the facts.
The Gerrer Rebbe did indeed say that, and he was the kindest of them all.
Other gedolim in E”Y did not at all “have the utmost respect for him” as you claim. They did, at times, write him nice titles in letters to him because Rabbi Kook had political power and the Klal needed his services.
Come on. What non-“D”L” Yeshiva ever even mentions Rabbi Kook’s name?
As to the Siddur Kiddushin, this is true, but this was for the young man who would much later become Rav Elyashiv.
As to Rav Elchonon, if you can find a legitimate bar plugta, then I suppose he would not be the final word. But there isn’t any.
Avram and Sam2:
This is theoretically a fair point, as labels can be broad, but only if you can define what might be halachicly permitted according to our gedolim including Rav Elchonon et al. yet would still fall under the label “Religious Zionism”, never mind secular “Zionism”.
For example, Rav Moshe has a teshuva, as I recall (and I imagine Sam2 knows), that the presence of an Israeli flag in a shul is not A”Z. That this is even a question is certainly illustrative of the topic at hand. Either way, that doesn’t change the reality of the tenets of the religious Zionist faith, which remain assur; but showing the Israeli flag is not A”Z according to Rav Moshe.
Again, the State of Israel and Zionism are shmad, treif, etc. Nothing has changed in this regard. And, if you think objectively about it, it makes no sense (and was roundly forbidden by Rav Elchonon, Rav Chaim Brisker, et al.) to graft secular European Nationalism unto, and in much conflict with, lihavdil, the holy Torah and CH”V fuse the two to make them both into one illegitimate cholent of a religion (and then, on top of that, for some to have the chutzpah to try to pass that off as authentic Judaism).
This is essentially what Rabbi Kook did, as Rabbi Dr. Lichtenstein has more or less admitted in his writings even if he draws a different conclusion, and this is what Rav Elchonon and others called Avoda Zara. That this is forbidden is not a very difficult concept to understand.
So, absent any other definition of “Religious Zionism”, “Religious Zionism” is strictly forbidden.
DaMoshe:
Rabbeinu Tam did not break with Rashi’s mesorah, regardless of halachic differences.
Regarding Rabbi JB Soloveichik, I have already written about this, and you are misrepresenting the facts: specifically, that Rabbi JBS did not remain a member of the Moetzes and instead switched to Mizrachi.
As well, his positions were certainly not held in high regard by other gedolim, and some of those gedolim went further than that: for example, Rav Aharon Kotler.
Either way, Rabbi JB Soloveichik himself admitted that he broke with his mesorah.
If you want to rely on your Rabbi, as I said, that’s your business, but this does not create a legitimate mesorah for “Religious Zionism”.
There is no legitimate mesorah for “Religious Zionism”.
DaMoshe:
Perhaps you missed my prior answer to you.
As well, your comparison of Rabbi JB Soloveichik to (really?) Rabbeinu Tam is not valid.
Rabbeinu Tam may have come to a different conclusion than Rashi in various sugyos but NOT by CH”V abandoning the mesorah he had from Rashi. On the other hand, Rabbi JB Soloveichik himself admitted that he was breaking from his Mesorah from his father and grandfather, et al.
There is also the uncomfortable matter (especially for “MO”) of what gedolim held of Rabbi JB Soloveichik (read Agudah’s JO magazine obituary, for starters, and that is also available online) which also makes the comparison to Rabbeinu Tam a complete non-starter.
Right or wrong, if you wish to rely on the Rabbis you quoted against the gedolim that preceded them and also against the gedolim who were their contemporaries, then that’s your business, of course. But that does not create a legitimate mesorah.
Again, there is no legitimate mesorah for “Religious Zionism” (and “MO”, as well, for that matter, though that, too, has already been discussed in other threads).
ROB – it’s worth noting that you admitted on these boards that even if you saw Rav Elchonon’s holy words in black-and-white that your opinion would still not change. They’re freely available on the Internet.
You wouldn’t be able to prove anything I’ve quoted is “bogus”, much less “many of the quotes”, but I guess you feel it’s okay to claim anything you want about my posts for the sake of Zionism and the State.
After all, a prominent MO posek is on record holding that defending the State, irrespective of the Jews therein, is docheh pikuach nefesh which is, of course, docheh almost everything else. So you probably draw a kol shKein from that to allowing sheker, too, to defend the State.
I am trying to be dan liKaf zechus…
Sam2:
I will quote your post and respond inline.
“So your apology is that “MO” and “DL” are people who routinely commit Avodah Zarah”
Not quite.
1 – I did not say “routinely commit A”Z””
2 – Rav Elchonon and others said that “DL” is A”Z mixed with, lihavdil, Yahadus. I thought that someone had mentioned being proud to be “DL” so I addressed this obvious point in that context as well.
Of course, if my saying over any of this was hurtful to anyone, this was obviously not my intention and I certainly apologize for any hurt that was or is caused by anything I have written or will write.
If anything, as I wrote, I would think that “MO” and “DL” would appreciate these facts, especially since they are surely intellectually honest.
“”but you are not commenting on their personal status as Ovdei A”Z.
It was for this that I specifically apologized because some people seemed to think that I had intended to comment on their personal status when this was certainly not the case.
GAW:
I have written above that the issue of working “within the state” for the benefit of Torah and Jews is a legitimate halachic dispute between the Satmar Rav, who forbade it, and others, who permit it, which is why there is no Satmar MK but there are other frum MKs. Incidentally, the Brisker Rav advised a certain frum MK in certain matters, for this reason. But there is no dispute that Zionism is assur.
And any observer of the news, even as we write our posts here, should be quite aware that Zionist shmad has certainly not ended. The Zionists themselves admit it when they speak of making chareidis into Israelis, etc.
Zionism was, and very much still is, shmad.
DY:
This being the case, I still don’t understand why anyone would take offense to this Rav Elchonon or my repeating it. To those who act contrary to this Rav Elchonon, I would think they would be at least interested to know that these great gedolim hold that they are making a big mistake.
DaasYochid:
I have reread my post (again) and I see now that it may have indicated more than I intended.
As I have indicated numerous times, I don’t mean to condemn anyone.
I am not branding anyone a kofer, oveid A”Z, or anything else, as I have indicated numerous times.
To review, according to our gedolim:
As we all know, if one chooses to eat pork then one has chosen to eat “treif”. If one CH”V believes in Zionism then one is worshipping idols. I only repeated what should be common knowledge.
So, if one claims to be proud to eat pork then one is proudly eating treif. So, too, if one claims to be proud to be a Zionist then that person is, according to our gedolim, proudly worshipping idols.
What I did not clarify in that post but, in retrospect, I should have clarified, is that this speaks only to the act, not the person, as I wrote above.
If anyone misunderstood me to be labeling or branding anyone, please accept my apologies as this was not my intent.
DaMoshe:
I probably answered you before, too, though I imagine you weren’t thrilled with the answer then, either.
The Gerrer Rebbe said that because Rabbi Kook was so in love with the land that this caused Rabbi Kook to rule “al tahor tamei viAl tamei tahor”. This is obviously a very serious charge, in itself. But other gedolim went much further in their condemnation of Rabbi Kook and his shitos.
For instance, Rabbi Kook made statements, like the one about secular soccer players being on a higher level than neviim because of their service to the land, that gedolim said were clearly impossible to reconcile with Torah.
Of course, Rav Elchanan Wasserman, Rav Chaim (and descendant) Brisker(s), Rav Aharon Kotler and others have called this (“Religious Zionism”) Avoda Zara (mixed with Judaism), Kefirah and Shmad. Even Rabbi JB Soloveichik admitted that his father held the same, as I have posted numerous times.
So, especially given what we do know from our gedolim, you would have to first find a legitimate mesorah for Religious Zionism before you can claim that there is one.
Sam2:
I was neither “approving” nor disapproving; I had requested of you in a prior post to respond to ROB and you did. As any decent person would, I simply thanked you for fulfilling my request with your post. Not to mention this thread is about hakaras haTov. Please do not feel insulted and “used”.
Regarding your contention that I consider you to be “an Oveid Avoda Zarah”, this is not accurate; please refer back to my most recent post to DY.
I have referred to you in particular as erudite and learned. Although I believe that the “MO” and “Religious Zionist” position on Zionism is wrong and unjustifiable, this doesn’t lessen my respect for you, for whatever that respect is worth.
Thank you, again, Sam2.
DY:
Again, I simply quoted Rav Elchonon. And, for that matter, Rabbi JB Soloveichik said the same thing in his father’s name. As did others.
There may be a distinction between “being a kofer” and believing in kefira, so please don’t claim I said something that I did not say.
To clarify, if Poskim A,B and C hold that pork is treif, and you eat pork, then you have eaten treif. As I wrote, you might hold (rightly or otherwise) that you are indeed allowed to eat pork. But there is no question that you have eaten treif, and that is the extent of what I wrote.
Any kasha you may have beyond that is on these great Rabbis, not on my humble self.
Regarding the comparison to the Baal:
We have already spent three pages dealing with this topic. Other than my own humble posts, I have seen very few here (or elsewhere) that call out Zionism for what it is and what it is not.
Regardless of the numbers, however, the mashal to Baal is still instructive because it underscores how so many otherwise fine people could, in this very important inyan, be so wrong. So even though religious opposition to Zionism might not be viewed as “mainstream”, this does not at all make it any less correct, just as the NON-baal worshippers were also not the overwhelming majority in those times.
Consider why Eliyahu haNavi had to make this very public Kiddush HaShem on Har haCarmel when any school child could have told you which way was obviously right and which way was very wrong.
Just Emes:
I already mentioned, again, that your understanding of the facts and your halachic interpretations of the same are wrong.
Do you really think that anyone holds that the UN is some sort of Sanhedrin? The British, of all nations, abstained from (not agreed to) that vote and the Arabs living there obviously did not agree. This was clearly not biShalom, as you yourself admit, and certainly not with universal permission. Why do you persist in promoting what is clearly not emes?
As well, do you really think the Brisker Rav and others who were living there at the time were not aware of this principle of “haBa lihargicha” when they themselves were living that danger? Yet he and the others there at the time were VERY MUCH against founding the State.
You also continue to maintain your mistaken conviction that the State is “neutral in principle”. Our gedolim for over 100 years have clearly stated that Zionism and the State is shmad in principle (and not even as a side-product but in principle), and not at all “neutral”.
There was and is no halachic justification for Zionism. Does that wording satisfy you?
Just Emes:
You put Hashem’s signature of “Emes” in his screen name, yet you still refuse to accept simple truths that are both historical record and, in the halachic realm, that our gedolim hold ad haYom haZeh.
For instance, not that long ago, Rabbi Y. Reisman wrote in a (front-page piece in a) Flatbush, NY “neighborhood-type” Jewish paper that even post-founding of the State, nothing changed regarding the applicability of the oaths.
The only change was tactical, whether or not it was even permitted to work within the framework of the State to help the Jews there. This is a legitimate machlokes between the Satmar Rav and others. But Zionism is not even a hava amina, according to all of them.
Avram:
CH”V, I do not wish to accuse and do not wish to speak L”H about anyone and certainly not about the majority of Klal Yisrael.
The only frum segments of Klal Yisrael, in my understanding, who themselves profess to believe in Zionism as a part of their faith are “MO” and “Religious Zionism”. Of those who identify with one or both of those, many probably don’t even realize what it is they are being taught, R”L, which is part of the reason for my humble posts here, to clarify the matters and not, CH”V, to accuse anyone.
I very much regret if I implied otherwise.
However, it does seem that many frum Jews from other segments are woefully misinformed about Zionism. Again, this, too is part of the reason for my humble posts here.
DaasYochid and Avram (and others):
As I have written many times, I do not wish to condemn anyone.
I have never concluded from that Rav Elchonon or anywhere else that this therefore means that a person who unfortunately believes in Zionism as part of, lihavdil, his Judaism is any less neeman, or that his yayin is yayin nesech, etc.
But Rav Elchonon said what he said, as did the Brisker Rav and others. This is not a chidush.
If it is true that halachicly their yayin is yayin nesech, etc. then this is something for a posek to decide. Again, I have never said anything like that. Ask your LOR.
I simply attempted to repeat the Torah hashkafa on the matter, as expressed by gedolim, so that people do not base their Torah view on “misinformation”.
Just Emes:
It is historical fact that the chareidi leadership did not want the State of Israel and tried hard to prevent the Zionists from hijacking our faith and national identity.
You are simply making things up and contradicting the halachic (and practical) opinion of gedolim who lived in Eretz Yisrael in 1948. Surely the Brisker Rav and others were quite aware of “haba liHargicha” and just as surely were quite certain that this had zero to do with declaring a State which they ruled was assur and a massive sakana and worse, R”L L”A.
Your post is not emes.
Zionism and the State are an unparalleled disaster, and the founding the State – regardless of who runs it – was against halacha in numerous ways.
The Zionists have no answer.
Just Emes:
I already mentioned that your UN sevaras are faulty. No, the UN vote to partition did not bind other nations and, in fact, the British abstained from that vote.
Regardless, the Arabs did not agree.
Further, the Zionists knew perfectly well that it would take a war and sacrifice of Jewish lives at the idolatrous altar of founding their State, which it, unfortunately did.
They knew it was AT BEST a 50/50 chance that their foolish war would NOT CH”V be a massive bloodbath of Jewish blood which, B”H, Hashem spared His people.
As well, the Zionists aggressively and offensively took more than even the UN voted to allow them and against the wishes of the chareidim living there as well.
Sam2:
Thank you.
Just Emes:
Your premises and historical understandings are simply not emes.
Once again, “we” did not declare a state; the Zionists did so against “our” will.
It would also be wise for Pro-Zionists to avoid mentioning the Holocaust and collaboration and issues like that, unless they want Zionism to be exposed for what it truly is: thoroughly anti-Jewish (and inhumane) to the core. See the other threads (and historical sources).
rationalfrummie:
Actually, they are. The Rambam himself warned in Igeres Teiman that the Jews there should not violate the oaths.
Simcha613:
There are practical implications to understanding that the State was and is assur to have been founded.
For example, when those misguided Jews realize that this State was indisputably founded in severe sin, they are less likely to continue doing as Rav Elchonon wrote and as Rabbi JB Soloveichik quoted from his father, which is to fuse the A”Z of Zionism with, lihavdil, their Judaism.
Instead, they will, presumably, revert to their pre-Zionist unadulterated Judaism as do the portion of Jewry who have B”H seen past the lies of Zionism.
ROB:
Whatever interpretation you have of my posts, which I incidentally do not agree with, you have no right to personally attack anyone, my humble self included.
As to the oaths, why do you continue to bring up Melech haMashiach with regards to the three oaths?
You are still trying to claim the oaths don’t apply because of Melech HaMashiach, who will reign post-galus?
Perhaps Sam2 or some of the other learned ones here can explain this.
ROB:
Thank you for the personal attack. I would think that kol haPosel biMumo posel might be relevant here.
The oaths apply “ad sheTechpatz”. Once we have been redeemed, BB”A, then there are no oaths. The gemara in Shabbos states that the difference between galus and afterwards is shibud malchiyus. We will not be ruled by the nations any more so there will be no possibility of rebellion. You can’t rebel against someone who doesn’t rule over you.
Please tell us where in the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah and in his peirush haMishnayos he says differently than the clear meaning of the midrash and, indeed, simple logic.
Just Emes:
As to the rest of your post:
Your point 1 is irrelevant; the indisputable fact is that Israel was not founded biShalom.
Your point 2 is simply a fantasy and propaganda, as I explained numerous times. The Zionists themselves admit they took a foolish and tremendous gamble with Jewish lives, and (in 1948 alone) did sacrifice thousands of Jewish lives, for this idol.
Regarding your alleged Halacha, just because you make up a story about Rav Moshe, that doesn’t change the halacha berura. Pikuach nefesh is not nidche for Zionist idolatry. Founding the State of Israel undeniably and needlessly cost Jewish lives. (The oaths also apply.)
Case definitely closed, as you write.
As written above, Zionism was and is A”Z according to multiple gedolim, and founding the State was also clearly assur for additional reasons as described above.
Again, the Zionists have no answers.
Just Emes:
I have asked multiple times (and you still haven’t answered) why the Zionists should be any more worthy of hakaras haTov than the Romans biYimos haMashiach.
At least the Romans were goyim, and Esav sonei liYaakov. Same with Mitzrayim: they were goyim who did host us in their land. You make a kal sheKein from them to Zionist “Jews” (who made a deal back in Ben Gurion’s days, as I also wrote)?
(You also conveniently ignore that the Zionists and Israel have shmaded our brethren and continue to do so, which is an historically unparalleled tragedy.)
Your reasoning doesn’t make sense to me.
Syag:
Oh, I thought it was your idea, not whichever mod.
No need to answer the question, then, I suppose.
Syag:
Thank you for the suggestion.
Out of curiosity, since your subtitle asks, is it Lashon HaRa to write, as you did to me, “try choosing your words with more thought and less saliva.”?
ROB:
Are you seriously asking a question on the oaths from what Mashiach will do? I don’t want anyone to take anything “personally”, so I’ll stop there.
And even the Rav Meir Simcha that Zionists love to distort clearly claims the oaths are applicable to Zionism.
DaMoshe:
I’m sorry you disagree with Rav Elchonon. I am also sorry you somehow feel that this is my problem because I quoted his holy words. I did not call you personally an oveid A”Z, and I simply repeated Rav Elchonon’s holy words.
I also apologized three times if my words hurt anyone, regardless.
Just Emes (cont.):
The Zionist claim from the Or Sameach, who never permitted sovereignty, which is assur regardless of peaceful ascent, has already been debunked numerous times. He only addressed peaceful ascent, based on the League of Nations, not sovereignty.
The oaths certainly do apply to Zionism, and it is simply not possible to claim otherwise.
In addition, the pikuach nefesh problem alone, when the Zionists knew they had AT BEST a 50/50 chance of them succeeding (with, CH”V, many losses of Jewish life regardless), is enough to have forbidden founding the state.
The Zionists have no answers.
Just Emes:
If you really have studied the sugya then, for starters, your history must be different than what actually happened.
Again, you refuse to accept that your “B”D of Klal Yisrael” understanding is simply wrong, as I have written at least twice. If you read the HaPardes and the Brisker Rav’s words, this is quite clear.
You claim the State was declared in peace? This, too, is not emes. There were months of fighting before that formal declaration, including, famously, the bombing of a British government building in Yerushalayim. And the Zionists went on the offensive, not defensive, after the declaration to take Yerushalayim, which nobody gave them permission to do.
DaMoshe (and others):
For the third time, I humbly ask mechila from you and anyone else who may have been hurt by anything I have written or will write.
DaasYochid:
Thank you.
Syag:
I don’t understand.
Please explain where you feel there is a need to do teshuva.
simcha613:
I’m sure Rav Elchonon was careful in the words he chose and that he meant exactly what he wrote.
First, I am not looking to judge anybody. I’m also not sure what zealotry has to do with this. I certainly agree that our MO and “Religious Zionist” brethren do not intend to CH”V worship idols.
I am merely pointing out what Rav Elchonon and others wrote. Rabbi JB Soloveichik, too, said that his father also held that Zionism is A”Z.
So this is not a radical idea, and that’s what great rabbanim paskened.
You have a kasha of what about most of the world that has been fooled by Zionism?
Ask your LOR how this is resolved. But Rav Elchonon’s psak that Zionism is A”Z does not change.
I suppose it wouldn’t help your incredulity to point out that a shockingly large part of Klal Yisrael during Eliyahu haNavi’s time worshipped the Baal. That’s with Eliyahu haNavi in their midst. Today, with the yeridas haDoros and no navi, why is it so shocking that so many people would fall prey to the lies of Zionism?
Sam2:
No, it’s very much not a personal attack.
Where is the “person” and, for that matter, where is the “attack”?
The “if you are…” was clearly a hypothetical “you”, and not referring to any particular person.
So I’ll avoid using the word “you” in this post, in case that helps.
Again, I don’t see why some here get all upset about my mentioning this Rav Elchonon. If the “MO” somehow feel they have a legitimate halachic way to hold differently than Rav Elchonon, then why would it even bother the “MO”?
Again, this is not personal, and I don’t understand how anyone can possibly construe it in that manner.
Regardless, once again, I humbly ask mechila from anyone who may have been offended by anything I have written or will write.
Regarding your “yes or no” questions, I already mentioned the Chazal about the Romans and the bathhouses they built and Hashem’s answer to their claim for reward.
Please answer yes or no if you feel that Hashem is, CH”V, kafui tov, for rejecting the Roman’s claim. (Of course, Hashem will have rewarded them in some other way because He doesn’t hold back reward from anyone.)
Once you’ve done that, please explain why Israel and the IDF should be any better.
Regarding your point #2, it was not some innocuous survival idea. The Zionists wanted Jews to be accepted as goyim so after Jews turned down Herzl’s idea of baptism CH”V, they came up with the idea of converting Judaism itself into a goyish Nationalist faith instead.
Regarding the majority of (or even any) “Gedolim being for [the State]”, I have already (at least twice in this thread) explained how this is not the case.
As to Hashgacha post WW-II, even the Brisker Rav is quoted as saying that the Balfour Declaration (even before WW II) was a “smile” from heaven. Unfortunately, the Zionists (and, seemingly, the B”D of Klal Yisrael, as you keep mentioning) turned that smile into the disaster that was and is the State of Israel rather than the true geulah.
Just Emes:
Based on your latest post, it is clear that you simply believe the standard Zionist propaganda about Zionism and Israel, and you are not aware of the various historical and halachic issues that pertain to Zionism and the State of Israel.
In my humble understanding, your views are definitely not “emes”.
For example, it is not emes that the State would be in any way acceptable if it were “religious”.
Before you claim to me that I “need to understand a few things”, you might want to learn “the sugya” first.
Avram:
I disagree that the “behavior would be the same regardless of what the IDF does”.
The Jewish way in galus, which the Zionists flagrantly violate, is to “lay low” and be good citizens. Calling attention to one’s self in an unfriendly environment is simply foolish. We are in galus, etc.
vashti_schwartz:
Because this religion is not based on “feelings” but on what the Torah wants.
Please explain the halachic gedarim of hakaras haTov and how you feel every IDF soldier fits those gedarim.
Sam2 and DaMoshe:
I don’t agree that my repeating a bifeirush Rav Elchonon in his name “makes it personal”, especially in an anonymous forum. I simply repeated what Rav Elchonon and others have stated and he states clearly that Zionism is A”Z.
So, according to Rav Elchonon, if you are a proud Zionist (which, according to their theology, includes “MO”) then that makes you a proud oveid A”Z. I fail to see the reason for anyone taking offense to this.
However, to clarify, I certainly never intended to personally malign anyone. So, if anyone feels personally offended by my repeating Rav Elchonon’s words or anything else I might have written or will write, I humbly ask your mechila.
(cont.)
Just the pikuach nefesh problem alone, without the issues of the oaths and the kefira in emuna, is enough to have forbid founding the state.
But the oaths definitely were violated:
1 – There was no permission by all goyim to found the State, specifically the native Arabs and the British as well;
2 – The Zionists fought an offensive war to take more than they were originally allowed by the UN
3 – Any necessity for war makes the founding of the State violate the oath of being oleh biChoma, which even that alleged Meshech Chachma that the Zionists try to distort does not permit.
The Zionists have no answers.