HaKatan

mkylb:
Surely you mean well, but
1. You don’t know for a fact that we have witnessed higher infection rates, nor are you taking into account larger family densities than liHavdil the gentiles, which would explain that alleged higher rate. But that allegedly higher rate is anyways false. It’s also irrelevant because you have to know on what it is based. For example, if only sick people get tested, then the rate will obviously be higher than other places where healthy people are being tested. Etc.
2. You should not make false blanket statements claiming that we haven’t followed the government’s rules. In my shul, and others in which I have davened, everyone is strict about wearing masks.
3. You also don’t know if the government’s science is sound or mistaken. There are plenty of videos from people with degrees and experience in these areas who say that masks don’t help. Back in March, I think even Dr. Fauci himself said so, if I recall. The virus, in my understanding, is way smaller than the tiny holes in the mask, so a mask is, essentially, no better than breathing through a mesh screen door, though it might be better than nothing.
4. With all due respect, unless you learned in Seminary or elsewhere the halachos and parameters of Chilul Hashem, then I would not be so quick to label this a Chilul Hashem, even without the above three points, and potentially create an actual Chilul Hashem of giving up on Tznius, etc. to try to effect change in this matter. Even if you do know the halachos, though, your keeping tznius will surely accomplish much more than anything you could do by violating that.

1:
No, the Zionist State of “Israel” is a political construct (as in a governing entity), not a land. Therefore, it is obviously not the homeland of the Jews.

As akuperma noted, that political construct, the State of Israel, happens to be far worse than the gentiles here.

As to Eretz Yisrael, that used to be the homeland (in the literal, not Nationalist, sense) of the Jews until Hashem kicked us out, forbidding us to return to E”Y either en masse and/or against the wishes of the Nations, as well as forbidding us from claiming political sovereignty.

The Zionists, representing only themselves, not the Jewish people, in their Zionist quest to remake the Jewish people from a Torah-based nation into an idolatrous/godless Nationalist gentile-type nation, flagrantly violated all of the above and more with their creation of their heretical State of Israel, intentionally usurping the name of our Jewish people, “Israel” as the name for their idol State.

Besalel:
Zionism did not end in 1948, as you think. It also doesn’t mean founding a State.

To quote Rav Chaim Brisker, people think the Zionists shmad in order to gain a State. In fact, it is the opposite: they need the State in order to shmad.

Even the Israeli politicians of today still speak of it today.

The World Zionist Organization, the same one founded by Herzl YM”S, is still very much a Zionist force and, unfortunately, tens of thousands of Jews were recently scammed into voting for a “religious” (non-Mizrachi) party there (and literally accepting Zionist kefirah in the process when accepting the Zionist shmad “Jerusalem Program”).

So you first have to understand what is Zionism. It is not about founding the state in 1948. It’s not a secret and it’s not some academic matter. It’s right on the WZO’s web site, and on the State of Israel’s sites, too.

Regarding your comparison to Japan, that is not accurate. Hashem does not want the State of Israel to be. Never did and never will. Period. There is nothing to discuss other how to deal with the reality of that State’s (very) lamentable existence.

yichusdik:
It’s not a question of “if” the Zionists want to destroy Torah. That is the very essence of Zionism (to change the Jewish Torah nation into a god-less land-based Nationalist/Idolatrous Nation) and it is plain and obvious for all to see that this is exactly what the Zionists want and work to achieving as much as possible in this regard, R”L.

an Israeli Yid:

Again, haTorah haZu lo tihei muchlefes.

vigam atem.

anIsraeliYid:
I already replied that I read both multiple times.

Rabbi Hoffman did not provide a (sourced) counter-view from any gedolim/rabbanim. Essentially, Rabbi Hoffman simply expressed his dislike of Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer

edited

For example, the individual miracles that may have taken place in 1967 have no bearing on the overall thoroughly non-miraculous and fully expected Zionist victory in 1967, as you can see on the CIA’s web-site (check it out) as Rabbi Shapiro quotes.

Nor do the Zionists mention, for example, David Green (first Zionist Premier) purchasing (with donated Jewish money) Ninety Million Dollars (in 1940s dollars!) in weapons prior to 1948 in anticipation of the war he was going to launch to officially start the Zionist state. That’s besides the battles and terror the Zionists waged prior to ’48.

If you could find me a sourced equivalent to Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer then I would be happy to check it out.

But you and I both know that such a work doesn’t exist because your alleged “other shita” doesn’t exist, even if minor differences do exist.

As Rabbi Shapiro notes, the Satmar Rav forbade both joining the Zionists in their government and also voting in their elections; by contrast, Rav Reuven Grozovsky permitted, in Biayos haZman (under strict conditions, which, as it happens, are not being followed), frum Jews to become members of Israel’s parliament and for Israeli citizens, who are anyways under the Zionist jackboot, to vote in the Israeli elections.

So there is certainly some difference of opinion in “minor” matters like these (voting or not). But on the core issues, there is only one shita of all gedolim ever since that heretic started promoting Zionism: Zionism is treif, a shmad and a danger to Jews worldwide R”L L”A and we want nothing to do with Zionism.

Yeshivish rockstar:
It’s interesting that rather than praising Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer, which is trying to uproot the A”Z of Zionism from Jews the world over (who have been influenced by that idol, R”L L”A), you prefer a book that contains clear references to, and themes of, A”Z. Rabbeinu Yonah’s vort on “ViIsh kifi mahallalo” comes to mind; you know what someone is about based on whom/what they praise.

Regarding the Kook-shmook story that Rabbi Shapiro quoted, he said he heard it from the original source. This story was also said over in Brisk by Rav Berel. It is well-known in those circles. So Rabbi Shapiro very obviously did not make up the story.

But you don’t need to believe or not believe stories. You can instead open up some sefarim. Both the Satmar Rav and Rav Elchonon HY”D blasted Rabbi Kook in incredibly strong terms. Each of the Satmar Rav and Rav Elchonon applied a different Rabbeinu Yonah, including the one I quoted above, with Rav Elchonon concluding that Rabbi Kook was, therefore, a “rasha gamur”, as Rabbi Shapiro quotes.

no mesorah:
Regarding the Avnei Nezer, you can check out this link, if the mods allow it:

sorry

Regardless, it seems strange to ignore all the poskim going all the way back who do invoke the oaths as practical and in force, etc.

Not to mention, of course, the “Religious Zionists” themselves contend with the oaths rather than simply (and impossibly) declare them non-halachic as you still insist on trying.

Regarding your contention that nobody was talking about the oaths until the heretical founder of political Zionism:
1. Please see above. The Rambam, as mentioned, among many others did.
2. Until that heretic, there never was a hava amina to attempt to make a State due to that being, as everyone knew, a violation of the oaths.

Regarding your opinion of what the Satmar Rav said, your prior posts make it seem likely that you have never even opened up his sefarim, so it seems silly to attempt to discuss this.

Regardless, though, the poskim who ruled that the oaths are binding are obviously well known enough that even the “Religious Zionists” take the time to (fail pitifully in their attempts to) contend with the oaths being very much halachic.

anonymous Jew, you mean to ask that you thought the oaths no longer apply due to the alleged reasons in your post.

The Satmar Rav handily dismissed those and many more.

For starters, the shevuos don’t work like that (you break it then I can break it). For example, the Rambam when writing to Jews in Yemen, was very clear that the gentiles then were going too far…

As well, even if it did work that way (which it does not), that would apply only to the oath against rebelling against the Nations, not the others like doing things allowed only by Moshiach, like having a State.

Regarding the non-rebellion because of the UN, there are numerous problems with this. For starters:
1. The Zionsts definitely did rebel. They literally terrorized the British in Palestine and, besides, the Arabs never agreed. Even the British ended up abstaining from that vote and simply left, due to Zionist terror.
2. The Balfour Declaration said only a home, not a sovereign independent state, and the British subsequently stated that the Zionists read way more into that statement than it stated.

no mesorah:
The Satmar Rav decisively proved, from the many halachic authorities he quoted, going back centuries and more, that the oaths are absolutely binding. Period.

The premise of your “question” to the “ardent anti-Zionists” is simply not there. The oaths were very much in halachic responsa going all the way back, as the Satmar Rav notes and as lhbc”c Rabbi Shapiro writes in his sefer. Open those up and see!

Even the “Religious Zionists” struggle to come up with how their idol/State could be exempt from the oaths. According to your “logic” they need not bother. Yet they do, because they know very well that the oaths have always been in force, as the Satmar Rav quoted numerous halachic authorities who openly hold this, as mentioned, and as even Chovivei Torah and, lihavdil, as even some “Religious Zionists” held openly.

Maybe it would be wise to first read the Satmar Rav’s sefarim on the topic and/or lhbc”c Rabbi Shapiro’s sefer. Then, you would be able to theorize based on the reality of the Torah and the mesorah going all the way back, not on your imagination of what the Torah and mesorah say or don’t say.

greatwizzo and anonymous Jew:
The Satmar Rav did not on his own claim that the oaths are Halacha; rather, he lists numerous halachic authorities going all the way back who hold that they are halacha.

It is rather silly to make pronouncements, and further insist, on matters in which one is obviously ignorant.

I presume the OP’s issues are primarily with Rabbi Shapiro’s quotes from Rabbi H. Schachter of YU and, perhaps also, lbc”c of Rabbi AY Kook.

In his sefer, Rabbi Shapiro accords due respect, including rabbinic honorific (e.g. Rabbi or Rav) to each. Moreover, he limits his criticism to their views/stated points, for which there seems to be tremendous toeles in covering, not ad hominem attacks.

It’s also worth noting (both in general and regarding the L”H question) that Rabbi Shapiro did not make up these criticisms. The Satmar Rav wrote extremely strongly against Rabbi Kook, both his material and on Rabbi Kook himself.

Rabbi Shapiro also quotes Rav Schwab Zatza”l’s beautiful follow-up piece, “He who Loves does not Hate” in his “Selected Speeches”, to Rabbi Schachter’s article in “Journal of Halacha” about the alleged mitzva to slaughter Jews for the idol of Nationalism. Rabbi Shapiro also notes that lbc”c Rav Schwab wrote that he did not intend to attack lbc”c Rabbi Schachter publicly; however, his article was about “those like him”.

Bottom line: Rabbi Shapiro preserved their respective honor but covered the material as needed.

Presumably because, even according to the “Modern Orthodox” (as Rabbi H. Schachter stated) you need to live where you will be the best Jew that you can be (and for your family as well).

So if, by moving to Israel, you become CH”V a Zionist (to any extent) then it’s probably smarter to avoid becoming an oveid A”Z and not move there.

Then there are also the issues of parnassa and family, elderly relatives, etc.

E”Y *was* our home until Hashem kicked us out which we all say in every mussaf. While individual Jews may live there, we cannot move there en masse, as a people, until Mashiach comes. That’s even in a peaceful and non-political manner.

Unfortunately, about a century ago, the Zionists invaded large parts of E”Y and declared a State there while falsely claiming to represent the Jewish “nation”.

Moving there will not change any “balance of power”, but it will almost certainly result in massive Zionist shmad of those Jews, to varying extents (even if they still keep Shabbos and put on Tefillin), depending on how much they know about the idol of Zionism and how strong they stand in resisting that idol.

As akuperma said, moving there is, at best, moving from the frying pan to the fire.

jdb:
I have no “political” concerns. I was coming from the perspective of religion, from the Torah.

There is nothing that makes Mount Herzl holy, or at least not any holier than any other Jewish cemetery which has a wide range of Jews buried there. Mount Herzl, however, does have the distinct disadvantage of being a Zionist symbol, in addition.

Again, the fact is that the Zionists are (at the very, very least) secular. Many, if not all, of the decisions they make in their army are very likely NOT what the Torah would want. Therefore, their soldiers’ activities following those decisions are, also, very likely NOT what the Torah would want. Therefore, there is nothing particularly holy about that cemetery containing the bodies of those soldiers any more so than any other cemetery with bodies of Jews.

Chaim Baruch:
Please see the earlier part of this post.
Aish.com has, shall we say, Zionist leanings?
Both stories seem absurd and, by implication as presented, are heretical.
If some Jews (let’s say they are secular and even heretics) go to war in, say, South Africa, and don’t return, are they considered holy as a result? Obviously not. Same thing in Israel.

KJ is, of course correct.

Regarding your reference to the United States, the OP’s question would be like asking if the continent of North America can count on British support. But that doesn’t make any sense. Do you mean Canada? The US? Mexico? All of the above? Two of the above? Parts of all three countries?

So if you mean to ask if, say, the United States can count on British support, it would be silly to write that as regarding the continent of North America rather than the United States.

Similarly, but liHavdil, Eretz Yisrael is a geographic area, not a political entity.

The State of Israel happens to be located on a large portion of the landmass of Eretz Yisrael, just as the United States happens to be located on a large portion of, liHavdil, the landmass of North America. That is, as you wrote, the reality “on the ground”.

So the OP’s title should obviously, read, “Can the Sate of Israel rely on..”, and not “Can E”Y rely on…”

frumtd:
The Zionists require Jews under their rule to be shmaded and subjected to the big three cardinal sins, in their indoctrination camp of Zionism known as the IDF, as a pre-condition to employment.

One need only observe all the “Chareidi”-owned and run businesses everywhere else in the world, including Satmar, to realize that our religious brethren in Israel are being denied the ability to work unless they choose to subject themselves to Zionist shmad.

Regarding “reevaluating their positions” after the Holocaust, this is almost an heretical statement. The correct lesson to take from the Holocaust is how it fit in with the rules of schar viOnesh (and if we can’t figure that out, then we’ll have to wait for Eliyahu HaNavi to tell us BB”A), not how to turn Klal Yisrael into yet another Gentile nation, as was and is the goal of Zionism.

In terms of how to deal with the State once it, very unfortunately, came into being, there were gedolim who held that the tactics of dealing with the problem of Zionism had to change given this reality. But that Zionism was and is a tremendous problem for Jews has never changed.

Reb Eliezer:
I think Joseph addressed well that AHS is not relevant here.

Regarding the Mahara”M Schick (from the Chasam Sofer) that you quoted, though, he is very obviously NOT discussing voting in Zionist elections because he died close to a century before the Zionist state was even founded.

Furthermore, his sevara there obviously has zero to do with Zionist elections. First of all, much of Klal Yisrael, B”H, lives outside of Zionist rule. Whereas in “biblical” Egypt, it was everyone.

In addition, Reshaim voting in Zionist elections vs. liHavdil, tzaddikim who do not vote, has nothing to do with the Mahara”M Schick (from the Chasam Sofer) discussing having children and literally keeping Klal Yisrael going to the next generation.

In other words, regardless of who does and does not vote in Zionist elections, Klal Yisrael will definitely continue to the next generation, ad beas goel tzedek BB”A.

manitou:
Rather than address any of my points, you chose the “Satmar” attack.
I suppose that’s because the only fact you could contribute to the discussion is that you don’t like the facts I’ve written. Sorry about that.

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.

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.

Milhouse:
From where did you come up that these ideas that are allegedly Satmar ideas? I doubt that even NK holds that way, though, liHavdil, Satmar for sure does NOT hold like that. The Satmar Rav notes specifically that the Zionists could have peacefully ended their regime if they wanted to do so, and possibly still could do so even after the Zionists have (purposely) “inflamed” the region. Regardless, you cannot be machzik the Zionists.

Instead of assuming what Satmar “seems” to hold, why not learn VaYoel Moshe and Al HaGeula viAl haTemura?

And from where did you come up with the alleged Chabad shita that the Zionist state “is the only thing that stands between millions of Jews and Holocaust Part II, r”l” This is mere Zionist propaganda and simply a bald lie (has anyone stopped to think how insane it is that a standard feature of an Israeli home is a “sealed room”!?), unless you mean that the Zionists are, in theory, protecting the residents of the parts of Eretz Yisrael that the Zionists have invaded.

Still, even that is not a reason to proactively support the Zionists. We daven for all our brethren worldwide, regardless of the government that rules the land in which they reside, but certainly not for the Zionist government.

Finally, your statement that — “If it happened, Hashem wanted it, and we have to deal with it.” and that, therefore, the State must NOT be a maaseh Satan — is simply not logical. What Hashem allows to happen versus what He “wants” are not at all necessarily the same.

Just as Hashem allowed the Eigel to come into existence, He also allowed the State to come into existence. While on the topic of the Eigel and the State, the Brisker Rav (not Satmar rav) noted that the State of the Zionists is the greatest achievement of the Satan since the Eigel haZahav.

jacoby211:

I don’t think he was questioning how much learning they do in MO places.

As Rav Schwab begged the MO decades ago, they should abandon their stale and fossilized “modernity” and join the true modern Orthodox, the traditional Orthodox binei Torah.

Burnt Steak:

As stated on their web site, OJ is not “MO”, even if they attract a variety of students.

From their site: “Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim is unaffiliated politically or philosophically with any political parties or formal religious movements. Its goal is to emphasize the primacy of high level Torah study and love of Klal Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael.”

The last line, however, does, at first glance, seem to neatly align with MO’s “Am Yisrael, Torat Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael”, which probably makes it attractive to MO.

Looking at it more closely, however, they note (in English) “limud haTorah”, not “Torat Yisrael”, and “Klal Yisrael” rather than “Am Yisrael”. Those particular word choices imply Torah-true orthodoxy, not “MO”. But it’s probably still “kosher” for “MO”, too.

No. What you see as “incontrovertible” is deluded (due to idolatry) and simply illogical, even if the sources in reality do imply what you claim.

First some basic facts, as per our gedolim.

The heretical (and disastrous on so many levels) State of Israel has pushed off the geula, CH”V. The “Reishis Tzemichas Geulaseinu” Zionist fantasy was based on a fraud, so that’s nonsense in and of itself.

Next, we have your sources.

Germany was definitely terrible to the Jews in WW II. (The Zionists did their part, too, but that is somewhat tangential here.)

Regarding the returning to Eretz Yisrael, there could certainly be a limited return to Eretz Yisrael before Mashiach comes. Individual Jews have the right to live in E”Y so long as their move to E”Y does not constitute an aliya biChoma and violate the oaths, CH”V. Political sovereignty is strictly forbidden due to dechikas haKeitz, so that rules out the State as a non-starter, Zionist fantasies not withstanding.

So this is irrelevant to the State; you’ve conflated living in E”Y and, lihavdil, the heretical State of Israel, which is typical of Zionists, whether “Religious Zionist” or otherwise.