Note:

For an enlarged, easier to read index click here . To "google search" this site, scroll to the bottom of this page. (This site is best viewed with "Firefox")

(Tips: F11 key enables full screen viewing & Ctrl-F to search the index)

7.26.2006

ZIONISM / OATHS-----"permission" defense

-
The Oaths only disallow the Jews from taking Eretz Yisroel if the Goyim don’t want them to. But if the Goyim give them permission to, they may. The Balfour Declaration constitutes permission.



Refutation #1 - The Ramban (maamar hageulah #1) says that when Koresh gave the Jews permission to return to EY, only a small amount of Jews went, the ones from Bavel, because they had a prophecy that said they should return. But those who did not have the support of a Nevuah to return did not, because they would have been in violation of the Oaths, even though Koresh asked them to return. Ergo: Even with permission to return, it is still in violation of the Oaths to do so.

Also, the Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that not only are the Oaths still binding even if we take EY without force, but even if we are forced to take EY by the Goyim we are not allowed to do it - we have to resist unto death the wishes of the Goyim for us to take EY. It is Yehoreg V'al Yaavor, he says.

Rav Yonason Eyebushitz (in Ahavas Yonason) and the Yefas Toar (on the Oaths, both quoted all over this site) also say clearly that even a peaceful, with-permission ascent to EY is prohibited according to the Oaths.

Furthermore: The Avnei Nezer that Rabbi Aviner quotes in support of his case, as well as the letter by Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, and any others, are of no support at all, for the following reasons:

Refutation #2 - The Avnei Nezer he quotes that says the Oath of shelo yaalu kachomah is not applicable is the ascent was peaceful and with permission, clearly does not apply to the other Oath of dechikas haketz. For his diyuk in Rashi, "byad hachazakah" is only referring to Oath #2 (shelo yaalu kashomah) and not #3 (dechikas ha'ketz). So even according to the Avnei Nezer, it would still be assur to take EY even peacefully, due to the Oath of Dechikas Haktez.

Furthermore, the Minchas Elozor has questioned the authenticity of that Avnei Nezer altogether - ME V:12 says that it contradicts the Avnei Nezer's publicly known policies and is therefore most likely a forgery.

Even if those authorities were all authentic, and even if they did give heterim for all the Oaths, they are still a minority opinion. At the very least, Rabbi Aviner provides no due process to tell us why we would pasken like the Avnei Nezer against the Ramban (?!) and the others.

It's strange - he says we should pasken like the Ramban against the Megilas Esther because the Ramban was so much greater, yet when the Avnei Nezer (and, according to him one or two later achronim) contradict the Ramban and the Maharal and Rav Yonason Eyebushitz and the Yefas Toar - he just ignores the Ramban and the rest.

Refutation # 3 - There is no shita in the world that says if some nations get together and vote that Jews should get EY they can. The shita says that if they can take EY peacefully without resistance then it would not violate the Oath. But that did not happen here. There was a war - the war of '48, where 6,0000 Jews were killed. The Arabs, who were living in and around the land, did not give the Jews any permission to take it. Other countries did, and there is no such halachic status that the UN is like some kind of Sanhedrin Hagadol that can bind other nations to its decisions (any Zionist can tell you that). In any case, there is no comparison to a Coresh or any other "peaceful ascent", since - hello!! - in order to create the State of Israel they had to fight a bloody war with the Arabs!!!. So why in the world is that called a "peaceful ascent"?
If the Zionists were weaker they never would have been able to create a State - it all depended on their Yad Hachazakah.


No shitah ever found or imagined ever permitted such a thing. Not the Avnei Nezer, not R. Meir Simchah, nobody.

In fact, rabbi J. David Bleich - of YU, NOT Satmar, had long ago pointed out this absurd usage of Rav Meir Simcha's letter. Quote:

"This observation (of Ohr Someach)is entirely inappropriate in the context of this discussion. This observation, uttered upon promulgation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in a peaceable manner with full permission of the mandate authority would not contravene the Three Oaths. The statement is both unexceptional and entirely inapplicable under other circumstances. Moreover, it explicitly recognizes the binding nature of the oaths." (Journal of Halachah and Contemporary Society XVIII p.108).

His point is that the circumstances that the Ohr Someach's statement was referring to were not the circumstances that came about.

Refutation # 4 - The Balfour Declaration never promised the Jews that they could take over Eretz Yisroel. Although the Zionists said it did, they were told time and time again that it is not so.

At www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/israel/large/folder4/isd07-4.htm
you will find a letter from Freda Kirchwey to Chaim Weizman. The following is an excerpt therefrom:


"The Jews based their claim to the right to go to Palestine on the Balfour Declaration....
"The question of a "national home" can be subject to many interpretations. it is hard to believe that the British government, using the words "national home" in 1917 had any idea that there should be created a Jewish State in Palestine without regard to the rights of the large Arab majority living there".


Also, the following memo by Frank P. Corrigan, titled "Summary of the Palestine Problem" at
www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/israel/large/folder4/isd08-1.htm

"The legal claims stem first out of the Balfour Declaration. This was a political paper that promised the Jews a 'home' where they might feel safe from persecutions from which they had for centuries been the victims. Closely examined, this does not constitute much grounds for the legal establishment of a sovereign Jewish State in Palestine. The Jews have read into it much more than it contains."

In fact, the Balfour Declaration was originally drafted by the Zionists. They (July 1917) wanted it to say, "His Majesty's government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.."

But Lord Balfour did not agree to that. What it said instead (October 1917) was "His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...".

A big difference. A 'national home' is not necessarily a sovereign state, and "in" Palestine does not mean, as they wanted it to say, [all of] "Palestine".

Winston Churchill, in response to the Zionists running around telling the world that "See? They said we can take Palestine as our State!", retorted that the declaration did not mean "the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as whole, but further development of the existing Jewish community." In other words, a safe home for Jews to live within Palestine, a developed Jewish Yishuv within Palestine, but not a Jewish State.

Rabbi Aviner’s Defense of the Anvei Nezer


Note: As stated above, there is no shitah mentioned by anyone including Zionists that if the nations of the world are in disagreement whether the Jews should take EY, that the United Nations vote decides, or even that a majority of nations decides. What decides, according to this shitah, is whether the taking of EY is done peacefully, without need for strength or arms (“yad hachazakah”), then, permission that allows such a peaceful, unopposed ascent would not be in violation of the Oath of Shelo Yaalu Bachomah.

If on the other hand, a “yad hachazakah” – strength of arms – is needed to take over EY, such an ascent is in violation of the Oath of Shlo Yaalu Bachomah according to everyone. In the case of the State of Israel, despite UN votes and suggestions, residents of the land being taken from them gave no such permission for Jews to take it. And they resisted the land being taken by the Jews such that a bloody war had to be fought over the land, a war in which one percent of the entire Jewish population was annihilated. Hardly a peaceful ascent, and surely one that required “yad hachazakah.”

The opposition of these nations to the Jews taking EY continues to this day, such that EY has become the most deadly place for Jews to live, because of this opposition. There are Jews who will not ride their own busses, will not congregate in crowded places, and cannot enter a mall or bus station without being searched by police or soldiers and scanned by metal detectors, because of the opposition to the Zionist take-over of EY – still, 50 years later.

There has been on the average one war every 10 years of the State’s existence, not counting intifadas and acts of terrorism. All because of the then-residents’ opposition to the Jews taking over EY.

There Zionists have no come up with a single shitah that such a takeover is anything but a violation of “byad hachazakah.”

The Zionist denial of the bloody results of their “solution to anti-Semitism” and “safe haven” for Jews does not help the close to 25,000 Jews who were killed in this “safe haven.” Yet the Zionists – Roshei Yeshivos and Rabobnim among them – still teach their impressionable young students that the Zionists takeover of EY is comparable to Coresh’s open invitation for Jews to come into his land and build the Bais Hamikdash.

When we wonder, when learn in Yeshiva that intelligent Jews used to bow to sticks and stones, how the Yetzer Horah can make an intelligent person do such a stupid thing, we have but to observe, first hand, the Zionist “defenses” to their crimes against the Torah, and see what utterly ridiculous things intelligent people can come to believe when the Yetzer Horah wants them to believe them.

No comments: