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)

Showing posts with label ZIONISM / ANTI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ZIONISM / ANTI. Show all posts

12.06.2006

ZIONISM / OATHS-----intro and summary

-
MODERATOR Posted - 05 May 2004 8:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are inundated with repeats of the same Zionist teachings almost daily, even though they have already been addressed all over the site. Please, before you submit any of the following positions, read the information that is already posted.

I am fully aware that in religious Zionist institutions, these teachings are taught over and over as if they are compelling. What they don't teach you is that all of the following have already been addressed - and rejected - by the Gedolim. The Zionists have compiled the hava aminas - the forethoughts - of the Gedolim, left out the conclusions and the reasons why those thoughts were dropped, and spread them around as if they thought of them as "responses" to the Torahs of the Gedolim.

So please, if you are planning on submitting any of the following discredited arguments, please be so kind as to read the material on the site first:

1) The Oaths are not binding because they are Agada not Halachah. The oaths are, in fact, Halacha, quoted by the poskim in several places, and applied by our Gedolim, including the Rambam himself, throughout our history in actual practice.

2) The Oaths are not applicable because of the Balfour declaration and /or the UN vote.

a) Not only are the Oaths binding according to the consensus of authorities, including the Ramban, even if the nations give permission, but

b) the Balfour declaration was misrepresented by the Zionists;

c) Israel was created against the will of the Arabs, who were the residents of the land at the time - the UN is not a Sanhedrin HaGadol that speaks for everyone. The fact is, Hanagnahs, Irguns, Stern Gangs and a War of Independence was waged in order to create Israel - which hardly constitutes a "peaceful ascent into the land", which is what would be needed to mitigate the Oaths even if we accept the premise;

d) even if we accept the Balfour declaration as "permission" to create a Medinah, what the Balfour declaration intended is not in fact what happened - instead of a peaceful coexistence with the Arabs, violence and bloodshed took place to create the Medinah. This covers the false accusation that Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk "agreed" that the creation of the State of Israel does not violate the Oaths.

3) The Oaths are no longer applicable because the Gentiles broke "their part of the deal", so we can break ours. The truth is there was no interdependent "deal" between us and the nations - all of the Oaths were made for our sake, not the sake of the nations. There was no mutual agreement, and so no reciprocity. This is the simplest Zionist falsification to dispute, since the Poskim and Gedolim who applied the Oaths throughout history, did so despite the fact that the gentiles violated theirs. The Gemora itself applies the Oaths to the Evil Empire of Bavel, which certainly violated the Oaths.

4) Our situation is comparable to Coresh's invitation of the Jews to return to Eretz Yisroel. The Ramban writes that only the Jews from Bavel returned per Coresh's invitation, because they had an explicit prophecy that the golus was ended. This constituted only about 1,500 Jews. The rest of the exiled Jews did not return, the Ramban says, because doing so would violate the Oaths.

Coresh, incidentally, was a Tzadik - that’s a quote from Chazal - as opposed to the Zionists who were heretics. The popular religious Zionist argument that "anyone can be G-d's messenger" as Coresh was, is simple sophistry.

NOTE: This forum is closed. It is here merely for "summary" and introductory purposes. If you want to respond to any of this, please see the places where they are discussed, READ THE PROOFS to these positions, and then and there, if you still have a comment, respond.

12.04.2006

ZIONISM / OATHS-----the oaths

MODERATOR Posted - 30 May 2002 19:49


The following Q was posted by MusicMan is a different forum. I am moving it here:

Hey Moderator - I posted these questions elsewhere but I think the topic may have been discontinued. Anyhow, the two questions are as follows:

1) What is the orthodox Jewish view on Israel? I see a lot of posts saying what it is NOT - but what IS it?




MODERATOR Posted - 31 May 2002 2:56


In order to understand the great significance Eretz Yisroel plays in the Torah, we need some background on the very fundamentals of Judaism.

The purpose of the entire world is for us to do Mitzvos, thereby meriting the Final Paradise (Olam Habah) which is what the world will be when Moshiach comes.

Currently, Hashem cannot (kavyochol) send Moshiach, the reason being the world is not ready for it. That means not only the people, but the very world itself. The world is much too unspiritual now, to be able to exist in the atmosphere of spiritual energy that Moshiach will bring. In a nutshell, if Moshiach would come now, it would be like being nuked.

Our job, given to us by Hashem, is to condition ourselves and the world, raising it to a sufficient level of spirituality that it will be ready and fitting for the spiritual energy of Acharis HaYamim (i.e. the post Messianic era).

We do this by performing Mitzvos and learning Torah. The spiritual energy generated by Torah and Mitzvos sanctifies us and the world, raising it higher and higher until it reaches the point where it is ready for Moshiach.

Eretz Yisroel was designed in a very specific spiritual way, in order to assist us in this task. It is imbued with a "sensitivity" to every act of spiritual significance done within its territory, and, through the medium of the Bais HaMikdash and the service done therein, directs that energy throughout the world, thus sanctifying every inch of it, conditioning it for Acharis HaYamim.

You can say that the acts of the Jews provides the energy, and Eretz Yisroel provides the conduit, the arteries that connect the energy generated by us throughout the world.

Eretz Yisroel also has the ability to amplify the energy of any act of spiritual significance done within its borders. So not only does EY provide the conduit to sanctify the world, it also enhances the spiritual energy that we generate at the same time.

NOTE: The above applies not only to Mitzvos, but to aveiros as well. Because of this amplification power of EY, any Mitzvah done in EY is greater than an equal Mitzvah done in Chutz La'Aretz, AND aveirah done in Eretz Yisroel is worse than an equal aveirah done in Chutz LaAretz.

Thus, EY is the best place for Tzadikim and the worst place for Reshayim.

In fact, the land itself, because of its sensitivity to the acts of our souls, is affected by our Mitzvos and Aveiros. When we do Mitzvos in EY we enhance the sanctity of the land. When an aveirah is done in Eretz Yisroel, it pollutes the land, stripping it of its sanctity.

What was supposed to happen then, is that we would fulfill the Torah in EY until the world would be ready for Acharis HaYamim.

Unfortunately, we messed up. We sinned. And the spiritual energy that was generated was no longer strong enough to sanctify the world. EY is the arteries, but Klall Yisroel is the heart. If the heart isn’t pumping, the arteries are useless. Never mind the fact that they get clogged up due to our mistreatment of them.

We were no longer able to do our job from within EY. EY as a homeland no longer served any purpose for the nation. We became too spiritually weak for the land.

We were no longer accomplishing our job by being there.

So we went into Golus, to be spread all over the world to MANUALLY sanctify it all over, where previously we were supposed to do it long distance. We lost the ability to use EY to fix the world, but we can do it ourselves, locally, by being all over the world and doing Mitzvos

Hashem gave us the land ON CONDITION that we keep the Torah. We broke the condition so Hashem took away the land. Mipnei Chataeinu Galinu M'Artzeinu.

Whether there is a Mitzvah for individuals to live in EY during Golus is a disagreement in the Poskim. But everyone agrees that as a nation, we no longer have any homeland.

But Jews in Golus are out of their natural environment, which is connected to EY. We have no choice - it’s the only way to accomplish our mission in this world, but there’s a problem:

The Jewish nation was not designed to live in Golus. We were designed to live as a nation in EY. We have no choice currently because it’s more important to fulfill our mission in the world, but because we are not on "home ground" we are like a sheep among 70 wolves.

In Golus the Goyim have the upper hand - and that includes within the borders of EY also, nowadays that Golus has occurred. In our unnatural state of being, we are like living every day with our head in the mouth of the lion. What are we to do to survive?

Hashem told us. He gave us instructions on how to survive Golus. If we do this, we will survive. If not, death and annihilation await us. To quote Chazal "[G-d will] allow your flesh to be hunted like animals in the field."

The instructions are: Shelo yaal bachomah - Do NOT go back to Eretz Yisroel as a national homeland. You may live there as individuals - maybe even it’s a Mitzvah to do so - but as a nation, its not yours anymore. You’re in Golus. Do NOT try to fight the Golus. It will not work. Instead, live in it.

Two, Lo l'hisgaros b'umos - Do NOT confront the nations of the world. Be subservient to them, accept their yoke, do their will, do not defy their demands, do not say "NO" to their wishes, and do NOT attract attention to yourselves.

The only way to survive with your head in the lion’s mouth is to make sure the lion does not get annoyed with your head there. As soon as he gets annoyed, its curtains. The best thing you can do is not be noticed.

As Rav Elchonon Wassermann put it: To the extent that the nations do not pay attention to us, we are safe. To the extent that we are the focus of attention of the nations, we are in danger.

We are in enemy territory in Golus. Our job is to lay low, accept any casualties that may tragically occur, but wait for Hashem to rescue us. If we defy our orders and make like we are a nation like all nations - with an army, a State, demands, territory etc - we will be left on our own, to be hunted down and killed by the wolves c"v.

Just like an assimilated Jew will be subject to anti-Semitism in order to remind him that he is a Jew - he cant change that - so too the sheep (Jews in Golus) who try to make like a wolf (be a nation among the nations) will be reminded that he is a sheep, and the nations are the wolves. Rachmana Latzlan.

This is the only way for us to accomplish our mission in this world. We brought this upon ourselves. We are behind enemy lines and our job is to lay low and "plant" sparks of holiness around the world so that when Moshiach comes those sparks will erupt in a conflagration of spiritual energy that will bring the Ultimate Victory - Acharis Hayamim.

Eretz Yisroel is holy. It still is. But it no longer serves our purpose of a homeland.

Going back to it as a nation - for individuals may (and maybe should) live there, under the sovereignty of other nations - is like the Jews trying now, to move back into a house the bank foreclosed on you years ago. Two thousand years ago. We had a choice. We chose sinas chinam over Eretz Yisroel and the Landlord kicked us out. And now we wander like sheep. The solution is to lay low until the shepherd comes and blows our enemies away.

Our job vis a vis the situation in EY today is to protect the lives of the Jews there. Not to protect the land. One Jewish life is worth more than all the land in the world.

A thousand people would violate Shabbos to save one Jewish life - even if it were merely a doubt of danger. Our most prized possession, to say the least, is a Jewish life.

Whatever it takes to save and to protect the lives of Jews in EY must be done, whatever the cost in terms of territory or national humiliation. One Jew is worth it.

The only question is, what does that entail? The problem is, those privy to the information that can help us make the decision - the politicians and the high government officials - c\do not share this agenda, and they cannot be relied upon to convey the reality to us.

That leaves us with one real option: To turn to Hashem. To pray to the shepherd as lost sheep, begging Him to help us.
There is no other choice.

Ain lanu al mi l'hashan ele avinu shebashamayim.




KYYLCLH Posted - 02 June 2002 19:04


Just want to point out that the MOD's thoughts on some issues dealing with Israel today are A particular view on the issue.


There ARE other points of view on modern-day Israel. Ayen Rav Kook on Eretz Yisrael, Rav Shlomo Aviner (Rosh Yeshiva Ateret Kohanim), almost all modern-day 'Zionist' poskim who don't hold with the so-called 'Three oaths' (for reasons such as not being Medaresh Halacha from Aggadeta, etc.), etc.


Just wanted to point out that there IS another side to the matter!


MODERATOR Posted - 02 June 2002 20:24


Sorry, KY, but its not so. The Zionist idea of disregarding the Oaths is Halachicly absurd, and worse, dishonest.

The Oaths are quoted in Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim l'halachah, and have been used throughout history as fact, and nobody until the Zionists came along ever tried to disregard them, due to the obvious wrench they throw in their agenda.

It’s a pity that the Rambam, who, in Igeres Taimon warns us not to dare violate the Oaths, did not know that they don’t apply.

In fact, one of the most outrageous Zionist falsifications to to claim that the Rambam did not consider the Oaths binding since he did not bring them in his Mishna Torah.

Yeah, right - except for the fact that the Rambam himself warns us not to violate them or else in I.T. Its falsification enough for your ideas when the Rambam disagrees with you, but to have the Rambam himself disagree with your interpretation of the Rambam is living in the twilight zone.

And I guess the Ramban was wrong when he says that the reason Jews en massse (except 1500) did not follow Coresh's call to go back to Eretz Yisroel was because they did not want to violate the Oaths.

And I guess the Maharal was wrong for saying that it is better to die than violate the Oaths.

And I guess, too, that Hashem was wrong for killing all the Bnei Ephraim in the desert for violating the Oaths. I guess Hashem didn’t know that the Oaths do not apply.

Please. This is why Zionism is not considered (by anyone except the Zionists) to be a legitimate "shita" but rather a deviation of Judaism, and even idolatry.

In a Machlokes between the Rambam, the Ramban, the Rivash, the Rashbash, the Marhral, Rav Yonason Eyebuschitz and all the others who do believe in the Oaths, never mind Chazal who tell us say masses of Jews have died for violating them - against a few twentieth century Zionist poskim, we pasken like the first side.

Can you please tell me, if all the Zionist heterim did not save the Bnei Efraim, why should we think they will save us? Egypt surely persecuted the Jews "more than enough" yet the entire tribe was annihilated in the desert for leaving Egypt early because of the Oaths.




grend123 Posted - 02 June 2002 22:56


the bnei efraim are a much different story –

1) Its a medrash, not a posuk in torah


2) The land had NEVER been given to bnei yisrael (they were premature in the same way lot was premature in allowing his cattle to graze), while after the second beis hamikdash we say "kidsha shniya kidsha leasid lavo" - its STILL the holy land (it wasn’t yet then until yehoshua was koveish it).

Again, this has little or no bearing on post-bayis sheini Zionism.



MODERATOR Posted - 02 June 2002 23:02


Doesn’t matter - you still see that violating the Oaths brings death. Which means its binding, in opposition to the opinion of the Zionists who say it’s harmless to violate the Oaths for whatever reasons.

PS - The holiness of the land has nothing to do with the Oaths.




KYYLCLH Posted - 02 June 2002 23:26


I believe Rav Aviner has a whole book on this issue. Ever read it?





MODERATOR Posted - 02 June 2002 23:41


If the Oaths were conditional the Bnei Efraim wouldn’t have died - for Egypt surely violated their "oath".

And the Jews would have been able to ascend in the days of Koresh, for the Goyim surely violated their oath even more until then.

And the Rambam would have no reason to warn us not to violate the Oaths, because the goyim violated their oath even more until then.

And the Gemara would not say that the Oath applies to Bavel, since they violated their Oath in a big way.

The Oaths can’t be interdependent because all three Oaths were for the sake of the Jews - as opposed to Interdependent Oaths, where each Oath is for the sake of the Other party.

As a drush, this is cute, but l'halachah, it’s a joke.

And it also shows that the Oaths are not non-cognitive Agada, also a scam that ignores the Chazal Rishonim and Achronim.

As for Rabbi Aviners material, yes, I have read it. And Rabbi Teichtel, and Rav Kook (the new material that just came out that includes comments on Kesuvos), and Rabbi Aron Soloveichik, and Rabbi Menachem Kasher, and Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman (did I leave anyone out?)

They’re all pretty much repeats of each other, with little variations and additions. Their arguments have long been shown to be useless (in fact, most of them were pre-empted long before these chiburim came out). They’re really not impressive.

Here's how this works: Throughout history, Klall Yisroel has had religious, scholarly people who have taken us off the Derech with their Torahs. Korach, Yeravam, the Meraglim etc. All of these were more religious and more knowledgeable than the Zionist Poskim, and on a higher spiritual level. But history - and Chazal - teach us that that’s the way the world works. Just because a person or a group of people are "legitimate" does not mean they cannot be totally off the derech. Korach had his followers too - 250 heads of the Sanhedrin - and so sis the others. They had their 'Torahs" and their "proofs" too.

But we know that issues such as these are judged by their own merits, and not by the fact that religious or even scholarly people espouse them.

And on its own merits, Zionism doesn’t work. Neither from a Torah perspective nor from a historical perspective.

And even from a "who said what" perspective, the great bulk of Torah leadership - quantity and quality - have said that Zionism is beyond the pale. Not to be considered even a legitimate, minority opinion.




KYYLCLH Posted - 03 June 2002 15:11


"As a drush, this is cute, but l'halacha, it's a joke..." I was going to say the same thing about your arguments.

Has there been a book published countering those 'Zionist' counters to the issue of the three-oaths that you mentioned above, or just that all your Rabbonim 'say' that it's a bunch of junk and has been pre-empted, etc...

Also, you forget the fact that there's historical proof that Hashem didn't hold the 'oaths' against us here. If He wanted to, there would have been ample opportunity to wipe out the Medinah - how about '48,'54,'67,'72 etc... There davka is proof that there was Neis to actually save the then weak Israeli state. I'll tell you some stories if you like...



MODERATOR Posted - 03 June 2002 15:34


Oh please. Such "books" are no more compelling then the books put out by Reform or Conservative rabbis "countering" the arguments against them. More books mean nothing, they will all be disproved like the first dozen or so were. And you don’t have to be much of a Talmid Chacham to do it.

Just like you’re "proof" that Hashem doesn’t believe in the Oaths because he in His mercy does not wipe out Israel. These indeed are the types of arguments that Zionism has to rely on, nebach. (Incidentally, it says nowhere that if you create a State, G-d will "wipe it out". It merely says that G-d will allow Jews to be killed.)

Of course, the fact that G-d allows evil in the world does not prove that He approves of it. G-d allowed six million Jews to be killed - does that mean He approves?

As far as miracles go, that, too, is a joke. The Gemora is replete with miracles done for idol worshippers and enemies of Hashem.

The Arabs can tell you of equal or better miracles done for them. Arafat's plane crashes in or about 1995 (I forget exactly), all passengers in the plane are killed immediately, but he walks out unscathed. I guess G-d approves of Arafat.

The Dor Haflaga shot arrows into the sky to "kill" Hashem. the arrows, the medrash says, came down dripping with blood. They archers thought they wounded Hashem.

This was a miracle, obviously. Not kishef - for the archers themselves were the ones fooled. But the rule is, "haba l'tameh poschin lo" - Hashem allows miracles to happen for good and for bad.

Rav Yaakov Saaportes, the great fighter against the Shabse Tzvi records miracles that were performed for the Shabse Tzvi and his followers. S"T used this as "proof" that G-d approves of him. The Gedolim of those days told the people that miracles prove nothing and G-d allows miracles for bad people as well as good ones, for numerous reasons, but we have no idea what G-d's cheshbonos are. Miracles are not proof of validity.

And now the Zionists are using the arguments of the Shabse Tzvi.




MODERATOR Posted - 03 June 2002 16:01


"As a drush, this is cute, but l'halacha, it's a joke..." I was going to say the same thing about your arguments.

Of course you would. But you have not provided nay reasoning except wishful thinking. My arguments are not mine, but existed before you - and I - were born. And any high school kid is capable of asking "Hey if the Oaths are merely Agadita and they don’t count then why were thousands of Jews killed for violating them??" Or "Hey if the Oaths can be ignored cuz the Goyim were too bad to us, then why does the Rambam warn us not to violate them or else?" Its not rocket science.

The fact that in Zionist enclaves these "proofs" are still being given despite their being compellingly squashed before the Roshei Yeshiva in many of these places were born is a spiritual crime. Go ahead. Ask any "Zionist Posek" for an answer, and see what you get. Copy these pages and give it to your local Zionist for an answer, and then you tell me if they came up with anything different than what was already disproved decades ago.

If you have no answers or support from precedent, you are obligated to change your position. That applies to the "Zionist poskim" themselves.

PS - re your "historical proof". Fifty years is not much of history. In Maaseh Ish it relates that when asked if the Medinah halachicly negates the status of Yerushalayim bchurbanah, the Chazon Ish answered, "The Medinah? And how long do you think the Medinah will last? About 50 years, maybe?"

Do not be quick to demand Hashem's punishment on Klall Yisroel. Be happy, instead, that He has Rachmonus. It is terribly dangerous to say "If I am doing something wrong then why isn’t hashem punishing me?" You understand what the Mida k'neged mida can be...r"l.




MusicMan Posted - 02 July 2002 15:46


Two Things Moderator:


1) I don’t understand why there is so much talking about whether there should or should not be a state of Israel. I think that people on both ends of the argument have to wake up and realize that it no longer a conceptual debate - it is REALITY - the state is here. I think you have wasted so much time debating whether or not it should have happened instead of trying to deal with the reality of the situation.


2) Just wondering how you could make such claims as Bnai Efraim should not have died - and claims of that sort. In doing so, you arrogantly assume that you know the reasons behind why events of the past have happened. For you to make the claim that the oaths are not interdependent BECAUSE the Bnai Efraim would not have died if the oaths were, in fact, interdependent - and arguments of that nature - is quite presumptuous.




MODERATOR Posted - 02 July 2002 16:30


Its Chazal who say the Bnei Efraim were annihilated only for violating the Oaths. The same way, like, for instance, Chazal say the Bais HaMikdash was destroyed because of Sinas Chinam.

There is no "debate." Its pretty clear. Of course the State of Israel is a reality - but the question is, what can we do about the problems it causes? And what do we do about the conflict of interest between what is good for the State of Israel versus what is good for Klall Yisroel? What do we do about the fact that Israel represents itself as the "Jewish State" thereby causing anti-Semitism all over the world through its actions and political involvement in world affairs?

What do we do about the fact that the State of Israel tries to falsely convince Jews that its existence saves lives, prevents holocausts, and therefore it is worth great sacrifice to support it? What do we do about the fact that Jews all over the world are in danger because of the State - anti-Semitism is up all over the world because of the middle east conflict, because people mistakenly believe that the actions of Israel represent the opinions of Judaism. And Jews.

Anti-Semitism is up in America after 9/11 because why in the world should Americans suffer because the Jewish lobby in America (according to Forbes magazine, the pro-Israel lobby is the 4th strongest lobby in the entire country!) demands support for Israel, which causes America to have more enemies?

There is enough anti-Semitism in existence already, that we do not need to fan its flames with people who do NOT represent anything Jewish running around telling the world differently.

And never mind the terrible punishment that Hashem said will happen if Jews make a Jewish State in Eretz Yisroel. Hashem Yishmerienu.

Rav Shach writes that the Yom Kippur war came "without a doubt" because of the Jews' belief in the strength of the Israeli armies, so Hashem came and showed them they’re not so strong. Kochi v'otzem yodi is just another avodah zorah.

"Dealing with the reality of the situation" means to eradicate from our hearts anti-torah beliefs. And not to put trust in those who do not care about the Torah. It means to disabuse ourselves of the idea that Israel makes us more of a nation, normalizes us, puts us on equal footing with the other nations, protects us from holocausts etc etc etc.

When Hashem sees that we support what He supports, and we are against what He is against, we will have accomplished a tremendous zechus.




TheBster Posted - 10 July 2002 21:52


Just a small deviation from the topic of the Oaths. What ever happened to Mitzvas Yishuv Ha'aretz? Even if you say that one must follow the Oaths, what about the mitzva for an individual person to live in Eretz Yisrael?

If one would look at the 'Yeshivish' world today one would think that this mitzva di'oraysa doesn't even exist!

The Yeshivos teach Torah and Mitzvos, yet this one is completely ignored! Just go over to any American chareidi and ask him if he has any hava amina of being oleh permanently.




MODERATOR Posted - 10 July 2002 22:03


The Chofetz Chaim wrote in a letter - and Rav Shlomo Kluger says the same thing in Responsa Ha'elef lecha Shlomo - that the myriad Gedolim who lived in Chutz La'aretz throughout the generations did so because of the shitos (Tosfos, and according to Megilas Esther, the Rambam) who argue on the Ramban and say there is no Mitzvah nowadays to live in Eretz Yisroel.

The Noda Beyehuda writes the same thing regarding why the Baalei Tosfos lived in Chutz Laaretz.

There are others who hold there is a mitzvah fulfilled if you do live in EY but not an obligation to do so (Mitzvah Kiyumis). Other hold that even if there is a Mitzvah, if it is spiritually better for you in Chutz Laaretz, you should stay there.

Every Aveirah that someone does in EY is intensified and judged more severe than had he stayed in Chutz Laaretz and done that aveirah. The ibn Ezra writes that EY is the best place to be if you are a Tzadik, and the worse place to be if you are a Rasha. Those in-between have to decide for themselves what is best for them.




HZ Posted - 29 October 2003 14:53


I'd like to add to this discussion that other matters may be applicable. It's harder to make a Parnasa there. And if one makes the extreme sacrifice of moving there and then doesn't have a good Parnasa, it may affect him spiritually detrimentally. This is in at least one of the commentaries printed in the shulchan aruch.

Also R' Avigdor Miller advises against it (at least in some situations) because your parents won't be able to visit their grandkids.

11.27.2006

ZIONISM-----discussion w/ phile gal 3

israel-phile gal Posted - 20 November 2002 14:39


I state again for the third time- that I do not feel sinah towards the people who are against Israel- but rather do not understand them. I do not understand how they can brush away all those Jews who lost friends, family, neighbors in the terrorist attack.

That is plain cold hearted- whether you want to admit it or not- those "Zionists" are considered your brothers & sisters, they are yours as well as my fellow Jews.

Even if the satmars are going to speak with the Arabs having in mind that they can save Jewish blood- that's not what it seems, & we learn from the Tanach that one is not allowed to do something if they know it will appear poorly in another person's eyes, & besides, I can definitely state as a fact, that anyone hurt in a terrorist attack does not look at the satmar people with thankful eyes, but they feel hurt & betrayed, & then they think that this is how all religious Jews behave- & if they themselves are not religious, they may get so turned away from Judaism like this, & decide that they never want to be religious if this is how they act.

You may have good intentions, but if they are unknown to other people, people will interpret things for themselves- & one is not allowed to give his zulat that opportunity...

I think you are very wrong to say that the miracles are irrelevant, because they are not. NOTHING with G-d is EVER irrelevant!

I must say I was very hurt by this comment. G-d does everything for a reason, so if He performed those miracles- which is nothing more than what they are, & I do believe He performed them- then there was a reason- you & I can interpret them differently...I just want to warn you about the strong lashon you are using on this site.

Since you are the Rav of this site, it is your job to make sure you are mekarev people & not pushing them away.

And I must say, that if I wasn't so strongly sure of my beliefs that Judaism is the right religion- I think I might have been very turned off by the way you said a few things...it says- halachah ki'bet Hillel- & when mashiach comes, then it will be ki'bet Shamai.

Hillel was a kindhearted person, who made sure never to hurt another person, while Shamai was strict & more severe (because he was on a higher madraigah) therefore, in time of galut, when bnei yisrael need a leader who is understanding & kind, we need someone like Hillel.

Once mashiach is here, we can have more strict leaders because by then we have to know what we stand for...

I disagree with you about only people who don’t know what they were talking about said that mashiach would come in 1967- MANY MANY rabbanim & Gedolim were saying that if only the Israeli army & government hadn't claimed those "powers" for themselves we would have had him...

This morning I was speaking to my mishlei teacher about what you answered to me yesterday- hoping to clarify beliefs...I agree with what she says- she said that she believes in tzion- but not in Zionism. I can understand that. she loves Israel (she is from there) & thinks that is the greatest gift G-d gave us (besides the torah, but she does not agree with how the government is running things, or with the anti religious actions- which I quite agree on, because I am religious as well...

You did not address the fact that many of gedolai yisrael live / lived in Israel...& I still want to know if you are saying that al those Jews who live in Israel are wrong for it, or for sending your kids to seminaries/yeshivot there...

shabbat shalom



MODERATOR Posted - 20 November 2002 15:21


Saying that you want to spit in people’s faces, which you said, is NOT the same as saying merely that you don’t understand them.

Your assumption that being against Zionism is brushing away victims and deaths yada yada, is false, and the result of Zionist teachings that assume Zionism saves lives or that it is a glorious cause worth dying for.

You have been grossly misinformed about many facts - first, it is not the Satmar people that rally with the Palestinians. They are against such action. Second, it is not true that people hurt in an attack think any particular way about them - it depends on their Hashkafa to begin with. Rabbi Boruch Kaplan ZTL, who was a survivor of the Chevron Yeshiva massacre, became a passionate anti-Zionist after he saw the bloodshed in Chevron that was caused by the Zionists trying to push their agenda on the Arabs - until the Arabs pushed back. There are many others, too, who are begging to make peace and stop the expansion of the settlements and the antagonizing of the Arabs which only leads to more bloodshed.

But although we surely feel the pain of the victims and our hearts go out to them with tears and compassion, their opinion does is not authoritative - the Halachah is. And nothing at all should make a difference in how we behave except how the torah tells us to - and the Torah tells us that Zionism is wrong, going up against the nations of the world - including Arabs - is wrong, fighting wars in Golus is wrong, all of which leads to more victims and spilling of Jewish blood.

The difference between the Zionists and Torah Jews is that they both agree that the State of Israel causes deaths of Jews; the Zionists think it is "worthwhile" for the Zionist cause, the torah Jews think that Jewish lives are worth more than having some State. You cant start a war with people, and then blame those who want peace for not respecting the deaths of the victims. The biggest honor for all the people who died r"l in Israel is if the deaths would end. As they say, "It is better to live for a cause than to die for a cause." The more people who are saved, the more honor it is for those who were not, r"l.

And that’s what these people are trying to do - end the deaths. Its amazing how that can bother people.

As far as your lesson from Tanach that you shouldn’t do what looks bad, that’s true, but if by doing so you will be saving Jewish lives, then go ahead an do something that looks bad. You’d break Shabbos and eat non kosher to save Jewish lives, you’d surely do something that can be misunderstood by those who refuse to understand.

If people don’t understand that Hatzolah are driving to save lives, should they let people die?

Miracles are of course relevant. What I meant was, they’re not relevant to our deciding what’s right ands wrong. That’s not the right way to determine correct Hashkofos - only the Torah is.

Zionism has nothing to do with living in EY. Doing so is a wonderful thing (for some people - for toehrs its a bad thing). Zionism means, in this context, having out own State. That’s against the Torah. Living there is fine, having a government - whether they are frum or not - is against the Torah.

Zionism has nothing to do with Eretz Yisroel - it has to do with the political idea of sovereign statehood there. That is what is opposed, not living there.

ZIONISM-----misc

tovtovtov Posted - 22 October 2002 19:01


Would you agree with me that being in the Holy Land, and praying at the Kotel is a great spiritual thing? That it is a mitzvah to be near the Holy of Holies?

If you accept that as being something at Jews world-over should do, then take a look at the modern state in this light: it is absolutely necessary for a modern state of Israel to exist for Jews to partake in praying at the Kotel.

In 1948, the Arab world invaded the hours-old state of Israel; in short, Israel kicked, except in the areas of the Golan, Sinai and Jerusalem [but we all know that this was taken care of in '67, but that's another story]. The Jordanians still had political control over Jerusalem, and especially the Old City. They forced all the Jews out of the Old City after the war in '48 and forbade all Jews from praying at the Kotel. The only way to remedy this situation was to gain political control over Jerusalem. Thus the 6-Day War of 1967 where this idea became reality.

The point is that, while I can accept that the modern State of Israel may not be what Hashem had in mind as a government for the time of the moshiach, it is necessary for Jews to have this modern political state so that they can perform various mitzvos. In short, the modern State is a political means to a spiritual end.


MODERATOR Posted - 08 November 2002 8:12


tovtov,

The problem is, creating a Jewish State is assur, so whatever the benefits, we may not do it. If the Kosel was accessible only by driving on Shabbos, would that become OK? So, too, if Kosel access is only available through making a State, we must do without. Davening at the Kosel is a nice thing, but it is not a mitzvah at all, and certainly not an obligation. Yet not having a State is an obligation.

And of course, besides that, davening by the Kosel is far from worth the price of Jewish lives that maintaining the State costs. To save one single Jewish life - or even on the slim chance that we may save one single Jewish life - we would be mechaelel Shabbos 100 times. Hatzolah will drive, call, or do whatever is needed. A Jewish life is worth more than even Shabbos - or Kashrus, or Tefillin, or just about anything.

So to say that we should create an army, fight Arabs, have Jews killed and maimed in an average of 1 war every 10 years (not counting intifadas and terrorism) in order to daven by the Kosel is absurd. All the benefits of the State of Israel are not better than Shabbos and Kashrus. And Shabbos and Kashrus are not attainable if it costs a single Jewish life. There is absolutely no heter at all to pay the price in Jewish blood for all the benefits that the State of Israel offers - and that’s even if it were permitted, or beneficial to create the State.

And that point - that whatever benefits there are still does not make it worth the price in Jewish blood, as Jewish lives are more valuable than just about anything - is a claim that the Zionists have struggled to deal with, but for which they have not yet come up with a semblance of a decent answer.

ZIONISM-----discussion w/ phile gal 2

israel-phile gal Posted - 08 November 2002 7:09


The difference between what the Neturei Karta & I feel/are doing, is that I said I feel like spitting in their faces- whereas, they actually do things that show sinat chinam. Whether or not they feel that they are violating the mitzvah loh taaseh- of sinat chinam & of letting their fellow brothers & sisters get killed- (which I’m sure u don’t agree with me on, because u feel they are preventing it) when they go & meet with Arafat- they are, whether you believe it or not making the Arabs feel that it’s ok w/ Jews to kill other Jews, & that they can go on & do what they want. & not only that people who don’t realize all the details you claim that are the goal of the Neturei Karta, see it as “hey look, the Jews not only try to prevent their own kind from getting killed but they are promoting it & are in favor of it as well!” not good.

Besides I can see that you have not read what I wrote with concentration, because I stated that as much as I may oppose or feel what they are doing is wrong, I would never dare publicly oppose them, or state it to the entire world…why? Not because I am unsure of what I believe in- but rather because I don’t know what G-d wants- & sorry to say but neither do you, nor anyone else. I read what you answered with an open mind, & I can understand where you are coming from, but I also do know that G-d won us those wars- 1948, 1967, 1973- pure miracles! An even you cant disagree with me on that! Big Rabbonim say that mashiach would have come in ’67, had it not been for the Israeli army & government’s gaava- & acting as if it was all them. So yes, I disagree with thing the government does- because there are many anti religious people running it. When I say I support the state of Israel- I’m saying, I support the fact that we have our own country, I support & believe the fact that G-d wants us to have Israel, otherwise He would have acted differently than He did…or maybe not- I don’t know, but the point is neither do you. When mashiach comes (& may he come now- because we definitely need him!) we will understand- as we see over & over again- tayku- we may have our opinions, but we cannot decide who or what is wrong & right- FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Our goal right now, is try to get other Jews to feel apart of us- & not to resent the religion, our goal right now is to control sinat chinam- the reason we were sent out of eretz yisrael .

Israel did not just “win a war” as u put it, they have won incredible wars- & not just one time! I’m sorry, I stated that wrong- G-d won for us & the state of Israel many wars…As for what u said with Hitler- I believe that Hitler (yimach shemo) was sent by G-d, yes, because before the zman of mashiach we need to go through as certain period of suffering- I believe that was it. I believe that was supposed to be our preparation for mashiach who should have come many years ago… & don’t tell me that it’s the Zionists fault Mashiach is not coming- because we all have a certain responsibility, & mashiach will come when we fix the chet, the sin, that caused us to lose the bet hamikdash- sinat chinam…if what your saying is true, does that mean you feel that Jews shouldn’t live in Israel? Because hey- we’re not allowed to be there- it’s against the g’marah. Tell me then how do you explain the fact that so many of gedolai & chachamai yisrael lived in Israel?

I’m sorry if this sounds chutzpadic, or disrespectful but it wasn’t meant to. I write this with the utmost respect, I think you’ve done a wonderful job on the website- but I disagree quite strongly on this point. The reason it may have come out really badly is because my emotions right now are just soaring, & I cant think straight right now- which is why this will probably not come out right, but I still felt that in order to release my upsetness I had to write back now…




MODERATOR Posted - 08 November 2002 7:45


Sinah - hate - doesn’t have to be an action. The feeling itself that you would like to spit in the face of another Jew, is itself a violation, as the Torah states, "lo sisnah es achichah bilvavechah". In fact, the Ramban says that this means if you harbor hate for a fellow Jew, you must tell him explicitly, because the prohibition is only harboring that hate inside of you, not if it is brought out.

We surely do know what Hashem wants - that’s why He gave us the Torah. You believe that G-d doesn’t want us to drive on Shabbos? To eat pig? That we should fast on Yom Kippur? The same as we know all that, we know about the prohibitions of Zionism.

And if you do not know, as you claim, what Hashem really wants, then you have no right to write such posts condemning other Jews for doing something that you yourself don’t even know to be wrong. There is no prohibition in the Torah for going against what israel-phile gal believes; only for going against what Hashem believes. If, as you say, we don’t know what Hashem believes, then everyone is entitled to do anything, and nobody has a right to condemn them.

The miracles that you describe, are (a) not relevant, and (b) negligible as miracles. They are not relevant because miracles are made even for evil doers, and even to assist people in doing aveiros. The Bnei Efriam, for instance, left Egypt before the Golus was over, and as a punishment they were all killed in the desert. We know that it was impossible for anyone to escape Egypt (real mem/mem sofit etc.) and so their escaping from that superpower was a clear and unquestionable miracle. Yet it helped them leave the golus early which was a terrible sin for which they were all killed.

Incidentally, the sin of leaving the Golus early, Chazal say, was the violation of the same Oaths that tell us not to take Eretz Yisroel as a State during Golus. They succeeded in violating the Oath then, miraculously, you say that when the Zionists did it, it was miraculous as well. Even if so, just as that fact did not help the Bnei Ephraim, there is no reason to assume it would help us.

And, as I said, the Palestinians have experienced an equal and opposite amount of "miracles" as well, which they use in their Palestinian schools to "show" that Allah is on the side of suicide bombers.

But those miracles weren’t real miracles at all. As I explained elsewhere, "great success" and blessing is not the same as a miracle. Documents from the Truman administration (posted in the Zionist section here) state that US intelligence said that in '48 although the odds are in favor of the Arabs in a war against the Jews, it is quite possible that the Jews, due to much greater organization and Arab lack thereof, would win. They said it would be no more surprising than the victory that Russia had over Hitler.

And at the outset of the 6 day war, President Johnson had predicted that Israel would win within a week. The Satmar Rebbe ZTL commented on the Zionist claim of miracles, "If the victory was a miracle, then Johnson must be a Navi!"

If you see or hear people using the term "nisim" in the context of our survival in Israel, it is to be taken in one of two contexts: either as a "loshon mushal" - not really meant literally, such as when we say "I had nissim today when my car broke down and the tow truck happened to arrive 2 minutes later", which is of course not a miracle, or in the general sense of Jews surviving among the nations as a sheep against 70 wolves, which is true with or without the state of Israel ,and has been, for 2,000 years.

What you are correct about is that we cannot know from historical events what G-d wants - we can only know from the Torah. For someone who claims we do not know what G-d wants, you seem very comfortable in claiming that the "miracles" for Israel demonstrates that G-d wants it. Only through the Torah can we determine what G-d wants - not through "miracles." Everyone gets miracles, and sine they come without the benefit of commentaries from Chazal and Rishonim, the way the torah does, they can be interpreted any way we like. They tell us nothing in and of themselves.

Regarding your psychoanalysis of the Arab reaction to Jews meeting with Arafat, the reality is, the existence of those Jews are covered in just about every Arab newspaper, magazine, and website; and not a single one confirms your opinion. On the contrary - across the board, they interpret those Jews to be interested in peace, against all killings, including and especially that of Jews, but against the Jewish control of the land. Your opinion is what the Baryonim surely said about Rav Yochanan ben Zakai sneaking out of the city against the "army's" orders and greeting the enemy, even calling their general "King". The Baryonim even tried to kill RYB"Z rather than let him do this because it went against their policy of not giving back Jerusalem.

So too, by the way, did the Zionists murder Dr. Dehaan when Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld sent him on a peace mission to the Arabs to explain to them that the Jews are NOT interested in taking the land form the Arabs, and that we do not support the acts of the Zionists.

You are assuming that the Arabs want to kill Jews for no reason at all, just out of sinah or anti-Semitism or whatever; the reality is that the Arabs want to kill the Jews for the same reason that the Indians wanted to kill the settlers - they took their land, plain and simple. And just as it didn’t matter that England wanted a "Jewish home" in Palestine, it also didn’t matter that England wanted colonies in America. We were warned by our Gedolim in pre-Israel times that if the Zionists do indeed take the land, it will be more of a deathtrap r"l than a safe haven.

G-d told us not to do it; our Tzadikim warned us to listen to G-d. Let us be grateful to Hashem that He has not punished us the way He has punished the Bnei Efraim for violating the same sin. Let's be grateful to Him for the "miracles" that He send to save Jewish lives, despite His warning that if we make a Jewish State, He will "allow us to be hunted down like game in the field". We should thank Hashem for being ma'arich ahf - and at the very least, show Him, in gratitude for the "miracles" that He has shown us, that we do not support that which G-d opposes or those who oppose Him.


PS - No reliable person ever said that Moshiach would have come in '67 etc. That was plain Zionist rhetoric, as usual, baseless and without a source.

ZIONISM-----state creates chilul hashem

tovtovtov Posted - 05 September 2002 19:51


You write: “the people that run the government there have no right to violate the torah and no right to put Jews in danger and no right to even present themselves as representative of the Jewish people"

You said somewhere else that Israel is a secular state like any other, and then you complain that it is not being run as a theocracy (like in Iran perhaps?).

And to finish, you seem to be saying that it shouldn’t really exist anyway, or at lest not until Hashem manifests himself and makes it happen for us.

So, secular state? Theocracy? No state? What is it you want exactly? (Right now, that is, not at some hypothetical future date when the Messiah arrives)

And by the way, I don’t think any leader in Israel presents himself as a “representative of the Jewish people”. I think they are representatives of the “Israeli government” . So who are you criticizing exactly?


MODERATOR Posted - 05 September 2002 20:12


No state. That would have been the best.

But now that there is a state, when they violate the Torah it creates - besides the violation itself - a big chilul hashem. It adds insult to injury that not only do they make a state but they call it "Jewish" even though it is secular.

They represent Jewry all the time. When Germany wanted to give reparation money to the Jewish people, they didn’t give it to Yeshivos or orphanages, but to the "Jewish State". Even today, when Sharon gets accused (indicted!) of war crimes, he says "This is a libel against the Jewish people!"

When Netanyahu responded recently to the claim that the "international community" will not be happy if they don’t give the Palestinians a state, he said, "International community? They and where was the international community during the holocaust?".

(Yeah, well they were the same place the Zionists were - not on the side of the Jews, but on their own side.)

They claim it is the official homeland of the Jewish People, to the point where they decide whoever is "Jewish" may have a place there - and their idea of "Jewish" is nothing but. They’ve actually re-defined what the definition of a Jew is. Only a religion can define what the requirements for its followers are - the world knows that - and the State has taken it upon itself to do that job.

The Zionists are constantly saying that "Israel" gives the assimilated or would-be assimilated Jews a "Jewish" identity.

To the world, Israel is the representative of the Jewish people. What they do reflects the collective voice of the Jews.

When the word is upset with Israel, they automatically think they are upset with the Jews. They burn down synagogues in France because they’re angry (rightfully or wrongfully) with what Israel does in the territories.

I am not responsible for what Sharon those not following Judaism do. I did not elect them to represent me, and nobody elected them to represent Judaism or Jews. Merely to govern a secular country politically. AN attack on him is NOT an attack on all Jews.

ZIONISM / OATHS-----the main problem

jj Posted - 08 May 2002 17:08


I heard once from a very choshiva yid, a aydim by r' wolfson shlit"a who is himself regarded very highly by everyone that even the Satmar Rav zt”l only wrote that stuff about the sholosh shvuos mainly because he was against the tzionistin because they were frie but not that he actually held that you have to learn the gemoras in that way.

You taka see that all the tzionishi yeshivos learn viyoel moshe and bring rayos against it. And anyways, even if the satmar rav is learning the right pshat in those gemoras, he zicher was a daas yachid in this.

You see a lot of Gedolim who didn’t hold like that,(no I'm not quoting any off the top of my head, but I do remember hearing once a whole list, sorry for not bringing any mikoyris) so isn’t the main problem of the medina just that they’re frie(not that that’s a small problem, but you chap what im saying)




MODERATOR Posted - 29 May 2002 15:39


jj,

Your "choshive yid" is misinformed, regardless of who his Yichus. The Satmar Rav writes clearly in the introduction of VaYoel Moshe that his intention is specifically not that way - but rather he considers his material to be actual proofs. And until someone comes up with a way to disprove all of them, they are obliged to concede.

In fact, other Gedolim have said the same thing as well. In the famous letter of the Rebbe Rashab of Lubavitch about the Zionists, he writes clearly that even if they would all be nice religious Jews, it would not change anything. Their being heretics is emphasized because that’s easy enough to see and understand even without any great Torah knowledge, and it is incontrovertible even by the most confusing and confused Zionist. Its black and white.

The material there almost duplicates the Daas of the other Gedolim on all the core issues, such as, the prohibition of creating a State before moshiach comes, the violation of the Oaths etc. The disagreement between Satmar and other Gedolim are only on minor issues such as voting in the elections, being part of the government and taking money from them. And even in those issues, there is no unanimity among the authorities even outside Satmar.

As far as the "answers" are concerned, they don’t exist. Most if not all of them have already been posted on these boards, together with the errors inherent in them (not that it takes a rocket scientist to find the errors). It is true that they keep teaching these things in Zionist schools, but that is despite the fact that they don’t work - they need something to keep up their ideology - the same was Chabad schools keep teaching "proofs" that their dead Rebbe is Moshiach. its the same thing. the fact that someone doesn’t want to switch sides doesn’t mean he isn’t obligated to do so.

Until the Zionists come up with some semblance of legitimate answers to the claims leveled against them on Halachic grounds, they have no right to their position.

ZIONISM / OATHS-----r meir simcha and balfour

hadtosaythis Posted - 08 May 2002 17:08


Re: The opposition of the Gedolim to Zionism. Very often, I find that people tend to confuse the Satmar Rav with the initial opposition to Zionism by various Gedolim.

The opposition to Zionism was merely that: opposition to the ideology of Zionism, namely , the emphasis on the nationalist component which was to the exclusion of, and was to eventually replace, religion.

However, the Satmar Rav's opposition was not at all synonymous with the opposition of, say, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik.

Secondly, you have failed to mention several other factors in considering "religious Zionism." The Ohr Sameach, Rav Meir Simchah of D'vinsk, was ecstatic when the Balfour Declaration was released; he considered it to be the Aschalta D'Geulah.

Also, after the War of 1948, an ad in the papers declared that, in the opinion of those who signed, that this event was the Aschalta D'Geulah. Those who signed included Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurebach ztl and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita.

Additionally, the impression I get from these boards, as well as the general impression I have, is that many feel that Mizrachi was a fringe movement, with minimal involvement of frum people. This is simply not true. The fact is that close to, or according to some accounts, more than fifty percent of the Rabbonim in pre-war Europe were Mizrachi( for example, the chief dayan of Vilna was Mizrachi, to name one).

I just want to make these purely factual emendations so that a more balanced view based on facts and not rhetoric can be developed.

hadtosaythis Posted - 20 May 2002 20:06


"You are misinformed. the Ohr Someach was neither "ecstatic" when he heard of the Balfour declaration nor did he ever c"v declare it to means 'Aschalta D’Geulah."

What happened was, when he heard of the Balfour Declaration, he said "The trepidation of the Oaths has passed." meaning, that if the Jews would establish a Yishuv in EY with the permission and blessing of the nations - which was hopefully going to happen - then there would be no problem with the Oaths."


I don't understand- nothing in the shalosh shavuos prevented the Jews from settling Eretz Yisrael with permission; the issue was "shelo ya'alu b'chomah." Jews were settling Eretz Yisrael for centuries. As recently as the late 1800's Jewish settlements had been established.


Surely, the Ohr Sameach was not stating that Balfour could remove the trepidation of the shalosh shavuos. Only a release from Golus could cause the trepidation to have passed, because only a release from Golus would cause the shalosh shavuos not to be binding.


Allow me to clarify my point regarding the difference between the Satmar Rebbe and everyone else. The whole point of political Zionism was that the Jews should get their own national homeland; except for the Satmar Rebbe, no one brought up the Shalosh shavuos.

(Remember, Herzl was inspired by the Dreyfus Affair; this convinced him of the necessity for the Jews to have their own homeland)

The objections were to their intentional exclusion of anything religious. The fact that Rav Chaim and the Ohr Sameach died before 1948 is not relevant. The shalosh shevuos would hardly have been irrelevant; it would have been the most natural argument to make.

The reason why the massive amount of rabbonim's " endorsement of Mizrachi was unaccompanied by any reasonable Torah justification" was because it was not a halachic issue: it was a judgment callas to whether or not to be involved with a movement that had secular origins.



MODERATOR Posted - 20 May 2002 20:25


The Oaths were the core of the opposition to creating a Jewish State by all the Gedolim, not only Satmar. Rav SR Hirsch speaks about them extensively regarding his opposition to Zionism in Chorev, the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rashab) mentions says so, too, in his famous letter in Daas HaRabanim. Reb Elchonon Wasserman brings them in his Ikvesa D'Meshichah, and even Rav Shach and the Steipler make mention of this as well in their letters. Rav Meir Simcha's statement also shows that his problem with Zionism was, among other things, violation of the Oaths.

But it is unclear what Rav Meir Simcha understood the Balfour declaration to mean. The Zionists said that it entitled them to take EY as a Jewish State, and they keep teaching this to their children to this day, without mentioning that they were told it is not so. The Zionists actually submitted drafts for Lord Balfour that did state so, but their drafts were rejected. Winston Churchill explained 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, but not a Jewish State.

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

"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".

But there are two Oaths that pertain to Zionism - the first one is "shelo yaalu kachoomah" which means not to take Eretz Yisroel as a Jewish State during Golus, and the second is not to do "hisgarus b'umos" meaning not to defy the nations of the world. We are not allowed to say "no" to the Nations during Golus. We are subservient to them. We certainly cannot confront them with our demands or threats. Zionism, which involved the taking of land against the will of its occupants, fighting wars, and defying international demands, certainly constituted that, and still does.

Rav Meir Simcha merely heard that England was willing to allow expansion of the Jewish settlement in Palestine, allowing immigration and safety. Without permission of the UK this would have constituted a violation of the Oaths.

But what happened in 1948 was a totally different story, and has nothing to do with Rav Meir Simcha's comment in 1917. In fact, there is a letter from Rav Meir Simcha printed in several places to that effect.

PS - Please shift all further comments on this topic to the "Zionism" forum, in "Jews Arabs etc."