ZIONISM-----eilu v'eilu? 3 (updated 1/14/08)

FlippedOutFish Posted - 02 January 2008 9:09

---

The Mod has quoted the Pardes article repeatedly about Rabbi Wasserman, Rabbi Kotler, Rabbi Rottenberg from Antwerp, and rabbis from Czechoslovakia and Hungary were unanimous in rejecting any proposal for a "Jewish State". Accepted

But how do you explain the view of the other Rabbanim as stated:

"Admo"rim from Boyan and Sadigora, Rav Tzirelson (the president of the [Agudath Israel] congress), Rav Levin from Reisha (the head of Agudath Israel), and Rav Sorotzkin, [who said that] it is possible to agree, according to the laws of the Torah, to the establishment of a Jewish state in its portion of the land of Israel without denying the belief in the coming of the redeemer."

Can you please explain?

MODERATOR Posted - 02 January 2008 9:20

---

I already did, elsewhere. Of course there were rabbis, especially in those days, who held like that (the Telzers changed their position radically BH - they used to even celebrate Yom haatzmaut!), but as I said, the Gedolei HaDor - the greatest of the generation who Klall Yisroel collectively relies on for guidance - were on one side. The Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Rav Ahron Kotler and Rav Chaim Ozer and those in that category were all unanimous. They did not consider the other side even a legitimate shitah - so why should we?

In fact, Rav Ahron and Rav Elchonon wanted to walk out of that meeting in protest! But Rav Chaim Ozer, who they contacted for advice, told them to stay and Elchonon wanted to walk out of that meeting in protest, but Rav Chaim Ozer, who they contacted for advice, told them to stay and voice their side.

Rav Tzirelson, the Sadigerer Rebbe et al were legitimate people, but our job is to follow the Gedolei HaDor, who did not even consider the opinion of those rabbis as even a legitimate opposing view. If there was any single person in that side who was as great as a Rav Ahron a Brisker Rav a Chazon Ish a Rav Chaim Ozer, or others, you could have a question, but of course there was not.

If the great Gedolei HaDor considered that opinion simply an error and not worth even being part of the discussion, then we should not either.

This issue is not an easy one even for Talmidei Chachamim. It took the greatest of the generation - thank G-d Hashem sent us such great leaders - to point out the terrible mistake in Zionism, religious or otherwise. It’s not like you can look it up in the Mishna Brura - it involves a deep and broad understanding of Halachah and Agada. Boruch Hashem the Gedolei HaDor were on the same page with this.

FlippedOutFish Posted - 08 January 2008 18:51

---

One can always see glimpse and pieces from various books but that’s not clear enough. For if you show that to a religious Zionist or anyone affiliated they will say "there is always another side" Eilu Veilu divrei elokim emet. There needs to be something that will include all opinions quotes, statements Hashkafos and torahs of all Gedolei Yisroel.

2. I don’t know the status on the frumteens book it doesn’t look like anything is coming out soon and it will be just one issue in the book. That is not good enough because people will jus argue.

3. The other point is not true that people who will want to read this will know how to read reg seforim anyway. There are thousands of people who can be so extreme on Zionism and can read Rishonim or Achronim correctly. Also, it would be much easier in even for people in America who know how to read seforim already anyway. In this way in English the statements will be clear and there will be no confusion. This way people will have free access to read it for themselves and determine their opinions. It will be much easier to show people why they are wrong instead of just saying look at this site jewsagainstzionism or frumteens. A book like this will be Mekarev thousands of people even views of some Rabbanim and make a huge impact on the world of the Jews.-Because right now literally thousands upon thousands of people believe how Zionism is the fundamental belief in Judaism and it’s not their fault that’s what they are being told that’s what they are learning.

I would actually say the exact opposite of you’re point that the people who would be interested already know how to read seforim. I would say fakert that the people who know how to read seforim could care less about this issue since they already have a Rebbi and know how to learn and find the right Hashkafa to them it will be Bitul torah and politics for a typical yeshiva bochur. But for the people who don’t know how to read seforim like most of the Jews in America will be dying to get a book like this for this is a fundamental belief they are being fed as the exact truth.

In any event its pretty sad how there could be a English sefer lets say "pro-Israel" for argument sake the book "Eim Habanim Semeicha"-can be translated in English and be sold at every seforim/judaica store in America but Vayoel Moshe/Efes Biltecha Goaleinu can not be translated at all!

Not just any book but there is any English koveitz or pamphlet or article just showing some of the statements of our Gedolim. People are so blinded out there and no one or Rav can make something against it. Are they afraid that people will not hold of them are they afraid of political pressure? To the point were they must conceal truth?

Why does Hashem conceal the truth from the eyes of thousands of Yidden and allow English Zionist books or articles to be distributed?

Can someone find anything please anyone or Moderator come out with a little kovietz or pamphlet or article in English to reveal things people were so blinded into following?
"makom Sheein anashim Hishtadel Liyihot ish"-In a place where there is no man, strive to be that man."
Is anyone willing to help half of klall Yisroel?

MODERATOR Posted - 13 January 2008 13:10

---

Our goal is not to convince religious Zionists that they are wrong. If they don’t realize that already, they are either in denial (as the Chazon Ish said about them) or they are blindly following their "leaders", and blindness is not dispelled through light.

There is enough of the truth out there, and in fact, from the laughable quality of the Zionist apologetics it should be obvious to them that there is nothing to say in their defense. If this were any other shaila - hilchos tefillin or shabbos for example - they would never rely on the unintelligible defenses of smaller rabbis against the Gedolei Yisroel's clear and obvious proofs. Nor would they say "there are other opinions." The consensus of the Gedolei Yisroel is clear, as is the consensus that there is no legitimate basis for the other side, any more than there is for worshipping the egel.
We live, again, in the times of Korach, the egel, Yeravam ben Neva. The gedolim then the greatest ones - had one opinion and people followed the wrong side not because of lack of ability to see who was right but because of lack of desire to see who is right.

Yet then, there were much much better reasons to be on the wrong side,. Much better. Shabse Tzvi performed real miracles and was a real Torah giant. Nothing compared to the defenses presented by the religious Zionists of today, which include simple forgeries, fraud, and Torah so clearly wrong, that clearly, logic and proofs and reasoning will not sway them

A bit of light dispels much darkness, but even a lot of light cannot dispel blindness.

And that’s what the Chazon Ish said - Zionist know deep down they are wrong - like the Tzedukim of old - they just don’t want to admit it.

Our job is to teach people the truth, and even to prove it to them. That has been done. If there are people who will not be convinced even though they have been proven wrong, we should go back to our Gemoras and finish another sugya. Our energies are better spent that way than on banging our heads against the wall.

ZIONISM / ANTI-----as simple as bosor vcholov

AmIsraelChai Posted - 25 December 2006 18:33

---

Kevod Harav.
Is it not true that many great rabbis of our time including Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and the recent Lubavitcher Rabbi that past away were all very pro Israel?

MODERATOR Posted - 25 December 2006 19:03

---

Well, you’re definitely not a Lubavitcher or else you'd know that the Lubavitcher Rebbe was quite anti-Zionist. He once actually said that he would feel obligated to take up the fight against the Zionists except for the fact that the Satmar Rebbe has done so already.

However, the Lubavitcher Rebbe did not publicize his anti-Zionism, and that is the single biggest complaint that the Satmar Rebbe had against him (or maybe there were others just as big - it’s hard to know exactly) - that he sold out his grandparents' Hashkofos because they weren’t popular. So while he still "officially" was anti-Zionist (which is why you will never ever see an Israeli flag or a Yom Haatzmaut celebration in Lubavitch), he kind of hid this fact and didn’t really mention the topic in public.

As far as Rav Ovadiah, you should not follow that position regardless, since Rav Ovadiah and those like him are a small, miniscule minority among the big talmidei chachamim, and although Rav Ovadiah is a world-class baki in Torah literature, he is not nearly a Godol Hador in the league of the Brisker Rav, Chazon Ish, Rav Ahron Kotler, Satmar Rebbe, Rav Chaim Ozer, Chofetz Chaim, and others of that sort who were much greater than he and declared Zionism not only to be wrong, but they said to disregard the opinions of those rabbis who are for it.

So if there were Rabbanim who were Gedolei Hador, like those above, who were Zionist, we could have a discussion. But there weren’t. There is no comparison.

But the truth is, your question is stronger than you realize. Because Zionism is Halachicly such a farce, that it's a wonder that any Talmid Chacham, even if they are not the greatest Gedolim of the generation, could fall for it. And this question was once asked to the Brisker Rav ZTL.

"How is it that some intelligent and upstanding people should be involved in such a stupidity that causes such destruction of Judaism as Zionism?"

He answered:

"In Koheles it says, 'Dead flies putrefy perfumed oil, and small amount of stupidity overshadows wisdom and honor'. Meaning, just as the perfumer's oil which is mixed in with spices that gives it an aroma which is very beautiful, nevertheless if you throw into it some dead flies, the perfume will become putrid because of them. So too is wisdom and honor - if you throw into it just a little stupidity, the stupidity will putrefy all the wisdom and overpower it.

"So, too," said the Brisker Rav, "it is with those people in whom even just bit of Zionism has entered, the small amount of stupidity with outweigh and overpower their wisdom, and cause them to do things that are just the opposite of wise." ("Harav MiBrisk", Vol 3, p.326)

I would like to add a source to that form the Gemora: shaani minus, d'mashcha!

All that having been said, you should know that both the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Rav Ovadiah are much more controversial than you seem to realize.

As for the Lubavitcher Rebbe, you can see the Lubavitch forum to see why the Gedolei Yisroel such as Rav Shach ZTL did not consider him a "great rabbi".

And Rav Ovadiah, although everyone agrees has a great encyclopedic knowledge of Torah, is not considered at all an authority such that we should abandon what our Gedolim said because of his position. He just isn’t in that league.

MODERATOR Posted - 25 December 2006 19:56

---

More on the above:

The issue of Zionism really is clear-cut simple. The case against is so black and white, and the case for, so impotent to the point of being impossible to take seriously, that there really does need an explanation as to how any intelligent person can believe in it. One such answer is that of the Brisker Rav, above, that sheer and utter stupidity does have the ability to putrefy one's intelligence.

Here's another answer, courtesy of the Chazon Ish:

In the days of the Chazon Ish's father, there was a certain rabbi who became a Zionist, and was planning on going to the Zionist Congress. When the Chazon Ish's father, who was the Rav of the town, heard about this, he told this rabbi not to go, and he even made him swear an oath that he would not go to the Zionist Congress. Eventually the Zionist rabbi realized his mistake and he gave up Zionism and became a Yorei Shamayim.

They asked the Chazon Ish why such a person would honor his oath not to participate in Zionist undertakings - since, according to him, he believes that participating in the Zionist congress is a Mitzvah for the sake of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, and so taking an oath that prevents him form participating would constitute an oath to prevent himself from doing a Mitzvah, which is invalid?

The Chazon Ish answered, the Mishna says (Yoma 1:5) that they made the Koehn Gadol swear that he would not follow the Tzedukim. The Pri Chadash asks why would such an oath mean anything - if the man is a Tzeduki, he holds their ways are a Mitzvah, and the oath would be invalid since it would prevent him from doing a Mitzvah.

The answer, said the Chazon Ish, is that the sinner, i.e. the tzeduki, is not a man with an opinion that tzadukiism is correct. Rather, he is simply following his Yetzer Horah to do bad, but deep down, he knows he's wrong. therefore, making an oath will stop him.

So too with the Zionists, said the Chazon Ish - even though the Yetzer Horah seduces them by telling him it is connected to the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, and other nice words, but in the depths of their hearts, they know the truth, that Zionism is Kefirah and meenus and it is a deviation from the Torah's way, and they know that such an oath (against Zionism) is not against the Torah, but rather a real legitimate oath. (Orchos Rabeinu vol.4 p.189)

So, in other words, Zionism is not really an intellectual position, but rather an intellectual rationalization for being a Zionist.

It's the Yetzer Horah fooling a person, and deep down he knows its nonsense, but the taavah and yetzer have the ability to cloud a person’s judgment - at least on the surface.

Of course, the taavah for Zionism is nationalism - everybody wants to be "a people" with their own country and their own identity, and also, as the Zionists themselves said, Zionism allows the "normalization" of the Jewish nation - we're no different than the Spanish, Italians and Greeks - now we're "normal" because we aren’t wandering like gypsies all over the world in ghettos and things like that. (afra l'pumaihu!)

It is this taavah that causes a person to rationalize. But deep down he knows that Zionism makes no sense.

It's like the posuk says - shochad yaavir ainei pikchim - bribery blinds the eyes of the wise. And, adds the Mesilas Yeshorim, the greatest bribery is the pull of the Yetzer Horah.

So it's not question anymore how wise men can be Zionists. Even though objectively, it makes no sense, but Zionism is not an objective position - it's the result of giving in to the temptation of the Yetzer, of taking bribery, which, as the posuk says, blinds the eyes of even the wise.

MODERATOR Posted - 25 December 2006 20:04

---

If you look at the source of the Brisker Rav's statement that I just posted, you’ll see on the same page a cute story about the Brisker Rav's father, Rav Chaim, regarding how simple it is that Zionism is wrong.

Rav Chaim ZTL was accustomed not to pasken shailos. He left that to the Dayan of Brisk. Of course, Rav Chaim was more than qualified, but he had his reasons.

One day, some ignorant fellow came up to Rav Chaim, who was vehemently anti-Zionist, and complained.

"Why is it," he said, "that you who refuse even to pasken simple shailos of basar bechalav, feel comfortable paskening such complex shailos like this one (i.e. about Zionism), which is so complex, so many people are so confused about it?!"

"On the contrary" said Rav Chaim, "if you see that even I, who would not pasken a shailah about basar bechalav, and paskening against Zionism, you see that it is even a simpler shailah than one about basar b'cholov!"

Tortured_Soul Posted - 26 December 2006 18:32

---

R' Mod,

Just above you wrote

"As far as Rav Ovadiah, yes, he is a Zionist rabbi, ..."

yet, elsewhere, much earlier, a moderator had written that while R' Ovadiah was at one point Zionist, he later retracted this and even wrote a teshuva in which he cited the 3 Shavuos and referred the reader to VaYoel Moshe for more on the topic.

MODERATOR Posted - 26 December 2006 18:35

---

I didn’t say that he wasn’t Zionist, I said that he stated that the Oaths are Halachicly binding.

In context, some Zionist rabbi had written, I think it was regarding land for peace, that the Oaths had "expired" according to Rav Chaim Vital.

The Satmar Rebbe exposes that Zionist myth as a hoax in Vayoel Moshe, showing that it is based on a distortion and misunderstanding (a little of both) of Rav Chaim Vital.

Rav Ovadiah points that out to the aforementioned Zionist rabbi.

This was in an article in a Zionist journal called Techumin, which I quoted elsewhere.

ZIONISM / ANTI-----the steipler

amolam Posted - 19 September 2005 10:53

---

In the sefer KARYANA DEIGRATA letter # 205.

the title of the letter states: "The issue of whether the 3 Oaths forbid PARTICIPATING IN ELECTIONS" i.e. The Steipler ZT"L is only addressing whether the oaths make it assur to participate in voting & gov't now that the medinah has already been established (ex post facto). the Steipler says in this letter & I quote (parentheses are mine):

"The claim of the Satmar Rov ZT"L (that it is assur to vote etc.. due to the oaths) is not understood.....because ALTHOUGH M'TICHILA HUYUH SH'LOH K'DIN (i.e. although the original creation of the medinah was unjustified - against torah) now that the medinah exists & is the only "Shiltohn" (ruling power) there is no issur to participate in elections, gov't etc..(in order to accomplish damage control by not allowing the irreligious to set policy)

Furthermore in letter # 203 he says that although there is no halachik issur in participating in the gov't, he admires the Neturei Karta for their position not to participate, because although it’s not assur, it exhibits a certain zealotry for what is right. (hardly a ringing endorsement for the permissibility of the creation of the state)

Furthermore in letter 203, he says the idea that the medinah is "Aschalta D'Geula" (beginning of geula) is a mistake; rather it is "the transformation of ONE GALUS TO A MORE BITTER GALUS.

MODERATOR Posted - 19 September 2005 11:02

---

On top of all that, you left out one key word in the Steipler's letter: when he disagrees with the Satmar Rav, he uses the word "lechorah", which means he is not expressing a conclusive opinion, but rather a tentative one.

onthefence Posted - 28 February 2006 9:55

---

regarding the Steipler's Lichorah - that doesn't seem to be a fair comment. He actively and conclusively held that it was a Chiyuv Gomur to participate in elections, obviously holding Halachah LeMaaseh that the Oaths don't play a role in the ex post facto reaction to the establishment of the Medinah.

MODERATOR Posted - 28 February 2006 9:56

---

No, he didn’t.

The Steipler did encourage voting, as per his Rebbe, the Chazon Ish, and he held ”L’chorah” this was the answer to the Satmar Rav’s claim against it.

The Chazon Ish (which, as a general rule, the Steipler followed) – and this was also the opinion of Rav Ahron Kotler - held that voting in the Israeli elections does not mean you approve of the existence of the State of Israel.

Rather, it means that ex post facto that we have to unfortunately live with it, we are obliged to do damage control and work to at least make sure that those who wield political power over the policies of the government make it as frum as possible – and not c”v vice versa. The Satmar Rebbe held that voting is tacit approval of the Avodah Zorah that is the State of Israel. The Chazon Ish said in response to this, “if robbers come and attack me, should I not negotiate with them to make sure they at least do not kill me? If I do, does that mean I approve of them robbing me?” This does not mean that the Chazon Ish held the State of Israel is not an Avodah Zorah – it means that voting and involvement in the government does not constitute approval thereof.

So someone apparently wrote the Steipler a letter saying that voting in the Israeli elections is a Halachic violation since it makes you or the person you’re voting for partners in the violation of the Oaths (or at least shows your approval). The Steipler said that lechorah the answer is that whereas being involved in the creation of the State of Israel may be a violation of the Oaths, ex post facto involvement in the government is not. He was not sure this was the answer, which is what “lechorah” means. The fact that he did in fact encourage voting means he was comfortable there is an answer to defend the Chazon Ish, whether this is it or not.

This does not mean that other acts, which would show approval of the creation of the State of Israel are permitted. The Chazon Ish, who encouraged voting in the Israeli elections – “lechorah” for the reason the Steipler stated - also said that anyone who celebrates Yom Haatzmaut is an Apikores, even though doing so is merely “ex post facto” of the violation of the Oaths.

MODERATOR Posted - 28 February 2006 10:30

---

For the record, the Satmar Rav does not say that voting in the elections violates the Oaths. He says that it constitutes Modeh B'Avodah Zorah, and Lifnei Iver, since sitting in the Knesset is assur, and votes are what facilitates that.

mo Posted - 01 March 2006 15:58

---

**The Chazon Ish (which, as a general rule, the Steipler followed) – and this was also the opinion of Rav Ahron Kotler - held that voting in the Israeli elections does not mean you approve of the existence of the State of Israel. Rather, it means that ex post facto that we have to unfortunately live with it,***

1) Where is opinion (and explanation) of Chazon Ish ZTZ"L recorded? I heard from people (and maybe read somewhere) that Chazon Ish in fact never permitted it (and didn’t vote himself - he didn’t even have identification documents!)and letter from Chazon Ish about vote in Sefer Pe'er ha-Dor is tampered with and it was written about other vote (not to Kneset).

2) It's amazing that Steipler didn’t quote Chazon Ish anywhere in all these letters (which would be most natural according to your explanation!). His correspondent (who was rabbi Shmuel Dovid Munk ZTZ"L of Neturei Karta - the Steipeler's letters and his answers were first published by him in his sefer "be-Ein Chazon") also don't mention anywhere, that Chazon Ish permitted people to vote.

3) Where opinion (with halachic explanation) of r. Aharon Kotler ZT"L written?

4) Did any of these rabbonim answered on all halachic problems VM mention?

mo Posted - 01 March 2006 15:58

---

**For the record, the Satmar Rav does not say that voting in the elections violates the Oaths. He says that it constitutes Modeh B'Avodah Zorah, and Lifnei Iver, since sitting in the Knesset is assur, and votes are what facilitates that.**

Of course he says that - it's in Maamar I, sim. 87! Only AFTER that he says there ALSO are minus and kefira.

mo Posted - 01 March 2006 15:58

---

Two days ago one respectable yid a talmid chochom said me that ALL Gedolim hold that oaths don’t have effect, because they were for 1000 years, as says r. Chaim Vital in Hakdomo to Etz Chaiim...(sigh). For my question - how do you know - says : all supported vote!

MODERATOR Posted - 01 March 2006 17:21

---

1) The opinion of the Steipler is recorded in Maaseh Ish Vol. 1. it is true that he did not vote, but he did tell others to. He was asked why he himself does not vote being that he told others to do so, and he basically said he doesn’t want to discuss it.

2) I don’t think it’s surprising that the chazon ish isn’t quoted by him. His letter was simply responding to the claim that the Oaths prevent voting. The Chazon Ish never addressed this directly as far as I know.

3) I don’t know that the opinion of Rav Ahron is written anywhere - Rav Ahron wrote very little outside of his shiurim. But his opinion was the extreme of the pro-voting side. The Satmar Rebbe was the extreme of the anti-voting side. The Brisker Rav once said, "Voting is not such a big Mitzvah like Rav Ahron says, and not such a big Aveirah like the Satmar Rebbe says." The Brisker Rav was, by the way, against voting. To this day, the Briskers don’t vote.

4) Not on record. I know that Gedolim disagreed with him, but I do not know how many were aware of how much of the assertions in the sefer, nor do I know much more about what their Reponses are than what they publicized, which is not a lot.

I spoke to Rav Ruderman ZTL once about a certain topic in Vayoel Moshe, and he was absolutely unfamiliar - and very surprised - with what it said. Same for Rav Schneur Kotler ZTL (so he did not know what Rav Ahron's response might have been). When Rav Yaakov Kanminetzky ZTL once came to visit the Satmar Rebbe, and he (the Satmar Rebbe) asked him if he saw Vayoel Moshe and what he thinks of it. Rav Yaakov said, "You wrote in the introduction that even if only one person in the world is influenced by this sefer to understand the issues better it is worth writing. Well, I am one such person."

Even though Rav Yaakov's positions on these issues was the most far removed from that of the Satmar Rebbe's of all the Gedolim, he never told the Satmar Rebbe more than that. I know here and there what certain Gedolim have said (such as the Steipler's letter being discussed, as well as others, including Rav Yaakov), but no Godol HaDor has written a comprehensive treatment of the topic except the Satmar Rebbe, so it is hard to say what they would respond to all the claims.

5) re: Voting - In Vayoel Moshe 1:87 it doesn’t say that if you vote in the Israeli elections you violate the Oaths. it says you’re a partner in crime, but a shutef in an aveirah does not necessarily get the same avierah as his partner. So for instance if I give someone a radio on Shabbos and ask him to put it on, I am definitely considered a shutef in his crime, and I violate lifnei iver, and Meisis, but I am not a mechalel shabbos. So his saying that those who participate in the elections are shutfim in the crime of the existence of the State does not yet explain what you violate for being a partner. Elsewhere he says that your violation is lifnei iver and modeh b'avodah zorah.

6) As far as your respectable talmid chacham, it is difficult to imagine being more wrong. The issue of the Oaths "expiring" is not only shown by the Satmar Rebbe to be a total misunderstanding of what the Arizal says, but it is so clear and definitive that even Rav Ovadiah Yosef, in an old Techumim article, dismisses the claim that the Oaths have "expired" by referring the reader to read what it says in Vayoel Moshe.

Besides, the Rishonim and Achronim bring the Oaths L'maaseh all over the place after the alleged expiration date - apparently none of them were aware that "all Gedolim" hold they have expired!

The problem is that the Oaths were so rarely relevant until the Zionists came along, that there was never anything close to a detailed halachic analysis of them - there was no need. It was an absolutely stunning display of Torah genius that the Satmar Rebbe exhibited when he took this sporadically mentioned, semi-kabalistic, semi-Agadic, semi-halachic, never-before analyzed and not- even-quoted-in-shulchan-aruch issue and produced a comprehensive and detailed halachic and Hashkafic treatment, going through the relevant Gemora, Medrash, Rishonim, Achronim, Kabalah and Halachah.

It really boggles the mind when you think of what he accomplished. Kind of like the what the Chofetz Chaim did when he put together Hilchos Loshon Horah, which was never done before - but the Oaths were much more elusive than even hilchos shmiras halashon. To this day, it is still the only comprehensive treatment of the topic available. So it is not surprising that a "respected talmid chacham" is not familiar with the issues. To you it is easy - open the Vayoel Moshe. But someone who does not, unless he is a world-class Talmid Chacham, it would not be easy for him to access the information necessary to understand his mistake.

ZIONISM / ANTI-----chazon ish

Here is an excerpt from the Sefer Maaseh Ish, a very reliable biography of the Chazon Ish, which was gone over by many students of his, as well as people like Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita (who actually commented on some portions. His comments are included in the sefer):

His Position on the Medinah:

"This is not the aschalta d'geulah but rather the sof golus!" was what he said to the confused upon the establishment of the Medinah . . .

Here's more:

"Before 5 Iyar 1948 our Rebbi [the Chazon Ish] said: 'There will not be a Medinah!' Twice Rav M.M. Shainen heard this from him. Rav Eliakim Shlesinger from England relates, that after a while they asked the Chazon Ish, "But there is a Medinah!". He answered: "There is not! It is not so!" (from Rav Levi Sheinen). . .

"A certain rabbi suggested to him that they should permit making marriages on 5 Iyar [which comes out on sefirah]. . . the rabbi admitted that in honor of Yom Haatzmaut he wanted to suspend the aveilus of sefirah. Our Rebbi [the Chazon Ish] answered him aggressively: "Perhaps we should instead make it into a fast day!" . . .

"On 5 Iyar, 1953, when he was honored to be a sandek [at a bris]. he commanded the congregation to say Tachanun in his Bais Hamedrash, to specifically do the opposite of them ("kidei lehotzi melibam"), and also so that they should not say that they did not say Tachanun on 5 Iyar. Rav Chaim [Kanievsky] shlita added: He said that he had 3 Brisim in Shul that day and he commanded them to say tachanun .

(Maaseh Ish, Vol I pp.230-232)

page 172 :

"He [The Chazon Ish] used to say: Who is an Apikores who keeps Torah and Mitzvos ("a frum Apikores")? Someone who claims that it is the fault of the Gedolim that six million Jews were killed in Europe, and also any body who celebrates Yom Haatzamut"

this is but a sampling. For more, please see the rest of the statements brought in Maaseh Ish.