Reply To: Hakaras Hatov for Israeli Soldiers (IDF)

dass yochid- you still so not understand- As per above- no shavua or oath was violated due to permission given by British>UN 1)-was not Bichoma/yad chazakah, 2)not rebellion against nation if they themselves legally allowed it 3) No dechikas haketz in last geula period. NOW, the state of Israel is by its nature a democratic state -meaning it is in principal religiously neutral and depending on who is in the majority of govt. so will be its policies. In the beg. it was predominately non religious- although, many are misinformed- beacuse there were recognized Rabbanim who lead the declaration as well with the hope that due to its inherent nuetrality of the state and the potential influence and growth on state of religious values – it would turn this democratically neutral state into a frum one– see stats which show that if the religious keep up birth rate they will be govt majority in decades to come and will uphold all delineated principles. MY POINT IS twofold- one- the shavuos are unrelated to the states religiousity. two- the state due to its democratically neutral nature – cannot be classified as frum or non frum but rather the will of the people of each cycle reflected in govt. and at times may be primarily frum or not primarily frum. Plus, there were many religious Jews and Rabbanim who did helped found the state as well – so even founding was not entirely non religious. Plus, although there were anti frum zionists there were also charedi frum people there as well in govt. Plus, if you look at history you will learn that although many in the beg of state were not frum- many still respected the Torah in principal – for example – when one of Israel’s PM’s was asked how you justify state they picked up a bible. The Israeli Flag of blue and white represents techeles and the two blue lines with magen david in middle represent Klal Yisrael passing through the Yam SUf to EY ( i am not making this up -look at the State’s records on this point). Plus in any case most of these non frum jews would be classified as tinok shenshbas(children enslaved by lack of religious education into certain ideals) and would have the status of a non meizid ( not intential jew ) in relation to the states initial frum keit. so you have a neutral state (not frum or non frum), a lot of tinkos shenishbu( not intentional and not guilty people), and open frum rabbis and jews supporting its founding so – i dont see why even acc to formulation of above Moetzes decision this would be considered anti frum if its democratic and can also be frum.