- This topic has 37 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I just want to point out that people here are far too invested in their viewpoints to actually look at their arguments.
The anti-Zionists point out bad things that individual Zionists have done in the past. The pro-Zionists respond that just because one person does something bad that doesn’t mean that everyone who associates with or approves of the movement agrees. The anti-Zionists ignore this.
The anti-Chareidim (and, for the sake of not making a fight of this term, we can define “anti-Chareidim” to include even those who think that the current Chareidi model can’t last and that it will be better for them and Frum society as a whole is some things were slightly changed) point out individual things that some Chareidim have done and say how it is indicative of a flawed community. The pro-Chareidim respond that just because one person does something bad that doesn’t mean that anyone who associate with or approves of the movement agrees. The anti-Chareidim ignore this.
And, more often than not, the anti-Chareidim line up with the pro-Zionists and the pro-Chareidim line up with the anti-Zionists.
And now everyone hates me. 🙂
i dont hate you, its just inaccurate. limaaseh, zionism was created to take the ‘yid’ out of yiddishkeit, and make judasim another -ism, a culture. so its bad. thats all.
I’m seeing double double.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/double-standard
I don’t hate you (all that much 🙂 ).
I just don’t know why you limit your point to the Zionist/Chareidi debate; you’ll find the same double standard in any political or religious debate.
You’ll even find a double standard in a debate between Mets fans and Yankees fans.
Sam2- Your “Yeshiva” University education really pushed you off the derech.
Sam 2: Hear Hear. Well said. I especially appreciate how you explain the problem with the said dispute without engaging the merits. While I suspect I might disagree with you on the merits, I fullheartedly agree that most people cannot or will not debate the issue properly.
And now everyone hates me. 🙂
1. I hated you already.
2. Nobody will start hating you for this. The haters hated already.
3. Reasonable point.
Sam2:
I didn’t (couldn’t) read your whole post (too much English), I beg to differ on one of your points.
Zionism as defined, in its essence, means what and how it was presented by the bareheaded “fathers”. Exactly as they declared by their “declaration of independence”. ???? ??? ?????. And all their accessories, to numerous to mention. Anyone wearing a kappel, anyone Shomer Shabbos, andone holding mitzvhos, has already deviated from the ideals of Zionism. He’s trying to “explain”, trying to “compromise”, reform his version of Zionism.
the chiluk is if the yechidim are the leaders or stam hamon am
Sorry, I didn’t get to finish.
On the contrary, Yiddishkite (chareidim), goes back all the way to Moshe Rabbeinu, all the Neveim, Tanoim, Amoraim… all the Gedolei Torah until this present day. That’s who and what WE (chareidim) try to follow. Pirkei Avos, Seder Nezikin, Choshen Mishpat were written by fine ehrliche Chareidim. Along with the other parts of the entire Torah. So anyone acting to the contrary of any of theses laws or teachings, HE is the dissenter, HE is the one acting out of line. A true chareidi will have everyone’s praise and admiration, everyone will easily be able to discern a Godliness person of sterling character and middos. ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?’ ???? ????.
Oh Shreck!
Or maybe he means something different than Herzl when he uses the word “Zionism.” Maybe he defines “Zionism” as love of E”Y and desire to live free in E”Y.
Why is Herzl’s definition more valid than Rav Kook’s definition? Maybe it is the Religious Zionist ideals that are the real Zionism and it is the secular Zionists that are trying to “explain”, trying to “compromise” and reform their version of Zionism.
It is never a persuasive tactic to tell your opponent what their position really is.
OK, I’ll tell you why. Rabbi Theodore & company existed and formed his vision and movement way before he was able to get any Orthodox Jew into his thing. Remember, Eretz Yisroel was to him a second choice. No, his movement was not looking for any Kedusha. And when he joined, Rav Kook did not DEFINE anything, he merely tried to steer it in the best direction he could, anything to save those errant souls..
kofer theodore. mumar theodore. rabbi, even used sarcastically, is too good.
First of all, Chovevei Tzion pre-dates Herzl and the secular zionist movement.
Second of all, what difference does it make who or what came first? If Religious Zionists define themselves a particular way today, why do you give such import to a Theodore Herzl or any of the other secular Zionists?
ben- because choosing to associate with a movement or organization inherently lends credenc to it, and associates you with it. if im a national socialist or communist, i have associated myslef with hitler yms or stalin yms. even if i dont like them, and even if i hat them, and disapprove of so many things they did, im still creating that association. so if the mizrachis and zionists would come out and say,” herzl was a rasha, we hate his guts, but we love EY”, as most of the normal frum world has done, thats great. but if you say, lets name countless streets, parks, and gardens after this kofer, who hated HKBH vitoraso, you cant really claim to be disassociated from the underlying themes of that movement. like kfira. just call it something else, and stop making the state into something holy.
Toi, Herzl was the ultimate tinok nishba who, out of nowhere, dropped everything in his successful life to work for the permanent protection of Am Yisrael. He hadn’t the G-d and Torah awareness to be a rasha let alone a kofer and, ?? ?????, to hate G-d and Torah. If it’s part of the “normal frum world” to hate Herzl’s guts, I and everyone I know must have missed out on that part of the training. And if you seem to know next to nothing about Herzl, you know flat-Kelvin-zero nothing about the Zionist Movement, which deviated from Herzl’s prescriptions from the get-go.
Toi,
First of all, I think Herzl was a tinok shenishba, not a rasha.
Second of all, I think that there are many religious Zionists who will say that Ben Gurion was a rasha, Echad Ha’am was a Rasha, Weizman was rasha, etc. In your criticism of religious zionists you are begging the question. Was it it the religious zionists that named streets and parks after Herzl or Ben Gurion, or was it the Israeli Government (which religious Zionists have always been a small minority of, as has been a Agudah).
Love of E”Y has been a theme within Torah since the beginning. A wish to have control over E”Y is not without sources. I hear the argument that because secular Jews made E”Y the sole aspect of their Judaism and thereby perverted the Torah, we should lessen any stress on that mitzvah to highlight the difference between the two (the way we did with the Aseres Hadibros in response to Christianity). But I also hear the argument fakert.
The fierce anti-Zionism expressed by some in the CR in harshest of tones, is wrong. We who are not part of the religious Zionist camp must realize that they too are frum Jews, trying to serve Hashem to the best of their ability. They are not rashaim or “goyim,” chas v’shalom, they are Torah true Jews who disagree with us on some discreet issues. We must love and respect them as Bais Hillel loved and respected Bais Shammai.
Just to add a few comments: Way before Herzl, there was Rav Mohilever, R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher, the Netziv, Moshe Montefiore and ,of course, talmidei HaGro and HaBesht. So, Zionism, as a return to Eretz Yisroel existed for decades and centuries before Herzl. What Herzl did was to make this a mission and to champion a place for Jews, who were persecuted everywhere. I daresay that Herzl learned from the religious Rabbis who came before him!
What was different in the late nineteenth century was the wave of nationalism that was prevalent in all of Europe (Greece, Italy, Serbia,Finland,etc..) and so Zionism took the form of a national purpose. unlike some of the Russian maskilim (Achad Hoam and others), Herzl had no notion of religion and would not make any statement on this. The tragedy for Jewry was that the Orthodox leaders in Europe were fighting a war against the maskilim and reform and were not able to differentiate them from Zionists. If the orthodox establishment in Europe would have understood the dangers lurking ahead, been able to separate the anti- religious crowd from the real zionists and galvanized the masses to make alyah, history would have been different. Rav Kook’s contribution was to highlight the importance of Eretz Yisroel in Judaism, something that had ben lost since the churban.So, there were grievious errors all around and European jewry paid the price in WWII.
ROB- youre contradicting yourself from one thread to another. If R hirsch couldnt have been criticizing zionism, the R kalisher can not be considered a proponent, remember?
Toi- I have read R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher’s sefer from cover to cover.Believe me, he was a full proponent of Yidden returning to Eretz Yisreol, to the extent of wanting to do the korban pessach! Incidentally, he also deals with the sholosh shevuos. So, he was a full proponent of real Zionism- which means to return to our homeland and rebuild it. I am pretty sure he did not deal with any sovereignity over the land. It was still part of the Ottoman empire and independence was not thought of. RSR Hirsch, by contrast, based on the little I have read of his teshuvos, actively discouraged the return to Eretz Yisroel and was satisfied to stay in germany and living like a jew there. Very different approaches! What I said in another thread is that neither RSRH Hirsch nor R’Zvi Hirsch Kalisher wrote about political Zionism, a concpet alien to their times. That only came to the fore with Herzl ,who preached for an independent country.
IMHO: Theodor Herzl had his heart in the right place. Namely. The resurrection of Jewish national pride in their own homeland. But, since he was born and educated into an assimilated Jewish family he had no concept of a lifestyle that is in accordance with Torah and Halacha. To him Christianity was just as good as Judaism as a national religion for the Jews. His ultimate goal was of obtaining a national homeland for the Jewish people. And if the Jews would have to accept Christianity along the way didn’t stop him from attaining his goal.
It is a well documented fact that he (Herzl) was inspired to work towards achieving a Jewish homeland at the outcome of the Dreyfus trial. When Alfred Dreyfus, a high ranking officer in the French Army was found guilty of espionage and stripped of his rank, Theodor Herzl realized that the Jews will never achieve equality in the lands of Europe, where they tried so desperately to assimilate and be like the rest of the population.
rob- i think we’re done this discussion. keep on twisting whatever you want.
“R” Zvi Hirsch Kalisher,the Netziv and many others did not plan or know political Zionism and it would be pure conjecture to speculate what they would have done.”
“So, he was a full proponent of real Zionism”
TOI- before responding,allow me ot say that I appreciate your civil discourse in our discussions- contrary to others- and this alone may be encouraging.
Please re-read my postings: to me, real Zionism is living in Eretz Yisroel and developing the (whole)land. The political aspect of this- meaning full independence- was not part of the original Zionist idea (Chovevei tsion and others). Hence, there is absolutely no contradiction saying that the early proponents of going to Eretz Yisroel (Kalisher, Mohilever,Netziv)were true Zionists and yet we cannot know how they would respond today to the present situation. Independence may have come anyway- due to the political developments in the world- but we cannot extrapolate from one era to the other.
so ditch the title. stop associating them with any movement political, and just say they loved EY and wanted to live here. de-politicize. because i doubt anyone else on this site is understanding zionism that way. it generally refers to a herzl-esque emancipation from all things jewish.
so why dont you guys disassociate? do you think anyone would found a new party called the national socialists and allow the world to assume?
Sam2- I could not have said it better!
Toi- what is wrong eith using the noum zionism? allow every one to interpret what they mean with it, as Sam2 said. Where zionists -religious ones or secular ones- disagree with the anti-zionisrs is that they feel that there is a need for jewish sovereignity today ,as otherwise we’d be annihilated. And, contrary to anti-zionists, we don’t feel it is an aveirah at all- on the contrary- is is a mitzvah.
“Chovevei Tzion pre-dates Herzl and the secular zionist movement.”
I was going to say this but you beat me too it. The 19th century Jewish settlers in Eretz Yisrael were mostly religious.
And has others have pointed out, Herzl wasn’t particularly anti-religious, and he really does meet the definition of tinok shenishba. He had no problem when gedolim like Rav Reines and Rav Kook supported Zionism — the hostility toward Torah would come from later Zionists.
“i doubt anyone else on this site is understanding zionism that way. it generally refers to a herzl-esque emancipation from all things jewish”
No, it doesn’t. Among others, Rav Reines, Rav Kook, Rav Herzog, and Rav Soloveitchik would have stridently disagreed with you!
“why dont you guys disassociate?”
You woudn’t notice if we did.
In fact, we did disassociate and the fact you made that comment means you didn’t notice. In the election for the first Knesset, all the religious groups — dati and charedi — ran on one list. (It got 12% of the vote, 16 MKs. Ben Gurion included the religious in the government even though he could have formed a government with majority Knesset support from only the two socialist parties. So much for Ben Gurion being completely anti-religious.) In every Knesset election since, there has been one or more dati leumi parties that have run identified candidates not a part of other parties. The dati program is of course quite a bit different than the charedi program; dati rabbis have never been much into religious coercion for example. Unfortunately the DL movement — against the position of some of the greatest DL rabbis of the time — went “all in” on settlements at the expense of torah education and the movement has never recovered. Rov Soloveitchik z’tz’l in particular was very upset about this towards the end of his life.
ROB said,
“allow every one to interpret what they mean with it”
so it thereby loses all meaning? why are you being intentionally vague?
“they feel that there is a need for jewish sovereignity today ,as otherwise we’d be annihilated.”
we’d be annihilated? are you nuts?
TOI- If there is anyone who could be considered misguided (allow me to be polite) it is you and the people who espouse your views. If you truly think that ,with Arab sovereignity, we’d be having yeshivos, thriving cities and expanding Jwish presence, then you truly are hallucinating. Everywhere in the Middle East, minorities (not only Jews) are being killed, persecuted and exiled. Just check the headlines about Iran (Bahai, X-ians), Egypt (Copts), Syria (Sunni Muslims), Algeria (berbers), Turkey (secular Turks) and I would not trust an Arab to give me a copper penny. And, PLEASE, don’t come back with that hoary argument that, prior to israel, there was harmony and love with the Arabs. Not only is it false, this is a hundred years later and totally different circumstances.
As far as Zionism, no one is being vague. Please look at Rav Kook’s seforim and other Zionist minded Rabbonim and you might have a better idea of religious Zionism.
Toi- To frame it a different way, had Israel existed 80 years ago, 6 million Jews would not have been murdered.
rationalfrummie,
There is no way to know if what you write is true. Maybe if the bulk of Europe’s Jews were in Israel, Hitler, yemach shemo, would have poured more of his resources into Rommels forces in the middle east and the Germans would have conquered E”Y (and wiped out even more Jews).
There is simply no way to know what would have happened had Israel existed a generation earlier. It might have been better but it also might have been worse.
rational-“had Israel existed 80 years ago, 6 million Jews would not have been murdered.”
can i borrow your crystal ball? shtusim.
ROB- i never said that. please dont be the one to decide what my views are.
benignuman: of course, no one knows what would have happened in different circumstances- this is pure lunacy. Howeve, allow me to say the following: During Rommmel’s advance towards Egypt and the Suez canal (and ultimately israel) the Allies were very pessimistic and did not think they would be able to stop him. The victory at El Alamein was a surprise and, if you believe in G-d’s providence, it was a gift “min hasomayim”. In that context, during those days, as the Yishuv was deadly worried about the German advance, Rav Herzog zz’l was consulted about tefillos and the like- and he is quoted as saying that “there is no indication anywhere in our tradition that there would be a third Churban in Eretz Yisroel” and thereby gave hope snd an assurance that things would end well, as it did.
As I have commented many times, no one can be faulted about the Holocaust except for the Nazis ym’s. However,it is a fallacy to say that the position of the Rabbonim in Europe before the war(not to leave Europe) was correct. It was not. Unfortunately, Chachomim are not infallibe and this goes for the present anti-zionism. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Odds are, had all frum Jews followed the Zionists instead of staying in europe with their rebbes, they would’ve been saved. hitler y”ms was not able to enter palestine during the war, why do you suddenly think he could have now?
rationalfrummie,
That wasn’t the scenario you set up. You set up a scenario whereby the State of Israel would have been established already in 1933 and all of the 6 million (not just frum Jews) would have been living in Israel.
In that scenario, Hitler, commanding one of the most powerful armies ever and having a desire to kill off the Jewish people, would most likely have launched an attack on the fledgling Jewish states and destroyed it and all the Jews within it.
Agav, in the 30s, when things in Germany started getting bad, it was extremely difficult to get into E”Y. The Jews were severely limited in the number of Jews they could bring in and the frum Jews were limited to an even greater degree. A different attitude by the Rebbes of Europe might have save hundreds or thousands of lives, but it would not have saved the vast bulk of European Jewry.
rational- because he wouldve diected his entire force to palestine and forfeited the actual war. go learn history. and stop playing god.
ok so i meant what ben said but i wasnt feeling civil.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.