Non-Zionist View of Zionists

Reform mostly failed – assimilation rate is huge. To call them successful would at least require to accept their criteria – that all non-Jews in their temples are a sign of success. Reform in Germany, of course, failed to save people from Nazi prosecution. Which was unexpected – Jews were usually prosecuted for religion, only 20th century Nazis/Commies would also prosecute for Jewish blood. In contrast, I am not praising Zs for creating man Zs – they did not, there are not that man adherents of original Zionism, but for preserving Jews as people and giving future generations opportunity to do true teshuva.

> . Are you allowed to associate with Reform ideologies? Should you even try to debate them?

R Soloveitchik allowed association for social/political reasons, but not any kind of religious forums.

In m experience, most Reforms are not up for debate, they are not aware of the movement ideology. When I explained to one reform guy that my shul is not called “temple”, he asked – why. When I explained that original reform meant that “our temple is in Hanover/Charleston, not in Yerushalayim” – he was horrified.

“Honestly, I don’t consider Rabbi Soloveitchik’s view to be a halachic opinion on this matter. First, he didn’t issue a formal psak; his writings on Zionism were delivered as philosophical reflections. Second, within the world of standard Gedolim, his position was a distinct minority—and many would say it isn’t even halachically sound,( belonging more to a Modern Orthodox attempt to merge Torah with a secular, double life.)……
I honestly don’t understand who your quoting , if you referring to JB , Rav Aron , chazon ish , Rav shach , Rav Moshe , Rav hunter , etc , all opposed any of his views especially in halacha ( reading his book halachik mind he quotes more goyim gemurim than rishonim ) and I would add he was totally megaleh ponim shloi kahalacha ……
Even though many of us feel highly emotional or proud regarding a Jewish state, halacha frequently overrules our personal sevara and feelings. This is where Satmar had real clarity—he called out the spiritual dangers of a secular state when nobody said to do so. While some mainstream Chareidi leaders disagreed with Satmar’s extreme terminology, even those who told us to vote, like the Stiepler, made it clear that this government isn’t a true redemption; it’s still deep, dark galus.” and many encouraged voting , they viewed it strictly as a rescue mission. They never believed voting would transform a secular government into a holy one. Instead, they saw it as a practical shield to protect yeshiva budgets, prevent the draft of Torah scholars, and maintain a baseline of religious status-quo.
by now everyone sees the voting has almost no affect and failed , and this was indeed what satmer- said at the begining of the whole thing ,
” By looking at the political reality today in 2026, the ongoing, military draft, yeshiva funding, and all other hashchasa have left many feeling that the mainstream Chareidi political strategy of voting has hit a dead end. This exact outcome is what Satmar predicted at the state’s inception. “

I am quoting r Soloveitchik because he was first to figure out how to address American jews in general. This is not to diminish achievements of the yeshiva system, but he describes time he spent with Jewish college students in 1930s or 40s, and says that their options were either reform clergy or Brooklyn rebbes who barely spoke English and couldn’t relate to those students. His plan for yu was to have a streamlined system of raising American rabbis who can give a dvar torah, run shul, conduct marriages, and refer for gittin, so that every small town gets a kosher rav. This is literally what Chofetz Chaim was asking in 1930s in Poland: have one kosher cheder in every town .. except he was not able to achieve that. I don’t think we appreciate how bad things were in usa and8n poland also at the time.

As to r Soloveitchik on reform, you seem to be familiar with his philosophical books, I failed to finish some of them, but maybe your knowledge of Herman Cohen is better than mine. He has definite teshuvos, such as not allowing listening to shofar in reform place even when there is no alternative, not working as rav in shuls with mixed seating, not attending catholic event where they wanted to apologize to us, but allowing participation in dividing orphans in nyc.

His relationship with r Kotler was of disagreement, but respectful, except maybe when he ended conversation after r Kotler continued inviting him to oppose giyus banos with guten tag, Kletzker Rav … His relationship with R Moshe was of cousinly friendship till their latest days. If R Moshe disagreed with something in writing, I would not be surprised, but I would be interested in learning a precise sugya.

@Debater exploits the standard Satmarized method of misquoting Torah sources.
“Rambam and Rashi hold that there was never a mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisroel to begin with.” = FALSE.

“וְאַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמִירָה לְגוֹי שְׁבוּת, מִשּׁוּם יִשּׁוּב אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – לָא גְּזוּר רַבָּנַן.
And even though the halakha generally is that telling a gentile (to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat) violates a rabbinic decree, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael.”
(Gittin 8b)

“משום ישוב ארץ ישראל – לגרש עובדי כוכבים ולישב ישראל בה:”
Settling Eretz Yisrael means expelling the idolators and settling Jews there.”
(Rashi on Gittin 8b)

Rambam counted as a mitzvah that Jews must wipe out the nations occupying E.Y.

Surprise, surprise, surprise- No prohibition of “three oaths” and no prohibition of creating a Jewish state since that is necessary to settle millions of Jews in E.Y., contrary to the imaginations of Satmar/N.K.

>This is literally what Chofetz Chaim was asking in 1930s in Poland: have one kosher cheder in every town ..That is true, but you must realize that this was NOT Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s original intention. He genuinely appreciated chochmas chitzonyos (secular wisdom) and sought to synthesize it with the Torah, truly believing that this combination would save the American Jewish youth from total assimilation.
But between four eyes: Did he actually succeed??? have a look at YU Today, YU is a place caught in a constant, defensive battle against liberalization and secular compromise.

Anyone listening closely to the shiurim coming out of the YU world today will notice a fundamental distortion: they routinely displace the authentic, text-driven Torah approach and replace it with a purely philosophical one.Instead of analyzing a topic through the lens of Halacha, Shulchan Aruch, and the authority of Chazal, these lectures reframe the Torah to fit modern intellectual trends. They subject the timeless truth of the Torah to Western concepts of psychology, existentialism, and human emotion. Rather than using the Torah as the absolute basis of hoiroah , they use external philosophy to validate and explain the Torah. This methodological shift fundamentally changes what Torah learning is supposed to be. It reduces a divine command into an intellectual exercise, (proving exactly why the gedolim warned against bringing chochmas chitzonyos into the Beis Medrash in the first place).

Saying that Zionism saved Judaism is like saying Reform Judaism saved Judaism. Many do not fullyunderstand the PSAK of the Satmar Rav. As seen from his sefer Vayoel Moshe, his battle was against Religious Zionism, and objecting any theological valid sevara for a Jewish state—(especially a democratic one with socialist undertones).
To clarify, Vayoel Moshe is divided into three distinct sections:The First chapter (Shalosh Shevuos): unmasks the concept of Atchalta De’geulah and all other apikorses that stems from Zionisim. such as having a Jewish state or voting etc. second chapter (Yishuv Eretz Yisrael): This section reviews whether settling in the Land of Israel remains a mitzvahtoday, specifically objecting the Religious Zionist claim that it is a Mitzvah de-Oraisa to settle in Israel . third chapter(Lshon HaKodesh): This section addresses the sin of modern Hebrew.

When looking at Secular Zionism, a simple question arises: Is there a real difference between the ideology of Secular Zionism and Reform Judaism?The answer is NO
At their core, both movements share the exact same objective: to strip Jewish identity of its theological essence and redefine it away from traditional Torah observance. On a practical level, both movements openly embrace chilul Shabbos and the consumption of treifos. etc.
.. Therefore, supporting a democratic state run by secular Zionists is exactly like supporting a state run by Reform Jews.Historically, poiskim had a major machloke) on how to deal with this state:One view held that voting or speaking up within the government is just a practical way to protect religious needs. To them, it is not a true partnership, casting a ballot did not constitute an official partnership or endorsement of the state’s legitimacy..The Satmar Rav completely disagreed. He viewed any participation as a form of heresy (Minus). He stood by the strict ruling that you cannot compromise with heresy. He used the rule kevan de-mushcha, a-basrei—meaning once you let yourself get pulled in even a little bit, you will eventually follow it completely.While other rabbis chose to compromise to navigate this reality, Satmar Rav maintained that total separation was the only way to preserve the purity of the Torah.

JB approach to Zionism was deeply rooted in existential philosophy, human experience, and emotion, especially in the raw aftermath of the Holocaust. not halacha , again I don’t know if you have the correct view of JB , he was mufrach , he meant good maybe , but he went his own way knowing he’s living a double life (I’m not getting involved )

Zanvil your other points tho, make alot of sense.

true but I just think not everyone read his sefer ,as I witnessed too many misconceptions and misquotes from him , he was absolutely a daas yachid , good point .
I apologize if my previous comments felt personal, but they come from three years of firsthand experience listening to the shiurim and engaging with shuirim on RIETS. I’ve seen the full spectrum of people there, including deeply serious, learners who have actively petitioned and signed letters against the university’s direction .
I am specifically referring to those who follow in the footsteps of ‘JB’ With all due respect, his shita of Torah and secular philosophy was a distinct da’as yachid , the vast majority of mainstream gedolim and yeshiva authorities firmly opposed. (I’m just shmoozing , in life you’ll find people disagreeing with you nothing intentional )