Refuting the Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot]

>>>Yankel, the zionists caused the Arab threat. Let them handle it on their own

First there is almost no one alive today who can be accused of having “caused the Arab threat” even by the logic of the anti-Zionist literature and propaganda.

Second the halacha is that we are mechalalel shabbos even for someone who is sakana because of an attempted suicide effort. Can you have a greater it’s his own fault and he put himself in that situation as a result of an attempted avaira than that?

Third the Mishna and Gemora etc in Taanis that talks about gaysos makes no such distinctions about why the enemy soldiers are coming to the “other” cities and why they may be at fault.

There is a lot more to say but I’ll suffice with saying that this type of sentiment is from the many, many things that led to my disillusionment with the extreme anti-zionist views I once had and led me to becoming an opponent of that group

Avira > Zionists caused the Arab threat

Others objected that this is relevant, but I am questioning this logic. I asked several times before, and I don’t think I got an answer. We now know the pattern of Arab behavior over decades – Saddam, war between Iraq/Iran, Syrian dictators murdering their own citizens, ISIS, Yemen, etc. This is how they treat other groups. Are you saying that heilike Yerushalmis and Aleppis would survive all of that by paying bakshish to Assads and keeping dhimmi status with ISIS? Did Zionim cause all of these tzoros on the whole Middle East?

yankel > . Who said yehudim would have fared any better

but, of course, this is hindsight. At that moment, it was not clear what will follow. Similar to WW2 that many expected to go similar to WW1 …

So, we should not be looking down at the arguments that were made historically, but we should revisit them when new information becomes available instead of continuing repeating arguments that sounded good at the time…

When R Steinsaltz was asked about the reasonas behind Shoah (in the context of his lecture about Churban and other historical events in Gemorah), he responded that 50 years is too early to make a judgment, gemora took more time to make conclusions about the Churban.

The old Yishuv had to defend themselves from Arab gangs.

Yankel, the zionists caused the Arab threat. Let them handle it on their own
====================
It has been pointed out , repeatedly , that this argument is a non starter in hilchot pikuah nefesh.
We dont , cannot and are not allowed to limit our p/n responses by the criteria of “who started it”.
In all contexts.

There has been no response whatsoever to this point.
Does that mean that no response exists ?

Could we therefore conclude this argument as settled ?
Please – as a last appeal – anyone has an answer ?

If not ,we should consider this point as ‘finally settled’ , Shtika kehoda’a. Not like the satmar shita [who attempt to use this argument].

@lernt
Thanks