- This topic has 145 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Rf, you’re changing the subject. Why it’s not a milchemes mitzvah is a different discussion. You were arguing from the point of pikuach nefesh.
HaKatan: I would answer my own question, I am sure, in a very different manner than you would.
Daas2, how does it not address the question?
Every civilized country has a volunteer army. Some Israelis also want this. There is anyways no military need for chareidim in the IDF.
The reason the IDF is mandatory for anyone is that it is a tool of Zionist indoctrination.
An MK recently said publicly that this whole to-do is a chance to change the chareidim.
This (i.e. shmad) is the only reason the Zionists want the Chareidim in the army. They’re trying to finish their evil and treacherous work from the Yaldei Tehran atrocity, from even before the founding of the State and all they’ve done since then.
Netzach Yisrael Lo Yishaker.
The more uncomfortable (for Zionists) issue is that if serving in the IDF is the same as engaging in/being a part of shmad (not to mention the gilui arayos) then one would be forbidden, yehareig viAl yaavor, from serving in that den of immorality and shmad known as the IDF.
rob: Give up on this. Yes, there are cases when we Pasken L’kulo. Yes, when all else is equal and both Shittos have completely equal validity, we say Koach D’heteira Adif. So while you may have proven your point in a perfect theoretical case, you are 100% inaccurate in your attempted application of it to today’s Halachic issues.
ROB
The Gemorah in Eiruvin Daf Vav Amud Beis states openly one who grabs the Kulos of Beis Hillel and of Beis Shammai is a “fool”. Rather if one wishes to follow BS they must do both Chumros as well as Kulos and if they follow BH they must do both Chumros as well as kulos.
In English its termed “intellectual honesty”.
And the term “Koach D’heteirah Adif” is commonly understood to mean that it is harder to be meikel since once must have an ironclad “sevara” or Kabbola while anyone who is in doubt can be machmir. See Rashi in Kesubos Dav Zayin Amud Aleph who seems to be following this understanding.
see chazon ish oc 112 10
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=323&hilite=
I assume Chacham means os yud.
To all the posters who commented on my modest posts-wow! Did not know it was that important. I cannot answer each individual post but let me say -AGAIN- what I have said so msny times: In general, I believe that the gemoro leans to “Pasken lekuloh”. I have mentioned a host of different sugyos that demonstrate that. Only the gemoro that DaasYochid mentions where the gemoro says that in “d’oraisas” we pasken like the Possek who goes lechumro is about the only time where we find a psak lechumro.And this is because it is a d’oraisa. If you have any other mekor where you find that the gemoro’s ultimate psak is Lechumro, please provide it! They will be far outnumbered by the other mekoros where the gemoro paskens lekuloh.
Sam2- I have always respected your erudition but,in the case of the army, talmud torah and pikuach nefesh, you are dead wrong. The gemoro in sottah is explicit, and the Rambam paskens that way: EVERYONE goes out to war when you defend Jewish lives (even money, as the Rambam says). The klal of ‘efshar laasos al jedei acher’ does not apply here.In any case, that klal is very circumscribed- you cannot use it for ‘mitzva shebegufo” (I will not put on tefillin because I am learning torah…). You may have an argument as to whether it is pikuach nefesh, whether the army has sufficient soldiers, but you cannot say ” I am learning, therefore I do not have to save Jewish lives”
ROB- again, why arent you in uniform?
Ben Levi: I am not sure what you are objecting too. As far as Bais Shammai and Bais hillel, sure what you say is correct. This does not change the fact that we pasken overwhelmingly like Bais HIllel- usually the ones who pasken lekuloh! As far as the “koach deheteirah odif’ ,doesn’t this show that it is more appropriate to pasken lekuloh?
whether the army has sufficient soldiers
Why does that make difference if The klal of ‘efshar laasos al jedei acher’ does not apply here. ?
As far as the “koach deheteirah odif’ ,doesn’t this show that it is more appropriate to pasken lekuloh?
No, just the opposite.
ROB?
Whats not to understand.
The Gemorah states expliclty that one must be consistent in “paskening” if one decides to follow the Halachic Reasoning of one “side” in Halach athat must be followed both L’chumrah and L’Kula.
As for Koach D’Hetaira Adif.
I was trying to demonstrate to you that “halacha” does not assign a “value” to Kulah, rather it simply means it is more difficult to be able to go Lkulah it requires more erudition a solid method or reasoning ect.
It does not mean Kulos are better then Chumros.
Au Contrair.
In fact Mesilas Yeshorim (Chapter 11 or therebouts) states that one of the defining principals of a “parush” is that they will go L’chumrah even if the bare bones Halacha is not like that.
Ask Gedolei Torah and Moray horaah. They too know the Gemaros anad parameters of Pikuach nefesh. We need bitul to Daas Torah………..
Rabbi OF Berlin: Chapter and verse please. As far as I know this is no different than any other mitzvah. (I know of a gemarah that talks about if the ptur of a new chassan or vinyard planter or house builder applies; indeed that one does not. But that has no bearing on osek b’mitzvah.) Do you refer to Sotah 42?
As for Koach D’Hetaira Adif.
I was trying to demonstrate to you that “halacha” does not assign a “value” to Kulah, rather it simply means it is more difficult to be able to go Lkulah it requires more erudition a solid method or reasoning ect.
It does not mean Kulos are better then Chumros.
Au Contrair.
It’s been demonstrated to him before. He just ignores it.
“that one of the defining principals of a “parush””
First we need to establish the requirements that are actually binding upon us.
For those working on some of the higher levels of Avodah as defined in Mesilas Yesharim, that is another issue.
For those who present to their Rabbi that they are working on the level of “parush”, the first question will be whether you have actually mastered all the lower levels.
Rabbi Of Berlin: I just looked it up: Osek bmitzvah does apply to milchemes mitzvah too. The Mishna discusses a machlokes if a war of defense constitutes a mitzvah or not with regard to the war being considered a mitzvah that would patur other mitzvos (Rambam) and in any case the Halacha clearly is against Rabbi Yehuda, i.e. a war of defense is not considered a mitzvah with regard to this.
So the original statement is true: Osek b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah.
ROB- i thought so. time to stop the propaganda.
I am not at ease with equating heter with kula. Heter contrasts with issur; kula contrasts with humra.
To all those who have been commenting on “kulos”: This discussion started on another thread where someone (cannot remember who) said that the “halocho is uncompromising”. I replied that this is wrong- the halocho is very compromising and we find that, in the vast majority of cases, the gemoro paskens lekuloh. I brought down many sources (pesochim 74b, aveilus, koach deheteira odif, sofek derabbonon lekuloh, agunos) and I don’t know what all of you are compllining about. Please show me where the gemoro consistently paskens “lechumroh”.
to Daas2, Toi, leibedik yankel and others: Sottah mishne and gemoro 44B. Incontrovertably, milchemes mitzvah (or chovah, as per R”Jehuda), everyone goes to war. The only machlokes is whether a war to “diminish the gentiles so that they don’t attack you” is a mitzvah or not. This is the classical case of a preventive war. Otherwise, the obligation is on everyone and the Rambam paskens that way. See Rambam Melochim Perek 5 and mishne 1 and 2. Check melochim Perek 7,mishne 4.The Rambam explicitly includes a war to save jews from their enemies (melochim 5, mishne 1)as a mitzvah.
There is no “petur” for anything in such cases.
When the gemoro in sottah(44B) says “ho-osek bemitzah potur min hamitzvah” ,the gemoro means to say that the mitzvah is THE WAR and therefore people are free from other mitzvas. (see sugya and rashi). The rabbonon maintain that a preventive war is not considered “mitzvah” and therefore people are not free from other mitzvos whereas R’jehuda considers a preventive war a mitzvah and frees people from other mitzvos.
The “petur’ for people who have just gotten married, build a house,etc is only for “milchemes horeshus”- an elective war. A war to protect Jews from the enemies is a milchemes mitzvah and no one is free of his/her obligation.
According to Zionist theology, there should be a chiyuv for every Jewish man worldwide to join the army of their respective host countries; after all, surely there are defensive reasons for at least some of the worldwide areas of operation even if the Zionists have foolishly put themselves in a far worse position than that of other countries.
LiOlam al yiftach adam peh laSatan, so I’ll use a hypothetical case. Say there were millions (the number doesn’t matter) of Jews living in Haiti and Haiti were under threat from the Dominican Republic. Why would there be a substantive pikuach nefesh difference between defending Haiti and defending Israel? There are both Jews and non-Jews in both.
The answer is, of course, that the goal of Zionist wars are not for pikuach nefesh purposes but rather they are for the secular Nationalist value that Rav Herschel Schechter and others hold. This value something like: the “lium” or nation needs the State for its national existence and this State, itself, is worthy of pikuach nefesh, having nothing to do with its citizens.
I find it farcical that you’re actually considering Zionist wars to be michemes mitzvah when they are really milchemes shmad, regardless of the fact that they are like the arsonists who then come running with the fire truck after setting the conflagration.
Rabbi Of Berlin: may I suggest a careful reading of that sugya? 1. We rule AGAINST Rabbi Yehuda: a war to protect Jews is NOT a mitzvah (with regard to osek bmitzvah) and 2. Rashi and the Rambam (perush hamishna) indicate that the only function that it being a mitzvah would have is that if one already was waging war, he would be free from OTHER mitzvos. NOT that one should stop what mitvah he is doing and wage war. On the contrary, osek bmitzvah would free him from waging war.
(see Tos. Yomtov ibid.)
HaKatan: The day after Tishah B’av and you seemed to not have learned some history yesterday. When they city of Speyer (I think it was Speyer) was threatened, the Jews took up arms and actually managed to defend themselves well. And while the community was eventually ruined, there was not the total annihilation that there otherwise was. There clearly is an important Kiyum in militarily defending any area with lots of Jews. We need to do our Hishtadlus. If there are not enough non-Chareidim to properly defend the country from the worst-case scenario, then Chareidim should be obligated to join as well. Unfortunately, as with everything in this overly-politicized debate, no one can even agree to the facts on the ground, so I honestly have no idea whether the army is currently large enough for the worst-case scenario. Let’s be clear, though, defending Jews is a Mitzvah so there should not be any Issur Mitzad Bittul Torah for someone voluntarily joining the army. If you want to debate other reasons, fine.
Oh, and let’s call a spade a spade. No fake Kavod here so that people won’t jump on you. If you really think that Rav Schachter practices Zionism and not Judaism (as you strongly implied in your last post) just say so. Or will you admit that (L’shitashcha) you are willingly Over on the Issur Chanifah in order to not have people be upset at you?
Sam2:
I agree that there “is an important Kiyum in militarily defending any area with lots of Jews” and I alluded to this when I mentioned the arsonist, above.
But, even without the myriad issues posed by Zionism biNidon Didan, I disagree with your conclusion that “defending Jews is a Mitzvah so there should not be any Issur Mitzad Bittul Torah”. If it is “ee efshar al yidei acheirim”, that’s a different story, but then the Zionism issues would have to be addressed first.
As to “calling a spade a spade” regarding Rav H. Schachter, it is neither of the possibilities you mentioned. Zionism is not Judaism but my calling him Rav is certainly not fake kavod either.
There are two issues: the gavra and the cheftza, so to speak; or, specifically, the person and the belief. Errant beliefs, even heretical beliefs, do not necessarily make one a heretic.
Besides, it’s not my place to label him or anyone else of his stature despite the many insurmountable problems of Zionism as our gedolim have stated and continue to state.
As well, I can’t link to it, as usual, but Rav Aharon Kotler said about Rav Schachter’s rebbi, Rav JB Soloveichik, that he (Rav JB Soloveichik) “destroyed an entire generation”. So since Rav Shachter presumably learned Zionism from his Rebbi, how can one detract from his kavod for following his Rebbi?
Again, to propose, as you do, that it’s better to save lives than to learn, is debatable within a Torah framework. But to say, as he was quoted as saying, that it’s better to sacrifice lives to save the (putative and heretical) nation-state (again, with nothing to do with the pikuach nefesh of the citizens), is offensive and clearly outside the Torah’s framework.
But I will call a spade a spade regarding the position he is quoted to espouse: it is terribly wrong, as per our gedolim, as above.
lebidik yankel:I suggest you re-read the sugya. What the rabbonon do NOT consider a mitzvah but R”jehuda does is a war to PREVENT gentiles from waging war upon Jews. THAT IS THE PIRUSH of “lime-utei kutim delo leisi aleihu” . Then look in the rambam hilchos melochim where he EXPLICITLY says that a war to save jews from their enemies is a milchemes mitzvah LEKULEI ALMA. (seee Lechem Mishneh). He puts it in the same bracket as milchemes shiva ammemim that is certainly a milchemes mitzvah.
Your pirush of “osek bemitzvah” is erroneous. THE WAR is the mitzvah that pre-empts the obligation of other mitzvas-according to R’jehuda and not according to the rabonnon. It is a preemptive war, as the geomor says, not when the war is alrady happening. In such case everyone is mechuyov-as per gemoro and rambam.
ROB -“Then look in the rambam hilchos melochim where he EXPLICITLY says that a war to save jews from their enemies is a milchemes mitzvah LEKULEI ALMA.”
But if there is a different way to save Jewish lives instead of killing and war -one must do that. If you give the State of Israel to the Goyim then there is no excuse to Defend yourself because they are only attacking because you took the land away from them. There were No attacks during the Ottoman Empire ruling of Palestine!
Health, how many times in recent years have we tried to give away our land in exchange for peace, and when has it EVER worked? The Arabs will not be satisfied until they ch”v push us into the sea. The only way to defeat them is through war.
Land for peace has had the endorsement of not only the vast majority of the diplomatic corps, but was also endorsed by Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Schach, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (who, unlike much of the hawkish MO community in America, was a dove), and other gedolim. Hence the Haredi parties in Israel opposing the settlements.
The more hard-line Dati’im and Lubavitchers seem to be the only sectors of the Torah-Observant world to support a right-wing support of the settlements.
My husband is not home, so I googled. I am quoting an article written by Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund:
Many people approach this issue by focusing on the land and territory of Israel. While it is certainly true that all of the land of Israel is holy, the Rebbe said that the issue of “land for peace” is not so much an issue of land per. se. – but rather an issue of preserving Jewish lives, regardless of location. The Shulchan Oruch (the Code of Jewish Law) states:
Non-Jews that lay siege to Jewish cities: If their intent was financial gain, the Shabbos laws should not be violated because of them. If their intent was against Jewish lives, or if they lay siege without any stated intention, or if there is a sense (chush) that they are coming for Jewish lives, then even before they come – and are only mobilizing themselves, it is a mitzvah to go out and attack them with weapons of war and violate the Shabbos laws. And if it is a city located near a border – even if they are only demanding hay or straw, we attack them and violate the Shabbos, lest they conquer the city, and because of that conquest it becomes easier for them to conquer the rest of the land.
There are those (rabbinic authorities) who say, that at this time, when we dwell among non-Jews who are murderers and slayers, that even if they come only for financial gain, we violate the Shabbos. Because, if the Jews do not allow them to plunder and pillage, they will kill us. And it is a chazakah (a given) that no one stands-by idly, when his money is being stolen. Thus, a thief coming to steal will worry whether his victim will kill him, so the thief comes from the outset with an intention to kill first. So also, in this case [where we are dealing with only financial attacks] we violate the Shabbos [to defend ourselves]. Nevertheless, everything is according to the context. But an individual, that comes to take money, we allow him to take as much as he wants, and we do not violate the Shabbos, for this is a case of financial loss only.
Shulchan Oruch HaRav 329:6,7. And almost the same wording can be found in the Shulchan Oruch of R. Karo, and also in the Mishna Berurah (same siman). See also Eruvin 45a including the Rashi. The Rambam adds:
It is a mitzvah for every member of the Jewish people who can come [to their assistance] to go out and aid their brethren who are under siege and save them from the gentiles [although it is the] Shabbos. It is forbidden to wait until Saturday night.
After they have saved their brethren, they may return home with their weapons on the Shabbos, so that a dangerous situation will not be created in the future.
Rambam, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Shabbos, 2:23.
From this we see a couple of things:
The issue is not land, per. se – it is the saving of Jewish lives.
An issue of saving Jewish lives is not dependent on location, and applies everywhere and for all time.
Relatively minor land or even monetary demands, such as straw or hay, if such a demand occurs under the threat of physical attack, are considered a case of saving Jewish lives.
In issues of saving Jewish lives we do not stop and calculate or estimate what the risk is, we are required to assume the worst scenario and act accordingly.
It should be obvious that since it is a mitzvah to aid our brethren, we should not do actions that the Shulchan Oruch states would endanger our brethren. Sadly, not all Jewish people recognize the authority of the Shulchan Oruch, and to our greater grief, there are those who re-interpret or ignore it (either due to ignorance, or to appear correct in the eyes of non-Jews, or other reasons).
Irrespective of this, we must work with our fellow Jews, and educate them to this important issue of saving Jewish lives, and how it applies to the “land for peace” issue. Most importantly, we must do this in a peaceable manner, for “the ways of the Torah are peaceful.” With a peaceful, patient and understanding approach, certainly HaShem will aid us and help us to accomplish His will. However, we must be clear, certain, and confident; and this can only occur when we act according to the guidance of the Shulchan Oruch, and the teachings of our Rabbis.
jewf- “The only way to defeat them is through war.” no kochi biotzem yodi going on here.
RabbiOfBerlin:
1. I guess we agree the sugya in Sotah says that one should not stop a mitzvah for the sake of war. You propose that is only preventive war, if I understand you correctly. So the Sugya there is either irrelevant to our case (you consider Israel to be under actual atack. I guess we disagree about that. I think that today, 7-18-2013, we are not under actual attack.) or says that it is not considered a mitzvah.
2. The discussion is if one is already fighting: is that osek bmitzvah. On the other hand, if one is not fighting yet, but is involved in other mitzvos, osek bmitzvah would free them (in the case of Talmud Torah – only if it can be done through others)
I made this point before but I am repeating it because I sense it was not understood, certainly not addressed.
3. The Taz (if I recall correctly) writes that someone who stops learning because of a bona fide pikuach nefesh that was not efshar laasos al ydei acherim is doing what the halacha requires, yet is getting the raw deal: it would have been far better for him to have continued learning.
jewishfeminist02 -“Health, how many times in recent years have we tried to give away our land in exchange for peace, and when has it EVER worked? The Arabs will not be satisfied until they ch”v push us into the sea. The only way to defeat them is through war.”
You totally didn’t understand my post. Let me explain. I agree -land for peace -doesn’t work. They want to drive us into the sea. So what do I believe? I believe you should give them the whole land -the Goyim should rule the whole land. At this point they will stop their animosity towards Jews. They will let the Jews live peacefully under their rule. Of course, the Zionists scream this is Not possible, but yet it did happen in EY during Ottoman rule. Of course there will have to be international monitors like the UN, US and others to make sure no revenge is taken and they treat us without discrimination. So everything you posted is true except for the last line, which is a Zionist lie.
No, I understood you perfectly. The Arabs want to destroy us. We gave them a little bit of land. It wasn’t enough. We gave them more land. It still wasn’t enough. We can give them everything and they won’t be satisfied because all they really want is to see us obliterated. Living peacefully under their rule is a joke.
JF -“We can give them everything and they won’t be satisfied because all they really want is to see us obliterated. Living peacefully under their rule is a joke.”
Thank you for more Zionist propaganda. And your proof of this IS?
There is No proof, but I brought proof that you can live under their rule peacefully!
Look to their leadership! Read the things their nutcase leaders have to say about us! Are you not scared for your life when you see these things? If we want to live in E”Y and not have to be in constant fear– regardless of who “controls the state”– we must fight them. It is seriously naive and unrealistic to think that if we just give in to their demands, they will leave us alone. They don’t even care about their own children; why should they care about ours? They have no compunctions about slitting a Jewish baby’s throat. They are capable of so much evil, it is sickening.
I try hard not to dismiss anyone- but it doesn’t always work. What “health” has been writing umpteen times is so far out of the realm of reality that it is quite safe to ignore him. HINT: Look at your syrian neighbour to realize what happens if you give free rein to the murderous hordes.
lebidi yankel: Please read the post by jewishfeminist02, quoting Shimon Gutfreund , and you will find plenty of “mareh mekomos’ about the chiyuv of defending and protecting Jewish lives.Although it does not directly deal with our argument about “milchemes mitzvah”, it is enlightening to see how Poskim dealt with war and dangers for jews.
I do not agree at all with your saying that -once one is “osek bemitzva”-you do not stop to wage war. It has nothing to do with what you are doing now. It has everything to do with what the war is about.
You seem to have read the sugya- so you will know that everyone agrees that certain wars are either 1) milchemes mitzvah according to rabbonon or 2) milchemes chova according to R”jehuda.
These are milchemes shivas ammemim, amolek and the Rambam adds- to save Jewish lives. In those circumstances, everyone-EVERYONE- stops what they are doing and wage war. (gemoro and Rambam)
Certain wars according to all are milchemes horeshus- these are wars of conquest (such as Divid Hamelech and Suria) and for these you only enlist certain classes of people, exemting first year marrieds,etc.In those circumstances, you may be able to exempt learners.
Lastly, the machlokes is for a war that is “to diminish the forces of the kutim so that thwy do not attack you”-typically a pre-emptive war.On this, the rabbonon hold it is reshus, R’Jehuda holds it is mitzvah. On this,says the gemoro, the difference would be whether -if the war is considered a mitzvah-you do not have to stop to do other mitzvos but continue waging war. R’Jehuda says you continue to wage war and the rabbonon say you stop to make other mitzvas (see Rashi) There is no discussion whether you stop other mitzvas to wage that kind of war and you cannot infer anything from this.The war is being fought and the question is whether you stop to make other mitzvos.
However, all this is academic, because I do believe that Israel is under constant threat and therefore, when attacked,it is clearly a “milchemes mitzvah”. To be able to repulse the enemy, you need training and hence, everyone should be added to the army to know how to fight. How, how much,etc, can be debated but the hysterical response from some of the chareidi rabbonim makes this an impossible task.
lebidik yankel: please bring down the place where you said the Taz said what you quote. It sounds absolutely wrong.
how about the fact that jews lived in relativ epeace in egypt until the declaration of the state? thats a pretty decent rays that we can live under them in peace. i think the only shailah would be that theyd probably want to vent 60 years of anger and kill us all, so its not viable, but the etzem co-existence is possible.
Coexistence is possible. It happened under such and such rule, and blah blah blah. But we are not under such and such rule anymore. Is this what you would have told the Jews of Spain in 1492?
Toi, Jewish life under Arab rule varied from violent abuse to institutional abuse with brief interludes of light, depending on the country and the century. Putrid mellahs, high percentages of blindness at early age, general illiteracy, routine denial of basic services, dhimmi taxes, religious maltreatment … that was the norm. If this is “relativ epeace” (sic), WWII was relative war.
well, isnt that assuming too much? the direct correlation between the jewish communities ability to live in peace in egypt and their subsequent persecution to the founding of the state should show that that was the cause.
You want a shmad? Ask a Palestinian or any other hardline Muslim (if you have a heter to speak to a non-Haredi) if they’d still want to kill the Jews if we all converted to Islam, and you’ll have your answer. That’s a shmad. Then again, the way the Haredim have been behaving lately, maybe it’s not.
Rabbi Of Berlin: May I wish you a wonderful Shabbos? I guess we will agree to disagree. I think we laid out our arguments, no need to rehash them.
The Taz is at Yore Deah 251:6
Enjoy!
TOI and health and others: The jews in germany lived in great harmony and “coexistence” (actually too much coexistence!) for centuries…with rather tragic results….
ROB, you wrote:
“The Jews lived in Germany in great harmony and “coexistence” for centuries…” until that changed drastically for the worse.
But you didn’t write the reason our gedolim gave for this change, which applies elsewhere, too. I forget now where I saw this, but I think it’s from the Bais HaLeivi.
In Mitzrayim, too, the Egyptians treated us well…until all of a sudden they didn’t. What was the turning point there? Klal Yisrael stopped performing Bris Milah to better integrate with the Egyptian culture. That’s the point when the Egyptians began to despise them.
The simple reason is that as long as we maintain our distinct Torah identity, the umos treat us well. But if we get too close to them by destroying our identity as the am haNivchar, that’s when, CH”V, Hashem puts sina in their hearts to ensure we remain a distinct people.
Germany is the same idea. There’s nothing wrong with being successful in your host country. That’s not why they hated us there. But you still have to maintain your identity as a Jew.
Zionism, as well, is all about changing Jews into a goyish nation, as has been discussed earlier. If it were possible to reverse Zionism, as Health points out, it would obviously be far better for the Jewish people.
jewishfeminist02 -“Look to their leadership! Read the things their nutcase leaders have to say about us! Are you not scared for your life when you see these things?”
Whose leadership? The Palestinians’? Noone said give it to them.
Give it to Turkey. Upto Israeli attacking their boat to Gaza they liked Jews.
“If we want to live in E”Y and not have to be in constant fear– regardless of who “controls the state”– we must fight them.”
It is seriously naive and unrealistic to think that if we just give in to their demands, they will leave us alone. They don’t even care about their own children; why should they care about ours? They have no compunctions about slitting a Jewish baby’s throat. They are capable of so much evil, it is sickening.”
More Zionist propaganda. You keep screaming the evil on their part, but who started this fight? The Zionists. I don’t condone their violence, but stop pretending it is just lke the Nazis. In Germany no Jew started up with the Goyim. If you don’t want any more violence from them – then give up the State!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.