"in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?"
I don't see what the point would be. US position is very pro-Israel and the Palestinian student protests were not popular in the US. There is plenty of money and effort going in to defeating anti-Israel candidates. Anti-Israel US House members Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were both targeted by pro-Israel groups and defeated in their primary bids. Other House members see this and alter their positions accordingly.
What would help Israel maintain broad support in the US would be Netanyahu changing his behavior. He makes his preference for Republicans over Democrats pretty clear and thus politicizes an issue that otherwise has broad support from both parties. His almost-complete intransigence to US interests when the US is giving him complete support in both financing and supplying essential arms for the Gaza war is not helping maintain broad support in both parties. His kowtowing to the Religious Zionist parties in order to maintain his coalition and his own PMship (probably a desire to stay out of jail) is limiting his options in actually making Israel safer and bringing the hostages home.
From your posts it is quite clear that you are a devoted Democrat, one who will always support them (I believe the original term, not necessarily an insult, was "yaller dog") and any new position they think up. And as a great thinker once said, "That's cool, that's cool"...even if I think those positions are a bit bizarre and un-Jewish. But to each his own, I guess.
But if I may, in your desire to defend the Democrats, you have crossed a line here. Bibi has won an election fair and square. He *still* commands the support of the largest number of Israelis, or very close to it. The Religious Zionist party (not parties- in fact, there's technically only *half* of one religious Zionist party in the Knesset) won a very large number of votes in the last election and looks set to win even more. That is called...what's the word?...ah, yes, "democracy." That's not "kowtowing," that's doing what he was elected to do.
Blaming a *Jew*, especially one who represents millions of Israelis, for the deep-seated anti-Semitism of a number of core Democratic constituencies is both perverse and ugly. Saying that Bibi has a "preference" for Republicans when the Democrats have had this anti-Semitism, um, "problem" since at least the 1960's is to ignore simple facts out of partisanship.
"From your posts it is quite clear that you are a devoted Democrat".
Ad hominem. Also wrong. I am registered and vote Republican. I didn't vote for Trump (nor for his opponents). But yes, my comments are not tied to political tribalism. Guilty as charged.
Yes Netanyahu was able to build a coalition and thus won the election. That doesn't make his decisions right. Unless you think that Obama was a great president because he won two clear victories and left office with a positive approval rating. I guess you also supported the Bennett-Lapid govt when they won an election fair and square.
As far as blaming Netanyahu for anti-semitism, you made that up yourself. Not sure why you think it might be true, but I don't.
Assuming you're telling the truth, I'm left with only one possibility: You see yourself as a super-patriotic American with no loyalty to Israel who has been deeply offended by Israel's Prime Minister's refusal to kowtow to the US to your satisfaction.
"He makes his preference for Republicans over Democrats pretty clear "
Is Netanyahu not supposed to be grateful to the Republicans for giving him the Golan heights, Jerusalem, Abraham accords and zero tolerance of Palestinian terror which the Democrats would never give?
This hasn't got anything to do with Trump specifically, although that is part of it. Netanyahu tried to bypass Obama and interfere in US politics directly to scuttle the Iran Nuclear deal. This is basically saying to Obama and the Democrats: Israel is your political enemy, please make our lives difficult as we try to make yours difficult. Also, we are working against you, so don't consider any of our interests in the deal. Whether or not the deal was bad for Israel (and this is remains an open question), there are ways to make your promote your interests. Alienating one of the two parties on whom your existence depends is very short-sighted.
If you believe that (1) Iran having nukes means no Israel and (2)Obama's plan was a pathway to Iranian nukes, then Netanyahu would have been criminally negligent in not acting as he did
If you believe the world will end unless I do what I want to do, yes you can justify almost anything. That's not a way to make decisions. And no one thinks that Iran having nuclear capability means no Israel. Israel also has them. It just detracts a bit from one strategic advantage. And no one knows backing out of the deal sped up or slowed down the day when Iran gets the bomb.
As I mentioned in another comment, opposing the Iran Nuclear deal (a deal not clearly in Israel's interests) is OK. Doing so by attempting to bypass the President and going directly to the Republican-controlled congress was sacrificing some of the long-term bipartisan support for Israel and in the end didn't work.
As an aside, the Pollard thing is truly silly. None of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama or Trump commuted Pollard's sentence (in Trump's case to commute his parole so he could go to Israel).
Biden has been pretty "lop-sidedly" Pro-Israel and I think that the coalition that he put together to defend Israel against Iranian missiles is much more valuable than moving the embassy and some symbolic accords (not that those are nothing). As well as shepherding the Israel funding through a divided congress where the R leadership had fallen apart and could have blocked that funding indefinitely. And even Obama who was less pro-Israel than Biden, kept the funding/bribe going to Egypt to keep the Israel-Egypt peace going in essential contravention of US law not to recognize a govt by coup. He also supported Israel's right to defend itself in the Pillar of Cloud and Protective Edge. Unfortunately the bipartisan consensus has eroded to some extent and Netanyahu has been one of the reasons.
Of course, there will be anti-Israel politicians in the US. But there is obviously a huge middle that resulted in near-universal support for Israel that is eroding.
"I'm no great admirer of Bibi's tactics. But regardless of the wisdom of his approach, it was an attempt to combat a very bad deal."
And I'm criticizing his approach which risks a long-term disaster (loss of US support) much bigger than an Iran nuclear capability for which Israel has a deterrent. I don't know if it was a good or bad deal and I don't know that anyone has much certainty.
I don't know why you think that Netanyahu is a minor reason. In politics, if try to undermine someone else, they will try to undermine you. Netanyahu is one of determined practitioners of this philosophy. The has nothing to do with Pro-Hamas, Pro-7 Oct extremists. It has to do with lots of people in the middle who have no particular tie to Israel and wonder why the US is involved at all, let alone being the single reason that Israel can wage this war while they simply lie to the President and ignore US interests. Let them go it alone if that is what they want.
Every Democratic politician and partisan voter. If you work against them, that motivates them not to help you. Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden are both *very* pro-Israel, yet even they want Netanyahu out. Biden is calling him out as a liar. I mean this is not remotely an original concern.
>”There are those who take the approach that it’s a milchemes mitzvah and indeed every Jew, no matter where they live, has an obligation to come to Israel and fight. (I’m told that Rav Hershel Shechter takes that position, though I have not been able to confirm it.)”
It would be quite surprising if Rav Schachter (that's the correct spelling, not "Shechter") held that position. As a leading posek and major figure at YU, it’s something that would likely be much more widely known if it were true. Where are all the YU students coming to enlist because Rav Schachter said they’re obligated to?
> “And there should be more political campaigning on behalf of Israel. In the UK, there have been endless pro-Palestinian rallies in London against Israel, each with hundreds of thousands of people, while in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?”
I used to wonder about this as well. Jews on the Right often question why the Left protests against Israel but not against countries like Russia, Syria, or Iran. However, during the anti-government protests over judicial reform, I had an epiphany: the reason is quite simple. Protests *against* government policy are always going to draw larger crowds than rallies *supporting* it. In other words, if I’m strongly *opposed* to a government policy, I’m much more motivated to go out and protest than I am to rally in *support* of the current policy. This comes down to basic human psychology, even if the impact of both types of gatherings is similar
Look on YU torah for Rav Shachter's Shiur relating to the war. He says it's a מלחמת מצוה but still says the Jews of Chutz laaretz have a different takkid, such as shtadlanus, including rallying. However, since it's a מלחמת מצוה he adds that any hostage deal would be assur al pi din.
I admire to some extent poskim who will stay consistent to their own system even when it produces bizarre and sometimes quite harmful results (you should tell people not to wear regular tsitsis without techeles, all milk in the US is treif, a person who was revived after heart stoppage is actually dead, you can't report a child rapist if he may end up in a state prison alongside Black prisoners, etc). If that is his actual position, good for him, but that is why it is good he is a Rosh Yeshiva and not actually in charge of policy. Nice to think about (well at least some of it; some is stomach churning), but not related to this world.
Whohoo, I thought he was respected on this blog. Anyway, aside from the first issue which is actually dealt with quite well in the next post, basically every example you gave is misquoted, by that I mean the devil's in the details.
Regarding techeiles, if murex is actually the right one 100% there is no heter not to wear it, so if people are scared to do so when they are convinced they better not, and most people would agree. The fact people are not convinced simply makes the whole thing a strong expression.
All US milk can be kosher in his opinion too if things were processed differently to avoid taaruvos from treifos. As it is he doesn't impose this chumra on anyone since R Elyashiv heard what he had to say but disagreed, although he didn't tell him why.
Not sure what you mean with the heart stopping, but I doubt he disputes בא הרוג ברגליו.
Reporting someone who is not a vaday rapist when he may go to prison where his life may be in danger is called sakanas nefashos. Wer'e not talking about a vaday rodef, and you can't kill a safek rodef because of מאי חזית.
Also on the techeiles, the procedure they are using is almost certainly producing the wrong color. It should be a bluish purple, not the blue that they get. One wonders why the ancients would have gone to the trouble of using snails to produce the same color you can get out of plant-based sources. The answer is that that isn't the color they were aiming at.
"Driessen discovered photolytic debromina- tion of DBI in 1944.32 An aqueous solution of the halogen-containing indigoid in the leuco- form is first prepared by reaction with the powerful reducing agent sodium dithionite. Then the solution is exposed to sunlight or an equivalent ultraviolet source, while held in a transparent glass vessel for effective irradiation. But dithionite is a modern synthetic reagent that was not known in antiquity, and neither were glass reaction vessels. Therefore it is questionable whether photolytic debromination was available in antiquity to make indigotin. Furthermore, it would have been unnecessary in that era to make indigotin from purple, considering the ready availability of inexpensive woad and/or indigo from plants, then used for producing indigotin dye. Besides, the highly precious value of the purple dye would have been squandered."
First off I didn't mean to imply that Rav Schachter is a not a skilled Talmid Chacham or poseik. I was putting together two things that should probably be separated.
1) When someone is an honest poseik, especially if they are creative, they are going to come up with places where they differ from what everyone else says or does and sometimes it will be very paradoxical. That doesn't make them wrong.
2) When poskim try to divine the best practical action from hyperexamination of traditional sources they will fail. Rav Schachter has a very specific Shitah that you can find the answer to any question in traditional sources if you look hard enough. On this I say, it is good that Poskim at not making these practical decisions.
Hi Shitah on Techeiles is that since we have the authentic Techeiles, then wearing only Lavan is a violation of Bal Tigra. (This is his innovation). He thinks that this is halacha Lemaaseh and you should teach kids this in school: stop wearing tsitsis if you don't have techeiles. Needless to say, his Talmid who related this did not in fact follow R Schachter's shitah and tell his students this which would likely getting him fired. I'm not sure where I'm seeing the inaccuracy in what I said here.
On milk, he hold IIRC, some procedures done on dairy cows render them treifos even though of course they are not mortally wounded by the procedure and that the end result is that all milk in the US is treif. So again, no inaccuracy.
On the third, I'll admit that I heard it long enough ago that I am shaky on the details, but is basic point IIRC was that if you go into cardiac arrest you stop breathing and your heart stops, thus you are halachically dead according to all shitos at that moment. Since you can't undie, you are still dead. (This one really makes no sense at all to me, but who am I).
None of these three are really any issue to me. They just demonstrate my point about honest poskim having their places were they go off in their own direction. And if you take the stories seriously, R Chaim Brisker did not want to be a poseik because he was to creative and theoretical, so R Simcha Zelig Reiger was the poseik instead.
The last one is the one that is truly problematic although this one is not unusual. The american Agudah, based on R Elyashiv's p'sak maintains that if a child reports sexual abuse you cannot go to the police to report it to have it investigated; instead you report to Rabbis. They will try to handle it internally.
R Schachter's shitah is similar, he says that you can overcome the mesirah issue based on the fact that if someone is a danger to the community, then you can turn him into the authorities. Since a repeat sexual abuse offender would be considered a danger to the community, you can report him (although it is unclear what the threshold is; it appears you would have to first ask him to stop, etc. which is the halacha by danger to the community).
But then he limits his p'sak to cases where the offender will be put into a federal prison. If he will be put into a state prison, then he will be put in with "Shvartzes" who will abuse him which will result a punishment greater than proper for the crime, so in that case, you can't turn him in. Since most sexual abuse is a state crime and prosecuted by state authorities, this means that you effectively can't report child sexual abuse.
This last one is the one that is stomach churning.
As far as the p'sak that Israeli hostage deal was contrary to halachah (if he said this), that is where I say that it is good that poskim are not in charge here.
Thanks for the response. I am aware of the sources pro and con regarding techeiles, I was just saying once you are at that conclusion, taking it a step further is not as radical as it looks. Also, knowing his personality as a very non-confrontational person, I doubt how serious he is about pushing it down peoples throats.
As far as milk, the procedures are not done to all animals and many poskim agree that it's an issue, only that it's battul when all the milk is mixed together with the concept of רוב בהמות כשרות. He holds that the statistic makes an issue while others disagree. Technically, if one were to pick out any one cow and milk from it it would be fine. (They say the Skverer Rebbe is also makpid on this, and when they shechted the cow they milked for him it was treif.)
I can look more at his position on sexual abuse.
As far as his position on hostage release, he is coming from the fact that halacha forbids hostage swapping during war since it may cause the enemy to win, which say what you want, is a legitimate position taken today anyway.
The sources I linked have nothing to do with pro and con on Techeiles per se. I'm taking it as a given that the snail has been identified and that you can produce Techeiles from it. The issue is that the process they use to make the Techeiles (photolytic debrominiation) turns it from Techeiles to blue. Perhaps you are yotzeih anyhow.
I'm not sure that I'm communicating properly my first point. My point is that he comes to a conclusion that almost no one else does. Everyone drinks milk. He goes according to what he thinks the sources mean and that leads him to a solitary place. You saying it is actually reasonable because of X,Y,Z is beside the point. Reasonable or not, he is alone. Again, not a bad thing.
On the war, this really makes no sense and demonstrates my point well. Anything that you do in war "may" cause the enemy to "win" and what it means to "win" is ill-defined. Since one of the goals of the war was to rescue the hostages, it hardly makes sense that a hostage deal causes the enemy to "win". Every decision here is a tradeoff and also a probabilistic prediction which may not work out even if you made the right gamble. And WADR to Rav Schachter, he is not remotely the person to make that decision. The issue is that the ones who are in charge of deciding are themselves generally dishonest and have ulterior motivations.
We hold our manhoods cheap in the diaspora, as the Bard put it, but the positive trend is for non-haredi young-adults to make aliya and serve, followed by their parents’ aliya in retirement among their sabra grandchildren. Soon every Jewish family will have an Israeli branch, and in a generation or two, the framing may shift to every Jewish family having a diaspora branch as a Yaakov Avinu second-camp lest history repeat itself ch’v.
This is actually a question I struggle with personally. I am an American living in Israel but I have not made aliyah because I have various personal considerations which prevent me from serving in the army (and I would still be eligible for the draft if I were to make aliyah now). Am I being disloyal to the Jewish people? Can I say that because I'm an American I don't have to share the burden? A tough question indeed.
I suspect that there would be more pro-Israel demonstrations in the USA if de jure prime minister Netanyahu and de facto prime ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir would quit. If the enlightened half of Israel is out demonstrating against the fascist government, why should the enlightened half of American Jews demonstrate for Israel?
The number of people demonstrating is somewhere well below 1% of the population.
By the way, Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir won an election fair and square. And they won a lot more votes than the numbers of people demonstrating, which wouldn't get one Knesset seat.
On one smaller point, "in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?"
There have been many smaller rallies all across the country. We have attended four or five ourselves in Denver, CO (which, to state the obvious, is not in the tri-state area, where there have been many more). So much happens at the state and local level of government in the US, so do not discount the value of these -- both for our government advocacy efforts and for our connection to our Israeli brothers and sisters. While the rally in DC was extremely important and highly visible, our family, for example, was only able to send my husband. Behind him, were five other people who support Israel and were able to attend the local events. There have been rallies at the state capitol and there was a very large and well attended rally in a large public space here -- and nearly all the synagogues, schools, and Jewish businesses participated - not an easy thing to do! Several city and state reps attended each of these rallies. (Of course there have also been so many smaller events too -- fundraising, panel events, challah bakes, prayer groups, hosting soldier-speakers, hostage family speakers, weekly hostage marches etc.) I can't speak to London, but we are organizing in the US.
I considered making aliyah and enlisting in the IDF after Oct 7, but I am 40 years old, have a bad back, and failed at my attempt to join to US military as a young man. I, somewhat shamefully, settled for donating money and praying.
Speaking of protests, for the life of me, I can't understand the massive protests in Tel Aviv demanding a cease fire because of the deaths of 6 hostages hy"d. Maybe it's hard to judge them from America, but you can't cancel a war to annihilate evil because they killed hostages - all the more reason to wipe them out. (For example, I don't think America would have asked for a cease fire with Germany if the Nazis executed American hostages during WWII.)
What is hard to understand? The death of those hostages has made it clear that there is no military solution to bringing home the hostages alive. Many people think that at this point bringing them home alive is the greatest priority.
אני מעקב אחרי דבריך על הגיוס זה זמן רב ודבריך נראים נכוחים שתלמידי הישיבות חייבים להתגייס הן מבחינת ההלכה והן מבחינת המוסר והיושר. מה דעתך לגבי אלו שטוענים שצה"ל יצטרך לספק תנאי חיים שמתאימים עם אורח חיים חרדי? ומה דעתך לגבי אלו שטוענים שצה"ל לא יכול להכיל את כל החרדים? ומה דעתך לגבי ההצעה שנשמעת מר' אמנון בזק ועוד שחרדים נשארים בישיביה כדי שלא יתגייסו, הפוך ממה שהם מצהירים בפומבי שלא מתגייסים מפני שהם לומדים, ולכן אם רק נפטור את כל מי שאומר שאא לו ?לשרת בצבא מסיבות של דת,ישתלבו בשוק העבודה וברבות הימים הם או בניהם יתגייסו?
I would respectfully suggest that this may be the wrong question. Maybe the issue is what should be done to get more American Jewish families to consider moving to Israel.
One big thing that comes to mind is the Israeli government prioritizing the protection of its citizenry. Watching for years as Hamas and Hezbollah armed themselves to the teeth (to say nothing of the periodic rocket campaigns) does not inspire a great deal of confidence.
"And likewise I think that many people would be willing to let the charedi community avoid army service if they were to renounce their state benefits and forgo voting"
I found this point very interesting because you have posted numerous times in recent months that the army needs thousands more soldiers. Here it sounds more like the 'share the burden' argument which somewhat dilutes things. Rightly or wrongly charedim think they are sharing the burden when they daven and learn but heads have indeed been turned by statements from the army establishment about the need for more soldiers. Don't belittle that by suggesting they can get off scot free by sourcing alternative funding.
That is simply not true in my experience. I know tens of charedim in chu"l and Israel who all claim to believe that, without exception, and I don't think they are being disingenuous to toe the party line. Some of them have become torn since the war started but even then they are mostly satisfied with the various lomdishe arguments put forth as to why they don't have to serve and they think their davening/learning is as effective and necessary as soldiers on the front line and it is what gives the soldiers the ability to succeed. "You could have a hundred thousand more soldiers but if not for the lomdei torah they wouldn't succeed. They don't realise what we are doing for them." This is an extremely prevalent view amongst charedim.
If I were an American Jew, I would think twice before sending my son to the IDF. Yoav Galant seems less focused on achieving a decisive victory and more on negotiating a hostage deal that would leave Hamas in power.
Today is no different. In any war, hostages and captives are tragically killed. But in this war, only the left-wing naïvely demands to stop the fight—allowing Hamas terrorists to regroup and seize more captives.
"And there should be more political campaigning on behalf of Israel. In the UK, there have been endless pro-Palestinian rallies in London against Israel, each with hundreds of thousands of people, while in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?"
What do "endless pro-Palestinian rallies in the UK" have to do with there only being one huge pro-Israel rally in Washington? I know you don't wish there were huge pro-Palestinian rallies in Washington, so it seems like the US is way ahead of the UK. Shouldn't you be demanding pro-Israel rallies in London? Or are you saying that such a rally is impossible in the UK, so it will never happen, but it's possible in Washington, so more should? I don't understand the rhetorical comparison.
Yep. Bottom line: US is far more pro Israel than Europe, for a whole bunch of reasons. Well known, don't think anyone should be surprised by this reality at this point
In NYC alone, there have been numerous rallies, just not the size of the nationwide one in DC. The annual Salute to Israel Parade down Fifth Avenue in June was attended by approximately 45,000 people.
They're categorically different. The anti Israel protests are each relatively small, and lasted a while. The pro Israel rally was far larger, but a one time thing. You're just not going to be able to motivate people to come out consistently for pro Israel rallies
"in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?"
I don't see what the point would be. US position is very pro-Israel and the Palestinian student protests were not popular in the US. There is plenty of money and effort going in to defeating anti-Israel candidates. Anti-Israel US House members Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman were both targeted by pro-Israel groups and defeated in their primary bids. Other House members see this and alter their positions accordingly.
What would help Israel maintain broad support in the US would be Netanyahu changing his behavior. He makes his preference for Republicans over Democrats pretty clear and thus politicizes an issue that otherwise has broad support from both parties. His almost-complete intransigence to US interests when the US is giving him complete support in both financing and supplying essential arms for the Gaza war is not helping maintain broad support in both parties. His kowtowing to the Religious Zionist parties in order to maintain his coalition and his own PMship (probably a desire to stay out of jail) is limiting his options in actually making Israel safer and bringing the hostages home.
From your posts it is quite clear that you are a devoted Democrat, one who will always support them (I believe the original term, not necessarily an insult, was "yaller dog") and any new position they think up. And as a great thinker once said, "That's cool, that's cool"...even if I think those positions are a bit bizarre and un-Jewish. But to each his own, I guess.
But if I may, in your desire to defend the Democrats, you have crossed a line here. Bibi has won an election fair and square. He *still* commands the support of the largest number of Israelis, or very close to it. The Religious Zionist party (not parties- in fact, there's technically only *half* of one religious Zionist party in the Knesset) won a very large number of votes in the last election and looks set to win even more. That is called...what's the word?...ah, yes, "democracy." That's not "kowtowing," that's doing what he was elected to do.
Blaming a *Jew*, especially one who represents millions of Israelis, for the deep-seated anti-Semitism of a number of core Democratic constituencies is both perverse and ugly. Saying that Bibi has a "preference" for Republicans when the Democrats have had this anti-Semitism, um, "problem" since at least the 1960's is to ignore simple facts out of partisanship.
"From your posts it is quite clear that you are a devoted Democrat".
Ad hominem. Also wrong. I am registered and vote Republican. I didn't vote for Trump (nor for his opponents). But yes, my comments are not tied to political tribalism. Guilty as charged.
Yes Netanyahu was able to build a coalition and thus won the election. That doesn't make his decisions right. Unless you think that Obama was a great president because he won two clear victories and left office with a positive approval rating. I guess you also supported the Bennett-Lapid govt when they won an election fair and square.
As far as blaming Netanyahu for anti-semitism, you made that up yourself. Not sure why you think it might be true, but I don't.
Assuming you're telling the truth, I'm left with only one possibility: You see yourself as a super-patriotic American with no loyalty to Israel who has been deeply offended by Israel's Prime Minister's refusal to kowtow to the US to your satisfaction.
In which case I have even worse news for you.
"Assuming you're telling the truth" says the guy posting (at least) semi-anonymously to the guy who uses his name. You haven't a clue.
People know who I am. I'm not anonymous.
Exactly. Both points are correct, and well said
"He makes his preference for Republicans over Democrats pretty clear "
Is Netanyahu not supposed to be grateful to the Republicans for giving him the Golan heights, Jerusalem, Abraham accords and zero tolerance of Palestinian terror which the Democrats would never give?
This hasn't got anything to do with Trump specifically, although that is part of it. Netanyahu tried to bypass Obama and interfere in US politics directly to scuttle the Iran Nuclear deal. This is basically saying to Obama and the Democrats: Israel is your political enemy, please make our lives difficult as we try to make yours difficult. Also, we are working against you, so don't consider any of our interests in the deal. Whether or not the deal was bad for Israel (and this is remains an open question), there are ways to make your promote your interests. Alienating one of the two parties on whom your existence depends is very short-sighted.
If you believe that (1) Iran having nukes means no Israel and (2)Obama's plan was a pathway to Iranian nukes, then Netanyahu would have been criminally negligent in not acting as he did
If you believe the world will end unless I do what I want to do, yes you can justify almost anything. That's not a way to make decisions. And no one thinks that Iran having nuclear capability means no Israel. Israel also has them. It just detracts a bit from one strategic advantage. And no one knows backing out of the deal sped up or slowed down the day when Iran gets the bomb.
No one thinks that Iran having nuclear capability means no Israel?
Left wing historian Benny Morris certainly does.
"To Survive, Israel Must Strike Iran Now"
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-06-30/ty-article-opinion/.premium/to-survive-israel-must-strike-iran-now/00000190-69e8-d01f-abbe-7de8d2260000
As I mentioned in another comment, opposing the Iran Nuclear deal (a deal not clearly in Israel's interests) is OK. Doing so by attempting to bypass the President and going directly to the Republican-controlled congress was sacrificing some of the long-term bipartisan support for Israel and in the end didn't work.
As an aside, the Pollard thing is truly silly. None of Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama or Trump commuted Pollard's sentence (in Trump's case to commute his parole so he could go to Israel).
Biden has been pretty "lop-sidedly" Pro-Israel and I think that the coalition that he put together to defend Israel against Iranian missiles is much more valuable than moving the embassy and some symbolic accords (not that those are nothing). As well as shepherding the Israel funding through a divided congress where the R leadership had fallen apart and could have blocked that funding indefinitely. And even Obama who was less pro-Israel than Biden, kept the funding/bribe going to Egypt to keep the Israel-Egypt peace going in essential contravention of US law not to recognize a govt by coup. He also supported Israel's right to defend itself in the Pillar of Cloud and Protective Edge. Unfortunately the bipartisan consensus has eroded to some extent and Netanyahu has been one of the reasons.
Of course, there will be anti-Israel politicians in the US. But there is obviously a huge middle that resulted in near-universal support for Israel that is eroding.
"I'm no great admirer of Bibi's tactics. But regardless of the wisdom of his approach, it was an attempt to combat a very bad deal."
And I'm criticizing his approach which risks a long-term disaster (loss of US support) much bigger than an Iran nuclear capability for which Israel has a deterrent. I don't know if it was a good or bad deal and I don't know that anyone has much certainty.
I don't know why you think that Netanyahu is a minor reason. In politics, if try to undermine someone else, they will try to undermine you. Netanyahu is one of determined practitioners of this philosophy. The has nothing to do with Pro-Hamas, Pro-7 Oct extremists. It has to do with lots of people in the middle who have no particular tie to Israel and wonder why the US is involved at all, let alone being the single reason that Israel can wage this war while they simply lie to the President and ignore US interests. Let them go it alone if that is what they want.
Every Democratic politician and partisan voter. If you work against them, that motivates them not to help you. Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden are both *very* pro-Israel, yet even they want Netanyahu out. Biden is calling him out as a liar. I mean this is not remotely an original concern.
>”There are those who take the approach that it’s a milchemes mitzvah and indeed every Jew, no matter where they live, has an obligation to come to Israel and fight. (I’m told that Rav Hershel Shechter takes that position, though I have not been able to confirm it.)”
It would be quite surprising if Rav Schachter (that's the correct spelling, not "Shechter") held that position. As a leading posek and major figure at YU, it’s something that would likely be much more widely known if it were true. Where are all the YU students coming to enlist because Rav Schachter said they’re obligated to?
> “And there should be more political campaigning on behalf of Israel. In the UK, there have been endless pro-Palestinian rallies in London against Israel, each with hundreds of thousands of people, while in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?”
I used to wonder about this as well. Jews on the Right often question why the Left protests against Israel but not against countries like Russia, Syria, or Iran. However, during the anti-government protests over judicial reform, I had an epiphany: the reason is quite simple. Protests *against* government policy are always going to draw larger crowds than rallies *supporting* it. In other words, if I’m strongly *opposed* to a government policy, I’m much more motivated to go out and protest than I am to rally in *support* of the current policy. This comes down to basic human psychology, even if the impact of both types of gatherings is similar
Look on YU torah for Rav Shachter's Shiur relating to the war. He says it's a מלחמת מצוה but still says the Jews of Chutz laaretz have a different takkid, such as shtadlanus, including rallying. However, since it's a מלחמת מצוה he adds that any hostage deal would be assur al pi din.
I admire to some extent poskim who will stay consistent to their own system even when it produces bizarre and sometimes quite harmful results (you should tell people not to wear regular tsitsis without techeles, all milk in the US is treif, a person who was revived after heart stoppage is actually dead, you can't report a child rapist if he may end up in a state prison alongside Black prisoners, etc). If that is his actual position, good for him, but that is why it is good he is a Rosh Yeshiva and not actually in charge of policy. Nice to think about (well at least some of it; some is stomach churning), but not related to this world.
Whohoo, I thought he was respected on this blog. Anyway, aside from the first issue which is actually dealt with quite well in the next post, basically every example you gave is misquoted, by that I mean the devil's in the details.
Regarding techeiles, if murex is actually the right one 100% there is no heter not to wear it, so if people are scared to do so when they are convinced they better not, and most people would agree. The fact people are not convinced simply makes the whole thing a strong expression.
All US milk can be kosher in his opinion too if things were processed differently to avoid taaruvos from treifos. As it is he doesn't impose this chumra on anyone since R Elyashiv heard what he had to say but disagreed, although he didn't tell him why.
Not sure what you mean with the heart stopping, but I doubt he disputes בא הרוג ברגליו.
Reporting someone who is not a vaday rapist when he may go to prison where his life may be in danger is called sakanas nefashos. Wer'e not talking about a vaday rodef, and you can't kill a safek rodef because of מאי חזית.
Also on the techeiles, the procedure they are using is almost certainly producing the wrong color. It should be a bluish purple, not the blue that they get. One wonders why the ancients would have gone to the trouble of using snails to produce the same color you can get out of plant-based sources. The answer is that that isn't the color they were aiming at.
"Driessen discovered photolytic debromina- tion of DBI in 1944.32 An aqueous solution of the halogen-containing indigoid in the leuco- form is first prepared by reaction with the powerful reducing agent sodium dithionite. Then the solution is exposed to sunlight or an equivalent ultraviolet source, while held in a transparent glass vessel for effective irradiation. But dithionite is a modern synthetic reagent that was not known in antiquity, and neither were glass reaction vessels. Therefore it is questionable whether photolytic debromination was available in antiquity to make indigotin. Furthermore, it would have been unnecessary in that era to make indigotin from purple, considering the ready availability of inexpensive woad and/or indigo from plants, then used for producing indigotin dye. Besides, the highly precious value of the purple dye would have been squandered."
https://www.tekhelet.com/pdf/TheBiblicalDyeTekheletanditsUseinJewishTextiles.%20Reprint.pdf
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-archaeology-topics/scholars-study-the-great-tekhelet-debate/
http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/tekhelet-color-perception-apprehension/
http://www.torahmusings.com/2017/06/testament-true-tekhelet/
This video is also interesting. The first part is a debunking of a possible Techeiles, but then he goes on to his own contribution:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B067a0iiCYnyNnpHQmxGdXJxdEU/view
First off I didn't mean to imply that Rav Schachter is a not a skilled Talmid Chacham or poseik. I was putting together two things that should probably be separated.
1) When someone is an honest poseik, especially if they are creative, they are going to come up with places where they differ from what everyone else says or does and sometimes it will be very paradoxical. That doesn't make them wrong.
2) When poskim try to divine the best practical action from hyperexamination of traditional sources they will fail. Rav Schachter has a very specific Shitah that you can find the answer to any question in traditional sources if you look hard enough. On this I say, it is good that Poskim at not making these practical decisions.
Hi Shitah on Techeiles is that since we have the authentic Techeiles, then wearing only Lavan is a violation of Bal Tigra. (This is his innovation). He thinks that this is halacha Lemaaseh and you should teach kids this in school: stop wearing tsitsis if you don't have techeiles. Needless to say, his Talmid who related this did not in fact follow R Schachter's shitah and tell his students this which would likely getting him fired. I'm not sure where I'm seeing the inaccuracy in what I said here.
On milk, he hold IIRC, some procedures done on dairy cows render them treifos even though of course they are not mortally wounded by the procedure and that the end result is that all milk in the US is treif. So again, no inaccuracy.
On the third, I'll admit that I heard it long enough ago that I am shaky on the details, but is basic point IIRC was that if you go into cardiac arrest you stop breathing and your heart stops, thus you are halachically dead according to all shitos at that moment. Since you can't undie, you are still dead. (This one really makes no sense at all to me, but who am I).
None of these three are really any issue to me. They just demonstrate my point about honest poskim having their places were they go off in their own direction. And if you take the stories seriously, R Chaim Brisker did not want to be a poseik because he was to creative and theoretical, so R Simcha Zelig Reiger was the poseik instead.
The last one is the one that is truly problematic although this one is not unusual. The american Agudah, based on R Elyashiv's p'sak maintains that if a child reports sexual abuse you cannot go to the police to report it to have it investigated; instead you report to Rabbis. They will try to handle it internally.
R Schachter's shitah is similar, he says that you can overcome the mesirah issue based on the fact that if someone is a danger to the community, then you can turn him into the authorities. Since a repeat sexual abuse offender would be considered a danger to the community, you can report him (although it is unclear what the threshold is; it appears you would have to first ask him to stop, etc. which is the halacha by danger to the community).
But then he limits his p'sak to cases where the offender will be put into a federal prison. If he will be put into a state prison, then he will be put in with "Shvartzes" who will abuse him which will result a punishment greater than proper for the crime, so in that case, you can't turn him in. Since most sexual abuse is a state crime and prosecuted by state authorities, this means that you effectively can't report child sexual abuse.
This last one is the one that is stomach churning.
As far as the p'sak that Israeli hostage deal was contrary to halachah (if he said this), that is where I say that it is good that poskim are not in charge here.
If you want more on the internal procedures used by Rabbis on child sex abuse, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffN3mYWCCw
Thanks for the response. I am aware of the sources pro and con regarding techeiles, I was just saying once you are at that conclusion, taking it a step further is not as radical as it looks. Also, knowing his personality as a very non-confrontational person, I doubt how serious he is about pushing it down peoples throats.
As far as milk, the procedures are not done to all animals and many poskim agree that it's an issue, only that it's battul when all the milk is mixed together with the concept of רוב בהמות כשרות. He holds that the statistic makes an issue while others disagree. Technically, if one were to pick out any one cow and milk from it it would be fine. (They say the Skverer Rebbe is also makpid on this, and when they shechted the cow they milked for him it was treif.)
I can look more at his position on sexual abuse.
As far as his position on hostage release, he is coming from the fact that halacha forbids hostage swapping during war since it may cause the enemy to win, which say what you want, is a legitimate position taken today anyway.
The sources I linked have nothing to do with pro and con on Techeiles per se. I'm taking it as a given that the snail has been identified and that you can produce Techeiles from it. The issue is that the process they use to make the Techeiles (photolytic debrominiation) turns it from Techeiles to blue. Perhaps you are yotzeih anyhow.
I'm not sure that I'm communicating properly my first point. My point is that he comes to a conclusion that almost no one else does. Everyone drinks milk. He goes according to what he thinks the sources mean and that leads him to a solitary place. You saying it is actually reasonable because of X,Y,Z is beside the point. Reasonable or not, he is alone. Again, not a bad thing.
On the war, this really makes no sense and demonstrates my point well. Anything that you do in war "may" cause the enemy to "win" and what it means to "win" is ill-defined. Since one of the goals of the war was to rescue the hostages, it hardly makes sense that a hostage deal causes the enemy to "win". Every decision here is a tradeoff and also a probabilistic prediction which may not work out even if you made the right gamble. And WADR to Rav Schachter, he is not remotely the person to make that decision. The issue is that the ones who are in charge of deciding are themselves generally dishonest and have ulterior motivations.
For what it's worth, R' Rakeffet has stated that this is halakha, and cites R' Lichtenstein as having said so as well.
Do you believe that the Charedim are required to follow this psak, if their poskim believe otherwise?
I believe nothing. I report.
Charedim don't see significance to the State of Israel in any event, so why would they listen? And why would the opinion of their poskim matter?
We hold our manhoods cheap in the diaspora, as the Bard put it, but the positive trend is for non-haredi young-adults to make aliya and serve, followed by their parents’ aliya in retirement among their sabra grandchildren. Soon every Jewish family will have an Israeli branch, and in a generation or two, the framing may shift to every Jewish family having a diaspora branch as a Yaakov Avinu second-camp lest history repeat itself ch’v.
This is actually a question I struggle with personally. I am an American living in Israel but I have not made aliyah because I have various personal considerations which prevent me from serving in the army (and I would still be eligible for the draft if I were to make aliyah now). Am I being disloyal to the Jewish people? Can I say that because I'm an American I don't have to share the burden? A tough question indeed.
Are you older than twenty-six? They don't want you unless you're an MD or DDS.
And even if you're younger, if your "personal considerations" are so strong, the IDF will probably take them into account.
In any event, citizenship doesn't matter: If you live here, you are benefiting from the State, including from the IDF.
You should serve.
I suspect that there would be more pro-Israel demonstrations in the USA if de jure prime minister Netanyahu and de facto prime ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir would quit. If the enlightened half of Israel is out demonstrating against the fascist government, why should the enlightened half of American Jews demonstrate for Israel?
"the enlightened half" lol
The number of people demonstrating is somewhere well below 1% of the population.
By the way, Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir won an election fair and square. And they won a lot more votes than the numbers of people demonstrating, which wouldn't get one Knesset seat.
But people always have excuses.
I personally asked R. Shachter whether every Jew of age in America is chayav to enlist because there is currently a milchemet mitzvah and he said yes.
I love this and I agree.
On one smaller point, "in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?"
There have been many smaller rallies all across the country. We have attended four or five ourselves in Denver, CO (which, to state the obvious, is not in the tri-state area, where there have been many more). So much happens at the state and local level of government in the US, so do not discount the value of these -- both for our government advocacy efforts and for our connection to our Israeli brothers and sisters. While the rally in DC was extremely important and highly visible, our family, for example, was only able to send my husband. Behind him, were five other people who support Israel and were able to attend the local events. There have been rallies at the state capitol and there was a very large and well attended rally in a large public space here -- and nearly all the synagogues, schools, and Jewish businesses participated - not an easy thing to do! Several city and state reps attended each of these rallies. (Of course there have also been so many smaller events too -- fundraising, panel events, challah bakes, prayer groups, hosting soldier-speakers, hostage family speakers, weekly hostage marches etc.) I can't speak to London, but we are organizing in the US.
Morris says Iran with nukes would mean either Israel would be nuked or it would steadily decline and wither away. Either way it means no Israel.
I considered making aliyah and enlisting in the IDF after Oct 7, but I am 40 years old, have a bad back, and failed at my attempt to join to US military as a young man. I, somewhat shamefully, settled for donating money and praying.
Speaking of protests, for the life of me, I can't understand the massive protests in Tel Aviv demanding a cease fire because of the deaths of 6 hostages hy"d. Maybe it's hard to judge them from America, but you can't cancel a war to annihilate evil because they killed hostages - all the more reason to wipe them out. (For example, I don't think America would have asked for a cease fire with Germany if the Nazis executed American hostages during WWII.)
Are the protests mainly a left-wing phenomenon?
What is hard to understand? The death of those hostages has made it clear that there is no military solution to bringing home the hostages alive. Many people think that at this point bringing them home alive is the greatest priority.
אני מעקב אחרי דבריך על הגיוס זה זמן רב ודבריך נראים נכוחים שתלמידי הישיבות חייבים להתגייס הן מבחינת ההלכה והן מבחינת המוסר והיושר. מה דעתך לגבי אלו שטוענים שצה"ל יצטרך לספק תנאי חיים שמתאימים עם אורח חיים חרדי? ומה דעתך לגבי אלו שטוענים שצה"ל לא יכול להכיל את כל החרדים? ומה דעתך לגבי ההצעה שנשמעת מר' אמנון בזק ועוד שחרדים נשארים בישיביה כדי שלא יתגייסו, הפוך ממה שהם מצהירים בפומבי שלא מתגייסים מפני שהם לומדים, ולכן אם רק נפטור את כל מי שאומר שאא לו ?לשרת בצבא מסיבות של דת,ישתלבו בשוק העבודה וברבות הימים הם או בניהם יתגייסו?
I would respectfully suggest that this may be the wrong question. Maybe the issue is what should be done to get more American Jewish families to consider moving to Israel.
One big thing that comes to mind is the Israeli government prioritizing the protection of its citizenry. Watching for years as Hamas and Hezbollah armed themselves to the teeth (to say nothing of the periodic rocket campaigns) does not inspire a great deal of confidence.
You don't move to Israel because of the government- governments change- nor because it's easy.
"And likewise I think that many people would be willing to let the charedi community avoid army service if they were to renounce their state benefits and forgo voting"
I found this point very interesting because you have posted numerous times in recent months that the army needs thousands more soldiers. Here it sounds more like the 'share the burden' argument which somewhat dilutes things. Rightly or wrongly charedim think they are sharing the burden when they daven and learn but heads have indeed been turned by statements from the army establishment about the need for more soldiers. Don't belittle that by suggesting they can get off scot free by sourcing alternative funding.
Charedim don't think that. Their spokesmen *say* it.
That is simply not true in my experience. I know tens of charedim in chu"l and Israel who all claim to believe that, without exception, and I don't think they are being disingenuous to toe the party line. Some of them have become torn since the war started but even then they are mostly satisfied with the various lomdishe arguments put forth as to why they don't have to serve and they think their davening/learning is as effective and necessary as soldiers on the front line and it is what gives the soldiers the ability to succeed. "You could have a hundred thousand more soldiers but if not for the lomdei torah they wouldn't succeed. They don't realise what we are doing for them." This is an extremely prevalent view amongst charedim.
Chu"l charedim are not Israeli charedim.
If I were an American Jew, I would think twice before sending my son to the IDF. Yoav Galant seems less focused on achieving a decisive victory and more on negotiating a hostage deal that would leave Hamas in power.
You wouldn't be "sending your son" to the IDF. An 18 year old going to serve is an adult and makes his own decisions.
Today is no different. In any war, hostages and captives are tragically killed. But in this war, only the left-wing naïvely demands to stop the fight—allowing Hamas terrorists to regroup and seize more captives.
"And there should be more political campaigning on behalf of Israel. In the UK, there have been endless pro-Palestinian rallies in London against Israel, each with hundreds of thousands of people, while in the US there was only one pro-Israel rally in Washington. For the life of me, I cannot understand this. Why haven’t there been any more such rallies?"
What do "endless pro-Palestinian rallies in the UK" have to do with there only being one huge pro-Israel rally in Washington? I know you don't wish there were huge pro-Palestinian rallies in Washington, so it seems like the US is way ahead of the UK. Shouldn't you be demanding pro-Israel rallies in London? Or are you saying that such a rally is impossible in the UK, so it will never happen, but it's possible in Washington, so more should? I don't understand the rhetorical comparison.
Yep. Bottom line: US is far more pro Israel than Europe, for a whole bunch of reasons. Well known, don't think anyone should be surprised by this reality at this point
Is the US there are endless pro Palestinian rallies too and only 1 pro israel rally. This has had a material effect on the US support for Isreal.
In NYC alone, there have been numerous rallies, just not the size of the nationwide one in DC. The annual Salute to Israel Parade down Fifth Avenue in June was attended by approximately 45,000 people.
They're categorically different. The anti Israel protests are each relatively small, and lasted a while. The pro Israel rally was far larger, but a one time thing. You're just not going to be able to motivate people to come out consistently for pro Israel rallies
Well, the good Jews of LA (Persians and Israelis) came out to UCLA and did a good job, only to be condemned by all the "nice" Jews.