It should be made clear that the reason the state of Israel was not established many years earlier, after Britain received a mandate to do exactly that in 1917 was BECAUSE of the (violent) objections of the Arabs.
In fact, the second world War may be considered to have delayed the formation of the state of Israel.
So...after the loss of 6 million of our brethren many of whom could have been saved if the Brits hadn't caved to the Arabs, we could also ne a bit aggrieved maybe?
". The Hamas massacre is a price that we pay for having a Jewish State, but the Holocaust was a price that we paid for not having one. This is just one of the many reasons that we should be very, very grateful that we have Israel."
I think it's very strange to propse that the Holocaust *couldn't* happen to a Jewish state. Especially one that is under constant threat from its neighbors who want to destroy it, chas v'Shalom. Armies invade sovereign nations all the time. The Nazis steamrolled over many sovereign nations. And when that happens, the population is at their mercy. The Holocaust was an extreme outlier in world history (October 7th style pogroms were much more common), and the lack of a Jewish state has nothing to do with it. צא ולמד what happened to the sovereign Jewish state during the time of the Churban. I am sorry to sound so morbid, but I think you are giving over the wrong message. There are perhaps many good reasons to have a sovereign Jewish nation, but Holocaust prevention is not one of them. Only Hashem can allow or prevent a Holocaust.
Thanks. I hear what you are trying to say, although it still seems strange to me, referring the prevention of a hypothetical future Holocaust in some unspecified country "one of the most basic goals" of having a Jewish state, and talking about the real Holocaust as "price that we paid for not having one"- as if we had the option of preventing the Holocaust by establishing a Jewish state earlier. Almost like a resident of Hiroshima building a nuclear bunker in 2010 and saying how great it would have been to have it in 1945. Surely there are much more basic and practical reasons for Jewish people to want a Jewish state.
It was already clear by around 1930, if not 1920, that there was going to be some sort of Jewish state, absent strong attempts to sabotage it (which of course did take place). Did the Holocaust change things? The one act I think we can point to is the November 29, 1947 resolution. And that resolution- for several reasons- had no legal impact, and no real practical impact, as the British were planning on pulling out anyway (and had to). Still, did it pass because of the Holocaust? Maybe, but Israel still had to do a *lot* of lobbying to get it passed, and the same for later events, like US recognition of independence. So probably the Holocaust had *some* impact, but not as much as some people think.
I didn't say there was *no* effect. Even so, Truman, for example, had to have his arm twisted with Chaim Weizmann tracking down his old Jewish haberdashery partner, who was by then an active Zionists, and getting him to barge into the Oval Office and sweet talk him into meeting Weizmann.
(Truman wasn't an anti-Semite, but was irritated by Zionist pressure. Truman's wife was a real old-fashioned Jew-hater who wouldn't let Jews into the house- and since it was her house, Harry apologetically let her have her way.)
Masaryk's father has a bunch of places named after him in Israel, including a street in Jerusalem, in the neighborhood where the streets tend to be named for non-Jewish Zionists (Lloyd George, Patterson, Smuts, and others- Martin Luther King is a few blocks away, but I'm not sure if that's intentional). I imagine that sort of crowded out the son.
In Washington, there's a statue of Masaryk pere located right next to one of Gandhi. My wife, who used to live nearby, finds it funny that Masaryk is in an overcoat and Gandhi is in a loincloth. :-)
I wonder how much of Wallace's views were sincere and how much were the party line. I tend to be a bit cynical about Communists considering how they flipped back and forth about Hitler in the late 30's and early 40's. I wonder if Wallace's views, ahem, "evolved."
Wallace, of course, was who FDR sent out to meet the March of the Rabbis while he himself ducked out the back door of the White House for a supposed prior commitment with the Yugoslavian Air Force. As Rav Soloveitchik, who was there, put it, "And we all know what a vice-president is worth." (Meaning no insult to Wallace, I suppose, who was perfectly nice but useless under the circumstances. To know what a vice-president is worth, see the famous line of Wallace's predecessor, John Nance Garner: "not worth a bucket of warm ****".)
Rav Soloveitchik would later see the Hand of God in how the USSR and USA agreed on one thing only, the creation of Israel.
Clifford, of course, ended his career deep in scandal over an Arab-linked bank. Nothing to do with Israel, though.
Norman Lamm once entertained us with stories of how he personally worked (in various capacities) against the arms embargo in 1948, almost getting arrested by the FBI at points. Part of that made it into the movie version of The Chosen- I don't think it's in the book.
"Norman Lamm once entertained us with stories of how he personally worked (in various capacities) against the arms embargo in 1948, almost getting arrested by the FBI at points. "
Pete Seeger late in life kinda sorta apologized for being an apologist for Stalin. And of course a lot of those hauled in front of HUAC had dropped Communism because of Stalin, and some even admitted to it. The New York Times has never returned the Pulitzer they got for it.
Never Forget the book Perfidy by Ben Hecht. Never forget how the secular Zionist founders worked tirelessly to thwart plans to save hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jewish lives from the Nazi crematorium during the holocaust to prevent them from reaching Israel. Never Forget!
I'm not going to damn Ben Hecht, because he did heroic work. But I will critique him.
His own colleague, Peter Bergson/Hillel Kook later told David Wyman that Hecht was a dramatist and tended to exaggerate. One the obvious lies (told for dramatic effect, no doubt) was that Malkiel Grunwald's brother was killed by the Gestapo along with Fabian Herskovitz. Both were prominent members of the Budapest Jewish community and were very much alive and active when Hecht wrote Perfidy.
One critic "praised" Hecht's autobiography (recommended, but skip the immodest parts) as being one of the finest pieces of fiction of its age. (Ask Nachum for the citation)
Hecht worked with secular Zionists. (And so did R. Michel Ber Weissmandl. The latter instructed those rescued by Kastner to testify on his behalf.)
Hecht wrote Perfidy to get back at his political opponents. Maybe they deserved it. But given the partisan and unreliable nature of the book, you should continue reading other books on the subject. Perfidy should not be the only book you read on the topic.
One thing that is vital to understand the period, is that even among the rescue activists there were debates on exactly what to do. The stakes were high and being on the perceived wrong side of the issue meant one could be accused of causing the deaths of thousands+++. I'll also note that no one wrote a rule book on how to save Jews from a massacre. (See e.g. the beginning of Hansi Brand's memoirs)
I'll conclude by saying that Kastner, whether right or wrong was not the first to face such a dilemma. יוחנן בן זכאי himself is neither vindicated nor condemned by חז"ל. And it would seem to imply that on his deathbed, he wasn't sure himself.
If we can't speak with certainty about a גדול הדור who would have achieved the level of דעת תורה, why should we be so certain about Kastner?
The stupidity with which you bring in a Talmud great and compare him to a demented Jewish renegade who threw away his father's faith and sold is soul to the Nazi devel is sickening. Classic obfuscation.
But that isn't even my point. It's about the founders and leaders of secular Zionism during the war that I particularly speak of. Stop the obfuscation. Again, it's about the secular Zionist leaders. After all, that is what this post is about. Israel and the holocaust.
Joel Brand was offered by Einstein hundreds of thousands of Hungarian lives for trucks. The Zionist leaders...the Jewish agency...they got him arrested so he couldn't complete the deal. The blood of hundreds of thousands of souls is on the heads of these people. And they are obviously paying for it right now it gehennim.
Is Israel a blessing from G-d for the Jewish nation? Sure. But the idea of zionism - when stripped away from religion - is a sickening disease, as history so clearly demonstrates.
"The stupidity with which you bring in a Talmud great and compare him ..."
Let me be perfectly clear. There has not been anyone comparable to יוחנן בן זכאי in more than 1000 years. Not Kastner, nor Hecht, nor (להבדיל) Rav Weissmandl. Does that mean that there גמרא has nothing to teach us? Why not toss every single אגדה that mentions an incomparable sage because he was incomparable? Unlike you, I believe in the eternal message of אגדות and I don't consider the lessons of them inapplicable because of the awesome level of its protagonists. But I will assume, perhaps imprudently, that your fuss over the בן זכאי comparison is only due to the wide gaping immeasurable difference in personality and not of circumstance.
"a demented Jewish renegade"
That's not how Rav Weismandl thought.
"threw away his father's faith "
This is rather sloppy. To throw something away implies he had it to start with. I'm not show to what extent Kastner had a full Torah upbringing.
" Classic obfuscation. "
I think you meant conflation. Obfuscation means to render something unintelligible. You fully understood my point. Your response, though incorrect, was to the point and thus indicates you understood me. So there was no obfuscation.
"But that isn't even my point. "
Then stick to it. And don't fuss over what you consider irrelevancies.
"Joel Brand was offered by Einstein hundreds of thousands of Hungarian lives for trucks. "
Not exactly. He was provided what on the surface appeared to be such an offer. It was understand by many then, and many now, as something more sinister than a genuine offer. If you read more than just Perfidy, you'd know that.
".they got him arrested so he couldn't complete the deal"
Again. It's not clear that this charge is true. But you wouldn't know that ambiguity because you only read Perfidy.
" so he couldn't complete the deal"
It's not clear that he could have completed the deal. Was the deal even possible? An illegal delivery of thousands of trucks to the enemy during wartime? And it doesn't matter whether it was actually possible. It only matters if it appeared impossible at the time. If you would read more than just Perfidy, you'd be less confident.
"And they are obviously paying for it right now it gehennim. "
I can't confirm this either. Many my binoculars are too cheap.
" But the idea of zionism - when stripped away from religion - is a sickening disease"
So you've gone from relying on Hecht, to condemning him. Did you read Hecht's Guide For The Bedevilled?
Its funny. You sound like some kind of Zionist plant intending to bamboozle posts against your cause. You attack me line by line. You get lost in words when my intent is clear.
Notice you have not even mentioned at all how Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai got into this. You compared him without the least explanation! Yes, that is obfuscation. You want to demonstrate that you have a counter point without even having one.
But even more striking is that you call him Yochanan Ben Zakkai. If you know anything about Mishna and Talmud or at least if you respected it, you would refer to him as Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai, as found in Shas. You would not strip away his honorific title or call him Ben Zakkai which is so non-religious-scholarly. The type that views Jewish history and Talmud as simply historic without the least holiness (at best).
You say you can't see into hell because your binoculars are too cheap. Well so is your faith. And your sincerity. Zionists worked with the Nazis to prevent Hungarian Jews from reaching Israel. It is historical fact. For example. The Jewish Agency of which Chaim Weizmannn was a big part, and Ben-Gurion was chairman, elected on board Yitzhak Gruenbaum ymsh.
Here is what he said in 1942 while the Jews were being thrown in ovens:
“I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000- or 100,000-pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act.”
Wow! The Jewish Agency felt that helping European Jewry while they were being gassed and tortured was not important enough! As this sub-human Gruenbaum said himself “I think it is necessary to state here – Zionism is above everything.” Yes. And Zionism did that. They ignored the European Jews during the holocaust. Any Zionism stripped of Judaism is a wicked disease.
Nothing you've written here is relevant to my suggestion that you read more than Perfidy.
You can bloviate over my shortening of מרן הרב הגדול הפאר הדור עטרת ראשינו הצדיק הקדוש הבבא שר התורה העילוי הנפלא פוסק מובהק רבן של כל ישראל יוחנן בן זכאי in order to enhance readability and reduce obfuscation. But you, for all your pretension, respect him less. You consider him irrelevant and you reject to learn anything from him.
Now you go to the opposite extreme and add titles to blow past my correct observation that you are lacking in respect for Talmud. I never indicated that you should title him more than the Talmud does. I said don't strip away his title.
Also you never even began to explain what Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai has to do with anything!!!!!!!!!!!
You simply mention that I should learn from him. What should I learn from him more than anyone else regarding our topic? You seem to be afraid to go further. Lets have at it. I bet we will see some serious lack of Torah scholarship on your part once you open up. I'm ready whenever you are.
Do you study your Mishna with commentaries? Rav is one of the foremost. Here is what he writes on that sentence: רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. ותלמיד דן לפני רבו היה באותה שעה, לכך קוראו בן זכאי
The individual here is actually Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai. He is called here Ben Zakkai because at that time he was a student in the presence of his teacher.
It's like calling Rashi by his name Shlomo. Perhaps if referring to when he was a young student, we might say Shlomo. When discussing Rashi in general however we have more honor for him than that.
Oh, I also don't like Kastner ymsh much. But not because of his granddaughter. Because he was a Nazi collaborator. For example, he encouraged Jews to board the trains to their deaths by the Nazis.
The fact that you trivialize such discussion by pointing out your dislike of him for another reason completely (like: "I don't like Eichmann much. His attitude was horrific. Not sure why that's relevant to anything") speaks volumes of you.
Shavua tov, Reb Natan. Of the possible interpretations of "Never Again" that you considered, you didn't include what much of the Jewish world considers the most fundamental: that there will never again be another genocide. In other words, it doesn't matter which group is the genocidaire and which group their victim, we cannot ever allow such a crime to happen again. I believe the Jewish world is cleaved by its reaction to the Holocaust. On one side, you have the Jews who say we are never again going to be the victims. This has a number of implications. On the other side, you have those who take a universalist message, and seek to support global human rights principles. These two reactions are in tension with each other.
Your argument would be applicable to any marginalized group, except the Jews. Are redheads, overweight individuals, or those with speech impediments facing discrimination? Let them establish their own community or institution where they can feel secure.
However, the situation for Jews is notably more intricate. "Ki Tavo" Torah portion states that if the entire Jewish people, not just a minority percentage of society, fail to uphold the commandments, God will ultimately expel them from the Land of Israel. Indeed, the persistent conflicts that the State of Israel has confronted over 75 years, with increasingly unfavorable outcomes, seem to affirm this principle.
We endure hardship both in the Diaspora and in the Land of Israel. The most powerful army in the Middle East (led by an ultra-leftist command) struggles to combat a gang of Gaza looters on motorcycles. This can only be seen as the Hand of God at work.
My comment is intended for religious Jews who adhere to the principles outlined in the Torah, rather than for those who may not share these beliefs.
Furthermore, the sporadic occurrence of natural disasters bears no connection to the longstanding history of the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism transcends rationality; it differs from typical xenophobia. Jews, irrespective of their religious or social standing, do not experience unconditional acceptance; they find no solace in either the diaspora or their homeland. Why?
Your comment may be intended for religious Jews but the venal principles ascribed to Hashem and outlined in the Torah is no less pernicious and easily understood by non-religious ( and many religious) Jews as unfalsifiable poppycock.
And leaves you unprepared to defend your rehearsed dogma with an explanation as to what Hashem has against Iceland.
Hashem controls everything but his natural disasters are indifferent to Iceland’s suffering. Only Jews are to be made aware of his despisement for whatever reasons you want to conjure up. Now I get it.
I'm not interested in demagogues and trolls such as yourself. If the distinction between sporadic cataclysms like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tornadoes, and the sustained persecution endured by a particular group over the course of 2,000 years eludes you, it's a philosophical quandary that lies with you, not with me.
Appeal to Tradition also Appeal to Authority - both logical fallacies; errors in thinking. Used mostly by charlatans, some clergy and politicians. Sound persuasive - but are persuasion tricks.
Popper reference is I guess a red herring? Which is also a logical fallacy...
Seek to rationalize the peculiar brand of xenophobia known as anti-Semitism, where members of a particular nationality have faced persecution for 2,000 years despite embodying contradictory characteristics such as religiosity and assimilation, all the while this same nationality endures.
The Bible, written by the One who created man, is not really reliable.
All we need is the Orthodoxy of 'unfalsifiablity'. Because we must all bow at its altar. But it's not a jealous god, it allows you to bow at the altar of Occam too. Any bias is ok, as long as it is non-demanding.
In a world where so many people hate us, I feel the only way to win the non military side of the war is to try and understand/engage with the Taanos of the other side, and having robust dialogue with them. Playing devil's advocate, as it were.
Until then, nothing will stop the many many ignorant automatically siding with the poor brown oppressed Palestinians against the Goliath of white colonial apartheid Zionists . And there's more of them than us.
With that said, as an opening question I would ask,
Is there any justification to the Arabs of pre mandate palestine feeling aggrieved about hundreds of thousands of European Jews suddenly turning up in their land?
Sure, there is absolutely reason for them to feel aggrieved. (Even though it did promise to bring them a lot of benefits.) Unfortunately it changed from "aggrieved" to believing that the Jews were coming to drive them out (which was not the case). Consequently they decided to try to drive the Jews out, and the rest is Naqba.
And I'm sure there were people in 1939 still "trying to see both sides." You know, "Just to play devil's advocate." Hey, we *know* there were *Jews* "trying to see both sides" only a few years before that.
I once worked for a law firm that specialized in covering up Arab land sales to Jews so the Arab wouldn't get killed. They had me poring over Ottoman-era maps- literally, ancient pieces of yellow paper. Good thing I can read Arabic letters.
On the other hand, our building's plumber (a far-left gay Jew of Iraqi descent) specialized in turning those Arabs over to the PA for execution. (We only found this out after he retired. The business went to his Arab partner, who thought he was a kook.) He died awaiting trial.
Really? Even back then racists had clever ways of getting around things, like passing black (that is, African-American) baseball players as "Cuban." (One of the Negro League teams was actually called "The New York Cubans.")
Florence King, who grew up in segregated Washington, DC, once described how her grandmother was the person to go to with racial questions. Soldier brings home a Japanese bride after World War II? Grandmother: "Not a problem. She's not black, after all." King describes the logic of people, even racists, taking pride in (real or imagined) American Indian ancestors: "There was the subtle subtext of 'My ancestors have been here so long, when they got here there weren't enough white women to go around!'"
"It makes no sense to invite world Jewry there in peacetime. "
And it makes more in wartime? Why? Is it cheaper and easier to move around in wartime?
"Also, the worst possible place to establish this safe haven would be a region where muslims and christians have been killing each other for centuries over. "
You know, you're describing much of the world.
" Like, maybe Israel could exchange Yitzhar for Guantanamo Bay, and kochav ha'shachar for some territory in Thailand."
Oh yes you are. There are very few places on Earth that have experience long periods of peace and tranquility. That fact alone is enough against your fact vomit.
"You don't live in a miklat because it's safer to so than to run there while there's a missile on the way."
This again shows that you're downplaying the crisis. Children sleep in the protected room, and others remain close to it. Maybe not in the center, but down south and up north. Show some concern for them.
It should be made clear that the reason the state of Israel was not established many years earlier, after Britain received a mandate to do exactly that in 1917 was BECAUSE of the (violent) objections of the Arabs.
In fact, the second world War may be considered to have delayed the formation of the state of Israel.
So...after the loss of 6 million of our brethren many of whom could have been saved if the Brits hadn't caved to the Arabs, we could also ne a bit aggrieved maybe?
". The Hamas massacre is a price that we pay for having a Jewish State, but the Holocaust was a price that we paid for not having one. This is just one of the many reasons that we should be very, very grateful that we have Israel."
I think it's very strange to propse that the Holocaust *couldn't* happen to a Jewish state. Especially one that is under constant threat from its neighbors who want to destroy it, chas v'Shalom. Armies invade sovereign nations all the time. The Nazis steamrolled over many sovereign nations. And when that happens, the population is at their mercy. The Holocaust was an extreme outlier in world history (October 7th style pogroms were much more common), and the lack of a Jewish state has nothing to do with it. צא ולמד what happened to the sovereign Jewish state during the time of the Churban. I am sorry to sound so morbid, but I think you are giving over the wrong message. There are perhaps many good reasons to have a sovereign Jewish nation, but Holocaust prevention is not one of them. Only Hashem can allow or prevent a Holocaust.
I didn't say that Israel guarantees safety. It could be nuked. What I said was that it provides safety from persecution in *other* countries.
(sorry, I meant to write refuge, not safety.)
Thanks. I hear what you are trying to say, although it still seems strange to me, referring the prevention of a hypothetical future Holocaust in some unspecified country "one of the most basic goals" of having a Jewish state, and talking about the real Holocaust as "price that we paid for not having one"- as if we had the option of preventing the Holocaust by establishing a Jewish state earlier. Almost like a resident of Hiroshima building a nuclear bunker in 2010 and saying how great it would have been to have it in 1945. Surely there are much more basic and practical reasons for Jewish people to want a Jewish state.
It was already clear by around 1930, if not 1920, that there was going to be some sort of Jewish state, absent strong attempts to sabotage it (which of course did take place). Did the Holocaust change things? The one act I think we can point to is the November 29, 1947 resolution. And that resolution- for several reasons- had no legal impact, and no real practical impact, as the British were planning on pulling out anyway (and had to). Still, did it pass because of the Holocaust? Maybe, but Israel still had to do a *lot* of lobbying to get it passed, and the same for later events, like US recognition of independence. So probably the Holocaust had *some* impact, but not as much as some people think.
I didn't say there was *no* effect. Even so, Truman, for example, had to have his arm twisted with Chaim Weizmann tracking down his old Jewish haberdashery partner, who was by then an active Zionists, and getting him to barge into the Oval Office and sweet talk him into meeting Weizmann.
(Truman wasn't an anti-Semite, but was irritated by Zionist pressure. Truman's wife was a real old-fashioned Jew-hater who wouldn't let Jews into the house- and since it was her house, Harry apologetically let her have her way.)
Masaryk's father has a bunch of places named after him in Israel, including a street in Jerusalem, in the neighborhood where the streets tend to be named for non-Jewish Zionists (Lloyd George, Patterson, Smuts, and others- Martin Luther King is a few blocks away, but I'm not sure if that's intentional). I imagine that sort of crowded out the son.
In Washington, there's a statue of Masaryk pere located right next to one of Gandhi. My wife, who used to live nearby, finds it funny that Masaryk is in an overcoat and Gandhi is in a loincloth. :-)
I wonder how much of Wallace's views were sincere and how much were the party line. I tend to be a bit cynical about Communists considering how they flipped back and forth about Hitler in the late 30's and early 40's. I wonder if Wallace's views, ahem, "evolved."
Wallace, of course, was who FDR sent out to meet the March of the Rabbis while he himself ducked out the back door of the White House for a supposed prior commitment with the Yugoslavian Air Force. As Rav Soloveitchik, who was there, put it, "And we all know what a vice-president is worth." (Meaning no insult to Wallace, I suppose, who was perfectly nice but useless under the circumstances. To know what a vice-president is worth, see the famous line of Wallace's predecessor, John Nance Garner: "not worth a bucket of warm ****".)
Rav Soloveitchik would later see the Hand of God in how the USSR and USA agreed on one thing only, the creation of Israel.
Clifford, of course, ended his career deep in scandal over an Arab-linked bank. Nothing to do with Israel, though.
Norman Lamm once entertained us with stories of how he personally worked (in various capacities) against the arms embargo in 1948, almost getting arrested by the FBI at points. Part of that made it into the movie version of The Chosen- I don't think it's in the book.
"Norman Lamm once entertained us with stories of how he personally worked (in various capacities) against the arms embargo in 1948, almost getting arrested by the FBI at points. "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELYtq0aDVbw
Good to know.
Pete Seeger late in life kinda sorta apologized for being an apologist for Stalin. And of course a lot of those hauled in front of HUAC had dropped Communism because of Stalin, and some even admitted to it. The New York Times has never returned the Pulitzer they got for it.
Great piece
Never Forget the book Perfidy by Ben Hecht. Never forget how the secular Zionist founders worked tirelessly to thwart plans to save hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jewish lives from the Nazi crematorium during the holocaust to prevent them from reaching Israel. Never Forget!
I'm not going to damn Ben Hecht, because he did heroic work. But I will critique him.
His own colleague, Peter Bergson/Hillel Kook later told David Wyman that Hecht was a dramatist and tended to exaggerate. One the obvious lies (told for dramatic effect, no doubt) was that Malkiel Grunwald's brother was killed by the Gestapo along with Fabian Herskovitz. Both were prominent members of the Budapest Jewish community and were very much alive and active when Hecht wrote Perfidy.
One critic "praised" Hecht's autobiography (recommended, but skip the immodest parts) as being one of the finest pieces of fiction of its age. (Ask Nachum for the citation)
Hecht worked with secular Zionists. (And so did R. Michel Ber Weissmandl. The latter instructed those rescued by Kastner to testify on his behalf.)
Hecht wrote Perfidy to get back at his political opponents. Maybe they deserved it. But given the partisan and unreliable nature of the book, you should continue reading other books on the subject. Perfidy should not be the only book you read on the topic.
One thing that is vital to understand the period, is that even among the rescue activists there were debates on exactly what to do. The stakes were high and being on the perceived wrong side of the issue meant one could be accused of causing the deaths of thousands+++. I'll also note that no one wrote a rule book on how to save Jews from a massacre. (See e.g. the beginning of Hansi Brand's memoirs)
I'll conclude by saying that Kastner, whether right or wrong was not the first to face such a dilemma. יוחנן בן זכאי himself is neither vindicated nor condemned by חז"ל. And it would seem to imply that on his deathbed, he wasn't sure himself.
If we can't speak with certainty about a גדול הדור who would have achieved the level of דעת תורה, why should we be so certain about Kastner?
The stupidity with which you bring in a Talmud great and compare him to a demented Jewish renegade who threw away his father's faith and sold is soul to the Nazi devel is sickening. Classic obfuscation.
But that isn't even my point. It's about the founders and leaders of secular Zionism during the war that I particularly speak of. Stop the obfuscation. Again, it's about the secular Zionist leaders. After all, that is what this post is about. Israel and the holocaust.
Joel Brand was offered by Einstein hundreds of thousands of Hungarian lives for trucks. The Zionist leaders...the Jewish agency...they got him arrested so he couldn't complete the deal. The blood of hundreds of thousands of souls is on the heads of these people. And they are obviously paying for it right now it gehennim.
Is Israel a blessing from G-d for the Jewish nation? Sure. But the idea of zionism - when stripped away from religion - is a sickening disease, as history so clearly demonstrates.
"The stupidity with which you bring in a Talmud great and compare him ..."
Let me be perfectly clear. There has not been anyone comparable to יוחנן בן זכאי in more than 1000 years. Not Kastner, nor Hecht, nor (להבדיל) Rav Weissmandl. Does that mean that there גמרא has nothing to teach us? Why not toss every single אגדה that mentions an incomparable sage because he was incomparable? Unlike you, I believe in the eternal message of אגדות and I don't consider the lessons of them inapplicable because of the awesome level of its protagonists. But I will assume, perhaps imprudently, that your fuss over the בן זכאי comparison is only due to the wide gaping immeasurable difference in personality and not of circumstance.
"a demented Jewish renegade"
That's not how Rav Weismandl thought.
"threw away his father's faith "
This is rather sloppy. To throw something away implies he had it to start with. I'm not show to what extent Kastner had a full Torah upbringing.
" Classic obfuscation. "
I think you meant conflation. Obfuscation means to render something unintelligible. You fully understood my point. Your response, though incorrect, was to the point and thus indicates you understood me. So there was no obfuscation.
"But that isn't even my point. "
Then stick to it. And don't fuss over what you consider irrelevancies.
"Joel Brand was offered by Einstein hundreds of thousands of Hungarian lives for trucks. "
Not exactly. He was provided what on the surface appeared to be such an offer. It was understand by many then, and many now, as something more sinister than a genuine offer. If you read more than just Perfidy, you'd know that.
".they got him arrested so he couldn't complete the deal"
Again. It's not clear that this charge is true. But you wouldn't know that ambiguity because you only read Perfidy.
" so he couldn't complete the deal"
It's not clear that he could have completed the deal. Was the deal even possible? An illegal delivery of thousands of trucks to the enemy during wartime? And it doesn't matter whether it was actually possible. It only matters if it appeared impossible at the time. If you would read more than just Perfidy, you'd be less confident.
"And they are obviously paying for it right now it gehennim. "
I can't confirm this either. Many my binoculars are too cheap.
" But the idea of zionism - when stripped away from religion - is a sickening disease"
So you've gone from relying on Hecht, to condemning him. Did you read Hecht's Guide For The Bedevilled?
Its funny. You sound like some kind of Zionist plant intending to bamboozle posts against your cause. You attack me line by line. You get lost in words when my intent is clear.
Notice you have not even mentioned at all how Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai got into this. You compared him without the least explanation! Yes, that is obfuscation. You want to demonstrate that you have a counter point without even having one.
But even more striking is that you call him Yochanan Ben Zakkai. If you know anything about Mishna and Talmud or at least if you respected it, you would refer to him as Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai, as found in Shas. You would not strip away his honorific title or call him Ben Zakkai which is so non-religious-scholarly. The type that views Jewish history and Talmud as simply historic without the least holiness (at best).
You say you can't see into hell because your binoculars are too cheap. Well so is your faith. And your sincerity. Zionists worked with the Nazis to prevent Hungarian Jews from reaching Israel. It is historical fact. For example. The Jewish Agency of which Chaim Weizmannn was a big part, and Ben-Gurion was chairman, elected on board Yitzhak Gruenbaum ymsh.
Here is what he said in 1942 while the Jews were being thrown in ovens:
“I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000- or 100,000-pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act.”
Wow! The Jewish Agency felt that helping European Jewry while they were being gassed and tortured was not important enough! As this sub-human Gruenbaum said himself “I think it is necessary to state here – Zionism is above everything.” Yes. And Zionism did that. They ignored the European Jews during the holocaust. Any Zionism stripped of Judaism is a wicked disease.
Nothing you've written here is relevant to my suggestion that you read more than Perfidy.
You can bloviate over my shortening of מרן הרב הגדול הפאר הדור עטרת ראשינו הצדיק הקדוש הבבא שר התורה העילוי הנפלא פוסק מובהק רבן של כל ישראל יוחנן בן זכאי in order to enhance readability and reduce obfuscation. But you, for all your pretension, respect him less. You consider him irrelevant and you reject to learn anything from him.
Now you go to the opposite extreme and add titles to blow past my correct observation that you are lacking in respect for Talmud. I never indicated that you should title him more than the Talmud does. I said don't strip away his title.
Also you never even began to explain what Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai has to do with anything!!!!!!!!!!!
You simply mention that I should learn from him. What should I learn from him more than anyone else regarding our topic? You seem to be afraid to go further. Lets have at it. I bet we will see some serious lack of Torah scholarship on your part once you open up. I'm ready whenever you are.
Do you study your Mishna with commentaries? Rav is one of the foremost. Here is what he writes on that sentence: רבן יוחנן בן זכאי. ותלמיד דן לפני רבו היה באותה שעה, לכך קוראו בן זכאי
The individual here is actually Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai. He is called here Ben Zakkai because at that time he was a student in the presence of his teacher.
It's like calling Rashi by his name Shlomo. Perhaps if referring to when he was a young student, we might say Shlomo. When discussing Rashi in general however we have more honor for him than that.
Oh, I also don't like Kastner ymsh much. But not because of his granddaughter. Because he was a Nazi collaborator. For example, he encouraged Jews to board the trains to their deaths by the Nazis.
The fact that you trivialize such discussion by pointing out your dislike of him for another reason completely (like: "I don't like Eichmann much. His attitude was horrific. Not sure why that's relevant to anything") speaks volumes of you.
You have a good sense of humor, just saying
Very well stated.
Shavua tov, Reb Natan. Of the possible interpretations of "Never Again" that you considered, you didn't include what much of the Jewish world considers the most fundamental: that there will never again be another genocide. In other words, it doesn't matter which group is the genocidaire and which group their victim, we cannot ever allow such a crime to happen again. I believe the Jewish world is cleaved by its reaction to the Holocaust. On one side, you have the Jews who say we are never again going to be the victims. This has a number of implications. On the other side, you have those who take a universalist message, and seek to support global human rights principles. These two reactions are in tension with each other.
Your argument would be applicable to any marginalized group, except the Jews. Are redheads, overweight individuals, or those with speech impediments facing discrimination? Let them establish their own community or institution where they can feel secure.
However, the situation for Jews is notably more intricate. "Ki Tavo" Torah portion states that if the entire Jewish people, not just a minority percentage of society, fail to uphold the commandments, God will ultimately expel them from the Land of Israel. Indeed, the persistent conflicts that the State of Israel has confronted over 75 years, with increasingly unfavorable outcomes, seem to affirm this principle.
We endure hardship both in the Diaspora and in the Land of Israel. The most powerful army in the Middle East (led by an ultra-leftist command) struggles to combat a gang of Gaza looters on motorcycles. This can only be seen as the Hand of God at work.
@Shaul,
“This can only be seen as the Hand of God at work.”
Indeed, this can only be seen as the Hand of God at work, no doubt, without question, it’s incontrovertible. But what does he have against Iceland.
You’re a fool.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/152631/fresh-flows-spread-across-iceland
My comment is intended for religious Jews who adhere to the principles outlined in the Torah, rather than for those who may not share these beliefs.
Furthermore, the sporadic occurrence of natural disasters bears no connection to the longstanding history of the Jewish people. Anti-Semitism transcends rationality; it differs from typical xenophobia. Jews, irrespective of their religious or social standing, do not experience unconditional acceptance; they find no solace in either the diaspora or their homeland. Why?
@Shaul,
Your comment may be intended for religious Jews but the venal principles ascribed to Hashem and outlined in the Torah is no less pernicious and easily understood by non-religious ( and many religious) Jews as unfalsifiable poppycock.
And leaves you unprepared to defend your rehearsed dogma with an explanation as to what Hashem has against Iceland.
Hashem controls everything but his natural disasters are indifferent to Iceland’s suffering. Only Jews are to be made aware of his despisement for whatever reasons you want to conjure up. Now I get it.
I'm not interested in demagogues and trolls such as yourself. If the distinction between sporadic cataclysms like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tornadoes, and the sustained persecution endured by a particular group over the course of 2,000 years eludes you, it's a philosophical quandary that lies with you, not with me.
Non falsifiable. An error in thinking. How charlatans work. Respectfully.
Read the historical books of the Bible thoroughly before sharing your pseudo-Popperian viewpoint.
Appeal to Tradition also Appeal to Authority - both logical fallacies; errors in thinking. Used mostly by charlatans, some clergy and politicians. Sound persuasive - but are persuasion tricks.
Popper reference is I guess a red herring? Which is also a logical fallacy...
Seek to rationalize the peculiar brand of xenophobia known as anti-Semitism, where members of a particular nationality have faced persecution for 2,000 years despite embodying contradictory characteristics such as religiosity and assimilation, all the while this same nationality endures.
The Bible, written by the One who created man, is not really reliable.
All we need is the Orthodoxy of 'unfalsifiablity'. Because we must all bow at its altar. But it's not a jealous god, it allows you to bow at the altar of Occam too. Any bias is ok, as long as it is non-demanding.
i think a fallacy of insufficiency. Also, an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Also an appeal to emotion fallacy.
Used by charlatans, politicians, effective child predators, preachers, cult leaders - and yes, sadly, religious leaders.
Probably because these are actually proven persuasion tricks that work on many people.
So, no one will stop.
Not even the down to earth Jews.
In a world where so many people hate us, I feel the only way to win the non military side of the war is to try and understand/engage with the Taanos of the other side, and having robust dialogue with them. Playing devil's advocate, as it were.
Until then, nothing will stop the many many ignorant automatically siding with the poor brown oppressed Palestinians against the Goliath of white colonial apartheid Zionists . And there's more of them than us.
With that said, as an opening question I would ask,
Is there any justification to the Arabs of pre mandate palestine feeling aggrieved about hundreds of thousands of European Jews suddenly turning up in their land?
Sure, there is absolutely reason for them to feel aggrieved. (Even though it did promise to bring them a lot of benefits.) Unfortunately it changed from "aggrieved" to believing that the Jews were coming to drive them out (which was not the case). Consequently they decided to try to drive the Jews out, and the rest is Naqba.
Would you have said such things about the Germans in 1939?
And I'm sure there were people in 1939 still "trying to see both sides." You know, "Just to play devil's advocate." Hey, we *know* there were *Jews* "trying to see both sides" only a few years before that.
Substitute "this" for "their".
" And paid cash for the land to the landowners of record. "
And those who sold land at night, rioted during the day. (Or vice-versa?) I recall reading that even the Mufti's people sold land to Jews.
I once worked for a law firm that specialized in covering up Arab land sales to Jews so the Arab wouldn't get killed. They had me poring over Ottoman-era maps- literally, ancient pieces of yellow paper. Good thing I can read Arabic letters.
On the other hand, our building's plumber (a far-left gay Jew of Iraqi descent) specialized in turning those Arabs over to the PA for execution. (We only found this out after he retired. The business went to his Arab partner, who thought he was a kook.) He died awaiting trial.
I think you're correct in regards to most of the sellers. I should have been more clear that I was only refer to some of the sellers.
"Once again, Arabs elsewhere care nothing for the welfare of Arabs in "Palestine"
That's because absent a uniting foe, clannish self interest trumps western notions of nationalism.
Really? Even back then racists had clever ways of getting around things, like passing black (that is, African-American) baseball players as "Cuban." (One of the Negro League teams was actually called "The New York Cubans.")
Florence King, who grew up in segregated Washington, DC, once described how her grandmother was the person to go to with racial questions. Soldier brings home a Japanese bride after World War II? Grandmother: "Not a problem. She's not black, after all." King describes the logic of people, even racists, taking pride in (real or imagined) American Indian ancestors: "There was the subtle subtext of 'My ancestors have been here so long, when they got here there weren't enough white women to go around!'"
But weren't the original "invaders" mostly caucausian Europeans? Remember I am playing devil's advocate. I know that Israel is NOW full of non whites.
Sure, it would be a great idea to have some additional sovereign territory elsewhere in the world. I don't see how it could happen, though.
Teaneck?
"It makes no sense to invite world Jewry there in peacetime. "
And it makes more in wartime? Why? Is it cheaper and easier to move around in wartime?
"Also, the worst possible place to establish this safe haven would be a region where muslims and christians have been killing each other for centuries over. "
You know, you're describing much of the world.
" Like, maybe Israel could exchange Yitzhar for Guantanamo Bay, and kochav ha'shachar for some territory in Thailand."
You are welcome to be the pioneer.
"No I'm not"
Oh yes you are. There are very few places on Earth that have experience long periods of peace and tranquility. That fact alone is enough against your fact vomit.
"You don't live in a miklat because it's safer to so than to run there while there's a missile on the way."
This again shows that you're downplaying the crisis. Children sleep in the protected room, and others remain close to it. Maybe not in the center, but down south and up north. Show some concern for them.