There are currently 20 Arab states. The Arabs control about 99.8% of the land mass in the middle east. Jews have all been ethnically cleansed from these areas. There is only one tiny Jewish state which is shared with Arabs. If we need another state in the ME it should be a second Jewish state, and one or two Christian states.
My thoughts exactly. They (Muslims) conquered vast areas of the inhabited world in perhaps the biggest colonial project in human history, but it's apparently not enough. The tiny sliver now called Israel has to be theirs now, too. Fuck them.
We should be thankful for those Muslim conquests. The Eastern Roman Empire had a policy of genocide against any and all religious groups that weren't orthodox Christian. They had already pretty much exterminated the Samaritans and were targeting Christian heretics like Armenians and Copts, along with Jews. And a century later they put an end to the horrible persecutions by the Visigoths in Spain.
Depends on the time and place. But in any case, there is coloring that can obscure the fact that there probably would have been as few Jews today as there are Samaritans had the Eastern Roman Empire finally defeated the Sasanian Empire of the Iranians, which was quite likely, and it was the Arab Muslims of the Rashidun Caliphate who prevented that from happening.
I just realized that this isn't clear. It was the Eastern Roman Empire that had largely exterminated the Samaritans and was targeting Christian heretics, and the Muslims who put an end to the Visigothic persecutions.
It would be helpful if you knew Sefardic Jewish history. In 1939 there were 18 million Jews in the world. 15 million were Ashkenaz.
3 million Sefardic Jews???? If they were unmolested, why are there not 100 M by now??? 1500 years and they all assimilated? There was no Reform in the Sefardic history.
So I started asking that question, as my entire education has dealt with only Ashkenazic Judaism and its mournful past. There was good reason why we were down to 15 M. They killed us.
Turns out, the Sefardic were subject to mini Holocausts in every generation. Sometimes it would flare into the 100000 range, like in 18th century Yemen.
So….no….like the Japanese, they were just as cruel (maybe more so) than the Germans. [equivalence purposeful]
Isabella of Castille, Ferdinand of Aragon, and Manuel of Portugal. There are millions of people with Sefardic Jewish ancestry living in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries today.
In 1945 that number was less than 3 million worldwide!!! Why? Because the Muslims were just as bad as the Christians in wiping out our populations, just in smaller aliquots and more frequent ('low amplitude high frequency)
It is a stretch to call the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates a colonial project, and in any case they were MUCH smaller than the colonial projects of Spain, Portugal, France, and especially Britain.
So I guess next you're going to say there was no invasion of Spain and Portugal, that the Turks were indigenous to southeastern Europe, they didn't besiege Vienna twice nor fight a bloody battle at Poitiers in the 8th century, etc., etc....
There was no invasion of Spain or Portugal in the 8th century. The Kingdom of Portugal didn't exist until 1189 and the Kingdom of Spain until 1707 when the Crowns of Castille and Aragon were forcibly combined. (Interestingly, that was the same year as the Act of Union between England and Scotland that created Great Britain.) What was invaded was the Visigothic Kingdom, who mercilessly persecuted Jews. The Muslims put the Visigoths out of business forever.
It is a miracle that the new State of Israel survived.
Someone whose contribution has been largely forgotten is Jan Masaryk, the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia in the immediate years after WW2. He was the Czechoslovak Ambassador to the UK during much of the 1930s where he had spent much of his time trying to awaken Britain to the danger of Nazi Germany. The only politician he seems to have convinced was Winston Churchill, who may not have needed convincing but was considered politically toxic. Masaryk did not return to Czechoslovakia after Munich.
After the war Masaryk became Foreign Minister in the Communist dominated, but still democratic government. The betrayal by the UK and France had soured public opinion against western democracies. He arranged for the transfer of large amounts of munitions from Czechoslovakia to the Zionists starting in January 1948. In February 1948 a coup gave the Communists total control in Czechoslovakia; Masaryk was the only non-Communist to remain in the government, and the munitions transfers continued. On March 10, 1948, he was pushed out of a window to his death, which was called a suicide by the Communists.
But the munitions transfers that he began continued, with the approval of Gottwald, Beria, and Stalin. I have never seen a good explanation as to why these three horrible Communists continued helping Zionists, but the transfers probably would not have started without Masaryk. I don't want to think about what would have happened to Israel without those Czech munitions, as no other country was willing to help the Zionists. Harry Truman is given credit for having given *de facto* diplomatic recognition to the new State of Israel over the objections of his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, but he immediately slapped an arms embargo on Israel that would be continued for the entirety of Eisenhower's presidency.
I'm pretty sure the Communists were hoping that Israel- a country run by socialists, and which had an actual strong Stalinist faction- would end up on their side of the brand-new Cold War, maybe opposing the UK-aligned Arabs.
That obviously didn't happen- Ben-Gurion was no Communist- and very quickly the Soviets turned to ostensibly promoting "poor oppressed native peoples" in the form of strongmen like Nasser and so on. But there was that tiny window. Rav Soloveitchik described it as one of the six miracles of Israel's founding.
The German Colony in Jerusalem has streets named after great (mostly non-Jewish) Zionists. One is Masryk, but I think it's really named for his father.
My wife always thinks it funny that the Indian and Czech embassies in Washington are right next to each other; in front of the former is a statue of Gandhi, in his loincloth, and in of the latter is a statue of Masryk (the younger), in fur hat and heavy overcoat.
Gandhi tried to subvert the war against Nazi Germany and Japan. At least he didn't engage in active collaboration the way Bose did. It is unlikely that he would followed Bose to raise an army to fight on the wrong side as Gandhi was a pacifist, but in any case the Brits put him in prison for much of the war. Nehru wasn't much more helpful. It was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, later the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, who after some initial hesitation went all in to support the good guys, and the Indian Army, the largest all volunteer army in history, had Muslim soldiers in much greater numbers than the proportion of Muslims in the population of British India.
This post sounds strong to me, but I fed it through chatgpt for fun and this is the review it gave me:
Evaluation of Logical Strength
The article presents a narrative based on a specific historical interpretation, using selective evidence to support its claims. Its logical strength depends on the following factors:
Strengths:
Historical Context: The article effectively situates the Partition Plan within the context of regional and global events, like the aftermath of the Holocaust and the Arab League's rejection.
Causal Reasoning: It draws a clear link between decisions (rejection of partition, declaration of war) and their consequences (losses and displacement).
Comparison: It uses historical parallels, like the failed Jewish revolt against the Romans, to bolster its argument about accepting the consequences of war.
Weaknesses:
Selective Presentation: The article simplifies a complex historical situation. It omits nuances, such as the perspectives of Arab leaders who may have supported compromise or the political context of Palestinian displacement.
Generalizations: Statements like "most Palestinians want 'justice'" lack substantiation and ignore diversity within Palestinian views.
Moral Absolutism: The framing of responsibility and blame is heavily one-sided, ignoring the impact of Israeli policies or actions that may have exacerbated the conflict.
Overall Rating:
Logical Coherence: Moderate-High. The argument is coherent but one-sided.
Historical Accuracy: Moderate. While many points are accurate, omissions and generalizations weaken its credibility.
Persuasiveness: High for audiences inclined toward the Jewish perspective but limited appeal to neutral or opposing viewpoints.
I "admit" to being interested in hearing what the other side would say when I find that I agree very much with what I'm reading. Helps me get a more balanced perspective and counters the natural confirmation bias tendencies.
While I have a comment "against" this article, this comment is silly. Online AI takes its premises from stuff online, the majority of which is bound to be anti-Israel.
So basically, anything that challenges your view is wrong and biased? That it is not possible for there to be other information that could have a material impact on the discussion?
A person having a closed mind and deaf/blind to other information that doesn't support their view is an individual's right of free thought. It's when that is imposed and mandated on others is when it becomes a significant problem and wrong. That's when it goes the way of hate, racism, antisemitism, islamaphobia, homophobia, etc., and starts to persecute others for being different.
Challenges my view? I don't know what you are talking about. I have plenty of criticisms against the state of Israel. I'm saying that in world politics there is lots of anti-Israel bias. If you don't think so, you are entitled to your mistake.
"Imposed"? "Mandated on others"? I don't see how any of this is relevant to the comment to which you are responding whose point was simply: "Online AI takes its premises from stuff online, very much of which is bound to be anti-Israel. (And therefore its results will be biassed against Israel.)"
I haven't seen such a strong anti-Israel balance in my personal experience. It seems rather even-handed. I'd be curious to hear what you've seen that you've been able to identify as anti-Israel
Your logic is flawed. I am saying I don't see bias based on my experience. You are saying that is not possible because it uses biased sources. Do you not see the weakness of your argument?
First of all, its input is not exclusively from anti-Israel sources. Second, you would be surprised with generative AI that it can actually be better than the input.
As I said before, I challenge you to show me one example from chatgpt of being anti-Israel. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that hasn't been my experience
I understand those news sources are biased. I am asking for examples of where AI (specifically chatgpt) is biased. I've been using the chat for a while, I have not noticed a bias. The one "bias" that I have noticed is its desire to stay neutral.
Can you give me even one example of the chat showing a bias?
My point is that the majority of the world (including online) is biased against Israel. So if AI takes its premises from what it finds online then it follows that AI will probably also be biased against Israel.
The bias to stay neutral can still be an unbalanced. Trying to be "neutral" between evil (e.g., a murderer) and good (e.g., a defender) amkes the evil "gooder" and the good "eviler", which is just a stupid lie. When it comes to Israel, they often equate deadly acts of terror with deadly acts of self-defense. "It's a cycle of violnce." "Both sides attack each other." etc.
None of the ChatGPT criticisms carry much weight. They are readily addressed in depth in long-form extensively researched histories such as Einat Wilf’s “The War of Return” and other highly reliable sources. If an argument is “weak,” is it lacking coherence or logic? These are usually fatal. If the argument is lacking sufficient examples of assertions, this is remediable. It’s not a serious criticism to say that the argument as given in a short article is not sufficiently comprehensive. There are trivial criticisms, and then there are serious criticisms, and ChatGPT cannot perceive the difference because it lack comprehension.
Would you mind sharing the prompts you used? I'm actually interested in the method. I also don't see anything wrong trying to look at other factors and understanding.
Unfortunately, it seems most people don't want their feelings challenged or questioned. They just want their view to dominate. As history has shown, no absolute view can withstand the test of time. It is unsustainable if one needs to constantly increase the force necessary to impose their will on others.
Good to hear someone else is on the same page as me :-) . In terms of the prompts, I simply asked, "How would you rate the logical strength of the following article?"
I actually continued the conversation for a while getting into the Israel vs Palestinian debate. I'm consistently blown away by the level of intelligence, knowledge and reasoning power it exhibits (obviously with some misses here and there).
One clarification about the term Nakba. While Palestinians and their supporters refer to the Nakba as their “catastrophe”, not surprisingly, from the very beginning they have misappropriated the term (and the ACTUAL meaning) to establish a false foundational myth about their victimhood. While I would not typically cite Wikipedia as a core source the following description appears fairly accurate…
“The Meaning of the Catastrophe, is an anti-Zionist and pan-Arabic book by Constantin Zureiq published by Dar al-Ilm lil-Malayeen in Beirut in 1948. The book defines the conceptual parameters of the Arab tragedy, which Zureiq terms al-Nakba, to describe the Arab defeat of the War of 1948.” (“Ma'na an-Nakba” Wikipedia)
As is clear, the real “catastrophe” was the failure of the Arab Nations to prevent the nascent country of Israel from coming into existence.
The reinterpretation/ reinvention of the meaning of “Nakba”, was among other things an attempt by Palestinians to sell to the gullible West, another appropriation. In this case, they attempt to supersede the Jewish holocaust victims as even greater victims. Additionally, they seek to any accountability for their role in their displacement.
Yes. Yes. Yes. We have to stop feeling apologetic about winning. There was a musical that came from Israel in the 70s I think about the Six Day War; it included a song "We're Sorry We Won It." Our shul put it on and I directed. We all wore Moshe Dayan patches to sing the song. The sentiment still holds true. As Douglas Murray always says, "Israel is the only country not allowed to win a war, but only to tie." No more. No more.
Also, narratives die hard, and if you add to that the fact that Facts don't matter when they oppose your perspective, you have a great combination.
The narrative goes that there was an Arab state called Palestine since time immemorial, in the most ridiculous of cases this state is descended from the Philistines (Cretan people who occupied what is today Gaza,. roughly). In the 19th and 20th centuries, a bunch of white European Jews came to colonize this Palestine and took it away from its indigenous people.
This narrative removes any links Jews may have with this land, just like what Islam did in the Coran. The wafq recognised 50 years ago that Har Habayit was the site of the Jewish temple. Today they engage in archeological terror, destroying the physical evidence of that temple as much as they can.
The problem is that when you dig a whole in this country, it spits out stuff with Hebrew, not Arab, inscriptions. Our Bible mentions Jerusalem hundreds of times, their Coran not even once. There is an uninterrupted link between Jews and Israel, but this land used to be a dumpster under Arab rule, a mere part of the south of Syria, itself a province of the Ottoman Empire for the last few centuries.
As written, most of the Palestinian mandate, what is now Jordan, was given to the Arabs. It was some 70% of the mandate.
So we're fighting ideas and narratives. And the people who hold them use weapons and missiles. If they legitimate our existence, their raison d'être stops being relevant.
Sure, OK, all true. (Although I believe the Jews got less than half, and of course Jordan and more had already been sliced away.) But as with the "we're not killing as many children as you say, and we feel really bad about it" argument, I have to protest here that you're playing a losing game, in that you're accepting *their* ground rules and playing on their turf.
Here's how it sounds: "Yes, sure, you deserve a state, but you were offered one and turned it down, so now you just take what we give you."
Can you not see how that plays to these people? You are, basically, making an argument to the Left, and/or people educated that way. (Let's leave aside the actual anti-Semites for now.) The Left today has a very Manichean, black-and-white worldview, a view of "ethics" that is religious in its fanaticism and inability to compromise. Once they believe the Palestinians have that "right", there is nothing that can stop it. It is god-given, "god" in this sense being some Leftist sense of values. The Palestinians could have refused it dozens of times, but they still have the right to come back and try again. And of course they have an inherent right to take it *all* and kill whichever Jews they deem to stand in their way. After all, in the bizarre definitions of the Left, they are brown and we are white, and you know who comes out on top there.
It also doesn't help that *all* demands of a state for local Arabs, going back to 1917, are *always* meant *only* to limit or even destroy the Jewish one. That's all. (You really think Assad or Saudi Arabia or Jordan cares about Palestinian sovereignty?) So accepting the idea is basically accepting the attack on Israel.
So pointing out such facts simply doesn't help, and in fact hurts by conceding the point. It's time *we* stood up for *our* values, maybe started making good, solid, and yes, moral arguments why the Palestinians *don't* deserve a state, *any* state. Those arguments exist. Sure, they don't fit in with what the "international community" has been spouting since, oh, 1948. But making them will sure help. They can't hurt.
Oh, that's OK then. Let's ignore everyone else because of Torres and Fetterman.
In any event, by "Leftist" I don't just mean "left side of political spectrum," I mean those on the all-too-large fringe with that absolutist mindset, which amazingly includes anti-Semitism.
Otherwise the borders were drawn to reflect where the populations lived. (Even Jaffa was an Arab enclave.) The Jewish state still contained a number of Arabs who would of course be expected to stay; the Arab state contained a number of Jews who would of course have to go. (Jews had already been kicked out of the Golan and Jordan in the 1920's when they were handed over.) Jerusalem was "international" but surrounded by the Arab state, which of course meant all the Jews would go.
Every partition plan, from the 1920's on and through today, was an impractical and immoral fantasy.
I have listened to several lectures by Dr. Einat Wilf. All of the partition plans and two-state "solutions" are based on the assumption that the Palestinians just want statehood, just like the Zionists did.
She says repeatedly that the Zionists were determined to have a state in the Holy Land, and the Arabs were determined to deny the Zionists their hopes of statehood. Even those who have agreed in the past, or agree now to some sort of "two-state solution" want Israel to absorb the refugees from 1948 and their descendants as a "right of return"--which will make Israel have an Arab majority in the long run.
It reminds me of a carnival game, where the challenge is to take a basketball and make free-throws. If you manage to hit a free-throw, you get a prize. But--there's a trick to it: the diameter of the ball is larger than the hoop! You can't even slam dunk the ball into the hoop! Nonetheless, the person running the carnival keeps trying to convince you to try again, and again, and again...
I recently saw a debate with Melanie Philips. A woman asked her, "Why don't you want a two-state solution?" Ms. Philips said, "It was offered to the Palestinians, and they rejected it!"
The conflict could be 'solved' if people like RNS wanted Justice - i.e. that the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. As long as we say to the world, 'Yes, we came from Europe and displaced its native population, but now we are here, so it is impractical to ask us to leave' - we will continue to lose.
We need to tell ourselves the Truth - that Justice is on our side. That the land of Israel is ours - not the Arabs' - and that we therefore have the obligation to exercise sovereignty over it.
RNS also has a phobia of Romans. I wonder - does he think that America will invade Israel, like the Romans did? It seems to me that he is just using that as an excuse to continue acting like a community, instead of a sovereign nation.
You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. But as a practical matter, attitudes like the one you espouse are a tremendous danger to the Jewish People. You would have been one of the people insisting that we can defeat Rome. After all, the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People!
Iran has a population of about 90 million people. There are about 7.2 million Jews in Israel, one sixth of whom refuse military service. Iran can raise essentially unlimited funds for its military by selling oil now that Putin and friends have made it essentially impossible to have effective sanctions ever again. Iran's non-mobilized military is larger that the IDF at full mobilization. Israel can easily handle Hamas but not Iran.
A full scale war between Israel and Iran would be suicide for Israel. In addition to being much larger, with potential to raise unlimited funds through oil sales, Iran is now backed directly by Russia and indirectly by China.
Do you expect America and Europe to enact an arms or trade embargo? To attack Israel with nuclear weapons? Be specific - what is your worst case scenario?
Then a reasonable discussion can be had about how realistic that scenario is, and the pros and cons of it. But stop using Rome as a bogeyman - they don't exist anymore.
There was an arms embargo and a terrible economy during Israel's early years. We didn't do great, but we didn't collapse either. Other countries with much worse economies have had arms embargoes and sanctions, and are able to survive - North Korea, Iran, South Africa, Iraq, etc.
Furthermore, we would save over 10% of the yearly budget spent on security against terror.
Secondly, history shows that nations act in their self interest. Every time Israel showed strength, the world protested loudly, then ended up backing Israel. Every time Israel showed weakness, the world applauded Israel, then ended up removing support.
The US started its 'Military Aid' only after Israel resoundingly won the Six Day war - a war the US told Israel not to start. Before the Oslo accords, Israel's legitimacy was far, far greater than now, despite the Olso accords being exactly what the West said it demanded.
There were and are many actually terrible regimes that are not only not sanctioned, but actively supported by the West. This includes the Khemer Rouge, who committed actual genocide on the order of over a million people, the Afgan and Iraqi 'governments', and many, many others. The idea that the western nations will sanction Israel out of supposed moral reasons is simply not borne out by the facts.
The Romans did not invade Israel. The Romans were invited in to support one side or the other in a civil war. They would not leave for good until they were expelled by the Muslim invaders over 700 years later.
In addition, the majority of Palestinians resided in Jordan as most of what the Jews received was desert and swampland and then thought useless. However the British and the French promised Jordan that they could keep their land for the and not use it for the Palestinians..so many were forced not by the Jews but by bargains made by the French and British and Hussein’s great grandfather.
"Arabs mostly rejected any form of partition; the General Secretary of the Arab League warned that there would be a war of elimination, and the Mufti said that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but 'would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated.' "
And this condition is part of what made the making of the state assur.
(C) Creating an immediate sakanas nefashos for Jews in Eretz Yisroel - the Arabs said flat out: If you make a Jewish state we will attack you from all sides and throw you into the sea. (This last one should be a no-brainer. Except for those bent on making a goyish style state for Jews.)
By the way, when the Jews returned to Israel under Koresh, the local Arabs also objected. But that didn't change the fact that Hashem himself was speaking through Koresh.
Mashiach is supposed to fight wars. Who is he fighting against?
The Shalosh Shevuot are not halakha, they are aggadah. No one considered them binding (and they were *never* considered halakha) until...wait for it...Moses Mendelssohn. R' Hirsch did too. Guess why.
The Arabs were killing Jews for 1200 years at least (or even 3,700 years) before 1948. Try again.
While Mendelssohn did cite the 3 O's in Satmar style, it's a bit of an exaggeration to state that they weren't invoked earlier.
That being the case, all the commentaries that I've seen provide an interpretation that not only doesn't forbid Zionism, but also reveals the Satmar position as a novelty not in consonance with tradition.
There was no Arab rule in Eretz Yisrael at any time after 1099 CE until 1948. Unfortunately the Crusaders who replaced them were much more interested in killing us than were the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, or Fatimid Caliphs.
3 Shvuos was halachah enough for R' Zeira (who held of them l'halachah l'kula) to avoid showing up in front of Rav Yehudah (who held of them l'chumrah) because R' Zeira was afraid that Rav Yehuda would force him to uphold them l'chumrah.
Rav Yehudah could prevent R' Zeira from going as an individual to eretz Yisroel when R' Zeira held of the 3 shvuos only l'kula? And nobody holds of it l'halachah at all?
That's not halacha. In any case, the three oaths do not forbid a Jewish State.
The other issues are valid questions (but not halacha!) and whether or not they have been addressed to you satisfaction, they are not relevant after the fact.
3 Shvuos was halachah enough for R' Zeira (who held of them l'halachah l'kula) to avoid showing up in front of Rav Yehudah (who held of them l'chumrah) because R' Zeira was afraid that Rav Yehuda would force him to uphold them l'chumrah.
Rav Yehudah could prevent R' Zeira from going as an individual to eretz Yisroel when R' Zeira held of the 3 shvuos only l'kula? And nobody holds of it l'halachah at all?
There is no such issur of אל תתגרה בגוים, all it says is אל תתגרה באדום, which has one context and nothing to do with the world at large. One may want to stretch it but thats not widely accepted. Why, for that matter KJ zoning laws should be forbidden for the same reason. (Satmar Rav himself explains the difference but it's not simple)
I wonder why you made a separate "b" and why it wouldn't be included in the second of the 3 shvuos, but anyway, 3 shvuos being used as a halachic source is very telling about your biases... there were of course many explanations as to why they aren't halachically relevant way before the satmer Rav wrote his tendentious works see here for some (under פרשנות ושימוש):
Your third consideration is the one I expected you to say, but one needs to recognize how difficult it would be to make such a cheshbon especially after we just experienced the holocaust. Who's to say that our establishing a *UN backed* state wasn't the best way to secure a way to do hatzalas nefashos on a mass scale that we were unable to do until then (see הרחב דבר of the netziv on vayikra 26,31 regarding korbanos, it seems reasonable to draw an analogy to a case where the nations give us sovereignty in our land as being hashgachas Hashem). Regardless of the before the fact cheshbonos though, as I said in my other comment, after the fact it is clear from hashgachas Hashem that that was the right thing to do (see the sources I quoted in my other comment and especially the seforno and think about historical context of the establishment of the state).
"Who's to say that our establishing a *UN backed* state wasn't the best way to secure a way to do hatzalas nefashos on a mass scale that we were unable to do until then"
1. 1st of all, because all the Torah leaders of the generation who stated a definite opnion were all against it (except for MAYBE one or two, and even they did not agree to it in the wy it was executed).
2. "UN backed" was rather farcicle. Was there any force from any country ensuring anything? No. And Britain unilaterally withdrew leaving the fledgling "Jewish" state to the mercilessness of tens (hundreds?) of millions of the local surrounding Arabs who did not agree and threatened to throw all the Jews into the sea if a state was declared. That is called "nations give us sovereignty"?
Also, the idea that the purpose of the state was to make a "safe haven for the Jews" is false. Most of the early Zionist leaders (pre-holocaust BTW) spoke about Jews being accepted in the world at large far more than (if at all) about safety from the goyim. A "safe haven for Jews" was later propaganda to sell it to the Jews and to the world - especially after the holocaust. In fact, leading zionists during the holocaust were willing to (and did) sacrifice Jewish lives (in Europe and elsewhere) in order to further their goal of the creation of the state or to be the Jewish group "in control" over the state - so they weren't really so concerned about Jewish life.
"the Torah leaders of the generation who stated a definite opnion were all against it"
Except Rav Kook ZT''L, Rav Uziel ZT''L (the last hakham bashi of Ottoman Palestine/first Sephardic Chief Rabbi), R. Chaim David Ha-Levi Z''L, Rav Herzog Z''L, and many others. Sephardic Rav Yehuda Alkalai Z''L proposed large scale Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael before Herzl did. In fact, I know of no Sephardic and Mizrahi Torah leaders who were against establishing a state on principle.
"leading zionists during the holocaust were willing to (and did) sacrifice Jewish lives (in Europe and elsewhere)"
Zionists saved many lives during the Holocaust, including those who disagreed with them (Yoel Teitalbaum, the first Satmar Rebbe, among them).
Legal Jewish settlement by immigrating individuals is not necessarily against the three oaths. This is the lenient opinion in the gmara and even Satmar holds of that lenient opinion. And since you bring "being pro Jewish settlement" as a false proof, all the names you brought are meaningless until we examine the exact opinion of each one.
Mizrachi leaders, in general, are completely discounted as they join(ed) with r'sha'im and, in fact, willingly (or as a compromise) plac(ed) those r'sha'im as leaders over themselves which is prohibited according to the Torah.
And as for Sphardi leaders. There is from Morocco alone:
ר' שלום אבוחצירא
בבא סאלי
ר' דוד אבוחצירא (אחיו הבבא סאלי)
ר' יצחק אבוחצירא
ר יעקב אבוחצירא
בבא מאיר
ר' שמעון אוחנה
רבי משה אבגי
ר' דוד בליתי
ר' מ"א עבדלחק
ר' שמואל טולדנו
ר' שאול אבן דנאן
ר"ש נחמני
ר"ש ואעקנין
ר' שלמה אמסלם
ר' יוסף אבן נאיים
ר' יהודה אבן דאנן
ר' שמואל אבן דאנן
ר' שלמה אחנונא ר' דוד כהן
ר' דוד צבאח
ר' משה אבירמט
ר' מרדכי עזראן
ר' יעקב חי זריהן
ר' מה מאיר חי אליקים
ר' ראובן תמצטית
ר' יעיש קריספין
ר' אליהו ילוז
ר' מסעוד אלחדאר
ר' יוסף נסים אבן אדהאן
ר' יוסף ארוואץ ר' יוסף חיים הכהן
ר' אברהם חלאוה
ר' שמואל אבן קיקי
ר' משה מאמאן
ר' רחמים יוסף מאמאן
ר' אברהם אנקאווא
ר' רפאל אלעזר אבן טובו הלוי
ר' דוד אבן שמעון
ר' חביב טולידאנו
ר' יהודה אלאז ר' אברהם מונסונייגו
ר' "המלאך" רפאל בירדוגו
ר' יוסף פינטו
And the list goes on and on. And that is from Morocco alone. So, if you are trying to bring "I know of no Sephardic ... leaders" as proof that there aren't any....
Sorry for taking so long. I was trying to go through each point in your various comments with koved rosh, and have not yet finished. Instead of keeping you waiting, I will make a few general responses.
Some of the Chachomim you brought, big as they may be and mar'ey d'asrayhu that they may be (and kvodam bimkomam), are not on the madregah of Manhigey and Maranan of Yisroel as the Chofetz Chaim, R"E Wasserman, R' Boruch Ber, Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, etc. So their few opinions are not necessarily in the running.
Also, many of the opinions you brought (from the above mentioned and even from those who are bigger) had such pareve or moderate opinions as:
- "leans" to the "possibility" (is this a sfek sfeka?),
- "on the fence".
I don't know why these should even be mentioned as a tzad neged such Gdoley olam who clearly assured it.
Other sources you brought are ambiguous at best, but more likely irrelevant.
- Example 1: R' Chatzkel's "HaShem allows the reshaim to do the dirty work for us" does not in any way say anything about the permissibility of our participation in that dirty work, especially when it involves sakanas nefashos and issurim (such as rtzichah, hitztarufus with rshaim, hisgarus bagoyim, exposing one's self to constant kfira and other abominations).
- Example 2: From where does R"Sh Auerbach's "growth of Jews in eretz Yisroel" come to mean creation of a state.
- Example 3: The Meshech Chochma's Balfour Declaration heter may have been valid in his time as it WOULD HAVE BEEN similar to the return in the time of Koresh. But in the end the Brits withdrew from Palestine completely, making the Balfour Declaration a formal empty piece of paper with nobody to uphold/support it except the local and surrounding Arabs who threatened to make a war and throw all the Jews into the sea if a Jewish state were declared. So the Balfour Declaration (while meaningful in the time of the Meshech Chochma) b'shaas ma'aseh was irrelevant.
- Example 4: From where does MHR"L's "malchus kadosh habaa mitoch malchus chol" come to mean "malchus resha" as the current state is. But even if it would refer to this current state, it does not say anything about our support for it while it is still chol. (See comment on R' Chatzkel quote above).
- Example 5: The Steipler's "who says that it's assur to participate in its (the state's) running (after it already exists)" is akin to R' Shach's agreement to Charedi participation in the government for practical reasons (i.e., so they don't eat us alive), but not because we agree to the state b'etzem (michtavim umaamarim).
- Example 6: Pe'as HaShulchan's heter of entering the country one by one until we grow. Is that legally or illegally? And even if illegally and even if eventually becoming a democratic majority, maybe. But that is still by individuals (in accordance with the lenient opinion of 3 oaths), but not by organized aliyos of boat-loads of people for the express purpose of violently forcing our political control as the zionists did against the brits.
- Example 7: Rav Yosef Chaim Sonenfeld lobbied for a joint government under British auspices ..." Why is this relevant? A joint government under British auspices is not independence and is also similar to the return in the time of Koresh.
This may be why some sfarim (e.g. Or Yechezkel as you mentioned, and I think maybe Sichos Mussar too) have been censored. It's because people (whether innocently or sinisterly) take quotes out of context or wrongly extrapolate them and say that these Gdolim support things that they do not. R' M"E Forschlager also reported that the Avney Nezer refused to meet with some leaders of a (I think religious-) zionist group because they would claim that he agreed with them; and in fact these same zionist leaders did so with other Chachomim that they later met with, much to the dismay of those Chachomim.
I will concede that there may be a minority of Chachomim that held in theory that it may be permissible to have Jewish independence, but as of yet I do not see any conclusive proof that they would have allowed it in a way that breaks the 3 shvuos or allows for Jewish rshaim to be its leaders.
I would be interested to hear R' Lopiansky's shiurim that you mentioned if you could direct me to them. Thanks.
"the Balfour Declaration a formal empty piece of paper "
The Balfour Declaration was always an empty piece of paper. Balfour wasn't even a member of the British War Cabinet. What did matter was that Clemenceau, Lloyd-George, and Wilson all liked Jews and supported a Jewish National Home, neither the Ottoman Empire nor the successor Republic of Türkiye objected, and the League of Nations endorsed it (with none of them saying what the borders should be). Later, the United Nations endorsed a sovereign Jewish state within specified borders.
The UN LofN etc. had no control or authority in the land, the British withdrew, and the only people left in and around the land were dead set against it. So all the good will meant nothing l'maaseh. They may as well have said that the Jews could have China and see what the Chinese have to say about it.
Thanks for the response. My list was not focused on an agenda to prove that the state is הכי טוב לכולי עלמא, but that each point the Satmar Rav stands by is contested. We all know that anyone who doesn't call himself a Zionist doesn't believe it to be all good and will address the negative as well, and there are many. There's a rule that very few Gedolim make a big deal to come out and say something is muttar, so the fact that the group of mattirim in this issue doesn't stand out should not be a surprise, but that does not mean they don't exist.
As far as that no Gedolim I mentioned were on the same level as the ones you did, like the Chafetz Chaim etc., I think R Meir Simcha was pretty up there. most of the opposition of the CC or Rav Shach had nothing to do with the 3 oaths. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any source from the Gedolim you mentioned who said so as a matter of halacha. I hear you about things being taken out of context, but I do not think that they really agree with Satmar and are just a drop nuanced.
I don't disagree that the early Zionists engaged in lots of bad activity, but it's not all black and white.
As far as Rabbi Lopiansky, just Google "rabbi lopiansky da ma lehashiv" and it should come up from eshel publications. The Shiurim on Zionism are the 4 last lectures of the series I think. I believe he does a really balanced job.
"that each point the Satmar Rav stands by is contested."
I'm not sure. As I pointed out, many of the things you wrote are not necessary contradictions to it.
"There's a rule that very few Gedolim make a big deal to come out and say something is muttar, so the fact that the group of mattirim in this issue doesn't stand out should not be a surprise,..."
I fully agree. But for reasons I mention below, we can't assume in this issue that someone is matir until we see by them that it's completely clear.
"... but that does not mean they don't exist."
I agree. But so far, I haven't seen anything impressive. My understanding is that until the current bilbulim (that have resulted from the relative non-discussion of the topic over the last 25+ years at least) it was understood that the Gdoley Torah *generally* agree on the issue, and most of the disagreement is on how to deal with the current (and constantly changing) situation.
"As far as that no Gedolim I mentioned were on the same level as the ones you did, like the Chafetz Chaim etc., I think R Meir Simcha was pretty up there."
I agree, and I did not intend to included him in that list (whose members I intentionally did not spell out). His opinion was addressed elsewhere, the gist of which is that (1) the heter because of the Balfour Declaration (1917) is not necessarily against the 3 oaths, and (2) it was not a heter to be mitztaref with reshaim, and (3) it is doubtful that he himself would have held that it remained a matir as things subsequently turned out (even before the creation of the state).
"most of the opposition of the CC or Rav Shach had nothing to do with the 3 oaths."
May be. But... (see next response)
"I am not aware of any source from the Gedolim you mentioned who said so as a matter of halacha."
Drasha though it may be, (1) the gemara clearly is mefalpel with it as a halacha. (2) There are only two de'os, one l'chumrah and one l'kulah. (3) Each baal de'ah treated it very much l'maaseh. (4) There is no man d'amar in the gemara who argues against it.
Holding of this gemara is not a chiddush of R' Yoel (who holds it l'kula). And given the four points I mentioned, it would seem that the one who wants to say that a particular Gadol does not hold of it has the burden of proof.
"I hear you about things being taken out of context, but I do not think that they really agree with Satmar and are just a drop nuanced."
Again, I have not seen that there is such a disagreement with R' Yoel (except on how to deal with it). The heterim that I have seen are theoretical and do not matir what has been going on with the state (or pre-state) in the last 85 years at least.
"I don't disagree that the early Zionists engaged in lots of bad activity, but it's no
There are currently 20 Arab states. The Arabs control about 99.8% of the land mass in the middle east. Jews have all been ethnically cleansed from these areas. There is only one tiny Jewish state which is shared with Arabs. If we need another state in the ME it should be a second Jewish state, and one or two Christian states.
My thoughts exactly. They (Muslims) conquered vast areas of the inhabited world in perhaps the biggest colonial project in human history, but it's apparently not enough. The tiny sliver now called Israel has to be theirs now, too. Fuck them.
We should be thankful for those Muslim conquests. The Eastern Roman Empire had a policy of genocide against any and all religious groups that weren't orthodox Christian. They had already pretty much exterminated the Samaritans and were targeting Christian heretics like Armenians and Copts, along with Jews. And a century later they put an end to the horrible persecutions by the Visigoths in Spain.
The Muslims weren't so good to the Jews either, rose-colored history notwithstanding.
Depends on the time and place. But in any case, there is coloring that can obscure the fact that there probably would have been as few Jews today as there are Samaritans had the Eastern Roman Empire finally defeated the Sasanian Empire of the Iranians, which was quite likely, and it was the Arab Muslims of the Rashidun Caliphate who prevented that from happening.
I just realized that this isn't clear. It was the Eastern Roman Empire that had largely exterminated the Samaritans and was targeting Christian heretics, and the Muslims who put an end to the Visigothic persecutions.
It would be helpful if you knew Sefardic Jewish history. In 1939 there were 18 million Jews in the world. 15 million were Ashkenaz.
3 million Sefardic Jews???? If they were unmolested, why are there not 100 M by now??? 1500 years and they all assimilated? There was no Reform in the Sefardic history.
So I started asking that question, as my entire education has dealt with only Ashkenazic Judaism and its mournful past. There was good reason why we were down to 15 M. They killed us.
Turns out, the Sefardic were subject to mini Holocausts in every generation. Sometimes it would flare into the 100000 range, like in 18th century Yemen.
So….no….like the Japanese, they were just as cruel (maybe more so) than the Germans. [equivalence purposeful]
Isabella of Castille, Ferdinand of Aragon, and Manuel of Portugal. There are millions of people with Sefardic Jewish ancestry living in Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries today.
In 1945 that number was less than 3 million worldwide!!! Why? Because the Muslims were just as bad as the Christians in wiping out our populations, just in smaller aliquots and more frequent ('low amplitude high frequency)
Thankful. Hilarious.
Not hilarious is the lack of historical understanding by many Jews.
Ok groyper.
It is a stretch to call the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates a colonial project, and in any case they were MUCH smaller than the colonial projects of Spain, Portugal, France, and especially Britain.
My God, man.
So I guess next you're going to say there was no invasion of Spain and Portugal, that the Turks were indigenous to southeastern Europe, they didn't besiege Vienna twice nor fight a bloody battle at Poitiers in the 8th century, etc., etc....
There was no invasion of Spain or Portugal in the 8th century. The Kingdom of Portugal didn't exist until 1189 and the Kingdom of Spain until 1707 when the Crowns of Castille and Aragon were forcibly combined. (Interestingly, that was the same year as the Act of Union between England and Scotland that created Great Britain.) What was invaded was the Visigothic Kingdom, who mercilessly persecuted Jews. The Muslims put the Visigoths out of business forever.
I meant Muslim armies at Poitiers, btw.
It is a miracle that the new State of Israel survived.
Someone whose contribution has been largely forgotten is Jan Masaryk, the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia in the immediate years after WW2. He was the Czechoslovak Ambassador to the UK during much of the 1930s where he had spent much of his time trying to awaken Britain to the danger of Nazi Germany. The only politician he seems to have convinced was Winston Churchill, who may not have needed convincing but was considered politically toxic. Masaryk did not return to Czechoslovakia after Munich.
After the war Masaryk became Foreign Minister in the Communist dominated, but still democratic government. The betrayal by the UK and France had soured public opinion against western democracies. He arranged for the transfer of large amounts of munitions from Czechoslovakia to the Zionists starting in January 1948. In February 1948 a coup gave the Communists total control in Czechoslovakia; Masaryk was the only non-Communist to remain in the government, and the munitions transfers continued. On March 10, 1948, he was pushed out of a window to his death, which was called a suicide by the Communists.
But the munitions transfers that he began continued, with the approval of Gottwald, Beria, and Stalin. I have never seen a good explanation as to why these three horrible Communists continued helping Zionists, but the transfers probably would not have started without Masaryk. I don't want to think about what would have happened to Israel without those Czech munitions, as no other country was willing to help the Zionists. Harry Truman is given credit for having given *de facto* diplomatic recognition to the new State of Israel over the objections of his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, but he immediately slapped an arms embargo on Israel that would be continued for the entirety of Eisenhower's presidency.
I'm pretty sure the Communists were hoping that Israel- a country run by socialists, and which had an actual strong Stalinist faction- would end up on their side of the brand-new Cold War, maybe opposing the UK-aligned Arabs.
That obviously didn't happen- Ben-Gurion was no Communist- and very quickly the Soviets turned to ostensibly promoting "poor oppressed native peoples" in the form of strongmen like Nasser and so on. But there was that tiny window. Rav Soloveitchik described it as one of the six miracles of Israel's founding.
The German Colony in Jerusalem has streets named after great (mostly non-Jewish) Zionists. One is Masryk, but I think it's really named for his father.
"I think it's really named for his father."
I think you are correct. And one of the major streets through the main Jewish neighborhood in Mexico City is also named for his father: https://mexicodailypost.com/2020/02/05/the-history-of-masaryk-one-of-the-most-exclusive-streets-in-the-world/
My wife always thinks it funny that the Indian and Czech embassies in Washington are right next to each other; in front of the former is a statue of Gandhi, in his loincloth, and in of the latter is a statue of Masryk (the younger), in fur hat and heavy overcoat.
Gandhi tried to subvert the war against Nazi Germany and Japan. At least he didn't engage in active collaboration the way Bose did. It is unlikely that he would followed Bose to raise an army to fight on the wrong side as Gandhi was a pacifist, but in any case the Brits put him in prison for much of the war. Nehru wasn't much more helpful. It was Mohammed Ali Jinnah, later the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, who after some initial hesitation went all in to support the good guys, and the Indian Army, the largest all volunteer army in history, had Muslim soldiers in much greater numbers than the proportion of Muslims in the population of British India.
"very quickly ... in the form of strongmen like Nasser"
Not very quickly. Nasser's coup was over four years later.
That can be very quick or not, depending on one's perspective. :-)
Not justice, rather just us.
This post sounds strong to me, but I fed it through chatgpt for fun and this is the review it gave me:
Evaluation of Logical Strength
The article presents a narrative based on a specific historical interpretation, using selective evidence to support its claims. Its logical strength depends on the following factors:
Strengths:
Historical Context: The article effectively situates the Partition Plan within the context of regional and global events, like the aftermath of the Holocaust and the Arab League's rejection.
Causal Reasoning: It draws a clear link between decisions (rejection of partition, declaration of war) and their consequences (losses and displacement).
Comparison: It uses historical parallels, like the failed Jewish revolt against the Romans, to bolster its argument about accepting the consequences of war.
Weaknesses:
Selective Presentation: The article simplifies a complex historical situation. It omits nuances, such as the perspectives of Arab leaders who may have supported compromise or the political context of Palestinian displacement.
Generalizations: Statements like "most Palestinians want 'justice'" lack substantiation and ignore diversity within Palestinian views.
Moral Absolutism: The framing of responsibility and blame is heavily one-sided, ignoring the impact of Israeli policies or actions that may have exacerbated the conflict.
Overall Rating:
Logical Coherence: Moderate-High. The argument is coherent but one-sided.
Historical Accuracy: Moderate. While many points are accurate, omissions and generalizations weaken its credibility.
Persuasiveness: High for audiences inclined toward the Jewish perspective but limited appeal to neutral or opposing viewpoints.
You actually *admit* to substituting your own thought with a robot's?
Better to join them now than wait till they take over the world and then it's too late ;-)
I "admit" to being interested in hearing what the other side would say when I find that I agree very much with what I'm reading. Helps me get a more balanced perspective and counters the natural confirmation bias tendencies.
While I have a comment "against" this article, this comment is silly. Online AI takes its premises from stuff online, the majority of which is bound to be anti-Israel.
So basically, anything that challenges your view is wrong and biased? That it is not possible for there to be other information that could have a material impact on the discussion?
A person having a closed mind and deaf/blind to other information that doesn't support their view is an individual's right of free thought. It's when that is imposed and mandated on others is when it becomes a significant problem and wrong. That's when it goes the way of hate, racism, antisemitism, islamaphobia, homophobia, etc., and starts to persecute others for being different.
ChatGPT not only trains on anti-Semitic garbage, it makes stuff up.
Challenges my view? I don't know what you are talking about. I have plenty of criticisms against the state of Israel. I'm saying that in world politics there is lots of anti-Israel bias. If you don't think so, you are entitled to your mistake.
"Imposed"? "Mandated on others"? I don't see how any of this is relevant to the comment to which you are responding whose point was simply: "Online AI takes its premises from stuff online, very much of which is bound to be anti-Israel. (And therefore its results will be biassed against Israel.)"
I haven't seen such a strong anti-Israel balance in my personal experience. It seems rather even-handed. I'd be curious to hear what you've seen that you've been able to identify as anti-Israel
I cannot believe you think AI is balanced ….where do you think it gets its info from?
Your logic is flawed. I am saying I don't see bias based on my experience. You are saying that is not possible because it uses biased sources. Do you not see the weakness of your argument?
Computers are only as good as the input Aron
First of all, its input is not exclusively from anti-Israel sources. Second, you would be surprised with generative AI that it can actually be better than the input.
As I said before, I challenge you to show me one example from chatgpt of being anti-Israel. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that hasn't been my experience
I didn’t say that at all
Where have you been for the last 37 years (at least)?
Check out the New York Times, the main British newspapers, etc. etc. etc.
I understand those news sources are biased. I am asking for examples of where AI (specifically chatgpt) is biased. I've been using the chat for a while, I have not noticed a bias. The one "bias" that I have noticed is its desire to stay neutral.
Can you give me even one example of the chat showing a bias?
I have *personally* seen ChatGPT make stuff up.
My point is that the majority of the world (including online) is biased against Israel. So if AI takes its premises from what it finds online then it follows that AI will probably also be biased against Israel.
The bias to stay neutral can still be an unbalanced. Trying to be "neutral" between evil (e.g., a murderer) and good (e.g., a defender) amkes the evil "gooder" and the good "eviler", which is just a stupid lie. When it comes to Israel, they often equate deadly acts of terror with deadly acts of self-defense. "It's a cycle of violnce." "Both sides attack each other." etc.
Check out "Honest Reporting" and CAMERA and the BBC and CNN etc. etc. etc.
Yes. But disproportionally antisemitic.
None of the ChatGPT criticisms carry much weight. They are readily addressed in depth in long-form extensively researched histories such as Einat Wilf’s “The War of Return” and other highly reliable sources. If an argument is “weak,” is it lacking coherence or logic? These are usually fatal. If the argument is lacking sufficient examples of assertions, this is remediable. It’s not a serious criticism to say that the argument as given in a short article is not sufficiently comprehensive. There are trivial criticisms, and then there are serious criticisms, and ChatGPT cannot perceive the difference because it lack comprehension.
Would you mind sharing the prompts you used? I'm actually interested in the method. I also don't see anything wrong trying to look at other factors and understanding.
Unfortunately, it seems most people don't want their feelings challenged or questioned. They just want their view to dominate. As history has shown, no absolute view can withstand the test of time. It is unsustainable if one needs to constantly increase the force necessary to impose their will on others.
Good to hear someone else is on the same page as me :-) . In terms of the prompts, I simply asked, "How would you rate the logical strength of the following article?"
I actually continued the conversation for a while getting into the Israel vs Palestinian debate. I'm consistently blown away by the level of intelligence, knowledge and reasoning power it exhibits (obviously with some misses here and there).
Go to this website (https://chat.openai.com/chat), set up an account and ask away
One clarification about the term Nakba. While Palestinians and their supporters refer to the Nakba as their “catastrophe”, not surprisingly, from the very beginning they have misappropriated the term (and the ACTUAL meaning) to establish a false foundational myth about their victimhood. While I would not typically cite Wikipedia as a core source the following description appears fairly accurate…
“The Meaning of the Catastrophe, is an anti-Zionist and pan-Arabic book by Constantin Zureiq published by Dar al-Ilm lil-Malayeen in Beirut in 1948. The book defines the conceptual parameters of the Arab tragedy, which Zureiq terms al-Nakba, to describe the Arab defeat of the War of 1948.” (“Ma'na an-Nakba” Wikipedia)
As is clear, the real “catastrophe” was the failure of the Arab Nations to prevent the nascent country of Israel from coming into existence.
The reinterpretation/ reinvention of the meaning of “Nakba”, was among other things an attempt by Palestinians to sell to the gullible West, another appropriation. In this case, they attempt to supersede the Jewish holocaust victims as even greater victims. Additionally, they seek to any accountability for their role in their displacement.
Yes. Yes. Yes. We have to stop feeling apologetic about winning. There was a musical that came from Israel in the 70s I think about the Six Day War; it included a song "We're Sorry We Won It." Our shul put it on and I directed. We all wore Moshe Dayan patches to sing the song. The sentiment still holds true. As Douglas Murray always says, "Israel is the only country not allowed to win a war, but only to tie." No more. No more.
A collection of columns by Ephraim Kishon with cartoons from Dosh was called that as well.
Also, narratives die hard, and if you add to that the fact that Facts don't matter when they oppose your perspective, you have a great combination.
The narrative goes that there was an Arab state called Palestine since time immemorial, in the most ridiculous of cases this state is descended from the Philistines (Cretan people who occupied what is today Gaza,. roughly). In the 19th and 20th centuries, a bunch of white European Jews came to colonize this Palestine and took it away from its indigenous people.
This narrative removes any links Jews may have with this land, just like what Islam did in the Coran. The wafq recognised 50 years ago that Har Habayit was the site of the Jewish temple. Today they engage in archeological terror, destroying the physical evidence of that temple as much as they can.
The problem is that when you dig a whole in this country, it spits out stuff with Hebrew, not Arab, inscriptions. Our Bible mentions Jerusalem hundreds of times, their Coran not even once. There is an uninterrupted link between Jews and Israel, but this land used to be a dumpster under Arab rule, a mere part of the south of Syria, itself a province of the Ottoman Empire for the last few centuries.
As written, most of the Palestinian mandate, what is now Jordan, was given to the Arabs. It was some 70% of the mandate.
So we're fighting ideas and narratives. And the people who hold them use weapons and missiles. If they legitimate our existence, their raison d'être stops being relevant.
"most of the Palestinian mandate, what is now Jordan, was given to the Arabs. It was some 70% of the mandate."
It was never part of the Palestine Mandate. And it wasn't given, it was taken.
Sure, OK, all true. (Although I believe the Jews got less than half, and of course Jordan and more had already been sliced away.) But as with the "we're not killing as many children as you say, and we feel really bad about it" argument, I have to protest here that you're playing a losing game, in that you're accepting *their* ground rules and playing on their turf.
Here's how it sounds: "Yes, sure, you deserve a state, but you were offered one and turned it down, so now you just take what we give you."
Can you not see how that plays to these people? You are, basically, making an argument to the Left, and/or people educated that way. (Let's leave aside the actual anti-Semites for now.) The Left today has a very Manichean, black-and-white worldview, a view of "ethics" that is religious in its fanaticism and inability to compromise. Once they believe the Palestinians have that "right", there is nothing that can stop it. It is god-given, "god" in this sense being some Leftist sense of values. The Palestinians could have refused it dozens of times, but they still have the right to come back and try again. And of course they have an inherent right to take it *all* and kill whichever Jews they deem to stand in their way. After all, in the bizarre definitions of the Left, they are brown and we are white, and you know who comes out on top there.
It also doesn't help that *all* demands of a state for local Arabs, going back to 1917, are *always* meant *only* to limit or even destroy the Jewish one. That's all. (You really think Assad or Saudi Arabia or Jordan cares about Palestinian sovereignty?) So accepting the idea is basically accepting the attack on Israel.
So pointing out such facts simply doesn't help, and in fact hurts by conceding the point. It's time *we* stood up for *our* values, maybe started making good, solid, and yes, moral arguments why the Palestinians *don't* deserve a state, *any* state. Those arguments exist. Sure, they don't fit in with what the "international community" has been spouting since, oh, 1948. But making them will sure help. They can't hurt.
"some Leftist sense of values"
The two biggest supporters of Israel in the United States Congress are Leftist Democrats: Ritchie Torres and John Fetterman.
Oh, that's OK then. Let's ignore everyone else because of Torres and Fetterman.
In any event, by "Leftist" I don't just mean "left side of political spectrum," I mean those on the all-too-large fringe with that absolutist mindset, which amazingly includes anti-Semitism.
"I believe the Jews got less than half"
About 55%, even though Jews were only about 1/3 of the population.
And the vast majority of that was empty desert.
Otherwise the borders were drawn to reflect where the populations lived. (Even Jaffa was an Arab enclave.) The Jewish state still contained a number of Arabs who would of course be expected to stay; the Arab state contained a number of Jews who would of course have to go. (Jews had already been kicked out of the Golan and Jordan in the 1920's when they were handed over.) Jerusalem was "international" but surrounded by the Arab state, which of course meant all the Jews would go.
Every partition plan, from the 1920's on and through today, was an impractical and immoral fantasy.
I have listened to several lectures by Dr. Einat Wilf. All of the partition plans and two-state "solutions" are based on the assumption that the Palestinians just want statehood, just like the Zionists did.
She says repeatedly that the Zionists were determined to have a state in the Holy Land, and the Arabs were determined to deny the Zionists their hopes of statehood. Even those who have agreed in the past, or agree now to some sort of "two-state solution" want Israel to absorb the refugees from 1948 and their descendants as a "right of return"--which will make Israel have an Arab majority in the long run.
It reminds me of a carnival game, where the challenge is to take a basketball and make free-throws. If you manage to hit a free-throw, you get a prize. But--there's a trick to it: the diameter of the ball is larger than the hoop! You can't even slam dunk the ball into the hoop! Nonetheless, the person running the carnival keeps trying to convince you to try again, and again, and again...
I recently saw a debate with Melanie Philips. A woman asked her, "Why don't you want a two-state solution?" Ms. Philips said, "It was offered to the Palestinians, and they rejected it!"
Jordan was not "handed over". It was taken.
The conflict could be 'solved' if people like RNS wanted Justice - i.e. that the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. As long as we say to the world, 'Yes, we came from Europe and displaced its native population, but now we are here, so it is impractical to ask us to leave' - we will continue to lose.
We need to tell ourselves the Truth - that Justice is on our side. That the land of Israel is ours - not the Arabs' - and that we therefore have the obligation to exercise sovereignty over it.
RNS also has a phobia of Romans. I wonder - does he think that America will invade Israel, like the Romans did? It seems to me that he is just using that as an excuse to continue acting like a community, instead of a sovereign nation.
You can have whatever religious beliefs you want. But as a practical matter, attitudes like the one you espouse are a tremendous danger to the Jewish People. You would have been one of the people insisting that we can defeat Rome. After all, the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People!
We aren't exactly fighting the Roman Empire today, and we're not exactly a bunch of rag-tag rebels.
Iran has a population of about 90 million people. There are about 7.2 million Jews in Israel, one sixth of whom refuse military service. Iran can raise essentially unlimited funds for its military by selling oil now that Putin and friends have made it essentially impossible to have effective sanctions ever again. Iran's non-mobilized military is larger that the IDF at full mobilization. Israel can easily handle Hamas but not Iran.
Yeah, but Israel has to fight Iran.
A full scale war between Israel and Iran would be suicide for Israel. In addition to being much larger, with potential to raise unlimited funds through oil sales, Iran is now backed directly by Russia and indirectly by China.
First and second century history repeating.
Do you expect America and Europe to enact an arms or trade embargo? To attack Israel with nuclear weapons? Be specific - what is your worst case scenario?
Then a reasonable discussion can be had about how realistic that scenario is, and the pros and cons of it. But stop using Rome as a bogeyman - they don't exist anymore.
Arms embargo and international sanctions would totally cripple Israel.
There was an arms embargo and a terrible economy during Israel's early years. We didn't do great, but we didn't collapse either. Other countries with much worse economies have had arms embargoes and sanctions, and are able to survive - North Korea, Iran, South Africa, Iraq, etc.
Furthermore, we would save over 10% of the yearly budget spent on security against terror.
Source: https://zehut.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/matza.pdf, p.234-252
Secondly, history shows that nations act in their self interest. Every time Israel showed strength, the world protested loudly, then ended up backing Israel. Every time Israel showed weakness, the world applauded Israel, then ended up removing support.
The US started its 'Military Aid' only after Israel resoundingly won the Six Day war - a war the US told Israel not to start. Before the Oslo accords, Israel's legitimacy was far, far greater than now, despite the Olso accords being exactly what the West said it demanded.
There were and are many actually terrible regimes that are not only not sanctioned, but actively supported by the West. This includes the Khemer Rouge, who committed actual genocide on the order of over a million people, the Afgan and Iraqi 'governments', and many, many others. The idea that the western nations will sanction Israel out of supposed moral reasons is simply not borne out by the facts.
"a war the US told Israel not to start"
Not true; Lyndon Johnson tipped off Israel about Egypt's impending attack so that Israel could respond.
"The US started its 'Military Aid' only after Israel resoundingly won the Six Day war"
Not true. Kennedy send some military aid, breaking the Truman/Eisenhower arms embargo.
And now that we're doing everything "the world" wants of us, none of that is happening.
No, wait.
By the way, "the world" is not what you think it is.
The Romans did not invade Israel. The Romans were invited in to support one side or the other in a civil war. They would not leave for good until they were expelled by the Muslim invaders over 700 years later.
They would have showed up sooner or later.
They say it proudly and they’re all educated the same way. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DC6Y0a_N8wY/?igsh=MWNqM3QzcXhvNG12dQ==
Educated by the UN, no less. Oy vey!
In addition, the majority of Palestinians resided in Jordan as most of what the Jews received was desert and swampland and then thought useless. However the British and the French promised Jordan that they could keep their land for the and not use it for the Palestinians..so many were forced not by the Jews but by bargains made by the French and British and Hussein’s great grandfather.
Fascinating!
"Arabs mostly rejected any form of partition; the General Secretary of the Arab League warned that there would be a war of elimination, and the Mufti said that the Arabs did not intend merely to prevent partition but 'would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated.' "
And this condition is part of what made the making of the state assur.
Assur under what halakha?
(A) 3 shvuos.
(B) Al tisgareh bagoyim.
(C) Creating an immediate sakanas nefashos for Jews in Eretz Yisroel - the Arabs said flat out: If you make a Jewish state we will attack you from all sides and throw you into the sea. (This last one should be a no-brainer. Except for those bent on making a goyish style state for Jews.)
By the way, when the Jews returned to Israel under Koresh, the local Arabs also objected. But that didn't change the fact that Hashem himself was speaking through Koresh.
Mashiach is supposed to fight wars. Who is he fighting against?
Koresh is identified as Mashiach in Isaiah 45. (!) Fortunately we aren't Biblical literalists.
Whom is *WHO* fighting against? (Do you see Mashiach somewhere?)
The Shalosh Shevuot are not halakha, they are aggadah. No one considered them binding (and they were *never* considered halakha) until...wait for it...Moses Mendelssohn. R' Hirsch did too. Guess why.
The Arabs were killing Jews for 1200 years at least (or even 3,700 years) before 1948. Try again.
While Mendelssohn did cite the 3 O's in Satmar style, it's a bit of an exaggeration to state that they weren't invoked earlier.
That being the case, all the commentaries that I've seen provide an interpretation that not only doesn't forbid Zionism, but also reveals the Satmar position as a novelty not in consonance with tradition.
There was no Arab rule in Eretz Yisrael at any time after 1099 CE until 1948. Unfortunately the Crusaders who replaced them were much more interested in killing us than were the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid, or Fatimid Caliphs.
3 Shvuos was halachah enough for R' Zeira (who held of them l'halachah l'kula) to avoid showing up in front of Rav Yehudah (who held of them l'chumrah) because R' Zeira was afraid that Rav Yehuda would force him to uphold them l'chumrah.
Rav Yehudah could prevent R' Zeira from going as an individual to eretz Yisroel when R' Zeira held of the 3 shvuos only l'kula? And nobody holds of it l'halachah at all?
"3 shvuos."
That's not halacha. In any case, the three oaths do not forbid a Jewish State.
The other issues are valid questions (but not halacha!) and whether or not they have been addressed to you satisfaction, they are not relevant after the fact.
3 Shvuos was halachah enough for R' Zeira (who held of them l'halachah l'kula) to avoid showing up in front of Rav Yehudah (who held of them l'chumrah) because R' Zeira was afraid that Rav Yehuda would force him to uphold them l'chumrah.
Rav Yehudah could prevent R' Zeira from going as an individual to eretz Yisroel when R' Zeira held of the 3 shvuos only l'kula? And nobody holds of it l'halachah at all?
There is no such issur of אל תתגרה בגוים, all it says is אל תתגרה באדום, which has one context and nothing to do with the world at large. One may want to stretch it but thats not widely accepted. Why, for that matter KJ zoning laws should be forbidden for the same reason. (Satmar Rav himself explains the difference but it's not simple)
I wonder why you made a separate "b" and why it wouldn't be included in the second of the 3 shvuos, but anyway, 3 shvuos being used as a halachic source is very telling about your biases... there were of course many explanations as to why they aren't halachically relevant way before the satmer Rav wrote his tendentious works see here for some (under פרשנות ושימוש):
https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A9_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA
Your third consideration is the one I expected you to say, but one needs to recognize how difficult it would be to make such a cheshbon especially after we just experienced the holocaust. Who's to say that our establishing a *UN backed* state wasn't the best way to secure a way to do hatzalas nefashos on a mass scale that we were unable to do until then (see הרחב דבר of the netziv on vayikra 26,31 regarding korbanos, it seems reasonable to draw an analogy to a case where the nations give us sovereignty in our land as being hashgachas Hashem). Regardless of the before the fact cheshbonos though, as I said in my other comment, after the fact it is clear from hashgachas Hashem that that was the right thing to do (see the sources I quoted in my other comment and especially the seforno and think about historical context of the establishment of the state).
"Who's to say that our establishing a *UN backed* state wasn't the best way to secure a way to do hatzalas nefashos on a mass scale that we were unable to do until then"
1. 1st of all, because all the Torah leaders of the generation who stated a definite opnion were all against it (except for MAYBE one or two, and even they did not agree to it in the wy it was executed).
2. "UN backed" was rather farcicle. Was there any force from any country ensuring anything? No. And Britain unilaterally withdrew leaving the fledgling "Jewish" state to the mercilessness of tens (hundreds?) of millions of the local surrounding Arabs who did not agree and threatened to throw all the Jews into the sea if a state was declared. That is called "nations give us sovereignty"?
Also, the idea that the purpose of the state was to make a "safe haven for the Jews" is false. Most of the early Zionist leaders (pre-holocaust BTW) spoke about Jews being accepted in the world at large far more than (if at all) about safety from the goyim. A "safe haven for Jews" was later propaganda to sell it to the Jews and to the world - especially after the holocaust. In fact, leading zionists during the holocaust were willing to (and did) sacrifice Jewish lives (in Europe and elsewhere) in order to further their goal of the creation of the state or to be the Jewish group "in control" over the state - so they weren't really so concerned about Jewish life.
" all the Torah leaders of the generation who stated a definite opnion were all against it"
That is a baldfaced lie.
"the Torah leaders of the generation who stated a definite opnion were all against it"
Except Rav Kook ZT''L, Rav Uziel ZT''L (the last hakham bashi of Ottoman Palestine/first Sephardic Chief Rabbi), R. Chaim David Ha-Levi Z''L, Rav Herzog Z''L, and many others. Sephardic Rav Yehuda Alkalai Z''L proposed large scale Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael before Herzl did. In fact, I know of no Sephardic and Mizrahi Torah leaders who were against establishing a state on principle.
"leading zionists during the holocaust were willing to (and did) sacrifice Jewish lives (in Europe and elsewhere)"
Zionists saved many lives during the Holocaust, including those who disagreed with them (Yoel Teitalbaum, the first Satmar Rebbe, among them).
Legal Jewish settlement by immigrating individuals is not necessarily against the three oaths. This is the lenient opinion in the gmara and even Satmar holds of that lenient opinion. And since you bring "being pro Jewish settlement" as a false proof, all the names you brought are meaningless until we examine the exact opinion of each one.
Mizrachi leaders, in general, are completely discounted as they join(ed) with r'sha'im and, in fact, willingly (or as a compromise) plac(ed) those r'sha'im as leaders over themselves which is prohibited according to the Torah.
And as for Sphardi leaders. There is from Morocco alone:
ר' שלום אבוחצירא
בבא סאלי
ר' דוד אבוחצירא (אחיו הבבא סאלי)
ר' יצחק אבוחצירא
ר יעקב אבוחצירא
בבא מאיר
ר' שמעון אוחנה
רבי משה אבגי
ר' דוד בליתי
ר' מ"א עבדלחק
ר' שמואל טולדנו
ר' שאול אבן דנאן
ר"ש נחמני
ר"ש ואעקנין
ר' שלמה אמסלם
ר' יוסף אבן נאיים
ר' יהודה אבן דאנן
ר' שמואל אבן דאנן
ר' שלמה אחנונא ר' דוד כהן
ר' דוד צבאח
ר' משה אבירמט
ר' מרדכי עזראן
ר' יעקב חי זריהן
ר' מה מאיר חי אליקים
ר' ראובן תמצטית
ר' יעיש קריספין
ר' אליהו ילוז
ר' מסעוד אלחדאר
ר' יוסף נסים אבן אדהאן
ר' יוסף ארוואץ ר' יוסף חיים הכהן
ר' אברהם חלאוה
ר' שמואל אבן קיקי
ר' משה מאמאן
ר' רחמים יוסף מאמאן
ר' אברהם אנקאווא
ר' רפאל אלעזר אבן טובו הלוי
ר' דוד אבן שמעון
ר' חביב טולידאנו
ר' יהודה אלאז ר' אברהם מונסונייגו
ר' "המלאך" רפאל בירדוגו
ר' יוסף פינטו
And the list goes on and on. And that is from Morocco alone. So, if you are trying to bring "I know of no Sephardic ... leaders" as proof that there aren't any....
Someone shared this English article with me to complement the Hebrew Wikipedia article, see sources quoted within: https://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/the-mitzvah-of-settling-in-the-land-of-israel-part-iii/2024/03/06/
You never responded to my points.
Sorry for taking so long. I was trying to go through each point in your various comments with koved rosh, and have not yet finished. Instead of keeping you waiting, I will make a few general responses.
Some of the Chachomim you brought, big as they may be and mar'ey d'asrayhu that they may be (and kvodam bimkomam), are not on the madregah of Manhigey and Maranan of Yisroel as the Chofetz Chaim, R"E Wasserman, R' Boruch Ber, Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, etc. So their few opinions are not necessarily in the running.
Also, many of the opinions you brought (from the above mentioned and even from those who are bigger) had such pareve or moderate opinions as:
- "leans" to the "possibility" (is this a sfek sfeka?),
- "on the fence".
I don't know why these should even be mentioned as a tzad neged such Gdoley olam who clearly assured it.
Other sources you brought are ambiguous at best, but more likely irrelevant.
- Example 1: R' Chatzkel's "HaShem allows the reshaim to do the dirty work for us" does not in any way say anything about the permissibility of our participation in that dirty work, especially when it involves sakanas nefashos and issurim (such as rtzichah, hitztarufus with rshaim, hisgarus bagoyim, exposing one's self to constant kfira and other abominations).
- Example 2: From where does R"Sh Auerbach's "growth of Jews in eretz Yisroel" come to mean creation of a state.
- Example 3: The Meshech Chochma's Balfour Declaration heter may have been valid in his time as it WOULD HAVE BEEN similar to the return in the time of Koresh. But in the end the Brits withdrew from Palestine completely, making the Balfour Declaration a formal empty piece of paper with nobody to uphold/support it except the local and surrounding Arabs who threatened to make a war and throw all the Jews into the sea if a Jewish state were declared. So the Balfour Declaration (while meaningful in the time of the Meshech Chochma) b'shaas ma'aseh was irrelevant.
- Example 4: From where does MHR"L's "malchus kadosh habaa mitoch malchus chol" come to mean "malchus resha" as the current state is. But even if it would refer to this current state, it does not say anything about our support for it while it is still chol. (See comment on R' Chatzkel quote above).
- Example 5: The Steipler's "who says that it's assur to participate in its (the state's) running (after it already exists)" is akin to R' Shach's agreement to Charedi participation in the government for practical reasons (i.e., so they don't eat us alive), but not because we agree to the state b'etzem (michtavim umaamarim).
- Example 6: Pe'as HaShulchan's heter of entering the country one by one until we grow. Is that legally or illegally? And even if illegally and even if eventually becoming a democratic majority, maybe. But that is still by individuals (in accordance with the lenient opinion of 3 oaths), but not by organized aliyos of boat-loads of people for the express purpose of violently forcing our political control as the zionists did against the brits.
- Example 7: Rav Yosef Chaim Sonenfeld lobbied for a joint government under British auspices ..." Why is this relevant? A joint government under British auspices is not independence and is also similar to the return in the time of Koresh.
This may be why some sfarim (e.g. Or Yechezkel as you mentioned, and I think maybe Sichos Mussar too) have been censored. It's because people (whether innocently or sinisterly) take quotes out of context or wrongly extrapolate them and say that these Gdolim support things that they do not. R' M"E Forschlager also reported that the Avney Nezer refused to meet with some leaders of a (I think religious-) zionist group because they would claim that he agreed with them; and in fact these same zionist leaders did so with other Chachomim that they later met with, much to the dismay of those Chachomim.
I will concede that there may be a minority of Chachomim that held in theory that it may be permissible to have Jewish independence, but as of yet I do not see any conclusive proof that they would have allowed it in a way that breaks the 3 shvuos or allows for Jewish rshaim to be its leaders.
I would be interested to hear R' Lopiansky's shiurim that you mentioned if you could direct me to them. Thanks.
"the Balfour Declaration a formal empty piece of paper "
The Balfour Declaration was always an empty piece of paper. Balfour wasn't even a member of the British War Cabinet. What did matter was that Clemenceau, Lloyd-George, and Wilson all liked Jews and supported a Jewish National Home, neither the Ottoman Empire nor the successor Republic of Türkiye objected, and the League of Nations endorsed it (with none of them saying what the borders should be). Later, the United Nations endorsed a sovereign Jewish state within specified borders.
The UN LofN etc. had no control or authority in the land, the British withdrew, and the only people left in and around the land were dead set against it. So all the good will meant nothing l'maaseh. They may as well have said that the Jews could have China and see what the Chinese have to say about it.
Thanks for the response. My list was not focused on an agenda to prove that the state is הכי טוב לכולי עלמא, but that each point the Satmar Rav stands by is contested. We all know that anyone who doesn't call himself a Zionist doesn't believe it to be all good and will address the negative as well, and there are many. There's a rule that very few Gedolim make a big deal to come out and say something is muttar, so the fact that the group of mattirim in this issue doesn't stand out should not be a surprise, but that does not mean they don't exist.
As far as that no Gedolim I mentioned were on the same level as the ones you did, like the Chafetz Chaim etc., I think R Meir Simcha was pretty up there. most of the opposition of the CC or Rav Shach had nothing to do with the 3 oaths. As a matter of fact, I am not aware of any source from the Gedolim you mentioned who said so as a matter of halacha. I hear you about things being taken out of context, but I do not think that they really agree with Satmar and are just a drop nuanced.
I don't disagree that the early Zionists engaged in lots of bad activity, but it's not all black and white.
As far as Rabbi Lopiansky, just Google "rabbi lopiansky da ma lehashiv" and it should come up from eshel publications. The Shiurim on Zionism are the 4 last lectures of the series I think. I believe he does a really balanced job.
"that each point the Satmar Rav stands by is contested."
I'm not sure. As I pointed out, many of the things you wrote are not necessary contradictions to it.
"There's a rule that very few Gedolim make a big deal to come out and say something is muttar, so the fact that the group of mattirim in this issue doesn't stand out should not be a surprise,..."
I fully agree. But for reasons I mention below, we can't assume in this issue that someone is matir until we see by them that it's completely clear.
"... but that does not mean they don't exist."
I agree. But so far, I haven't seen anything impressive. My understanding is that until the current bilbulim (that have resulted from the relative non-discussion of the topic over the last 25+ years at least) it was understood that the Gdoley Torah *generally* agree on the issue, and most of the disagreement is on how to deal with the current (and constantly changing) situation.
"As far as that no Gedolim I mentioned were on the same level as the ones you did, like the Chafetz Chaim etc., I think R Meir Simcha was pretty up there."
I agree, and I did not intend to included him in that list (whose members I intentionally did not spell out). His opinion was addressed elsewhere, the gist of which is that (1) the heter because of the Balfour Declaration (1917) is not necessarily against the 3 oaths, and (2) it was not a heter to be mitztaref with reshaim, and (3) it is doubtful that he himself would have held that it remained a matir as things subsequently turned out (even before the creation of the state).
"most of the opposition of the CC or Rav Shach had nothing to do with the 3 oaths."
May be. But... (see next response)
"I am not aware of any source from the Gedolim you mentioned who said so as a matter of halacha."
Drasha though it may be, (1) the gemara clearly is mefalpel with it as a halacha. (2) There are only two de'os, one l'chumrah and one l'kulah. (3) Each baal de'ah treated it very much l'maaseh. (4) There is no man d'amar in the gemara who argues against it.
Holding of this gemara is not a chiddush of R' Yoel (who holds it l'kula). And given the four points I mentioned, it would seem that the one who wants to say that a particular Gadol does not hold of it has the burden of proof.
"I hear you about things being taken out of context, but I do not think that they really agree with Satmar and are just a drop nuanced."
Again, I have not seen that there is such a disagreement with R' Yoel (except on how to deal with it). The heterim that I have seen are theoretical and do not matir what has been going on with the state (or pre-state) in the last 85 years at least.
"I don't disagree that the early Zionists engaged in lots of bad activity, but it's no