Are you against Zionism? So don't live in the Zionist country. Do you want to live in the Holy Land? There is a lot of space in the Palestinian Authority, in Gaza and in southern Lebanon. And if you live here, don't go to the elections, don't sit in the Knesset and certainly not in the government. Do not enjoy the funds of the Zionist state and its services: social security, property tax discounts, public transportation and more; Health, police, fire department, social service and more. Roads, electricity, water, gas, internet, communication and more.
Charedim are the biggest Zionists in the country. How do I know? Which group in Israeli society has the highest voting percentage in elections? Which group in Israeli society is the largest net beneficiary of govt benefits versus tax paid? Which group is the largest net beneficiary of security provided by the state versus contributions of people towards it?
If Dovid Kornreich really believes what he says he should join the ranks of the Neturei Karta that refuse to vote in elections or take govt benefits and encourage his community to do the same. Funnily enough, it's his Rabbonim who encourage their followers to do the exact opposite. That's why the rest of Israeli society have so little respect for them and he has no credibility. Is integrity one of those things that charedim have no use for like the state of Israel?
Kornreich's points are that chareidim don't need the Zionist state, as chareidim live just fine in many other parts of the world. In addition, he claims they disagree with the ideas and goals of Zionism, which is secular Jewish sovereignty. In addition, he claims that terrorism is the Zionist's fault, and so chareidim shouldn't have to serve to clean up the Zionist's mess. I think most chareidim would disagree with the last point, and would agree with the first two, but consider them irrelevant to the question of the draft. But your main counterargument is about how wonderful Zionism was 75, 80, 90 years ago, how it and it alone saved thousands of Jewish lives, and all the chareidi ancestors would have died if not for Zionism. These are all completely unprovable counterfactuals and are very nice if you want to believe them, but won't convince anybody not already convinced and are in any case irrelevant.
Also, your part IV is false. "The victory and rule of the Hasmoneans is regarded highly positively, even though most of them were not even religious!" - Anybody who has said על הניסים would know this is not true, the celebration is טמאים ביד טהורים, רשעים ביד צדיקים, זדים ביד עוסקי תורתיך. The exact opposite of the secular Zionists, who can be better compared to the Hellenists.
The land was sparsely populated, the zionists had to buy it, which consequently drove them into relatively empty parts of the territory, and much of the Arab population was attracted to Israel by the economic opportunity created by Zionism.
The case for the morality of Zionist settlement is overhelming. The high level arguments you are doing here do not justice to the detailed historic reality. Bravery, ingenuity, and generosity. More than ever, light for the nations.
It’s not horrifying at all to see such a view expressed in The Times of Israel by someone who is a product of a popular yeshiva for Anglos.
Rather, it's gratifying, as he says out loud the part that's usually kept quiet (when speaking to outsiders -- including parents who send their children to said yeshivos and seminaries) but well-known among those who are insiders..
Thank You R' Kornreich and thank you to other haredi spokespersons who have done the same.
Much better than the smiley pseudo-intellectual kiruv that deflects one's attention from what the speaker actually believes.
One of the criteria I use (kind of subconsciously) for evaluating posts/arguments is - how much of the post is allocated to labeling the other guy and his arguments with negative adjectives rather than just making your argument, aka "name calling" or "ad hominem argumentation."
In Slifkin's post I count:
1. "Now here’s a post that I wasn’t expecting to have to write."
2. "which many will find shocking"
3. "Incredibly, in his opposition to Zionism..."
4. " It’s horrifying to see such a view expressed in The Times of Israel ...
5. "Rabbi Kornreich’s accusations of the existence of Israel being responsible for Jewish suffering and deaths are ridiculous as well as sickening"
6. "The idea that Jews around the world are suffering because of Israel is incredibly naive."
7. "All of the above shows why Rabbi Kornreich’s alleged justification for charedi non-participation in the IDF is ill-informed and immoral."
8. "It’s tragic that a rabbi who has been studying Torah in yeshivah for thirty years does not grasp any of this."
In Pinni Dunner's article I count:
1. "Kornreich’s article is a “word salad” – nothing more, nothing less. The confusion and lack of constructive direction in his arguments is beyond obvious, while the high-handed conviction of their accuracy only makes it worse. His perspective, while claiming to represent a principled stand ingrained in Haredi ideology, is first-and-foremost remarkably self-serving."
2. "is jaw-dropping in its self-serving navel-gazing superficiality."
3. "Using tired anti-Zionist mantras to prop up an indefensible objection to military service may make Dovid Kornreich feel good ..."
In Kornreich's article I found no such name-calling or ad hominem characterizations - which doesn't mean Kornreich is correct ...
Rashi (I forget the source) says on "eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chaim" not that both views are correct, but that both antagonists were "liban l'shomayim," i.e., their only desire was to discover the truth ... I personally find it harder to view an author who uses name-calling as a way of making his points to be liban l'shomayim
I'm just now noticing that Korenreich refers to them as "yeshiva *boys*", which is telling on a bunch of levels.
One thing I find absolutely hilarious is that Kornreich *voluntarily made aliyah*, thus placing himself, nebach, in the situation of having to benefit from the State. It must keep him up at night.
You can go to the land as a tourist if you are aloud but you can't enjoy the benefits of zionism without the burden. This is a basic morality principle even by Charedi standards.
The whole "Zionism" debate is a red herring. Very few people who are true philosophical Zionists these days. It would actually be helpful if the term were retired altogether.
The point is (and this is what most people mean when the say support "Zionism" - certainly non-Jews), using the normal standards of morality and geopolitics Israel has a right to exist. Except for the woke self-haters in the West, no one cares about the "original sins" of any other country in the world.
It is beyond disgusting that the same Chareidim who challenge Israel's right to exist squeal like pigs when their free handouts are taken away by the State of Israel. At least Satmar is consistent. Cut off the money and security protection from Toras Moshe and see how fast they go into hysterics like little children. Dovid Kornreich is a fool.
To start off: I think it’s highly relevant (and something that R’ Slifkin points out), that this is coming from someone on the extreme end of the Charedi spectrum (close to Satmar, Brisk, Neturei Karta, and Eida Charedis). Therefore, it doesn’t full represent the mainstream Chareidi viewpoint.
In general, for a very good scholarly book on the various religious viewpoints towards Zionism, see Aviezer Ravitzky's “Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism” (https://www.amazon.com/Messianism-Zionism-Religious-Radicalism-Chicago/dp/0226705781). It was published in 1996, but it’s still very relevant. It’s much better than 99% of the culture war rhetoric that exists today. Here’s the blurb, from Amazon:
“
The Orthodox Jewish tradition affirms that Jewish exile will end with the coming of the Messiah. How, then, does Orthodoxy respond to the political realization of a Jewish homeland that is the State of Israel? In this cogent and searching study, Aviezer Ravitzky probes Orthodoxy's divergent positions on Zionism, which range from radical condemnation to virtual beatification.
Ravitzky traces the roots of Haredi ideology, which opposes the Zionist enterprise, and shows how Haredim living in Israel have come to terms with a state to them unholy and therefore doomed. Ravitzky also examines radical religious movements, including the Gush Emunim, to whom the State of Israel is a divine agent. He concludes with a discussion of the recent transformation of Habad Hassidism from conservatism to radical messianism.
“
I agree with one of the commenters that a lot of R’ Slifkin’s defense of Israel is based on supposing even-worse counterfactuals, and supposed knowledge (by early Zionist leaders) of even-worse counterfactuals. And these counterfactuals are not clearly correct.
Contrary to what R’ Slifkin claims, almost no one, including Zionists, foresaw any of the following:
1) the Holocaust (except for maybe Jabotinsky)
2) The Arabs (whether inside the Jewish state, or outside of it) causing so many issue for a Jewish state
3) The existence of a Jewish state causing violence against native Jewish populations in Arab countries
Additional comments:
(Bolding mine:)
>"Yes, there was a problem of the large Arab population. But most Zionist leaders figured that, one way or another, some sort of political accommodation/ compromise would be worked out. They knew that the Arabs would not be happy about the Jews arriving in large numbers, but what choice did the Jews have? It was either that or be slaughtered in Europe [...] We had to flee to the Land of Israel in large numbers."
These lines have a strong hindsight bias, no Zionist (besides maybe Jabotinsky) foresaw the Holocaust.
>"Rabbi Kornreich’s accusations of the existence of Israel being responsible for Jewish suffering and deaths are ridiculous as well as sickening. First of all, while Zionism creates a new framework for antisemitism, antisemitism has always existed in one form or another and always will. The idea that Jews around the world are suffering because of Israel is incredibly naive."
Just because anti-semitism always existed, doesn't mean that the existence of Israel didn't exacerbate its manifestation greatly. For example, anti-semitism is obviously less of an issue in 21st-century US than it was in Nazi Germany.
>"many hundreds of thousands or even millions more would have ended up suffering or killed in Russia, perhaps as cannon fodder for Putin’s war today."
This is 70 years later, many Russian Jews left Russia, especially in the 1990s. Also, it's mostly people in the Russian periphery who are in the Russian army. Jews are mostly in greater Moscow, and people in greater Moscow are barely affected by the war.
>"While the 1948 war did result in Jews being driven out of Muslim countries, their lives there would hardly have been stable otherwise. How many tens or hundreds of thousands would have died in various Arab conflicts? What would have happened to the Jews of Iraq, of Iran, of Yemen, of Libya, of Syria, of Egypt?"
Likely not so many. Jews would have left for the US, in the same way that most of the Iranian Jewish community left after the Revolution there in the 1970s.
Finally, a comment on R’ Dunner’s piece, linked in R' Slifkin's post: “Zionism” can have a wide range of meanings in actual discourse, like many such terms. R’ Kornreich’s usage of Zionism to mean “proud believer in a functionally-secular Jewish state” (roughly equivalent to “a patriotic American”) is not unreasonable
My daughter, I am ultra-Orthodox, went to a neighborhood that I am opposed to her going there. Therefore, after she was kidnapped and raped every day, I don't interfere even if they finally kill her. She is to blame and has to fend for herself.
If this is the Jewish halacha of the ultra-Orthodox, then it is worth garbage. If this is the Jewish morality of the ultra-Orthodox, then crows are better than them. If this is the feeling of the father of the ultra-Orthodox, then every gentile in the world is better than them.
While counteractuals are impossible to prove, some commenters here are bending over backwards to assume that the all the Jews in the DP camps and across the Middle East would have been just fine without Israel, which is hardly obvious.
It is clear that a large proportion of Jews in the DP camps desired to move to Palestine, which factored into UNSCOP's partition plan recommendation.
What is also clear is that many of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were in Palestine during WW2 would otherwise have been in Europe, with all that that entailed. Zionism saved many of their lives.
From a religious perspective, a comparison of diaspora Jewry beyond the Orthodox community with its Israeli counterpart is instructive, whether in terms of intermarriage rates or marking Shabbat and chagim.
"He introduces it by noting that he’s not claiming to be representing anyone else’s views."
As the product of decades of sworn allegiance to דעת תורה he's gone rogue and is spouting his own בעל הבתישע opinions. His own opinions? Pardon the echo, but these are not his own opinions just copy and pasted tropes- a kind of knowledge that is a sure indicator of ignorance. For example, someone who mentions Herzl's first scheme to end Jew hated & nothing after, is not is not in possession of some sophisticated knowledge- but deep ignorance. DK's ignorance is so abysmal that his list of Zionist crimes ends some 70 years ago! Can't he do better? And what's the deal with including anti-British violence and pro-British collaboration in the same list?
But the most despicable part of the column was the part where he insists that Hamas poses no existential threat. This indifference to the suffering of his people is inexcusable. It's morally bankrupt and should be placed alongside the false condolences of the "friends" of איוב. (Never mind that it's anti-Halachic: even קש ותבן can be a casus belli.) The only significance he attributes to the Hamas attack is the failures of the IDF. And he starts the paragraph with his assessment that it's a "blessed reality"- a harsh dissonance with his earlier citation of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik about the high value "of a single Jewish life".
"Where were the Jews going to go? There weren’t a lot of options, although several were explored. After 1924, America was severely restricting immigration. Various options were explored in Uganda, Tasmania, Angola and elsewhere, and none proved feasible. Palestine, which at that time was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, was not only the natural choice based on our historical roots, but also pretty much the only viable choice. "
The fact that the other options had problems, doesn't mean the Zionist option wins by default. Had the incredibly high prices paid for the land in EY plus the enormous amount of organisation and lobbying that went into it been put into other options they would have become just as 'viable'. The only reason why EY won over the other options is because it was the only Schelling Point (Google it) which enough Jews could agree on, but this does not mean it was the best option.
"Yes, there was a problem of the large Arab population. But most Zionist leaders figured that, one way or another, some sort of political accommodation/ compromise would be worked out."
Clearly, then, they were wrong. When the facts change you change your mind.
" And they were very happy to avail themselves of Zionist assistance to do so."
Kind of a moot point since the Zionists refused to allot permits to religious Jews and lobbied to take the permits allotted to the Aguda (by the way, I don't even have a problem with this per se, but that's the reality).
"And many hundreds of thousands or even millions more would have ended up suffering or killed in Russia, perhaps as cannon fodder for Putin’s war today."
They would be in America or Western Europe, and there would be basically no anti-semitism, since 99% of anti-semitism is Israel related.
"Rabbi Kornreich’s accusations of the existence of Israel being responsible for Jewish suffering and deaths are ridiculous as well as sickening. First of all, while Zionism creates a new framework for antisemitism, antisemitism has always existed in one form or another and always will."
This is the same excuse made by Charedim who run welfare fraud schemes. The reality is that anti-Semitism goes up and down based on numerous different factors. It went down sharply after US victory in WW2. The upwards trend today is because of Israel.
"While the 1948 war did result in Jews being driven out of Muslim countries, their lives there would hardly have been stable otherwise. How many tens or hundreds of thousands would have died in various Arab conflicts? What would have happened to the Jews of Iraq, of Iran, of Yemen, of Libya, of Syria, of Egypt?"
The smart ones would be living in LA and the others would be in the Middle East. Not the end of the world. Have you walked around Afula recently? Not much better than Baghdad.
"It’s tragic that a rabbi who has been studying Torah in yeshivah for thirty years does not grasp any of this. "
Obviously, all the rishonim and acharonim who did literally nothing to create a Jewish state in EY except praying just didn't understand Judaism until Herzl explained it them. QED.
Let's get real this is just as excuse. I wonder how many herideim, yeshiva crowd would be willing to be drafted (if they had one) the the USA army or any other country.i am sure he would come up with another excuse.
Are you against Zionism? So don't live in the Zionist country. Do you want to live in the Holy Land? There is a lot of space in the Palestinian Authority, in Gaza and in southern Lebanon. And if you live here, don't go to the elections, don't sit in the Knesset and certainly not in the government. Do not enjoy the funds of the Zionist state and its services: social security, property tax discounts, public transportation and more; Health, police, fire department, social service and more. Roads, electricity, water, gas, internet, communication and more.
Charedim are the biggest Zionists in the country. How do I know? Which group in Israeli society has the highest voting percentage in elections? Which group in Israeli society is the largest net beneficiary of govt benefits versus tax paid? Which group is the largest net beneficiary of security provided by the state versus contributions of people towards it?
If Dovid Kornreich really believes what he says he should join the ranks of the Neturei Karta that refuse to vote in elections or take govt benefits and encourage his community to do the same. Funnily enough, it's his Rabbonim who encourage their followers to do the exact opposite. That's why the rest of Israeli society have so little respect for them and he has no credibility. Is integrity one of those things that charedim have no use for like the state of Israel?
Kornreich's points are that chareidim don't need the Zionist state, as chareidim live just fine in many other parts of the world. In addition, he claims they disagree with the ideas and goals of Zionism, which is secular Jewish sovereignty. In addition, he claims that terrorism is the Zionist's fault, and so chareidim shouldn't have to serve to clean up the Zionist's mess. I think most chareidim would disagree with the last point, and would agree with the first two, but consider them irrelevant to the question of the draft. But your main counterargument is about how wonderful Zionism was 75, 80, 90 years ago, how it and it alone saved thousands of Jewish lives, and all the chareidi ancestors would have died if not for Zionism. These are all completely unprovable counterfactuals and are very nice if you want to believe them, but won't convince anybody not already convinced and are in any case irrelevant.
Also, your part IV is false. "The victory and rule of the Hasmoneans is regarded highly positively, even though most of them were not even religious!" - Anybody who has said על הניסים would know this is not true, the celebration is טמאים ביד טהורים, רשעים ביד צדיקים, זדים ביד עוסקי תורתיך. The exact opposite of the secular Zionists, who can be better compared to the Hellenists.
The land was sparsely populated, the zionists had to buy it, which consequently drove them into relatively empty parts of the territory, and much of the Arab population was attracted to Israel by the economic opportunity created by Zionism.
The case for the morality of Zionist settlement is overhelming. The high level arguments you are doing here do not justice to the detailed historic reality. Bravery, ingenuity, and generosity. More than ever, light for the nations.
It’s not horrifying at all to see such a view expressed in The Times of Israel by someone who is a product of a popular yeshiva for Anglos.
Rather, it's gratifying, as he says out loud the part that's usually kept quiet (when speaking to outsiders -- including parents who send their children to said yeshivos and seminaries) but well-known among those who are insiders..
Thank You R' Kornreich and thank you to other haredi spokespersons who have done the same.
Much better than the smiley pseudo-intellectual kiruv that deflects one's attention from what the speaker actually believes.
One of the criteria I use (kind of subconsciously) for evaluating posts/arguments is - how much of the post is allocated to labeling the other guy and his arguments with negative adjectives rather than just making your argument, aka "name calling" or "ad hominem argumentation."
In Slifkin's post I count:
1. "Now here’s a post that I wasn’t expecting to have to write."
2. "which many will find shocking"
3. "Incredibly, in his opposition to Zionism..."
4. " It’s horrifying to see such a view expressed in The Times of Israel ...
5. "Rabbi Kornreich’s accusations of the existence of Israel being responsible for Jewish suffering and deaths are ridiculous as well as sickening"
6. "The idea that Jews around the world are suffering because of Israel is incredibly naive."
7. "All of the above shows why Rabbi Kornreich’s alleged justification for charedi non-participation in the IDF is ill-informed and immoral."
8. "It’s tragic that a rabbi who has been studying Torah in yeshivah for thirty years does not grasp any of this."
In Pinni Dunner's article I count:
1. "Kornreich’s article is a “word salad” – nothing more, nothing less. The confusion and lack of constructive direction in his arguments is beyond obvious, while the high-handed conviction of their accuracy only makes it worse. His perspective, while claiming to represent a principled stand ingrained in Haredi ideology, is first-and-foremost remarkably self-serving."
2. "is jaw-dropping in its self-serving navel-gazing superficiality."
3. "Using tired anti-Zionist mantras to prop up an indefensible objection to military service may make Dovid Kornreich feel good ..."
In Kornreich's article I found no such name-calling or ad hominem characterizations - which doesn't mean Kornreich is correct ...
Rashi (I forget the source) says on "eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chaim" not that both views are correct, but that both antagonists were "liban l'shomayim," i.e., their only desire was to discover the truth ... I personally find it harder to view an author who uses name-calling as a way of making his points to be liban l'shomayim
I'm just now noticing that Korenreich refers to them as "yeshiva *boys*", which is telling on a bunch of levels.
One thing I find absolutely hilarious is that Kornreich *voluntarily made aliyah*, thus placing himself, nebach, in the situation of having to benefit from the State. It must keep him up at night.
You can go to the land as a tourist if you are aloud but you can't enjoy the benefits of zionism without the burden. This is a basic morality principle even by Charedi standards.
The whole "Zionism" debate is a red herring. Very few people who are true philosophical Zionists these days. It would actually be helpful if the term were retired altogether.
The point is (and this is what most people mean when the say support "Zionism" - certainly non-Jews), using the normal standards of morality and geopolitics Israel has a right to exist. Except for the woke self-haters in the West, no one cares about the "original sins" of any other country in the world.
It is beyond disgusting that the same Chareidim who challenge Israel's right to exist squeal like pigs when their free handouts are taken away by the State of Israel. At least Satmar is consistent. Cut off the money and security protection from Toras Moshe and see how fast they go into hysterics like little children. Dovid Kornreich is a fool.
To start off: I think it’s highly relevant (and something that R’ Slifkin points out), that this is coming from someone on the extreme end of the Charedi spectrum (close to Satmar, Brisk, Neturei Karta, and Eida Charedis). Therefore, it doesn’t full represent the mainstream Chareidi viewpoint.
In general, for a very good scholarly book on the various religious viewpoints towards Zionism, see Aviezer Ravitzky's “Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism” (https://www.amazon.com/Messianism-Zionism-Religious-Radicalism-Chicago/dp/0226705781). It was published in 1996, but it’s still very relevant. It’s much better than 99% of the culture war rhetoric that exists today. Here’s the blurb, from Amazon:
“
The Orthodox Jewish tradition affirms that Jewish exile will end with the coming of the Messiah. How, then, does Orthodoxy respond to the political realization of a Jewish homeland that is the State of Israel? In this cogent and searching study, Aviezer Ravitzky probes Orthodoxy's divergent positions on Zionism, which range from radical condemnation to virtual beatification.
Ravitzky traces the roots of Haredi ideology, which opposes the Zionist enterprise, and shows how Haredim living in Israel have come to terms with a state to them unholy and therefore doomed. Ravitzky also examines radical religious movements, including the Gush Emunim, to whom the State of Israel is a divine agent. He concludes with a discussion of the recent transformation of Habad Hassidism from conservatism to radical messianism.
“
I agree with one of the commenters that a lot of R’ Slifkin’s defense of Israel is based on supposing even-worse counterfactuals, and supposed knowledge (by early Zionist leaders) of even-worse counterfactuals. And these counterfactuals are not clearly correct.
Contrary to what R’ Slifkin claims, almost no one, including Zionists, foresaw any of the following:
1) the Holocaust (except for maybe Jabotinsky)
2) The Arabs (whether inside the Jewish state, or outside of it) causing so many issue for a Jewish state
3) The existence of a Jewish state causing violence against native Jewish populations in Arab countries
Additional comments:
(Bolding mine:)
>"Yes, there was a problem of the large Arab population. But most Zionist leaders figured that, one way or another, some sort of political accommodation/ compromise would be worked out. They knew that the Arabs would not be happy about the Jews arriving in large numbers, but what choice did the Jews have? It was either that or be slaughtered in Europe [...] We had to flee to the Land of Israel in large numbers."
These lines have a strong hindsight bias, no Zionist (besides maybe Jabotinsky) foresaw the Holocaust.
>"Rabbi Kornreich’s accusations of the existence of Israel being responsible for Jewish suffering and deaths are ridiculous as well as sickening. First of all, while Zionism creates a new framework for antisemitism, antisemitism has always existed in one form or another and always will. The idea that Jews around the world are suffering because of Israel is incredibly naive."
Just because anti-semitism always existed, doesn't mean that the existence of Israel didn't exacerbate its manifestation greatly. For example, anti-semitism is obviously less of an issue in 21st-century US than it was in Nazi Germany.
>"many hundreds of thousands or even millions more would have ended up suffering or killed in Russia, perhaps as cannon fodder for Putin’s war today."
This is 70 years later, many Russian Jews left Russia, especially in the 1990s. Also, it's mostly people in the Russian periphery who are in the Russian army. Jews are mostly in greater Moscow, and people in greater Moscow are barely affected by the war.
>"While the 1948 war did result in Jews being driven out of Muslim countries, their lives there would hardly have been stable otherwise. How many tens or hundreds of thousands would have died in various Arab conflicts? What would have happened to the Jews of Iraq, of Iran, of Yemen, of Libya, of Syria, of Egypt?"
Likely not so many. Jews would have left for the US, in the same way that most of the Iranian Jewish community left after the Revolution there in the 1970s.
Finally, a comment on R’ Dunner’s piece, linked in R' Slifkin's post: “Zionism” can have a wide range of meanings in actual discourse, like many such terms. R’ Kornreich’s usage of Zionism to mean “proud believer in a functionally-secular Jewish state” (roughly equivalent to “a patriotic American”) is not unreasonable
My daughter, I am ultra-Orthodox, went to a neighborhood that I am opposed to her going there. Therefore, after she was kidnapped and raped every day, I don't interfere even if they finally kill her. She is to blame and has to fend for herself.
If this is the Jewish halacha of the ultra-Orthodox, then it is worth garbage. If this is the Jewish morality of the ultra-Orthodox, then crows are better than them. If this is the feeling of the father of the ultra-Orthodox, then every gentile in the world is better than them.
While counteractuals are impossible to prove, some commenters here are bending over backwards to assume that the all the Jews in the DP camps and across the Middle East would have been just fine without Israel, which is hardly obvious.
It is clear that a large proportion of Jews in the DP camps desired to move to Palestine, which factored into UNSCOP's partition plan recommendation.
What is also clear is that many of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were in Palestine during WW2 would otherwise have been in Europe, with all that that entailed. Zionism saved many of their lives.
From a religious perspective, a comparison of diaspora Jewry beyond the Orthodox community with its Israeli counterpart is instructive, whether in terms of intermarriage rates or marking Shabbat and chagim.
"He introduces it by noting that he’s not claiming to be representing anyone else’s views."
As the product of decades of sworn allegiance to דעת תורה he's gone rogue and is spouting his own בעל הבתישע opinions. His own opinions? Pardon the echo, but these are not his own opinions just copy and pasted tropes- a kind of knowledge that is a sure indicator of ignorance. For example, someone who mentions Herzl's first scheme to end Jew hated & nothing after, is not is not in possession of some sophisticated knowledge- but deep ignorance. DK's ignorance is so abysmal that his list of Zionist crimes ends some 70 years ago! Can't he do better? And what's the deal with including anti-British violence and pro-British collaboration in the same list?
But the most despicable part of the column was the part where he insists that Hamas poses no existential threat. This indifference to the suffering of his people is inexcusable. It's morally bankrupt and should be placed alongside the false condolences of the "friends" of איוב. (Never mind that it's anti-Halachic: even קש ותבן can be a casus belli.) The only significance he attributes to the Hamas attack is the failures of the IDF. And he starts the paragraph with his assessment that it's a "blessed reality"- a harsh dissonance with his earlier citation of Rav Chaim Soloveitchik about the high value "of a single Jewish life".
"Where were the Jews going to go? There weren’t a lot of options, although several were explored. After 1924, America was severely restricting immigration. Various options were explored in Uganda, Tasmania, Angola and elsewhere, and none proved feasible. Palestine, which at that time was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, was not only the natural choice based on our historical roots, but also pretty much the only viable choice. "
The fact that the other options had problems, doesn't mean the Zionist option wins by default. Had the incredibly high prices paid for the land in EY plus the enormous amount of organisation and lobbying that went into it been put into other options they would have become just as 'viable'. The only reason why EY won over the other options is because it was the only Schelling Point (Google it) which enough Jews could agree on, but this does not mean it was the best option.
"Yes, there was a problem of the large Arab population. But most Zionist leaders figured that, one way or another, some sort of political accommodation/ compromise would be worked out."
Clearly, then, they were wrong. When the facts change you change your mind.
" And they were very happy to avail themselves of Zionist assistance to do so."
Kind of a moot point since the Zionists refused to allot permits to religious Jews and lobbied to take the permits allotted to the Aguda (by the way, I don't even have a problem with this per se, but that's the reality).
"And many hundreds of thousands or even millions more would have ended up suffering or killed in Russia, perhaps as cannon fodder for Putin’s war today."
They would be in America or Western Europe, and there would be basically no anti-semitism, since 99% of anti-semitism is Israel related.
"Rabbi Kornreich’s accusations of the existence of Israel being responsible for Jewish suffering and deaths are ridiculous as well as sickening. First of all, while Zionism creates a new framework for antisemitism, antisemitism has always existed in one form or another and always will."
This is the same excuse made by Charedim who run welfare fraud schemes. The reality is that anti-Semitism goes up and down based on numerous different factors. It went down sharply after US victory in WW2. The upwards trend today is because of Israel.
"While the 1948 war did result in Jews being driven out of Muslim countries, their lives there would hardly have been stable otherwise. How many tens or hundreds of thousands would have died in various Arab conflicts? What would have happened to the Jews of Iraq, of Iran, of Yemen, of Libya, of Syria, of Egypt?"
The smart ones would be living in LA and the others would be in the Middle East. Not the end of the world. Have you walked around Afula recently? Not much better than Baghdad.
"It’s tragic that a rabbi who has been studying Torah in yeshivah for thirty years does not grasp any of this. "
Obviously, all the rishonim and acharonim who did literally nothing to create a Jewish state in EY except praying just didn't understand Judaism until Herzl explained it them. QED.
Yes but not while having citizenship and living in the land. You can't enjoy the benefits while ignoring the responsibilities.
Let's get real this is just as excuse. I wonder how many herideim, yeshiva crowd would be willing to be drafted (if they had one) the the USA army or any other country.i am sure he would come up with another excuse.