Rav Kook

Rav Kook's problems were twofold:

(1) The support of Zionism, not only in the form of support, but making it into a central theme of Judaism;

(2) His creating his own system of values against the Torah. If someone was the biggest Apikores and enemy of Hashem, as long as he would "work the land" if Israel, Rav Kook considered him holy. The soccer players, mechalelei shabbos b'farhesia, were to Rav Kook, "holy". He did not mean "Tzelem Elokim" holy, but rather, because they assisted the Zionist cause they were "holy", regardless of their status according to the Torah. The Chofetz Chaim remarked in disgust, "Kook Shmook!" when he read of such a quote from him.

PS - Nobody can take away anyone's title, though there were those who ruled that nobody may listen to Rav Kook's psakim. Those who disagreed did so not because they supported his outrageous positions, but rather because they held that outrageous positions do not disqualify the legitimate Torah thoughts that he had.

---

Rav Kook was criticized on numerous fronts. First, his Zionism was declared as against the Torah. Then there were statements he made about non-religious Jews, even enemies of religion being holy because they did things like build Eretz Yisroel, and other such problematic things.

There were those who held that those beliefs made Rav Kook a plain Apikores and it is forbidden to listen to his Torahs altogether; others held that his non-Hashkafic Torahs are OK to use but his Hashkafic opinions are rejected; the Mizrachi (Zionists) held from him completely.

He definitely was a great Talmid Chacham, but he was considered (but not by the Mizrachi) as another Talmid-Chacham that was sadly brought down by the Satan, like Korach (who actually possessed Ruach HaKodesh), Yeravam ben Nevat, Shabse Tzvi, and others like them.

Different Gedolim had different opinions about how to treat him. There were those who definitely considered him a full fledged villain, others held differently.

But that's not the point. The comparison to Yeravam is intended to explain how a man of such advanced Torah scholarship can be off the derech. My answer was that people of even higher caliber went off the derech, so it is possible to happen here too. Therefore, if you are correct, that Rav Kook did not fall as far as those others, you have supported my point even more. Because if such great people can fall as far as Yeravam did, surely they can fall as far as Rav Kook did.

Second, Korach had the Roshei HaSanhedrin on his side, who we can assume were greater than all the prominent rabbonim who supported Rav Kook. So just because someone has prominent rabbis respecting him doesn’t mean he’s not a villain, nor does it mean Rav Kook cannot be compared to any of those others, since they, too, had the respect of many great Tzadikim.
(Rashi didn't say the Roshei Sanhedrin had a vested interest in Korach's legitimacy. Merely that they benefited from his money, which is legal tender whether he is legitimate or not. His donations were not contingent upon his being a Tzadik.)

In the days of Korach, too, someone could have said, "Would these great Roshei Sanhedrin respect a terrible villain? So Korach can’t be bad!"

So the possibility of being a villain as great as Korach or Yeravam still exists despite having great Tzadikim respecting you

---

Great people originally thought Shabse Tzvi was Moshaich; that Rav Yonason Eyebushitz was a follower of Shabse Tzvi; that the Ramchal was a heretic and a villain; and more.

This happens for many reasons. The Maharsha (Gittin 56a) explains that if the followers are not worthy, Hashem will, as a punishment, make the leaders foolish. The Hafla'ah says the same thing. This has happened even in the days of Chazal. If the generation is not worthy, Hashem blinds the eyes of its leaders. This is a punishment for the generation, not necessarily an imperfection in the leaders.

And "vested interest" doesn't have to have financial value. The Marahrashdam writes that, regarding the Halachah of following the majority, that it only applies if the entire group sat down together to discuss the issue, and the majority of people within the group decided one way. But if individuals decided amongst themselves without discussing it previously in a group setting, that is not considered a majority, since everyone did not hear the counter arguments. And, he continues, once you decide one way or the other, it is too late to then get together with the group, because once you formed your opinion, you have a vested interest not to change it.

Of course, I do not mean to say that any specific person has any vested interests in anything. Rather, that a disagreement such as this cannot be diluted by saying Rav Kook had people who respected him, since history - and the Halachah - shows that having good people respect you is not proof of your legitimacy. It does not disprove those who say he was a villain even if he had great people who respected him. That has happened in the past, even with villains.

And especially with Rav Kook in particular, where during the earlier part of his career, his objectionable statements were not yet made by him, or not yet publicized.

---

The issue over here is not Rav Kook's Zionistic ideas. That was unanimously agreed upon by the great Gedolim to be terribly misguided. Like I said, the Gedolei Yisroel were dead against creating a Jewish State. Only the Mizrachi was for it. Nobody else. That his ideas are heresy there was not much disagreement. The issue is, does having such ideas make him personally a heretic? Or merely misguided? Is he to be ignored or disgraced? That is the disagreement.

---

Having a mesorah means having Rebbeim and Rebbeim of those rebbeim who handed down your positions. Yet Rav Kook had no such thing. No predecessors or line of tradition that he was continuing. If such a tradition exists in our religion, how come nobody except Rav Kook ever heard of it?

Rav Kooks' position was created by himself, as opposed to any such chain of tradition.

The Chofetz Chaim's dismissal of him ("Kook, Shmook!" is the exact quote) doesn't sound like something that paragon of Shemiras Halashon would say about someone following a legitimate Mesorah, no? Or Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld's description of him as a "Purim Rav the whole year". Yet both do not come close to the blunt labels of villain, apikores, and kofer that other Gedolim heaped upon him.

There are numerous opinions about Rav Kook, but none of them claim he was merely following a "different mesorah" than we are. He was either sadly mistaken, misled, a simple apikores, or, as the Zionists hold, correct.

Where would such an alternate mesorah come from? Who are its sources? No, there is no such mesorah.

---

As I said, different Gedolim had different opinions about Rav Kook. The Satmar Rav ZTL rules clearly that he had the status of an Apikores.

He bases this on a number of statements of Rav Kook that he says he saw first hand in his (Rav Kooks) writings, which include, it seems, statements about the non-frum Jews, probably the soccer players.

True he did not say they do not have to be frum, but he did say that their playing soccer in Israel is enough to make them praiseworthy to Hashem (Hanosen l'yaef Koach etc.) and holy even though they are total atheists and the soccer playing actually takes place on Shabbos.

That's pretty bad, and nobody disagrees with that. It's much worse than a misconstruing of the "pintele yid".

The Satmar Rav quotes Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos who explains why, if a Chazan skips the blessing of V'lamalshinim we suspect he is a Apikores, even though if someone skips Techiyas Hameisim we do not suspect him for denying Techiyas Hameisim.

This is because if someone refrains from cursing the Apikorsim we suspect he is one of them, even if the person may be the Gadol Hador (as was the case in the Gemora). But if a person skips Techiyas Hameisim there is no such suspicion.

Therefore, he says, if someone considers them holy and praiseworthy he surely is not cursing them when he should be...

Agree or disagree, that’s his position, based on Halachic grounds.

Also, a "toeh b’shikul hadaas" becomes a plain Apikores when it was possible for him to have seen his mistake and willfully - due to vested interest or otherwise - espoused anti-Torah ideas.

Rav Kook was perceived by this group of Gedolim to have been way above the empty arguments he put forth on behalf of Zionism and his other deviant ideas. He was perceived as trying to fit a square peg into a round hole for the sake of Zionism.

Regarding Rav Hutner, it is true that when he was young he was a Talmid of Rav Kook, and that Rav Kook had a tremendous influence on him, in many ways. However, as time went on, Rav Hutner changed his position towards Rav Kook drastically, distancing himself from him in very obvious ways. He never, ever quoted Rav Kook in any of his Maamarim or Seforim or Shiurim in Yeshiva. In the '60's he took down Rav Kook's picture that he once had in his Sukkah - a public statement.

Although he definitely did not publicly humiliate Rav Kook, but he made sure not to give him any public honor, either, despite his being a Talmid. He made sure that his students knew that he felt Rav Kook was wrong.

---

The Imrei Emes said that he had a letter from Rav Kook retracting his statement about the soccer players. Not because it was misunderstood, but simply because he regretted it. And some other statements in his books as well.

However, as an Odom Godol said to the Imrei Emes about that:

The whole world has his books - with the statements - and only the Imrei Emes has this letter. If the whole world would have the letter and only the Imrei Emes the books, that would be fine. But he publicly made statements, wrote them in his books, people built their lifestyles on them - and then, in private, he tells one person that he regrets it.

But the public still has the old version!

Rav Kook never publicly retracted the statements that he said publicly. It is altogether possible that he regretted everything he said, but if nobody knows what his "new" policies are - and they are still following the old policies, he still has mislead the masses of people.

Many of his followers even deny that Rav Kook ever wrote such a letter. In any case, a public policy cannot be retracted privately. His followers are still following his public policies, and even if there is a "Rav Kook" who we don’t know, who regretted a lot of what he said, the "Rav Kook" that is being followed in Mizrachi circles is the well-known, public one.

---

Rav Zonnenfeld contacted the Satmar Rav enlisting his help against Rav Kook. The Satmar Rav's response to Rav Zonnenfeld is printed in the Teshuvos Divrei Yoel. That Teshuva contains the strongest of statements that I have ever seen against Rav Kook. In there he does say that in light of the things Rav Kook wrote and said it obvious that one may not rely on his psakim in any way whatsoever. But at the time the Satmar Rav was not yet head of the Edah Hachareidis, so I do not know whether the Edah made that Teshuva their official position.

---

Rav Kook's vast knowledge of Torah, which is not contested, does not diminish the accuracy of the charges leveled against him. The contention is that he is a Torah giant like Korach and Yeravam, and Shabse Tzvi, all from who we see that a person's Torah learning is no guarantee of reliability.

The charges against Rav Kook are that he believed in values that are directly opposed to those of the Torah, most prominently the idea that people who do not believe in G-d, are not even Tinokos Shenishbu, and are even anti-Torah, are considered "holy", if they contribute, physically and not even spiritually, to the building up of civilization in Eretz Yisroel, and will do teshuva because they live there. Then there are the other super-Zionist teachings, and bizarre things in that direction, things about Moshiach and the like. (There are other strange teachings as well, though less conflicting with basic Torah principles, such as his ideas about vegetarianism and other things, but they are irrelevant to this discussion).

The problem is that the quality of his Torah and reasoning for his conclusions in these areas are much much weaker than his Torah in other, non-Zionistic areas, so much so that if we would not know better, we would say that they for sure were not said by him.

But unfortunately we know they were. They are in his seforim, and well documented. And, again, we are not talking about plain errors or mistakes - everyone can blunder, even the greatest - we are talking about values and hashkafos and statements that are against the very fundamentals of our Torah, the simplest being that Mitzvos make you holy and aveiros make you unholy. It’s like Aleph Bais. And nobody, including Rav Kook, has ever come up with anything close to making sense out of this.

The stories written about Gedolim praising him are mostly undocumented. The true ones, however, if you check them out, mostly took place before he came out with and spread the problematic Torahs. As you said, he was known as a prodigy. Things changed as he developed and publicized his teachings.

---

Rav Yeruchim Gorelik ZTL, a Rosh Yeshiva in Yeshiva University, used to tell how when he was a boy, he and his father were by the Chofetz Chaim when the Chofetz Chaim unwrapped the fish he was about to eat from the newspaper that the fish merchant wrapped it in. In that paper, the Chofetz Chaim saw quoted Rav Kook's famous statements about the heretical soccer players in Israel, about how holy they are because they’re building up the land etc. The Chofetz Chaim made a fist, and said "Kook? Kook shmook!"

Basically, he's not even worth thinking about what he said. A simple but effective dismissal.

That's from the Chofetz Chaim. Whether you are going to consider him an Apikores for making such statements of not, we certainly reject the statements themselves, in nothing but the strongest terms.

The Chofetz Chaim's statement of Kook Shmook being a "ridicule, not a cherem" does not mean the Chofetz Chaim did NOT consider him a machti es harabim. It was not the Chofetz Chaim's halachic ruling on Rav Kook, merely a one-time reaction.

That story was told over first hand in public countless times, and Rav Berel Soloveichik in Brisk of Yerushalayim used to tell it to his Talmidim as an example of what the Chofetz Chaim held of Rav Kook.

That is from the paragon of Shemiras Halashon. That and the statement that the Zionists were real Amalekim.
If the Chofetz Chaim was not deterred from saying such things, it means there is nothing wrong with saying it. And that is because that idea of Rav Kook's, that those who desecrate Hashem's name, desecrate His holy day, and step on the Torah are holy because of some involvement in real estate development in Eretz yisroel, is so unholy and so against the Torah that the Chofetz Chaim was teaching us what our reaction should be: "Kook shmook."

Don't forget also - that Rav Kook was accepted a lot more before he started with the Zionism thing. Many Gedolim were impressed with him - he was indeed an impressive person - but changed their tune about him after he started with the stuff about the soccer players and the Zionism.

And that was not the worst thing that was said about Rav Kook. The Satmar Rav ZTL writes that Rav Kooks seforim are full of Apikorsus, and it is clearly prohibited to use him as a rabbi regarding any issue at all.

---

Rav Kook was accused of making up these teachings ex nihilo. It is those teachings that one would have to find a source for. Finding more sourceless teachings doesn't help the case.

---

Besides the soccer players, we're talking about the very idea that a State of Israel itself is not only a holy thing, but it constitutes the "birth" or "rebirth" of the nation; that Eretz Yisroel wants even reshayim to come - and of course if they do they will end up doing Teshuva; that nowadays, in ikvesa demeshicha, most reashayim, even apikorsim, are not in the category of al tischaber larasha afilu lekarvo teTorah, but rather have neshomos from the "olam hatohu" (and he can tell which is which, by the way) which are higher than the neshomos of regular people (from the "olam hatikun") and therefore, we don’t apply to them the prayer of velmalshinim, but rather we bring them in close; that it is a mitzvah to love kofrim; that those Tzadikim who do not do this but rather fulfill what Tzadikim have been doing for all generations who did not know all of this, it is because Hashem puts hatred in their hearts against these people to make them stay away from them in order not to be influenced, but talmidei chachamim who are higher than them realize that they are not to be distanced but brought close; that people coming to Eretz Yisroel nowadays and making a yishuv there and a state are actually fulfilling kibutz goliyos; and it is worth even being maikel in halachah (I.e. heteirim of dochek) in order to have this state and this yishuv because not doing so postpones the coming of Moshiach; hashkaficly and halachicly he held that a Jewish State and yishuv in EY nowadays versus not having them is comparable in numerous ways to the difference between golus and geulah (e.g. he says that it is not reasonable that because of shmitah Jews should be unable to live in eretz yiosroel, because just as Chazal say that it is not reasonable that the violation of an issur derabonon caused the churban bayis sheini and golus - and so the shagas aryeh proves that birkas haTorah is doraisa because if it were derabonon we would not have incurred golus due to lo barchu baTorah tachilah - so too since nowadays shmitah is derabonon it cannot be that we should have to fulfill shmitah in a way that it would prevent Jews from living in eretz yisroel due to hardship, since we see that an issur derabonon cannot cause churban bayis and golus). The list does not end.

Neturei Karta II

The Hisachdus Harabonim never approved of any rally with palestinians, nor were any of them involved in any capacity. Some Modern Orthodox Jews decided that all "non Zionist" Jews must be in the same boat and so they organized a boycott of the Hisachdus Harabbonim hechsheirim until the time that the Hisachdus Harabonim would condemn rallying with Palestinians.

The hisachdus never had anything to do with such a rally nor do they approve of the Neturei Karta. They have spoken out several times against them. One of the Hisachdus rabbis, Menashe Philip, has tapes available preaching how the Satmar Rav ZTL did not and would not approve of today’s NK. Nevertheless, even though the Hisachdus had no more to do with that rally than the OU or the RCA, the "cherem" was happily adhered to by many people, who refused to buy anything with their hechsher.

---

The NK of Rav Amaram Blau is not the NK that I am talking about - i.e. the one based in Monsey, NY. They have the same name, but they are two totally different organizations, and the Satmar Rav's support of Rav Amram Blau does not imply support of everyone who calls himself NK. Rav Amram Blau never joined protests with Palestinians. And the Satmar Rav never supported such a thing.

My point is not that no NK come from Satmar; merely that it is not a Satmar organization, branch or offshoot.

A talmid may be a Talmid but he does not represent his Rebbi. In fact, the Satmar Rebbe said this numerous times --- you cannot always judge a Rebbi's stance by that of the Talmidim. One of his oft-quoted vertlach is about Rav Yochana ben Zakai on his death bed, praying that "they" do not take him to gehinnom. He said this right when his talmidim entered the room. The reason: The "they" in his prayers referred to his talmidim. He was praying that they don't misrepresent him after he is gone.

Plenty of other talmidim of the Satmar Rav disagree with Rav Avrohom Letiner on this. They can have a machlokes, but you cannot say that because Rav Leitner holds this way that means the Satmar Rav did, too.

---

The Kashiu Rav is a supporter of the NK. In fact, he is their leading "daas torah" in all matters. I don't know the position of the Vishnitzer Rebbe.

---

I know that the Neturei Karta position is that since violating the Oaths is Yehoreg Val Yaavor, we should allow the Arabs to take over even if Jews will be killed. Well, I don't know if that's the "official" position but I've heard it from NK people as a given.

They are mistaken. Because Yehoreg Val Yaavor means it is better to die than to do the aveirah of violating the Oaths. But Yehoreg Val Yaavor does not mean that innocent people who did NOT do the Aveirah of violating the Oath and who would not c"v do the aveirah should die. And since those who would c"v die if the Arabs take over would not have violated the Oaths anyway, their deaths r"l have nothing to do with Yehoreg Val Yaavor.

In any case, the Satmar Rebbe ZTL writes clearly in 2 places that I know of --- Vayoel Moshe p.8 and Divrei Yoel Bo p. 250 -- that the only recourse we have is to pray for Moshiach to dismantle the Medinah, because political dismantling of the Medinah by the nations would c"v lead to Jewish deaths, which is contrary to the NK position

---

The NK definitely do have their problems - there is no justification to protesting together with Arabs who currently - yes, even though it is due to the Zionists - want to kill Jews. This is a violation of hischabrus im reshayim and chilul Hashem. The Satmar Rebbe never did such a thing and never would do such a thing. He did organize protests against Israel, but never were Arabs invited and never did he join an Arab protest.

As a matter of fact, it is one of the tenets of Satmar Hashkafa that Hischabrus im reshayim is prohibited even if the cause itself you are joining with them for is a good and just cause (as per the Alchich in Mishle ch. 1).

However, their efforts to tell the world that the Zionists do not represent world Jewry, that the State of Israel does not represent world Jewry, that the Zionist leaders have no right to represent world Jewry, and that it was Zionism, not Judaism, that they have a fight with -- that is a good thing. In that they are following the Hashkafa of the Satmar Rebbe who stated, orally and in writing, that it is a great Mitzvah to tell the non-Jews of the world all of those things.

And in the case of the Iranian Jews, the judge said that the reason he is sparing their lives is because he has learned that they are Jews but not Zionists.

It is a good thing to counteract the propaganda of the Zionists that try to frame the issue as Arabs vs. Jews. Unfortunately, their propaganda has become a self-fulfilling prophecy and the Arab world, as well as the world at large, believe it. That is the other half of the NK's mistakes - they believe that in the current environment it is possible to undo the misimpression that the world has to the point where we can be at peace with the Arabs. That is not possible. We can of course try to do hatzolah purtah, but we should not think that in the current environment, the Arabs in general are anything but deadly enemies. That is not going to be undone so quickly.

And you are also correct that to save Jewish lives you hug and kiss your enemy or bow or do whatever you can. Yaakov did that when he met Esav, and R. Yochanan ben Zakai did that when he met Aspasyanus. Our seforim say that this is the key to reducing anti-semitism.

However, neither Yaakov nor RYB"Z ever protested or joined together with the enemy. That is crossing the line, and is not justified at all.

---

The problem with the Neturei Karta is not that they are anti-zionist. And the problem is not that they tell that to the nations of the world. The problems are: (a) they profess giving back eretz yisroel to the arabs which is a danger to the Jews living there, and an idea which their own recognized Godol Hador, the Satmar Rav zt"l said himself in writing to be unacceptable, and (b) they join with Arabs which constitutes hischabrus im reshayim, which is prohibited especially according to Satmar Hashkafa, even for a good cause.

If they were to protest against both innocent Jewish AND Arab deaths, that would be OK - nobody can object to protesting against innocents being killed, no matter what nation they are from. But the fact that they only protest against innocent Arab deaths while omitting the fact that innocent Jews are being killed as well, sends a frightfully wrong message to the public.

---

Whatever objections there are to the Neturei Karta, and they are described on the site clearly, the NK do NOT want Jews to be killed; they do NOT want the Arabs to win the wars; they do NOT celebrate when suicide bombers attack. No Jews does. All this is part of the smear campaign that Zionists use in order to discredit the more conspicuous, if extreme, elements of their opposition.

---

The NK are wrong for carrying Palestinian flags, as I mentioned, and one of the reasons is, the message that they want to convey is not the message that is being received. The message received is that they are on the side of the Palestinians and want Jews to be killed, and I don’t blame people for understanding it that way. But unfortunately they have a serious communication problem. Because in fact they do not want Jews to be killed, they only want peace, and they believe that by doing what they are doing, they are going to calm down the Arabs. Their problem is one of politics and communications - where those things are concerned, they are way, way off. And their tactics therefore are very wrong. But their problem is not a Judaism problem.

---

When identifying "deviant sects" it's important to know not merely what a person is doing wrong but why. When we talk about Reform, Conservative, Zionism, or Lubavitch, for instance, the problem with all those are that their religious beliefs are different than those that they should be. The problem with the Neturei Karta, on the other hand, is that their political views are different than they should be.

So you can have let's say a Yeshiva guy from Bnei Brak, who will retain his Yeshivishe Bnei Brak Hashkofos, but if he believes that by waving a Palestinian Flag in public, he will show the world that he is for peace, and that what the Arabs are teaching their children in school, that is, that Jews want to kill them all, is not true, and that doing so is the way to politically prevent suicide bombers and terrorism, you may say he's crazy, but his problem is not a religious one. His religious beliefs are the same as yours - his political beliefs are driving him.

And so, Neturei Karta are basically people with Satmar Hashkofos but their own political world view. The Satmar Rav himself said that handing Eretz Yisroel back to the Palestinians is not a good idea - halvai it would be! - and they somehow try to avoid that reality. But their problems are not the result of different religious beliefs.

So if you want you can say their viewpoint is meshuga, but since its not a religious viewpoint that you would be criticizing but rather a secular, political one, you are not calling them a deviant religious movement.

---

There are many factions even among the small Neturei Karta, some more extreme than the next. Some are even fringe NK's, which means a fringe of a fringe, Hashem yishmerienu. And even these fringed believe since the Arabs are obviously just fine people who would gladly be nice to us if we would only give them back Israel, thus, anybody who says differently, who talks against the Arabs or who thinks that we should not give back Israel, is obviously a Zionist, because why else would anybody NOT want to give it back to them? Why else, they say, would anybody say such bad things about suicide bombers?

The most vocal faction in the NK follows a rabbi named Moshe Ber Beck of Monsey; their "daas torah" is primarily the Kashiu Rav. Rabbi Beck has written several seforim about Zionism. Rabbi Weiss, who is the most prominent of the NK's (because he speaks English well. Sigh.) is one of his people.

There is another faction within them, a break off from the above group, consisting of a few young men who disagree with Rabbi Beck regarding "strategy." I am not sure which are more extreme.

Then there is a group who follow a rabbi currently in Montreal named Helfand (he was in the news many years ago when he was put in jail because he was teaching Judaism to a young Russian boy, whose mother objected to this and nailed Rabbi Helfand on kidnapping charges. Legally, if you have a minor in your home against his parents' wishes you are a kidnapper. He went to jail for a while.) His group is considered "too wild" by the other groups above. He also wrote a book about Zionism. I think it is called "derech hatazlah", or something like that.

There are other little groups as well. None of the above groups are affiliated with the NK in Eretz Yisroel, and in fact the EY NK and the American NK are always fighting with each other. Moshe Hirsch, the man you always see in the pictures with Arafat, is considered "crazy" by the American factions.

I think that kind of describes the situation. Bizarre, but true.

In any case, the strangeness of their beliefs comes from their misguided notion that the Arabs would simply take back Israel, and peace would reign. Because they believe that, the only reason they can attribute to someone who says differently, is that he is a Zionist.

Of course, that would make the Satmar Rebbe a Zionist, too, but they are in denial. They won't see past their own distorted perception of reality.

---

Although the NK do say that their mission is merely to convince the Arabs that we want peace, they do a lot more than that - and their actions speak a lot louder than their words. They protest specifically and only for the side for the Arabs against the Zionists. Unfortunately, neither the Zionists side nor the Arab side is worthy of our support. If they want peace, which is worthy of our efforts, and they want to protest, let them become peaceniks and protest for peace, and if they want to protest the loss of innocent Arab lives, that's fine, but let them protest at least with a much vigor the loss of innocent Jewish lives as well. The fact that they do not means that they are the confused and misguided ones - not Rav Shach and Rav Yaakov.

There is nothing wrong with wanting peace - and there is nothing wrong with wanting to get rid of Zionism - but peace does not mean siding, or even appearing to side, with people who want to kill Jews.

---

The NK in Monsey today are not Talmidim of R. Amram Blau. With the exception of Rabbi Beck, they aren’t even old enough to have ever met him. The name "Neturei Karta" is not an official name of any organization or group, but rather anyone can call himself Neturei Karta.

---

Neturei Karta I

The Neturei Karta are not Satmar. Satmar never got along with them, they don't come from Satmar (among them are people from various places - there are those from Vishnitz and even Young Israel backgrounds), don’t send their kids to Satmar schools, they have nothing to do with Satmar. Their support is more from Kashiu and Tush, not Satmar.

But people think well if they’re both against Israel, they must be the same. Norman Lamm made that blunder when he gave a speech in Kiljava, Finland in '69 (which later, if memory serves, became an article in Tradition magazine) called "The Ideology of the NK", and instead of NK, he made his whole speech about Satmar ideology.

---

The Neturei Karta share the first mission with Satmar - to tell the world that Jews have no fight with Arabs and it's the Zionists that made this whole fight with them. In that, they have had some success. The hostages in Iran were surprisingly spared the death penalty, and at the trial, the judge said it was because they are Jews not Zionists, and they do not support Zionism. This was due to the efforts of the Neturei Karta with the Iranian government, when they went to Iran and publicly proclaimed that not all Jews are Zionists and therefore your fight is not with these hostages, leave them alone.

An Arab lady in Canada received a letter from her daughter in the West Bank stating that she was going to blow herself up on a suicide mission, but she learned that there are two types of Jews ... and that non-Zionists are innocent.

There are other such stories. In colleges, most recently Yale U, they speak about this, explaining to the public that Zionism is a political thing, and that the acts of Zionists do not represent the Torah.

In Yale, on their way out, the NK were accosted by a group of Lubavitcher Chasidim yelling at them for what they do. A professor (not Jewish) who was at the lecture interrupted the Lubavitcher, and said "Excuse me, this man is trying to save your life! He is telling people not to hate you! He is trying to make peace between Jews and Arabs!".

They do NOT support Arab attacks on Jews, in fact, they speak up against it to the Arabs themselves, they do NOT take money from the Arabs (although they are offered), and they do NOT want Jews to be killed at all.

What they want it peace between the Jews and the Arabs. They believe that Arab killing and terrorism will be reduced when the Arabs realize that not every Jew who they target is their enemy. Like Rav Yochanan ben Zakai tried to do.

The problem is, they believe - and this is where they dramatically part company with Satmar - that the Arabs would really not kill Jews if they would just get their land back. If the State would be dismantled, given back to the Arabs, the Jews would be able to live their in peace.

Um, no. They wouldn't. It’s ironic that the NK are guilty of underestimating the damage that the Zionists have done in terms of generating Arabs hatred. Everyone agrees - even the Mizrachi (see Rav Soloveichick, Five Addresses, p.79) that the Arab bloodthirstiness against the Jews is the result of the State of Israel. The religious Zionists hold the sacrifices of life "are worthwhile" for the State, and the anti-Zionists hold that Jewish life is worth more than any State.

The Arabs have been brainwashed for 100 years - since the advent of Zionism - that Jews want to conquer their land. Their leaders have fed them lies about Judaism being a murdering and terrorist religion, and the Jews are all Nazis. They have been taught that theirs is a noble cause of regaining their homeland that was taken from them by the Zionists. The NK think that they can undo that if the Arabs get the land back.

Don’t ask me where they got that idea. It’s way too late for that, as we all know. Now, as the Satmar Rebbe said, the only safe way of dismantling the State is when Moshiach comes.

The second point of departure with Satmar is their joining hand in rallies and the sort with Palestinians against Jews. They claim that their rallying is only in protest to innocent Palestinian lives that are being lost, and they do it to show that Jews care about innocent non-Jewish lives.

The problem is, it nice that they see it that way, but when you commit a public act you have to consider how the public understands it. And the public clearly understands it as support for the Palestinian cause, which currently is: Kill the Jews.

Satmar is constantly fighting with them over this. The Satmar Rebbe never did such things, and never sponsored such things.

They have their own Rabbonim and supporters, but it's not Satmar. Never was.

They should not do this. It is OK to try to negotiate with the enemy to save Jewish lives, the way rescue workers negotiated with the Nazis to ransom Jews or the way Rav Yochanan ben Zakai did with the Romans; and its even OK to hug and kiss the enemy who wants to kill you - the way Yaakov kissed Esav - in order to placate him to try to save Jewish lives. Almost anything is OK if it saves Jewish lives.

But you cannot appear as if you support Jewish deaths. Even if that is the farthest thing from your mind. That is a chilul Hashem, since c"h depends on the perception of what you are doing rather than your actual intentions.

Their intention is only to make peace and to save Jewish lives; and you have to honestly give them credit for accomplishing that at times - but their actions appear to the world as supporting terrorism and the Palestinian stance of killing Jews. That was never acceptable, not in Satmar nor anywhere else.

---

When the Satmar Rebbe was supporting the Neturei Karta, in the days of R. Amram Blau ZT"L, they weren't joining Arabs in Protests demanding that the Jews give back Eretz Yisroel. The Satmar Rebbe ZTL writes clearly that we should NOT physically hand over Eretz Yisroel to the Arabs since that will be a big sakanah for Jews, because the Arabs will not distinguish between one Jew and the next (Divrei Yoel bo, p. 250; see also Vayoel Moshe p.8).

He says in both those places that the only thing we can do is pray to Hashem that the Medinah be dismantled.

The NK preach to give back the land physically to the Arabs; the Satmar Rebbe was against that.

The Satmar Rebbe also quotes numerous times in his writings, the comment of the Alshich im Mishle (ch. 1) that we may not join with reshayim even for a good cause. The Arabs, although they are no worse than any other umos haolam, as plain goyim they are certainly not people who we should join with in common endeavors, even for a just cause.

R. Avrohom Leitner is indeed a talmid of the Satmar Rav but he does not represent Satmar. Not in the days of the Satmar Rebbe ZTl and not now. I said that Satmar does not support the NK; R. Avrohom Letiner's support does not contradict that.

The protests do help. I know that. And the Satmar Rebbe was in favor of announcing to the world that the Zionists do not represent Jews - he said it is a great Mitzvah and we even must be Moser Nefesh to do it (Divrei Yoel Naso). And he himself organized an anti-Israel rally in Washington in '59 (details are documented in Igros Maharit, in the back). But never, ever did he profess joining with those who - granted, due to Zionist propaganda and aggression, but nonetheless - currently want to kill Jews. And he himself says, as I mentioned before, that the Arabs indeed do want that, and they will not distinguish between one Jew (Zionist) and the next (non-Zionist).

So the idea, according to the Satmar Rebbe, is to tell the world - and of course the Arabs - that we are not their enemies; the Zionists are - not the Jews. But until the Arabs are totally convinced of this, giving them back the land will only cause Jewish deaths.

It is true, too, that keeping the land is also a sakanah for Jews; and that the Zionists painted us into a corner here - killed if we do and killed if we don’t - and that’s why he says that the only viable option is to pray to G-d to get us out of the mess that the Zionists got us into by getting rid of the Medinah in a safe manner.

It is true that the signs at the rallies do say things like "Judaism Yes Zionism No", but when the issue of people getting killed is addressed, the signs - and speeches - talk exclusively about innocent Palestinians being killed. I know of course that the NK is against killing Jews, and I also know that the Goyim do not think that the NK does want Jews to be killed, and I also know that Zionists distort this. But unless at least equal effort is put into telling the Arabs - in public at the rallies themselves - to stop killing innocent Jews, it still suggests to many that you are taking the side of the Arabs, not only with regard to whose land it should be (which is not a problem) but in regard to who is and who is not suffering the loss of innocent lives. What the NK should do, is what Paul Wolfowitz tried to do at the rally in Washington, that is, to protest against the loss of innocent lives on both sides - and you will accomplish your objective of telling the Arabs we don’t want to kill them as well as you do now, but without seeming to take one side over the other.

It is true that if you do this, the Zionists will still say it is a chilul Hashem - and when Mr. Wolfowitz tried to do that he was booed off the stage by the crowd, which was itself a tremendous chilul Hashem, an irresponsible display of hisgarus b'umos, and sent the world the dangerous and false message that Jews don’t care about the deaths of innocents unless those innocents are Jews, but you wont be able to satisfy those people anyway, nor should you try to. Who cares what they think?

You are right that the Zionists are the enemies of the Jews, but part of what makes them so dangerous is that they have succeeded in convincing the Goyim that they represent the Jews. And even though G-d fearing Jews are working to convince the world that that is not true, and sometimes succeeding, still, there are enough Arabs in the world who have NOT yet been convinced that the Jews are not their enemies that we should consider it a sakanah to give them back the land.

---

Agudah and Satmar III

The Brisker Rav ZTL was the - and I repeat: THE - most anti-zionist of all the litvishe Gedolim. The Briskers do not take money from the Israeli government, nor do they even vote in the Israeli elections, as per the horaah of the Brisker Rav. The Brisker Rav was the one who told Rav Amram Blau that the reason he (the Brisker Rav) would not lay down in front of the busses on Shabbos to protest the Chilul Shabbos is because he holds the Zionists are capable of murder, and they would run him over; the Brisker Rav was the one who said about the establishment of the Medinah: "It is not that the want a Medinah therefore they have to uproot the Torah - their desire is to uproot the Torah, the purpose of the Medinah is to help them do it."

---

The positions of the Satmar Rav and Rav Aharon Kotler, and the Brisker Rav ZTL are all Divrei Elokim Chaim. At Rav Aharon Kotler's funeral in Lakewood, the Satmar Rav gave the most amazing hesped, and when the Satmar Rav was offered the job of Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (after the petirah of Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld), he declined, and when they asked him for a recommendation, he told them to ask the Brisker Rav. They surely disagreed - very strongly sometimes - but they did agree that they are all authentic Gedolei Yisroel. And one of the things they all agreed on was that there should not be a State of Israel altogether.

As far as majority, it’s impossible to determine. According to the Satmar Rav, the majority was on his side (!). He writes this in Vayoel Moshe. (He said that the Belzer Rebbe R. Yisachar Dov, for example, is equal to many of his opponents put together.) Part of this dispute is who counts as a godol and who’s bigger than who to begin with. It's impossible to determine majority here once you bring in the quality factor, which you can’t avoid.

He also says that the principla of "rov gedolim" does not apply in such cases, for various halachic reasons.

Second, even within a given "camp" there are disagreements regarding various issues. The Agudah is not a monolithic entity. Many Gedolim disagreed with others within the Agudah, and what the Agudah decides to do when the dust clears does not mean that all their Gedolim agreed with it. Sometimes, things are done in any political organization, the Agudah included, that is explicitly against the wishes of their Gedolim. The Satmar Rav actually mentions this - that the acts of the Agudah do not necessarily represent the opinion of their own Gedolim - as a reason not to consider those Gedolim as automatically supporting the Agudah. You have to consult the Gedolim themselves to see what they say, and to determine if their position has not been distorted or ignored by some laypeople (see also Letter of Rav Chaim Ozer, printed in the back of the Igros Chazon Ish, the he learned from "experience" that in organizations, the organization do not always follow the wishes of their Moetzes. Rav Shach also has a letter to this effect, almost duplicating, word for word, Rav Chaim Ozer's statements.)

In such cases, you should follow your Rebbeim. If you are in doubt as to who you should have as your Rebbeim, then you are fully entitled to follow those who find more favor in your eyes. You have to choose somehow, and its better to choose based on who you hold is bigger, or more correct, rather than whatever the newspapers say you should do.

---

The Satmar Rav disagreed with the Gedolim in the Agudah very strongly on many issues. But remember that his was the most glorious Hesped that was said at the funeral of Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL in Lakewood. In Vayoel Moshe when he writes about the Agudah he blames the baalei batim and layleaders for not following their Rabbonim - and he even quotes Rav Chaim Ozer ZTL in support. He states clearly there that he knows for a fact that many Rabbonim in the Agudah are/were very upset about certain things the Agudah has said and done regarding Eretz Yisroel, but the Moetzes has no power to stop it.

Whatever his criticisms and issues he had with the Gedolim of the Agudah, he was never mevazeh them and nothing close to what the Neturei Karta says about them.

---

The Mizrachi places say only Satmar are against the state because if they would teach that (a) it was not only the chasidim who did not want the medinah but every single godol in the entire world, except for the mizrachi, and (b) it was not merely looked at as a disagreement in halachah or hashkafa, but mizrachi was looked at by the others as a deviant movement, off the derech, to be opposed as dangerous to klall yisroel, and (c) Rav kook and Rabbi Neirah themselves were far from universally accepted as gedolim at all, then their school's values are a little less appealing to their audiences. someone may ask "hello, why do I need to be on the side that the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, Rav Chaim Brisker, the Chazon Ish and the other greats of the generations considered off the derech?

Rav Elchonon Wasserman, who was not a chosid, but rather the greatest student of the Chofetz Chaim, wrote that having a Jewish State is likely to be the worst disaster to klall yisroel in history of their golus (he was killed before '48).
None of the above mentioned giants were chasidim. They were all passionately against Zionism. The Brisker Rav (who was so not a chosid) said that the State of Israel was made specifically to cause Jews to become non-religious.

When you learn Mishna Brura, do they tell you that the author of that sefer, who you are using as a Halachic authority for so many issues, considered the hashkofos in your school to be off the derech?

And (if you are a boy), when you learn Gemora, that the author of Kovetz Shiurim, who you respect as one of the greatest roshei yeshiva of the 20th century, said that religious Zionism is nothing but religion coupled with avodah zorah?

Even if the Mizrachi wants to say that all these Gedolim were wrong, they are guilty of deception by describing the opposition to the Medinah by saying "the chasidim were against it."

The halachic "reasoning" of the zionists in creating the state has been discussed here, at length. It's bogus. That should not come as a surprise. There was a great torah scholar - greater than Rav Kook and Rav Neirah - named Korach, who had 250 heads of Sanhedrin on his side, who ended up literally in the pits of hell, and there was Yeravam ben Nevat - who was destined to sit right next to Dovid Hamelech in Gan Eden, who later led Klall Yisroel to avodah zorah. There was also the great Torah scholar, miracle worker, the Shabse Tzvi y"s, who was a false messiah, and who G-d allowed to live long enough for us to see him, in the end, convert to Islam?

Judaism teaches - and nobody disagrees with this - that great rabbis can go off the derech, and become even the worst reshayim in the world, and even so, still seem like they are right. Korach had many followers, great Torah scholars. But because their claims were indefensible, they and their group were considered responsible for following them.

The claims of the Zionists have been disproven over and over again. They are actually outlined in detail on the boards. It is a pity and a crime that the Zionist schools keep teaching those outdated and disproven ideas as if they have not been shredded by the great Gedolim of the past century.

Yes, Mizrachi did have some great Talmidei Chachamim, but when it comes to the idea of Zionism, the same objective reasoning that recognizes them as Talmidei Chachamim to begin with, recognizes the absurdity of their position in this area. That is the exact same phenomenon that has happened throughout history with those other major league Torah scholars who went off.

And for those who are not on the level to recognize the halachic absurdity, it should be enough that the great Gedolim considered it such. Rav Shach ZTL writes that if G-d asks him why he was against zionism, all he has to do is point to the Chofetz Chaim and say "because he was."

---

Agudah and Satmar II

The supporters of the Agudah position that we should be involved with the government do not feel that by doing so it is granting legitimacy to the existence of the State. The Chazon Ish was asked this question, and his answer was, "If robbers come to mug me and I engage them in talks to try to reduce the damage they will do, am I thereby legitimizing their act of robbery?"

In other words, nobody said to "ignore" Zionism. We don’t ignore it. We fight it. The question is how. Rav Ahron Kotler ZTL and others believed the best way to fight it is to try to wrest as much political power from the Kofrim as possible and make sure they do the least damage possible. That doesn’t legitimize anything.

Imagine if you were in Nazi Germany before the war, and someone decided that anyone against Nazism should become part of the government in order to counter and weaken the Nazi party as much as possible. That's what Shas is doing.

Nobody wants a Nazi government, but if you have one, obviously you should try to do what you can to make the situation the least bad as possible. Nobody disagrees with the fact that the State if Israel should be made better. But that does NOT imply approval of its existence - merely that we have to manipulate it as much as possible to make sure it doesn’t do more damage that necessary.

---

As stated many times, only Mizrachi wanted the State. The Gedolei Yisroel from Satmar to Lubavitch, from the Yekkes (Rav SRH) to the Briskers, from the Chazon Ish to the Rogachover, were against the Jewish State from the outset.

There was a disagreement ex post facto - after the State was created against the Torah. Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL held that we should try as much as possible to at least make it as religious as possible, thereby accomplishing "hatzolah purtah", even if it means joining the government. Also, someone needs to fight against the religious Zionists on their own grounds, which entails playing on their ball field, so to speak. The Satmar Rebbe ZTL held that joining the government makes you an accessory to the crime after the fact, and the Mizrachi is better fought by distancing ourselves from it rather than politically battling it.

There were many problems caused by the creation of Israel that needed to be dealt with. The three that are relevant to this forum are: One, the anti-semitism generated in the world against Jews because of the actions of Israel and the Zionists, including both the Arab hatred and attacks that happened in retaliation for the Zionists taking the land from them, as well as the world at large who will hold all Jewry responsible for the acts of the State, and if the State acts immorally or tyrannically, Jews all over the world will be perceived as supporting that.

And three, the simple fact that the State exists is a problem, since the Torah said we cant have EY in Golus.

The Gedolim speak about these issues. The Satmar Rebbe held that we should publicly announce to the nations of the world that we Torah Jews are not responsible for the actions of the State, their immorality and aggressiveness is not a Jewish trait, and that Zionism and Judaism are two different things. If someone is anti-Israel, that dos not mean he has to be anti-Jewish.

---

Nobody is talking about collaborating with any Zionists. There are two issues here, and they are separate and independent of each other. They are:

a) What should we do to rid ourselves of the problem of the State of Israel? and

b) Should we tell the world that Zionism is not Judaism and Zionists do not represent Jews.

The Satmar Rav answered the first one by saying that we can only PRAY for G-d's "power from on high" to accomplish that, or, as he puts it in another place, "Eliyahu and Moshiach" to come and eliminate the State. He says explicitly that this is what we shoudl do and this is ALL we can do. He says that the state must be abolished this way "and not through the nations, for if permission of given to the mashchis, he will nto distinguish etc." (Divrei Yoel bo p.250). Meaning, it would be a danger to Klall Yisroel if the abolition of the State would come through the nations.

I know the Neturei Karta don't accept this, and their reasoning, faulty though it be, is that since violating the Oaths is Yehoreg V'Al Yaavor, therefore, even if Jews will die, it is still worthwhile to have the State abolished.

The error in this reasoning is that Yehoreg V'al Yaavor means that if you have a choice to violate the Oaths or die it is better to die. But it does NOT mean that Jews who did NOTHING to violate the Oaths should die because someone else violated them. And since the danger in returning Eretz Yisroel to the Arabs does not only include those who violated to Oaths, but also innocent Jews who did not, would not, and have no intention of ever doing so, the reasoning of Yehoreg Val Yaavor is inapplicable.

As far as the other issue, of course we should try to eliminate the anti-semitism and chilul Hashem that happens because the world thinks that the Zionists and the State of Israel represent Jews and Judaism. But my point was, if you read what the Satmar Rebbe wrote, he said that we cannot succeed at this because of the rabbis with the excuses, and not that we should be moser nefesh but rather that we "would have been moser nefesh" if not for the fact that those rabbis will not allow the success of such a campaign. So to answer your question about what is wrong with mesiras nefesh, I will use a quote from the Lubavitcher Rebbe Rashab zt"l. He said, "Mesiras nefesh does not mean to bang your head against the wall until your head breaks - it means to bang your head against the wall till the wall breaks. If the wall wont break then its not mesiras nefesh - its foolishness." So whatever value trying to eliminate the chilul Hashem and anti-semitism generated by Zionism has, the Satmar Rav is clearly saying that currently it is not going to break the wall.


The Gedolei Yisroel who disagreed with the Satmar Rav held that fighting the Zionists is better done not by open confrontation but by doing, say, what Reuven did when he wanted to save Yosef, or what Aharon HaKohen did when he tried to stop the Egel from being made: Deal with them on their turf - use the State of Israel, and manipulate the political process to make it as frum as possible, thereby accomplishing hatzolah purtah.

Where the Satmar Rav held that voting in the Israeli elections is a sin since it makes you an accomplice to the crime after the fact, Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL held it was a mitzvah because by doing so you can help ensure that at least the worst people will not be controlling the State.

This was a legitimate machlokes l'shem shamayim, with other opinions involved as well (such as the Brisker Rav, who held like neither of the above).

And above all, the Satmar Rav never, ever joined with Arabs in any of his anti-Zionist activities, nor were Arab interests invited to his anti-Zionist rally in Washington, or any of his anti-Zionist activities.

---

The "Agudah" is not a person, and people are what have opinions. The Agudah is a collection of people, some rabobnim, some laypeople, some Gedolei Hador etc. As I explained elsewhere, the Agudah is not a monolithic entity. Even more confusing is that when someone writes something in the name of any organization, you don’t know exactly who is the one or ones responsible for the statement. Rav Chaim Ozer ZTL wrote that about rabbinic organizations in his days, and the same holds true for any organizations. If something is signed and noted by a human being, unless it was forged, we understand that the human being is the one who made the statement; but when something is signed by an organization, we know from experience that such statements can be the expressions of various people. The title of this topic was created by a poster, and I agree with you that it is really something of a misnomer. After WWII, Rav Ahron Kotler ZTL was the leading Torah authority of the Agudah in America, and it is the authority of Torah that we are interested in, not lay people. But as I said, people have opinions, and as it says "aseh lecha rav", not "aseh lecha organization". There is no one opinion that everyone who is part of this organization held, but their opinions are only of interest if and to the extent that they are Torah authorities as individuals. I'd be doing you an injustice discussing "the" opinion of any collective group when humans, not the collective entity, are the one with opinions.

I know first hand (not that Rav Chaim Ozer ZTL needs my confirmation) when I have asked members of different organization about things their organizations said, they responded that they were not the ones in the organizations who said them. I have also heard member Rabbanim complaining about things that organizations wrote that they disagree with but someone with the ability to speak for the organization wrote.

So for instance, on this topic, the Satmar Rebbe ZTL writes (Vayoel Moshe p.353-355) how during the 4th Knesia Gedolah of the Agudah, there we reads in the papers in the name of the Agudah saying that the "Agudah" holds all Jews should move to Eretz Yisroel, and that there were Rabbonim in the Agudah who were upset about it - some even referred to it as "kefirah" ("minus") he writes - but were not consulted when that statement was issued, and . He doesn’t name anyone there, but Rav Boruch Kaplan ZTL used to tell over a story (which I heard from him myself, and has since been printed in various places) where he and Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky ZTL went to visit the Satmar Rebbe, when Rav Yaakov was Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Vodaath, and the Satmar Rebbe asked him about the publicized by the Agudah that all Jews are obligated to move to EY - I am assuming that he was referring to that incident at the Knesia Gedolah - "can you please tell me what their source is for such a psak?"

Rav Yaakov's answer was that he did not sign on that statement, he is not responsible for it, and it was the lay leadership of the Agudah that made the statement.

---

The Steipler did encourage voting, as per his Rebbe, the Chazon Ish, and he held
”L’chorah” this was the answer to the Satmar Rav’s claim against it.

The Chazon Ish (who, as a general rule, the Steipler followed) – and this was also the opinion of Rav Ahron Kotler - held that voting in the Israeli elections does not mean you approve of the existence of the State of Israel. Rather, it means that ex post facto that we have to unfortunately live with it, we are obliged to do damage control and work to at least make sure that those who wield political power over the policies of the government make it as frum as possible – and not c”v vice versa. The Satmar Rebbe held that voting is tacit approval of the Avodah Zorah that is the State of Israel. The Chazon Ish disagreed. This does not mean that the Chazon Ish held the State of Israel is not an Avodah Zorah – it means that voting and involvement in the government does not constitute approval thereof.

So someone apparently wrote the Steipler a letter saying that voting in the Israeli elections is a Halachic violation since it makes you or the person you're voting for partners in the violation of the Oaths (or at least shows your approval). The Steipler said that lechorah the answer is that whereas being involved in the creation of the State of Israel may be a violation of the Oaths, ex post facto involvement in the government is not. He was not sure this was the answer, which is what “lechorah” means. The fact that he did in fact encourage voting means he was comfortable there is an answer to defend the Chazon Ish, whether this is it or not.

This does not mean that other acts, which would show approval of the creation of the State of Israel, are permitted. The Chazon Ish, who encouraged voting in the Israeli elections – “lechorah” for the reason the Steipler stated - also said that anyone who celebrates Yom Haatzmaut is an Apikores, even though doing so is merely “ex post facto” of the violation of the Oaths.

For the record, the Satmar Rav does not say that voting in the elections violates the Oaths. He says that it constitutes Modeh B'Avodah Zorah, and Lifnei Iver, since sitting in the Knesset is assur, and votes are what facilitates that.

---

The Chareidi policy of caring for every Jew is documented and well known. The money raised for rescue efforts, the public prayers said, the official policies in writing for all to see, the speeches constantly given, the Tehillim constantly said.

If some people just refuse to see that, then, no, we are not obligated to go to a rally that we don’t believe in because otherwise people will unreasonably accuse us of something in their imagination.

That's "spiritual blackmail". "Either you participate in my activates even though you believe they are wrong, or else we will go around saying you don’t like Achdus, and since you have an obligation to have good PR, you have to do what we say!"

No, sorry, there's no such obligation. The obligation is only to have clean clothing. Not to wear whatever you demand we wear.

---

In 1950, Rav Yitzchok Sheinen once asked the Chazon Ish which party to vote for in the elections that were being held then. He said whichever party is more chareidi. He added, but in these elections there are no religious parties - there is only Poalei Mizrachi, who are not frum. He then asked the Chazon Ish whether to vote for the Poalei Mizrachi. The Chazon Ish did not answer. (Orchos Rabeinu vol. 5 p.171)

---

Agudah and Satmar I

One opinion is that of the Satmar Rav ZT"L. Those who follow this opinion do not take any money from the Israeli government, do not vote in the Israeli elections, and of course do not participate in the government (which would make you an accessory after the fact, according to them).

Rav Aharon Kotler ZT"L held that even though the Medinah should not have been made, now that it is here, we cannot allow the non-religious to grasp the control and influence of so many Jews, thereby making it much worse. It is a Mitzvah, he held, to vote in the elections, to participate in the government, and use whatever influence exists out there to make sure that the Ratzon Hashem is not violated more than it already has been.

The third opinion is that of the Brisker Rav ZT"L. Those who follow the Brisker Rav do not vote in the elections, do not take money from the government, but do not consider doing so an outright aveirah. "Voting in the Israel elections is not as big an Aveirah as the Satmar Rav holds and not as big a Mitzvah as Rav Aharon holds," the Brisker Rav said.

---

The Satmar Rav also held that Jews should protest the misdeeds of Israel, such as anti-Torah laws and the like, so that Israel, which claims to be there for the Jews, will be embarrassed at their actions when they are exposed to the world by Jews as hurting Judaism, and they will be pressured into changing their ways.

The Satmar Rebbe organized a rally against Israel in Washington in 1959. It was attended only by Jews, and its goal was to tell Israel not to commit sins in the name of Judaism and Jews.

However, the Satmar Rebbe never participated in events together with Arabs of other enemies of Jews.

Among the misdeeds involved with marching with Palestinians involves the prohibition to join in activities with evil doers, even if the activity is a good deed (all the more so if it is not). The Alshich says this in Mishle, and it is one of the staples of Satmar Hashkofo: "Bni, if yefatucha chataim al tovai" the posuk says - do not follow bad people if they [try to] seduce you. The Alshich says we do not need the posuk to tell us not to join in their bad deeds, but rather the posuk is saying, even if bad people are involved in a good deed - you should not join with them in their good deed.

We can negotiate, cajole, importune, and deal with evil people. But we cannot join them in their actions, even if the actions are not evil. All the more so if they are.

---

The Satmar Rav writes (Vayoel Moshe p.8, Divrei Yoel bo, p.250) that even though the State of Israel must be abolished, it cannot be done by the nations, because they will not differentiate between Jews. Rather, the solution to the problem of the State is for us to pray for its undoing, and only Moshiach and Eliyahu, when they arrive IYH, will be able to safely obliterate Israel while saving the lives of the Jews.


He doesn't merely say that we should not allow the land to be given to the Arabs "through the nations" - for if that is all he would say, there would be room for mistake - but he also says, in the same breath - that there is no other solution for the undoing of the State except our prayers, or, in the case of Vayoel Moshe, the State should only be undone via G-d's power from above. He does NOT say that instead of "the nations" we should use diplomacy or peaceful dismantling of the State. He says the ONLY solution is prayer. Not negotiation, not fighting, not anything except prayer - except G-d intervening from On High.

Of course Satmar would like to see the State abolished - so would the other Gedolim - Rav Shach ZTL reportedly used to pray every day for the peaceful disappearance of the State of Israel.

But the issue being addressed here is NOT whether it would be better without the State - of course it would - but rather, can this be done? Can we peacefully undo what the Zionists did? Can we indeed just hand over Israel to the nations?

Currently, he is saying, that cannot be done. Since the Arabs unfortunately were convinced by the Zionists that all Jews want Israel, and are willing to kill or expel Arabs in order to get it, and have actually done so, the Arabs have therefore become bloodthirsty enemies of all Jews, because of their error that all Jews are Zionists.

And although it is surely a good idea to tell the Arabs that we have no interest in killing them or taking their land, or expelling them from anywhere, and that those who say such things do NOT represent Jews or Judaism or the Torah but rather Zionism and Zionists, until the time when that mission has succeeded, and the Arabs do indeed understand that Jews are not their enemies and that their hatred is misdirected, we cannot endanger Jewish lives by returning the State by political means. And since having the State is a sakanah as much as giving it back, the only solution is for Hashem to intervene and do this "with power from on High." There is no long-term, permanent political or military solution to the Zionist vs. Arab problem, where all Jews have been caught in their crossfire.

The statements of the Satmar Rav were of course based on the Metzius, which could theoretically change, meaning, one day maybe the Arabs will realize this, and then the situation will be different. In the meantime, however, they are still unconvinced of the fact that Jews are not killers and robbers. And even if some Arabs do believe it, enough of them do not that it still remains a sakanah.

There were times and places, perhaps, when such a peaceful dismantling could have taken place (see introduction to Al HaGeulah where he suggests a UN-enforced peace after returning the State), and maybe there will be in the future. But it’s not happening today.

Another proof: In Divrei Yoel Parshas Naso, he says it would be a great Mitzvah that we should be Moser Nefesh for, to convince the non-Jewish world that we Jews are not interested in the land and that the acts of the Zionists do not represent the will of Klall Yisroel. But, he adds, there frum rabbis who unfortunately will not let this happen, because of "various excuses".

Clearly, he is saying that the Arab world does NOT currently understand that Jews are not Zionists otherwise we would not need Mesiras Nefesh to get this message across, and he would not lament the fact that there are rabbis who are obstacles to the success of this mission.

It's a good idea to save Jewish lives by telling Arabs we are not the enemy, of course, but until there are enough Arabs who do not realize that so as to pose a danger to Jews, we cannot allow them power over us.

It is also a sakanah for Klall Yisroel to have a Jewish State in Eretz Yisroel. Either way we're messed up. That’s why he says the ONLY solution is for us to pray for G-d to get us out of this terrible situation.

---

The Satmar Rebbe uses the Halchah, based on some the Gemora and explicit in the Gilyon Maharsha in Shulchan Aruch Hilchos Talmud Torah, that if an act gives chizuk to a deviant movement (Shabse Tzvi was the topic discussed there) then even if that act is a real Mitzvah, we should not do it, we actually forgo the Mitzvah, in order not to give chizuk to the deviants. Therefore, he says that since the ability to go to the Kosel and even its "being freed" is constantly used by the Zionists as a sign of their accomplishments for Judaism, we should not go there because the masses of people going there just fuels the Zionist propaganda about how so many people can pray at the Kosel because of them (which is factually correct). So even though going to the Kosel is a wonderful thing, we should rather forgo that wonderful thing because of the chizuk it gives to the Zionists.

---

In Vayoel Moshe 1:87 it doesn't say that if you vote in the Israeli elections you violate the Oaths. It says you’re a partner in crime, but a shutef in an aveirah does not necessarily get the same avierah as his partner. So for instance if I give someone a radio on Shabbos and ask him to put it on, I am definitely considered a shutef in his crime, and I violate lifnei iver, and Meisis, but I am not a mechalel Shabbos. So his saying that those who participate in the elections are shutfim in the crime of the existence of the State does not yet explain what you violate for being a partner. Elsewhere he says that your violation is lifnei iver and modeh b'avodah zorah.

---

There is a machlokes if it is permitted to be a member of the Knesset. The Satmar Rav holds it is assur, Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL holds it is muttar, and even a good thing.

The Satmar Rav holds that being part of a government whose existence is Avodah Zorah constitutes being accessory to the crime after the fact; Rav Aharon holds that being part of a government which is anti-Torah constitutes damage control (assuming, of course, that the person in the government behaves and operates in accordance with Torah principles).

But the disagreement applies only to the government of the State of Israel, since it had no right according to the Torah to exist in the first place. But being part of the government of secular States which are of course allowed to exist, would not pose a problem even according to the Satmar Rav. He might even agree with Rav Aharon that, in such a case, being part of the governing body would be a positive thing.

---

Some zionists accuse Satmar Rov of being saved by zionists, the very group he opposed and 'escaping, leaving his chasidim to their fate'.
I'm missing something here. So if these people's houses were on fire, and the fireman was a Christian, they would rather burn to death because the person who saves them believes in Yoshka?!

Is that what they would do?

It's amazing how irrational Zionists are. I mean, seriously. How do they explain themselves? It’s amazing to see the Yezter Horah for irrational avodah zorah in action.

Or, to use the analogy of the Chazon Ish:

If an arsonist set your house on fire and then pulled you out of the fire, would you say he deserves a reward for his rescue efforts? If it weren’t for the Zionists, the Chazon Ish said, we wouldn’t need saving in the first place. So when they save people from the holocaust, what kind of heroes are they?

If the arsonist wanted to save you from the fire that he started, would you refuse his help and allow yourself to burn to death because you are morally opposed to his act of arson??

I'm not sure what exactly needs a response. The phrase "escaping, leaving his chasidim to their fate" implies that he could have saved his chasidim but didn’t. Is that what they are saying? Or is it that they believe that someone who had the opportunity to run for their lives should rather have stayed and died? Is that what they are saying? I mean, what exactly are they babbling about?

The facts are that the Satmar Rebbe ended up in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, while many of his Chasidim did indeed escape. In fact, because Hitler invaded Hungary at the end of the war, there were more Hungarian Jews who survived than there were Polish or Lithuanian Jews.

I would imagine that these people are buying in to the old Zionist slander that the Gedolim of Europe told the people to stay put and not leave, and then they turned and left themselves. That old blood libel was originated by the State of Israel in order to distract attention up their own role that they played in the destruction of the six million Jews. Please see Rav Hutner's article on the subject.

The political agenda of the State of Israel - that the State is a safe haven for Jews from anti-semitism and holocausts - is furthered by them making up stories about Tzadikim, especially since doing so they deflect attention from their responsibility for the murder of six million Jews.

There is a Teshuva printed by the Satmar Rav about two orphan bochurim who, for various reasons including fear of impending doom, wanted to emigrate to America. The Satmar Rebbe writes that he tells people the truth regarding whether to run or not - that he doesn't know. He is not a Navi, he writes, and he does not know what the future holds in this case. In the particular case of these 2 boys, he writes that he did indeed help them go to America, even though America in those days America was a spiritual danger.

Even religious Zionists have bought into this blood libel started by the enemies of Hashem in the State of Israel. Rabbi Menachem Kasher, quoted without objection by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, writes that the Gedolim of Europe "cannot say 'our hands did not shed this blood' ".

The seriousness of the crime of these people making this false accusation against Hashem's Greatest Jews is too great to imagine. Said the Chazon Ish about them, "Who fulfills Mitzvos and is an Apikores? Those who blame the Gedolei Yisroel for the holocaust, and also all those who celebrate Yom Haatzmaut".

When talking about religious people, because their agenda is the same, those two groups of Apikorsim are usually made up of the same people.

(All that having been said, for the record, the Chasam Sofer writes that if a Tzadik finds himself and his flock in danger, he should escape and pray for his flock while he is out of the danger, in which case his efforts will be more effective min hashamayim than had he stayed with them.)

---


This is what the Satmar Rav writes in Al HaGeulah the Zionists should do to make peace- but as he says in Divrei Yoel (vol 3 p.250):

"What has happened in our days has not happened since the word was created: Apikorsim and those who want to take away religion from people grabbed for themselves a State and sovereignty, and they destroy religion and faith by force rachmana latzlan, and Jews who want to believe in Hashem and His Torah actually support them! Woe is to us that this has happened in our days. May Hashem have mercy on us and uproot this brazen country quickly through Eliyahu and Moshiach, but not through the nations chas vsholom, for if permission will be given to the Destroyer, it will not distinguish [between the guilty and innocent].

Of course having the Medinah is bad and is a big saknah - that doesn’t mean we have to know what to do about it. As the Satmar Rav says, we need Eliyahu and Moshiach to uproot it.

You don't need to protest with Arabs to tell the world that you’re not Zionists. All that does is send a message to the world that you are on their side, which you are not. Because their side right now - albeit because of the Zionists - is to kill Jews. And that you don’t want either, but when you go around protesting with them that’s what the world perceives.

---

Kahanism II

Jewish pride has to come through the Jewish religion, not tribal militancy, which is the type of pride the JDL instills. Jewish pride means we are holy, children of Hashem, and it comes hand in hand with Jewish humility when we contemplate the great responsibility that comes with that privilege. Jewish pride leads to commitment to Torah and Mitzvos.

Spending so much of your time energy and life preparing to know how to shoot someone in case of another holocaust is not our job in this world. Our job is to become Torah scholars and do Mitzvos. And if there will be another holocaust c"v, your knowing how to shoot will not save lives nearly as much as the commitment of Klall Yisroel to Hashem's Torah.

The JDL is more than a Karate class. It is a philosophy of what Jews need in this world to survive against the Goyim. Their philosophy is wrong and against the Torah as explained above.

---

Of course hishtadlus is needed, but the question is, what path to take for hishtadlus? Both advance and retreat are Hishtadlus, and both are appropriate in their proper times.

Chazal tell us that for Klall Yisroel, the histadlus that will be successful for us, is never, ever, to assert ourselves to or to confront the nations of the world. That will be our salvation.

We must never even demand things of the nations - we can only request, Rav Elchonon says. We cannot protest against them, we cannot demand they give us anything, we cannot write newspaper articles about how wrong they are (between ourselves, yes, we can and should; but to the world, in public, we cannot).

That is not relying on a miracle, that is practical advice from Chazal based on the factual dynamics in the relationship between the Jewish Nation and the Goyish Nations. The psychology of the Goyim, the Jews, and all other factors were considered by G-d and this is the advice - and orders that he gave us.

If we lay low, submit to the nations, we will live. Else, c"v...

This is how Klall Yisroel survived all these years. This is the only way we can survive in the future.

The victories of the IDF were battles; the war with the Arabs is not over. Far from it. The IDF has not conquered their enemies. On the contrary, more people have been killed by the enemy - Arabs - in Israel since the inception of the State than everywhere else in the world put together where we have no army. And that, despite the fact that more Jews always lived - and still do - outside EY.

And even the "victories" are questionable. Israel "won" the war of '48. But 6,000 Jews were killed in it. That means, if you add up all the people killed in the World Trade Center tragedy, double that, and make believe they were all Jews - that still doesn’t equal the amount of Jews killed in a "victory".

Depends what you consider victory. If you want land, and are willing to give Jewish blood, which is of course against everything the Torah teaches - a Jewish life is worth more than all the land, including Eretz Yisroel and the Bais HaMikdash itself - then it’s a victory, I suppose.

On Purim, they only fought AFTER the enemy was neutralized. When the Gezeirah was over, and the Jews had the support of the government, they "mopped up" their enemies. They did NOT fight Achashveirosh to nullify the decree.

Even today, it is clear that the incendiary acts of the Kahanists have caused Jewish blood to spill. Including that of Kahane himself, and his son and daughter in law. His way did not work for him. It doesn’t work for anyone.

The insane act of the Kachnik Tatiana Soskin caused an Arab uprising that killed and maimed may Jews. Sharon's incendiary remarks on the Har Habayis triggered suicide bombers. Chaim Weissman's insane declaration on the radio that the Jews are declaring war on Hitler damaged all hopes of negotiating with that animal and caused the deaths of unknown numbers of Jews. The very declaration that the Jews are taking over Israel caused the Arab hatred for the Jews, including the Chevron massacre, and the Mufti's unlikely alliance with Hitler. I could go on and on.

It's not "OK" if 6,000,000 Jews are killed. But we don't have an option of eliminating anti-semitism, we only have the option of minimizing casualties. And that means laying low, Chazal say.

Rav Yochanan ben Zakai was willing to give up Jerusalem to the Romans rather than fight, in order to save Jewish lives. The militants decided to fight. If not for them, Jerusalem would not have been destroyed.

The same applies for the first destruction.

Throughout history, those who wanted to fight were the ones who cause untold death and suffering for Jews. Like the Baryonim. And like Kahane.

Our only hope is to listen to Chazal and the Gedolei Yisroel who tell us that militancy is not the way to survival. Peaceful political requests to the nations, and finding favor in their eyes works for us.


Fighting works for the Goyim.

If we would fight, we would end up like the Goyish nations that came into existence in the days we did.

Dead. Obliterated. Gone.

Only because we did not fight in Golus and submitted to the reality of being a sheep among 70 wolves did we outlive all of them.

Kahane and those like him would change that. he would make us into a Goyishe "becharvo sichye" nation who will c"v perish like all such nations.

If it’s not broken don’t fix it.

Judaism isn’t broken. We've done better than anyone else, survival-wise. Don’t change that. The only other option is to have more Jews killed, not less. That was Kahane's choice.

Thank G-d it is not Klall Yisroel's.

---

Kahanism I

Feeling the pain of Am Yisroel does not change the Torah's view on Kahanaism or any other issue. It is a mistake to think that those who care when the Torah is in trouble do not care when people are in trouble. Real Torah Jews care about both. As Rav Elchonon Wasserman writes in his Kovetz Maamarim, "Jews have survived 2,000 years without Israel. But we could not survive one moment without Torah." Clarifying the Torah's will on fundamental issues are not "petty squabbles." It is our life.

---

The entire Hashkafa of these people is off. Responding to anti-Semitism with equal and opposite violence is against the Torah and, particularly while we are in Golus, a losing battle, and only makes things worse by provoking further anti-Semitism. The Torah’s directive is for us to attempt peace with our non-Jewish antagonists, and only when faced with an actual kill-or-be-killed situation is violence justified. You can find this in many places, including Rav Elchonon Wasserman’s Kovetz Maamarim.
The idea of using muscle to combat anti-Semitism or, as these people used to say when I was a kid, “for every Jew a .22”, is not new. Sixty years ago Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT”L was interviewed while in Vilna for a meeting of the Vaad haYeshivos by a writer for Dos Yiddishe Togblatt. A translation of the interview was edited by Rabbi Yehoshua Leiman of Brooklyn and printed in The Jewish Press July 14, ’89. The following is a quote from there:

“Togblatt: What should be our position regarding the Jewish anti-terror movement that uses terror against Arab terror?
Rav Wasserman: They must be regarded as Rodfim (endangerers) of Jewry. We are forbidden to use such methods.”

Our general position in Golus is to avoid and even run from confrontation with the Goyim, who by heavenly decree have the upper hand during this time period, as much as possible. We are even sworn, while in Golus not to revolt against the gentile nations (Kesuvos 111a). If we violate this oath, the punishment is that G-d will “allow our flesh [to be hunted] like deer in the fields.” Meforshim say that this is the most terrible punishment in the entire Torah.

---

The JTF claim to be Kahanists but they are miles from Kahane. Their agenda is not merely Jew vs. Non-Jew; their agenda is White vs. Black. Apparently there’s not enough money to be gotten from militant Jews so they have extended their appeal to the extreme anti-black racists in America as well, claiming to be fighting their battle. Here’s a quote:
“White America senses that something terrible is happening to this country. Instead of lulling people into a false and suicidal sense of calm, the Republican Party should be sounding the alarm. . .
If JTF were on national television in the U.S. and Israel, imagine how the world would change for the better . . . In the United States, the sleeping giant of white America would finally be aroused. Our huge audience would inspire a genuine right-wing movement in this country, making it impossible for traitor frauds like George W. Bush and the Nazi Pat Buchanan to pass themselves off as "conservatives." We would save the U.S. from the abyss of Third World oblivion. And we would thwart the multinational corporate conspiracy to destroy U.S. sovereignty by creating One World Government.
For our glorious dream to come true, JTF needs millions of dollars to pay for time on national television. If you are a wealthy Jew or righteous Gentile with the needed millions of dollars, please contact us immediately so that we can make the necessary arrangements.”

Here’s more:

“Our struggle is to spearhead the momentous movement to save America and Israel. Our movement is the only hope for saving the Jewish homeland. And our movement is the only hope for inspiring righteous Gentiles to do what must be done to save America from the clutches of the hateful Third World hordes who seek the destruction of this once great nation.
Which is why every Jew and righteous Gentile should make out an especially generous check to "JTF" immediately and send it out right away.”

Save America? First they say Israel – and only Israel - is the Jewish homeland and that every Jew HAS to live there, and that America is for gentiles only. Then they want to save America from the blacks. Is this their agenda?

They’re very much into the “righteous gentiles.” They correctly point out that Judaism does not demand gentiles convert, but their example of a “righteous gentile” is “Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, who does not believe in the Jewish religion but who does have mercy upon the victims of injustice”. These people are idol-worshipers who believe in a god who impregnates married women and has children. These are NOT chasidei umos ha’olam.

This whole thing is a moneymaking attempt to attract the extreme right wing anti-black Americans.

This is not even Kahanism. I don’t see how any Jew can take this seriously.

---

When we fight it is only to save Jewish lives, not to get or defend land. We do not put Jewish lives at risk for any land. Unfortunately, there are many lives in danger today in Eretz Yisroel, and we cannot allow them to be wiped out c"v.

The mainstream leadership of Orthodox Jewry, which includes everyone from the Brisker Rav to the Chazon Ish to Rav S.R.Hirsh to Lubavitch were against the creation of a sovereign Jewish state in Eretz Yisroel (only the Zionists wanted it) because it violated either this or another of the Oaths that I was referring to above. The other Oath says, in short, that the Jews will not forcefully possess Eretz Yisroel during Golus.

The objection to Zionism in the Torah world is, contrary to popular belief, not due to the irreligiosity of the Zionists - although that was a small part of it as well - but rather to the violation of these Oaths.
However, that was regarding the question of whether to create a sovereign state in Eretz Yisroel. Ex post facto, after it was made, the question becomes what to do about it and how to relate to it. Now that it is here should we try to make it as religious and useful as possible or would participation in its political process make us accessories after the fact? That is a debate among Torah authorities.
But all of the above agree that risking Jewish lives is only justified to save Jewish lives, not to save land.

I once heard the following vort from Rav Shimon Schwab ZT"L:

In the Chanukah "al hanisim" it describes our miraculous victory in the war, and continues, "And afterwards, Your children went to restore Your House [the Bais HaMikdosh] etc."

The words "and afterwards" are awkward and unnecessary. It could have just said "we won the war and fixed Your house..."

Said Rav Schwab ZT"L, the reason for these extra words is to make sure we understand what we were - and were not - fighting for.

Nobody should think that the war against the Greeks had anything to do with the fact that they took over control of the Bais HaMikdash. We would rather them have the Bais HaMikdash forever and make Tameh all the oil rather than risk Jewish blood to wage war.

Rather, the war was for one reason only: "The Greeks decreed ... to make them forsake the Torah and to make them violate Your laws".

When someone makes us violate the Torah we risk our lives to stop them. We wage war. But not for land.

Therefore, it is saying that only after we won the war, after Hashem have over "many into the hands of few, strong into the hands of the weak" etc. Only after the war was over and we won, only then - "afterwards" - we went to fix the Bais HaMikdosh. But if we would have had to fight and risk lives to get the Bais HaMikdosh back, we never would have done so.

---

The first thing I would suggest is to get a hold of Rav Elchonon Wasserman's Kovetz Maamarim, and read the chapter called Ikvesa D'Meshichah, printed in English as “Epoch of the Messiah” . He explains why the tactics that Kahane espoused - which by the way, are nothing new: the idea of exporting the Arabs, and fighting terror with terror etc. were espoused way, way before Kahane, in the early days of Zionism; his ideas are so totally unoriginal - are not only against the Torah, but cause Klall Yisroel to be in danger, and Jews to c"v die. See especially pages 310-313 in the new print. Basically it goes like this:

When someone attacks an individual Jew, he is instructed to fight back. "When someone rises to kill you, rise up and kill them first." But when we are dealing with the survival of Klall Yisroel as a whole, the rules change. This is because, using plain, nationalistic methods of survival work for other nations but do not work to maintain the Am Yisroel. This is because, while Esav was blessed with "He shall live by his sword", Klall Yisroel's Brochoh was that they should live by the Torah.

This means that the sword is the method the nations use for survival, but it does not work for us.

What does work for us is to avoid confrontation with the nations of the world as much as possible. We are commanded by Chazal in numerous places (Brachos 7b, Yalkut Shimoni Shemos 168, Devorim Rabbah 1) not to dare engage the Goyim in a national confrontation. If we do, we will lose. Because we are playing on their turf - "the sword". What we are told to do in order to survive, is to avoid confrontation as much as possible, run away, whether the storm, and turn to Torah and Mitzvos.

The Gemora (Taanis 10b) says we should not "attract the attention" of the nations. Says Rav Elchonon: "This is a warning not to give the nations any opportunity to focus their attention on us and to always be talking about us. To the extent that the nations refrain from thinking about us and talking about us, to that extent we will be OK."

In short, Kahane's methods of directly confronting the nations with force will fail because the nations are stronger than us, physically. The result will be - and has been - only to further instigate greater anti-semitism and more deaths of Jews. The right thing to do according to Chazal is to "lay low" - just the opposite of what Kahane wanted.

Throughout history this is how Klall Yisroel has behaved. And although we have been persecuted and murdered for thousands of years, please note that Klall Yisroel is the only single one of the ancient nations that has survived until today. The "shelf life" for even the most glorious, powerful nations is much shorter than the shelf life of the Am Yisroel. The methods that Chazal revealed to us - the methods that we have used - have been successful beyond any reasonable expectations, or any natural life span. We have been miraculously successful in our survival using the methods of Chazal. And that, despite our being constantly persecuted, and without a homeland for thousands of years.

That is the only thing that allowed us to survive throughout golus - "laying low". And not confronting the nations. Not living "by the sword".

When the Goyim threatened us with death, we always turned to the Torah. When they threatened our religion, not our lives, like by making a Shmad, then, and only then, did we put our lives on the line and go to war against impossible odds.

We all know that's the difference between Purim and Chanukah. On Chanukah, they didn’t want to kill any Jews. They just attacked "Hashem" - wanted to stop Torah and Mitzvos. So we fought. But on Purim they wanted to kill us - so we didn’t make a war; we prayed.

Rav Elchonon ZTL said that those who resort to the methods of "answering violence with violence" are considered Rodfim of Klall Yisroel - people who put Jewish lives in danger. And I don’t know if he meant that literally, but the Halachic status of such people is that you are allowed to kill them, and by killing them, it is considered as if you saved the Jewish lives that would have been lost because of their irresponsible actions.

Regarding a homeland, the Torah prohibits us to have a homeland in Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach comes. The punishment, it says, is that if we do take Eretz Yisroel before Moshiach, Hashem will allow the Jews to be "hunted down and butchered like animals in the field." Rachmana Litzlan.

One of the reasons for not making a Jewish State in Israel, aside form the Torah’s prohibition, was the obvious danger to Jewish lives due to the Arab resistance. The creation of the State of Israel and the ensuing middle east controversy caused so much anti-semitism, it is worse than it was before. Rav Shach ZTL writes this in his letters, and even before the founding of the State, the Gedolim were screaming that this would happen. Wrote Rav Michoel Ber Weismandel ZTL, the great hero of the holocaust:

"These Zionists...with their offensive militancy, fanned the fires of anti-semitism in Europe, and succeeded in forging a bond of Jew hatred between Nazi Germany and the surrounding countries.

"There are the 'statesmen' who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant - but it brought calamity on the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad dog Hitler, the Zionists forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and ... incense the leader of Germany into a frenzy. And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionists lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and refuse to relocate to any place except Palestine; only for the purpose of building their state.
"The Zionists have incited and continue to incite an embittered Jewish youth to futile wars against world powers like England, and against hundreds of millions of Arabs.

"And these same Zionist "statesmen" heedlessly push the world to the brink of another total war - revolving entirely around the Holy Land.

"...the rising anti-Semitism in the Western World is the product of their "statesmanship"".

Rav Shach ZT"L also writes how the controversy caused by the State of Israel is likely to cause the next world war, rachmana latzlan.

I have not heard of any Tzadik come up with any solution to this problem. The Gedolim tried to prevent it - as in the writing of Rav Michoel Ber and Rav Elchonon ZTL - but the Zionists ignored their pleas and put us in this position anyway. Once the fire is burning, I haven’t heard anyone suggest a way to put it out.

Except to pray to Hashem and to return to the Torah.

---