I gotta ask... who the hell are these "zionists" I keep hearing about?
Who are the Zionists?
Here's what they are not...
Not all Zionists are Jews.
Not all Jews are Zionists.
Not all Zionists are evil.
Not all evil people are Zionists.
Not all Zionists support the State of Israel...
Does that help?
Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות, Tsiyonut) is a Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security. In a less common usage, the term may also refer to non-political, cultural Zionism, founded and represented most prominently by Ahad Ha'am; and political support for the State of Israel by non-Jews, as in Christian Zionism. Critics of Zionism consider it a colonialist or racist movement.
Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Zionists believe the claim to Eretz Israel. A "national" homeland of the Jews based on biblical references:
I could support Zionism if it was accomplished justly and non-violently, however consider me a critic of creating a situation where millions of people suffer injustice and oppression.
Prophesies have a way of becoming self fulfilling, especially when a lot of people with money and power believe them. How the current state of Israel came to resemble the described areas is another debate.
I admit I'm not an expert in Zionism. Maybe others here could share their viewpoint.
Zionism seems like a movement that started out with good intentions but when implemented developed problems which were solved expeditiously and violently, leading to the current morally and militarily indefensible situation.
Modern Zionism was founded by Theodor Herzl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I said, I could support Zionism if it was accomplished justly and non-violently. That's also why some Jews also oppose Zionism in its current form:
Question: the source for the halacha that it is asur to fight wars in a time when there is no Beis Hamikdash or direct tzivui from Hashem. Meaning that the only time there will be halachik wars now is in the time of Gog Umagog. Isn't a war of self-defense permissible and obligatory because of the ruling "Habah Lehargecha Hashkeim Lehargo"?
Answer: Haba Lehargecha certainly applies nowadays, but lets say a Jew is ordered at gunpoint to give his money. Does he have a right to shoot the other person in self-defense? No, he must hand over the money. The Arabs fighting the medinah dont want to kill Jews for no reason; they are engaged in a war to get the land back from the Jews. If the Jews gave them what theyre asking for, they would not want to kill them. So self-defense against the Arabs is really defense of a piece of land, not of Jewish lives. Defending land was permitted in the time of the Beis Hamikdash when the Jews were supposed to have the land, but not now.
Question- Do you beleive that Jews forcibly took Eretz Yisroel in violation of the shvua? Doesn't history attest that Hashem miraculously convinced the UN to legally and peacefully turn over Eretz Yisroel to the Jews. And that the subsequent war of independence was a war of self defense to protect jews already living in Israel (because one is not allowed to rely on a miracle).
Answer The nations in the U.N. who voted in favor of a Jewish state did not include the nations ruling over the land, i.e. the Arabs who lived there and the British who ruled it until then (the British abstained in the vote and did nothing to help carry out the U.N. resolution). In the end, the Zionists did have to fight for their land, first against the local Arabs (Palestinians) and then against the surrounding nations. That is definitely "with a strong hand" and a rebellion against the nations. The fact that they had a recommendation to do so from other nations around the world who were not involved in the conflict means nothing halachically speaking. And the 1948 war was not a fight to defend a piece of land; it was a fight to get a piece of land.
Imagine that all the countries in the UN except America voted to give the Jews the state of New York for a country of their own. And the Jews held a meeting and declared independence in the state of New York. And then the U.S. army came to fight them. Would it then be self-defense to fight back against the U.S. army?
Furthermore, not everyone agrees that going up "as a wall" means by military means. The Avnei Nezer is the only one who says that. Others (Yefeh Kol, Ahavas Yonasan) understand it as any mass immigration.
Also, do not forget about the other oath, which prohibits forcing the end. Founding a state before the coming of moshiach certainly falls under that category. Even the Avnei Nezer only says that the oath against "going up as a wall" becomes permitted when the nations give it to us, which would mean that mass immigration is permitted according to him, but not founding a state.
Furthermore, the borders of the Jewish state proposed by the UN are a far cry from the borders actually conquered by the Zionists. The U.N.'s Jewish state was made up of a thin strip along the coast, the Negev desert, and a strip in the northeast. These three pieces are barely connected. And all of Jerusalem and its environs were to be deep within the Arab state.