Probably the best argument for me to give up on the term Zionism, and give up on arguing with everyone about how they have absconded with, hijacked, distorted, or otherwise misused this term.
And yet...
I never said that Zionism had anything to do with the State. I believe this is the fundamental error in everyone's argument, both pro- and anti-Zionism.
The Holy One, Blessed Be He, never promised us any kind of entity, only the Land itself. He commanded us how we should rule over it, and how to treat it, and how to defend it.
A kingdom? Nope. That came later, and theoretically fit in with His commandments. So far, the State has not. Like it or not, it happens to be a propped up vehicle to progress Zionism, one of the distorted definitions of Zionism.
Simply put, the definition of Zionism is Divine Promise of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel, on the condition that we behave, treat, and defend the Land in the manners which the Holy One, Blessed Be He commands us to.
The only legitimate source for this concept is the Torah. Along with the remainder of Tana"kh, it documents countless times this commitment has been made to us, and how we have done with our end of the contract covenant.
So, I still do not understand why you, Dean, do not see how you fit into this understanding of Zionism, and how everyone else (besides me <wink>) should be ignored.
Now, if you want to say that you are simple Torah observant, then I get it. The Rambam is famous for not even counting the settling of the Land as one of the 613 explicitly written commandments. Most use this as "evidence" against the existence of such a commandment, others teach us to see the Rambam's legal work as a whole. The lekhathilah (ideal) situation for Jews to be in is with sovereignty over the Land of Israel, a Temple, and a Sanhedrin, and a King. Anything less that this is not the way the Jewish People are supposed to be living.
When the Rambam writes, he writes from this perspective, and then mentions how the commandments are manifested, since we are in a less than ideal situation, almost like an afterthought. And so, other authorities would say that he not have to mention the commandment to reside in the Land of Israel explicitly, since it is a given, lekhathillah, that the Jewish People residing in the Land is how the world is supposed to be.
And so, Zionism really cannot be isolated from the Torah.
Now, I would generally say that we should not prop up one mitzvah over another -- and I do not -- without any halakhic source to do so, such as saving a life taking precedence over Shabboth. Yet saving a life does not take precedence over the prohibitions against foreign worship, forbidden relations, and murder. Such formulas are in place, as part and parcel of Torah observance.
I am simply mentioning a particular Torah observance which is an integral part of the lives of the Jewish People, just like I would mention kashruth, Shabboth, and family purity.
"Zionism," the correct definition of Zionism, is shorter than "the proper place on earth where Jews must reside, is their only true homeland, which is Israel."
You wrote: Simply put, the definition of Zionism is Divine Promise of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel, on the condition that we behave, treat, and defend the Land in the manners which the Holy One, Blessed Be He commands us to.
And I ask: zionism describes the relationship between G-d, a Jew and his land?
I thought the mitzvot did that.
Why make an -ism out of a bunch of mitzvot? And what in the world do you gain by defining yourself this way?
“I am a keeper of THIS SET of mitzvot. That's who I am.”
Why is it not enough to say I observe the mitzvot?
Why make yourself “Ploni of the subset of mitzvot relating to Eretz Yisrael”?
Its absolutely irrational.
Are you an adherent of Lulavism, too? Or Mayim Acharonimism? And would you sign up and define yourself as an adherent of either if a movement started that pushed the fulfillment of them and all their related mitzvot?
Never. You'd consider it completely loony!
When did you decide that this particular set of mitzvot warranted an identity marker?
Jews who live in chutz la'aretz do not keep the mitzvot that fall into the subset of yishuv haaretz, nor anything related. They deserve a special designation for this?
No, they just don't keep certain mitzvot.
Chilonim in Tel Aviv fulfill the mitzvah of yishuv haaretz? Yes.
Are they missing out on others?
Yes.
Some people fulfill these mitzvot. Some fulfill others.
Some fulfill none. And some tzaddikim fulfill them all.
Yet you want to build new categories for groups that fulfill these or those mitzvot? To what end?
Why invent new categories and labels and muddy the waters when it's all very simple.
Thank you for this dialogue. It is helping me to refine my position.
“Zionism” is probably the most distorted of all aspects of the Torah. I believe that defining it, and calling it by a name (pick a different one if you want, ישוב הארץ, כיבוש הארץ) aids me in combatting the distortions of the concept. The inheritance of the Land, including the Temple Mount is a major obstacle to a few aspects of the Erev Rav who want to do the opposite, which is to encourage globalism, assimilation into a globalist society. ערב = to mix, mix languages, peoples, religions, national boundaries, genders, you name it.
Along with Ishmael and Esau (and Paras), the Erev Rav is a major adversary.
Furthermore, I believe aliyah will help secure our future, IOW more than 20% (Egypt) will have a chance of making it out. Of course, HaShem makes the final decision. But I believe that encouraging aliyah, fighting against infiltration, and intermarriage, and the wannabe epikoursim are significant fronts in our struggle against the Erev Rav.
Anything which [is supposed to] separates us from the nations, such as kashruth is also a tool against them.
“Zionism” is probably the most distorted of all aspects of the Torah.
There is no Torah concept called "zionism". You made it up.
There can therefore be no "distortion of the concept" because it doesn't exist. You made it up or you swallowed someone else's make-believe concept called "zionism" without questioning whether it was made up.
It doesn't need a different name, either, again, because it doesn't exist.
We have mitzvot. That's what defines a Jew. If you want to begin defining us in ways that for over three millenia no one ever did, then go ahead. Just know that it's not authentic, and that you only end up wrestling with ghosts because of your commitment to an idea that literally offers you nothing.
And know, too, that the only GENUINE JEWISH difference between you and your mamlachti interlocutor who inspired this conversation is the mitzvot that you keep.
Nothing else is important or material.
If you want to discuss the relative confusion you both experience, then we can discuss that, too (forgive the somewhat harsh sound of the phrasing). Both your arguments amount to nothing more than a debate of who would win -- Spiderman or the Hulk?
It's neither Jewish nor material to split hairs over the proper definition of the Loch Ness Monster.
It's absurd.
And that's precisely what the two of you were doing.
Probably the best argument for me to give up on the term Zionism, and give up on arguing with everyone about how they have absconded with, hijacked, distorted, or otherwise misused this term.
And yet...
I never said that Zionism had anything to do with the State. I believe this is the fundamental error in everyone's argument, both pro- and anti-Zionism.
The Holy One, Blessed Be He, never promised us any kind of entity, only the Land itself. He commanded us how we should rule over it, and how to treat it, and how to defend it.
A kingdom? Nope. That came later, and theoretically fit in with His commandments. So far, the State has not. Like it or not, it happens to be a propped up vehicle to progress Zionism, one of the distorted definitions of Zionism.
Simply put, the definition of Zionism is Divine Promise of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel, on the condition that we behave, treat, and defend the Land in the manners which the Holy One, Blessed Be He commands us to.
The only legitimate source for this concept is the Torah. Along with the remainder of Tana"kh, it documents countless times this commitment has been made to us, and how we have done with our end of the contract covenant.
So, I still do not understand why you, Dean, do not see how you fit into this understanding of Zionism, and how everyone else (besides me <wink>) should be ignored.
Now, if you want to say that you are simple Torah observant, then I get it. The Rambam is famous for not even counting the settling of the Land as one of the 613 explicitly written commandments. Most use this as "evidence" against the existence of such a commandment, others teach us to see the Rambam's legal work as a whole. The lekhathilah (ideal) situation for Jews to be in is with sovereignty over the Land of Israel, a Temple, and a Sanhedrin, and a King. Anything less that this is not the way the Jewish People are supposed to be living.
When the Rambam writes, he writes from this perspective, and then mentions how the commandments are manifested, since we are in a less than ideal situation, almost like an afterthought. And so, other authorities would say that he not have to mention the commandment to reside in the Land of Israel explicitly, since it is a given, lekhathillah, that the Jewish People residing in the Land is how the world is supposed to be.
And so, Zionism really cannot be isolated from the Torah.
Now, I would generally say that we should not prop up one mitzvah over another -- and I do not -- without any halakhic source to do so, such as saving a life taking precedence over Shabboth. Yet saving a life does not take precedence over the prohibitions against foreign worship, forbidden relations, and murder. Such formulas are in place, as part and parcel of Torah observance.
I am simply mentioning a particular Torah observance which is an integral part of the lives of the Jewish People, just like I would mention kashruth, Shabboth, and family purity.
"Zionism," the correct definition of Zionism, is shorter than "the proper place on earth where Jews must reside, is their only true homeland, which is Israel."
You wrote: Simply put, the definition of Zionism is Divine Promise of the Land of Israel to the People of Israel, on the condition that we behave, treat, and defend the Land in the manners which the Holy One, Blessed Be He commands us to.
And I ask: zionism describes the relationship between G-d, a Jew and his land?
I thought the mitzvot did that.
Why make an -ism out of a bunch of mitzvot? And what in the world do you gain by defining yourself this way?
“I am a keeper of THIS SET of mitzvot. That's who I am.”
Why is it not enough to say I observe the mitzvot?
Why make yourself “Ploni of the subset of mitzvot relating to Eretz Yisrael”?
Its absolutely irrational.
Are you an adherent of Lulavism, too? Or Mayim Acharonimism? And would you sign up and define yourself as an adherent of either if a movement started that pushed the fulfillment of them and all their related mitzvot?
Never. You'd consider it completely loony!
When did you decide that this particular set of mitzvot warranted an identity marker?
Jews who live in chutz la'aretz do not keep the mitzvot that fall into the subset of yishuv haaretz, nor anything related. They deserve a special designation for this?
No, they just don't keep certain mitzvot.
Chilonim in Tel Aviv fulfill the mitzvah of yishuv haaretz? Yes.
Are they missing out on others?
Yes.
Some people fulfill these mitzvot. Some fulfill others.
Some fulfill none. And some tzaddikim fulfill them all.
Yet you want to build new categories for groups that fulfill these or those mitzvot? To what end?
Why invent new categories and labels and muddy the waters when it's all very simple.
Hashem commanded us. We obey.
Some are better at obeying. Some less.
Thank you for this dialogue. It is helping me to refine my position.
“Zionism” is probably the most distorted of all aspects of the Torah. I believe that defining it, and calling it by a name (pick a different one if you want, ישוב הארץ, כיבוש הארץ) aids me in combatting the distortions of the concept. The inheritance of the Land, including the Temple Mount is a major obstacle to a few aspects of the Erev Rav who want to do the opposite, which is to encourage globalism, assimilation into a globalist society. ערב = to mix, mix languages, peoples, religions, national boundaries, genders, you name it.
Along with Ishmael and Esau (and Paras), the Erev Rav is a major adversary.
Furthermore, I believe aliyah will help secure our future, IOW more than 20% (Egypt) will have a chance of making it out. Of course, HaShem makes the final decision. But I believe that encouraging aliyah, fighting against infiltration, and intermarriage, and the wannabe epikoursim are significant fronts in our struggle against the Erev Rav.
Anything which [is supposed to] separates us from the nations, such as kashruth is also a tool against them.
This is where you fall:
“Zionism” is probably the most distorted of all aspects of the Torah.
There is no Torah concept called "zionism". You made it up.
There can therefore be no "distortion of the concept" because it doesn't exist. You made it up or you swallowed someone else's make-believe concept called "zionism" without questioning whether it was made up.
It doesn't need a different name, either, again, because it doesn't exist.
We have mitzvot. That's what defines a Jew. If you want to begin defining us in ways that for over three millenia no one ever did, then go ahead. Just know that it's not authentic, and that you only end up wrestling with ghosts because of your commitment to an idea that literally offers you nothing.
And know, too, that the only GENUINE JEWISH difference between you and your mamlachti interlocutor who inspired this conversation is the mitzvot that you keep.
Nothing else is important or material.
If you want to discuss the relative confusion you both experience, then we can discuss that, too (forgive the somewhat harsh sound of the phrasing). Both your arguments amount to nothing more than a debate of who would win -- Spiderman or the Hulk?
It's neither Jewish nor material to split hairs over the proper definition of the Loch Ness Monster.
It's absurd.
And that's precisely what the two of you were doing.
My ego still does not like being put into the same box. Please at least acknowledge that I do not bow down to the State, as this other guy does.
To be continued... https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdf5f6cf0-dc58-42a1-9594-621fa26c0d56_200x123.jpeg
His bilbul is state related. Yours is found in your artificial packaging together of a group of mitzvot and deriving your identity from it.
Why isn't being a mitzvah observant Jew who's striving for excellence in his avoda enough?
It was all our forebears for three millenia needed.
Why alter it?
What changed?
Where's the necessity?
And what's gained?
how much of this episode was metaphor?
100%
I was hoping it would be obvious.
My fail.