The apparent success of evildoers did not impress the prophet malachi, and it does not impress me.

The people of the Second Aliya were hard-core atheists–ReShaIm. People like BenZvi, BenGurion, Golda Mererson, etc. They were intent on creating a Torah-free ethnic-Jewish-nationalist-socialist enclave in Palestine, and they succeeded.

Hundreds of thousands of religious Jews were brought into this atheist enclave and stripped of their religius heritage–outright Shmad!

I find it hard to chracterize this as a success that should be celebrated–mourning is more appropriate.

As to the the remarkable growth of the Torah community in Israel, it succeeded–against remarkable odds–only due to the stubborn mesiras nefesh of our Torah leaders.

To this very day, the Torah community must fight to avoid being engulfed in the degenerate secular culture of the Zionist-atheists. see this article:

(Note: this article is written by secularists who don’t like Hareidim, so you must read between the lines to get the true picture of the assault on the Torah community of Jerusalem)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1181813042196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

This is exactly what Rabbi Adlerstein was talking about. The out of context passages you selected referred to Herzl’s thinking pre-Dreyfus. The Dreyfus affair completely changed Herzl’s world view. It didn’t make him frum, but it was the catalyst that drove him to seek a return of Jews to their homeland.

Hadley writes about the effect the Dreyfus affair had on Herzl just a few lines after the section you quoted that, “…it caused Herzl to conclude that total assimilation of Jews was impossible, thus awakening his interest in the Zionist movement.”

And this quote of yours is just untenable, “The religious community that lived in the Holy Land before the secular communists and atheists arrived, was much more beloved by G-D and, therefore, would have been much more instrumental in bringing the Messiah.”

Did G-d tell you this Himself? If so, can you find out who’s going to win the World Series this year for me?

I certainly don’t want to in any way denigrate the amazing people of the First Aliyah, but those “rabidly anti-G-D kibbutniks” met with an exponentially greater measure of success than did the earlier pioneers. A level of success that actually does fit into true prophecies. A success that paved the way for the greatest Religious Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel since Churban Bayis Sheini.

You’re right. The Second (secular-Zionist) Aliya brought in many more Jews. But, in Judaism, quality is more important than quantity. Our Father Abraham fought 4 kings and their armies with a small band of men; ditto, the maccabees.

The religious community that lived in the Holy Land before the secular communists and atheists arrived, was much more beloved by G-D and, therefore, would have been much more instrumental in bringing the Messiah. The arrival of the rabidly anti-G-D kibbutniks disrupted the process of spiritual rebuilding and prolonged our exile.

To quote an unlikely source, “What can I do against the Tehillim of Rav Gertman (in Meah Shearim)”–King Hussein during the Six-Day War, 1967.

p.s. As to your question, concerning Herzl’s advocacy of mass conversion to Christianity to solve “The Jewish Problem,” here is a good source of Herzl’s Europran-assimilationist philosophy:

http://gainesjunction.tamu.edu/issues/vol4num1/dhadley/

“Herzl’s assimilation theories and patriotism sometimes led him to extremes in thought. Around 1893 he envisioned appearing before the Pope in order to gain papal support against anti-Semites by promising to lead a mass conversion of Jews to Christianity. Although he would remain Jewish, his would be the “final generation.”

“He even imagined how it would happen “in broad daylight, on twelve o’clock of a Sunday, in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, with solemn parade and the peal of bells.”12

“This example of Herzl’s extreme assimilationist ideas is not so far removed from another thought which he recorded in his diary, where he compared himself to Shabtai Zvi, a seventeenth century Jewish messiah figure. Benny Morris pointed out that Herzl “even toyed with the idea that he [Herzl] was the Messiah.”

“This incident is telling because the movement created by Zvi, called Shabbateanism, involved a great deal of antinomian practices including conversion to gentile religions. Zvi converted to Islam in 1666 and his follower in Shabbateanism, Yakov Frank, converted to both Islam and Catholicism.

You have a source for Herzl’s offer to Pope Pius? I know that he presented his plan for a Jewish state to the pope, trying to gain his support, but your assertion sounds a little sketchy.

Given the problems that frum Jews are having now with kids going off the derech it’s rather specious to make anything out of the fact Herzl’s children intermarried.

You’re playing a little shell game with the numbers. Maybe a majority of pre-Herzl Jews were frum, but as of 1900 there were only around 50K Jews in Palestine. The second aliyah brought an additional 600K, mostly secular so it’s a bit disingenuous to say that “Herzl Zionsists simply transformed a religious majority into a secular one.” And to say that they had already begun to “rebuild the Holy Land” is a tad misleading. Of the 35K who made up the first Aliyah, about 1/2 ended up leaving. A few moshaving were started, many didn’t last.

Herzl was far from the ideal man that we would have envisioned G-d using as vessel to accomplish this holy mission. But maybe that’s part of our problem. Maybe we need to stop expecting G-d to “behave” in ways we expect Him to.

Herzl did not propose mass coversion to the Pope, although he definitely entertained the notion himself.

Herzl was brought up with no Jewish education, other than awareness of his identity. As we wrote years ago in these pages, his piece on the Menorah shows that there were several layers of stirrings in his heart for the Yiddishkeit he never got to experience. Rav Kook wrote a beautiful hesped for him, that gave credit where credit is due, without glossing over the faults or turning him into a malach. (This was not a knee-jerk pro-Zionist reaction of his. Rav Kook had only open contempt and disdain for Max Nordau.)

Disclaimer: I used to be an anti-zionist, until I had to face up to the huge amount of revisionism and falsity that some people, including some of our commenters, seem to have to rely upon in order to make their case.

I understand where you’re coming from.

But, Herzl also made an offer to the Pope to lead all the Jewish People to the baptismal font to become Christians.

I guess you would explain away this incident as an act of “mesiras nefesh” for his fellow Jews–save them by killing their souls.

And, in fact, Herzl’s own children took this very route in “saving” themselves.

You ignore the fact that Jews had already begun to rebuild the Holy Land, in preparation for Moshiach, before Herzl. The RAMBA”N, the disciples of the GR”A and the disciples of the Baal Shem were there before Herzl was even born. The “Second Aliyah” of the secular Herzl Zionists simply transformed the religious majority into a secular one.

“In fact, Hertzl was quite ready to accept the British offer of African Uganda for his “Jewish”-ethnic state (maybe with Idi Amin as the first President).”

This is the typical one-dimensional understanding of Herzl that emanates from a world-view which needs Herzl-type villains to justify its lack of action in the face of the open miracles that led to the creation of the modern state of Israel. Of course the “failure” of Zionism as people like Hillel see it is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy generated by their inability to fulfill their (our) destiny of filling the beautiful vessel the secular Zionists created with Kedusha. It was largely the Religious Zionsists, led by gedolim like Rav Kook, who were able to see this amazing potential and act on it.

Yes Herzl was willing to accept Britain’s offer of a place in Uganda. This, after a visit to Russia where he saw what was about to happen to millions of Jews there. In our parlance we call this hatzalos nefashos, but of course in your view when a secular person attempts this its just reason for scorn. One of the cornerstones of Herzl’s First Zionist Congress was the establishment of a Jewish home in Eretz Yisroel. He saw Uganda as a stop-gap measure to save lives. Ironically, it was the Russian Jews who led the defeat of this proposal at the 7th congress.

From a Torah perspective Herzl may have been flawed, but he was moser nefesh for clal Yisroel and only the spiritually blind can not see that he had s’yata d’shmaya in his efforts and vision.

Here is the real voice of secular Zionism today:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181228589620&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

“…Burg with a distinct European flavor. As he told his interviewer, “I see the European Union as a biblical utopia. I don’t know how long it will hold together, but it is amazing. It is completely Jewish.”

And explaining his vote, he expanded: “I am a citizen of the world. This is my hierarchy of identities: citizen of the world, afterward Jew and only after that Israeli. I feel a weighty responsibility for the peace of the world…”

Your comment is symptomatic of the confusion engendered by secular-nationalist Zionism.

No, it is not the same as the yearning for a return to the Zion of our forefathers that we all pray for on Tisha BeAv. On that day, we pray for the opportunity to, once again, serve G-D fully, complete with the Bais haMikDosh, the Kohanim, and the LeviYim.

Secular Zionism is a gentile-inspired nationalist movement that was created by a totally-secular Jew Theodr Herzl, at a time when all European nations sought to establish ethnic enclaves for themselves. It had nothing to do with a return to Zion or Judaism.

In fact, Hertzl was quite ready to accept the British offer of African Uganda for his “Jewish”-ethnic state (maybe with Idi Amin as the first President).

It was only at the vehement protest of the Eastern European Zionists that Herzl switched to Palestine as the “National Jewish ethnic Home.” They–corectly–understood that there would be little or no support among the Jewish masses for a Jewish home in Uganda, but there would be massive support for a home in the Holy land of Israel.

It was all a cynical political and financial calculation–nothing to do with a yearning to rebuild Zion!

My sense is that the yeshivah world has developed and matured in its relationship with the media, and generally chooses its words with nunace and care in the more widely-published articles and public statements. While there sometimes may be a need to speak out on what charedi leaders consider to be a distortion of halacha or hashkafa(ideology), there is an effort made to avoid alienating people from other camps, both within and without Orthodoxy. Likewise, my sense is that responsible speakers and writers among Modern Orthodoxy, avoid the sterotyping or Haredi-bashing that one finds in some of the antagonstic secular-Jewish media.

I agree that on the idividual level, or in an occasional editorial for an internal readership, there might not appear to be enough sensitivity to the impact of the article on the wider public. I think that there should be an effort made to make such writers or individuals aware that an intemperate and triumphalistic approach can lead to having a negative effect on the image of Torah community, especially in our internet and blog age.

bECAUSE OF sHABBOS WORKS MUCH BETTER. Sunday-Thursday-leaves time for entertainment etc-but more important leaves ample time for Shabbos.
Mon-Fri just won’t work-if one spends a couple of hours commuting which many religious working Israelis do-many live in Jerudalem and commute to TA area-busy enough as is-combined with pre Shabbos Traffic of people going for Shabbos would be impossible and add to chilul Shabbos.
See the entrances and exits from Jerudalem any rush hour and see the Ayalon expressway zny rush hour.

Perhaps you protest the political parties in Israel involving orthodoxy?

Perhaps your usage of wolf in sheep’s clothing was not well thought out since it implies a nefarious plot to destroy the sheep?

KT

There are many vusinesses in Israel that work a 5 day week-Sunday-Friday. Note the Tel Aviv Stcok Exchange is closed on Fridays as are many businesses tied to fololowing the same schedule. The TA stock exchange is closed Shabbos/ Yom Tov-Erev Shabbos, Erev Yom Tov,Purim Tisha Bav

When I first heard of this idea, adjusting the work week to create a Sunday, it was to alleviate the either-or for the average Israeli: observe Shabbat, or have a free day. As described above, referring to Sunday as a sabbath, and legitimizing some chilul Shabbat, this is not what many of us imagined.

The NRP could do better. With this approach they’re giving the charedi sector some real ammunition against them, and the bill as described doesn’t encourage any growth on the average Israeli’s part. Instead it seems to be saying, “Please give us an American Sunday; the rest of you can do whatever you want.”

I do not live in Israel, and do not know the political situation enough to suggest a specific course of action. If there was a perfect path, I think it would have been thought of by others. My sense is that, like many things, there are strengths and weaknesses in the parties. I pointed out that it is not only Mizrachi that has it’s weaknesses, which is concerning one end of the scale of balancing halacha and nationalism; I am an equal opportunity critic in that I point out weaknesses about erring towards the other pole as well

There are also some people who tune out religion if it is associated with politics, no matter how balanced the position is, so that is an inherent weakness which needs to be minimized which I assume that they are aware of. However one wants to judge both charedi and daati-leumi parties, one should note that they at least attempt to satisfy conflicting needs based on their value system.

At time passes, religious Jews make up a larger part of Israel’s population and voting public. As a result, their political power increases. If Halacha requires religious Jews to force observance of Shabbat to the extent of their political power, then Chiloni (= non religious) Jews will have two options:

1. Give up and obey laws they do not accept.

2. Fight it to the full extent that democracy allows. This means another party like Shinui.

Shabbat Shalom / Shavua Tov (depending on when you read this)

Like it or not, in the eyes of the rest of the world, the Jewish State represents Jews and Judaism.

Rabbi Bulman zt”l used to say that the Torah community could find no way to escape from several paradoxes in its relationship to Israel. One concerned religious coercion. On the one hand, it was a clear failure, and probably worse. It strained relationships with non-observant Jews beyond the breaking point. On the other hand, he argued, is it thinkable that after davening for two thousand years for a return to our homeland that the most visible and essential dimensions of Jewish life not be embraced by the State? Is a Jewish State without at least a pro forma acceptance of Shabbos anything but an oxymoron? As with the other paradoxes he mentioned, he could offer no solution.

I agree with readers that the proposed bill may not necessarily lead to more chilul Shabbos than is already taking place. It may very well increase national shalom bayis, and diminish some friction. I simply don’t know. I have two objections to the bill.

One is that as a representative of the Jewish people, the Israeli government is about to turn Shabbos into a man-made invention, rather than a day to honor Hashem. We could argue about the pros and cons of allowing governmental Shabbos restrictions to go unenforced, or even to be removed. But it is quite something else to rename Shabbos, to call it something that it is not.

We are not always asked to stand up and tell the truth. Even then, sometimes we may not be allowed to lie. The Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kamma asserts that one may not misrepresent what the Torah says, even to save lives. (Note: contemporary poskim disagree as to whether the Yam Shel Shlomo is dispositive.) If terrorists approach a crowd and demand that all Jews step forward, halacha does not require them to do so. They may hide their identities to save their lives. Nonetheless, if asked directly whether they are Jewish, they may not deny their Jewishness, even to save themselves.

The Jewish State might be able to turn a blind eye to Shabbos desecration, but it should not be able to lie about what Shabbos is.

My second objection is that if the Israeli government will adopt such a bill, observant MKs must have no part in it. Their participation – certainly their sponsorshop – should be unthinkable.

I cannot begin to imagine that Rav Avraham Shapira shlit”a would have anything to do with this. If he does, I will gladly eat my words.

What about a bill giving prostitution state imprimatur, which promised to reduce it in practice? Surely there is value in having society’s official position be against immorality.

Even should chilonim compel the passage of a cultural Sabbath, misleading those who confuse Israel with Judaism, it would have been better had a party perceived as religious not proposed the compromize. I cannot say if it would be worth leaving a coalition and bringing down a government, though I suspect it would be, but the case is much worse here. There are potential benefits to the proposed arrangement, but that does not justify sending the message that Shabbos is negotiable.