You are correct; I misspoke. I meant to say that you are only concerned about the haredim. You are perfectly willing to play word games for the purpose of denying that the settlement of Yesha was government policy because, in this case, only the "settlers" are at stake. But when it comes to the haredim, you are much more sympathetic. I'm sick of it, Reuven. Not only that, I'm starting to wonder if haredi-based Jewish scholarship is one big load of BS, originating in the Diaspora and smelling of it. In other words, while Torah study is important, I am not convinced that the haredim do much of it.

First, avramele, please stick to English, not some English-Hebrew blend. If Israel National News can do it, so can you. Second, I for one appreciate Torah cites over vague assertions about what counts as Torah. This was my complaint in #25. Third, if you can justify the good Calvinist rabbi's analysis on halachic grounds, I'd be interested. Can you, or can you not? Fourth, your assertion that Bar Kochba was a "glorious disaster" requires an argument. What is your claim anyway? That it's foolish to fight back?

Dear SK, 1. No Jew should be evicted from his home in Eretz Yisroel unless it is a matter of life and death. 2. I will defend ANY Jew unjustly attacked (including you). Sadly, there are more unjust and outrageous attacks, and more evil Loshon Horoh spoken against Chareidim then any other group. This is a very sad trend and is the greatest Sinas Chinum we have today. 3. Read my #17 again. You are right that settling Yesha was "government policy" but no one, to the best of my knowledge, was ever SENT there. Everyone who moved did so out of their own volition. They all knew the risks. 4. There should be no difference between Chareidi Torah and non-Chareidi Torah. At least, that is how it should be. There are only differences between various Hashkofos. Sadly, again, there are many who have used Torah to promote their own ideology by "proving" their positions with quasi-Torah reasoning. This has been very true for certain politically-oriented and politically-affiliated groups in Israel. I object to that, too.

ok, let the record show that hebrew is banned from y-net talkbacks (just like in the streets of mea shearim!?) Second I would never justify or not justify returning land on halachic grounds. Issues of statecraft are to be left to the citizens and the politcal/military experts not the Rabbis... for that there is ample Rabbinic precedent. Third, Bar kochba's revolt was a mixture of patriotic bravery and nostalgic futility... Jewish messianism in its most attractive and destructive manifestation. the tragic end of the revolt left a scar of immense proportions on the Jewish psyche, resulted in widespread slaughter and dissipated copmmunal life and torah study within the land of Israel... to this day on yom kippur (oops, day of atonement) we recite the fate of the rabbinic martyrs of that period during tfilah (oops, prayers.) Zionism has always been a visionary movement that employed practical means and the art of smart compromise. It should stay that way!

Reuven, I pay attention to how hard someone works to justify something that is plainly tough to justify. I notice that you work hard to justify haredi exemption from military service, and also work hard to justify expelling Jews, even though you seem to say that you do not believe in such expulsions except ... well, except when? You say "You are right that settling Yesha was "government policy" but no one, to the best of my knowledge, was ever SENT there. Everyone who moved did so out of their own volition. They all knew the risks." I prefer plain speech. The only obvious purpose in your third point is to argue that "settlers" have no reasonable basis for objecting to a government that expels them. In fact, though, in American law there is a principle called "adverse possession" (see links), and I believe something like it is found in other nontotalitarian countries. The upshot is that after a cetain amount of time, someone who is openly in possession of land by, for example, living on it, acquires a right to live on it, even if doing so originally was a trespass. Since we agree that settling Yesha was government policy, we cannot even call setlement there a trespass. The government of Israel's intention to expel citizens living in places for generations is scandalous and hardly in keeping with democratic norms. Your fourth point reminds me about arguments concerning "true Islam." There are very clearly differences of opinion between, for example, religious Zionists and haredi Jews. From my (secular) perspective, the big difference seems to be that haredi Torah is politically irrelevant. If so, I think it's a big waste of money, and if I were an Israeli, I would object to spending a dime subsidizing it. The issue isn't "Loshon Horoh" but a fair appraisal that some things are not worth supporting. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

(1) Come on, avramele, I am not suggesting that Hebrew be "banned." I'm just saying that Ynet is intended to be an English-language site, and talkbacks really should be in English. Anyway, do you really want to write something that a big proportion of readers will find unintelligible? (2) You say "[you] would never justify or not justify returning land on halachic grounds. Issues of statecraft are to be left to the citizens and the politcal/military experts not the Rabbis... for that there is ample Rabbinic precedent." I have no doubt there is ample rabbinic precedent. The issue is the relevance of such precedent for the Jewish state. As I said in my response to Reuven, personally, I find a Judaism that cannot give some moral-political guidance to be irrelevant, and if I were an Israeli citizen, I would strongly object to subsidizing it. You no doubt disagree, but that does not give you the right to pick my pocket to further your study. Similarly, as an American citizen, I do not object to government funding of the arts, unless the art is crap. If most people agree that the art is crap, then government funding should terminate. (3) I do not think we know what all the consequences were of Bar kochba. However, we do know the consequences during the last 100 years of appeasing anti-Semites. (4) You say "Zionism has always been a visionary movement that employed practical means and the art of smart compromise. It should stay that way!" No. Zionism has been a futile striving for 2000 years. In the 20th century, in Israel, because of the Holocaust, there was a window of opportunity. Israel's political leadership has been, by and large, neither practical nor smart, and in the last 15 years has even managed to delegitimize the concept of a Jewish state among its Israel's own intelligentsia. This couldn't be more obvious, and it is also obvious that your version of Judaism is irrelevant or even counterproductive to the Jewish state. Israel needs a better Judaism, one that is politically relevant and that enhances the well being of the Jews who live there.

The route to capitulation and defeat. Follow these guys and wind up in Brooklyn, if you're lucky.