Eretz Hakodesh is treif like chazer The issue with Eretz Hakodesh is not over a simple vote where you pay 6 dollars and vote in 2 minutes; it's about the קרירות הדעת knowing that there's a separating wall between us and them. When you allow them in it will lead to harmful consequences like drafting yeshiva students and Jewish girls. What was once clear to us as forbidden has become questionable due to propaganda. If we had maintained our stance that it was treif, this wouldn't have happened. We must speak up boldly—there's no room for doubt. The struggle is over who holds the authority: the דעת בעלי בתים or Torah leaders. Unfortunately, the laypeople hold the power. This isn't about fanaticism, or kanaus it's about simple truths. We need to speak out and be afraid of what others say, or else the confusion will continue.
We must confront the websites and publications and fight them showing that they are not on control neither are בעלי בתים or גבירים in the הנהגה of klal yisroel.
The truth must be heard, and with Hashem’s help, it will prevail.
Beautiful speech. We cannot compromise with chazar=zionism.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot compromise with chazar=promoting anti-zionism to avoid dealing with bigger issues closer to home
DeleteWow powerful words from a gadol
ReplyDeleteWhere was this?
ReplyDeleteAt the asfias harabbonim held by the Roshei Hayeshiva after the asifa in BMG
DeleteYasher koach Hefkervelt!
ReplyDelete100% right this business of Baal habatim controlling everything MUST stop.
ReplyDeleteWe need to call out the marketing groups promoting these henious causes.
Delete
ReplyDeletehttps://www.timesofisrael.com/from-far-left-to-haredi-right-jews-question-ethics-of-voting-in-world-zionist-congress/
When even a Reform candidate refuses to vote — what are we doing at the table?
After running as a candidate last time, Abraham Silberstein will not even be voting in this year’s election for the World Zionist Congress.
In 2020, Silberstein — a vocal critic of Israel — joined the Reform movement’s slate for the World Zionist Congress. Despite deep reservations, he felt that “having a seat at the table” meant influence, engagement, representation. He ran. He served.
But not this time.
This time, he walked away — publicly and on principle.
“If I claimed to uphold the Jerusalem Program today, I would be lying,” he said.
“And that would be plainly unethical.”
Read that again.
A Reform Jew — from a movement that publicly discards halacha, celebrates to’eivah, and tears down the sanctity of the Beis HaMikdash in the name of pluralism — still had enough integrity to say:
“I cannot sign onto this lie. I will not participate.”
And us?
We, who bear the yoke of Torah and mitzvos?
We, who know what it means to say “Shema Yisrael” with trembling?
Can we look Hashem in the eye and say that accepting the Jerusalem Program — a Zionist manifesto that omits His Name, Torah, and kedushah — is “just a formality”?
Is this our version of ethics?
Are we so desperate for funding or influence that we are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who openly fund Reform conversions, egalitarian prayer, and movements that erase the line between Jew and gentile?
If a Reform candidate can walk away because his conscience won’t allow him to lie — shouldn’t our yiras Shamayim stop us from ever registering and accepting the Jerusalem Program in the first place?
Can a congress founded on secular ideals ever take the place of Har Sinai?
Do we really need a seat at their table, when we already stood at Hashem’s?
Der bus hat de maiyah hat der dayah !!
ReplyDeleteWill NEVER change!!
HOW COME THERE IS A CHAREIDI GOV'T MINISTER FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS?!
ReplyDeleteIT WAS considered ASSUR FOR CLOSE TO 70 YEARS! NOTHING CHANGED!?
Wow you Mamish shtucht the olam out
DeleteSince your ilk haven't any response- admit You are wrong
DeleteWhen Even a Reform Candidate Refuses to Vote — What Are We Doing at the Table?
ReplyDeleteAfter running as a candidate last time, Abraham Silberstein will not even be voting in this year’s election for the World Zionist Congress.
In 2020, Silberstein — a vocal critic of Israel — joined the Reform movement’s slate. Despite his deep misgivings, he believed that “having a seat at the table” meant having a voice, a chance to shape the future. He ran. He served.
But not this time.
This time, even he walked away — publicly, and on principle.
“If I claimed to uphold the Jerusalem Program today,” he said.“And that would be plainly unethical.”
Let that sink in.
A Reform Jew — from a movement that openly rewrites halacha, performs intermarriages, ordains women and to’eivah activists as rabbis, and builds altars of egalitarianism at the foot of our destroyed Beis HaMikdash — still drew a red line.
He refused to participate — because doing so would cross a line his conscience could not ignore.
We do not hold up Reform theology as a model — chalilah. But this moment forces a bitter analogy:
It’s like watching someone who lives in a house built on crooked foundations — a theology of denial and distortion — suddenly refuse to enter a room because the ceiling is too low to stand upright.
And then watching us — the ones who live in a palace of eternal truth, a house built at Har Sinai — crawl through that very same doorway, saying, “It’s only temporary,” or “it’s just symbolic.”
When the one without Torah still recognizes that a lie is a lie —what does it say about those who claim to carry its truth?
What does it say when Orthodox Jews — who wear tefillin with trembling, who cry during Ne'ilah, who whisper "Shema Yisrael" with awe and tears — are willing to sign on to, accept, or affirm a declaration that erases Hashem's Name, omits Torah, and proclaims secular nationalism as the pinnacle of Jewish destiny?
What does it say when those who claim to bear the truth of Sinai are willing to place their names beneath a document that uproots that very truth — and then call it "symbolic"?
Can we stand before Hakadosh Baruch Hu — with tefillin still on our arms — and say that aligning ourselves with that program was “just paperwork”?
Have we traded yiras Shamayim for influence?
Are we so hungry for funding, recognition, and “a seat at the table” that we’re willing to sell our spiritual inheritance to sit alongside those who build altars of pluralism atop the ruins of kedushah?
Can a congress founded on secular Zionist ideals — which Eretz HaKodesh was required to formally accept — ever take the place of Har Sinai?
Do we really need a seat at their table — when we already stood at Hashem’s?
I Was Asked to Sign
ReplyDeleteA friend once asked me to co-sign a Gemach loan. I refused — not out of cruelty, but because I did not want to become liable for something I couldn’t fully answer for.
He said to me, “It’s only symbolic.”
But I refused to sign. Because once your name is on paper, symbolic becomes binding. Symbolic becomes real. And when there’s fallout, no one says, “He didn’t mean it.” They say, “He signed.”
And if I wouldn’t attach my name to a private obligation I couldn’t answer for —how could I ever sign onto a public document that aligns me with a secular Zionist ideology that denies the very core of Torah?
ReplyDeleteWhat Does It Actually Take to Register a Slate?
Can anyone still call this “symbolic” when the process to register a slate for the World Zionist Congress in the United States requires:
A formal written application to the American Zionist Movement (AZM),
A public declaration of the slate's Zionist ideology and platform,
A statement describing how the slate will advance the goals of the Zionist movement,
Written acceptance of:
The Jerusalem Program,
The World Zionist Organization (WZO) Constitution,
The AZM Constitution,
Proof of nonprofit incorporation,
A non-refundable $2,500 filing fee,
A ranked list of candidates,
A petition with at least 800 verified signatures from Jewish voters in the U.S.,
An additional $2,500 filing fee upon validation of the petition.
And in the United Kingdom, the slate registration process is overseen by the Zionist Federation UK (ZFUK), and entails the following:
Platform and Philosophy: Submit a detailed outline of the slate’s Zionist platform, including ideological positions and goals.
Compliance: Provide a formal affirmation of acceptance of:
The Jerusalem Program
The Constitution of the World Zionist Organization
Support Threshold: Secure a minimum number of nominations or signatories from members of the UK Jewish community (exact number determined by ZFUK).
Filing Fee: Payment of a registration fee as set by ZFUK.
Candidate List: Submit a list of individuals willing to serve as delegates.
Approval and Ballot Inclusion: Upon review and confirmation by ZFUK and the WZO, the slate is eligible to appear on the UK ballot for WZC elections. Note: All slates, regardless of country, are required to explicitly affirm and adopt the Jerusalem Program as a formal condition of registration. This is not symbolic — it is ideological, contractual, legal, and public.
Is this really "technical"? Is this really "just a formality"?
Was the Truth Told — to the Zionists, and to the Gedolim?
Was the application process completely, absolutely, and undeniably honest — on both ends?
Because the facts are clear.
To be on the ballot, one had to declare in writing their ideological commitment to the Jerusalem Program. They had to describe their Zionist beliefs. They had to affirm that they would promote the Zionist movement’s goals. And they had to submit this under the name of Torah Jews — And I wonder if big rabbonim or roshei yeshiva are listed there.
So here is the question:
ReplyDeleteWas everything that was written and submitted to the WZO also fully disclosed — word for word, without dilution — to the Gedolei HaDor and Roshei Yeshiva in Eretz Yisroel, the United Kingdom, and the United States?
Was the full ideological commitment stated clearly to all of them?
Were they told:
"We signed a document saying we accept the Jerusalem Program. We wrote how our slate will advance Zionist goals. We described how our hashkafah aligns with Zionist ideology.”
Were they shown the application?
Were they informed that registering a slate for the World Zionist Congress requires formally signing a written application that includes public affirmation of the Jerusalem Program — the foundational ideological platform of the WZO — along with a declaration of Zionist philosophy, intent to advance Zionist goals, and support for a system that directly funds institutions that promote Reform conversions, egalitarian prayer at the Kosel, and a worldview that omits Torah and mitzvos as the foundation of Jewish destiny?
Or were the Gedolim told a different version — one that sounded safe? Strategic? Less clear?
Was everyone involved — in each country — fully informed of how the registration procedures differ across the U.S., the U.K., and Israel — and that in each case, the ideological commitment to the Jerusalem Program remains a binding and non-negotiable requirement?
Was there complete transparency?
Because if the version told to the Zionists and the version told to Daas Torah were not the same — even slightly — then this is not about politics. It is about emes.
If it was all fully transparent — then let it be shown. Let the applications be published. Let the public and the Gedolim see what was actually signed and declared — and let there be full accountability, so that no one can say they did not know.
But if not —If those behind the slates could not say to a Gadol what they signed to a Zionist judge —Then how could they sign it at all — and still claim to speak in the name of Torah?
We Become the Witnesses
ReplyDeleteWhen Orthodox Jews sign those forms, they’re not just making a private compromise. They are giving eidus. They are becoming witnesses. And in the court of public opinion, in the eyes of Jews around the world, they are standing and declaring:
“This program represents Torah. This secular ideology is compatible with Hashem’s will. This is what Orthodox Jews believe.”
And if that platform is false — if it erases Hashem, undermines Torah, and promotes values antithetical to everything we stand for — then that signature becomes eidus sheker.
Would anyone dare enter a beis din and testify falsely under oath?
Would anyone say, “Don’t worry, Dayan — I only said it symbolically”?
Would Heaven accept that excuse?
I’ve worked for countless years with integrity, only to have everything stolen from me because of forged signatures and deception in business. I’ve seen how families were destroyed because Dayanim accepted eidus sheker.
So don’t talk to me about symbols.
I’ve seen what happens when Torah is used to excuse betrayal.
And I’ve watched — with heartbreak — as sincere people were pulled into deception because the ones who twisted the truth wore yarmulkes.
And the tragedy is, even the non-Orthodox world sees it.
They may reject Torah, but they still know what integrity looks like.
And when they see Orthodox Jews signing what they don’t believe — not because they’re Reform, but because they’re Orthodox — they don’t blame Zionism.
They blame Torah.
They call us shakranim. Manipulators. Fraudulent.
They say: “If this is Torah, we want no part of it.”
And that is the ultimate chillul Hashem — when we, who bear the Name of Hashem, use it to sign onto something He never commanded.
So I Refuse
ReplyDeleteSo I ask not as an accusation, but as a question:
Can I — as a Torah Jew — knowingly sign on to, accept, or affirm something I do not believe in? Can I lend my name — or my silence — to a process that may involve affirming a platform that excludes Torah, omits Hashem, and equates all streams of Judaism? Can I place myself in a position where I might be giving eidus sheker — false testimony — not in a courtroom, but before all of Klal Yisrael?
If someone from a movement that publicly rejects halacha still felt compelled to walk away — because accepting or affirming would have violated his own sense of ethics and personal integrity — then shouldn’t those who stood at Har Sinai ask themselves at least as much?
We don’t need their table.
We already stood at Hashem’s.
And what we received at Har Sinai is eternal — it cannot be sold, not for funding, not for strategy, and not for a seat at someone else’s table.
Transcript of Special Video Message from
ReplyDeleteRAV DOV LANDAU SHLITA
Rosh Yeshivas Slabodka
In an uncharacteristically sharp message, Rav Landau – one of the last talmidim of the Chazon Ish and one of the most senior Roshei Yeshivos of the generation – expresses in unequivocal and crystal-clear words the true Daas Torah on the attempts of “Eretz Hakodesh” to entice Torah Yidden to participate in the World Zionist Organization elections.
Rav Landau dismisses the notion that there could be “another side” on such a basic Torah attitude. If some Gedolei Yisroel were cited as having given their assent, the question must have been presented incorrectly. No Gadol could possibly have agreed to joining the World Zionist Organization, which was founded with the express purpose of destroying the Torah and maintains that goal until today.
Transcript, translated from Hebrew by UKforTorah:
The WZO was founded with the goal of making Am Yisroel into a secular nation. That was its purpose, and that is what it engages is, and that is what they’ve done – to turn Am Yisroel into a secular nation, without Torah, and without Borei Olam – Rachmona Litzlan – without Torah, without anything!
That was the purpose – and, to an extent, it was to accomplish that purpose that they also built the State, which is secular. The topic of that we participate in the [Knesset] elections in the secular State – that is a completely different topic. But to participate in the WZO, which is entirely kefira in Borei Olam, kefira in Torah, in Am Yisroel as an Am Kadosh L’HaShem, to turn them into Amon and Moav – that is something very very seriously [wrong]. It’s impossible to participate in their institutions. That would be called us having a connection to them, and we don’t!
One can say the sharpest words; I don’t want to express myself more sharply. But the fact is, that [it is] turning Am Yisroel from an Am Kadosh L’HaShem into a secular nation, without Torah, without Mitzvos, without anything.
Q. What’s the definition of the issur – a [halachic] issur or a problem of Chillul HaShem?
It’s everything – being partners with the secular. I’ll say words that are bit too sharp – if the decision would be regarding serving Avodah Zora, would there still be a question? No! This is Avodah Zora; kefira is like Avodah Zora, and even worse!
Q. The issur includes only to run [as a WZO representative] or also to participate in the elections?
To be with them in their institutions.
Q. Is there an issur on each individual on voting?
Each and every individual. Just like if there would an idea that we have to go serve Avoda Zora, would that be a collective issur or on each individual? The WZO says that Am Yisroel is a nation of secularists, and each individual has to declare that he opposed to that.
Q. People ask – is there an issur to vote?
A very, very, very, very, grave issur!
Q. They say that there were Gedolei Yisroel זצ"ל, in the previous generations, who permitted.
They didn’t present them with the question in the way they should have. [These Gedolim] were immersed in Torah and Mitzvos, and the question was presented to them incorrectly.
Q. There are those who already voted, but have the option of cancelling the vote.
They are obligated to cancel, they are obligated to cancel! They are extremely obligated, there is no exemption.
(Note: I received this via e-mail from UKforTorah at gmail.com with video attached)