ultra-Orthodox Jews against Isarel. What does Chaim say?

[judeanoncapta]

Please elaborate.

[Dexter]

Please elaborate.

OOOOOOH, SICK BURN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

=
 

[judeanoncapta]

It's american slang meaning "You really beat him with that argument."

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more  .  I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower. 

I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.

But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.

There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.

Daweehd???

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It proves plenty.  The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.

No.  The Hashmoneans re-established Jewish (true Torah observant Jewish) control of the Beis Hamikdash.  He is not referring to the kings, wicked or otherwise.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Well, if the Rambam thought like the Satmurs, he would have said that Chanukah shouldn't be celebrated since we fought against the occupiers of Israel before the Massiah and brought a wicked kingdom to Israel in the near future. 

You are saying we established a "wicked kingdom" but this is not what Hanukkah is about.  It is about Torah-true Jews led by the Hashmoneans rebelling against the wicked hellenists and Syrian greeks to retake the Beis Hamikdash and re-establish the control of Jewish affairs to Torah-true rabbis rather than saducees, hellenists and other defilers of the faith.  The miracle was that G-d gave victory to the Torah-true Jews and enabled them to purify Judaism again.  It has nothing to do with who the king was or became. 

[judeanoncapta]

He mans that soon you'll join the rest of us and not consider yourself Charedi any more  .  I used to think I was Charedi when I was a little kid in Yeshiva but shortly realized that they were wrong on almost everything and tried to uproot my traditions and brainwash me into a blind mindless follower. 

I used to think of myself as Chareidi, after all, I live in Boro Park.

But after learning the Satmar Rebbe's seforim in depth(more than any Satmar Chassid has anyway) and comparing it to the teachings of Rabbi Daweedh Bar Hayim, I don't consider myself a Hareidi at all.

There is no question that Hareidi Rabbis have no idea what G-d wants to see occur in this world.

Daweehd???

Daweedh is the correct way to pronounce the name David in Hebrew.

Why are you so surprised?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Daweehd???

Daweedh is the correct way to pronounce the name David in Hebrew.

Why are you so surprised?

That is the Arabic way to pronounce David.

[judeanoncapta]

Daweehd???

Daweedh is the correct way to pronounce the name David in Hebrew.

Why are you so surprised?

That is the Arabic way to pronounce David.

NO.

The Arabic way is Dawoud.

The true Hebrew way to pronounce it is Daweedh.

[judeanoncapta]

It proves plenty.  The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.

No.  The Hashmoneans re-established Jewish (true Torah observant Jewish) control of the Beis Hamikdash.  He is not referring to the kings, wicked or otherwise.

Have you read the first paragraph of the Laws of Hannukah in the rambam?

It is quite clear that he praises the Hasmonean re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty for over two hundred years which includes Antipater, Alexander Yannai and Herod.

[judeanoncapta]

Well, if the Rambam thought like the Satmurs, he would have said that Chanukah shouldn't be celebrated since we fought against the occupiers of Israel before the Massiah and brought a wicked kingdom to Israel in the near future. 

You are saying we established a "wicked kingdom" but this is not what Hanukkah is about.  It is about Torah-true Jews led by the Hashmoneans rebelling against the wicked hellenists and Syrian greeks to retake the Beis Hamikdash and re-establish the control of Jewish affairs to Torah-true rabbis rather than saducees, hellenists and other defilers of the faith.  The miracle was that G-d gave victory to the Torah-true Jews and enabled them to purify Judaism again.  It has nothing to do with who the king was or became. 

And yet the Rambam praises the fact that there were Jewish Kings at all, despite how they later acted.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It proves plenty.  The Rambam is saying that having a wicked Kingdom of Israel is better than having no state and being subjugated by foreigners such as the Greek-Syrians.

No.  The Hashmoneans re-established Jewish (true Torah observant Jewish) control of the Beis Hamikdash.  He is not referring to the kings, wicked or otherwise.

Have you read the first paragraph of the Laws of Hannukah in the rambam?

It is quite clear that he praises the Hasmonean re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty for over two hundred years which includes Antipater, Alexander Yannai and Herod.

But the point of the "Jewish kingdom" is not having to do with the king per se and his behavior, it has to do with the fact that Jews can freely live in our own holy land and that we have control of the Beis Hamikdash to do our temple service mitzvot.  I don't think you have established from Rambam that he is saying it is better to have a wicked Jewish king than a non Jewish one.  His point lies elsewhere.  It is better that Jews have control of EY, rabbis control and Jews own Temple Mount, rather than be in exile, not free to serve Hashem in our land with our temple service, as happened after that 200 years.
To be more specific, what exactly changed by way of the Hasmonean revolt?  We technically had jewish "sovereignty," but unfortunately through bribes and other meddling by the goyim, unfit rabbis with heretical beliefs (the sadduccees) often became kohen gadol and controlled the Temple Mount service, at times allowing nonkosher sacrifices to occur.  But technically Jews were somewhat autonomous under the syrian greek auspices during this time.  It remained so, even later under the Romans, after the hanukkah revolt.  Autonomy was there.  But what changed was the purity of the Temple service, no?  It's worth looking into this further, I should brush up on this.

[q_q_]

There are arguments I would put to neturei karta - explain this: how moshe killed the egyptian that beat the jew, chanukah,

But the argument that I would put to you who say the 3 oaths are not relevant in some way.

Just saying that ketuvot 110B-111A is not halacha, and is aggada, does not cut it. Because if it is aggada, then what does it teach?

Scholars here have said it is just different opinions.. and Reb Zeira was not of that opinion. However,
Reb Zeira (who was in bavel and wanted to go to israel) did not disagree with the 3 oaths, he just said it banned jews from going en masse. But it allowed individuals.

Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?


This website(which happens to be anti-semitic) has a full accurate copy of the soncino translation of the talmud
http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_0.html
Seder Nashim, Tractate Ketuvot,   (end of) 110B   to - mid 111A






 

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

You cant look at and rely at all on an anti-semitic site (so its counted as if it doesn't exist).
 If you want to learn Talmud go to http://www.dailygemara.com/

[q_q_]

For goodness sake, the translation is soncino. I happen to have the soncino translation on CD from davka software too. It is not tampered with.

You are welcome to ignore that link if you want, and use a proper gemara. Or your own website that just has an audio of the daf, and the daf in hebrew.  This does not affect my post at all.. 

My post has the same argument, without that link. Without even looking at that website. So if you are responding to it, then please deal with the substance.

[judeanoncapta]

Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?

Yes, the Ramban who says that the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael applies at all times. Obviously the three oaths are not taken into account if the Ramban is saying that we are ALWAYS obligated to conquer eretz yisrael.

Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse.

Also the Yaabetz Rabbi Yaaqov Emden says that we should move to Israel en masse. All of the Jewish people are required to go to Israel at all times.

Also Rashi who in his commentary on the verse in Song of Songs that the three oaths is based on, says "There are many Midrashim on this verse that do not make sense." and then goes on to say that the Gentiles and not the Jews are being sworn in this oath.

So there are plenty of Rabbanim who said at the time that there is no issur in moving back en masse. In fact, I would ask your non-zionist friend to find ONE poseq who brought this down as a halakha before the BACKLASH AGAINST the Modern Zionist Movement.

[jdl4ever]

The Soncino is a conservative translation so you can't just rely on it alone but must read the Talmud together with the translation to make sure they are not mistranslating.  However, I have used it and found this translation to be very accurate regardless of it's authors.  Also it is very cheap.  I would rather buy the Soncino than the artscroll since it is more reasonable. 

[q_q_]

Soncino is a publisher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soncino

It goes back long before the reform/liberal/conservative e.t.c. movements. Neither their chumash, nor talmud translations are done by reform/conservative .  It is all orthodox.

The talmud translation was done by Rabbi Isidore Epstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidore_Epstein
The foreward to the translation was done by a former chief rabbi, rabbi dr hertz.

Conservative synagogues in america may use it but it is an orthodox translation. They just do not have any scholars to write their own translation. I have heard that they now have their own chumash translation..

The old Modern Orthodox shuls in britain have Soncino and Hertz chumashim. And there is no way that the rabbis would allow them in the shul if they were written by reform/conservative. That is just ridiculous.. Similar with the talmud translation..

So, you are very wrong about soncino.

[jdl4ever]

Interesting.  I didn't know it was an Orthodox translation. 

[q_q_]

Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?

Yes, the Ramban who says that the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael applies at all times. Obviously the three oaths are not taken into account if the Ramban is saying that we are ALWAYS obligated to conquer eretz yisrael.

Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse.

Also the Yaabetz Rabbi Yaaqov Emden says that we should move to Israel en masse. All of the Jewish people are required to go to Israel at all times.

Also Rashi who in his commentary on the verse in Song of Songs that the three oaths is based on, says "There are many Midrashim on this verse that do not make sense." and then goes on to say that the Gentiles and not the Jews are being sworn in this oath.

So there are plenty of Rabbanim who said at the time that there is no issur in moving back en masse. In fact, I would ask your non-zionist friend to find ONE poseq who brought this down as a halakha before the BACKLASH AGAINST the Modern Zionist Movement.

He is on paltalk, in a room called Torah Revolution or Torah Nation.  He is the admin. He has a name like TorasMosheEmmes
I think it is EST 11PM to around 4AM.

If you do go on and have a chat with him, then please let me know how it goes.. He is a baal teshuva, who became religious only around 7 or 8 years ago, but he is very frum and intelligent and logical and well informed.

In britain(GMT, and GMT=EST+5), that means me logging on at 3AM, which is not feasible this week).
maybe if I get up early, then before I get to work.. I am not really a morning person.

I noticed about Rashi on the oaths , The pesach artscroll machzor has his commentary on it.  It is strange that he says that oath is G-d to the nations. Since the gemara has it as being G-d to the jewish people.  Does rashi have any basis for saying it is G-d to the nations?

Putting aside whether they bring it as halacha, he says they teach it as not to go up en masse. Regarding whether it is as halacha. I put it to him that the RAMBAM did not include it in the mishneh torah. He said he did, though not explicitly..  He says the RAMBAM Has a section on oaths, and the seriousness of oaths. And, he says (as neturei karta do) , that the epistle to yemen which the RAMBAM wrote, where it quotes the oath from shir hashirim, he thinks the rambam is telling them not to go up to israel en masse. (what else would the rambam be telling them, quoting an oath not to awaken the love.. )We love israel anyway, right? I do not see any plain meaning there regarding our relationship with israel. Only what the gemara says it means.. So that must be what he is telling them.



 

[judeanoncapta]

He is on paltalk, in a room called Torah Revolution or Torah Nation.  He is the admin. He has a name like TorasMosheEmmes
I think it is EST 11PM to around 4AM.

I will see if I can speak to him perhaps tonight.

If you do go on and have a chat with him, then please let me know how it goes.. He is a baal teshuva, who became religious only around 7 or 8 years ago, but he is very frum and intelligent and logical and well informed.

I will let you know how it goes, if I do it, that is.

In britain(GMT, and GMT=EST+5), that means me logging on at 3AM, which is not feasible this week).
maybe if I get up early, then before I get to work.. I am not really a morning person.

Neither am I.

I noticed about Rashi on the oaths , The pesach artscroll machzor has his commentary on it.  It is strange that he says that oath is G-d to the nations. Since the gemara has it as being G-d to the jewish people.  Does rashi have any basis for saying it is G-d to the nations?

Perhaps his reasoning is that a misswath Asse min haTorah cannot be whisked away by a midrash that claims that there were oaths that the Jews and the Nations took upon themselves.

Who precisely agreed to these oaths? On the Jewish side and the Gentile side?

When were these oaths agreed to? Is it possible that the Misswa of yishuv HaAretz, (which that Talmud says is equal to all the Torah) is actually assur mideRabbanan?

Is that something that is even possible?

There are only three things that Chazal say are equal to the Whole Torah, Learning Torah, Shabbat and Yishuv Haaretz.

Therefore saying that it is assur for Jews to Move to Israel en masse is roughly like saying that Keeping Shabbath en masse or Learning Torah en masse is forbidden

Putting aside whether they bring it as halacha, he says they teach it as not to go up en masse. Regarding whether it is as halacha. I put it to him that the RAMBAM did not include it in the mishneh torah. He said he did, though not explicitly..  He says the RAMBAM Has a section on oaths, and the seriousness of oaths.

Ridiculous. Ludicrous.

True, actual oaths that are actually agreed upon by a person, not metaphoric oaths brought in a midrash.

And, he says (as neturei karta do) , that the epistle to yemen which the RAMBAM wrote, where it quotes the oath from shir hashirim, he thinks the rambam is telling them not to go up to israel en masse. (what else would the rambam be telling them, quoting an oath not to awaken the love.. )

The context was about not following Messianic pretenders who would of course lead the Jewish people to go to Israel unarmed where they would inevitably be slaughtered.

Certainly that makes sense. But when it comes to the Zionist movement, the Zionists have built up a state that at this point could conquer both Persia and Babylon and Assyria and Egypt all at the same time. That is an Israelite military that is stronger than the Israelite military has ever been in the History of the Jewish people.

That is a very different situation than a Jewish people as powerless as we were in the Galuth.

I'm sure that you can see the difference. Perhaps your friend cannot. I'm sure that if I was posed this question two years ago, I would have not been able to see the difference. Haredi faith is all encompassing and many times it is delusional.

We love israel anyway, right? I do not see any plain meaning there regarding our relationship with israel. Only what the gemara says it means.. So that must be what he is telling them.

Please elaborate.

I do not get your meaning.
 

[jdl4ever]

Not everything said in a Medrish is to be believed.  That is what Rashi is saying.  The Medrish (Rabba) contains mostly far out explanations that don't follow the literal meaning of the Torah and some don't even make sense and even explicitly contradict what the Torah says.  If a Medrish contradicts the Torah explicitly like this one then it is wrong.  It is irrelevant that the Talmud brought it as the Talmud occasionally brings opinions that are not the Halacha.  The Rambam and Rashi basically stated out right or implied outright that this Medrish is wrong since it contradicts the explicit meaning of the Torah where it has an eternal unconditional commandment to conquer the Land of Israel. 

I personally think without any proof but with mere speculation that this Medrish was written soon after the Bar Kochbah revolt when the author was scared after losing a million Jews in the revolt that if it continues no one will be left.  So he made up this Medrish to prevent his followers from rebelling against Rome unless they are oppressed too much and are forced to go en mass.  Although his intent was good, it was wrong since it contradicts the Torah.

[q_q_]

<snip>

I noticed about Rashi on the oaths , The pesach artscroll machzor has his commentary on it.  It is strange that he says that oath is G-d to the nations. Since the gemara has it as being G-d to the jewish people.  Does rashi have any basis for saying it is G-d to the nations?

Perhaps his reasoning is that a misswath Asse min haTorah cannot be whisked away by a midrash that claims that there were oaths that the Jews and the Nations took upon themselves.

Who precisely agreed to these oaths? On the Jewish side and the Gentile side?

When were these oaths agreed to? Is it possible that the Misswa of yishuv HaAretz, (which that Talmud says is equal to all the Torah) is actually assur mideRabbanan?

Is that something that is even possible?

There are only three things that Chazal say are equal to the Whole Torah, Learning Torah, Shabbat and Yishuv Haaretz.

Therefore saying that it is assur for Jews to Move to Israel en masse is roughly like saying that Keeping Shabbath en masse or Learning Torah en masse is forbidden

I don`t really understand the mitzva of settling the land / yishuv haaretz...

Daf 110B, says something along the lines of, if you live outside the land of israel it is as if you are an idolator.
The non zionist guy made a great point though.. he said "the rabbis that wrote that were living in babylon, so you have to ask what they meant"..
I guess he is right..

Then also, on 111A, it says that if you are in babylon you should not leave. And if you are in israel you should not leave.

I do not really see consistency between the 2, or consistency between them, and yishuv haaretz.

Putting aside whether they bring it as halacha, he says they teach it as not to go up en masse. Regarding whether it is as halacha. I put it to him that the RAMBAM did not include it in the mishneh torah. He said he did, though not explicitly..  He says the RAMBAM Has a section on oaths, and the seriousness of oaths.

Ridiculous. Ludicrous.

True, actual oaths that are actually agreed upon by a person, not metaphoric oaths brought in a midrash.

I could not prove that they are metaphorical... But I disagreed with him also, for the reason that I would expect them to be listed explicitly ..
He said there would be no need to list every oath one can take.. I replied that there are only 3 and these are in the gemara..
His argument there was very weak..

But, a point , which i actually saw from gil student on his hirhurim website..
On his articles on religious zionism (not the shlomo aviner set of articles)

He said that if it is aggada then what does it teach..

see, if it teaches the same thing as it would teach were it halacha, then it would still forbid x!

And, he says (as neturei karta do) , that the epistle to yemen which the RAMBAM wrote, where it quotes the oath from shir hashirim, he thinks the rambam is telling them not to go up to israel en masse. (what else would the rambam be telling them, quoting an oath not to awaken the love.. )

The context was about not following Messianic pretenders who would of course lead the Jewish people to go to Israel unarmed where they would inevitably be slaughtered.

Certainly that makes sense. But when it comes to the Zionist movement, the Zionists have built up a state that at this point could conquer both Persia and Babylon and Assyria and Egypt all at the same time. That is an Israelite military that is stronger than the Israelite military has ever been in the History of the Jewish people.

That is a very different situation than a Jewish people as powerless as we were in the Galuth.

I'm sure that you can see the difference. Perhaps your friend cannot. I'm sure that if I was posed this question two years ago, I would have not been able to see the difference. Haredi faith is all encompassing and many times it is delusional.

I looked for iggeres teiman online, and this is the best I could get
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/maimonides.cfm

Is this not the whole thing?  i.e. is it out of context?

I do not see anything there about messianic pretenders and the danger.

We love israel anyway, right? I do not see any plain meaning there regarding our relationship with israel. Only what the gemara says it means.. So that must be what he is telling them.

Please elaborate.

I do not get your meaning.

The RAMBAM mentioned the verse from shir hashirim (the oath verse that occurs 3 times in shir hashirim). What could he have meant when mentioning that verse?

Certainly nothing in the gemara or midrash about the verse being associated with not following a false messiah.

The only thing I can see he could have been referring to was the 3 oaths gemara in ketuvot 110B-111A.  One oath being Not to go to israel en masse.

[jdl4ever]

If you read the Rambam in Hilchot Malchut he clearly is pro the Jews going to Israel in mass in our times.  He says if any Torah observant leader gathers up the Jews to Israel and tells them to go fight their enemies he must be followed and is considered B'chezcat Moshiach.  Then he says that if he is defeated then he is considered no different than the righteous Kings of the Tanach.  In Hilchot Shabbat he talks about Milchemet Rishut in our times and beseiging cities on Shabbat which means Jews fighting their enemies in Israel.

Q_q, you are making a very big Torah mistake that many religious people make.  You are procrastinating over the Talmud and the commentaries getting all confused without first looking at the Torah.  The Torah is always the first place that any real learned Jew looks and if any commentary contradicts the Torah than it is wrong or if possible must be reread or reinterpruited in a way as to not contradict the Torah as your original interpuitation was wrong.  The Torah of Moshe says in multiple places a commandment that we must conquer the land of Israel and expel the inhabitants.  There is no condition attached to this commandment and no time limit.  In these multiple places where this commandment is listed, the Torah says nothing about Moshiach, the exile, or anything else constraining this commandment so they do not exist, period.  If some Medrish argues with the Torah than it is wrong, that's the end of the story.

The Talmud Babli (although otherwise is nearly flawless) has a few obvious contradictions with the Torah and obscure things said by different Rabbis on the issue of settling the land of Israel precisely because they had to cope with the fact that they were not doing what the Torah requires and setting an example for the nation by making Aliyah but lived in Babylon because life was easy there.  This is clearly apparent.  The Yerushalmi knocks the Rabbis of the Babli for not making Aliyah.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Here is a great challenge put to me by a non zionist in the diaspora..
Do you know of any source, pre modern zionism, that discusses this idea that the 3 oaths are not serious, or that they are not relevant, or do not apply, such as the idea that the 3 oaths are inderdependent, and if the nations break their oath with G-d and persecute us, then we can break our oath with G-d and go up en masse?

Yes, the Ramban who says that the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael applies at all times. Obviously the three oaths are not taken into account if the Ramban is saying that we are ALWAYS obligated to conquer eretz yisrael.

Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse.

Also the Yaabetz Rabbi Yaaqov Emden says that we should move to Israel en masse. All of the Jewish people are required to go to Israel at all times.

Also Rashi who in his commentary on the verse in Song of Songs that the three oaths is based on, says "There are many Midrashim on this verse that do not make sense." and then goes on to say that the Gentiles and not the Jews are being sworn in this oath.

So there are plenty of Rabbanim who said at the time that there is no issur in moving back en masse. In fact, I would ask your non-zionist friend to find ONE poseq who brought this down as a halakha before the BACKLASH AGAINST the Modern Zionist Movement.

I would also point out that even for those people who misinterpreted the oaths and differed from the opinions of Rashi, Ramban, and all these other great rabbonim you list, even for these people, the life-and-death situation of the Holocaust would override any supposed oaths.  Jews were denied entry everywhere in the world (even denied by the British into "palestine" during Holocaust) and only smuggling into Eretz Yisrael was much of an option, while some zionist leaders had some political sway.  Same holds true for the Sephardim who were persecuted, beaten, tortured, robbed and expelled from Arab countries.  Logical place to go was Israel where they could remain alive.  If someone truly believes that Hashem runs this world and takes an active role in what happens, they cannot deny the stupidity of the anti-zionist argument.  Some in Naturei karta have the chutzpah to suggest that zionism caused the holocaust.  If this is so, why would Jews in the Shoah be denied entry into all other nations, not be saved by emigration deals, many end up in EY, all the sephardim forced out and into EY, etc.... The Jews win the wars against the genocidal Arabs that followed.... G-d must really like the fact that those oaths were broken, no?  I personally have a sneaking suspicion that it is not that we entered the land too soon that is the reason for today's problems, it is that the Torah believing Jews delayed so long to resettle the land, as all these great rabbonim were encouraging us to settle it.  Because of all that delay we are stuck with Olmert types.  Now it is our job to uproot them.