re: Chaim's answer to Gambashan

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Rabbi Kahane (z"l) said "sometimes you have to risk your life in order to survive."  It reminds me of a speech he gave at a yeshiva, where he was explaining the milchemet mitvah (the war of obligation).  For most commandments, Jews are allowed to sometimes not follow them if there is a risk to life.  Take observing shabbat for instance.  Jews are allowed to refrain from observing the sabbath if there is a risk to life.  You don't do it this time so that you may live to do it another time.  But there is one commandment (actually there are several) which you have to follow even if following it presents a risk to life and that is the milchemet mitzvah.

Why is this so?  Because the war of obligation by its very nature always presents a risk to life.  Consequently, it does not matter that there is a risk, we have to fight the necessary war.

I just thought that Chaim's answer reminded me of this.  Sometimes we have to take great risk upon ourselves.  Look at what happens when Jews refuse to fight wars of obligation.  Time and time again the result is more loss of life, more loss of our Holy land, and more desecrations of G-d's name.  I would like to see the Jewish people of Israel keep this commandment even if their leaders do not.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

"But there is one commandment (actually there are several) which you have to follow even if following it presents a risk to life and that is the milchemet mitzvah."

 (Havn't listined to Chaim's answer yett), but I think it isn't just straight out like that. Meaning that if this would be the case, then Jews would have to keep fighting no matter what the consequences would be, even death for most or all of them (G-d forbid). It is different then the 3 that a Jew no matter what should give his/her own life up for. (Murder, having illicit relations, worshiping other gods).
  With this case its more complex, but I believe that on the personal level, yes one would possibly have to give up his life as a soldier, but as a society and as an army it is more complex, becuase it should not only and always be to attach for the sake of the Mitzva. Sometimes during a battle if one needs to retreat then what can you do, you have to do that. And other times the best stratigic solution is to keep going foward. It all depends on what either a prophet says, or for today a good general (but one who in actuality wants to win, and wants to and does seek the benefit of the nation). Even King David Alav Hashalom had some retreats and defeats, but in the long run, he captured a lot of new land, becuase he knew what he was doing and G-d was with him.

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

"But there is one commandment (actually there are several) which you have to follow even if following it presents a risk to life and that is the milchemet mitzvah."

 (Havn't listined to Chaim's answer yett), but I think it isn't just straight out like that. Meaning that if this would be the case, then Jews would have to keep fighting no matter what the consequences would be, even death for most or all of them (G-d forbid). It is different then the 3 that a Jew no matter what should give his/her own life up for. (Murder, having illicit relations, worshiping other gods).
  With this case its more complex, but I believe that on the personal level, yes one would possibly have to give up his life as a soldier, but as a society and as an army it is more complex, becuase it should not only and always be to attach for the sake of the Mitzva. Sometimes during a battle if one needs to retreat then what can you do, you have to do that. And other times the best stratigic solution is to keep going foward. It all depends on what either a prophet says, or for today a good general (but one who in actuality wants to win, and wants to and does seek the benefit of the nation). Even King David Alav Hashalom had some retreats and defeats, but in the long run, he captured a lot of new land, becuase he knew what he was doing and G-d was with him.

                                                                                                                            בס''ד

Unfortunately, Tzvi again presents us with the defeatist mentality of the Charedim that he so admires.

There is nothing complex about milchemet mitzvah (an obligatory war). When there is an obligatory war, Jews are required to fight and be willing to give their lives if necessary. The three things that Jews must be willing to die for (murder, sexual immorality and idolatry) are for Jews as individuals. But when Jews are called upon to fight on a national level, they must be willing to die if necessary to protect their nation, their land and their people, and for kiddush haShem (sanctifying G-d's name). If we instructed Jewish soldiers with the cowardly defeatism of most of the Charedim, we would face an immediate holocaust G-d forbid.

Avraham avinu, David HaMelech, Yonatan, Moshe Rabeinu, Yehoshua bin Nun and the other great leaders of the Tanach all fought with incredible bravery against all odds and commanded soldiers who did the same. None of them ever displayed the gutless ghetto mentality of the Charedim.

We saw during the holocaust how the Charedim overwhelmingly did not fight back. They went to the gas chambers and the ovens with little or no resistance. And they allowed the German Nazis ysv"z sr"y to murder their wives and children and parents and grandparents. This is not the Jewish way! This is not what the leaders of the Tanach would have done. This was one of the most shameful periods of Jewish history, and it was a huge chillul hashem (desecration of G-d's name).

Today, these same Charedim have learned nothing from the horrors of the holocaust. They overwhelmingly did not serve in the Israeli army, and their leaders support cowardly retreats from the Land of Israel in exchange for government money (bribery) for their institutions. This is also not the Jewish way!

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Chaim, as is typical you are 100% right on. I don't know why other religious, patriotic Jews, who would agree with all of our goals and principles, seem always afraid to confront theological cults of Judaism that have led to indescribable harm to the Jewish people. These cultists should repent of their sins and return to pure, authentic Judaism, no ands/ifs/buts.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

I'm going to post a link to the lecture where Rabbi Kahane (z"l) speeks about this.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Chaim if that is soo, then why do you propose transfering Arabs as opposed to killing them? 
 Why? - Becuase it is a stratigic thing that is the best option for now. A complete Milhemit Mitzva you would have to kill them (at this point, since they already attacked, they dont have an option to flee). No transfer, no compromise. And I wasn't presenting the "Haredi position", I was saying something logical, and something that is found in Tannach I believe with King David Alav Shalom.
 Reread my post.
  One would have to be stupid to always no matter what go on the offensive. Yes, overall (looking at the war as a whole) offense is the best defense), but sometimes when you see that your loosing the battle, and the best option is to save the rest of the troops in the unit, then you either send reinforcements or tell them to go back to base.
 If this would not be the case, then you are making it seem like communist Russia, which told its soldiers to only keep going foward, and if they were to run back at anytime they would be shoot by their own soldiers (as has happened in history). A real Jewish army is brave and Smart. Its not cruelfull to its own like the communists.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Chaim if that is soo, then why do you propose transfering Arabs as opposed to killing them? 

I wouldn't speak for Chaim but perhaps because he's more moderate than that.  To just "kill them all" would be a lot of bloodshed, and if it can be avoided in another way, by getting rid of them, why not?   But as Rabbi Kahane often said, it is silly to think that the Arabs will agree to leave because most won't.   But that was also in his day.   Today we know that the vast majority of Arabs in Gaza would leave if they had the chance.  So the ratio could be different if that offer goes on the table.

  One would have to be stupid to always no matter what go on the offensive.

Tzvi, this is completely unrelated to this discussion.  You avoid the crux of the issue at hand.   In the case of a milchemet mitzvah, once there is the status of the milchemet mitzvah you are obligated to fight - regardless of the "risk to life."  Because a "risk to life" is inherent to the case of milchemet mitzvah.  If you want to say that this or that situation shouldn't be exactly a milchemet mitzvah and the logically this or that should be considered something else or doesn't fit.... This is a different subject.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Kahane-was.. - reread everything from the beginning. You missed what I was saying.