Thanks for taking the time to write and express your reaction to Sunday’s demonstration.

You make the point that Zionism may have begun as a secularist movement but things have improved in recent years: they support yeshivas, they allow Jews to access holy sites, and so on. This would be a valid point if the problem with Zionism were its secular nature. But in fact the issue is quite a different one.

For hundreds of years, Jews waited for Hashem to send moshiach and redeem them. True, the commentators speak of the possibility that the redemption will proceed naturally rather than miraculously. But in either case, it was always clear to every Jew, everywhere, that the redemption – part of which is the ingathering of the exiles to Eretz Yisroel – could only come through moshiach. This was part of the Ani Maamin and no Jew ever suggested otherwise.

Then came Zionism and presented Jews with a totally new concept, different from what Jews always believed. Now, when this idea arose in the minds of non-believing Jews, it was no surprise, since they didn’t believe in any of the Ani Maamins. So no Orthodox Jew a century ago thought that because Herzl and Weizmann believed something, that made it valid. Apikorsus is much more dangerous when it is propounded by Jews who are otherwise completely observant and believing. For example, which missionary poses a greater danger, a Christian non-Jew, or a "Jew for J" who wears a yarmulke and tzitzis and claims to observe all the mitzvos?

So my point to you is that on the contrary, the apikorsus of Zionism has become far more dangerous in recent years, precisely because they support yeshivos, because they encourage Jews to visit their state and go to the holy sites, and because of the many religious Zionists who exist.

With the above in mind, it should be clear to you why we are against army service. We want the state to come to a peaceful end so that Jews can return to their centuries-old emunah and wait for Hashem’s geulah. We don’t to help the state continue in any way, and certainly not by fighting for it!

Until now, the Israeli government understood that we have a different point of view and they let us go our separate way. They understood that they could not force us to go against our conscience and principles – just like they never tried to force us to eat treif or work on Shabbos. But now, they are trying to change that. They want to put Jews in jail simply for keeping what they understand to be Jewish law. Isn’t that an outrage? Why, in your opinion, does the fact that they support yeshivos make it better? If a government were to give full support to yeshivos, but at the same time decree that all Jews must eat pork every day or else go to jail, would that be a pro-Jewish government or an anti-Jewish government?

As to your remark that we show insensitivity to the pain of families who have lost children "in defense of our people": we say that these lives weren't lost defending our people, they were lost defending the state. And that makes the tragedy doubly heartrending. The Jewish people can't afford to lose any Jews for a medinah. It is the anti-Zionists who really care about lives of Israeli soldiers and citizens. It was the anti-Zionist Brisker Rav who said that we may not sacrifice even one Jewish life for the sake of a state. And it was the anti-Zionist Satmar Rebbe who said, "It is as clear as the sun that the Torah obligates us to make all efforts in the world for peace, and to prevent war. But these wicked men, the Zionist government, do the opposite of the Torah, and fight against the nations all the time. What did they do at the Sinai Campaign? Was it allowed by the Torah to make a war for nothing, just to widen their borders and other imagined benefits? In the end it became obvious that there was no benefit at all, only a loss and a destruction and loss of Jewish lives. And even for all the benefit in the world, is there permission from the Torah to sacrifice and cause the loss of Jewish lives? Every Jewish soul is beloved and precious to Hashem Yisborach! All the possessions in the world do not measure up to it. Certainly the Torah did not permit the sacrifice of Jewish lives for imagined benefit and for the love of victory. (Al Hageulah V'al Hatemurah, p. 194)

The Satmar Rebbe cried over the soldiers killed in battle, and so should we. Every lost Jewish life is a tragedy. In this case, besides the personal tragedy, we must mourn that these Jews died in wars that had no purpose other than the continued existence of a state that would only give rise to more and more wars. Every additional tragedy must spur us to action, to bring an end to the state so that this tragedy will be the last one.

Unfortunately, some people hear about casualties or a terrorist attack and derive the opposite lesson. They say, “Now it is clearer than ever that Jews cannot live under an Arab Palestine. The State of Israel must remain in existence, it must be stronger, and it must not make any concessions for a so-called peace.”

They fail to see that doing what Hashem commanded explicitly not to do will never lead to peace and safety. Living under Arabs is safer, relatively speaking. And if that too is too dangerous to be acceptable, Jews should move elsewhere. But the current situation is the most dangerous of all.

You also made the point that it is inconsistent to enjoy visiting the Kosel and still oppose Zionism. This is a very good point, and the Satmar Rav also held that way. That is why he forbade Jews to visit the Kosel or any place conquered in 1967. Those who do visit these places, I would assume, feel that it is not thanks to the Zionists that we have access to them. On the contrary, it was the Zionists’ fault that we lost access between 1948 and 1967. The UN resolution of November 1947 specified that Jerusalem should be international. King Abdullah of Transjordan was willing to let this happen, as he promised the British before the war, but Ben-Gurion was not. He insisted on the Haganah conquering the Old City. This led to Jordanian intervention and the expulsion of the Jews from the Old City. If Ben-Gurion had accepted the UN’s decision, Jews could have continued living in the Old City and visiting the Kosel for all those years.