9716 —על השמות ארץ ישראל ומדינת ישראל, וזהות לאומית

B"H, the day after the Days of Redemption, 12-13 Tammuz, 5729.

Brooklyn, NY.

Havavac"h iy"a nu"n Bachur Me'am u'Muram Me'am Doresh Tov Le'amo Ba'al Middot Terumiyot Anaf Etz Avot Shneor Zalman Sheyichyeh

Shalom u'Vrachah!

This time I will begin with the main point: With great astonishment (mixed with much pain) I read your letter. In addition to its content itself—these are the claims etc. of Satmar against me: What have you (meaning me) gotten involved with Eretz Yisrael and the Holy Land and Brit Bein HaBetarim etc., and why do you mix in the Almighty etc.—all those who have been involved in this, those who led it then and now, and those who speak in its name say, emphasize, and declare that this is a state established in 5708 on those territories abandoned by the British, from which the Haganah expelled the Arabs (or entered without resistance), and that a number of nations (including among their leaders Communists) agreed among themselves to approve this in a territory divided between Eretz Yisrael and outside of Israel. My answer is simply—to deny it. This is not a new matter etc., for in 5708 they liberated an important part of Eretz Yisrael (incidentally—they conquered an area outside of Israel which they annexed as an addition—Eilat). They reject my words claiming this is my innovation, citing as proof that every year they declare "the year of..." (not for liberation or founding a government etc., but) for founding Medinat Yisrael. And it is obvious that this is not just a matter of words—for it is the main foundation of their entire approach: Something founded in 5708 by will or approval or whatever has no validity or substance to answer claims from Arabs, the Vatican, UN etc., or Canaanites (open or hidden) who say to Jews: You are robbers who conquered lands etc.

I do not delude myself that with arguments of justice and fairness they will win in the UN or Vatican etc.—but the most important factor is its effect on youth morale (including IDF), students in Eretz Yisrael (and surely also other countries), etc.

And more importantly: The approach that what we are talking about is Medinat Yisrael founded by UN approval in 5708 (and not about Bnei Yisrael returning to Eretz Yisrael—their inheritance since Yehoshua bin Nun—an inheritance without interruption even if taken by force), an approach that has become foundational in worldview for those setting policy, speech, activity, and relations with others generally and specifically—has destroyed and continues to destroy; has harmed vital interests—even of Medinat Yisrael itself (as known here regarding Eretz Yisrael and UN, surely so elsewhere), even bringing actual casualties—and this forced me to step out of my usual framework to speak on these matters—on which others should have sounded alarm. And enough said.

Out of my great pain I wrote all this—and I have only touched on the tip of the matter without quoting facts—not even recent events from yesterday (literally), before Shabbat etc. Why should I cause you pain as well?

I did not anticipate such length here at first; but since it was written—I do not wish to cut it down. Please forgive me.

Regarding your letter: To allow me to be Chabad—I was Chabad even before I was born. So may it be with G‑d's help for good things.

The concept "state": If we are talking about Eilat and its surroundings (which were outside Yehoshua's conquest), if they grant them independence relative to Jerusalem or Eretz Yisrael generally—then "Medinat Yisrael" would apply there.

Regarding Jerusalem etc.—the name was already set by Creator: until Yehoshua's conquest—Eretz Canaan; after that—Eretz Yisrael. This matter was never given over for vote or referendum etc. Obviously I have no objection to calling most of this area "state." On the contrary—according to Torah, Eretz Yisrael includes Mikdash and Medina (as our Sages say), just as it includes Yehuda and Galil etc.—but my letter concerns specifically the dispute between two names (and worldviews): "Eretz Yisrael" vs "Medinat Yisrael," where the latter prevailed—and I add—for now (for my hope and confidence is that ultimately G‑d's greatness among Israel will prevail—and all will proclaim before all nations that it was a mistake from the outset; Eretz Yisrael will be called so both in name and essence).

I did not tell him this directly—why should I cause him pain needlessly? I wrote up until here—not for a journalist but for one who organized Torah study circles where naturally there was no chance for such activity (even though because of this Satmar's anger turned against me), who led (and hopefully continues leading) campaigns against abortion epidemics etc.—and opponents suspected me as one causing her activism; so they invented an explanation that I oppose Medinat Yisrael because my style always says "Eretz." Therefore she should not strive... regarding Torah study etc. Fearing her activism would weaken—I wrote her all this.

I swore allegiance to Medinat Yisrael—you know this already. It is surprising you did not notice that long before your oath I asked you not to refuse this appointment—and more than just asking—and surely you know even then I knew about the swearing-in ceremony etc.

But I am certain that when you swore allegiance to Medinat Yisrael you clearly intended Eretz Yisrael—and more than that—the Holy Land—and even more—the land which G‑d's eyes are upon from year's beginning to end.

A Chabad conversation must be open-hearted; one must say what is truly felt—and moreover, I consider this one of our friendship's foundations; as known: joy is embedded within my heart from one side while pain comes from suspecting me wrongly.

On the contrary—I say repeatedly: The people dwelling in Zion dwell in Eretz Yisrael—a unique land like no other—it is not at all just another state among Syria/Lebanon/Jordan/Egypt—but demands—with some excitement as you wrote—but with much excitement—that representatives in Washington/UN declare so emphatically—even pounding on tables—and non-Jews there agree—but representatives from Israel answer they were instructed not to speak thusly nor pound tables—for they are a state recognized among nations so must behave diplomatically. When twice an Israeli representative at UN lost patience and spoke some truth publicly—in half an hour he received harsh rebuke from Jerusalem: How could he? He was forced publicly to retract.

Naturally—all this encourages provocations/terrorism—even actual casualties—may G‑d protect us.

To conclude regarding stationery—you will surely continue writing on official letterhead as before; do not withhold good from me—the pleasure when seeing black-on-white proof you hold this position; when feeling uplifted I add—that together with holding office he too deeply regrets choosing that name/worldview—and awaits when our people too (for non-Jews never thought otherwise) will write/set "Eretz" instead of "Medinat." This reason comes as an addition—for since I was among those who worked/requested/acted repeatedly for your appointment/invested trust—it is only right/justified your letters reach me/us on official stationery.

Summary

The Rebbe distinguishes between "Eretz Yisrael" as a divinely endowed inheritance versus "Medinat Yisrael" as a political entity founded by international approval. He urges clarity about Jewish identity rooted in Torah tradition rather than external recognition, emphasizing pride in our unique heritage.