English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I would like to know if there really is any difference between these two groups? I know that both started from the same roots and have similar philosophies such as being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, Israeli flag burning and meeting with known arab terrorists who want to destroy Israel. But seems Sat Mar at some times tries to distance itslef when its convieient but will walk hand in hand when it suits them. Can anyone offer any clarification?

2006-12-25 07:21:43 · 7 answers · asked by Hate Hamas 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

7 answers

There is a world of difference.

In fact Satmar has officially put the NK into herem, which is tantamount to excommunication.

The Satmar Hassidic Court published an unprecedented statement calling on the public to disassociate themselves from the seven Neturei Karta members who visited Iran to attend the Holocaust denial conference this week.

The Satmar movement printed an official placard, with bold black lettering, publicly denouncing “fanaticism, and those committing insane acts to walk hand in hand with the Arabs.”

2006-12-28 22:25:42 · answer #1 · answered by Ivri_Anokhi 6 · 0 0

Satmar is a chassidic group, devoted to chessed (acts of kindness), such as volunteer organizations. They also happen to believe that establishing a Jewish state before the messiah comes is a violation of Jewish law.
Neturai Karta is an anti-Zionist fringe group that meets with terrorists and anti-semites, becuase of their common "cause". They have been condemned by pretty much all mainstream Jewry.

2006-12-25 13:27:00 · answer #2 · answered by Melanie Mue 4 · 0 0

Satmar is primarily a "Chasidus" or a Chasidic group, of which its anti Zionist stance is just one feature of it. (i.e. its raison d'etre is not anti Zionism but as a Chasidic Group).
Neturei Karta is an organization with roots primarily in the neighbourhood of Mea Sharim in Jerusalem that its raison d'etre is to be anti Zionist. Some of its members probably are (or formerly) Satmar chasidim.

It may depend on who you ask, but from what I have read, Satmar never really did have a relationship with the group. Especially over the past several years where they have publicly condemned the group. I personally see that as evidence of the group's extremism (aside from their actual actions!). If the gold standard in anti Zionism says your, anti Zionism is too much...

2006-12-25 14:18:42 · answer #3 · answered by BMCR 7 · 0 0

Satmar says that since Israel isn't truely Jewish, it should not exist. But they don't like the Palistinians any better, per se, they just want all the Jews to peacefully leave Israel. Neturai Karta thinks that the Palistinians should rule Israel, and it's too bad for the Jews who will die because of it.

2006-12-25 11:56:05 · answer #4 · answered by ysk 4 · 0 0

your right in that Satmar and Neturei Karta have a similar past, but they are very different today.

The difference is that while Satmar still ignores the existence of Israel it is not actively trying to undermine it.

Satmar leaders never met with terrorists like Arafat that was NK.

Neturei Karta takes it to an evil extreme. It sees its mission to undermine Israel at every turn and actively seek its destruction even if it costs millions of Jewish lives.

for that I have nothing but contempt for them, and it is beyond me why Israel tolerates those that help there enemys just because they are in Jewish garb.

If you want my opinion if they want a Palistinian state send them to one. Deport the lot of them to Gaza and see how they like it.

2006-12-25 10:39:08 · answer #5 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 1 1

their argument centers on a talmudic interpretation of what are regularly occurring because the three oaths which inclue the truth that the jews at the on the spot are to not re-enter Israel "as a wall" -- they take this to point that there should be no ruling pressure of any variety interior the area until eventually god helps it. different Jews see this both as a truth antagonistic to taking the land with the help of pressure (while the UN partitioned the land and created the state with the help of politics, not pressure) or antagonistic to organising the thoroughly non secular authorities anticipated interior the texts (which the present state isn't). There are different topics and, in case you need, i will attempt to locate the numerous web pages which cutting-edge factor and counter factor.

2016-12-01 04:10:27 · answer #6 · answered by santella 4 · 0 0

Never heard of that, sorry.

2006-12-25 07:24:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers