Thank you, Rabbi!
If it’s really that simple, I don’t understand how there can be an answer so completely opposite:
https://www.kipa.co.il/Ask the Rabbi/Vegan Passover-2/

It really is strange. Especially coming from Rabbi Cherlow.

There’s a difference between looking for a vegan substitute as a “symbol of the shank bone” and asking about the actual obligation to place a shank bone there in the first place.

That also struck me as strange. The second response I found is from Rabbi Dov Lior, and it’s even stranger (not to say annoying):
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/35372

I think Rabbi Lior’s answer sheds light on Rabbi Cherlow’s answer. Both of them are pushing back against the criticism hidden in the question—against the tradition and the permission to eat meat and use it. But if that’s the case, they should have said so honestly, and ruled that it is permitted and there is no problem, but that it is not appropriate to do so because it casts the tradition in a different light and involves pretentiousness or an excessive stringency.
As stated, I really do not agree with that.

It seems to me that this is also what Kofetz, may he live a good long life, meant.

Yoni, in my opinion you should skip these words when reciting the Haggadah: “So too, Lord our God and God of our ancestors, bring us to other festivals and pilgrimage holidays that come toward us in peace, rejoicing in the rebuilding of Your city and exulting in Your service, and there we shall eat of the sacrifices and the Passover offerings,” since you are not wishing that for yourself.

To the Rabbi –

What does “of Kofetz, may he live a good long life” mean?

Kofetz is the screen name of the person who commented here above.

Aharon,
I indeed don’t mean blessings / wishes / Sabbath songs / midrashim and so on that go in that direction.
By the way, to the best of my understanding, neither Maimonides nor Rabbi Kook did either.

“We shall eat there of the sacrifices and the Passover offerings that will rise upon the wall of Your altar for acceptance.” In the future, we will do whatever is acceptable before Him. My estimate is that these will be grain offerings from plant life, if any at all, but if I turn out to be mistaken, I will do whatever is acceptable to Him.
I have no problem saying that with intention. So I really don’t understand what Rabbi Cherlow (who knows Rabbi Kook’s vision of vegetarianism very well) has against this approach.

Yeah, right, it’s really His will that they offer sacrifices and eat His creatures. Makes you wonder what kind of god that is.

A., you are bitter and angry, and that is distorting your judgment. I really am writing this—not to needle you or be sarcastic. From what you wrote, it’s clear that you simply didn’t read what you were responding to. If you decide a priori that He is wicked, you will keep finding confirmation of that in every sentence you read and every phenomenon you encounter. Exactly like your counterparts on the other side who see the hand of God in every phenomenon they see. Both are the words of tendentious people.

If you put rice on the Passover Seder plate as the rabbi answered you here, you should use this recipe:
https://imaot.co.il/Book/Page/107433

That way you can also fulfill the custom of putting an orange on the Seder plate.

By the way, Ashkenazim who cannot eat rice on Passover are better off not being vegetarian.

Then let them use another cooked dish. There’s nothing sacred about rice. Besides, let the positive commandment of rice come and override the prohibition against legumes.

Michi, I really don’t know what you want from me. You didn’t even see my facial expressions, so how do you know whether I’m angry and bitter? What, have you become a prophet? I’m not bitter and I’m not angry. I’m calm and taking life easy, and I’m not tendentious. I already wrote that I can’t testify about myself that I am someone who seeks truth, but I do notice that my movement is toward the truth. So how could someone like that be tendentious? I know all the interpretations, and a long time ago I was even connected to a book that came out on the subject. What I was responding to here was what you specifically wrote in the comment above.

What, have you become like those religious people who judge you by whether you wear a kippah or not?

Your writing testifies to it; there is no need for body language. After all, body language is also only a language that expresses anger, so you could ask the same question about that too: how do I know you are angry, since all I see are the contortions of your body? In short, your writing makes it quite clear that you are angry and bitter. Your strong biases show that clearly. By the way, this is how I judge you favorably, because the alternative is that you really don’t understand and are unable to formulate an argument.

So now I’ll briefly explain, based on your comment here, why I wrote what I wrote.
1. Your sentence here contradicts itself. You begin with “Yeah, right, it’s really His will that they offer sacrifices and eat His creatures,” meaning that this cannot possibly be what He wants. And then suddenly at the end you write, “Makes you wonder what kind of god that is,” meaning that you assume this really is what He wants, and once again you have proved (to yourself) that He is cruel and wicked. Thus it is proven.
2. But that is only the contradiction within your sentence itself. Beyond that, it also simply has no connection to what I wrote. I myself wrote that in my estimation He is not interested in that (except that if it turns out that He does want it, I will fulfill His will). So what exactly is your response trying to say? That He does want it, or that you don’t believe He wants it? Did you come to disagree? To agree? Just to let off steam? To me the last seems primary.
3. And all this of course says nothing at all about His cruelty, certainly no more than many good people who eat animals do (those who do so without torture). That empties your basic assumption of content as well.
Thus it is proven,

Ah, and one more thing. Where did you see me make any reference to your kippah? I have never judged a person by whether he wears a kippah. I try very hard to judge arguments and not the people making them. Even when I gave you a “diagnosis” here, I did it on the basis of the arguments, as I explained above. Bitter, did I mention that already?…

Writing doesn’t testify to that, and from all our experience, who could say otherwise? And the distance between writing and body language in actual reality is enormous. And no, don’t judge me favorably, because my arguments are excellent—both in formulation and in understanding. And if you want to prove otherwise, stop babbling and point out exactly where.

1. I wrote it as slang. “Yeah, right” is slang. You know, I’m still young—that’s our language. And “what kind of god is that” means, according to your words and also according to the Torah’s own words, if that really is what He wants.
2. That if He wants it, then He is bad.
3. In the final analysis, living at the expense of other lives is bad. And nothing in the world will convince me otherwise.
4. It was similar. Because if I bring arguments of a certain type, then you labeled me, just like they label people based on the kippah.

Ah, and one more thing. You’re invited for a beer once this whole lockdown is over (: