Defense, or Retreat? Part 1
- - - - by Akiva
Cross posted from Mystical Paths, a guest post by Rabbi Shabtai Teicher of Jerusalem, Israel...
There are five major issues, or categories of issues, which are at the center of Israeli public and political life. They are:
1. The Jewish identity of the state and the people
2. Security issues
3. Issues of settlements and the vitality of Zionism
4. The Socio-Economic welfare of the people
5. Corruption
In the recent elections only two of these major issues were dealt with, and only partially. They were the issues of settlements and the socio-economic welfare of the people. Security issues such as the ongoing Kassam rocket attacks, the rise of Hamas, and Iran were hardly mentioned. The issue of the Jewish identity of the state and people was not raised because those who would seek to reverse the long-term trend of deterioration on this point consider themselves, rightly or wrongly, too weak to challenge the powers that be. The issue of corruption was raised, but not by any of the competing political parties, and it was hidden by the major media.
The results of the election have been interpreted and reinterpreted by all the major players and commentators, sometimes seriously, and often ludicrously. The subject of this article is to deal with only one of the conclusions that must be drawn from the election results, but it is an incontestable conclusion, although some would like to continue their Pollyanna illusions and deny it.
Of the 120 people who will be sitting in the new Knesset, there are at least 110 who believe that more Jewish settlements in the near or distant future must be uprooted and destroyed, whether to a greater or lesser extent, and under specific circumstances or others!
I am not writing this article because I believe that Jewish settlements should be uprooted or not. Rather, my purpose is to contribute to the re-establishment of some kind of balance in “our camp” which has undergone such awesome upheavals and shocks in recent years (since Sharon’s Hertziliyah speech, or since the beginning of the Oslo agreements, or since the suicidal mission of the Shamir government to Madrid, or since the Israeli army lost a war to children throwing stones in the first Intifada). The criminal destruction of Gush Katif has only been the last tragic blow that has completely knocked us off our feet.
For those of us who have followed our Holy Rebbe (may his soul shine in Eden and protect us and bless us) whose opinion concerning settlements in the Land of Israel, like the opinion of other important rabbis, is based upon Chapter 329.6 in Orach Chaim in the Laws of Shabbat, the fact of more than 110 Knesset Members willing to surrender territory seems truly horrendous and full of dangerous portent. As stated previously, the purpose of this article is to try to find an idea concerning what to do about it.
First, however, it’s worthwhile to review what Chapter 329.6 in Orach Chaim teaches. That particular law in the Code starts with the statement, “If gentiles besiege an Israelite city….” It should be noted that this law does not apply to settlements in the Land of Israel only. Indeed, that law was taught concerning the pale of Jewish settlement in the Persian Empire in Talmudic times. It deals with the health, welfare and security of the Jewish people, and it has nothing to do with the question of whether it is permitted to surrender even a centimeter of the Land of Israel or not. This article also does not address that issue. My translation of the Laws of Shabbat 329.6 follows.
If gentiles besiege a Jewish town…
The reasoning of the law is plain and clear. It concerns pikuach nefesh – the saving of lives. In order to save lives we must resist and even profane the Holy Shabbat, as it is stated in clause (b). Consequently, if there is not threat to the lives of Jews because they are coming only to plunder, then we do not profane the Shabbat to resist them.
However, according to clause (c), if the place they are attacking is near the border, even if they are coming only to steal and plunder, we do resist them, even if we have to profane the Shabbat because of it. If they conquer our border settlements, then the rest of our settlements will be exposed to their deprivations. This can lead to unforeseen calamities that will very likely result in serious life-threatening situations.
On the basis of this last point it has been argued, and thus we have been taught by our Holy Rebbe (n”e) that abandoning or uprooting settlements in the territories of Yehudah and Shomron (and G. Katif and Gaza) is tantamount to abandoning “border settlements”, and if we are enjoined to resist and even profane the Shabbat in order to protect them, then we are certainly not allowed to willfully give them over to the enemy.
Thus far the line of reasoning is clear and compelling. However, what is there to do about our 110 Knesset members? In order to address that question, let us first play a little “war game”.
Let us suppose that our general has discerned the possibility of pushing E2 away from our southern settlements, but in order to do it he has to transfer troops from I1 to I2, and this creates the possibility that E1 will be able to advance towards our northern settlements. The new position would look like this:
old line: -------
The question that our little war game proposes is obvious, and it goes like this. Does our general’s maneuver contradict the sound advice and secure teaching of 329.6, or does it not? Since it allows E1 to advance into the territory that we have been holding and come closer to our settlements, then it is jeopardizing our people and it should not be allowed. On the other hand, since it is strengthening our hold on the southern settlements and distancing E2 from them, then the maneuver is not weakening and endangering our people, but actually strengthening them. In that case, it is not only allowed, but it is also wise.
This latter argument is further augmented by another very important point. If we are defending the line with 120 battalions, and 110 of our battalion commanders want to withdraw, then we have virtually lost the war. In that case, is it not better to save from destruction what is still possible to be saved!
Of course, the question here cannot be answered by our little war game, or by any theoretical discussion, or by any ideological position. The real life situation must be faced and soberly weighed.
When Sharon first suggested the withdrawal from Gush Katif, it was interesting to see what he really meant by it. Was it a surrender and retreat, or was it a wise regrouping of forces? Unfortunately, it soon became clear that it was the former, and not the latter – it was a rout and an hopeless attempt to escape that offered nothing in return. We waited to hear what we might gain in return for it. Would he annex Gush Etzion, would he build 500 houses between Ariel and Gush Shiloh? Would he offer the farmers the opportunity, if they wished, to relocate to the Jordan Valley in order to strengthen our settlement there? Would he, at least, put the Palestinians and world-opinion on notice that any attack upon our settlements after the destruction of G. Katif would be met with the destruction of their neighborhoods and settlements as well? In short, whatever the Israeli people were supposed to have gained from this maneuver, it has been kept a closely guarded secret. There was some talk about it improving our moral position among the international community, but this was quickly, before the deportation, proven an empty hope. There was some talk about a letter from the American President, but the letter does not bind anyone, not even the President that wrote it, let alone a future President; and it was completely vague. Maybe it included Kiryat Arba; maybe it did not even include Ma’ale Adumim.
Furthermore, if it were a regrouping and not a rout, or something criminally corrupt, then why was it necessary to destroy the three settlements in the north of the Gaza Strip, which were contiguous with the Israeli border and where there were no Palestinians at all living? Today, it is from there that Kassams and Katyushas are being fired upon the electric power station in Ashkelon.
If it were not a mere rout, then why did it have to happen in such a hurried and panicky way? Why were no decent provisions made for these people who were being uprooted from their land and their homes? Why have they been treated like animals? Were they criminals for having gone there at the behest of Israeli governments? Were they dogs for having made sand dunes blossom into fruitful gardens, for having built there a billion dollar a year agricultural industry in accordance with the Zionist dream of settling the Land and planting it?
There are five major issues, or categories of issues, which are at the center of Israeli public and political life. They are:
1. The Jewish identity of the state and the people
2. Security issues
3. Issues of settlements and the vitality of Zionism
4. The Socio-Economic welfare of the people
5. Corruption
In the recent elections only two of these major issues were dealt with, and only partially. They were the issues of settlements and the socio-economic welfare of the people. Security issues such as the ongoing Kassam rocket attacks, the rise of Hamas, and Iran were hardly mentioned. The issue of the Jewish identity of the state and people was not raised because those who would seek to reverse the long-term trend of deterioration on this point consider themselves, rightly or wrongly, too weak to challenge the powers that be. The issue of corruption was raised, but not by any of the competing political parties, and it was hidden by the major media.
The results of the election have been interpreted and reinterpreted by all the major players and commentators, sometimes seriously, and often ludicrously. The subject of this article is to deal with only one of the conclusions that must be drawn from the election results, but it is an incontestable conclusion, although some would like to continue their Pollyanna illusions and deny it.
Of the 120 people who will be sitting in the new Knesset, there are at least 110 who believe that more Jewish settlements in the near or distant future must be uprooted and destroyed, whether to a greater or lesser extent, and under specific circumstances or others!
I am not writing this article because I believe that Jewish settlements should be uprooted or not. Rather, my purpose is to contribute to the re-establishment of some kind of balance in “our camp” which has undergone such awesome upheavals and shocks in recent years (since Sharon’s Hertziliyah speech, or since the beginning of the Oslo agreements, or since the suicidal mission of the Shamir government to Madrid, or since the Israeli army lost a war to children throwing stones in the first Intifada). The criminal destruction of Gush Katif has only been the last tragic blow that has completely knocked us off our feet.
For those of us who have followed our Holy Rebbe (may his soul shine in Eden and protect us and bless us) whose opinion concerning settlements in the Land of Israel, like the opinion of other important rabbis, is based upon Chapter 329.6 in Orach Chaim in the Laws of Shabbat, the fact of more than 110 Knesset Members willing to surrender territory seems truly horrendous and full of dangerous portent. As stated previously, the purpose of this article is to try to find an idea concerning what to do about it.
First, however, it’s worthwhile to review what Chapter 329.6 in Orach Chaim teaches. That particular law in the Code starts with the statement, “If gentiles besiege an Israelite city….” It should be noted that this law does not apply to settlements in the Land of Israel only. Indeed, that law was taught concerning the pale of Jewish settlement in the Persian Empire in Talmudic times. It deals with the health, welfare and security of the Jewish people, and it has nothing to do with the question of whether it is permitted to surrender even a centimeter of the Land of Israel or not. This article also does not address that issue. My translation of the Laws of Shabbat 329.6 follows.
If gentiles besiege a Jewish town…
- -a- If they have come to plunder, we do not profane the Shabbat (to go out) against them.
- -b- If they have come (to kidnap or kill) Jewish souls, and even if it is not clear, then we go out against them with weapons and profane the Shabbat.
- -c- If (they are coming against) a town that is nearby to the border, even if they are only coming to steal straw and hay, we profane the Shabbat (to go out) against them.
The reasoning of the law is plain and clear. It concerns pikuach nefesh – the saving of lives. In order to save lives we must resist and even profane the Holy Shabbat, as it is stated in clause (b). Consequently, if there is not threat to the lives of Jews because they are coming only to plunder, then we do not profane the Shabbat to resist them.
However, according to clause (c), if the place they are attacking is near the border, even if they are coming only to steal and plunder, we do resist them, even if we have to profane the Shabbat because of it. If they conquer our border settlements, then the rest of our settlements will be exposed to their deprivations. This can lead to unforeseen calamities that will very likely result in serious life-threatening situations.
On the basis of this last point it has been argued, and thus we have been taught by our Holy Rebbe (n”e) that abandoning or uprooting settlements in the territories of Yehudah and Shomron (and G. Katif and Gaza) is tantamount to abandoning “border settlements”, and if we are enjoined to resist and even profane the Shabbat in order to protect them, then we are certainly not allowed to willfully give them over to the enemy.
Thus far the line of reasoning is clear and compelling. However, what is there to do about our 110 Knesset members? In order to address that question, let us first play a little “war game”.
Let us suppose that our general has discerned the possibility of pushing E2 away from our southern settlements, but in order to do it he has to transfer troops from I1 to I2, and this creates the possibility that E1 will be able to advance towards our northern settlements. The new position would look like this:
old line: -------
The question that our little war game proposes is obvious, and it goes like this. Does our general’s maneuver contradict the sound advice and secure teaching of 329.6, or does it not? Since it allows E1 to advance into the territory that we have been holding and come closer to our settlements, then it is jeopardizing our people and it should not be allowed. On the other hand, since it is strengthening our hold on the southern settlements and distancing E2 from them, then the maneuver is not weakening and endangering our people, but actually strengthening them. In that case, it is not only allowed, but it is also wise.
This latter argument is further augmented by another very important point. If we are defending the line with 120 battalions, and 110 of our battalion commanders want to withdraw, then we have virtually lost the war. In that case, is it not better to save from destruction what is still possible to be saved!
Of course, the question here cannot be answered by our little war game, or by any theoretical discussion, or by any ideological position. The real life situation must be faced and soberly weighed.
When Sharon first suggested the withdrawal from Gush Katif, it was interesting to see what he really meant by it. Was it a surrender and retreat, or was it a wise regrouping of forces? Unfortunately, it soon became clear that it was the former, and not the latter – it was a rout and an hopeless attempt to escape that offered nothing in return. We waited to hear what we might gain in return for it. Would he annex Gush Etzion, would he build 500 houses between Ariel and Gush Shiloh? Would he offer the farmers the opportunity, if they wished, to relocate to the Jordan Valley in order to strengthen our settlement there? Would he, at least, put the Palestinians and world-opinion on notice that any attack upon our settlements after the destruction of G. Katif would be met with the destruction of their neighborhoods and settlements as well? In short, whatever the Israeli people were supposed to have gained from this maneuver, it has been kept a closely guarded secret. There was some talk about it improving our moral position among the international community, but this was quickly, before the deportation, proven an empty hope. There was some talk about a letter from the American President, but the letter does not bind anyone, not even the President that wrote it, let alone a future President; and it was completely vague. Maybe it included Kiryat Arba; maybe it did not even include Ma’ale Adumim.
Furthermore, if it were a regrouping and not a rout, or something criminally corrupt, then why was it necessary to destroy the three settlements in the north of the Gaza Strip, which were contiguous with the Israeli border and where there were no Palestinians at all living? Today, it is from there that Kassams and Katyushas are being fired upon the electric power station in Ashkelon.
If it were not a mere rout, then why did it have to happen in such a hurried and panicky way? Why were no decent provisions made for these people who were being uprooted from their land and their homes? Why have they been treated like animals? Were they criminals for having gone there at the behest of Israeli governments? Were they dogs for having made sand dunes blossom into fruitful gardens, for having built there a billion dollar a year agricultural industry in accordance with the Zionist dream of settling the Land and planting it?