Ideas and Opinions of Religious Leaders on the Disengagment

Continue to Other Articles of Interest

Back to Hitnatkut Articles     Continue to Other Articles of Interest

 

A Heart that Listens:The Disengagement Plan, Harav Yuval Sherlo (English) Entered: 1/May/2005

 

The Role of the Student

From the time that the Sages described the fundamental structure of their world, they recognized that a fundamental component is the fact that it is multi-vocal, including a large number of mahlokot - differences of opinion.

"The masters of collections, they are given by one shepherd." (Kohelet

12:11): "The masters of collections" - these are the scholars that sit in

groups and engage in Torah study - these deem it impure and these

deem it pure, these forbid it and these permit it, these disqualify it and

these deem it suitable … (Bamidbar Rabbah 14:4)

Beyond the philosophical question as to why there are so many varied opinions, a question that deserves its own discussion, there exists an existential question that the Sages planted in the heart of the student who ponders this phenomenon of heterogeneity - how should he choose his own path? To this question, the Sages responded:

Perhaps a person will say: "Given the fact that these deem it impure and these deem it pure, these forbid it and these permit it, these disqualify it and these deem it suitable, how can I learn Torah?" The Torah teaches us: "They are given by one shepherd" - one G-d gave them and one leader said them on behalf of the Master of All, Blessed Be His Name, as it is stated (Shemot 19): "And spoke all of these things …" You as well - make your ears like a funnel and acquire a heart that listens to the words of those that deem it impure and those deem it pure, to those that forbid it and those permit it, to those disqualify it and those deem it suitable.

The expression is wonderful: "acquire a heart that listens". The role of the student is not to decide. The purpose of study in the first stage, before one achieves the level of instruction, is to listen to all of the arguments with dedication and integrity, with objectivity and a critical sharpness, and to try to understand the truthful aspects of each side.

We too will attempt in this short article to delve into the nature of the scholarly deliberations and reactions regarding what is referred to in Israelas the "disengagement plan". We will not deal with its political dimensions, but rather with the aspects that have been discussed in the Beit Midrash and in the writings of contemporary rabbis, with the hope that G-d will not allow us to stray from the truth in our presentation of the issues.

Positions Advocating Active Attempts to Thwart Implementation of the Disengagement Plan

Let us first follow the argument of those who advocate the refusal of military orders in an attempt to actively thwart the plan, and from that we will also understand more about those who have reduced their level of attachment to the State of Israel in the wake of the disengagement plan. It is important to emphasize that these arguments are not of necessity connected, and that there are many Torah scholars who adhere to only some of the arguments, which are enough to claim a reduction in the authority of the state. In our discussion, we will focus only on the disengagement plan and will not extend the discussion to other issues on the public agenda of the State of Israel and of Religious Zionism.

The arguments of this school of thought are as follows:

1) The disengagement plan is in opposition to the halakhah and our religious beliefs, and does not fall within the purview of the authority of the State of Israel. First and foremost, before embarking on the halakhic discussion, there is an assumption that the plan is completely the opposite of the Torah's position. For, according to the Torah, G-d gave the Landof Israelto the People of Israel as part of an eternal covenant that was created between the People of Israel and the Landof Israel. The disengagement plan is based on an assumption that these parts of the land (that are being forfeited) are occupied territory, land to which we are not connected, but only foreign occupiers.

2) In addition, the decision to hand over the territoryof Eretz Yisraelto the Palestinians is in conflict with the Divine plan. We merited that G-d should give us the opportunity to return to these territories as part of the great process of redemption reflected in the Six-Day War in particular, and in the third return to Zion in general. Handing these territories over to the Palestinians is a negation of the kindness that was bestowed upon us, and an abrogation of our responsibility to the Land.

3) Beyond these introductory comments, the disengagement plan is in opposition to the halakhah for a variety of reasons. First of all, the State of Israel is bound by the commandment to settle the Landof Israelas defined by Ramban, and is thus not permitted to make decisions and implement policies that abrogate this mitzvah. Ramban taught us that we are obligated to inherit the Land, and not to leave it in favor of other nations. There is no greater act of abrogation of this mitzvah than handing this territory over to the Palestinians.

4) Not only that, but the plan also transgresses the negative prohibition of lo techonem. The Torah prohibited us from giving non-Jews permanent residence on land in Israel. The disengagement plan gives them permanent residence, even in areas that are already clearly settled by Jews.

5) The government has no permit to uproot Jews from their land. There are individual rights that are recognized in halakhah that even restrict the government. An example can be found in the days of Ahav, who did not have the right as king to appropriate the vineyard of Navot. The government could leave the settlers there and enable whoever wishes to live under Palestinian rule. However, when the government uproots Jews from their land it oversteps its authority, and acts as an expeller that drives the residents into exile - an act that it is not authorized to undertake. Also, when speaking about synagogues, or moving graves, the matter constitutes a serious breach of authority.

6) The disengagement plan endangers the safety of the Jewish nation. There is not one security expert who claims that the security situation will improve after withdrawal. On the contrary, many claim that security will be impaired, and that the threat will reach the central portion of the country. As is well known, the responsibility to save life (pikuah nefesh) is an important halakhic principle. Yet the government is proceeding to endanger the lives of the Jewish people. This must be opposed on the basis of the Torah principle - "do not stand by idly when your brother's blood is being shed."

7) The disengagement plan was adopted completely without the proper authority. The Prime Minister ran for election on a platform that opposed any unilateral actions, and he did not receive a mandate to implement policies other than that. The Prime Minister is obligated to fulfill his promises to the voters. Furthermore, severe aberrations were utilized in the process of passing the disengagement plan - the firing of ministers, the promise to accept the referendum of Likud voters that was abrogated, brutal threats against members of Knesset, etc. etc. The worst infraction was that an opportunity was not given to the opponents of disengagement to persuade the people, either through elections or a referendum. There is no authority to implement a plan without a mandate from the people. According to halakhah, only the Jewish people have the authority to establish policies of this nature.

What are the practical implications, for the individual and the community, of the fact that the government is conducting such severe political activity without authority? Here too, there are a variety of halakhic responses, and contemporary religious authorities have ruled according to them in part or in total:

1) It is forbidden to contribute to or participate in the actions of the government with regard to disengagement. Thus, every Jew is obligated to refuse military orders when necessary in order to prevent participation in activities that are forbidden according to halakhah. Any participation in this action constitutes participation in an act of transgression - and we are speaking of a variety of transgressions, from the national transgressions to theft and violating boundaries (hasagat gevul). For, if the government is not authorized to implement this program, it stands to reason that anyone who takes part in it is a thief. Rambam issued a halakhic ruling in Hilkhot Melakhim, that if a king instructs a person to transgress, he is forbidden to do so. This is a clear case where the government is obligating people to perform actions that are against halakhah, similar to an order to desecrate shabbat or eat a forbidden substance, that certainly are not to be implemented. Refusal to follow orders will actually strengthen the army by placing it firmly on an ethical, Zionist, and halakhic foundation. It is similar to the legal responsibility to refuse a military order that is clearly illegal - a position that strengthens the moral fiber of the army.

2) There is a complete individual right and legal responsibility to prevent the actions of the government through civil disobedience. There is no place for violence, and all of the rabbis who have expressed their opinion have ruled against the use of any violent actions. Nevertheless, it is permitted to actively prevent the implementation of the plan. The main method to attempt to thwart the implementation is to flood the areas destined for destruction with so many people that it will be impossible to carry out the government decision.

3) A small minority of rabbis hold that the lesson of disengagement is that we must disengage from the State of Israel. This is not the state that we erroneously thought to be the first flowering of our redemption. It negates its fundamental goals, one of which is the settlement of Eretz Yisrael. This abrogation severs our ties to the State of Israel. One of the initial implication of this position is refraining from viewing Yom Ha'atzma'ut as a special day, and certainly ceasing to view the State of Israel as the first flowering of our redemption.

Positions Against Active Attempts to Thwart Implementation of the Disengagement Plan

On the other side of the spectrum, there is a group of Torah scholars who disagree with the aforementioned position. The disagreement exists on two different levels:

1) a disagreement on the basic assumption that negates the authority of the State of Israel to adopt the disengagement plan as government policy, or 2) a disagreement on the halakhically permissible ways of reacting to a government decision that goes beyond its authority. In other words, one position would contend that it is within the jurisdiction of the State of Israel to adopt a disengagement program. The other position holds that even if it is not within the authority of the state to do so, it is still perhaps halakhically forbidden for citizens to refuse military orders or to try to actively prevent the implementation of the government program. In these approaches, as well, the arguments that we will identify are not of necessity connected, and there are many Torah scholars who adhere to only some of the arguments.

What are the fundamental positions of those who hold that the State of Israel is authorized to adopt a disengagement plan? For the purpose of comparison, let us deal with their arguments in the same order as the opposing arguments listed above:

1) Even before embarking on the halakhic deliberation, it is important to establish the guiding principle that dictates the behavior of the State of Israel. In fact, the guiding principle is the welfare of the Israeli nation. The State of Israel is obligated to do what it considers best for the nation of Israel. The disengagement plan is good for the nation of Israel for a wide variety of reasons: it prevents the isolation of the State of Israel from the nations of the world, it sanctifies the reputation of the Jewish people as pursuers of peace, it reduces the security risks of the State of Israel, it reduces the moral yoke of ruling over people that do not have the right of citizenship, it is good for the economy, and it is good for developing internal cohesion within Israeli society. For these reasons, the government must pursue this approach. G-d gave the Landof Israelto the Jewish people so it would be good for them as a nation. It is in this framework that the government must conduct itself.

2) The divine plan is a process of peace. One must constantly advance in the direction of peace in order to realize it. The government of Israelis not working against the divine plan when it attempts to come to arrangements with the people living in the region, even at the expense of forfeiting parts of Eretz Yisrael.

3) The disengagement plan is not against halakhah, as demonstrated by the large number of religious authorities (mostly in the haredi world, but also in the religious Zionist camp) who hold that it is permissible to give up territoryof Eretz Yisraelto non-Jews for the sake of peace.[1] The Ramban was the only one of the rishonim who ruled that there is an ongoing mitzvah to settle the Landof Israel, and although many ahronim rule according to his position, we hardly find anyone who has written that this implies a prohibition to hand over territory. Furthermore, it is very possible that the Ramban himself would not rule out the handing over of territory for the sake of the people of Israel, when it is better for the nation, or in a circumstance where the nation declares that it is unable to protect all of Eretz Yisrael.

4) We will not enter into the issue of lo tehonem in this context. However, everyone agrees that the issue of pikuah nefesh (saving a life) overrides the prohibition of lo tehonem.

5) The government has the authority to decide where the borders of the State of Israel will be. It also has the authority to conduct a "permissible war" (milhemet reshut) and to obligate its citizens to sacrifice their lives for the welfare of the state. How much more so is it authorized to require residents to leave their homes for the good of the state. The halakhah also allows the moving of graves for the public welfare, and there is not a reality that could be defined as a public need more than the current situation. This is the very meaning of government - a body that works on behalf of the interest of the collective, at times demanding a heavy price from the individual.

6) The question as to whether the disengagement plan is good or bad from a security standpoint is not a question that is within the purview of religious legal authorities. It is particularly the role of the government to decide such matters, and nobody else has the right to negate this government function. Furthermore, the disengagement plan relates to a number of completely different goals, such as the prevention of the great danger of delegitimization of Israelthat is developing among the European nations, and the establishment of borders that preserve a clear Jewish majority in order to prevent the demographic threat of a bi-national state. Thus, even if the plan is not sound from a security perspective, the government must implement it to ensure national survival.

7) The disengagement plan was adopted with complete authority. According to Israeli law, the Prime Minister is bound only by the laws passed by the Knesset, and the plan was created in light of Knesset decisions. It was passed by a large Jewish majority, and it is impossible to argue that it is illegitimate. The discomfort of the manipulative manner in which the law was passed does not negate the legitimacy of the government to adopt it. Many of the laws in favor of settlement were passed in just such a manner during the period that settlement activity was at its height, and it is now impossible to argue against their halakhic legitimacy.

As stated above, those who negate the call for refusal to follow military orders can rely on some or all of the above arguments. In reality, even if one does not accept any of the arguments and holds that the government decision is illegitimate, he can still argue that it is forbidden for an individual to try to thwart the implementation of the plan. This prohibition does not depend on the question of whether the opposition to the plan has the possibility of success. What are the points that support the halakhic position negating the right of the individual to prevent the evacuation plan:

1) Pikuach Nefesh- The position of Jewish law is that one should pray for the welfare of the state, for without the fear of the government, "people would swallow each other alive". One of the rationales for government is that deep arguments within the nation be decided in the legislature or other government bodies. Transferring the argument to the individual level endangers the viability of the State of Israel. If the army were to begin to determine which orders to implement and which not, not only would the structure of the state collapse and the army no longer be able to function, but it would also give complete legitimacy to refusal to carry out orders in defense of the settlements in Yehudah, Shomron, and Aza. The path from here to destruction is quite short. The issue of national survival overrides halakhic considerations that might prohibit participation in the evacuation.

2) In reality, the disengagement actually took place on the day that the Knesset adopted the plan. The decision, even if we assume that it was illegitimate, was already adopted, and the people of Israeldecided against the continued settlement in Aza. As a result, there is no longer a halakhic significance to the attempts of the individual to prevent it, as this phase of implementation is not the prohibition.

3) Even if this plan is illegitimate and opposed to the halakhot relating to conduct of the State of Israel, we are not disengaging from the State of Israel. The covenant between Religious Zionism and the State of Israel did not dissolve in the past because of the fact that the State of Israel did not realize the Torah vision in its entirety. This is true, to our distress, with regard to a variety of issues - from the laws of interest that are not according to halakhah to the practices regarding marriage and divorce. This covenant was created because the Religious Zionists viewed themselves as partners in the national enterprise of the Jewish people. For that reason, we are not disengaging - we are not stopping our celebration of Yom Ha'atzma'ut or our praise of G-d that we have merited to return to our land and take responsibility for our history in our own hands.

Two Fundamental Issues

I would like to add two marginal points that will serve as background to this deliberation:

1) There are two fundamental positions regarding the essence of the relationship between Religious Zionism and the Zionist movement in general, and the State of Israel in particular. There are those who hold that the essence of the movement is the great opportunity to realize the commandment to settle Eretz Yisrael, which is the essence of the existence of a Jewish state. Understandably, the state performs other functions, but its primary function is the fulfillment of this commandment. This is the source of the religious validity of Yom Ha'atzma'ut. In contrast, there are those among the Religious Zionist authorities who hold that the existence of independence is the essence of the state, and the very essence of the first flowering of our redemption. Certainly, this reality obligates us to become refined in Eretz Yisrael, but the foundation is the political structure. It appears that even though this argument does not relate directly to the positions discussed above, it does have great influence. We find that most of those who adhere to the first opinion, support refusal to follow military orders and civil disobedience as means toward thwarting the disengagement plan, while those who adhere to the second opinion oppose the use of these instruments in attempts to prevent implementation of the plan.

2) There is a serious obligation to consider "the day after". The Torah itself engages in discussion of the day after in innumerable instances - from Parshat Ha'azinu to many classical prophecies. On the day after, we will have to return to live as one people, both for pragmatic existential reasons and for halakhic reasons that oppose division within the community, a position reflected in the numerous statements of the Sages advocating the unity of the Jewish people and the existence of "one nation in the Land". Every position must consider this fundamental principle, and conduct itself with primary concern for the unity of the nation. This does not mean that this unity has to be based, Heaven forbid, on the abrogation of the Torah. There are times when there is no choice, when we must for the sake of a higher unity battle for our positions and refrain from being partners to particular political processes, and even to oppose them. Yet, the basic foundation must be the general manifestation of Jewish unity.

Hazak Venithazek. Be strong and we will be strengthened for the sake of our people and the cities of our G-d. May G-d do that which is good in His eyes. May he who makes peace on high, make peace for us and for all of Israel.

[1] This position has not been stated specifically with regard to the disengagement plan. There are those who firmly hold this position, but hold that the disengagement plan is not permissible because it will not lead to peace.

 

 

Back to Hitnatkut Articles     Continue to Other Articles of Interest