Territorial Compromise

 

Rabbi Daniel Myers


 

 

Q. Mr. Yaakov Gross: Rav Soloveichik ZT"L maintained that regarding territorial compromise, the people, rabbis included, must defer to the judgment of the authorities. Why then do many laymen and rabbis alike, who consider themselves Talmidim of the Rav, reject and protest the disengagement plan?

 

A. The Halachic Sugya of disengagement is quite a complicated one. It includes, but is not limited to, the Machloket Rambam-Ramban regarding Kivush Haaretz, (see Ramban's list of Mitzvot Asai in his Pairush on the Rambam's Saifer Hamitzvot) an analysis and application of the Minchat Chinuch's commentary on the Mitzvah of destroying the seven nations, (Parshat V'etchanan Mitzvah 425) and a thorough investigation into the military and political ramifications of territorial exchange. Such a study is beyond the scope of this essay. (One point can be made, and that is that the the Rav did not agree with Rav Goren and others who held that the integrity of the Land of Israel is more important then Pikuach Nefesh, saving lives.) However, we will address the specific question raised here: Must one who follows the P'sak Halacha of the Rav accept the decree of the government to disengage from Gaza, or is he entitled to disagree with their decision and even actively protest against the Hitnakut, disengagement plan?

 

Obviously, only the Rav could state definitively what he would hold regarding the Hitnakut. However, I still think that it is fair to point out certain phenomena which may lead one to differentiate between one's attitude towards the government in 1967 and 2005: (Also see Q&A 228 for more related information)

 

-Outgoing IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon testified in the Knesset on June 28th that IDF intelligence was not consulted before the decision to proceed with the disengagement was made.

 

-Yaalon and key security/military experts have warned that implementation would lead to a wave of terror attacks.

 

- The Center for Near East Policy Research stated the following: (The Jerusalem Post 19/7/05)

 

 -The Knesset has never conducted a proper intelligence inquiry as to whether disengagement would provide any benefit to Israel.

 

-The Knesset has yet to conduct any inquiry into allegations that avoidance of criminal prosecution played a role in decisions regarding disengagement.

 

Regarding the last claim, I do not assume that one of our greatest and most courageous war heroes and leaders has intentionally endangered his people in order to salvage his reputation. In my opinion, Mr. Sharon is convinced that the only way for Israel to survive is within the international community, which means continued American financial and military assistance, support from our allies (read ally) in the United Nations, continued trade with the countries that are not boycotting us, and with some level of legitimacy to exist-in the world's eyes-as a non-racist, 'non-occupying' country. The Prime Minister maintains that in order to achieve this goal, we must disengage from the Paletinians and give them their own sovereignty.

Despite this great attempt at "Dan Lukaf Zechut," judge your prime minister favorably, and despite the fact that I think that the Mr. Sharon may be one of the best tacticians that Israel has ever seen, still, I think that the people-both Rabbis and laymen alike-have a write to assess the situation and decide whether this plan truly has the support of the military and security experts or not. One may conclude that, at best, there is a disagreement among the experts and that, in a state of doubt, one may opt for the approach of Shaiv V'al Taaseh Adif, better be passive then take action, such as relinquishing land, with possibly critical outcomes. Therefore, regarding the Hitnakut, one is not bound by the consensus of the experts, as the Rav maintained in 1967, simply because there is no consensus! (Another issue to examine is whether the government lost its credibility as a military and political analyst after the Oslo catastrophe.)

 

 

Postscript

 It is interesting to note that Rav Aharon Lichtenstien Shlita, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Ezion, and the son-in-law of the Rav, uses similar logic-that we are in doubt regarding the outcome of the disengagement plan- with regard to a different point, namely whether a soldier could refuse disengagement orders. He writes:

 

"One can refuse orders when they are clearly in violation of Torah Law, as the Rabbis say: 'The master's word and the servant's word-the master's words takes precedence.' (Maimonides, Laws of Kings, 3:9) With regard to disengagement, the government contends that the plan will in the long term and in the broad perspective bolster our diplomatic and security strength, and will reduce the chances of war. In other words, the government believes that its plan will have the effect of saving human life-a Halakhic argument of the first rank. And because this is the case, its defenders will claim, Halakhically speaking, to obey its orders. It could be claimed that the government's predictions should not be taken seriously, and it is simply wishful thinking. Clearly, no one can speak of guaranteed success; however, predictions of guaranteed failure are also erroneous. In the final analysis, we-the government, the army, and it goes without saying the citizens and their spiritual leadership-face a hazy reality. I will say that to my best understanding, there are no guarantees that the plan, if executed, will succeed, and I am not convinced it will achieve its objectives. I understand the doubts and fears that not only will the security situation not improve, but it will, heaven forbid, be aggravated." According to the Rosh Yeshiva, although one can refuse orders when they are clearly in violation of Torah Law, one can not do so when there is no blatant violation; here, the defenders of the plan claim that not only is there no Biblical violation but, on the contrary, they are helping save lives, fulfilling a great Mitzvah, at least in the long run.

 

We certainly do not know where things are headed since we see the situation through mortal eyes, which offer limited vision. We hope and pray that Hashem will help us manage this crisis and bring us to better days ahead.