Land for Peace

Question by Penina Cohen:

Should we be giving up land in Biblical Israel, if we know that people will die if we do not? The mitzvah of pikuach nefesh, and lo taamod al dam rayechah are very strong ones, and I was wondering if these could extend to the political issue of giving up land in Israel. If we know that people will die if they continue to live in the land, are we supposed to keep the land or give it up to save a life?

Answer:
This is a great question and hits on an issue that has been the source of much debate and controversy today in the State of Israel. To attempt to give some sort of answer to this very complex question, I'd like to look at this issue in light of three perspectives: halakhic, political and ideological.



1. Halakhic issues:

The first issue is maintaining that there is a Mitzvah to settle the land of Israel, which most Rishonim agree upon (for more info on that you can read this article: http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1442)

The 2nd issue is that of (וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם (דברים ז:ב, explained by the Gemara in Avodah Zara 20a, that one is not supposed to sell land in Israel to idolators, in order not to give them a place in Israel to reside in (note: this is idolaters only, while non Jews accepting the 7 מצוות בני נח can always live in Israel as גרי תושב).

Now what happens when living in the land of Israel, or holding on to some parts of it will cause the loss of Jewish life. It's an issue of Pikuach Nefesh! And we know from the famous יהרג ועל יעבור Gemara in Sanhedrin 74a-b that one must only give up his or her life for one of the big 3 sins, none of which are settling the land of Israel.

Many poskim among them R' Ovadia Yosef (Rav Ovadia Yosef. "Ceding Territory of the Land of Israel in Order to Save Lives", Tehumim Vol. 10, 1989), Rabbi J. David Bleich of Yeshiva University, (The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 16, "Of Land, Peace and Divine Command") and others, including some say Rav Soloveichik z"l, use this argument to say that if one could maintain that trading back land for peace will save Israeli lives, then it is permissible. This was what prompted many rabbis (including R' Aharon Lichtenstein and Rav Amital of Yeshivat Har Etzion) to lend their support for the Oslo Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords), which was the first try at peace with the P.L.O. in 1993. (For a thorough discussion of this topic, you can check out an excellent book by R' Amnom Bazak, called '"That You Shall Live By Them", When Values Clash. A Study of the Sanctity of Life and the Integrity of the Land of Israel', which I'm happy to lend to you).

However there is another dissenting view, that would hold that pikuach nefesh would NOT cancel out the mitzvah of conquering the land (כיבוש הארץ). Giving away land would be יהרג ועל יעבור, and one would have to hang on to all conquered Israeli land, even if it would mean Israelis would die. This is based on the Minchat Chinuch (Mitzvah 425) who asks how there could ever be a mitvzah to go to war (which does exist - מלחמת מצוה), when the very nature of going to war involves putting ones life at risk! Therefore pikuach nefesh does NOT cancel out a מלחמת מצוה, part of which would be conquering the land. Rabbis on this side include Rav Avraham Shapiro z"l, the late Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz HaRav, and many other rabbis in the more right wing settler movement.

(For additional sources on the Halakhic debate, you can also look at 'Rabbi Herschel Schachter, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 16, "Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective"' and 'Rabbi Aaron M. Schreiber, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Number 18, "Relinquishing Yehudah and Shomron: A Response to Rabbi Bleich"').

2. The Political Question:

The political question revolves whether trading land for peace will actually result in saving lives. On one hand, before the 1993 Oslo accords, many thought that negotiating with the PLO would result in a final peace treaty, and an end to violence and terrorism. Not to over simplify the Middle East peace process, but this much anticipated result did not occur, culminating in the 2000 Intifada, where acts of terrorism only increased. So the question today is politically, will giving back land result in peace? Many feel that after the failure of the Oslo accords and the start of the Intifada that it will not.

Others view it differently. Take the pull out from Gaza. On one hand, this was an area with a huge majority of Arabs and a tiny group of settlers. Israeli soldiers were dying protecting this small group. Also, terrorism was increasing against Israel and many claimed this would stop if Israel pulled out of Gaza. Many men and women in Israel protested why they had to send their sons to fight for tiny settlements that were so vastly outnumbered and impossible to defend.

On the other hand, although Israeli soldiers no longer have to protect settlements in Gaza after the pullout, terrorists who were shooting rockets at Israel before, can now move up further to the new border with Israel, with (as we saw a few weeks ago) towns such as Sederot, Ashkelon, Yavneh, Be'ersheva...etc, etc, now getting pounded with even more rockets. And Israeli soldiers still had to risk their lives to go back in to fight these terrorists. So politically, it doesn't seem that pulling back will actually result in peace!

The pull out from Gaza in 2005 was very different as this was a unilateral pull out, where Israel pulled out and withdrew without an accompanying peace treaty or any responsibilities undertaken by the Palestinian Authority in return. What is interesting is that Rav Ovadia Yosef, who did support the Oslo accords, was very against the pull out from Gaza, as this did not come with a guarantee of peace from the other side.

Therefore the political question is up to debate, and there are many, many opinions on both sides which all have merit and validity.

(One last thing to thing about is that Israel now is in a very problematic position vis a vis the land that it conquered in 1967. Israel conquered the West Bank, including many cities that are very holy to us: Chevron, Shechem, Shiloh... etc. However, we also are now in control of the lives of thousands and thousands of Palestinians. This is unlike the Palestinians living in the Galil or in East Jerusalem, who Israel granted full citizenship to (Israeli passports, and ability to vote!) after they annexed these areas. So now, in the West Bank, Israel is in control of all these Palestinians who are in this state of limbo. Israel doesn't want to be "ruling" over such a large civilian population. But if Israel grants them citizenship and annexes this land, there will be so many new Israeli Arab citizens, with voting powers, that this could vastly affect the Jewish nature of the State. Meaning, the solution of: "let's not give back any land and just keep it all" will simply not work).

3. The Ideological Issue

I think that a lot of how one views the "land for peace" debate depends on how you ideologically view Medinat Israel today.

There are many religious-Zionist groups in Israel who subscribe to the ideology of ארץ ישראל השלימה - that G-d gave us the land of Israel and because of that, we need to conquer, settle and live in as much of it as possible, with no exceptions. This is the beginning of the Messianic era - ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, so one could never even consider giving any of this land back!

This point of view espoused by many religious rabbis and Roshei Yeshiva in Israel has led to a tremendous ideological crisis among religious Zionist youth. If you believe that the state of Israel is ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, and then you give back land, and pull out of Gush Katif, then what does this all mean? Is this no longer the beginning of Geulah? Are we moving backwards??

However there is another more balanced viewpoint which I personally think needs to be spread around a little more. One can view the state of Israel as ראשית צמיכת גאולתינו, but Geulah is a process. It happens slowly but surely. It's not going to happen overnight (there's a beautiful Yerushalmi that describes the process of Geulah as a sunrise, happening slowly but surely, going from darkness to light).

This raises the question of what we need to do to "bring geulah"? Will geulah come just through focusing on the land? Or will geulah come when we work on fixing the sins that got us exiled in the first place? Much of נ"ך focuses on the values of צדק ומשפט, on social justice, and how our goal as an עם הנבחר is to act as a role model to other nations by building the ultimate society of social justice and righteousness here in Israel.

Back in the day, when I was learning in Israel for the year, one of my teachers mentioned how it is ironic that the only areas of Israel that we have complete control over are the areas of Shevet Dan and the coast line (Haifa, Tel Aviv, Herzliah, Rishon Letzion...), which in Tanakh are not really places of much Kedusha. The places which are most holy to us, where most of the "action" happened in Tanakh are Yerushalayim, Chevron, Shechem, Yehuda v'Shomron, Har HaBayit...., which we very much do NOT have control over and are contested places, usually either under Arab control, or surrounded by a large Arab population. This teacher mentioned that perhaps G-d only grants us land on the level of kedusha that we are deserving. G-d gave us the tremendous gift of Medinat Israel, but we are not deserving of certain holy places yet.

So, then, how do we get to that stage of gaining those other holy areas of Eretz Israel? Is it through moving to Chevron and raising one's family in a very dangerous area (not to negate the choice of those who do this), or is it through strengthening the צדק ומשפט of the ares that we do have and making them into the model society, showing G-d that we are willing to fix that which we were exiled for, and that we're not missing the point by focusing on the land to the exclusion of the values that our state is supposed to stand for.

And are we doing this? In Jerusalem a large number of Holocaust survivors live below the poverty line. Children of new immigrants from Ethiopia and Russia go hungry in towns in the North. There is rampart corruption and bribery taking place in all levels of the government. Perhaps it's through volunteering at soup kitchens, organizing social programs that take care of the poor, campaigning for change and the elimination of corruption in the Israeli government... maybe this is the better path to take to bring Geulah.

Again, I'm not trying to bash people who are settling the more contested areas of the land of Israel. There's also the ethical issues of evacuating settlers from their homes, especially if this will not bring peace, and even more so if the government won't take care of the evacuees afterwards! As well there are many settlements in prominently Jewish areas: Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel...., I'm saying that we still need to keep our ideological priorities in order.

Just some thoughts. Feel free to disagree!

-Ms. Gordon