Rabbinic Paradoxes
Certain rabbis, contrary to no less learned rabbis, have publicly stated that to save Jewish life—pikuach nefesh—it is Halakhically permissible for Israel to surrender Jewish land to Arabs for peace.
Critics have questioned the logic of this position. They have pointed out that a policy of “territory for peace” based on pikuach nefesh would require Israel to surrender land whenever Arabs threaten war. But surely any sensible rabbi is aware of this absurdity. Let us therefore approach the issue another way.
At stake in this issue is Jewish retention of Judea and Samaria as well as the Golan Heights and even Eastern Jerusalem. Now, having been assured by one or another general of the Israel Defense Forces that withdrawing from these areas could yield peace and save Jewish life, the rabbis in question have supported the territory-for-peace policy.
One of these rabbis—a leader of the Shas party whose name is not important for the purpose of this article—has publicly admitted that the Arabs have no intention of giving Israel peace. This being the case, the principle of pikuach nefesh can hardly be used to justify the surrender of Jewish land to Arabs. To the contrary, if that principle has any practical application in the Arab-Israel conflict, it requires Israel to retain control over its present territorial domain.
Stated another way, given an assessment of the bellicose intentions of the Arabs toward Israel, use of the pikuach nefesh principle to justify the surrender of Jewish land is absurd or self-contradictory. It is also academic. For we can be fairly certain that no government of Israel has consulted any rabbi on this issue with the intention of being guided by his judgment.
Of course, a politician may elicit an Halakhic opinion on this issue for partisan, political purposes: either to increase public support for, or public opposition to, the territory-for-peace policy. This being so, one wonders why any rabbi would allow himself to be used in this manner.
One may also wonder why any rabbi would take an academic position on the territory-for-peace issue, using the principle of pikuach nefesh, when he well knows that other talmudic scholars—suffice to mention the Gaon HaRav Dr. Chaim Zimmerman, z”l,— reject the application of that principle to this issue. Such controversy can only undermine respect for the Halakha and the rabbinate.
Besides, just as rabbis may differ regarding the halachic validity of surrendering Jewish land for peace, so military experts may differ as to the strategic or life-saving importance of the Golan Heights or of Judea and Samaria. There are military experts in Israel and abroad who contend that Israel’s continued control of the Golan is absolutely essential for the nation’s security, and that withdrawing from Judea and Samaria would endanger the very existence of the Third Commonwealth.
Why, then, should any rabbi accept one general’s opinion over another, especially when he knows that no Israeli government will be bound by any Halakhic judgment regarding the territorial issue? But this is not all.
Those rabbis who have endorsed the policy of surrendering Jewish land for “peace” on grounds of pikuach nefesh have been curiously silent about the release of thousands of Arab terrorists during the past 14 years, when common sense as well as empirical evidence indicates that these terrorists resume, and often succeed, in their efforts to kill Jews. Conversely, if the release of terrorists is a precondition of a resumption of Israel-Arab “peace” negotiations, then it should be obvious that 14 years of Oslo punctuated by such resumptions only results in more terrorist attacks against the Jewish state.
Given their use of the Halakhic principle of pikuach nefesh, it seems to me that the rabbis in question rabbis should oppose, on the basis of that same principle, the renewal of the so-called peace negotiations between Israel and her Arab adversaries.
To compound the paradox, it seems to me they should also oppose, on grounds of pikuach nefesh, the reopening of the closing of checkpoints of Arabs entering “Little Israel.” For who does not know that allowing Arabs to work in will result in the murder of more Jews?
A territory-for-peace advocate may say: “Better to risk the lives of a few Jews today (by resuming peace talks) than many Jews tomorrow. No rabbi—certainly no orthodox rabbi—will ever assent to such a proposition.
Hence we are entitled to some explanation from rabbis who would surrender Jewish land for “peace” on grounds of pikuach nefesh, but remain silent regarding the danger to human life that is likely to follow resumption of the “peace” talks or removing checkpoints in truncated Israel.
Indeed, given the principle of pikuach nefesh, we wonder why so many rabbis have remained silent while Gaza-based Arab terrorists have launched thousands of Kassam missiles on Sderot with only perfunctory retaliation by Israel’s government.
