Disengagement from Genuine Peace

International approval is directly proportionate to the level of compromise on Jewish identity and inversely proportionate to the closeness to truth. It negates Judaism and Israel as a Jewish country.If this is the aim, it cannot be successfully pursued on this land, which has been allocated to the Jewish people from the dawn of civilizations.Paradoxically, represents a strong Jewish identity,demand recognition to Jewish holiness and it will preserve the status quo between Judaism, Islam and Christianity and approval which emanates from acknowledgement of truth will be forthcoming.

I totally agree with Natan Sharnsky. It does no good to give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians if the Palestinian government is not transformed. That is just like handing the land over to the terrorist. The free world would do the Palestinians a lot more good if we would help them transform their government and give them the gift of freedom.

It is interesting that when the dictator Arafat was offered the opportunity to share Jordanian Rule as Prime minister, he turned it down. This indicates that his followers have no real interest in creating a State for themselves but are agents for the destruction of Israel. This desire for a Judenrein middle east is ruiness to all humanity. But the inability of the Israeli democracy to follow the principles of free speech of Sharansky by challenging and attempting to deny the right of representation by Moledet and the successful denial of this right to Kach is the heart of the problem as why no coherent solution can be found that removes the source of human self destruction which starts with regime change and population choice for only lawful aspirations excluding the right to to obtain territory of Israel of which includes the entire West Bank of the former Transjordan. Whether the world or even Israel recognizes it or not, this is Israeli territory and has been for well over a generation.

Sharansky correctly suggests that disengagement will not reduce terror... and the status quo is not good for Israel...and that Israel should try to reform the PA.....is that realistic or just a wishful thinking ? maybe a breakup of Gaza into several smaller jurisdictions would work....because each would be more manageable than the entire Gaza strip.....Israel could "sanitize" each jurisdiction and then find peaceful Palestinians willing to control each jurisdiction under Israel's protection....I think that could work.....it sounds better than all the other plans I've heard so far !!!....and I feel good about the idea.....

As long as there are such extreme divided opinions among Jews about the land of Israel, some wanting to give away parts of it at any price, others not wanting to give any quarter, there will be no peace, no end of terror. Much of the outside world seems to be united with the Arabs against leaving Israel at peace, Why can't Jews in and outside of Israel make sholem among themselves so that the outside world can see we are One People and not a fractionalized society.

If it was enough to be given Israel yet not the Torah and Halacha, the solution would remain the same. Survival against a people bent solely on your destruction for the purpose of possessing your land can only be averted either through a change of their desire or their absolute defeat. Notwithstanding a major miracle to change their desire, something that the Holy One, blessed be He, has not decreed to perform to-date and as such can not be expected to perform in the future (when Bnai Yisrael were commanded to stop each time in the desert they expected and prepared to stop indefinitely), only the latter solution remains. The Infinite Wisdom, blessed be He, commanded the destruction of Amalek, which could not be because they were called by a specific and arbitrary name, how unjust would it be to command the destruction of a people because they happen to be called ‘Amalek’, or any other specific name? It was for a reason, not a name, that we were commanded to destroy them. They were, and always would be, bent on the destruction of Am-Yisrael possesing the same motive of the contemporary enemy. Our failure to fulfill this commandment in ancient times may be reflected in the tragedy today, thousands of years later. Perhaps the name and origin of the foreigners changed, but their nature remained the same. The only thing Am-Yisrael have to decide is, do they want to keep Eretz Yisrael and vanquish her enemy or relinquish her to the foreigners? There are no other solutions, not because we don't pray every day for a peaceful solution, but because in His infinite wisdom, the Holy One, blessed be He, has presented us with no peaceful solution (and as such can not be expected to do so in the future). In trying to get the population to emigrate, the half that don't want the land may leave but the half that want the land, the half that fight, will stay to do so. Trying to improve the life of an irrational enemy and educate his children will take many decades during which time Am-Yisrael will suffer countless more attacks, for a plan that may, like all the others, only empower our enemy with better infrastructure and weapons to turn against us, something that has already been learned through painful experience. As much as the idea of transferring the Palestinian population makes Natan Sharansky shudder in horror, not coincidently because of our own tragedy that can only have occurred through divine decree for a excellent reason hidden from us, we may yet learn to discover that it is really a brave, bold and successful solution. Remove the foreskin from the land and let future generations live in peace. Rebuild the third temple immediately and let the Holy One, blessed be He, fight the battle for His people as He did so in the past.

Sensible and sound analysis. A few comments:



1. You are right, getting out of Gaza unilaterally, without support from the Palestianians accomplishes little. Place the failures with the Bush administration, whose let them fight ideology has dramatically increased tensions. Withdrawal must come within the context of an overall peace.



2. But note, to those who support toughness, Israel did far better from 1993-1999 while negotiations were continuing, then from 2001-2004.



2. For Devorah, We read about Pesach, and our suffering to develop empathy, to treat the stranger in the land with kindness for we were strangers in the land of Egypt. That may not mean risking our lives and I do not criticize necessary acts of self-preservation; however, to suggest the Torah permits much less commands oppression of people is far off the idea of a holy charitable people that I believe lies at the center of Judaism.

The Oral Torah explicates the written Torah here. The verse from Bamidbar refers to the seven nations of Caanan. According to the Talmud (and historians) these nations no longer exist because Sancheriv "mixed the peoples." It is a big mistake to quote the Torah about the destructions of specific tribes and make it refer to Ishmaelites.

That having been said I am against the peace process, but our Rabbonim have said that so-called "land for peace" is acceptable if it saves Jewish lives. That having been said our Rabbonim also state that at present land for peace is not doable because it will increase loss of life.

As commendable as all the responses are with their quotes from the Torah, I think it is necessary to give a more Halachic perspective to the issue, if only so that Judaism not be misrepresented by our adversaries, Jewish or not, as a “fundamentalist” or “racist” religion that calls for the unconditional destruction of the non-Jewish population of the Land of Israel. In contrast to militant Islam, Torah Judaism does not offer simplistic solutions to complex problems based on one-sided quotes of Scriptural verses, but endeavors always to present a balanced, circumspect discussion of divergent opinions before pronouncing a practical, common sense opinion.

What is clear is that the Torah absolutely does not mandate extermination of the present non-Jewish residents of the Land of Israel, as a “literal” reading of the verses quoted by other readers might seem to imply. The reason is very simple; namely, that they are neither from Amalek nor from the seven nations of Canaan who lived in the Land at the time of the Exodus. These are the only peoples whom we are commanded to exterminate, and only in case they refuse to make peace with us, as the Rambam rules explicitly in his Mishne Torah (Laws of Kings and Their Wars 6:4). Since we cannot identify these peoples today, we have no way of carrying out this ruling.

Not only that, but we have no Halachic basis to wage war even against these peoples in the hypothetical event that we should find them today. Thus the Rambam rules clearly that even “commanded war” (Milhemet Mitzva), such as that which the Torah prescribes against Amalek and the Canaanites, can only be waged by a king appointed by the Sanhedrin, the religious court of seventy-one sages (Book of Mitzvot, Introduction; Laws of Kings 1:3 and 5:1). Since we have neither the Sanhedrin nor a king, it follows that we simply cannot wage war today, even that which is mandated by the Torah. In our day, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has ruled similarly in almost as many words (Tehumin, Vol. 10, 5749, p. 43), although other authorities have voiced differing opinions (for example, see R. Shaul Yisraeli, op. cit., pp. 48-61).

If, indeed, we have no formal Halachic basis for waging war, what does the Torah tell us to do if we are attacked? The Rambam (Laws of Shabbat 2:23) and the Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 329:6) nevertheless rule that if enemies threaten Jewish lives, then it is a Mitzva to go out and fight them, and even to violate the Shabbat, in order to save Jewish lives. Not only that, but even if the enemy threatens only Jewish property in a border city, we are still required to violate the Shabbat in order to protect our interests (ibid.). That this ruling applies even in the absence of a king and the Sanhedrin, and even outside the Land of Israel, is clear from the Talmudic source (Eruvin 45a) in which Naharde’a in Babylonia is cited as an example of a border city.

We have seen that even in the absence of a formal mandate to wage war, and even when Jewish lives are not in danger, it is still a Mitzva, even on Shabbat and outside of Israel, to fight the enemies who threaten us. But in the Land of Israel, there is another, more peaceful option open to us, which is likewise permitted on the Shabbat.

This option is the Mitzva of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (settling the Land of Israel). The Rambam (Laws of Shabbat 6:11) and the Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 306:11) both rule that it is permissible on Shabbat to buy a house in the Land of Israel from a non-Jew and instruct him to write a deed, even though for us writing is a forbidden labor on Shabbat and as such our Rabbis forbade us to tell even a non-Jew to do it for us on Shabbat. In the case of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, however, they relaxed their prohibition in order to encourage us to settle the Land.

This, I submit, is a more peaceful means to solve the conflict. Of course, perhaps the Arabs are not willing to sell their houses to us and move elsewhere? This isn’t so clear. Recent reports tell us that they are not as connected to their land as they would like us to believe. Many thousands of them have left to find jobs elsewhere in the Middle East, and whole villages have been found virtually deserted. A recent Palestinian poll found that close to half the population would be willing to emigrate to the West if they were given jobs, housing, and adequate financial means. Not only Herzl in his day, but also eminent Americans such as Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt in their day, all proposed emigration of the Arab population as the only truly humane solution to the conflict. The real question in my mind is, are we ready to foot the bill?

Don't give up an inch of the Gaza. When you have thugs and hate filled murderer's hanging around your home, do you say, sit in my front yard if you'll just be nice? The closer they get, the more damage they can and WILL do.

Look you know that much of the Arab world wants you to cease to exist. Stand your ground.

Prime Minister Sharon, I hope is only toying with the US - but of course I don't know

Devora,
Pinky brought up some points worth noting . It would be interesting to read your response.

As Devora Chaya quotes from Bamidbar where we are told that we should drive all inhabitants from The Land, she forgets other relevant teachings from the Toirah.

We are told in Devarim, Perek Chuf (chapter 20) that when we go to war with nations that do not border us, if we make peace with them, they may serve us as slaves, but if we do not make peace with them, we are to slay all the males. However, the Toirah goes on, (Possukim/ verses 15-16) "Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes."

Indeed, if we are to truly adopt a literalist approach to the Toirah, we must set aside our Western liberalism and truly embrace the ways of other nations throughout history. Did the Mongols show mercy to the Arabs during conquest in the Middle Ages? Did the Crusaders worry about "public relations"? Did the Germans care about some Western perception of "human rights"?

No, Devorah Chaya, if we are to adopt literally the ways of the Toirah, we mustn't subscribe to your halfway solutions. We have all the knowledge and strength -- and moral right -- to truly apply literal Toirah teachings.

Why, I bet that somewhere in Yad Vashem we can dig up some old construction plans for "factories" that we can build in Gush Katif that would help us fulfill the Commandment and rid Gaza (and later Yehuda and Shomron) of the menace once and for all.

Anything less is a halfway solution, rather than a final one.

If Hamas gains control of Gaza, the Palestinians will expect them to make their lives better. They will expect water, electricity and economic opportunities. Hamas will quickly lose its luster and will either step up and change or fade away.

Prime Minister Sharon would never put Israel in danger. He is eliminating the terrorist leaders, and if this plan is implemented would still maintain security on the borders, of course. But IDF soldiers wouldn't have to lose their lives guarding settlements in Gaza.

"If only I believed that the disengagement could solve all these problems, as the Prime Minister promises, I would be willing, despite the heartache, to face the horrible reality of evacuating settlements."

This article is not worthy of the Aish website. We are bound by a covenant with very clear guidelines. The lack of a willingness to submit ourselves to those guidelines is the root of our problems. Nowhere in this article does Mr. Sharansky quote a Torah source. Instead he appeals to humanism, logic, pragmatism, realism, moral relativism. While I have no doubt his intentions are well-meant, one who does not make Torah Law both his ruler and his measure will have nothing worthwhile to say.

"But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell." (Bamidbar 33:55)

Devorah, not all people live by the torah, while I believe in torah, its not the law, so for him to use logic is perfectly fine, torah isnt the law of the world..I lived in Israel for a long time, and while torah is theoretically the law there, it leaves many hoopholes, I dont believe you can prove everything with the torah, espiecially when we are not dealing with our own kind anyway

Moreover, the scripture tells us "therefore thus saith the Lord G-D: Surely in the fire of My jealousy have I spoken against the residue of the nations, and against all Edom, that have appointed My land unto themselves for a possession with the joy of all their heart, with disdain of soul, to cast it out for a prey;" Ezekiel 36:5

and if that's not clear enough, "Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever." DEUT 23:6 (23:7).

Instead of retreating from our enemies, or seeking to "negotiate" with a band of killers who demand the death of every Jew everywhere, we should concern ourselves with achieving victory over them. After they are defeated, and the Land liberated, then and only then can we even consider "discussions".

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell." (Bamidbar 33:55)

A whole plan would be to evacuate the Isreali Settlers to the west bank and the west bank Arabs to Gaza and shut the flow of water to Gaza The brackish water which is in the water table of Gaza cannot sustain the Arab population and they would leave on their own. Peace is easy to acheive if you have the fortitude to do what is necessary. As for the UN, European Union They are already pay the Arabs to kill us, what more could they do that they aren't doing already?