Gaza

There seems to some confusion over this website's position on the Gaza Disengagement. To be clear:

1. The Disengagement is not a peace agreement. It is a strategic redrawing of Israel's border.
2. The government has the right to make such decisions, to rely on its military and diplomatic experts and on its intelligence gathering agencies.
3. Rabbis are not experts in the military, diplomatic or intelligence fields.
4. Jewish law allows a government to cede land. The vast majority of major poskim (rabbinic legal experts who decide intricate matters of Jewish law) agree on this.
5. Most military, diplomatic and intelligence experts wanted Israel to dismantle or destroy Gaza's synagogues before the Israeli withdrawal was complete.
6. Rabbis – who again are not experts in these fields – moved to forbid this, eventually appealing to Israel's secular courts to get a ruling to uphold their understanding of Jewish law.
7. Palestinians acted as they have for many years, burning, defacing and destroying those remaining Gaza synagogues.
8. Many have argued that the rabbis intent was political, not religious – Palestinians burning synagogues strengthens the rabbis' political base.
9. Rabbis disingenuously point to the synagogue burnings to prove we have no peace agreement, and to prove wrong the government's decision to disengage. But the Disengagement was not a peace agreement and was never marketed as one.
10. The Palestinians' actions are barbaric and inexcusable.
11. As a direct consequence of the rabbis refusal to allow Israel to dismantle the Gaza synagogues, right wing  Jewish terrorism directed at mosques is now a real possibility. This would be a dangerous development that could easily push Israel into war.
12. Rabbis who encourage sedition (Mordechai Eliyahu, Avraham Kahane Shapira, etc.), those who incite violence against Arabs (Shmuel Eliyahu, etc.) or those who posit that non-Jews do not posses Divine souls and are somehow comparable to cattle (Yitzchak Ginsburgh, etc.) must be held accountable for their words. If their followers commit violent acts, the rabbis who taught them to hate must also be brought before the bar.
13. The inability of many rabbinicly inspired opponents of Disengagement to function within democratic society is a frightening foretaste of what may come to pass if Israel ever becomes a (pre-messiah) religious state, and is a powerful argument for separation of synagogue and state.

Comments

[Isa]

In America, where neiborhoods change, and shuls have to be sold because the Jewish population moved away- I thought it was not permissable to allow a shul to be used as a church for instance but some other secular use is OK. It is perferable to tear down a old shul rather than let it turn into church or other less desiable purpose (adult book store)
What if the Palestians turned these synagogues into mosques??? But lucky for us these Palestians are doing what should have been done by us.

[Sean]

As usual you are full of shit. Whoever believes your fonny bluff excuses is stupid enough to buy anything. Sometimes you try to wrap your dung in nice packing. But the truth is known, we have no faith in you nore your f=shit

[Contributor]

Isa, your presumption is wrong. According to Jewish law all synagogues and houses of study built outside biblical Israel contain a stipulation that the sacntity of the land upon which they are built is merely temporary. Thus, in the Diaspora, one may sell a synagogue to a buyer who may convert it into a church. However, in Israel proper there is no such contigency unless explicitly made before the construction. Even removing all components of the building does not remove the sanctity of the land upon which it was built, and it is forbidden to profane that land.

Additionally, according to Judean law Islam is not regarded as idolatry, and were mosques to be made out of the abandoned synagogues that would certainly not be profaning the location any more than burning the building down and/or making a house or office building in its place.

To Shmarya:

What if Isreal were not to become a "pre-messiah religious state," but a democratic Judean state bound by the Judean constitution (which includes a clause that its core principles cannot be ammended)? There would be no "religion" involved, just Judean national law. How would this differ from any other country, like the US for example, with its blue laws, incest and beasteality prohibitions, and Christmas and Easter as national holidays. Is America a "religion"? No less than Judea.

Wake up and smell your heritage.

[Yoss'l]

"What if the Palestians turned these synagogues into mosques??? But lucky for us these Palestians are doing what should have been done by us."
Actually , unlike in churches , in mosques they pray to "hashem kel olam koney shomayim va aretz" although they got some of the facts messed up .

".....full of shit. Whoever believes your fonny bluff excuses is stupid enough to buy anything. Sometimes you try to wrap your dung in nice packing. But the truth is known, we have no faith in you nore your f=shit "
Sean , and you are oozing kedusha , bilshon saguy nohor !

[ayala]

Thank you for this post...

[Shmarya]

Contributor –

Blue laws, Easter and Christmas are not part of the Constitution. In your proposed Judean state, Shabbat, Succot, and even Hanukka would be. That is the difference. And who will be the judges who interpret the constitution? Rabbis.

Ayala –

Thank you.

[Contributor]

Ayala, the fact that the Christian laws in the US are not part of the constitution does not change the fact that they are laws in the democratic country of America. Is there any objection to these laws being in conflict with the democratic nature of the country? I am not aware of any.

In a Judean state, just because a laws that are not purely civil in nature are in the constitution would not make it any less democratic than the United States. And who would be the judges on the constitutional court? Legal experts on Judean law. The fact that they might have the title "rabbi" does not make the state into a religion in any way. It is simply a degree of qualification in order to be a judge on the constitutional court. In the US there are also prerequisits for being a judge or a supreme court justice. Is the America a religion? No less than Judea.

Shmarya,

"2.The government has the right to make such decisions, to rely on its military and diplomatic experts and on its intelligence gathering agencies."

Are you unaware that the military and intelligence gathering agencies projected that the withdrawal would lead to more terrorism and more loss of Jewish life? (They also projected that it would help the Sharon's to build a casino on the evacuated land, and would assist in securing financial aid from the United States that would help keep Sharon in power.)

Yes, there are certainly provisions that allow land to be ceded. And yes, the rabbis are not military and intelligence experts. But based on the projections of the military and intelligence experts the rabbis ruled that this is not a case where land may be ceded. Quite the contrary, based on the experts it is a matter of pikuach nefoshot that the land not be handed over.

It seems that you believe that the first priority of these rabbis should be making sure that all the "religious" requirements of their constituents are accounted for, while involving themselves in political matters involving pikuach nefesh is beyond the field to which they are tasked.

This rings a bell, where have I heard it before? Hmmm...

[Shmarya]

Contributor --

You are simply incorrect regarding military, intelligence and diplomatic experts. Some support Disengagement and some opposed it. Some saw a short-term rise in terror attacks followed by a long-term decline. Some saw a long-term rise. Etc. But it is up to the government to sort it all out and make the decision. Plus, Sharon himself is an expert, and his opinion also carries weight.

But again, rabbis are not experts in these matters. They do not have access to the full scope of information the government has and, in any case, they are not trained to properly evaluate it.

All rabbis can do is set down their general understanding of Jewish law as it may apply in this case. But it is up to the government to decide.

I would also add that most rabbis who opposed Disengagement oppose any ceding of land under any circumstances. Their position is soley religious – there is no aspect of pekuakh nefesh involved in it. In fact, they rule that Jews must sacrifice their lives in order not to give up land. This position is rejected by the majority of poskim. One cannot expect the government to take this position into account.

The rabbis who believe that ceding land threatens jewish life and therefore Disengagement is an issue of pekuakh nefesh are also in the minority and their view is rejected by the majority of poskim. But even these rabbis will not agree to cede land when a true peace would come with its ceding. These rabbis believe that any ceding of land will never lead to peace and will always endanger Jews. Therefore, the opinions of military, intelligence and diplomatic experts and decisions made by the government are irrelevant to them, except when those opinions or decisions can be used to bolster the rabbis' cause.

Both groups of rabbis are not honest brokers and are not applying Jewish law in a truly honest and sincere fashion. Rather, they are idealogues seeking to have their minority views enforced on the majority against its will. That is why, until the messiah comes, the only way for Israel to procede is as a secular Jewish government that functions with a separation of synagogue and state.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

Most of the military analysis I've read pointed out two basic facts: that it was taking a huge amount of military resources to protect a small number of people in Gaza, but also that disengagement would provide access to weapons and supplies via the sea and the borders to the terrorists. How one weighs those facts may lead to opposite conclusions regarding the military support for disengagement.

[Contributor]

"Both groups of rabbis are not honest brokers and are not applying Jewish law in a truly honest and sincere fashion. Rather, they are idealogues seeking to have their minority views enforced on the majority against its will."

Oh Shmarya,

The sad truth is that the "religious" leaders of the Jewish people concern themselves only with their constituents. The Haredim are very happy to be protected by an army in which they do not serve and funded by the taxes of the working "goyim" whom they feel have no need to study Torah. The National Religious are equally factional, only concerning themselves with the assurance that the "religious" community receives enough funding to carry on their way of life, messiahless, and for their own power in influencing how the "religion" will be defined.

You know, it would actually be nice if the rabbis were concerned for the observance of Jewish law by all Jews - with or against their will. mitzva goreret mitzva.

[Contributor]

Isaac Leeser, who referred to Moses Mendelsohn as "One of our great luminaries," wrote this in 1863:

"But tell me, are these laws abolished, because they are not now obeyed?"

"By no means; the law is in every respect unchanged and in full force, and is consequently binding on every Israelite, who should do whatever lies in his power. But the enforcement of the judicial and church laws is suspended, only for want of the means on our part to execute them: still we hope that the time will come, when, by a restoration of the Jewish state, both these institutions will again be made the law of the land, as heretofore in the times of David and Solomon."

What has become of the "Jewish state" of which he spoke? We should have had it in 1948, and we should still strive to make it exist through our democratic power in what is now only an illusion of a Jewish state. The enforcement is no longer "suspended, only for want of the means on our part to execute them," but for want of the willingness on our part to execute them.