According to media reports, the Olmert Government in Israel is currently discussing plans to give Arab occupied parts of the ‘old city’ to Palestinians as part of a final peace settlement.
Nothing new here. This is nothing more than a reshuffeling of ‘Oslo’ and the resultant peace offer by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak to Yassir Arafat... who rejected it.
What is new here is R. Elyashiv’s participation. He has apparently for the first time joined forces with Religious Zionists and others in public protest:
The leader of the Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox community in Israel, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, joined the call for protest under the slogan "Over Jerusalem they cast lots," urging the public to rally at a demonstration against the government's diplomatic platform.
I am not sure what changed exactly that makes the current situation any different from the last one. At that time the recognized leader of the Yeshiva world in Israel was Rav Schach. He basically ignored the whole thing. He may have opposed it but in no way did he believe that the Bnei Torah should join in a mass protest. And if I recall correctly he did not oppose it in theory had it led to a real peace treaty.
Just to be clear about my own position. I agreed with Rav Shach. If there could truly have been peace between Palestinians and Israelis that would end all hostilities including and especially suicide missions against us, I would divide Jerusalem. As much as I believe that Jerusalem is ours… indeed the essence of Eretz Yisroel is the Makom HaMikdash… I would rather see a time where there is no more bloodshed than I would a united Jerusalem. In our time of pre-Bayis Shlishi and Para Adumah, the Makom HaMikdash is off limits anyway. Even those who permit certain portions of Har Habayis to be entered all agree that the more important parts of it are off limits until the advent of Moshiach Tzidkenu. Of course if we could achieve true peace and retain sovereignty I would prefer that. Who wouldn’t?!
At this time, however, I am firmly opposed to dividing Jerusalem. As long as there is an Ahmadinejad… a Hamas… and all those other Islamic fundamentalist entities that ‘love death more than we love life’ … as long as there is an enemy who has sworn to destroy us and anything else that gets in their way toward achieving a Palestinian State and Islamic government over ALL of Eretz Yisroel... there can be no peace treaty at all. It seems to me that even an inch of territorial concession is dangerous to us.
If I am not mistaken this was the ‘official’ position of Charedi leadership too. I recall Rav Ovaida Yosef had a similar position about Oslo. Of course he has since retracted for (I think) the same reasons I have. But the Hashkafic and Halachic position seems clear. Pikuach Nefesh trumps retaining land… including even portions of Jerusalem.
And that’s what makes R. Elyahsiv’s position seem so difficult. He seems to be changing the Charedi mindset on this issue.
If one examines the article closely, however, there emerges a somewhat different story. And it sounds vaguely familiar:
On the eve of Sukkot earlier this month, just before his death, former chief rabbi Avraham Shapira protested the plan to transfer Jewish holy places to foreign control.
"The Land of Israel belongs to the Nation of Israel and was granted to us as an inheritance by the Creator of the World. Neither the prime minister nor anybody else has the right to give away areas, or even a grain of sand, of the Holy Land of Israel," Shapira wrote. He signed the document along with former Sephardic chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu.
Both Shapira and Eliyahu signed the declaration at the request of MK Uri Yehuda Ariel from the National Union-National Religious Party.
It seems Rav Elyashiv was convinced to join the boycott and did not in any way originate it. Now it could very well be that he has had a change of heart, or that circumstances are different now than they were with Rav Shach. But in light of the fact that it has been shown that Rav Elyaishiv is often manipulated by his Askanim, I question the accuracy of his actual involvement here. Who knows what he was told and/or how it was presented to him.
So I take this story with a huge grain of salt. For now.
