Rebbetzin Toby Katz has an interesting take on the New York Times. Her view seems to be if the ‘Times’ is …for… something, then we ought to be against it. So in her view the fact that the President is now being praised by the ‘Times’ for his peace making efforts, should give us cause to worry. Here is how she puts it in a cross-currents article: “…he (President Bush) is a “peacemaker”? G-d forbid he should actually turn out to be what they wish and hope”
I’m sure that Mrs. Katz is not opposed to peace. Only a fool and an idiot would be. That is not what she meant. Peace for our people in the state of Israel should be an imperative… a goal no matter what side of the political line you are on. The only question is how to achieve a real one.
In my view the only way the process can even begin is if an organization like Hamas is destroyed. Fundamentalist Muslim organizations like that are committed by their religious ideals to the total destruction of the Jewish State by any means necessary. To them a suicide mission toward that goal is considered a very high value, worthy of an immediate reward in paradise.
Another primary obstacle to peace is Iran or any other state that has as its religious mandate the fundamentalist Islamist views of a Hamas. For that matter, one must seriously consider the possibility that Pakistan may soon join the brotherhood of nations aligned to destroy any Jewish dominance over ‘holy Muslim land’.
So… anything short of total victory over those forces means that there can be no real peace process at all. I am therefore opposed to any negociations in Annapolis that will pre-maturely give away any ‘land for peace’. Because any ‘peace’ that will be promised will be undermined...not by the negotiators at Anappolis, but by the Islamists who are really in control over there.
But…
If those religious fanatic forces could be defeated (and I can’t realistically see any way they could) then I believe there could be a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians… even though they hate us. If you take fundamentalist ideals out of the picture, what remains is a realistic option that I’m thoroughly convinced the majority of Palestinian Arabs would be willing to settle for.
Most of them are sick and tired of all the strife caused by their own leaders (but ultimately blamed on the Israelis and the Americans). They would just as soon, however, get on with their lives and build a better future for their children than to continue the way they are now. To that end Israel would need to compromise somewhere along the lines of the Barak plan which is basically Israel’s revealed and already agreed to bottom line position at Camp Davaid eight years ago.
At that point in time the right thing to do will be to negotiate the best settlement we can get.
And this brings me to an article in Ynet that is extremely troubling. It tells us about a directive from a Religious Zionist Rav who I am certain would vehemently disagree with me about the above. Here is what he said:
Rabbi Aharon Trop, head of the Bnei Tzvi Yeshiva in Beit El, and a rising force among West Bank rabbis, has called for mass order refusal following the Annapolis conference. "This is a moral crime raised on a black flag, it justified and even demands order refusal," Trop said.
I certainly agree that this man has a right to his views. But to advocate resisting orders based on the view that it is Assur to give away any land under any condition is a dangerous policy and Rabbi Trop is irresponsible in advocating it.
Such an attitude can only be based on the extremist notions that retaining all parts of Israel is a religious imperative so high, that it trumps the very existence of the State, or even life itself. Once you tell soldiers to go AWOL for any reason you have basically destroyed the armed forces.
Of course there is a time and a place that resisting orders is appropriate. If for example a soldier is ordered to commit a clear violation of Halacha (for non life threatening reasons) or be killed, he is required to be killed. Then going AWOL would be an appropriate response.
If, however, it is for reasons that are not universally accepted as Halacha, except in the religious Zionist circles, then it will do nothing but harm. The dislipline that is required for an army to be effective will be lost. The break down of the command structure of an army means suicide for the nation. And perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths to citizens who would be attacked by an enemy attack left to soldiers who will feel they can decide whether an order is morally acceptable to them.
Rabbi Trop did not say that he is advocating disobeying of orders because Pikuach Nefesh. He is in no position to say that in any case. He is not in the army or in the intelligence community. He therefore has no standing on this issue. All he is entitled to is to say that he is aposed to Annapolis, not to advocate violating any orders in the future.
It is the religious fanaticism in opposing Annapolis that upsets me, not the opposition itself. As I said, I am opposed to it now too. But I am also of the view, as Rav Shach was and Rav Elyashiv is, that a true peace where lives could be saved trumps retaining land every time… as Pikuach Nefesh always does.
