In response to the piskei din which forbid the uprooting and removal of Jewish settlements in Eretz Israel and the handing over of territories in Eretz Israel to other peoples, there has been much comment. For example, HaRav Yehudah Amital has been quoted widely in the press criticizing the halachic decisions made by the rabbanim. [HaRav Amital is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Gush Etzion, and is currently serving as a cabinet minister in the government headed by Labor Party M.K., Prime Minister Shimon Peres.] HaRav Amital's principle argument has been that the issue in question was not halachic but political, and that the piskei dinim delivered by the rabbanim were influenced by political considerations. In the course of his remarks HaRav Amital saw fit to repeat several times the comment: "And what does HaRav Avraham Shapiro know about matters of military security?"
We who were privileged to assist the rabbanim in carrying out the careful and exhaustive preliminary investigation which took place before they gave out their piskei din wish to state:
One: The first pesak din (January 94) forbidding the uprooting and removal of Jewish settlements was given out by the two former Chief Rabbis of Israel, HaRav Shlomo Goren zt"l and HaRav Avraham Shapiro, by HaRav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l, and by HaRav Moshe Zvi Neriyah zt"l. HaRav Yisraeli zt"l is recognized as having been one of the greatest poskim of our generation and chief among the poskim for the national religious community. HaRav Neriyah zt"l was the outstanding leader of our time in education for Jewish religious youth in Israel. The shealah was addressed to each one of these rabbanim.
HaRav Goren zt"l, in addition to ranking as a Torah authority, served as a general in the Israeli Army, was a member of the General Staff for many years, and was involved in matters of military security from the time that the Israel Defence Forces established. In questions pertaining to matters of national security he was both vigilant and alert to the ramifications involved in a way that HaRav Amital obviously could not hope to be. Certainly his pesak din should not be challenged on the grounds of lack of familiarity with military problems.
Two: HaRav Amital's comment upon the general knowledge or lack of knowledge of the rabbanim in matters outside their fields of study shows clearly that the distinguished rav who is a Head of Study in the Yeshiva and not a rav moreh horahah is not familiar with the manner in which rabbanim are accustomed to give out an halachic judgment when the shealah which is addressed to them requires expert knowledge of authoritative sources which are not to be found in the Shulkhan Arukh.
For example, medicine is a field in which no rav is qualified to know what a doctor knows as a result of his years of study. But shealoth relating to the field of medicine arise almost every day and are referred to the rabbanim. The problems arising from the need to violate the Shabbat on behalf of a person who is ill, are constantly being brought before the rav. Every rav who is posek on such questions, first requests an expert's opinion from a doctor conversant with the medical condition of the patient and what can be done for him. The rav then decides, upon the basis of what he has been told by the doctor, what is permissible and what is forbidden according to the halahka. The problem that is referred to the rav is the need to transgress the prohibition against violating the Shabbat. The halachic consideration upon which he bases his decision is the precept that pikuah nefesh (the saving of a life) takes priority over the observance of the laws of Shabbat.
It is folly to say that the uprooting of Jewish settlements is not an halachic but a political question. It is an even greater folly to say that rabbanim have made halachic decisions based on political considerations.
It is a little difficult to relate seriously to the arguments of those who perhaps did not consider clearly the implications of their suggestion that rabbanim would base halachic decisions concerning the uprooting of Jewish settlements upon whether Yitzhak Shamir or Shimon Peres happened to be Prime Minister of Israel at the time.
In the case of a medical shealah, the rav is faced with a problem involving halachic principle. He must decide, on the basis of his discussions with the doctor, whether or not there is pikuah nefesh which justifies permitting the transgression of the prohibition against violating the Shabbat. So, too, in the case of the uprooting of Jewish settlements in Eretz Israel, a problem of halachic principle is involved in permitting the transgression of the halachic prohibition against the uprooting of Jewish settlements and the handing over of territories in Eretz Israel to other peoples.
It is clear to anyone who has any knowledge at all of the issues involved that whether or not the granting of such a heter (permission) can be justified upon the grounds of pikuah nefesh is an halachic problem. It must be resolved by the rabbanim, upon the basis of their discussions with the high-ranking army officers who are qualified to give the rabbanim an expert military opinion. For without a decision by the rabbanim that the granting of a heter to uproot a Jewish settlement is justified upon halachic grounds, there can be no permission for such an action to take place.
In matters of national security, as in matters of medicine, the rabbanim determine an halachic stand after having taken into consideration the opinion of the experts. As in matters of medicine so too in matters of national security, the rabbanim did not make their decision until after they had heard the expert opinion of high-ranking officers in the army and specialists in the field of national security. Only then did they make their pesak. HaRav Goren, too, did not depend upon his own knowledge of military affairs.. Hanging in the balance upon the one side was the halachic problem involved in abrogating the mitzvah of the Yishuv (Settlement) of Eretz Israel and handing over territories in the Land to other peoples. On the other side there was a problem involving the national security whose solution lies in the hands of military experts. It was they who explained to the rabbanim to what extent the projected withdrawal was a doubtful or definite case of pikuah nefesh, or even! wheth er, on the contrary, it was more likely to bring about a sikkun nefesh (the endangering of life). This was the manner in which the rabbanim deliberated upon this shealah, and arrived at their pesikah.
There is not, and never was any place for political considerations by the rabbanim in their deliberations upon halachic questions. Only one who is not himself accustomed to pronounce halachic judgments could so misunderstand the manner in which the rabbanim arrive at a pesikah.
For example, in the inquiry concerning the Golan: High-ranking army officers and specialists in military security were invited to appear before the rabbanim. These military experts spent long periods of time with the rabbanim explaining the military situation in detail and answering the questions of the rabbanim. Concerning the present situation in the Golan, there was a consensus of opinion among the experts that our presence there, only a small distance from Damascus, acts as a deterrent preventing Assad from perpetrating acts of terror from within the Syrian border. For this reason the Golan has been quiet for over twenty years. If we descend from the Golan and return to Syrian control the territories all the way to the Kinneret that they are demanding, there is a real and probable risk that lives will be endangered. Nor is this risk confined only to northern Israel, but it is possible that the very existence of the State may be threatened.
Opinion, however, was divided as to what the situation after withdrawal would in fact be. There were those who said that even though withdrawal from the Golan Heights would indeed involve the risk that lives would be endangered, nonetheless, they believe that after Assad signs a peace agreement he will be faithful to the agreement, will not under any circumstances go back upon it, and will even make it the basis for a friendly relationship between Syria and Israel. Others, however, and they were the majority, stated that they do not believe Assad at all, and if a situation is created in which it is convenient for him to attack Israel he will do so. In regard to this possibility, many of the officers were of the opinion that if Israel is attacked by Assad after withdrawing from the Golan, Israel will in the end be able to overcome Syria, but at the cost of immense sacrifice in lives. All stated that there is no evidence from which the conclusion may be drawn that Assad can be! trust ed. However, in this respect the decision whether or not to trust Assad will rest with the political leaders. All agreed that from a military point of view it was not worth taking the risk. But in terms of policy the matter depends upon the political point of view of the leaders of the state.
This, in brief, was the gist of the views of the military experts on the subject of Ramat HaGolan.
On the basis of these views, it was clear to the rabbanim that from the halachic point of view, whereas in the present situation there is no immediate sakkanot nefoshoth, the situation should not be changed by withdrawal to one in which there is a grave sakkanot nefoshoth, and thus to transgress both the "aseh" and "loh ta'aseh".
And this decision was made in the same manner that rabbanim are poskim in shealoth in the field of medicine. And it was in this same manner that the process of decision-making by the rabbanim in regard to Yesha"h took place.
The rabbanim also discussed the pesak din that was given out by HaRav Ovadiah Yosef. They noted that in it too, emphasis was placed upon the condition that withdrawal can take place only if security is assured and withdrawal will not cause a situation in which there is sakkanot nefoshoth. But in the situation which exists today the conditions which allow a heter have not been met, and therefore, we see that the opinion of HaRav Yosef is as that of the other rabbanim. At present army officers have stated explicitly that that problems of security have not been solved, that there are grave dangers involved in the present withdrawals, and that their minds are not at ease in this situation. Nonetheless, the government stands upon its authority to compel the army to withdraw, but no secular body has the authority to compel the rabbanim to abrogate an halachic prohibition. Such a thing has not been and will not be.