Withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank:
Another Rabbinic View
Sermon, March 4, 2005
Rabbi Bruce Kadden

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is moving forward with his plan for Israel to remove all its settlements from Gaza and a few selected settlements from the West Bank.  Of course, many challenges remain before the plan will be implemented beginning this summer, not the least of which is the passage of a budget to prevent the government from falling. 

The most significant challenge is dealing with the opposition to the plan among many of the settlers.  Although growing numbers of Gaza residents have indicated their reluctant willingness to leave their homes, recent demonstrations indicate strong opposition to any withdrawal, even among members of his Likud party. 

Support for their position has come from hundreds of rabbis, who argue that it is forbidden, according to Jewish law, to give up even a single settlement in the West Bank or Gaza.  Indeed, full page advertisements have run in many Israeli newspapers reflecting this position. 

But there is another rabbinic view about withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank, a view which permits the Israeli government to give up land if it believes that it is in the best interest of the people and the state.  This position has been supported by Israel’s former chief Sephardic rabbi, Ovadiah Yosef and a former chief Sephardic rabbi of Tel Aviv-Yaffo, Hayim David Halevi.  Although I had been vaguely aware of such positions, I recently studied their arguments in a presentation by Rabbi David Ellenson of Hebrew Union College.

Before examining their positions, let us look at the arguments of those who oppose giving up any land.  The primary biblical text supporting this position is Deuteronomy 7:1-2:  “When Adonai your God brings you into the land where you are about to invade and occupy, and casts out many nations before you…seven nations greater and mightier than you, when Adonai your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction:  grant them no terms and show them no mercy.”  The text is absolutely clear with regard to these Canaanite nations:  Israel was to completely destroy them.  Indeed, when King Saul fails to do so, he is punished for his transgression.

The Talmud expands this passage by saying that “show them no mercy” means do not allow them to settle in the land (Avodah Zarah 20a).  And Tosafot, in their commentary on this passage, argued that these laws applied not only to the seven Canaanite nations, but to all gentiles.  Such an understanding is vital, since the seven Canaanite nations no longer exist.

Medieval authorities disagreed about whether these passages applied to Muslims and Christians.  Maimonides forbade the sale of land to non-Jews based on the passage from Deuteronomy; he also forbade gentiles to live in the land or pass through the land (when it was under Jewish control) unless they accepted the seven Noahide laws which include a prohibition against idolatry.  Other authorities rejected this opinion; they believed that Muslims and Christians were not idolaters and therefore not subject to this prohibition.

Rabbi Hayim David Halevi followed this view and did not believe that the passage from Deuteronomy applied to this particular situation.  Without such a prohibition, Halevi argued that there exists no “precise halachic precedent” on the issue of the Israeli government giving up land. 

He wrote:  “Has there ever been a situation similar to this in the history of Jewish law – to permit or forbid such a thing?  Has the people Israel even once been in a situation akin to this where Jewish law has engaged in sensitive and complex political circumstances like these?”

Rabbi Halevi concluded that the Israeli government should base its policy on only one consideration:  “the security needs of the people and the state,” and could therefore give up territory if it concluded that these needs justified such a position.

A similar conclusion was arrived at by Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef based on other factors.  Rabbi Yosef examined the significance of two mitzvot:  settlement in the land of Israel and pikuach nefesh, the saving of human life.  Rabbi Ellenson has written, “While the holiness attached to settlement in the Land of Israel is a commandment of considerable importance, Rabbi Yosef asserts that rabbinic tradition assigns even greater weight to the mitzvah of pikuach nefesh and the sacredness of life.”

This conclusion is based in part on the verse, “You shall observe my statutes and judgments which, if you do them you shall live by them.”  We are to live by the mitzvot and can therefore break almost any mitzvah in order to save a life.

Rabbi Yosef concludes that “if the political and military leaders of the state are convinced that” the return of land “poses no danger and that such exchange will cause the Arabs to establish a genuine ‘covenant of peace—brit shalom with us,’ then it is surely permissible for Israel to return part of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza to the Palestinians for ‘pikuah nefesh takes precedence over land.”

Rabbi Ellenson observes that “The holding of Rabbi Yosef on this question of ‘land for peace’ stands in stark contrast to that of the rabbis who elevate Jewish sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza above the saving of human life.”  Of course, it is impossible to know whether giving up territory will indeed save lives, but Rabbi Yosef’s conclusion helps focus the debate over the issue of saving of lives rather than the sanctity of the land.

The rabbinic rulings of Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Halevi remind us that in Jewish law there is often more than one way to view a situation.  These rulings not only might help residents of Gaza and the West Bank decide that they can leave, but also help members of the Israeli Army who may be struggling whether to obey government orders to remove setters. 

We are all well aware of the voices of those who oppose such actions.  It is time that we become aware of the voices of those who, after studying Jewish sources, have concluded that Jewish law supports the right of the government to withdraw from territory in order to achieve peace.

[back to list of sermons]

[back to top]