Volume 9 Number 41
                       Produced: Mon Oct  4 12:06:26 1993

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Haredim on the Peace Agreement (2)
         [Eli Turkel, Allen Elias]
Land for Peace (2)
         [Zev Kesselman, Aryeh Weiss]
         [David Gerstman]
Security and Pikuach Nefesh
         [Yisroel Rotman]
The Era of Post-Recognition
         [Yisrael Medad]
         [Danny Skaist]


From: <turkel@...> (Eli Turkel)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 14:41:49 +0200
Subject: Haredim on the Peace Agreement

>    The second article, referred to by Shaul Wallach earlier, said that
> since there is a principle that benefit (zchus) is conferred by the
> righteous(zakai) and harm(chov) by the guilty(chayav), it is unlikely
> that the agreement effected by the left will bring peace.

       This is the same reasoning that the Haredim use to dismiss the
entire state of Israel and against which Rav Kook fought so hard to show
that it is possible that God uses the nonreligious Jews to further
Gods plans.

Eli Turkel

From: Allen Elias <100274.346@...>
Date: 28 Sep 93 12:02:25 EDT
Subject: Haredim on the Peace Agreement

>From: Jeff Mandin <jeff@...>
>since there is a principle that benefit (zchus) is conferred by the
>righteous(zakai) and harm(chov) by the guilty(chayav), it is unlikely
>that the agreement effected by the left will bring peace.

I will just add a few words from the pamphlet Dimyonot Shav (False
Illusions) published by the Breslev Chasidim before these peace talks
started.  Sometimes one is confronted by two groups of people and does
not know which of them to listen to. One group is headed by people who
do not believe in Hashem and Torah and the other group is headed by
believers in Hashem and Torah.

Rabbi Nachman says that the group represented by the non-believers are
considering only their own interests while the group represented by the
believers are considering Hashem's wishes and the needs of His people.

In our case, the most vocal supporters of the peace agrrements are
non-believers and the most vocal opponents are believers. My conclusion
is that Hashem is opposed to this type of peace agreement.


From: Zev Kesselman <ZEV%<HADASSAH@...>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 09:34 JST
Subject: Land for Peace

	B Lehman wrote, re Frank Silbermann's comments

>Frank, move to Israel, do with us army service 30 - 45 days a year,
>UNDERSTAND THE ARAB MENTALITY TOWARDS US, and then the advice you give
>will not bother me so much.

	I've lived here 20 years, done army service, and even live in
Gush Etzion.  I have no trouble with armchair experts.  Why shouldn't
Jews, with opinions on reunification of Germany, South African internal
policies, etc, be allowed an opinion on Eretz Israel?  Agreed, such
opinions are probably based on far less day-to-day information and
behavioral understanding, but they can also contain the insight of the
uninvolved.  So long as the decisions are made here, without coercion,
I'm fine about that.

	I did however take issue with several glib statements that
seemed a bit high-handed, like

>It might be argued that `land for peace' in fact endangers Jews,
>particularly the lives of the Gush Emunim settlers.  I consider this a
>very cynical argument -- the Gush Emunim knew that Israel would
>eventually consider such a plan, and they moved outside the green line
>just so they could make this very argument.

	Kfar Elazar, where I live, was in fact settled under a Labor
government, for what were then defense considerations.  The 'garin'
(seed group of olim) that settled it were handed the location by the
then gov't.  Even today, the 'defense' line is still being touted by
Labor circles (though given today's double-talk, little credibility can
be assigned to it now).  And I am not a Gush Emunim member, nor were
there ulterior political motives to my moving here.

	Furthermore, I suffered a bit of revulsion at Frank's
juxtaposition of the opinions of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and those of
Rabbi Moshe Hirsh.  One is the leader of a fanatic fringe group
estimated at several hundred, while the other is considered by
mainstream Judaism as one of the Gedolei Hador.  Moreover, Neturei
Karta's 'give-it-all-back' has less to do with security considerations
than with their revulsion at secular Jewish leadership in Israel.  Frank
must certainly be aware of the differences.

				Zev Kesselman

From: aryeh%<optics@...> (Aryeh Weiss)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 03:28:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Land for Peace

The following is an excerpt from the recent discussions on the peace
agreement and halacha:

> > "It might be argued that `land for peace' in fact endangers Jews,
> > particularly the lives of the Gush Emunim settlers.  I consider this a
> > very cynical argument -- the Gush Emunim knew"....
>       In a land for peace agreement the Gush Emunim settlers (150,000)
> will be back in the post agreement area, and so the "endangering the
> Jews" argument is totally valid.
I feel compelled to point out that there are *not* 150,000 "Gush Emunim"
settlers. All but one of the settlements in the Jordan Valley, the
settlements along the "Alon Road", Gush Etzion (not to mention the Golan)
were sanctioned, and in many cases established, by the Labor government.
These people are at best *very* confused, and the current government is
basically sending a message that says they should do whatever is needed
"for the greater good".

Maybe that is the right thing to do, or maybe it is a very cynical way to
treat these people, but describing them as Gush Emunim settlers that deserve
what they get shows just how effective the campaign to delegitamize the
settlers has been.

--Aryeh Weiss (<aryeh@...>)
  Jerusalem College of Technology


From: dhg@lamp0 (David Gerstman)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 15:38:17 -0400
Subject: Peace?

I'll admit to generally being negative about the recent agreement 
signed by Israel and the PLO.  Perhaps that's why I picked certain
things out in the services for the Aseres Y'mei T'shuvah, which
seem to bode ill for the long term success of the accord.

Only 3 days after signing the treaty the Torah Reading told of 
Avraham's treaty with Avimelech.  When the treaty is about to be
concluded, Avraham rebukes Avimelech for his servants' misbehavior.
Avimelech's servants stole a well which Avraham had dug. (gr?)  
Why, asks the Me'am Loez (I forget his source), did Avraham bring up
this point of contention at this time?  Because if two parties conclude
an agreement, and do not resolve all possible grievances, the resent-
ments will never be too far from the surface.  A little problem later
will likely exacerbate tensions and become a larger issue.  In the
end, the agreement will not likely endure.
The historic agreement is being praised in some quarters (at least
sources I've read) for putting off the tough issues until later.  It's
not genius, it's cowardice.  It's also the reason, I think that
the agreement will not likely last.
(Conor Cruise O'brien's book, "The Siege" was excerpted in the Oct,
1985 issue of the Atlantic.  One of O'brien's assertions was that
no agreement between Israel and PLO was possible for no Israeli
government, no matter how liberal would ever divide Jerusalem, and
no group of Arabs, no matter how open-minded, would ever consider
a state without Jerusalem.  We'll see how prescient his analysis is,
when the status of Jerusalem is finally negotiated.  If he erred,
I fear, it is in the first part of his analysis, not the second.)
The second reference which bothers me comes from Selichos for the
4th day of Aseres Y'mei T'shuva.  Among the P'sukim dividing the
Selichos is Tehilim 120:7 - "I am peace- but when I speak, they are
for war."  (Artscroll translation.)  Artscroll's interpretation
(it did not seem to be one of the standard Perushim) is that David
is saying that when he speaks of his peace his enemies take it as
a sign of weakness, and use it as a pretext for war.
I realize that I'm looking for fault in the treaty, so perhaps I
only picked on the most negative indication I could find.  Has anyone
out there found anything in our recent Tefilos or Torah readings
which casts the agreement in a better light.
Before I go, there's one more issue which is sort of related which
I found disturbing.  There was a party of Jewish and Arab peace
activists after the signing.  The Washington Post reported that it
was catered according to Moslem law.  On the other hand, at the White
House reception, though Kosher food was available to all members of
the Israeli delegation, only one (I would assume Elyakim Rubenstien)
ordered the Kosher meal.  It rattles my confidence that the Jewish
side of this agreement showed less concern for their religion than
their adversaries did.
David Gerstman


From: Yisroel Rotman <SROTMAN@...>
Date: Tue,  28 Sep 93 10:09 0200
Subject: Security and Pikuach Nefesh

I am somewhat bothered by the use of Pikuach Nefesh to justify the
return of land for a promise by our enemies not to attack us.

1.  If I could statistically prove that it was less dangerous for jews
to live in the U.S. instead of Israel (a genuine consideration during
the gulf war), would that mean that all Israeli jews with U.S.
citizenship would be religiously obligated to move back to the United

2.  Can any enemy get us to yield any part of Israel that they wish,
simply by announcing that there will be attacks against jews if we don't
yield.  Can Pikuach Nefesh ever work in this way, on any issue?

Yisroel Rotman, Ben-Gurion University	SROTMAN@BGUEE


From: MEDAD%<ILNCRD@...> (Yisrael Medad)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 09:12 IST
Subject: The Era of Post-Recognition

Further to Eli Turkel's observation in V9 N29 that the "ownership" issue
is the real halachic problem with many people regarding this period
after the Israel government has recognized the PLO - which has *not*
officially changed its charter and does not hide its designs on
Jerusalem, ignoring if we can the security issues - that indeed is the
main issue other than pure "pikuach nefesh" (saving of lives) issue.

Many people are quoting David Ben-Gurion, of all people, who wrote in
1937 when the Peel Commisssion Partition Plan was offered that no one
Jew, group of Jews or any other institution has the right to renounce
the Jewish ownership over Eretz_Yisrael.

There are many other issues involved in this peace agreement in the
making but these will be saved for another line of argument.  By the
way, I will be arriving in the U.S. Oct. 31 for three weeks on behalf of
the Israel Community Development Foundation for fundraising and hasbara
efforts and hope to be at the CAMERA conference.  I can be reached at

Yisrael Medad


From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 03:28:27 -0400
Subject: Zakai

>Jeff Mandin <jeff@...>
>The second article, referred to by Shaul Wallach earlier, said that
>since there is a principle that benefit (zchus) is conferred by the
>righteous(zakai) and harm(chov) by the guilty(chayav), it is unlikely
>that the agreement effected by the left will bring peace.

"Zakai" means "not quilty" it does not mean "righteous". It includes the
tinok she'nishba [lit. "captured as a baby; i.e. raised in a non-religous
environment] who are considered halachicly "zakai".

The "guilty(chayav)" therefore must come *only* from among the "religous".

>                                                       it is unlikely
>that the agreement effected by the left will bring peace.

When you consider the "tools" used by hashem to bring about the return to
Eretz Yisroel and the preservation of the Jewish nation, then anything is
possible.  If you talk about *this* agreement then this is not the forum.



End of Volume 9 Issue 41