Here are some arguments against land for peace:

http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/eng/?id=528

Question:
In the extreme hypothetical case that a miracle were to happen and the Arabs would promise (and we somehow knew that they would uphold this promise, again this is hypothetical) to lay down their arms for eternity in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian State in Eretz Yisrael, are we allowed to sign such an agreement?
I understand that this is not going to happen anytime soon. But playing the Devil’s Advocate, shouldn’t we be allowed to give up land on the basis of pikuach nefesh if we knew for sure that it would save Jewish lives? Doesn’t pikuach nefesh cancel out the Halachot of Shabbat, why not those of Eretz Yisrael?
Thanks again.

Answer:
There is a commandment even to go to war to conquer the Land of Israel (Rambam Hilchot Melachim 5,1; Ramban Sfer HaMitzvot, additions to Mitzvot Asei 4). The Torah repeatedly instructs the Jewish People in the desert to ready themselves for the battle against the Canaanite nations to liberate the Land that was promised to our forefathers. A Mitzva that involves going to war intrinsically overrides “pikuach nefesh” (Minchat Chinuch 425,3; 604,4). The logic behind the need for self-sacrifice is self-evident: All nations must be willing to fight to defend their homeland or they cease to exist. This is because the life of the nation takes precedence over that of the individual and a nation’s sovereignty in its homeland is an integral and essential element of its life. The Land of Israel is not just real-estate. It is integral to the Nation of Israel’s self- definition; when we were forced into exile we became only partially alive.

http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/eng/?id=819

Question:
Is it permissible to surrender portions of the Land of Israel to an enemy as part of a peace agreement?

Answer:
More than four thousand years ago, long before George Bush got to the White House, G-d gave a roadmap to the Jewish People. The borders of the Holy Land were established and sealed by the Covenant between G-d and the Children of Israel – an irrevocable constant which can never be changed[1].

The idea of dividing the Land of Israel is not new. In the wake of the Intifada of 1936, the Royal British Committee drew up a map dividing Eretz Yisrael, called the “Partition Plan.” The Plan called for two states, Israeli and Arab, who would dwell side-by-side in peace. In response, leading rabbis at that time voiced their opinions. Chief Rabbi Herzog called for a general assembly of all the leading rabbis, but it was canceled because of the reign of Arab terror that made travel to Jerusalem perilous at that time. Nonetheless, the majority of the rabbis unequivocally established that dividing the Land of Israel was prohibited by the Torah[2].

Rabbi Yaacov Moshe Charlap, Rosh Yeshiva at the time of Mercaz HaRav in Jerusalem, stated:

"Behold, the matter is simple and clear – Heaven forbid that the Jewish People relinquish any tiny concession of any iota of land that is sanctified with the holiness of Eretz Yisrael…. There is no doubt that if the matter reaches the point where we will need sign an international agreement that includes any form of surrender of our rights to Eretz Yisrael, it is preferable for those signing to chop off their thumbs, rather than to chop up the garden of Zion."

Rabbi Charlap continues:

"Just like a person who states that the entire Torah is from Heaven, except for one letter, he is considered a heretic, so too one who states that all of Israel belongs to the Jewish People except for one footstep, behold he is totally cut off from the holiness of the Land and he violates the soul of Israel….for Israel is undividable. A division of Eretz Yisrael will inevitably lead to war…not to mention the wrath of G-d which will be cast upon us Heaven forbid….Eretz Yisrael is for the Jewish People the Land of Life, its soul and the source of all of its vitality. Even an iota that is missing fatally weakens its life, just as when the heart is pierced[3]."

Rabbi Reuven Margoliot, author of “Margoliot HaYam,” wrote:

“I agree with the opinion of absolute opposition to accepting the Partition Plan. There is a need to amass a determined opposition with all force against the Plan’s acceptance to explain to the community and to the Jews the world over that a tiny canton of Israel cannot survive[4].”

Rabbi Pesach Frank, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, stated:

"If the Jewish People have the power to acquire all of Israel as bequeathed to us from our forefathers, the matter is simple – we do not have permission to relinquish even one footstep of Land to foreigners, as it says, 'Do not sell them the land.' Where do we learn this? 'Rabbi Yose bar Chanina says, Do not give them possession in the Land[5].' ' Behold it is explicit that there is a Torah prohibition forbidding the sale of even a single tree to the gentiles[4]."

Rabbi Yechiel Michal Tekuchinsky, author of "Luach Eretz Yisrael," stated:

"Definitely, without a doubt, we and all of us have absolutely no permission (to sign) a peace agreement to remove any portion of the Land to others. Not only are we not allowed or permitted to relinquish, there is absolutely no value to any concession, just like it is impossible to change the borders between day and night, so it is equally impossible to change the borders of the Land as designated in the Torah, for both these matters were sealed by He who gave the Torah, the Master and Creator of the world[4]."

Rabbi Kaniel of Haifa said:

"I believe that no one at all has any permission whatsoever, whether an individual or a group, to concede the right of the Jewish People to Eretz Yisrael in all of its boundaries. For the elected representatives of the nation are only caretakers in their responsibility to the Jews of all generations, and they do not have the right to tamper with the inheritance of the Jewish People from our forefathers[4]."

Quoting the Gemara[6] he states:

"We learn that King Omri merited kingship because he added one city in the Land of Israel. If we truly want a state and we aspire to the crown of sovereignty and kingship, we mustn’t relinquish our existing settlements, that it should be said regarding us ‘They despised the cherished Land and did not believe His promise,’ (Psalms, 106.) Rather, we must increase the settlement of the Land[4]."

If this is what the rabbis said when we did not have a Jewish State in Israel, how much more should we today champion our G-d given right to Eretz Yisrael and work to strengthen its settlement in all of its Biblical borders.

In the immortal words of Kohelet, “A generation comes, and a generation goes, but the Land remains forever.”

1. Genesis, 13:7; 12:16: 13:17; 16:18: 17:8. See the proclamation “L’maan Daat,” by HaRav
Tzvi Yehuda Kook, printed in the book “Torat Eretz Yisrael,” pg. 374.
2. For a history of the period, see the book, “Pulmus HaHaluka B’tekufat HaMandate,”
by Shmuel Dotan.
3. “Zikof HaKooma, Daniel Sirkus, His Life and Deeds,” by Pincus Sirkus. Pg. 112.
Also, Tachumin, Vol. 9, Pg. 270.
4. Ibid.
5. Avodah Zora, 19B. Deut. 7.
6. Sanhedrin 120B.

Yasher Koach! whoever you are.

I am not an Halachic expert by any means but I think the following psak is something which Jews who believe in Jewish values of justice and peace. Judaism is about creating a better world for all in my view, our faith is intrinsically linked to justice and dignity and I think most of us - Jews - believe that the Occupation of the Palestinian Territories is really ugly and poses many moral issues to the soul of the Jewish Conscience.

But thats enough from me check out the following fascinating psak Torah on the matter:-

Question:

Does Jewish law permit the State of Israel to give back all or part of the territories captured in 1967 for the sake of peace?

Responsum:

This is an extremely complex and emotional issue that has been widely debated by halakhic authorities since the Six-Day War. 1 This is because Eretz Yisrael holds such a special place in Jewish tradition and history. 2 Indeed, God's very first conversations with Abraham concern Eretz Yisrael:

Go forth from your native land to the land that I will show you...I will give this land to your offspring (Genesis 12:1,7).

And again:

Raise your eyes and look out from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west, for I give you all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever (Genesis 13:14-15).

This promise is reiterated on numerous occasions to Isaac (Genesis 26:1-6), Jacob (Genesis 35:11-12) and Moses (Exodus 6:2-8).

Furthermore, Eretz Yisrael , the Promised Land, is inherently holy. According to the Torah, Israel's predecessors were expelled from the land because they defiled the holiness of the land (Leviticus 18:24-28 and Genesis 15:16). According to the rabbis, the land of Israel is the holiest of all lands ( Mishnah Kelim 1:6). Prophecy only takes place in the land of Israel or regarding the land of Israel.3 Eretz Yisrael is also special because many of the mitzvot , such as the Sabbatical year, can only be performed there ( Kiddushin 36b and Sota 14a). The rabbis went so far as to say that whoever lives outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has no God ( Ketubot 110b) and whoever is buried in Eretz Yisrael is considered as if he had been buried under the altar ( Ketubot 111a).

Now that we have established the Jewish people's deep theological and spiritual ties to Eretz Yisrael , we can examine the conflicting halakhic claims regarding territorial compromise.

Those who oppose territorial compromise advance at least three basic arguments. Some declare that it is halakhically forbidden to return any part of " Eretz Yisrael hashleimah " [="the complete land of Israel"]. Rabbi Theodore Friedman, however, has conclusively shown that there is no such concept in Jewish tradition, because Israel's borders changed countless times throughout Jewish history both in theory and in practice. 4 One example from the biblical period will suffice: God promised Abraham the land "from the River of Egypt" (Genesis 15:18), while he promised the Israelites the land from "the Wadi of Egypt" (Numbers 34:5). The "River of Egypt" is the Nile, while the "Wadi of Egypt" is Wadi el Arish, which is 180 miles east of the Nile!

Similar flexibility of boundaries is evident in the rabbinic period when the rabbis needed to define the borders of Israel for the purpose of observing mitzvot such as tithing and the Sabbatical year. The borders changed from mitzvah to mitzvah and the main criterion for inclusion seems to have been the Jewish population of the town. Thus Caesarea, a city inhabited by pagans and Jews, was originally considered part of Eretz Yisrael for the purpose of tithes and the Sabbatical year, but was later excluded. 5 Similarly, Bet She'an, Bet Guvrin and Kefar Zemah were originally considered part of Eretz Yisrael vis-a-vis tithing, but Rabbi Judah the Prince excluded them from Eretz Yisrael when the Jewish population shrank. 6 Thus, the borders of Eretz Yisrael were fluid and the concept "the complete land of Israel" has no basis in our classical sources.

Others object to handing over territories to non-Jews on the basis of Deuteronomy 7:1-2:

When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess, and He dislodges many nations before you... seven nations much larger than you... you must doom them to destruction, grant them no terms and have no mercy upon them ( lo tehonem ).

This is the simple meaning of " lo tehonem ", but the rabbis explained it to mean "do not give them a hold ( hanayah ) on the land" ( Avodah Zarah 20a). Tosafot ( ad loc. ) interpret this to mean that one may not sell or give parts of Eretz Yisrael to any non-Jew. This approach would rule out any territorial compromise. However, many authorities rule that this prohibition applies only to idol worshippers such as the seven nations mentioned in the verse, lest they "turn your children away from me to worship other gods" (Deuteronomy 7:4). 7 Therefore, since Moslems are not idol worshippers, many authorities rule that it is permissible to sell or give them parts of Eretz Yisrael 8 and territorial concessions to Arabs would thus be permitted.

Lastly, other opponents of territorial compromise rely on the opinion of Nahmanides. The book of Numbers (33:53) states: "And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess". Nahmanides interprets that verse as a positive commandment: "...that we may not leave the land in the hands of other nations. ..and the Sages called this a commanded war". 9 In other words, we are commanded to conquer Eretz Yisrael and keep her in Jewish hands regardless of the danger and any loss of Jewish life that might occur in the process. However, some reject Nahmanides' opinion because he is the only one who considers it a mitzvah to capture and retain the land of Israel. 10 Others have explained that even according to Nahmanides, this mitzvah only applies in the days of the Messiah. 11

On the other hand, there are at least three arguments in favor of territorial compromise:

Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, has emphasized that pikuah nefesh , the saving of human life, takes precedence over all the commandments in the Torah except for idol worship, forbidden sexual relationships and murder ( Sanhedrin 74a). Thus, even if it were a mitzvah to keep the territories under Jewish sovereignty, pikuah nefesh would take precedence. As Rabbi Yosef states:

Therefore, if the military commanders along with the members of the cabinet decide that it is an issue of pikuah nefesh . . . that if territories are returned, the threat of war shall be decreased and there is the possibility of lasting peace, it appears that according to all halakhic opinions it is permissible to return territories of Eretz Yisrael for the sake of attaining this goal, for nothing stands in the way of pikuah nefesh . 12

Secondly, there is a clear biblical precedent for handing over Israeli territory for the sake of peace:

Since King Hiram of Tyre had supplied Solomon with all the cedar and cypress timber and gold that he required [for building the Temple], King Solomon, in turn, gave Hiram twenty towns in the region of Galilee (I Kings 9:11). 13

If King Solomon was permitted to give away twenty towns in the Galilee as a token of friendship for services rendered, we too are permitted to give away sections of Eretz Yisrael for the sake of peace.

And this leads us to the last point. Peace is one of the great ideals of Judaism: "By three things is the world preserved: by justice, by truth and by peace" ( Avot 1:18). "If the Jewish people worships idols but lives in peace with each other, God forgives them" ( Sifrei Naso , par. 42). "Great is peace, for all major prayers and blessings end with the word Shalom " ( ibid. ). But it is not enough to sit back and wait for peace to happen. The Psalmist said: " Seek peace and pursue it" (Psalm 34:15). "Hillel said: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace" ( Avot 1:12), while the parallel passage explains that Aaron used to run back and forth between two antagonists until peace was achieved. 14

In conclusion, we have here a classic case of conflicting values in Judaism - our love of Eretz Yisrael vs. our desire to save human life and our desire to pursue peace. The choice is not an easy one and has justifiably aroused strong emotions on both sides of the issue. Yet, in light of the sources presented above, it seems clear that when the majority of the political and military leaders of the State of Israel decide that giving up certain territories will ultimately save lives and lead to peace, Jewish law permits us - and perhaps even requires us - to do so.

Notes

1. See J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halachic Problems , Vol. II, New York, 1983, pp. 189-221; Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society XVI (Fall 1988) pp. 55-95 and XVIII (Fall 1989), pp. 77-110.

2. For the centrality of Eretz Yisrael in Jewish tradition, see Abraham Halkin, ed., Zion in Jewish Literature , New York, 1961; Lawrence Hoffman, ed., The Land of Israel: Jewish Perspectives , Notre Dame, 1986; and Benjamin Segal, Returning: The Land of Israel as Focus in Jewish History , Jerusalem, 1987.

3. Mekhilta, Pisha , chapter 1, ed. Lauterbach, vol. 1, pp. 4-8 and especially Judah Halevi, The Kuzari , Part Two, paragraphs 13-14, translated by H. Hirschfeld, New York, 1964, pp. 89-92.

4. Rabbi Theodore Friedman, Responsa of the Va'ad Halakhah of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel 2 (5747), pp. 73-77 = David Golinkin, ed., Be'er Tuviah , Jerusalem, 1991, Hebrew section, pp. 53-58. For a visual presentation of Israel's shifting borders in ancient times, see Prof. Jacob Milgrom in Moment , August 1996, pp. 52-53, 77 and The Macmillan Bible Atlas , Revised Third Edition, New York, 1993, maps no. 68, 69, 90, 98, 104-105, 158, 165, 170.

5. Tosefta Oholot 18:16-17, ed. Zuckermandel, p. 617, along with a thorough explanation by Lee Levine, Caesarea Under Roman Rule , Leiden, 1975, pp. 67-68.

6. Yerushalmi Demai , Chapter 2, fol. 22c and Hullin 6b and cf. the explanation of Gedaliah Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age , II, Jerusalem, 1984, p. 731.

7. Tur Hoshen Mishpat 249 and the Bah ad loc. ; Responsa of the Rashba , I, no. 8; the Meiri to Avoda Zarah 20a.

8. R. Raphael Meyuhass, Mizbah Adamah , Salonika, 1777, fol. 12b; R. Abraham Isaac Kuk, Responsa Mishpat Kohen , no. 63; R. Zvi Pesach Frank, Kerem Tziyon , vol. 3, p. 13; R. Yitzhak Isaac Halevi Herzog, Shanah B'shanah 5746, pp. 136-140; R. Shaul Yisraeli, Amud Hayemini , no. 12, par. 3; and R. Ovadiah Yosef cited below in note 12.

9. Nahmanides' additions to Sefer Hamitzvot by the Rambam, no. 4 and cf. Nahmanides' commentary to the verse.

10. Maimonides, Sefer Hahinukh and others do not include it in their enumerations of the 613 mitzvot . Cf. my book Responsa in a Moment , Jerusalem, 2000, pp. 77-82, where I accept Nahmanides' approach to aliyah , which is based on his view that it's a mitzvah to conquer the land, Even so, I am in favor of returning territories for the sake of peace for the reasons explained below.

11. R. Isaac de Leon in Megilat Esther to Sefer Hamitzvot ad loc. and others.

12. Torah Shebe'al Peh 21 (5740), p. 14 and again ibid., 31 (5750), p. 16. Of course, some say we will save more Jewish lives by not returning the territories, but today most Israeli political and military leaders disagree.

13. The parallel passage in II Chronicles 8:2 says the opposite, but that version seems to be later apologetics - see Entziklopedia Mikrait , vol. 4, col. 6. For other explanations, see Radak to both verses as well as Jacob Myers, The Anchor Bible: II Chronicles , Garden City, New York, 1965, p. 47.

14. Avot D'rabi Nattan , Version B, Chapter 24, ed. Schechter, p. 49 and cf. Version A, Chapter 12, pp. 48-49.

Prof. David Golinkin is the President of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. Feel free to reprint this article in its entirety. If you wish to abbreviate the article, please contact Rabbi Golinkin at: golinklin@schechter.ac.il.

Ilan, I don't think that you can call anything coming from the Schechter Institute a "psak Torah".

http://www.schechter.edu/TopPage.aspx?ID=3
Schechter Rabbinical Seminary
The international rabbinical school of Conservative Judaism...

Although not part of the halachic debates, let's talk realism (for those who think I'm unrealistic!)

Here are Shimon Peres' own words: (in translation)

“If a separate Palestinian state is formed, it will be armed from top to bottom. It will be a base for the most extremist terror groups, who will have anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, endangering not only passersby but every airplane or helicopter that uses Israeli air space, every vehicle on Israel’s major coastal highways. It is doubtful whether territorial depth provides deterrence. But the absence of minimal territorial depth leaves a state without any deterrence. This option in itself makes attacking Israel on all fronts irresistibly tempting…demilitarization of the West Bank is a questionable antidote: the problem is not the agreement to demilitarize, but whether the agreement will be honored. The number of agreements broken by the Arabs is not less than the number they have kept.”(“This Time Tomorrow”, Jerusalem 1978/ page 255.)

See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142750 for the whole article.

As for those that wish to debate halacha without considering the real threat that putting Jews in harms way 'land for peace' constitutes... would you desire being considered both an accomplice to giving away the land and the potential murder of many more Jews.

Theories from afar mean zero unless you're prepared to move to a border town and live under that threat every day.

Without the mitzvah, the idea dies - Rabbi Berel Wein

Baruch Hashem, this debate will have zero impact on the future of the Jewish nation in our own Land Eretz Yisrael.
As for the Diaspora, that's on it's way out.
Also according to Israeli Law, the chief Rabbinate can only be selected from the Orthodox Rabbis.

2 more interesting pieces:

Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective by Rabbi Hershel Schachter

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735796/Rabbi_Hershel_Schacht...

Surrendering Land For Peace in Eretz Yisrael

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/acharei.shtml

Chabadgirl warns against debating halakha without "considering the real threat that putting Jews in harms way 'land for peace' constitutes". She also says, correctly, that "theories from afar mean zero unless you're prepared to move to a border town and live under that threat every day."

Someone who does live under that threat every day is Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, one of the roshei yeshiva at Yeshivat Har Etzion.

For those who don't know, the yeshiva is 12 miles south of Jerusalem in the heart of Judea, in the territories that were recaptured in 1967 - in other words, in a part of Israel that the rest of the world thinks should be given away.

I last travelled to Kfar Etzion many years ago, when the situation in the area was a lot less fraught than it is today. At that time one travelled to Kfar Etzion in an armoured bus, in convoy, with armed military escorts. The perimiter of the area was constantly patrolled by sentries with automatic weapons.

Rav Lichtenstein draws a distinction between vitur (concession) and pesharah (compromise). He says categorically that there is no mandate for vitur. But, as he points out, in the land-for-peace debate the question is 'not, "Should we forfeit or concede?" but "Should we compromise?"...

'A compromise that will make it possible for us to preserve our home - even if it will be smaller - thus seems to me a Jewish, Torah-true, moral solution to our problem. We must not, of course, even think of vitur, of indifference, of belittling the importance of Eretz Yisrael in our ideology and in our consciousness...

'But where it is compromise that is involved - even though it touches upon matters that are very close to our hearts - and if the conclusion has been reached on the political and military level that pikuah nefesh, the saving of lives, is at stake here - if there is a possibility of damage to both our physical and our spiritual strength as a nation, then we have the obligation to consider which of them is preferable. On the educational and moral level we must definitely cling to our divine heritage of the whole Eretz Yisrael, but on the practical level such a notion may lead to catastrophe.'

The rosh yeshiva quotes extensively from Talmudic and Halkhic sources to support his definitions of the terms and issues involved. He clearly believes that if the circumstances are right then there is halakhic support for giving away part of the land in exchange for peace.

The rosh yeshiva gave this sicha in the early 1990s, but the link is included under the "Latest shiurim" on the yeshiva's website. It's well worth reading Compromise and Concession
in full.

Rabbi Isaacson and everyone else that understands hebrew, I highly recommend reading the following chapters from "Pninei Halacha - HaAm V'HaAretz" by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed:

http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?cat=449&id=4031&q=
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?cat=449&id=4032&q=

The quicker we end the Occupation of the Palestinian territories the better. Israel was established as a liberal secular Jewish State. A one state solution will result in a democratic state that is not Jewish,I.e. the binational model which I am not apposed to in theory as long as all peoples are treated equally with equal rights and opportunities, but if we see how minorities are treated in other Arab Muslim countries I would be very skeptical about this and Jews would be a minotity in a one democratic state model.The other option is one Jewish state which would be undemocratic or God forbid even worse a Jewish theocracy like the Saudi or Iranian model! which could also include in transfer aka ethnic cleansing of palestinians in the west bank and/or palestinian israeli's.

I would not want anything to do with such a state!

To S.A. Oleh.

I'm sorry to tell you that you'e wasting your time trying to convince this community in any way that all of Eretz Yisreal is for our people only
One very large and influential Orthodox group in S.Africa do indeed believe in the total ownership of all of Eretz Yisrael, without even one inch being surrendered to the Arab enemy.
All of Israel belongs to the Jewish people only.
Problem is what credence is there to this rightfull claim when the majority of them prefer to remain in exile.
Your comments should be directed at them, more so than to Rabbi Isaacson and Mr.Solomon.

P.S. May Hashem bless you for fulfilling the great Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael.

Chabadgirl; At least we are on the same side on this one re Ilan Solomon.

On the same topic, what would you propose Israel do with 4million (and growing) hostile Arabs in Eretz Yisrael.
I know what the Torah says must be done?

I asked for your opinion on what to do with 4 million hostile Arabs!
Can you give me any ideas?

So what do you do with those secular Jews living in Israel?
I suggest young Chabadniks in the Diaspora join their growing brothers and sisters and mekarev the secular Jews in Israel.
Baruch Hashem my secular grandson in the I.D.F. was inspired by many a young Chabad bochur.
Anyways, you know as well as I do that the Diaspora (exile) is on it's way out. The Rebbe has said that this is the last generation of exile; so why prolong it by making it physically and spiritually comfortable in exile.
Please don't speak Loshen-Hara of the Jews in Israel.
"A Jew should always live in Israel even in a city full of heathens, and not outside of Israel, even in a city full of righteous Jews"
(Ketuvot 110b).

Will we ever agree on anything?

It's so ironic!
Ilan Solomon does not approve of Israel because it is too "frum", while Chabad girl claims it is not"frum" enough.
Redemption does not come hastily, but there can be no doubt that it has begun- nearly 6 million Jews have already been "gathered in".
There are more yeshivas in Benei Brak than in the whole of the Diaspora.

I have found a partial english translation of the links I posted above from "Pninei Halacha - HaAm V'HaAretz":

http://new.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?cat=390&id=702&q=

The Prohibition of Relinquishing Land to Enemies
Part 3

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed

Written by the rabbi

Dedicated to the memory of
R' Meir b"r Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld

11 - A Brief Review of the Basic Prohibition of Relinquishing the Land
A - The Mitzvah of Settling the Land: The mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel requires Am Yisrael to conquer Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: "And you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land, and dwell in it, for I have given you the Land to possess it (Bamidbar 33,53)". It also is written "For you shall pass over the Jordan River to go in and possess the Land which the Lord your G-d gives you, and you shall possess it, and dwell in it (Dvarim 11,31). According to the Ramban's fourth mitzvah, this is for all times and every generation. The Shulchan Aruch (Even Ezra siman 75), and the Pitchei Tshuva 106 agree with the Ramban on this halachah. The mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel even takes precedence over pikuach nefesh (the saving of one's life even if it involves transgressing a mitzvah from the Torah). Settling the Land of Israel is a mitzvah of such great importance that, at times, Am Yisrael is obligated to engage in war for the sake of conquering or settling or maintaining control over the Land, even though Jewish lives will probably be sacrificed as a result. Therefore, if the nation is commanded to conquer the Land at such a great cost, that much more so is Am Yisrael expected and obligated to always rule over every part of it and protect if from being divided up or handed over to foreign nations.

B - Pikuach Nefesh: The Talmud in the tractate of Eruvin (45,a) and the Shulchan Aruch (orach chaim 329,6) explain that giving away any part of the Land of Israel to the enemy, even a small concession, invites an even greater risk and danger to both Israel and the Jewish nation. It is, therefore, permitted to transgress the Sabbath and even to put Jewish lives at risk in order to fight enemies that come to steal straw and chaff from a border town in Eretz Yisrael. For if they were allowed to steal chaff and straw the country's deterrent forces would be weakened, leaving the towns in a more vulnerable position and thus endangering many lives. It is clear that safeguarding all of the Israel is of a must and it is prohibited to relinquish any part of the Land (This will be further expanded on in halacha 12).

C - They Should not Dwell in Your Land: In addition to the mitzvah of settling the Land, the Torah further commands that "They shall not dwell in thy Land" (Shemot 23,33). The Rambam ruled (Hilchot Avoda Zara 10,6) that when the Land is under strong Jewish rule nobody should be allowed to dwell in Israel who is not a "Ger Toshav" (a non Jew that keeps the seven mitzvot of Noach). There are differing opinions on the definition of a Ger Toshav. Some of the Rabbinical authorities think that a non-Jew who accepts upon himself to follow the seven laws of bnei Noach in front of a court with complete faith in Hashem is considered to be a Ger Toshav, and therefore allowed to live in the Land even when it is under strong Jewish rule. Others believe that if the non-Jew does not commit idolatry and does follow the seven laws, even though he doesn't commit to them before a court of law, he is considered a Ger Toshav and is therefore allowed to live in the Land. According to this opinion it is permissible for non belligerent Muslims to reside in the Land of Israel, for they do not practice idolatry. However, those Arabs who are enemies to am Yisrael do not keep the seven laws of bnei Noach for they deny the G-d of Israel, and they transgress the forbidden law "Not to kill" by supporting murderous terrorists and not judging them properly. And so, it is forbidden to allow the belligerent Arabs who do not practice the seven laws to remain in the Land even during the time of a strong Jewish presence and rule. Even more so is it prohibited to give these enemies of Am Yisrael such an inheritance whereby more and more non-Jews who do not abide by the seven laws of Noach will continue to multiply.1

D - One Should Not Show Mercy: One should not show mercy to the non-Jewish residents that live in Eretz Yisrael as it says: (Devarim 7,2) "Thou shalt not make a covenant with them, nor show them any mercy." The wise sages explained that this is the completion of the prohibition "They should not dwell in your Land," which is the nation's obligation to enforce. Each individual Jew is, however, responsible for enforcing the prohibition to showing mercy. It is forbidden to sell fields or houses in Israel to non-Jews that do not keep the seven laws of bnei Noach. It follows, therefore, that it is forbidden to give any Arab that is not considered a Ger Toshav any part of Eretz Yisrael.2

E - The Prohibition of Ever Selling Any Part of the Land: The Torah clearly states in Vayyiqra (25,23) "The Land shall not ever be sold, for the Land is mine." The Ramban learns from this verse that it is forbidden to sell any land or house to non-Jews because the sold items will not be returned at the time of the Yovel (every fiftieth year when land is returned to its original owner) (Ramban mitzvah lo ta'asay 227). An even greater prohibition is to give away any of the Land promised to Am Yisrael by Hashem.

F - Evicting a Jew from His Home: No king or government has the right to evict a Jew from his home in Israel. This is because Hashem gave Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish nation, and every Jew basically owns part of the Land. Thus, no government or kingdom has the right to steal any inheritance or property that was legally purchased or built. Therefore any agreement that is based upon uprooting Jews from their homes is forbidden.3

G - Profanation of Hashem's Name: As long as the nations of the world side with Am Yisrael's enemies and pressure Am Yisrael to give up parts of the Land there is a chance that the Jewish leaders of Israel may do just that, which is a profanation of Hashem's Name as well as the mitzvah to sanctify Hashem and to resist any foreign coercion against the Jewish religion. (This will be explained in halacha 13).

12 - The Prohibition of Relinquishing Land to Ememies as a Result of Pikuach Nefesh

The basis for the prohibition of relinquishing parts of Eretz Yisrael can be found in the tractate of Eruvin (45,a) in the sugia that deals with laws of Shabbat in connection to pikuach nefesh. As previously explained, it is permitted to transgress the Sabbath in order to save another's life. However, one can not desecrate the Sabbath in order to rescue money or something that has monetary value. Therefore, the wise sages declared that if non-Jews come in order to steal money on the Sabbath, it is forbidden to take up arms in order to drive them off because there is no pikuach nefesh involved. However, this law only applies to cities that are not near the border. If the non-Jews come to a border city in order to take by force materials such as chaff and straw then there is the obligation to desecrate the Sabbath and take up arms to drive them away. The reason for this exception is that if today they are allowed to steal the chaff and straw from the border towns and cities, then tomorrow they will come to kill and to pillage, also in many other cities. The Shulchan Aruch brings this down as a halacha (orech chaim 329,6).

The wise sages realized that if we concede to the non-Jews in places close to the border even for such trivial material such as chaff and straw, the end result will be to increase their appetite and their desire to conquer our inheritance. It is, therefore, clear that Am Yisrael is forbidden to surrender any part of the Land to non-Jews, especially Judea and Samaria and the Golan, which are considered border towns. For just as it is forbidden to forfeit anything in the border towns, it is forbidden to give up those towns themselves in order to prevent the non-Jews desire to take over more land, which would eventually and inevitably lead to war.
If all the military experts were to announce that by relinquishing land we would achieve true peace, we could possibly declare that the times have changed and surrendering land no longer endangers lives. However this is not the case and many of the experts feel that abandoning Judea and Samaria poses a great peril to the State of Israel. Therefore we are only left with the words of the wise sages who brought down to us that it is forbidden to acquiesce to non-Jews even just chaff and straw, and certainly not the Land itself (this foundation was repeated many times by the late Lubatvicher Rebbe Rav Menchem Mendel Schneerson zt"l).

13 - The Prohibition of Relinquishing Land As a Result of the Profanation of Hashem's Name
The Rambam (Hilchot Yisodi Hatorah, chapter 5) clarifies that the mitzvah to sanctify Hashem's name in this world means that a Jew should be willing to sacrifice his life in order to sanctify Hashem's name. If, for example, non-Jews came and demanded a Jew to kill his friend or else he would be killed, it is incumbent upon him to die and not transgress the sin of murder. This is the halacha for all the three serious transgressions of adultery, murder, and idol worship. For after one transgresses one of these grave sins there is not much reason left to live and it is preferable for one to die rather than to continue to commit these sins.

The halacha is different regarding the rest of the mitzvot of the Torah. If a Jew was threatened with his life for not desecrating the Sabbath or eating pig then the Jew should eat pig and desecrate the Sabbath as "One should live by them (the mitzvot of the Torah) and not die by them." It should be understood, however, that this only applies when the non-Jews coerce the Jew for their own pleasure. If their motives are to convert the Jew or attack his faith and this is done in front of ten Jews, then it is incumbent upon that person to sacrifice his life. Such a situation no longer involves a personal transgression. It now becomes an issue of faith in the Torah and Hashem and, as previously mentioned, one is obligated to sacrifice his life for the sake of sanctifying Hashem's name.

Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook zt'l instructed us that giving over the Land to non- Jews is within the realm of profaning Hashem's name and, therefore, the principle of "One should die and not transgress" apply. The Torah is filled with many promises that Hashem made to the Jewish people regarding their ownership of the Land of Israel. The Arab nations, many who do not even share a border with Israel, are basically fighting a war against the mitzvot of the Torah and the Jewish faith.
Giving away parts of Eretz Yisrael is the greatest level of blasphemy of Hashem's name because it is being committed by the nation as a whole. Any non- Jew that reads the Torah knows that Hashem promised the Land to Am Yisrael, and once he witnesses the Jewish nation giving away the Land and distancing itself from Hashem's promises, the greatest profanation of Hashem's name is committed. To avoid this profanation and blasphemy of Hashem's name the nation should be ready to sacrifice lives in defense of Eretz Yisrael, and in order to prevent the transgression of surrendering any parts of the holy Land that the Creator gave to Am Yisrael.

Although this mitzvah falls within the framework of "One should die and not transgress," there is no mitzvah to die for the sake of sanctifying Hashem's name if, regardless of whether Jews sacrificed their lives or not, the Land was to fall into the hands of the enemy. For the Land would be sacrificed at the same time as the lives were being sacrificed and that would surely be a profanation of Hashem's name. If, however, there is a chance of holding onto the Land, then it is obligatory to fight and sacrifice lives in order to prevent the transgression of relinquishing parts of Israel to a foreign nation. Blessed be Hashem for he has returned Am Yisrael to its Land and has given the Jewish nation the strength and ability to hold onto it. It is now Am Yisrael's obligation to guard this gift by all possible means.

14 - Government Decisions Which Oppose the Torah are Not Binding
As a general rule, according to the majority of Rabbinial authoriti, the laws legislated by the Israeli Knesset and Israeli government are to be accepted as the law of the Land ("Dina Dimalchuta Dina"), and those who live in Israel are obligated to abide by them (Rambam , Shulchan Aruch). Those who do not believe that this general rule applies to Eretz Yisrael (Ran) are considering the situation of the Land under foreign rule. If, however, Israel is under Jewish rule then the authority of Jewish government stems from the (Tuvai Ha'ir) local council leaders (see Tziz Eliezer 16, 50). There are those who believe that a Jewish government accepted by the Jewish nation has the authority of a Jewish kingdom and therefore any legislation made by that government concerning taxes, enactments, traffic laws, building permits and commerce are binding and obligatory to all who live in the Land.

If, however, the legislation opposes the Torah and its mitzvot, then one is required to abide by the Torah laws and not that of the government. Yehoshua ben Nun was a leader of the Jewish nation who had authority to make decrees, as it is written, "Whoever rebels against thy commandment, and will not hearken thy words in all thou doest command him, he shall be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage"(Yehoshua 1,18). According to this verse, in order for Yehoshua to make decrees, he was required "Only to be strong and very courageous and observe to do according to all the Torah, which Moshe my servant commanded thee: Turn not from it to the right hand nor the left that thou may prosper wherever thou go." (Yehoshua 1,7). If, however, his decree contradicts or opposes the Torah, then his law is considered null and void and one must not consider it (Sanhendrin 49,a). The Rambam also rules (Hilchot melachim 3,9) that if a king makes a law that contradicts the Torah, it has no binding value, because Hashem is the King of all kings.

These considerations involve a king who is appointed by a prophet and his rule is accepted by the Sanhedrin and the Jewish nation. It stands to reason that especially when there is no Sanhedrin or prophet; laws which are passed contrary to the Torah have no validity and should be considered null and void. It, therefore, follows that one is obligated not to heed to any governmental legislation that opposes the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel.4

15 - The Prohibition of Participating or Assisting in Surrendering the Land
Not only is it forbidden to relinquish any part of the Land of Israel to non-Jews, but it is also prohibited to assist in the act of doing so, as Rav Goren tz"l, Rav Israeli tz"l, Rav Neria tz"l, Rav Tzvi Kook tz"l and Rav Avraham Shapiro shlit"a declared.
At the Rabbinical Council for Saving Eretz Yisrael, headed by the former chief Rabbi of Israel 5743-53 Rabbi Avraham Shapiro, shilta, the question was presented as to whether a military camp is considered the same as a settlement town in regards to surrendering it over to non-Jews. The Council answered this question in the month of Tamuz 5755: A) The Torah prohibits the giving over of military bases to foreign rule because it clearly nullifies the mitzvah of settling the Land as well as endangers Jewish lives. B) Regardless of where the army base is located within Israel, the mitzvah of settling the Land is being fulfilled just by its mere existence, as the Ramban wrote: " To conquer and not to abandon the Land to the non Jews", and if the army does decide to abandon the bases, then not only is it nullifying the mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel, but it endangers the existence of the state of Israel as well. C) A permanent army base is considered, by all means, the same status as a settlement town and, therefore uprooting it constitutes the same prohibition. D) It is, therefore, obvious and clear that it is forbidden for any Jew to partake or assist in uprooting settlements, military camps or installations, as the Rambam ruled (hilchot melachim 3,9) "Even if a king decrees that one should transgress a commandment from the Torah one should not listen to him."

---------------------------------
1. Although there are some Rishonim that hold that the commandment "They should not dwell amongst you" only applies to the 7 Canaanite nations (Rashi, Ra'avad and S'mag), most of the other Rabbis feel that the prohibition is for all the nations as the Torah explains "They should not dwell amongst you because they will cause you to sin". This misgiving applies to all the nations that are not reformed in their beliefs and habits. The major focus of their disagreement is on which nation to which this prohibition applies. According to the Rambam, Ravad, Magid Mishne, Minchat Chinuch and Ritba, a non- Jew who has been accepted by the beit din as a Ger Toshav, is permitted to live in Eretz Yisrael. The Kesef Mishne however disagrees and holds that anyone who keeps the seven mitzvot of Noach is considered a Ger Toshav and is permitted to live in Eretz Yisrael. The Mizbach Adama agrees with this opinion. Nevertheless the Arab nations that do not desist in their efforts to destroy Am Yisrael are not considered to be Ger Toshav, and the prohibition "They should not dwell amongst you" definitely applies to them.

The Christians who love and support the Jewish nation according to many of the Rabbis are considered to be within the realm of those that keep the seven mitzvot of Noach, and according to lenient opinions are allowed to continue to live in the Land. Their presence is obviously preferable to extremist Muslims who wish to destroy the Jewish nation. Although Christianity is considered by some to be idol worship, and Islam is not, there is basically no prohibition of worshipping both Hashem and idols for the non-Jew. Christianity does just that. In addition many of their present believers do not really investigate the foundations of their beliefs, rather what motivates them today is the customs that they inherited from their parents and intentions to worship Hashem. Rambam writes in his introduction to the tractate of Hulin that we need to judge them favorably (one should look at Rav Rabinovitz work Yad Pshuta Hilchot Avoda Zara 10,7 and Bmlumda Milchma page 145 that explains this method).

2. According to many Rabbinical authorities, amongst them Rav Kook, the prohibition "That they should not dwell amongst you" is equal to "Nor show them mercy", therefore the previous clarification of "That they should not dwell amongst you" also applies to "Nor show them mercy". However there are those Rabbinical authorities that take a more stringent viewpoint and hold that if there is room in halacha to allow one who keeps the seven mitzvot of Noach to live in Eretz Yisrael (this stems from the mitzvah "That they should not dwell amongst you"), there is no room in halacha to permit him to purchase land in Eretz Yisrael (this stems from the mitzvah "Nor show them mercy") until he is formaly declared by the Beit din as a Ger Toshav (Netziv).

3. The Rishonim went to great lengths to discuss if dina dmalchuta dina is also applicable to Eretz Yisrael. The Ran is of the opinion that dina dmalchuta dina is also kept outside of Israel, because there the country belongs to the king and one needs to be obedient to his laws and edicts. However Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish nation and there is no halachic obligation to obey a government. Only when there exists a Jewish sovereignty that is considered halachically to have the same status as a king should one obey the laws. Rambam and the majority of the Rabbis hold that the law dina dmalchuta dina is always kept in Eretz Yisrael, because once the nation agrees to a certain type of government this gives those rulers the power to legislate and execute laws. However, according to the basis of the Ran (the Rashba explained in length) there is no disagreement that the government has no right to uproot Jews from their forefather's inheritance.

4. Rav Goren tz"l also decided (Gilion Rabbanai Yesha number 16) that according to the Rambam (Hilchot Malachim 1,4) and the Sefer Hachinuch (mitzvah 498) a government that relies on Arab vote in order to get into power has no validity as a government. This idea is on the condition that the majority of Jews do not support the government's decisions, thus the government has no right to establish or decree any laws that are concerned with the Jewish people or it's Land.

Thank you S.A Oleh for these wonderful comprehensive words of Torah and opinions.
If just a few S.African Jews read them, and learn the truth, then it would have been worthwhile.
Here in S.Africa the so called "Zionists" go with the "Western" flow.
"A two state solution is the only answer to the conflict".
They praise people like Prof. Alan Dershowitz as a great supporter and advocate of Israel. The same Prof. who advocates the giving up (or sharing) of our most holy sites in Hebron nd Jerusalem.
Please do not stop sending your articles. At last I have an ally.(I too am a new Oleh, albeit an old man, whose Aliyah has been "interrupted" by sad circumstances.

Thanks also to Rabbi Isaacson for having intruduced this debate, and to My shtetl for publishing it.

Would love to hear responses from Ilan Solomon, and others who favour Land for peace.

That's better Chabadgirl! You alone can may that day come sooner.
I did it at age 75. For the sake of your childre don't wait to long.
Shabbat Shalom

Why the silence from the proposer of this debate?

[We are guessing that this post is by 'Anonochon'. In any event we will not allow these personal comments to be made anonymously. If the poster would like to re-post this as a verified registered user, we will publish most of what was written -ED]

P.S. David Wilder, a spokesperson in Hebron said that if only 200000 Diaspora Jews would make Aliyah to Judea and Samaria, the Arabs would leave very fast.

My (last?) word on this subject.
If we Israelis want to put an end to terror, there is only one way to do it- and that's not Land for peace, and a muslim state-.
We must announce to the world, that we are tired of living with them(arabs), but "we" are the bad ones, and we simply cannot co-exist.
So for their sake, we have decided to part with them.
We take the self-hating leftist morons together with the invented palestinian people, and we throw them out, into Jordan (or any one of 21 neigbouring muslim states.

This was published last week:

The Holy Jews who Sacrificed Their Lives for Israel

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed

With All Your Soul

The appalling murder in Itamar shocked everyone – all of the settlers, and every Jew without exception, because it wasn't the Fogel family alone who they wanted to murder, but rather, each and every one of us. In the neighboring communities, which are situated on the frontlines of Jewish settlement, many residents are picturing in their minds what if it had been them, how they would react, and if, God forbid…what will happen to…, and the children and parents are finding it hard to sleep at night.

Nevertheless, we must not be weakened. The fears and worries must be elevated to the mitzvoth of 'kiddush Hashem', or sanctifying God's name, and we must remind ourselves of what we are strict to say everyday, both morning and evening, in the reading of the 'Sh'ma' : "And you shall love Adonoy your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your possessions."

In the Mishna (Berachot 9:5), the Sages said: "With all your soul – even if He takes your soul". This is what every Jew must think of when reading the 'Sh'ma' – if it was required, he would be ready to die for 'kiddush Hashem'.

It is brought down in the name of Rebbe Elimelech from Lizhensk: "…a person who lies on his bed and can't fall asleep, should contemplate the positive commandment of 'I must be sanctified among the Israelites'. He should imagine to himself as if an awesome and great fire is burning in front of him, rising all the way to the heavens, and for 'kiddush Hashem', may His Name be blessed, he shatters his natural inclination and throws himself into the fire. God includes a good thought to the actual fulfilling of the mitzvah, and thus, he is not just idly lying around in bed, but rather fulfilling a positive commandment from the Torah. One should also contemplate this thought in the first verse of 'Sh'ma' and the first blessing of the 'Shmoneh Esrai'… (Tzetl Koton 1-2).

Connecting to Eternity

This awesome mitzvah is what connects every Jew to eternity. It detaches him from the temporariness and pettiness of life, and connects him to the world of truth and good, to the vision of the redemption. This is also the idea of the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel in our times, which is the only positive commandment in the Torah that obligates the Jewish nation to endanger their lives in order to conquer the Land and settle it. True, there are three severe mitzvoth – idol worship, illicit sexual relations, and murder – for which a Jew is obligated to give-up his life, for if he is threatened: "Either you transgress one of them, or you will be killed – he must sacrifice his life". However, there is no mitzvah to purposely enter such a situation which would obligate one to sacrifice his life in order not to transgress one of these three mitzvoth. On the other hand, the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel is the only mitzvah that obligates the Jewish nation to enter, on its own initiative, a life-threatening situation, in order to conquer and settle the Land (Minchat Chinuch 425; Mishpat Kohen, pg.327).

The Mitzvah of Settling the Land

There is no mitzvah comparable to that of settling the Land of Israel, through which even the seemingly insignificant actions that one does during the course of the day, receive profound and divine meaning. A person can breathe, eat, sleep, or walk – and in his mere presence in a location whose settlement requires strengthening – he fulfills a mitzvah. And the more one strives to improve the quality of his life, both spiritually and physically, the greater the mitzvah becomes, for through the revelation of divine values within everyday, happy living, the entire world sings the praise of the living God. It turns out that one's house, job, family, social life – are all partners in the revelation of the word of God in this world. This is the great message to the world emanating from the Land of Israel, that there is no schism between the heavens and the earth, and precisely within everyday life, it is possible to reveal the word of God, bring redemption, and improve the entire world. "For from Zion will go forth the Torah and the word of Adonoy from Jerusalem."

Facing the Evil

We do not strive for private vengeance; rather, we seek national vengeance, with the I.D.F. and all the official government agencies leading the way. We have not returned to our land in order to banish the Arabs from their houses. However, after having risen up to destroy us, we demand that anyone who wanted to kill us, be killed; and anyone who wanted to expel us from the land, be expelled. With the rest of the Arabs, we will live in peace.

Security Concerns and Internal Criticism

Together with the readiness to sacrifice one's life, security requirements must be taken care of as best as possible. It would be desirable that the person who fills the position of Minister of Defense would be someone who understands why the Jewish nation is in its land. Instead, Mr. Netanyahu appointed Ehud Barak, with all the familiar problems of this man. The I.D.F. soldiers carry out their tasks with self-sacrifice; they know who the enemy is, but their hands are tied by the Minister and the senior commanders, who have forgotten the goals for which they were appointed.

The judicial system must also be criticized, for just as every other negative event that takes place in the country, here too, they play a part. The electronic security system of the settlement of Itamar remains on a low level because the legal advisors decided that the route of the security fence, which was paved in coordination with the I.D.F., does not justify seizing land. The land in question is unclaimed. Thus, the settlement of Itamar is left with minimal means of defense – way less than the accepted level of security in the area. I was told that Talia Sasson, while working in the State Attorney's office, was the one who made the decision. Today, she is a candidate for the Knesset from the radical left-wing Meretz Party.

The Question of Security and Settling the Land

We stand on two foundations: on the principle of the mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel, and on the principle of security – that if, God forbid, we retreat from Judea and Samaria, the danger to the State of Israel will be greatly increased. From the outset, we should settle the land in order to make the desolate areas blossom and to inhabit the land. When we don't merit doing so – tragedies occur, and for security reasons, we are forced to come to Israel and settle the Land.

The Spies in the desert were afraid to enter the Land of Israel because of security reasons, and only after God decreed that they were to die in the desert, did they attempt to ascend, but it was too late. The entire generation died in the desert, and their children entered the Land to settle it.

Had we merited, we would have ascended to the Land of Israel in order to care for its soil, to build the destroyed cities and blossom the desolate hills, as was the call of the Vilna Gaon, and after him, Rabbi Kalisher, Rabbi Gutmacher, and Rabbi Alkaly. However, we didn't merit this; the majority of Jews were afraid to ascend to Israel, refraining from moving because of 'pikuach nefesh' (saving one's life from danger). Our tragedies then grew in the Diaspora, and we were required to ascend because of security reasons. The first Jews were able to overcome the fear of the pogroms, and only after the Holocaust did the last ones escape to Israel. There were rabbis who said that even if one Jew had to be killed in order to build the Holy Temple, it would be better not to build it at all. As a result of this, they also feared the Arabs, and thus believed it was better to stay in the exile. Then the Holocaust occurred.

The liberation of Judea and Samaria during the Six Day War also occurred due to security reasons. After the war, the government of Israel wanted to retreat in order to achieve some type of peace agreement, but due to security reasons, it wasn't possible. Had we merited settling Judea and Samaria because of the mitzvah – our present security problems would be immeasurably less significant.

To My Brothers, the Settlers

I woke-up before sunrise, and went to my study to write this article. In the middle, I stopped to pray 'shacharit' (Morning Prayer) in the early 5:40 A.M. 'minyan', and observed the people who rise early in the morning to pray: engineers, a banker, an architect, handymen, and academic researchers – white and blue-collar workers as one. Afterwards, the 6:00 'minyan' arrived, and following them, others. In the meantime, the women arise, waking-up their children, preparing them for kindergarten and school. The majority of the mothers will then leave for work. Parents begin to bring their little ones to the day care centers and kindergartens, and the school children gather at the bus stops. Chaim Fogel, the grandfather of the Fogel family murdered in Itamar, has a share in all of this; for many years he accompanied the development of the community 'Har Bracha' in his work for the 'Amana' settlement movement.

I thought to myself: Dear settlers, who can convey to you just how significant your trivial actions really are! In your daily routines, you are building the Land and rectifying the Sin of the Spies. You are fully aware that those who choose to live here accept upon themselves additional dangers, and nevertheless, you continue to live here, establishing families and working to improve the world.

And if we have slightly forgotten the enormity of the mitzvah, we must constantly remember the slaughter of the five members of the Fogel family. Perhaps in the merit of our genuine acceptance that, for the sake of defending the nation and the Land we must be ready to offer sacrifices, God will have mercy on us, and we will merit dwelling in the Land of Israel securely, without having to die for it.

Isn't it Dangerous to be a Settler?

Quite often people ask: Isn't it dangerous to live in Judea and Samaria? Indeed, it is; there is an additional danger living in a settlement, and this is precisely the reason why we are here. Nevertheless, in the merit of the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel on its highest level, the chances of increasing and elevating one's life is also greater. The fact is that if we compare the families of the settlers to those of people with similar qualities who live within the 'Green Line', the settler families are much bigger. Self-sacrifice for the settling of the Land strengthens one's life. Usually, in this world, this is manifested by an increase in the number of children and grandchildren, in Torah and mitzvoth, and spiritual creativeness. Sometimes, it is revealed in the world of truth – as immeasurably sacred people, with no creature being able to stand in their company. One thing depends on another.

People die from accidents and illnesses, finding various ways to destroy their lives. Many of them can't find love, and don't raise families. Global suffering is great. Someone who flees the nation's mission because of the dangers it entails, usually finds himself faced with other bigger and more difficult dangers or risks. Fortunate is the person whose suffering has value, for through these trials and tribulations, he is purified and refined, and his life flows in its proper path.

In not too many years, with God's help, the remaining children of Rabbi Udi and Ruth Fogel, may God avenge their blood, will stand under the wedding 'chuppah', will have son's and daughter's, grandson's and granddaughter's, great grandson's and great granddaughter's, multiple as the stars in heaven.

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed is the Dean of Yeshiva Har Bracha and a prolific author on Jewish Law. Rabbi Melamed is one of the most active leaders amongst the religious-Zionist public. This article was translated from his popular weekly column "Revivim" which appears in the "Basheva" newspaper. According to official media surveys, his column is the most widely read editorial amongst the religious and ultra-Orthodox public in Israel.

Rabbi Melamed's articles also appear at: http://revivimen.yhb.org.il/

Ant! This is the identical article I sent you last week.
Les H. Take special note.

This was published tonight by Rabbi Lazer Brody

http://www.breslev.co.il/articles/judaism/hashkafa/deed_to_the_promised_...

Deed to the Promised Land
By: Rabbi Lazer Brody

Lately, the Arab world has been in such turmoil that it hasn’t had much of a chance to think about us. Even the Hamas in Gaza, the Hizbulla in Beirut and Assad’s regime in Damascus had their hands full with breaking up demonstrations and dealing with domestic disgruntlement.

The Israelis who decided that they could now relax and sip espresso in a Tel Aviv sidewalk café were soon shaken back to stark reality. The Israeli Navy intercepted the merchant ship “Victoria” which had been loaded to the gills with Iranian weapons destined for Gaza, including state-of-the-art radar guided ground-to-sea missiles with a 35-kilometer range.

No, our enemies have not forgotten about us.

The enemies neither scare me nor break my heart. But the lack of faith we have in ourselves and the way we kowtow to the nations of the world not only scares me and breaks my heart, it turns my stomach.

We live in the Land of Israel by virtue of the Torah. It’s therefore easy to understand that without Torah, one has no justification or motivation for living in Hashem’s promised land. King David says emphatically (Psalm 105:44-45), “And He gave them the lands of the nations, and they inherited the peoples’ acquisitions; So that they would keep His statutes, and observe His laws.” King David, King of Israel, Hashem’s anointed, and great grandfather of Moshiach is revealing to us that Hashem gave us the Land of Israel for the sole purpose of living by His Torah and observing His commandments. One can easily understand how those among us that don’t live by the Torah can so readily destroy Jewish settlements in the Land of Israel and offer to make concessions to the hostile neighbors that encircle us.

Simply speaking, one who doesn’t believe in Psalm 105 certainly doesn’t believe in our right to live, build, and flourish on every square centimeter of the land that the Torah defines as Eretz Yisrael, the holy Land of Israel. Psalm 105 is the deed to the Promised Land.

The danger of our own lack of faith in ourselves and in our beloved homeland is terrible, and I don’t know which one is worse, the threat from our enemies or the danger from within.

Hashem did us the greatest loving kindness and compassion during the past hundred years by bringing us home to the Land of Israel. Before World War I, there was literally nothing here. The holy cities of Jerusalem, Tzfat, Tiberias and Hevron were populated by a small number of impoverished Jews struggling under Turkish rule. The rest of the country was sand, desert, and swamps. With miracles that no one even understands, Hashem brought us from the four corners of the Earth home to our promised homeland, and turned the land into a flowering Garden of Eden. That’s only a small portion of the miracles.

Look at The Independence War in 1948. Is it logical that an untrained mass of holocaust survivors from Europe and gentle Torah scholars from North Africa, together with a handful of kibbutznik and moshavnik commanders defeated the entire British-trained Jordanian Legion, the French-trained Syrian and Lebanese armies, and the mighty Egyptian Army? Only a fool would say yes.

What about The Six-Day War of 1967? Is it logical that a tiny air force of rebuilt hand-me-down aircraft knocked out the entire air forces of Syria, Jordan, and Egypt in 6 hours? That’s just what happened here! Israel – with Hashem at her side - defeated all three armies in six days, while retaking Judah, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan! Again, only a fool would say that such a victory is natural or logical.

If that’s not enough, think about The Yom Kippur War of 1973. The Israeli Army was destroyed both at the Suez Canal and in the Golan. No one stood between the Syrians and Tiberias. Is it logical that Israel wasn’t totally destroyed? Certainly not – Hashem had mercy on us and pulled us out of the fire.

Back in those days, the Arabs were scared stiff of the Jews. In the early 70’s, my wife was a staff sergeant in the tank corps. She used to ride an Arab bus from East Jerusalem to Bethlehem to visit the grave site of our matriarch Rachel. She’d be the only Jew on the bus. Today, no one would dare do such a thing.

The Arabs were scared stiff to lift a finger against of Jew. Before the first Intifada in 1988, I remember walking freely down the streets of Kalkilia or Shechem. But in the meanwhile, something happened. Like the click of a switch, everything turned around. The Arabs no longer fear us. The opposite; 8 and 9 year-old boys throw rocks at Israeli tanks with no fear. We have to ask ourselves, what happened?

My beloved teacher Rav Shalom Arush told me that the Lubavitcher Rebbe of holy and blessed memory had “ruach Hakodesh”, a 100% holy spirit. Every word he said came true. After Hashem gave us the miraculous victories in 1967 and in 1973, the Lubavitcher Rebbe warned against giving away one millimeter of land that Hashem miraculously gave us. But the politicians of Israel didn’t heed the words of the tzaddik. With a whim of the pen, they signed an agreement with Egypt that surrendered Sinai and the oil fields to the Egyptians.

What Hashem gave us lovingly with tremendous miracles, the politicians gave away while cowering to international pressure. They thought they were making a deal with the “enlightened and moderate” Anwar Sadat. But Sadat was soon assassinated. When you fast-forward to today, Sadat’s protégé Mubarak is no longer in power while the radical Muslem Brotherhood is quickly and quietly rising to power in Egypt. The peace treaty has left us without the beautiful Jewish city of Yamit in Northern Sinai and all the other settlements such as Neviot, Di Zahav, and Ophira. All we have is a piece of paper, which is now in the hands of such radical Jew-haters as Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The Lubavitcher Rebbe sure had far-reaching vision. Too bad that the Israeli Government doesn’t understand what a true tzaddik is.

Rav Shalom told me that any land that was reclaimed by the sacrifice of Jewish blood possesses an additional holiness. No one had any right to give back then or relinquish today a single grain of sand to our enemies, especially after the land had been sanctified with our blood of our martyrs. The army didn’t capture the territories in 1967, Hashem did.

We’ve seen her in Israel, time and again, the materialization of what the Torah says in Deuteronomy 1:30, “Hashem your G-d walks before you and He will fight for you as He did in Egypt.” Anybody that has eyes in his head doesn’t have to believe in Torah – we’ve seen the truth of Torah over and over with our own two eyes in nearly three decades of military service. People often ask, “Well, why don’t all the combat veterans of Israel’s wars become believers?” The answer is that they are blinded by their own arrogance, and they attribute the victories to themselves.

Hashem despises the doctrine of “My power and the strength of my right hand,” as the Torah mentions in Deuteronomy 8:17. Hashem says to such people, “OK, you think that you can succeed on your own without Me? You think you’re so great? Go! Give it a try on your own!” That’s when the big trouble starts. Instead of Hashem fighting for us, He turns His back on us to show us just how pitifully miserable we are on our own.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe warned Menachem Begin that the minute he gives back one morsel of the land that Hashem miraculously gave us, the land that’s soaked with the blood of Jewish soldiers, everything will turn around for the worst. That’s exactly what happened. Camp David was the turning point. Then other hideous names like Oslo and Wye Plantation made things even more unbearable…

At this very minute, blind self-deprecating Israeli leaders who are trying to appease the morally corrupt politicians of the west by talking about surrendering the Golan, Judea, Samaria, and half of Jerusalem. We have to wake up and ask ourselves, “What’s happening?”

Here’s exactly what has happened:

Our lack of belief in ourselves as Jews is what created the so-called Palestinian people. Look what the Torah says (Deuteronomy 32:21): “They have roused Me to jealousy with a non-deity; they have provoked Me with their vanities; and I will rouse them to jealousy with a non entity, a non-nation; I will provoke them with a vile nation.”

“I will provoke them with a non-nation” – there could be no clearer prophecy in the whole Torah, for that’s exactly what the so-called Palestinians are – a “non-nation.”

Choosing material amenities, imitating the nations of the world and chasing the dollar “non-deity” are what created the “non-nation” of stray migrant workers that overnight became the so-called Palestinian people. Conversely, faith in Hashem, in our Torah, and in our holy right to be here will solve the problem and enable us to raise generations of wonderful offspring living lives of Torah here in the Holy Land of Israel, amen.

S.A. OLEH:
Once again Yasher Koach;
It's ironic that your Lazer Brody essay should appear today, at the same time that the Prof. is giving his keynote talk at the Zionist Fed. conference.
Chabadgirl! You have more influence than myself; Please persuade Ant. to give this essay more space than a mere comment.

Dear S.A. Oleh.
Keep posting.
They might take more notice of you than myself.

Choni Davidowitz (also an oleh, albeit interrupted)
babchon@telkomsa.net

P.S. Could you email me articles and essays as well.
I Subscribe to Shai Ben Tekoah and Rabbi Nachman Kahana and other religious Zionists.

While we're on the topic, I just want to mention that "Garden of Emuna" by Rabbi Shalom Arush (translated by Rabbi Lazer Brody) is a MUST READ for every single Jew. As far as I remember, all Jewish book shops in joburg were selling it before I made aliyah.

But you yourself said; "This should be required reading for all of us. Thanks for posting it" (Laser Brody's essay).

Here is a shiur about 'land for peace' by the Rosh Yeshiva of Kerem B'Yavne, the Yeshiva where Rabbi Yoni Isaacson studied.

http://www.kby.org/english/torat-yavneh/view.asp?id=4001

A Halachic Perspective on the "Disengagement Plan"
By: Rosh Hayeshiva Harav Mordechai Greenberg, shlita

The issue of Eretz Yisrael is the most common topic in the Torah; no other issue is discussed as much. R. Yerucham of Mir writes in his work, Da'at Torah, that the entire Torah revolves around this issue of Eretz Yisrael; it begins with this issue and ends with it. Rashi writes in the beginning of Bereishit that the Torah should have begun with "Hachodesh hazeh lachem" (Shemot 12:2), which is the first mitzvah given to the Jewish nation, but instead begins with the story of Creation because of "Koach ma'asav higid le'amo." If the nations will claim that we are thieves, who stole the land of Israel from the seven Canaanite nations, we can respond that G-d created the world, and chose to give the Land of Israel to us. (The pasuk says, "The strength of His deeds He told to His nation," even though Chazal state that the other nations will say, as they could not imagine that Jews themselves will say, "You are thieves." But apparently this lesson is necessary for Israel as well.)

But why is the rest of Bereishit necessary? In Parshat Noach we learn of the seventy nations of the world, which were dispersed into seventy lands. In Parshat Lech Lecha we read of the covenant with Avraham, that Israel will be given to Avraham's descendents.

Why the remainder of Bereishit? This is because the Land of Israel was promised "lezar'acha" – "to your descendents." It is necessary to identify who are the descendents with whom the covenant sealed – only those that descended to exile in Egypt and returned four generations later. Thus, Yishmael – who did not go into exile and was granted other portions – is not included.

Yitzchak, as well, had two children. However, it says about Esav, "He went to a land [Edom] because of his brother Yaacov" (Bereishit 36:6) – and thus also is not included. He settled in his own land, and thus has no claim to the Land of Israel. Yaakov then thought he would settle in the land of his anscentors, but G-d said that he first needed to descend to exile and then be brought back. Thus, the entire Torah until "Hachodesh" is necessary in order to establish the right of the Jewish People to Eretz Yisrael.

At the end of the Torah, G-d shows Moshe the entire Land, and tells him: "This is the land which I swore to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Yaakov, saying, 'I will give it to your offspring.' I have let you seen it with your own eyes, but you shall not cross over to there." (Devarim 34:4) Why did G-d do this? Was he taunting Moshe? Rashi explains: So that Moshe would go and tell the patriarchs that G-d fulfilled His promise. I.e., for hundreds of years the promise was waiting to be fulfilled. Now, as Am Yisrael is at the border of Israel, go and tell the patriarchs that it is being fulfilled. Thus, the entire Torah aims towards this point of reaching Israel.

On the hashkafic level, Chazal emphasize this mitzvah, which nothing else compares to. The Midrash relates that a group of Amoraim were about to leave Israel. They thought of the pasuk, "You shall inherit it and settle in it. Observe to do" (Devarim 11:30-31) – Settling the Land of Israel is comparable to all the mitzvot of the Torah." (Yalkut Shimoni I:885) Why did they specifically mention this pasuk? Rav Kook zt"l, in Shabbat Ha'aretz, explains that this pasuk shows that even though the Land is still in the hands of non-Jews, it still has special status. This emphasizes its extreme importance. "A person should live in the Land of Israel in a city which is mostly non-Jewish, and not outside of Israel, even in a city which is mostly Jewish." (Ketuvot 110b) It is better to live in an irreligious city in Israel than in Brooklyn. "'They have chased me away from the heritage of G-d' – This teaches that whoever lives outside of Israel it is as if he has no G-d." (ibid.) For this reason Israel is called, "nachalat Hashem" (the heritage of G-d).

The importance of Eretz Yisrael is anchored in Halacha, according to the Ramban, which is the fundamental piece for all discussions of this topic. The Rambam does not enumerate the settlement of Israel as one of the 613 mitzvot. The supercommentary Megillat Esther writes that he must hold that there is no mitzvah nowadays; it was only a mitzvah upon Yehoshua to capture the Land. The Ramban, in ommision #4, adds the settlement of Israel as a mitzvah. He defines the mitzvah as follows: "We should not leave it in hand of any other nation, nor leave it desolate." In modern terms, the first element means that it is not enough just to capture it, but we also need to have sovereignty and political control of it; we cannot allow another nation to control it. The second aspect is that we must settle it and not leave it unpopulated and barren. The Ramban continues on to cite various Midrashim of Chazal. He concludes: Don't mistakenly think that this mitzvah was incumbant only upon Yehoshua. He proves that it applies in all times, even during the exile, and is incumbant upon each and every individual, not only the nation as a whole. This is the mitzvah aseh.

There is also a prohibition: "Lo techanem" (Devarim 7:2)– do not give them chanaya (settlement); it is prohibited to sell land to non-Jews in Israel. (Avoda Zara 20a) There is a dispute amongst the Rishonim to whom it is prohibited to sell. Some say only to idolators, but to non-idolators it is allowed. However, from the Ramban it sounds like the prohibition extends to all non-Jews. The major practical ramification is to Muslims who are not idolators. (Christianity includes some elements of idolatry.)

These are the foundations, and from this the dispute emanates.

Some twenty years ago, Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita met with the Egyptian president and told him that if there would be true peace, then there is no halachic impediment to returning land. This caused a big commotion. Even if it is true – why reveal it to the Arabs? Furthermore, the issue is not so clear halachically. At a Rabbinic convention shortly afterwards Rav Ovadia explained his position at length, based primarily on the concept of pikuach nefesh, which supersedes all mitzvot except for three. The problem is that some military analysts said that if we don't return the territory – there is danger of war. Others said, though, that if we return it – there is a greater danger of terrorist. So the conclusion was that if it were clear that there would be peace – we can return land.

What about the Ramban, though? There is a mitzvah to conquer the country, which entails war, and possible danger to life! [Similarly, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that any Jew who meets an Amaleiki has to kill him if there is no danger involved. The Minchat Chinuch asks: There is a mitzvah to go out to war against them, so how can one claim pikuach nefesh? War, unfortunately, entails causalties. The answer is that the mitzvah of war is on the nation as a whole, but the individual only needs to kill Amalek if there is no danger.]

Rav Ovadia responded: First, there is the opinion of the Rambam (according to the Megillat Esther) that there is no mitzvah de'oraita in our time. Thus, the consideration of pikuach nefesh returns. And, since there is a dispute whether the mitzvah applies nowadays – safek nefashot lehakel.

In addition, war is supposed to be led by the king and urim v'tumim, which we do not have nowadays. Others, as well, raised this argument regarding the wars of Israel. Despite the gains of the wars, who allowed to go out to war?!

Moreover, even if the Ramban is correct, there are the "three oaths" mentioned in Ketuvot 111a, that the Jewish People will not return to Israel with force. This Gemara is the basis of the Satmar Rebbe, as explained at length in his work, "Vayo'el Moshe." (The name is an allusion to the pasuk in Shemot 2:21 and Rashi there, that Moshe swore to Yitro that he would not leave him without permission.) Thus, we cannot take land without permission. Furthermore, even according to Ramban the current political circumstances are not considered control anyway – to do as you wish, which we cannot do. For example, there is mitzvah to destroy Avoda Zara; can we destroy the churches?! We are not allowed to leave non-Jews in Israel; can we transfer them, or even travel in security?! Thus, we are not fulfilling the mitzvah properly anyway, and thus we should consider pikuach nefesh – if indeed it will lead to peace.

This ruling led to a wave of Rabbinic literature. Rav Shaul Yisraeli responded that he respects Rav Ovadia Yosef greatly, but the Ramban writes explicitly that the mitzvah applies even in the time of galut, even though was aware of the "three oaths." It is true that the Avnei Nezer writes that due to the "three oaths" there cannot be a mitzvah to settle Israel even on the individual, since if it were incumbant on each individual – they form the group! This is not clear, though, since Rashi explains the oath precludes returning with force in battle. But if an individual goes – this is not through force!

In addition, the Balfour Declaration, and, afterwards, the League of Nations addressed the division of the world after the World War. The major representatives of the Leauge of Nations decided in the San Remo Conference that Israel belongs to Jewish People as a national homeland, and meanwhile awarded the mandate to England to capture it from the Turks, who had sided with Germany, and ultimately return it to the Jews. Amongst the great majority of Jews there was great joy. In Agudat Yisrael, there were many enthusiastic calls. In a letter on behalf of KKL, the Ohr Sameach writes after the San Remo Conference "the fear of the oaths is removed." I.e., the oath is not that Jews will not leave Poland with force to go to Israel, but that they should not battle against the nation that is in control of Israel. But if the League of Nations grants the Land to the Jewish People – we are no longer bound.

We should also take note of the phrase, "the fear of the oaths." What does he mean by fear? Is it permissible or not? He should have said that the prohibition is over. Rav Zvi Yehuda explained that there is no real prohibition, since an oath cannot be superimposed upon a prior oath, and since we are under oath to settle Israel – we cannot be put under oath not to! If, according to the Ramban, there is a mitzvah for generations – there cannot be a prohibition!

The Rambam explains: "I have put you under oath." The Jews will want to come to Israel before the time on account of the troubles of galut. G-d warns them against this as if they were put under oath.

Thus, the oaths are no longer relevant. Even if later the nations were to retract their consent, once they granted permission – it is too late for them to retract. Thus, the argument of the three oaths is no longer valid.

In addition, there is counter–oath to the nations of the world not to overly subjugate and persecute Israel. After the Holocaust, when the nations certainly violated their oath, we also are not bound. In any case, though, the establishment of the State was not by rebellion.

As for the need for a king and urim v'tumim, although it is proper to have them, they are not absolutely required. If there is no king – then we go out to battle without. Otherwise, how did they go out to battle in the days of the Chashmonaim?! In fact the Rambam (Hil. Melachim 5:1) writes that nowadays, as well, there is milchemet mitzvah – "ezrat Yisrael miyad tzar sheba aleihem" – defending Israel against their enemies. We don't say that because there is no king and urim v'tumim we should sit defenseless.

As for the argument that anyway we cannot do with land what we want: Throughout the world it is accepted to respect different religions, and international law recognizes the rights of minorities and each religion. This does not impinge in any way on our sovereignty. The Gedolim already said that nowadays we shouldn't attempt to enforce the abolishment of other religions in Israel because of the impact on Jews elsewhere. Moreover, the Rema writes in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 156) that non-Jews are not warned against idolatry of shituf. Thus, we don't have the responsibility nowadays to uproot churches.

As for the claim that we cannot travel safely and securely, Rav Yisraeli points out that this existed also in the times of the judges, as it says in Shirat Devorah: "In the days of Shamgar b. Anat, in the days of Yael, highway travel ceased, and those who traveled on paths went by circuitous roads." (Shoftim 5:6) So because of this the sanctity of the Land is revoked?! There is a Pitchei Teshuva, (E.H. 75) that all poskim, Rishonim and Achronimm, agree with the Ramban, and even the opinion of Rambam is not clear. It is very possible that although there is a mitzvah, the Rambam was following his methodology that general mitzvot, which entail other specific mitzvot, are not enumerated.

In addition, Rav Eliyahu mentioned the pasuk in Shoftim in which the King of Amon demanded, "and now return them in peace." Yiftach answers, "Now, Hashem, the G-d of Israel, has driven out the Amorite because of His people Israel – yet you would possess it? ... Whichever [people] G-d drives away before us, that [land] we shall possess." (Shoftim 11:23-24) The Malbim writes that all the nations recognized that Israel did not simply captured the land, but rather they were guided by G-d. The same it true for the areas captured in the Six-Day War. No parallel victory exists in modern history! The headlines at that time proclaimed: "Once again, David defeats Goliath." And now we will belittle this gift?! This is ingratitude to Hashem.

Thus, the three oaths are not an impediment, and we pasken like the Ramban that the mitzvah continues even today.

Conversely, Rav Ovadia was asked a few years ago whether a student learning in Israel can refuse his parents' request to return. In his discussion there he writes that despite the opinion of the Megillat Esther, we follow the Ramban.

As far as lo techonem: Rav Ovadia cites many sources and responsa that gedolei Yisrael from previous generations sold lands in Israel to Muslims. Others responded that this is not comparable. Perhaps an individual Jew can sell to an individual Arab. Here we are dealing with sovereignty, though, and this is exactly what the Ramban talks about. The Heter Mechira also relies on selling the land to Muslims. (Incidentally, the heter mechira began long before Rav Kook zt"l. The first one was done with the approval of R. Yizchak Elchanan in 5680.) However, it is not applicable at all here. First of all, some maintain that the prohibition is only if sold forever, but not for a year. Moreover, Rav Kook emphasized that the sale during the shemitta year was necessary for the purpose of settling the land. If the Jewish farmers would not work land, there would be no food, and people would die or leave. Therefore, he relied on the opinions that the prohibition does not apply to Muslims, or for a single year – but this was all for the goal of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. How can apply these considerations, though, to the destruction of Jewish settlements in Israel?

Another distinction is that before the establishment of State, the sale of lands didn't make a difference, but now every tract of land makes big difference. In short, we are not dealing here with private transactions.

The whole idea of pikuach nefesh is only relevant if there is no mitzvah to capture the Land. However, if there is a mitzvah – there is no consideration of pikuach nefesh since there is a requirement of war, and the Rambam writes (Hil. Melachim 7:15) that one cannot consider personal issues during war: Anyone who fears – the blood of all Israel is on shoulders. One has to take risks!

Even if according to the Rambam there is no mitzvah, what is already in our hands – we cannot give back. He writes that for a border city, even if non-Jews come to steal, we desecrate the Shabbat to fight, since if they succeed in this – they will continue on to the next step. If we conceded Gush Katif, many cities in Israel will be within range of missiles.

Thus, the conclusion of many Gedolim is that since there is a mitzvah to control the Land, once it is ours – there is mitzvah to fight and repel enemies who attack, and there is no issue of pikuach nefesh.

There is talk by Jewish people to return land, even forcibly, for all kinds of reasons. Rav Avraham Shapiro shlita writes that nobody – even a king or government – has a right to tell anyone to violate a mitzvah. We find this with Avner and Nov, where Avner refused King Shaul's orders to kill the priests. Many commentators offer explanations for the twenty cities that King Shlomo gave to Hiram, King of Zor, but no one says that a king is allowed to do as he pleases. The only basis to give away land in Israel is if military experts claim that if we don't return the land, we will be killed and lose the land anyway. However, on account of world opinion we cannot violate a mitzvat aseh, nor for the threat of war – then this what we have to do! If a soldier is ordered to give land over, even by the government – he cannot obey the order!

Moreover, there could be an element of yeherag ve'al ya'avor, since the order comes as a decree to violate the halacha. We should clarify: Yeherag ve'al ya'avor does not mean to kill or hit the one who threatens, but rather to be passive and not cooperate; not to participate actively in the prohibition. This law is usually said regarding a non-Jew who forces a Jew to violate. Rav Kook writes, though, that this also applies by Jews. In the early 1900's, many of Jewish lands in Israel belonged to Baron Rothschild. In Mazkeret Batya, some people wanted to uphold shemitta, but the managers threatened to stop support if they wouldn't sign to follow the heter shemitta. Rav Kook wrote that this also was considered hamarat dat.

Rav Zvi Yehuda wrote many letters after the Six Day War that yeherag ve'al ya'avor applies also to this issue of giving over land. It is true that when a non-Jew coerces violation of a mitzvah for his personal benefit we do not say yeherag ve'al ya'avor, such as with Esther, or when he demands to reap his aspasta crop on Shabbat. Presumably, here the Arabs are demanding the land for their own benefit, not to cause us to violate. However, the cases are not comparable. There, the non-Jew's goal is to have food, and he is not at all concerned with Shabbat. Here, however, the struggle is: To whom did G-d grant the land? When they demand the Land, it is not because they simply want the territory, but because they claim that the land is rightfully theirs. Others argue that at least coercion by a Jewish government is considered hana'at atzmo. However, the Meiri writes that there is no leniency of hana'at atzman for Jews. Also, many leftists see in the disengagement plan an anti-religious expression.

In the current State of Israel, there are certain laws that go against the Torah, such as interest. However, there is no law that forces an individual to violate halacha. If a Jew is ordered to throw another Jew out of his house – he cannot violate. Some claim that it is not good that Rabbis talk about this and get involved in political matters. This, however, is the Christian view – separation of Church and state. This is not so in Judaism; Torah has what to say about everything! We may not have ability to force halacha on others, but not to say the halacha?!

Others mention the concept of halacha ve'ain morin kein. (Shabbat 12b) However, this concept is usually used in the context of not publicizing a heter. But to withhold teaching an issur – we don't find. We do find mutav sheyihu shogegin, though. (Beitza 35b) However, this rule is limited in its application.

We also find: "Just as it is a mitzvah for a person to say something that will be listened to, it is a mitzvah for a person not to say something that will not be listened to." (Yevamot 65b) However, this is only if one knows that they will not listen. This it not true, here. Many Jews are waiting to hear from the Rabbis what to do. The Rivash writes about a certain issue: "I said it twice, but they don't listen. I will not repeat it." But if people are asking to hear – this rule doesn't apply!