YU Aligned Rabbis at Center of Wye Accords Fracas

Rabbinic Debate Enters Political Arena

Over the past few weeks, the pages of the New York Post and The Jewish Week have played host to a heated debate over the validity of the recently signed Wye Peace Accords. The agreements provided for further Israeli territorial concession in return for Palestinian security guarantees. The debate itself centers on a Post advertisement signed by several YU Roshei Yeshiva which, effectively, stated that the Wye agreement is halakhically invalid. Though the group did not represent the whole of YU or its Roshei Yeshiva, its advertisement has fueled debate both on and off campus.

The initial ad was sponsored by the group Ichud Harabonim, and was signed by Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik, Rabbi Moshe Tendler, and Rabbi Herschel Reichman. Calling the agreement a "life threatening danger to all residents of Israel," the group determined that "it is prohibited by Jewish law to participate in this tragic and terrible agreement. It is prohibited by Jewish Law for it to be ratified by the Israeli Government." Since then, the agreement's clauses have been conditionally approved by the Israeli cabinet.

Subsequently, letters by Rabbi Julius Berman and Rabbi Tendler in the Jewish Week served to keep the issue alive. Berman noted that "A more careful analysis would disclose that the halakhic principles involved are not in dispute at all." He suggested that the aforementioned rabbis reconsider their decision based on security concerns. Tendler responded that, in fact, their conclusions were based on the security assessments of Israeli cabinet minister Ariel Sharon, an undisputed Israeli security expert. "The sanctity of human life," he added, was the sole basis for their halakhic opinion.

The ad opened the doors to a halakhic debate regarding land-for-peace dealings and the safety of Jews in Israel. Of greater significance, though, is the fact that it allowed for a public debate on the methodology and sometimes political nature of the halakhic decision-making process.

Once debate on this topic seemed to be waning, a second advertisement found its way into the pages of The Jewish Week. Sponsored by the group Shvil Hazahav, and signed by another group of Orthodox rabbis, the ad was clearly designed to counter that of the Ichud HaRabonim. Additionally, some of the new signatures came from rabbis with direct YU affiliation. The ad maintained that "Jewish law permits territorial compromise if such actions will ultimately lead to greater safety and security for Israeli citizens."

The questions that the public exchange presents for YU students are both halakhic and political in nature. Amid the public discussion, R' Yosef Blau, MYP Mashgiach Ruchani, noted the lack of overt student interest in recent Israeli events. "The fervor with which students approach the issues of the day is no longer present," he noted, alluding to the student protests which characterized previous student bodies.

R' Blau also noted that, in and of itself, a halakhic denouncement of the peace process is not inappropriate. He warned, however, that the current arguments are inherently dangerous. As Tendler noted, the current argument against the accords is based on security concerns, namely, whether or not they will save Israeli lives. The cutoff point between safety and the lack thereof, however, is very much a political point. "When halakhic decisions are based on these [security] issues, they are easily confused with political stands," R' Blau cautioned. How people view the decision making process of the Ichud HaRabonim is what has caused the recent accusations.

It is regarding this point that the Shvil Hazahav group takes issue with Rabbi Tendler's conclusions. The ad stressed that Jewish law allows for varying views and approaches to the halakhic process. In disagreeing with the Ichud HaRabonim they hoped that public statements would not "marginalize the Orthodox community and the Jewish nation as a whole."

Rabbi Tendler, however, maintains the validity, and the consistency, of the group's arguments. He was part of a rabbinic faction that similarly protested the signing of the Oslo accords. He maintains that both agreements were motivated by outside concerns. "Economic considerations have taken precedence over protecting people," he claims. The Arabs, he maintains, realize that pressure on Israel comes from the United States. That allows them to take liberties with Jewish lives without the risk of a stoppage to the peace process. Because the concessions of the Wye Agreement do not amount to a true peace, he insists, "The halakha says that it is assur to gamble on security."

In this week's Jewish Week, Rabbi Shmuel Goldin, Chair of Shvil Hazahav, responded to attacks on his organization. "Since our inception as a rabbinic and lay organization within the Orthodox community, Shvil Hazahav has never directly supported a political party or political position... We also continuously have maintained that halakha should not be used in an arbitrary fashion." Attempting to distance themselves further from the political arena, he maintained that their statement was not a "politically inspired tactic" nor was it bankrolled by those with a political agenda.

For Rabbi Tendler and others, claims that such denouncements of the peace process are more politically motivated than halakhically valid, are incorrect. "Pikuach Nefesh, the saving of Jewish lives, is a halakhic issue." Because the accords are proven unsafe, in Rabbi Tendler's view, it is unacceptable to give up Jewish lives for them, no matter how politically incorrect it may seem. "The distinctions made exist only in the secular world. Halakhically, we have no distinction between morality, ethics and halakha."

The remaining claim, namely that taking the issue to a public forum reveals the political underpinnings of the argument, is invalid, according to Rabbi Tendler. Echoing the sentiments of R' Blau, he insists that "halakhically, someone must say something. We cannot sit idly by while Jews are being murdered. We have now done what we had to do." Those who refuse to stand up, he adds, "those same rabbonim who came out in public support of Oslo, the blood of Jews is on their hands."