The negotiations between Israel and Syria have barely started and the debate about the wisdom of returning the Golan Heights in order to make peace with Syria is already heated. It appears clear that there will be a religious secular split on the issue. Yet the question of whether territory in the Golan can be returned to Syrian control in return for security guarantees in a peace treaty is according to most views not a halachic one. Many prominent rabbinical authorities (e.g. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Z.L.T., Rabbi Elazar Schach and Rabbi Ovadya Yosef) have ruled that land in Israel proper may be given to the Arabs in a peace agreement if this will save Jewish lives.

Moreover it is questionable whether the Golan Heights have the halachic status of Israel. Rabbi Yosef, in discussing a related question, assumes that the Golan Heights do not have the sanctity of Israel proper. Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Z.T.L., who considered any governmental decision to give over to the Palestinians any land in Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza as null and void, saw no religious problem in returning the Golan Heights to Syria. Land in Syria that was conquered by King David was not given the biblical status of Israel because the king did not complete conquering the land of the seven Canaanite nations first (Maimonides, The Laws of Terumot 1;3).

The dispute about how to best protect Israeli security is real and there are differing evaluations of the consequences of a treaty with Syria on Israel’s relations with Lebanon and other Arab counties, but logically these should not be affected by religious orientation. A report on the second day of meetings between Prime Minister Barak and Foreign Minister al-Sharaa in the Associate Press mentioned a small demonstration by Orthodox Jews. Their quote was "This is not a religious matter; the lives of millions of Jews are at risk." A dozen American Jews were lecturing an Israeli Prime Minister, who had previously been the Chief of Staff of the armed forces, that he was endangering Israel’s future existence.

If the issue is not primarily halachic, how do we understand the sharp contrast in perspective? Some claim that the religious Zionist opposition is primarily tactical, based on the assumption that it will be easier to defeat the referendum on the Golan than one on returning settlements as part of a peace treaty with the Palestinians. While this has been mentioned prominently in the Israeli media as a strategy of the Yesha ledearship, it fails to explain the intensity of feelings that have been expressed and the sense of despair that Israel’s survival is at stake.

There is a fundamental underlying difference between the religious and secular communities in how they view the meaning of the state of Israel and in particular the consequences of the Six Day War. In secular terms, Israel is a haven for the Jews and an opportunity for Jews to live in their own country at peace with its neighbors. The Six Day War gave Israel the additional land that strengthened its ability to negotiate with its adversaries. After the Yom Kippur War, where casualties were high, the lesson learned was that peace eventually had to be reached with all of Israel’s neighbors. After the Intifada the Palestinians became players as well.

For most religious Zionists, Israel represents the fulfillment of a dream, the beginning of the redemption. The Six Day War was a Divine Hand into history. What was learned from the Yom Kippur War was that the Israeli army should not rely on its own might but trust in G-d. A peace treaty with Syria and Assad, a Hitler-like figure in their eyes, is a betrayal of this vision. Security does not come out of agreements with enemies of the Jews. The religious non-Zionists share a suspicion of agreements with non-Jews and paradoxically do not acknowledge the secular state, while simultaneously opposing Israel’s willingness to give any territories to the Arabs. Both groups combine a desire for maximum territory remaining in Jewish hands with a mistrust of the non-Jewish world.

Prior to the Six Day War the majority view within religious Zionism was not messianic and its leadership supported essentially the same political and military policies as the secular majority. The phrase "Reishit Tzmichat Geulatenu" (the beginning of the flowering of our redemption) was more an expression of hope that the miraculous rebirth of a Jewish state after nineteen hundred years of exile would ultimately lead to a full redemption than a plan for achieving redemption. Religious Jews not sharing the messianic fervor that followed the Six Day War would view Israel-Arab relations as not fundamentally different from those between other competing groups such as the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland where peace is difficult but not impossible. Those sharing this perspective are willing to consider Arabs as peace partners and have greater trust in Israel’s political and military leaders.

Active messianism, with its focusing only on retaining territory as the means of advancing the redemption, has had a devastating effect on internal Jewish relations in Israel. The corresponding vision of Arabs as eternal enemies automatically eliminates any possible peace agreement with them. If all messianic assumptions are eliminated and only rational analyses based on Israel’s experiences is negotiating with Arab states and the Palestinians are utilized, the gap between religious and secular will be seriously reduced. Caring people will continue to differ in their judgements regarding how to best enhance Israel’s security and future, but religious and secular Jews will be analyzing the risks and benefits from a common perspective.