Weekly Letter: The Rebbe States His Clear Views
We present a letter from the Rebbe, so relevant to the crisis in Israel we are facing today, in which the Rebbe states his clear views on, among other things, 1. the returning by Israel of the liberated lands and the surrendering of oil fields in Sinai and 2. The government’s meek policy and response regarding terrorist attacks where he gives some historical examples.
By the Grace of G-d
Greeting and Blessing:
P.S. This P.S. follows in English, consistent with our previous correspondence on the subject, which was conducted in English.
Now that we are in the month of Elul, the month of “stocktaking,” I can no longer delay my response to some points in our correspondence, which are as yet unanswered. The reason for the delay being that I had hoped that there would be some positive developments that would have a bearing on them. Regrettably, these hopes have not materialized; indeed, the situation has further deteriorated.
To begin with the basic point, namely, the question of returning the liberated areas of Yehuda, Shomron, etc. I maintain, as I have insisted from the beginning, that according to halacha it is forbidden to return any of these territories. The same applies to the vital oil wells in Sinai, which should not have been surrendered. The claim that “for the sake of peace” it is halachically justifiable to surrender the territories and the oil wells is hollow, for what was gained was not real lasting peace, but the promise of peace on paper, and from past and present experience, it is well known what such paper promise are worth.
Since the surrender of the oil fields is now a fait accompli and the consequences have already become quite evident, it can well serve as an illustration of the fallacious and misguided argument that had been employed in regard also to the other points of the controversy. When I warned that surrendering the oil wells meant giving up a most vital resource, both in time of peace and even more so, in time of emergency, and that it would create a serious stranglehold both on the economy and security of the land, the answer was firstly, that there was a three months’ reserve of oil (a physical impossibility in the prevailing circumstances) and secondly, a promise from the other side to supply all the petroleum needs. Yet, soon after the surrender of the oil wells, emissaries had to be dispatched to Mexico and elsewhere in a frantic effort to obtain oil (at inflated prices and costly transportation). More recently, it was necessary to negotiate contracts for the importation of coal from distant countries (South Africa, Australia). This further emphasizes the seriousness of the energy situation in Eretz Yisroel.
Similarly, shortly before the current visit of the P.M. and his entourage to Washington, a personal friend of mine, who spoke to a personal friend of his, one who actively participated in the Camp David negotiations, and will participate in the upcoming Washington discussions, and stated quite clearly that serious mistakes had been made in signing the treaty, since the same objective (normalization, etc.) could have been obtained without surrendering all that has been surrendered, the latter replied, verbatim: “Let’s not go further into it,” and added that ways and means are now being explored to move away from the policy, etc.
To refer to a further point of our discussion, namely, my criticism of the Government policy regarding terrorist attacks, in response to which I was taken to task for accusing the Government of collusion with the terrorists, which is, of course, entirely untrue. My criticism was only that the same policy of meekness and subservience pervades many departments of the Government. I could mention a few recent events to support my contention, but will cite only two. First, while it has long been common knowledge, though not discussed publicly, it was recently publicized in the media that in his time, B.G. gave a directive to stop the search for Dr. Mengele (yemach shmo) right when the search had become intensive.
Secondly, even more recently, the controversy in connection with the excavation of the City of David. There is no need to point out what the attitude and treatment shown by the police, with the backing of the higher-ups, has been towards the demonstrators against this desecration. Yet, when there was an Arab demonstration in another place, but in a similar situation (the newly discovered tunnel under the Tempe Mount), further exploration was immediately stopped. No further commentary is necessary.
Another recent development bore out a view I expressed during the Yom Kippur War. I urged then, on the basis of halacha, to pursue the enemy – ad ri’deta (Deut. 20:20 and see also Num. 33:55), namely, to take Damascus – not for occupation, but to ensure that it never again would pose a threat. It was then also common knowledge that Soviet advisors ware present there, with headquarters, etc. nly a few hours of occupation would have been sufficient to accomplish the task. But for strange reasons, ti was not done. The results of the failure are evident and have been particularly underscored recently by the moving of the Soviet SAM’s and the military actions that were necessary to counter Soviet penetration, including the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq (though the latter action shows a salutary departure from the policy of appeasement and subservience).
Finally, a more personal point, hence it comes to the last – in reference to the accusation that Lubavitch instigated, or participated in, the demonstration against the Chief Rabbi on his visit here. Be it noted that it is the accepted rule in all civilized legal systems, not to mention the halacha, that the burden of proof is on the accuser and not the accused, and that everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty, especially in regard to Jews who are all – b’chezkas kashrus. Yet this elementary principle was ignored. Moreover, various Rabbinic Organizations came out publicly against the Chief Rabbi, while Lubavitch was the one that did not come out against him.
In light of the above, it is hardly right to consider that “the case is closed” and leave it at that. The proper conclusion should be that there should not have been a “case” in the first place, since the chief Rabbi’s office could not substantiate the charge. Indeed, in order to prevent the repetition of such a case, the party that instigated it should be duly reprimanded in the proper way, in compliance with the imperative “You shall certainly admonish.”
Ume’sa’yemimb’tov u’vshalom u’vksiva va’chasima tova
