Q&A with Meimad MK Rabbi Michael Melchior
Reprinted with permission from Haaretz ©
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/QA.jhtml?qaNo=116
Labor-Meimad MK Rabbi Michael Melchior answered readers' questions on
December 23, 2004
Question: Do you believe that the disengagement plan has
exposed, and is yet to reveal, the Israeli religious-right's limits in accepting
decisions of a democratically-elected government?
James Howly
Newcastle , United Kingdom
Michael Melchior :
While the intifada has led many Israelis to turn toward the right, the right
has by far and large (Roni Milo, Dan Meridor, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert and
now ever Ariel Sharon) accepted the view of the center-left in understanding
that only a political settlement and division of territoriy can give Israel
the hope and perspective of peace and becoming a thriving Jewish state, which
will have a serious Arab minority. Which of course has to be given equal rights
and equal opportunities inside the realm of the Jewish state.
While this is true of the majority of the secular right, it is not true of
the majority of the religious right. For them, the argument of democracy and
demography does not play because unfortunately, by far and large, they are
willing to sacrifice the democracy on the alter of the "greater Israel"
and unfortunately, the psuedo-messianic movement which has developed since
the Six Day War and has strongly infiltrated the thinking, teaching and theology
of much of Israel national religious community, unfortunately this has led
to the crisis which now is threatening in many ways our internal existence.
Question: If you are religious, how can you support the
uprooting of Jews from Gaza when all major halakhic authorities have ruled
against it? (Similar questions were asked by Paul Gross and Matthew Freedman,
both from London)
Ben
New York, United States
Michael Melchior :
I seriously believe that the State of Israel needs borders, The Jewish state
has not had borders for more than 2000 years. Borders are an essence of Zionism
and even though we might be connected to part of Gaza or southern Lebanon
and for sure connected to Judea and Samaria, when we weigh the pros and cons
my pro comes up as a wish to disengage, create a border which will give Israel
a possibility to be both a Jewish and a democratic state.
For those who have asked how this fits into the halakhic terminology, first
I would like to quote Rabbi Solovecic (of Blessed Memory) who already in the
months after the Six-Day War very clearly stated that anybody who goes to
rabbis to ask on the question of giving up land, is doing what he called "a
ridiculous thing." This question has to be decided according to the overall
concerns - saving life, the economy, society, the well-being and security
of the Jewish state, and I have no doubt that 7,000 settlers in Gaza amongst
a population of nearly 1.5 million Palestinians that has no future, no perspective,
no hope in it. And therefore painfully - painfully because of our care for
the people who live there - we have to return them home into the State of
Israel.
I believe that the pain is going to be great because to uproot people from
their homes, their schools, synagogues, is in many ways a cruel inhuman act
but it is necessary for Israel's future and if we just continue now developing
the settlements, we would have to so the same in the future, just with many
more people.
Question: You are known as a person of conciliation with
and respect for the 'other.' As the disengagement talk heats up there increasingly
appears a trend in the media of isolating, stigmatizing and scapegoating those
living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza? What do you believe can be done to promote
more respectful and considerate discourse toward this group of Israelis? (A
similar question was asked by Meir Smullen from Beit Shemesh)
Shalom Freedman
Jerusalem, Israel
Michael Melchior :
I believe that there are arguments - serious arguments - against the disengagement
plan. The claim that this might encourage terrorist groups is a valid claim
but then the dilemmas and choices are not black and white, but are values
which have to be weighed up against each other and my decision for disengagement
is very clear.
At the same time, we have to do everything to ease the situation and the
human catastrophes for the settlers involved, We should do everything possible
to make the disengagement - unilateral under agreement - which of course means
with the new Palestinian leadership which hopefully will be elected next month
it will be possible to minimalize the dangers involved with the disengagement
and maximalize the possibility that the disengagement with the creation of
what hopefully will be a stable Palestinian leadership will create the model
which will later be able to transfer to Judea and Samaria so that this can
help us on the path to an overall peaceful settlement.
Even if this does not happen, and nobody can today predict what will be in
the future, the disengagement is necessary for our own sanity and we will
not be able to in the long run fight for positions which are undefendable
both externally and internally.