Back in 2005, the following Shabbos speech was delivered about the disengagement.
I do not know the Rav who delivered it, but his reputation is one of a serious talmid chacham and an independent thinker who has the courage to go against the party line of any anyone. In this particular case, he chose to go against the trend in the broader charedi community by openly opposing the disengagement while the vast majority of the charedi community chose to remain silent. For that he is to be commended.
All that being said, I found a number of points in the speech to be extremely troubling, including:
1) a major absence of depth in analysis
2) the contention that those who opposed military insubordination view the State of Israel as of greater importance than Torah
3) the demonizing of those that supported the disengagement
Let us address certain specific arguments made in the speech:
"Clear lack of any logic or benefit –the opposite"
Well, one could argue whether the disengagement was a good or bad idea, but there was certainly some logic to it. There are those who would make the following logical arguments:
1) The State of Israel can not, over the long term, get away with ruling over large populations who have no right to vote. At some point, the world will force upon us a "one man, one vote" policy as they did with South Africa
2) As such, the only way to retain a Jewish State over the long-term is to ensure a very solid Jewish majority over the long-term
3) In order to maintain a very solid Jewish majority over the long-term, large numbers of non-Jewish residents must be removed from the borders of the State of Israel
4) There are only two ways to remove large numbers of non-Jewish residents from the borders of the State of Israel
a. Physically force large numbers of them out of the border
b. Draw, or re-draw, the borders such that large numbers of non-Jewish residents are out
5) 4a. is not happening, whether we like it or not. That leaves 4b. as the only viable option to retain a Jewish state over the long term.
I suppose at least some of the people who held to this logic may have known full well that the disengagement would bring war, and not peace, but believed what they saw as a step critical to retaining a Jewish State to be worth the price of war. I suppose some such supporters of disengagement would have said that they prefer a Jewish State at war over a non-Jewish, or bi-national, State at peace … and for that reason they moved from places like the United States, where they lived at peace in a non-Jewish state, to Israel – a Jewish state at war.
I should also mention that there is a moral issue in ruling over hundreds of thousands of individuals who are not given full citizens rights. I'm speaking of course, of the Palestinians, not of Israeli Arabs. The situation is, of course, extremely complex, but one who sees absolutely no element of truth to the world's seeing this as apartheid is, I think, failing to grasp its full complexity. If you need a non-leftist Rabbi to say this rather than some stam guy named Chuck, click here and read away.
"divrei harav vedivrei hatalmid divrei mi shom'im"—If every frum soldier and every frum policeman would have refused to violate the many Torah prohibitions involved in this tragedy…Woe is to us that we have (brace yourself) emulated the cursed Germans, and have an army and police who just "follow orders".
Hmmm. Talk about demonizing. Comparing our soldiers to the Germans?? Outrageous! What, exactly, were the Torah prohibitions involved in disengagement? Is it forbidden to retreat during a war, which we have been in since 1948? If the government decides to retreat, shall we allow the inhabitants to stay there to be slaughtered, or shall we remove them by force? There are just a few pretty smart Rabbanim who thought the disengagement to be Halakhically permitted. For one example, see http://vbm-torah.org/hirhurei-yom-pekuda.doc (scroll down to the third page), as well as http://www.etzion.org.il/hitnatkut/questions-h.rtf, http://www.etzion.org.il/hitnatkut/sylvetsky.rtf, and http://www.etzion.org.il/hitnatkut/response-h.rtf and decide for yourself..
But, hopefully, over days, weeks, months, realization will set in as to the monstrosity of secular Zionism, seeing what it has become, what it has done, and the impossibility of accommodating it.
Demonizing part II. Secular Zionism is a monstrosity?? Instead of calling them monsters, maybe we should be just a bit thankful to them for having been the primary movers and shakers in setting up a Jewish State such that all of us can live here? Hmmm … let's think about all the Jewish movements that arose in the 19th century. Reform? Failed bitterly. Orthodoxy? Failed bitterly. The bund movement? Reduced to history books. Let's face it. Zionism, driven primarily by secular Jews, is the ONLY movement from that period which succeeded in its primary goal. There are now more Jews living in the State of Israel than anywhere else in the world. And the State of Israel is the only country in the entire world where the Jewish population is growing.
All the Rabbanim who said lo lesarev pekuda, all those who said the army and police are our brothers, we respect them and will not fight them, all those who said STOP instead of GO, the continued supremacy (in the eyes of this segment of the population), of mamlachti over dati—of medina over Torah—is the second direct link. And, though it pains me to say it, perhaps the people of Gush Katif were guilty of this more than anyone- the inability to see and recognize and expose their enemy (the medina) as an enemy. Rather than as a friend who is temporarily doing crazy things. There's a direct link here too. This made it impossible to fight back. This ensured the astounding ease with which it ultimately happened. After all, if France would've sent in Jewish soldiers to destroy Gush Katif, would there be a fight put up? So what is the difference? The 'medina'! Here are people who put their prime Torah value only after their subservience to the medina.
Demonizing Part III. The medina is the enemy?? Need I say more?
All of the Rabbanim who said no to insubordination value the medina more than Torah?? Outrageous! R. Aharon Lichtenstein staunchly opposed insubordination. Does the Rabbi who wrote this speech really believe that R. Aharon Lichtenstein values the medina more than Torah?? Give me a break. See the articles referenced above and decide for yourself.
One can argue legitimately about the wisdom and morality of the disengagement. One can certainly protest the manner in which the disengaged were and are treated.
But one thing is certain: Many of our Rabbinic leaders, even those with the courage to not tow the line of anyone, are essentially incapable of grasping the complexity so necessary as a prerequisite to solid analysis.