From a halachik perspective, let me cite the Lubavitcher Rebbe, a world acclaimed Torah authority, as well as a compassionate visionary of the highest order, with a record of his love for all human beings, Jew and non-Jew. The Rebbe cites a halacha (legal ruling) in Shulchan Aruch (code of Jewish law) laws of Shabbat, siman 329, where it explicitly rules how a community must behave with neighbors that pose a threat to their lives let alone survival. Even if the neighbors come to discuss neutral matters (trade for instance), the community must bear arms even on the Shabbat to protect itself and its borders, even in case of a doubt of risk to human life.
Torah law clearly states that the first and foremost way to peace -- and peace for all people, both Jew and Arab -- is the protection of human life. If that protection is not there, there can be no peace.
How do we determine whether a neighbor is a risk or not, a potential enemy or not? And how do we determine what borders pose a risk? The Torah says that we determine this by consulting experts, in this case, the army.
Army experts in Israel have always unequivocally stated, that the borders of Israel are at constant risk of attack. And this is not some theory, but we have witnessed four wars waged by Israel's neighbors against Israel (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973). Today there is the additional risk within Israel's boundaries -- as tragically witnessed in all the terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.
Based on the above, the Torah halachik position is clear: Israel should hold on to every piece of land that it conquered in 1967. And then the issue of settlements is moot, because Israelis can live in any part of their own territory.
This brings me to the political perspective -- which happens to be consistent with the Torah approach:
Many Arabs feel that every home in Israel, whether it be Tel Aviv, Haifa or Jerusalem, is a 'settlement,' and illegal occupation that has misplaced the Arabs living there prior to 1948. If we accept that, then all of Israel is under question.
It is a misnomer to call the so-called West Bank occupied territories. At most they should be classified disputed territories. No different from Kashmir and other disputed territories around the world. The term occupied is a myth. Hence, calling the communities built there settlements is also a myth.
By all international law, a country that captures land in war, no less a defensive war declared by nations that do not recognize Israel's right to exist, can lay claim to that land. This is true even if the land belonged to another country prior to the war. How much more so in our case, where the land captured during the 1967 Six Day War did not belong to Palestinians.
Unfortunately, in the last 35 years since the ' 67 war Israel has allowed the PR myth to be built and perpetuated that the West Bank is occupied territory, land that really belongs to the so called Palestinians -- when prior to '67 it did not belong to them. The boundaries prior to '67 actually were a result of the actual location of Jordanian and Israeli troops when the cease fire took place in 1948. Jordan happened to end up with the West Bank (hence, its name, West Bank). If you check your history you'll discover that the Palestinian entity did not exist before the late 50's or early 60's.
...For the record, this by no means is meant to deny the Arabs living in Israel their rights. On the contrary, true peace can never be reached built on myths and propaganda, and with risk to life. True peace in the region -- for all the people there, Jew and Arab -- will only happen when we follow an approach that absolutely respects the sanctity of life, and when all thoughts of destroying Israel cease.
I submit that the single biggest question today is this: Do the Arabs recognize the legitimate existence of Israel? As long as they do not, or as long as we don't know their true position, there can be no peace. Period.
(A longer version of this article originally appeared at the website meaningfullife)
