Surrendering to Hamas: Will Israel Choose Survival or Submission?

Between Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and the Capitulation Deal with Hamas

One of the most critical qualities a halachic decisor must possess is the ability to draw accurate analogies — to know what is similar and what is different, when a case can be compared to another, and when a fundamental distinction exists. A person may know the entire Torah, but without this ability to discern between similarities and differences, he is liable to make embarrassing errors. This discerning capability is essential for a halachic authority, but it is also needed in daily life by anyone navigating different situations. What is true for an individual is even more so for a nation, and anyone involved in public affairs must, all the more, develop this quality to properly guide and benefit the public.

Yesterday, we heard an important Haredi representative make an analogy that raises serious doubts about his ability to distinguish and reason, to compare cases and derive historical conclusions. In response to the sound and courageous remarks of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich who dared to voice the simple truth that the well-funded, well-oiled, and carefully timed propaganda of the internal and external wreckers seeks to silence - namely, that the critically important task of rescuing the hostages cannot be the ultimate objective of the State of Israel in its war against the Gaza terrorists, whose goal is the destruction of the entire Jewish settlement — this Haredi representative compared Smotrich’s logical and halachic position to the zealots (Sicarii) in the days of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who burned the granaries during the Great Revolt and brought about the destruction of the Temple.

The raucous applause this Haredi representative received from Yair Lapid and the entire radical, heretical leftist choir and its followers should, in itself, raise deep questions in the mind of any thinking person.

In comparing Smotrich to the zealots, the representative explained that both, in his view, prioritized the national interest over human life. Thus, we learn that, according to him, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai introduced the idea that the honor of Israel is less important than temporary life, and that the left is correct: it is better to live, eat, and be satisfied while allowing the enemy to defeat us, rather than risk war.

Aside from the fact that this view has no basis in the Tanakh or the teachings of the Sages, anyone who saw the results of the Shalit deal should long ago have opened his eyes and recognized its folly — even without sitting in the study halls — since trading a few Jewish lives now leads to the death and suffering of many more Jews later. Should not Torah scholars grasp these simple truths through basic logic?

Did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai believe that "the national cause"; meaning the life of the nation in its land according to the will of God, the victory and honor of Israel; is less important than saving lives at any cost? Or did he understand that the war against Rome was unwinnable, and that it was better to save what could be saved; namely, the continuation of Torah study - which would preserve the nation's existence until such time as divine providence allowed it to return to its full glory?

Did Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai think that victory was possible, but refrained from fighting merely to avoid casualties? Or does this Haredi representative believe that a decree has also been issued against us, that Hamas is stronger than us, and that we have no chance of defeating them?

And what would this Haredi representative say to the prophet Isaiah, who commanded King Hezekiah not to surrender to Sennacherib, choosing the national cause over the immediate concern for lives? Or does he think that our situation today resembles the days of Jeremiah, that God has abandoned His people, and that all the miracles performed for us over the past two centuries — the return to our land, the building of our nation — are meaningless, and that we should still act like scattered individuals in exile rather than as a sovereign nation in its homeland?

Even if one were to imagine that there is no value in the "national cause," and no terrible danger in surrender deals, both from a security standpoint and, more importantly, regarding the dignity of Israel (which, in truth, is not a "national matter" but a Torah issue of the honor of Heaven) — even then, is it permissible, when ransom is demanded, to redeem captives at any price?

The Gemara explicitly discusses that ransoming captives is limited when it would encourage further abductions. Or perhaps the real matter at hand is not about surrendering to Hamas but about surrendering to the dictates of the anarchists from Kaplan?

And I ask: will yielding to the anti-religious left benefit the Haredi community in any way?

Every Haredi Jew should ask himself these questions and use the intelligence granted to him to know when to draw parallels and when to distinguish. And anyone who thinks that Yair Lapid, Yair Golan, and the anarchists from Kaplan are the heirs to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai - would do well to deeply reconsider how he arrived at such a delusional conclusion and recalculate his path...

The author is Rabbi Yehuda Epstein, Chairman of the Association for the Sanctity of Zion — the Association of Haredim for the Demand of Zion in the Spirit of Holiness.