The Long P.S. the Rebbe Wrote About Israel

Welcome to our weekly program, The Inside Story of Chabad in America, through the Mindel archives. I mentioned the last few weeks about certain points - certain principles, guidelines - that the Rebbe held, and that holds for all time. So here I found a letter. Now, the Rebbe had a correspondence with the Chief Rabbi of England, Rabbi Jakobovits, and there is a whole file - Rabbi Mindel had to do with this, a whole file, back and forth between the Rebbe and the Chief Rabbi. And the Chief Rabbi [had a certain view] about Israel - now, about giving back [territory] or not giving back [territory]. So the Rebbe wrote to him, and he, I guess, probably did not agree with something, so the Rebbe wrote to him letters - which I'm not going to read, those letters, but I'm going to read the P.S. And instead of explaining it, I want to read it as it is inside, so we see exactly what the Rebbe feels about it. And this is to Rabbi Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, the P.S.

"This P.S. follows in English, consistent with our previous correspondence on the subject, which was conducted in English. 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. 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 and Shomron, 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. This is rechush milchama [spoils of war] 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 the Rebbe underlined "on paper" - "and from past and present experience it is well known that such paper promises are worthless.

"Since the surrender of the oil wells is now a fait accompli, and the consequences have already become quite evident, it can well serve as an illustration of the misguided arguments 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, he writes, in the prevailing circumstances - that's firstly; 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 an effort to obtain oil" - this is a parenthesis - "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 Prime Minister and his entourage to Washington, a personal friend of mine, who spoke to a personal friend of his - one who participated in all the Camp David negotiations and will participate in the upcoming Washington discussions - stated quite clearly that serious mistakes had been made in signing the treaty, since the same objective, normalization, could have been obtained without surrendering all that has been surrendered. The latter replied, 'Let's not go further into it,' and added that the ways and means are now being explored to move away from that policy.

"To refer to a further point of our discussion, namely my criticism of the government's policy regarding terrorist attacks and its responsiveness to them, for 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..."

Here, in the letter, the Rebbe crossed out the word "the government" and wrote in his own handwriting, "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 name Boran [?] gave a directive to stop the search for Dr. Mengele when the search had become intensive - that's number one. Secondly, even more recently, the controversy in connection with the excavations in the Old City of David. There is no need to point out what the attitude and treatment shown by the police, with the backing of higher-ups, has been towards the demonstrations against this desecration, yet when there was an Arab demonstration in a similar situation regarding the newly discovered tunnel under the Temple Mount, further exploration was immediately stopped. No further commentary is necessary.

"Another recent development bears out a view I expressed during the Yom Kippur War. I urged then, on the basis of Halacha, to pursue the enemy - and that brings down the Rambam - namely, to take Damascus, not for occupation, but to ensure that it would never again pose a threat. It was then also common knowledge that Soviet advisors were present there, with headquarters; only a few hours of occupation would have been sufficient to accomplish the task, but for strange reasons it was not done. The results of this failure are evident and have been particularly underscored recently by the moving of the Soviet SS [missiles] and the military actions that were necessary to counter Soviet penetration, including the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq, though this latter action shows a solid departure from the policy of appeasement.

"Finally, a more personal point: 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 Halacha, that the burden of proof is on the accuser and not on the accused, and that everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty, especially in regard to Jews, who are all [unclear]. Yet this elementary principle [was not followed] - various rabbinical organizations came out publicly against the Chief Rabbi, while Lubavitch was the one that did not come out against the Chief Rabbi."

And then the Rebbe here gives him - a whole letter - and then gives him the reason. I read it today because this holds, and we can see it today, that this holds also applies today in another way, but it's the same thing. Next week we will continue our weekly program. Thank you.