Haredim show support for sovereignty
Poll shows half of ultra-Orthodox who support move want US support
As the government moves forward with its plans to formally annex the West Bank settlements, two recent polls have demonstrated a high level of support amongst the ultra-Orthodox community for annexation.
According to a poll for the Israel Democracy Institute performed this month, 84% of the ultra-Orthodox public backs annexing the settlements, although of those 42 percent they would only back it if the US supports the measure as well.
And according to a poll conducted for the Samaria Regional Council by the Maagar Mochot polling group, 72% of those who voted for the ultra-Orthodox Shas party were in favor of annexation, along with 62% of United Torah Judaism (UTJ), the other major ultra-Orthodox party.
The ultra-Orthodox community has historically not been interested in the settlements or the religious-right’s goal of a Greater Israel, while some of its leading rabbis have supported territorial compromises if it would lead to a peace agreement that would save lives. This includes Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach.
Dr. Gilad Malach of the Israel Democracy Institute says that the ultra-Orthodox community in general has always held rightwing tendencies, often more so than its leadership.
From an ultra-Orthodox perspective, the presence of Jews in Israel is religiously mandated and we have a superior claim than others because of that,” said Malach.
Issues pertaining to the democratic and civil rights of Palestinians do not play a large role in the position of the ultra-Orthodox community regarding the conflict, he added.
Since the settlements in the West Bank are part of land that is part of the territory allocated to the Jewish people in the Bible, it is relatively natural for the community to support annexation.
In addition, there are two very large ultra-Orthodox settlements, Modi’in Illit with 73,000 residents and Beitar Illit with 57,000 residents.
Since a large proportion of the ultra-Orthodox community has a stake in the settlements, while many more inside the Green Line have relatives in those cities, it is natural that ultra-Orthodox opinion has grown more favorable towards the settlements in general and annexation in particular, says Malach.
The ultra-Orthodox rabbinic leadership has often had less right-wing views than its populace, in particular due to a Talmudic principle of “not to provoke the nations of the world.”
The Yated Neeman daily newspaper of the Ashkenazi, non-hassidic sector of the ultra-Orthodox community which is largely a mouthpiece for the Degel Hatorah Party and its rabbinic leadership has in the past protested Israeli government actions and statements seen as overly provocative to the Arabs, the Americans, and world powers.
Indeed, the UTJ coalition agreement with Likud says specifically that the party will support any position of the prime minister “that is coordinated with the US.”
Yitzhak Findrus, who will likely soon enter the Knesset as UTJ’s eight MK under the terms of the soon-to-be passed Norwegian law said however that the rulings of Shach and Yosef on territorial concessions do not apply today.
He argued that since previous territorial withdrawals such as those from Gaza in 2005 and south Lebanon in 2000 had strongly bolstered Hamas and Hezbollah and endangered Jewish
lives, Shach and Yosef would not have backed similar concessions if they were alive today.
Indeed Findrus says that Shach was vehemently opposed to the Oslo Accords since he believed they would bolster terrorism and endanger Jewish lives, while Yosef opposed the Oslo II agreement which made further concessions to the Palestinians and which his Shas party voted against in Knesset.
Findrus says that the rabbinic leaders of the ultra-Orthodox world since Shach, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman and now Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and Rabbi Gershon Edelstein have never had to practically deal with the question of territorial concessions or annexations, and that therefore their positions were not, and are not, clearly known.
He said however that any decision either way would be based on security considerations and whether or not Jewish life would be put at risk.
“Everything has changed in the last 20 years, everyone knows the peace process is not going to save lives, just look at Lebanon and Gaza,” said Findrus.
“Do we have some great peace with Gaza? Are the people [Israelis] who live on the borders with Gaza very satisfied with their lives right now,” he asked acerbically in reference to the many thousands of rockets and other ordinance fired from Gaza into southern Israel since the 2005 withdrawal.
Asked how changing the legal status of settlements from under military rule to sovereign Israeli rule would reduce the risk to Jewish life beyond the current dangers, Findrus insisted that it would enlarge Israel’s size and create more defensible borders.