Britannia Radio

[More] On the Release of Arab Terrorists

[December 21, 2007]

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Introduction:

[As indicated in a previous article], Some 700 years ago, the great Rabbi Meir of Rotenberg was abducted and imprisoned in Germany, then under the reign of Rudolph I. Rabbi Meir’s community offered a vast sum of money for his release, but he refused to be ransomed by more than the amount prescribed by Halacha, Jewish law, lest it encourage the abduction of other Jews. The great sage died in prison, after having been incarcerated for seven years.

The question arises as to whether, in the light of Jewish law, any Jewish soldier abducted by Arab terrorists should be ransomed by Israel’s release of Arab terrorists, or whether, if the soldier could affect the issue, should accept his release under that quid pro quo.

A related halachic issue is whether Israel’s government should release Arab terrorists [read "warriors"] as a “confidence-building” measure to resume negotiations with the Arab Palestinian Authority, the object of which is to exchange Jewish land for peace.

Historical Facts

Halachic issues aside, let us now consider some historical facts.

In the mid-1980s Israeli Arab violence increased in dramatic fashion, including the kidnapping, murder and rape of Jewish men, women, and children, the planting of bombs on busses and open-air food markets, and the knifing of Jews, young and old. This upsurge in Arab violence may be attributed, at least in part, to an unprecedented decision of Israel’s cabinet in May 1985, when a government of national unity unanimouslyagreed to exchange 1,150 Arab terrorists for three Jewish soldiers captured in Lebanon by the PLO, and to allow 600, many of whom had been convicted of murder, to return to their homes in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

Fast forward to December 3, 2007, when the Olmert Government announced its intention to free 429 Arab terrorists to promote the “peace process” with the Arab Palestinian Authority. The next day, Almagor, an organization representing the victims of Palestinian terrorism, reported that, between Oslo 1993 and 1996, the Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, and Barak governments had released 6,912 terrorists, and that nearly 80 percent of them had returned to terrorist activity and had murdered 177 Israelis.

Since the Sharon government subsequently released more than 400 terrorists to recover the bodies of three dead soldiers in Lebanon as well as an Israeli drug dealer who might well have been indicted for treason, we may say that since 1985 Israeli governments have released 9,000 Arab terrorists who have subsequently murdered about 200 Jews. The religious parties have collaborated in the decisions to release most if not all of these terrorists, presumably on the basis of the Jewish principle of pikuach nefesh, the saving of Jewish life—a position which seems to contradict the teaching of the sage Rabbi Meir of Rotenberg.

Be this as it may, allow me to examine the issue as a layman. I do so to encourage people to think about the subject in Jewish and not merely in political terms, for which purpose they should inquire of their rabbis.

The Jerusalem Talmud declares: “If gentiles [surrounding Israel] demand, ‘Surrender one of yourselves to us and we will kill him; otherwise we shall kill all of you,’ they must all suffer death rather than surrender a single Israelite to them” (Terumot 8, 9).

The Talmud rules that handing over a Jew who will be killed is itself an act of murder (שפיכות דמים). The prohibition against murder stands above the law of pikuach nefesh (פיקוח נפש) .

The question arises whether the act of releasing terrorists from Israel jails is an act of murder. Some rabbis opine that since freeing terrorists will result in the death of future victims of terrorist attacks is not definite orimmediate, we do not have an act of murder here. For example, some years ago a Jewish soldier was abducted by Arab terrorists who, for his freedom, demanded the release of other terrorists. A most learned and astute rabbi suggested that the government, immediately after making the exchange, launch a devastating attack on the terrorists—a provocative position not likely to win acceptance by the government, but worth thinking about.

Be this as it may, the rabbinic opinion about freeing terrorists because of the uncertainty as to whether that will result in future terrorist victims may have been valid when it was rendered before Oslo, but whether it remains valid today is problematic in view of Israel’s experience since 1993, and especially since September 2000. Israel is now involved in a terror war, and the enemy has become a more or less professional army equipped with increasingly deadly weapons.

Jewish law is not an intellectual strait-jacket. An underlying principle of Jewish law is probability. True, this principle is so stringent in capital cases that the most compelling circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to permit the Sanhedrin to convict a person accused of murder. However, if murder has become frequent in Israel, the Sanhedrin can delegate capital cases to the King, under whose authority compelling circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict a person charged with murder.

An even more striking example of the probability law is that outside the Land of Israel, an informer may be killed since a Jew, in a gentile prison, may not survive.

Since the probability law applies to Jews accused of murder or threatened with death, it may arguably apply to the Arab terrorists whose release from Israeli jails has repeatedly resulted in the murder of more Jews.

If this reasoning is correct, Israeli prime ministers who release Arab terrorists are responsible for the murder and maiming of many hundreds if not thousands of Jews. Their culpability is even more far-reaching and profound.

We read in Deuteronomy 25:18, “You must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. You must nor forget.” The Sages understand that Amalek’s hatred and war against the Israel is of world-historical significance. From one era to another, however, there has been a question of Amalek’s identity. A tradition dating back to the Vilna Gaon relates Germany to Amalek.

Going further back in time one might relate Amalek to Jihadic Muslims. Maimonides says of them: “Never did a nation molest, degrade, and hate us so much as they. Therefore when [King] David, of blessed memory, inspired by the Holy Spirit, envisaged the future tribulations of Israel, he bewailed and lamented their lot only in the Kingdom of Ishmael.”

Consider the obscene vilification and hatred of Jews and Israel appearing in the media of the Ishmael’s descendants. Add Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinehad’s threat to wipe Israel off the map. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik of blessed memory suggested that any nation that arises against the Jewish people to wipe them out has the same status of as Amalek, hence, that it would be incumbent upon Israel to wipe them out! (See Halachic and “Hashkafic Responses to the Current Situation in the State of Israel,” 1992.)

Rabbi Soloveitchik’s suggestion may be traced to Maimonides’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:7, which refers to Ammon and Moab and says, “Do not seek their peace and welfare as long as you exist.” The words “as long as you exist” recalls the words of Deuteronomy 25:18, which, to repeat, commands “you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. You must not forget.” (See also Exodus 17:16; Numbers 24:20.)

If the Jihadic Islam represents Amalek, then rabbinic authorities should instruct the religious parties to (1) oppose the release of Arab terrorists, and (2) oppose, or at least refrain from any collaboration with, parties engaged in negotiations with the Arab Palestinians.