Setting the Record Straight

16 Marcheshvan 5787

Regarding the Disengagement from Gush Katif and the claim that Chareidi parties voted in favor of it.... 

The formal authorization of the unilateral disengagement plan and the subsequent removal of the Gush Katif settlements occurred across a series of landmark legislative and executive actions:

• Initial Cabinet Approval (June 6, 2004): The Israeli Cabinet voted 14–7 to approve the revised version of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement strategy. This established the broad framework for withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.

• Knesset Endorsement (October 26, 2004): The Knesset voted 67–45 in favor of the Disengagement Bill during its crucial first reading, providing legislative legitimacy to the blueprint.

• Final Implementation Law (February 16, 2005): The Knesset passed the final Disengagement Plan Implementation Law (commonly referred to as the "Evacuation-Compensation Law") by a 59–40 vote. This formally legalised the framework for removing the residents and compensating them.

• Final Executive Order (February 20, 2005): The Cabinet voted 17–5 to issue the formal executive order to begin dismantling the specific communities, grouping the 21 Gaza settlements and four West Bank settlements into operational phases.

Following these approvals, the evacuation deadline was issued for August 15, 2005, and the physical uprooting of the Gush Katif communities took place over the weeks that followed.

~ ~ ~ 

...none of the religious parties voted to implement the disengagement. Instead, the main religious parties either fiercely opposed the plan from within the coalition, resigned in protest before it could happen, or voted directly against it.

The actions taken by the primary religious parties at the time include:

1. The National Religious Party (Mafdal)

As the primary political home for the religious-Zionist movement and the Gush Katif settlers, Mafdal was the most deeply affected.

• Internal Split: The plan fractured the party. Effie Eitam (the Housing Minister) resigned from the cabinet as early as June 2004, declaring the day of the initial disengagement vote a "black day for Israel".

• The Final Break: The remaining cabinet member, Zvulun Orlev, stayed in the government to fight the plan from within. However, immediately following the Knesset's broader authorization of the disengagement framework in late 2004, Orlev and the entire Mafdal party officially resigned from the government and went into the opposition.

2. Shas (Sephardic Ultra-Orthodox)

• Firm Opposition: Shas was entirely in the parliamentary opposition during this period. Under the guidance of their spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the party's lawmakers voted solidly against the Disengagement Bill in the Knesset, aligning ideologically with the settlement movement against territorial withdrawal.

3. United Torah Judaism (UTJ - Ashkenazi Ultra-Orthodox)

• The "Safety Net" Entry: UTJ was not in the government when the disengagement was initially conceived and voted on in 2004. However, after Mafdal and the secular Shinui party left the coalition, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government was on the verge of collapse.

• Involvement: To stabilize his coalition and ensure the budget passed so the pullout could legally proceed, Sharon brought the Labor party and UTJ into the government in early 2005. While UTJ joined the coalition for budgetary and sector-specific financial reasons, their leading rabbis instructed them to abstain or maintain a passive stance on the actual evacuation, rather than actively voting to champion it.

Summary of how the votes passed

Because the religious and right-wing parties revolted against him, Ariel Sharon was only able to pass the disengagement by firing dissenting ministers within his own Likud party and heavily relying on the left-wing Labor Party and opposition Arab parties to provide the necessary votes to pass the laws.

1. The Preliminary Disengagement Vote (October 26, 2004)

This vote gave preliminary approval to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's general plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip. [1]

• Shas: Voted NO.
  Rabbi Ovadia Yosef issued a ruling against the withdrawal, grounding it in a religious-security ruling that abandoning the territory would put lives at risk under the concept of pikuach nefesh (saving lives). [1, 2, 3]
• UTJ: Voted NO. Though UTJ traditionally preferred to abstain or remain neutral on territorial/diplomatic issues, their spiritual leader, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, instructed them to vote against the plan after Shas came out firmly against it. [1]

2. The Disengagement Implementation Law / "Evacuation-Compensation" Vote (February 16, 2005)

This critical vote finalized the law required to actually execute the withdrawal and regulate financial compensation for the evacuees. [1, 2]

• Shas: Voted NO. Shas remained consistent in its opposition to the withdrawal itself and voted against the law alongside other right-wing parties. [1]
• UTJ: Abstained. By early 2005, UTJ had entered Sharon’s coalition government to stabilize it. Under Rabbi Elyashiv’s guidance, they chose to abstain from the final vote rather than actively blocking the implementation of a plan that already had a guaranteed Knesset majority. [1, 2]

1. Blocking the National Referendum

The primary point of anger centers on the fateful vote on March 28, 2005. Opponents of the pullout tried to pass a law requiring a nationwide referendum, which they hoped would delay or entirely defeat Ariel Sharon's plan. [1, 2]

• The Decision: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef maintained a strict ideological opposition to introducing plebiscites/referendums into the Israeli political system. [1]
• The Outcome: Under his direction, Shas voted against the referendum, helping defeat the bill 72–39. Critics argue this single vote removed the final political roadblock and directly handed Sharon his path to execution. [1, 2]

2. The Theological Foundation (Pikuach Nefesh)

Historically, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef pioneered a famous halakhic ruling stating that giving up land from the Land of Israel is permissible if it saves human lives (Pikuach Nefesh). [1, 2]

• Although he strongly opposed the 2005 disengagement because it was unilateral and lacked a partner to stop terror, religious Zionist and right-wing groups felt his prior halakhic framework legitimized the concept of territorial withdrawal in the eyes of the public. [1, 2]

3. The "Apology" and Regret

In the years following the disengagement, as rocket fire from Gaza intensified, Shas and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef faced intense scrutiny from right-wing circles for not doing enough to bring down Sharon’s government. [1]

• The Expression of Regret: Reports and testimonies surfaced detailing how the Rabbi wept heavily over the displacement of the Gush Katif settlers. [1]
• The Political Spin: Opponents frequently weaponized these public expressions of profound grief and religious sorrow, framing them as a retrospective "apology" or admission of guilt for the party's strategic parliamentary decisions.  (Gemini AI)

 ~ ~ ~ 

In the end, it was meant to be or it wouldn't have happened, just like the destruction of the Batei Mikdash.  And the wonderful and righteous people involved held much of the responsibility for it.   As is usual for us, we did everything but what HKB"H told us to do and looked to everyone but Him and His Torah for the solution.

(Devarim 30.11-14) For this commandment which I command you this day, is not concealed from you, nor is it far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it.

(Bamidbar 33.55-56) But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the Land from before you, then those whom you leave over will be as spikes in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will harass you in the land in which you settle. And it will be that what I had intended to do to them, I will do to you.

I was shocked over and over again by the personal testimonies I heard from residents of Gush Katif who, like the residents of the South in 2023, spoke glowingly of the good relations they shared with their Arab neighbors even to attending each others' weddings and going for coffees.  What HKB"H had intended for them to do - drive out these Arabs - when they made no attempt but even did the opposite, then just as the Torah says, He did it to them - they were driven out.  And the same law applies to this day!!

The worst part of it is that we still haven't learned this lesson.  We are still making the same mistakes and that is the greatest tragedy of all!  

Whatever government we get, it will be exactly what we deserve.  Hashem yerachem aleinu!!