This is my first opportunity - owing to the intervening festivals to acknowledge receipt of your letter with the enclosure. I only wish it were a happier subject, though I am of course very gratified to note your personal interest and concern in regard to the settlement of Hevron.
The reason I mention a ‘happier subject,’ is that it evokes a painful feeling which is connected with the attitude of the government of Eretz Yisroel to Hevron. Actually this attitude has its roots in its general attitude towards the Jewish right to Eretz Yisroel, an attitude which, sad to say, has not changed and has been the policy of all the governments of Eretz Yisroel.
I do not wish to dwell at length on this most painful subject. Hence I will confine myself to some limited remarks, which I am sure will be sufficient for you.
The problem with the said attitude is that it is based on the ill conceived premise that the Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel is something that requires the approval and good graces of the nations of the world – חסד לאומים! - This has been the basic line, regardless of whose approval was needed, be it the Turks, or the British, or the United Nations. Thus, even when the situation called for a forceful approach, it was not really forceful enough and the other side seemed to sense it, especially when subsequent actions confirmed this timidity.
To cite one illustration, which is now public knowledge, but for some time was known only in the world capitals and certainly to the Arabs and Egyptians. I refer to the fact that immediately after the wondrous victory of the Six Day War, a high ranking representative of the government of national unity (including the opposition headed by Mr. Begin) traveled from capital to capital to assure the various nations that ‘everything was negotiable’ - and this was done without pressure from anyone, neither from the U.S.A, nor from the Arab side who, after their crushing defeat, never expected to see any of the territories returned.
Parenthetically, the above completely refutes any claim purporting to justify the camp David accord as having been forced on the government, for in reality it was the only logical consequence of the said avowed ill-fated policy.
Much more could be said on the subject, but it is too painful to dwell on and not one that I wish to publicize, though you may, if you think it worthwhile, show it to some of your friends, even members of the government, but not to the media, for understandable reasons.
What has been said above is by way of a reply to your letter regarding the property of my late father-in-law of saintly memory in Hevron, etc.
To put it more explicitly: in view of the said policy of the government, who is to guarantee that the government’s policy towards Hevron will be changed, especially since Hevron has consistently been kept, in effect, Judenrein, and the most that was achieved after much pressure was the settlement of Kiryat Arba, with emphasis on the fact that it was outside Hevron? If before camp David, I was reluctant to do anything about the said property in Hevron, because of my apprehension, these apprehensions turned out to be stark reality after camp David, when Jewish settlements, in Sinai, were forcibly uprooted in compliance with the camp David agreement (settlements that included also Jewish settlers from the U.S.A.).
Forgive me, therefore, if I say that your suggestion ‘to get the Military to take it over’ is no guarantee that what happened with those settlements in Sinai could not happen to Hevron for the sake of ‘peace’ on a piece of paper, which would probably be toasted and celebrated as a great achievement in behalf of our grandchildren.
Inasmuch as in keeping with the Torah, every Jew is an optimist, being quite confident in bittochon in G-d, I too, am confident that things will improve and there will come a time when it will be possible to consider action in regard to our property in Hevron and encouraging a Lubavitch settlement in the City of our Ovos.
Incidentally, the above will explain also why I could not encourage a Lubavitch settlement in Kiryat Arba, for it would be tantamount to my approval of the government’s policy in regard to Hevron. At about the same time that I was approached about the above, I also had an offer from a Jewish philanthropist of $100,000 for the purpose of a yeshivah in Hevron proper. I thereupon sounded out the government about the offer and suggested that with adequate protection, by which I mean not just Military, but permitting at least a substantial nucleus of a Jewish presence around the Yeshivah. But nothing came of it.
Once again, many thanks for your kind offer of assistance, which I heartily appreciate.
With esteem and blessing,