"Justice, justice shall you pursue." (Devarim 16:20)

The Torah portion of Shoftim recounts the appointment of judges in ancient Israel and is often cited as the blueprint for justice. Indeed, its most famous dictum is tzedek, tzedek, tirdoph ("justice, justice shall you pursue"), which today is used to rationalize any demands on Israel in the putative name of peace. But what is the Jewish concept of justice? Does it require empty negotiations or the unilateral capitulation of one's rights in favor of those of one's enemy? The answers to these questions are not simply esoteric exercises, but have practical consequences in the real world.

The repetitive construction of the phrase "justice, justice shall you pursue" is not merely a literary device. According to Rabbi Ashi (Sanhedrin 32b), this repetition implies two kinds of justice: the strict application of the law and compromise in applying the law. According to Rabbi Bunim of Peshischa, this verse also implies that the process for obtaining justice must itself be just. That is, the ends don't always justify the means.

These parallel applications predate the commentaries and arise out of the Torah itself. The concept of "an eye for
The proposed two-state solution requires only Israel to concede anything of value.
an eye," for example, actually formed the basis for legal restitution. If one caused another to lose an eye, an ox or a sum of money, he was required to compensate the injured party for the value of his loss. This legal construct took justice beyond a purely punitive and primitive application and gave rise to tort law. Clearly, the law found greater good in compensating victims instead of maiming tortfeasors.

These concepts of justice are often cited as the underpinning of Western legal thought, yet they are frequently misconstrued when applied to Israel and the peace process. Justice - whether achieved through strict application of the law or compromise - does not mandate detrimental, unilateral concessions, and forbids conduct injurious to human life.

Israel's critics argue that she should cede territory, retreat to indefensible borders and acknowledge the Arab "right of return", as per the Saudi initiative, all in the spirit of compromise; and Jewish progressives advocate a two-state solution or a bi-national state stripped of its Jewish character. But such resolutions provide no mutual concessions, endanger Jewish lives and, accordingly, do not constitute justice.

A Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza would leave Israel with a narrowed geographic waistline surrounded by a hostile population that could attack from opposing fronts. Israel has been the target of terrorism and attack since before her rebirth in 1948, and more recently has witnessed the ascendancy of Hamas and suffered a storm of missiles since disengaging from Gaza. Hamas steadfastly refuses to renounce terrorism or recognize Israel's right to exist, while the "moderate" Palestinian Authority refuses to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state.

A two-state solution predicated on the Saudi initiative would produce a hostile state where none had existed before, and would provide no mutual assurances. Israel would be weakened and the risk to Jewish lives increased. One could argue that this would trample certain aspects of Jewish law that are supposed to be inviolate.

The rabbis taught that most commandments could be set aside in order to preserve life (pekuach nefesh). When the Romans forbade ritual observance during the Hadrianic persecutions, for example, passivity could be rationalized in the name of survival.

But certain commandments - i.e., the prohibitions against sexual deviancy, worshipping false gods, and murder (including suicide and human sacrifice) - could not be suspended for any reason. Any plan risking loss of life would necessarily transgress an inviolate prohibition.

Also, inherent in justice by compromise is the need for all parties to forfeit some right to achieve an equitable resolution. Unfortunately, the proposed two-state solution requires only Israel to concede anything of value (i.e., land) for the creation of a state that never existed and a diminution in size that threatens her continued existence. The Arab nations will not renounce the so-called Palestinian right of return, which is intended to destroy Israel as a Jewish state by displacing Jewish citizens with Arab "returnees."

The Arab world views this plan as a two-phased solution, starting with the creation of a new state followed by demographic annihilation of an existing one. The only thing Israel would receive in return is the empty promise of future recognition, although without any acknowledgement of her Jewish character.

However, even the promise of limited recognition must be measured against the Palestinians' consistent refusal to honor even their token obligations of renouncing terrorism and ending anti-Semitic incitement. In light of their dismal track record, the proposed two-state solution in all likelihood would leave Israel with neither bargain nor benefit, and could not be considered "just" under any interpretation.

Moreover, the issue of Arab refugees and their right of return to Israel is not a matter of justice, but of subterfuge. The Palestinians manifestly refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a refusal recently reiterated by the supposedly moderate Mahmoud Abbas. They likewise refuse to acknowledge the Jews' history, their continuous connection to Israel, and consequently the historical basis for the Jewish state. And yet, they demand recognition as refugees entitled to return to a land they supposedly occupied for generations.

However, UNRWA defines Arab "refugees" as those individuals and their direct descendants who lived in the British Mandate area for a minimum of only two years preceding the 1948 partition vote, and who reside in areas
Those who claim that Torah justice and Jewish values are conducive to such nonsense either do not know what justice is, or simply don't care.
where UNRWA services are available. But why define "refugees" based on such a minimal residency requirement if they all claim continuous habitation of the land for hundreds of generations? Why create a definition that clearly applies to immigrants born elsewhere? By defining Arab "refugees" thus while denying the Jews' longer history in and habitation of the land, the Arab world shows that it is not truly interested in achieving justice by compromise. The transparent goal is to obtain one-sided concessions and supplant objective history with a dubious national narrative. This certainly is not justice.

The Saudi initiative clearly influences President Barack Obama's agenda, and groups such as J Street and Israel Policy Forum are complicit in advancing the charade. Even AIPAC recently endorsed a two-state solution at its most recent annual meeting, at which Rahm Emanuel simultaneously warned Israel against confronting the Iranian nuclear threat militarily. But justice does not condone threats to Israel's citizenry, the risk of national suicide, the surrender of national autonomy, or unilateral concessions without mutual consideration. Those who claim that Torah justice and Jewish values are conducive to such nonsense either do not know what justice is, or simply don't care.

One could make a case for bold compromises only if all parties are willing to sacrifice something of value, but Mr. Obama's vision demands sacrifices only by Israel. Under pressure from the Clinton Administration at Camp David, Israel offered to give up most of the West Bank, but her offer was rebuffed with an Intifada. She then ceded all of Gaza, only to see it become a launching pad for missiles and terror. Justice does not require Israel to offer any further compromises. Rather, it demands meaningful concessions from across the table.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Taanit 4:2) states that "the three are one and the same: if the law is upheld, there is truth and there is peace." Any attempt to force a one-sided, unjust solution on Israel is not in accordance with the law, and thus ultimately can provide neither truth nor peace.