Thursday, 9 November 2023

Sources That Ground a Jewish Military Ethic

 


Military Ethics

 

Part One – Biblical Models

a) Amalek

Deuteronomy 25

Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt— (18) how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. (19) Therefore, when your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

 

b) Jericho

Joshua 6

Now Jericho was shut up tight because of the Israelites; no one could leave or enter.) (2) GOD said to Joshua, “See, I will deliver Jericho into your hands—its king and warriors. (3) Let all your troops march around the city and complete one circuit of the city. Do this six days, … Thereupon the city wall will collapse, and the troops shall advance, every man straight ahead.” …On the seventh day, they rose at daybreak and marched around the city, in the same manner, seven times; that was the only day that they marched around the city seven times. (16) On the seventh round, as the priests blew the horns, Joshua commanded the troops, “Shout! For GOD has given you the city. (17) The city and everything in it are to be proscribed for GOD; only Rahab the prostitute is to be spared, and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers we sent. (18) But you must beware of that which is proscribed, or else you will be proscribed: if you take anything from that which is proscribed, you will cause the camp of Israel to be proscribed; you will bring calamity upon it.

וְרַק־אַתֶּם֙ שִׁמְר֣וּ מִן־הַחֵ֔רֶם פֶּֽן־תַּחֲרִ֖ימוּ וּלְקַחְתֶּ֣ם מִן־הַחֵ֑רֶם וְשַׂמְתֶּ֞ם אֶת־מַחֲנֵ֤ה יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לְחֵ֔רֶם וַעֲכַרְתֶּ֖ם אוֹתֽוֹ

(19) All the silver and gold and objects of copper and iron are consecrated to GOD; they must go into the treasury of GOD.” (20) So the troops shouted when the horns were sounded. When the troops heard the sound of the horns, they raised a mighty shout and the wall collapsed. The troops rushed into the city, every man straight in front of him, and they captured the city. (21) They exterminated everything in the city with the sword: man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey. (22) But Joshua bade the two men who had spied out the land, “Go into that prostitute’s house and bring out the woman and all that belong to her, as you swore to her.” … They burned down the city and everything in it. But the silver and gold and the objects of copper and iron were deposited in the treasury of the House of GOD. (25) Only Rahab the prostitute and her family were spared by Joshua, along with all that belonged to her, and she dwelt among the Israelites—as is still the case. For she had hidden the messengers that Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.

 

c) When You Go Out to War

Deuteronomy 20

(10) When you approach a town to attack it, you shall offer it terms of peace. (11) If it responds peaceably and lets you in, all the people present there shall serve you at forced labor. (12) If it does not surrender to you, but would join battle with you, you shall lay siege to it; (13) and when your God delivers it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. (15) Thus you shall deal with all towns that lie very far from you, towns that do not belong to nations hereabout. (16) In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive. (17) No, you must proscribe them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—as your God has commanded you, (18) lest they lead you into doing all the abhorrent things that they have done for their gods and you stand guilty before your God.

 

(19) When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are trees of the field human to withdraw before you into the besieged city? (20) Only trees that you know do not yield food may be destroyed; you may cut them down for constructing siegeworks against the city that is waging war on you, until it has been reduced.

 

Part Two - Self Defence

Exodus 22

(1) If the thief is seized while tunnelling and beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt in that case. (2) If the sun had already risen, there is bloodguilt in that case.

 

Sanhedrin 72a

מתני׳ הבא במחתרת נידון על שם סופו

 פטור: גמ׳ אמר רבא מאי טעמא דמחתרת חזקה אין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו והאי מימר אמר אי אזילנא קאי לאפאי ולא שביק לי ואי קאי לאפאי קטילנא ליה והתורה אמרה אם בא להורגך השכם להורגו

Rava says: What is the reason for this case of the burglar? There is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his possessions, and therefore this burglar must have said to themselves: If I go in and the owner sees me, they will rise against me and not allow me to steal from him, and if he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah stated a principle: If someone comes to kill you, rise and kill him first.

 

Milchemet Mitzvah

Eruvin   45a

Rav Yehuda, said that Rav said: ...if foreigners came with regard to lives, they may go out against them with their weapons, and they may desecrate Shabbat due to them. And with regard to a town that is located near the border, even if they did not come with regard to lives, but rather with regard to matters of hay and straw, i.e., to raid and spoil the town, they may go out against them with their weapons, and they may desecrate Shabbat due to them

 

Part Four - Optional and Compulsory Wars, Milchemet Reishut, Michemet Chovah

Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim u’Milchamot 5:1

A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah. What is considered as milchemet mitzvah? The war against the seven nations who occupied Eretz Yisrael, the war against Amalek, and a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them.
Afterwards, he may wage a milchemet hareshut, i.e. a war fought with other nations in order to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation.

 

Part Five - Between Commonwealths

Mishnah Avot 4:1

Ben Zoma stated: ... Who is strong? One who conquers his inclination, as it says: "He who is slow to anger is better than a strong man, and a master of his passions is better than the conqueror of a city. (Proverbs 16)"

 

1 Samuel 16

[King David was] a mighty man of valor, and a man of war.

Sanhedrin 93

"Brave Fighter": — that he knows what to respond; "Man of War": —

that he knows how to give and take in the war of Torah.

 

Shlomo Goren, Spirit and Power in the Teachings of Judaism

The holiday of Hanukkah is also a symbol and a model of the victory of the few over the many, in light the war’s uneven nature and the specifically religious goals of the Greeks, for whom it was a war of religious persecution to make them [the Jewish People] forget their Torah. Nevertheless, the Rabbis of the Talmud did not find it appropriate to emphasize the military victories, but rather the miracle of the oil and the menorah ... . This comes to teach us to what degree the Sages opposed war and the people refrained from crowning the military heroes and the victors in battle. This was done in order to negate this type of heroism which relates to a particular individual. This is the greatest danger to the principles of faith and to the Torah of Israel — to connect heroism and physical victory on the battlefield to man.

 

Chaim Nahum Bialek 1903, City of Slaughter

Crushed in their shame, they saw it all; They did not stir nor move; Perhaps, perhaps, each watcher had it in his heart to pray: A miracle, O Lord,—and spare my skin this day! Those who survived this foulness, who from their blood awoke, Beheld their life polluted, the light of their world gone out. They crawled forth from their holes, they fled to the house of the Lord, They offered thanks to Him, the sweet benedictory word. The matter ends; and nothing more. And all is as it was before.

 

Part Six - The Third Commonwealth

Declaration of Independence

The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

 

Anita Shapiro, Ben Gurion Vehatanakh

Ben-Gurion viewed the establishment of the Jewish state "not as the continuation of life in Warsaw, Odessa, and Crakow, but as an essentially new beginning, although a beginning intertwined with a distant past, the past of Joshua ben Nun, David … and the early Hasmoneans."

 

 

 

 

 

Part Seven - Shlomo Goren – Largely based on Arye Edrei[1]

Shlomo Goren - Wikipedia The IDF Rabbi at Jerusalem's Reunification | International Fellowship of  Christians and Jews

One of the foremost rabbis to direct his attention to these questions was Rabbi Shlomo Goren. As noted, Rabbi Goren founded the Israel Defense Forces Rabbinate and served as its first Chief Rabbi for about two decades. He subsequently served as Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv and then as Chief Rabbi

of Israel. The scope of his scholarly work is very broad, encompassing numerous books and hundreds of articles, many dealing with military conduct according to halakhah (Jewish law). In his writings, he dealt with the many aspects of laws relating to the military, from technical aspects such as the operation of a military camp according to Jewish law to the broader legal and ethical aspects of war.

 

Response to War

This book of rulings is different than regular rulings in civil law and than all other books of responsa. The topics in this book do not have an ongoing tradition of rulings from generation to generation. There is nothing parallel in the Shulhan Arukh, or in other codes of Jewish law… From the time of Bar Kochba ... there were no laws of the military, of war, and of national security that had a real connection to the lives of the people. For nearly 2000 years, these issues appeared as "laws for the messiah". Even Maimonides’ Laws of [Kings and] War[s] are not capable of guiding the establishment of military procedure for the

modern day State of Israel, since they are also directed to messianic times.

 

[With regard to] the measure of legal or ethical responsibility that falls on officers assigned to take charge of the welfare and security of Jewish or non-Jewish individuals, groups, or squads ... : To what degree does the Torah view those appointed to be indirectly responsible for crimes and transgressions committed against the population for which they are accountable?

 


 

Edrie

The second source that Goren turned to is the fascinating law of the eglah arufah ("Rite upon Finding a Corpse outside Town") from Deuteronomy.64 This law relates to situations in which a corpse is found in a field outside city limits and it is not clear who murdered the person. The law states that the Priests must measure which city is closest to the place where the body was found and that the Elders of that city must slaughter a calf and declare: "Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Forgive, Lord, your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of your people Israel."  The Rabbinical Sages raised the following obvious question:

[Question] And would it enter our minds that the elders of the court are shedders of blood?

[Answer] Rather, [they declare that] he did not come to our area and we allowed him to depart without food, and we did not see him and allow him to go without escort.

 

This very query, Goren argued, is indicative of the fact that the Sages viewed the City Elders as morally responsible for everything that takes place in their territory, including the welfare and well-being of both the general population and strangers.

 

Maimonides, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:7

When besieging a city in order to capture it, you should not surround it on all four sides, but only on three sides, allowing an escape path for anyone who wishes to save his life, as it says: "And they warred against Midian as God had commanded Moshe."—Based on tradition, they learned that thus God had commanded Moses.

 

Edrie

Rabbi Goren claimed that this law is relevant to the contemporary wars of Israel [specifically the siege on Beirut] and that it should be implemented in its literal sense. This position has considerable ramifications.

Rabbi Goren also referred to Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926), the author of the Meshech Hokhmah Commentary on the Torah, who discussed the law of leaving the fourth side open and the question of why Maimonides did not list it as a separate commandment. His conclusion was that allowing an escape route during a siege is essentially a matter of strategy, i.e., that leaving an opening for escape reduces the motivation of the enemy to engage in battle. Rabbi Goren strongly rejected this explanation, arguing that we should not even consider the possibility that the commandments of the Torah relate to military tactics. It was clear to him that the rationale underlying this law is to foster mercy for the lives of one’s enemies.

 

Part Eight - Kibiyeh

Jewish Reflections on War & Peace (ahem, me)[2]

In 1953 Palestinian terrorists launched attacks on Israel from Kibiya, a village on the then Jordanian-controlled West Bank. The Israeli military responded ferociously. The village was all but destroyed; many villagers were killed.

 

Rav Shaul Yisraeli: Takrit Kibiyeh

There is a place for acts of retribution and revenge against the oppressors of Israel. … Those who are unruly are responsible for any damage that comes to them, their sympathizers, or their children. They must bear their sin.  There is no obligation to refrain from reprisal for fear that it might harm innocent people, for we did not cause it.  They are the cause and we are innocent.

Yisraeli justified the attack on Kibiya with reference to a classic Rabbinic concept. The community of nations, he claimed, believed these kinds of military actions were permissible, therefore Israel could avail herself of this international consensus in an application of a classic Rabbinic principle dina d’malkhuta dina – the law of the land is the law.[11] ‘The foundation of dina d’malkhutah dina relates not only to what transpires within a state, but also to international matters as is the accepted custom’, claimed Yisraeli. Putting aside the issue of whether the international community would have accepted the legality of actions taken in Kibiyah, Yisraeli’s claim is that Israel should be judged by the standard of the ethics of nations at large. If the British bomb Dresden and the Americans lay waste to Hiroshima (both examples cited in support of his position), the Israelis can lay waste to Kibiya not only as a matter of military expediency, but also without religious qualm.

 

Yeshayahu Leibowitz: After Kibiyah[3]

We can, indeed, justify the action of Kibiyah before "the world." [Even though] its spokesmen and leaders admonish us for having adopted the methods of "reprisal"- cruel mass punishment of innocent people for the crimes of others in order to prevent their recurrence, a method which has been condemned by the conscience of the world. We could argue that we have not behaved differently than did the Americans, with the tacit agreement of the British, in deploying the atomic bomb… It is therefore possible to justify this action, but let us not try to do so. Let us rather recognize its distressing nature. There is an instructive precedent for Kibiyeh: the story of Shekhem and Dinah. The sons of Jacob did not act as they did out of pure wickedness and malice. They had a decisive justification: 'Should one deal with our sister as with a harlot?!'… Nevertheless, because of this action, their father Jacob cursed the two tribes for generations.

 

There is , however, a specifically Jewish aspect to the Kibiyeh incident, not as a moral problem but an authentically religious one. We must ask ourselves: what produced this generation of youth, which felt no inhibition or inner compunction in performing the atrocity when given the inner urge and external occasion for retaliation? After all, these young people were not a wild mob but youth raised and nurtured on the values of a Zionist education, upon concepts of the dignity of man and human society. The answer is that the events at Kibiyeh were a consequence of applying the religious category of holiness to social, national, and political values and interests - a usage prevalent in the education of young people as well as in the dissemination of public information. The concept of holiness - the concept of the absolute which is beyond all categories of human thought and evaluation - is transferred to the profane. From a religious standpoint only God is holy, and only His imperative is absolute. All human values and all obligations and undertakings derived from them are profane and have no absolute validity. Country, state, and nation impose pressing obligations and tasks which are sometimes very difficult. They do not, on that account, acquire sanctity. In our discourse and practice we have uprooted the category of holiness from its authentic location and transferred it to inappropriate objects, thus incurring all the dangers involved in such a distorted use of the concept. 

 

Part Eight – Reprisals/Redeeming Hostages – And Fear

Genesis 14

They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, and his possessions, and departed; for he had settled in Sodom.  When Abram heard that his kinsman’s [household] had been taken captive, he mustered his retainers and went in pursuit. At night, he and his servants deployed against them and defeated them; and he pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.

Genesis 15

And God said to Abram, “Fear not.”

 

Bereishit Rabba 44:4

Rabbi Levi said two [interpretations],

Rabbi Levi said: Because our forefather Abraham was fearful, and saying: ‘Perhaps those people whom I killed, there was among them one righteous man, or one God-fearing man.
Rabbi Levi said another interpretation: Because our forefather Abraham was fearful and saying: ‘Perhaps those kings whom I killed, their sons will assemble multitudes and they will come and wage war against me.’

 

Part Nine - Peace

Megillah 18a

And why did they make ‘sim shalom’ - ‘set peace’ the last blessing of the Amidah, after the Priestly Blessing, as it says, ‘And the Priests will set My name on the Children of Israel and I will bless them.’ (Numbers 6) And the blessing of the Holy Blessed One is peace, as it says, ‘GOD will bless God’s people with peace’ (Psalm 29)

Ritba Megilla 18a d.v. U-Mah

And this is what we find in the Midrash, ‘the seal of every blessing is Peace. And this is what was prescribed for the end of the blessings of the evening shema, which ends ‘who spreads out a tabernacle of peace.’... And the blessings of the meal also end with Peace, ‘And “GOD will bless God’s people with peace” (Psalm 29) and also the Kaddish [which ends “May the Maker of Peace in the Highest, make peace for us.”]

 

Friday, 3 November 2023

Jewish Reflections on War and Peace

This is an extract from my book, Spiritual Vagabondry. Posting here because ... oy.


I was contacted by the editors of the journal, The Arches, asking if I would consider contributing an article, outlining Jewish approaches to ‘War and Peace,’ the theme for an upcoming publication. The Arches is published by The Cordoba Foundation. They are an organisation, founded by a British Muslim, ‘committed to ensuring that a clash of civilisations is neither inevitable nor necessary.’ ‘In particular’ their statement of aims goes on to say, they look ‘to bridge the gap of understanding between the Muslim World and the West and vice-versa.’ The only time I have actually seen a copy of The Arches was in Regents Park Mosque. I accepted the invitation knowing that most of the future readers of my audience would be Muslim. How much of this paper explicitly refers to contemporary matters in Israeli politics, not so much. How much is implicitly about contemporary matters, every word.

 

Jewish Reflections on War and Peace[1]

Jeremy Gordon

 

Judaism believes in peace, loves peace and prays and works towards peace. The greatest visions of the Bible are of the wolf lying down with lamb (Isaiah 11) and of swords being beaten into ploughshares (Isaiah 2). Beyond the Bible the Rabbis, in their codification of Jewish life, infused every major prayer experience of the Jew with the yearning for peace. The second century sage Rav Shimon son of Halafta, says ‘a blessing is useless unless it comes with peace’.[2] The great Medieval commentator Rabbi Yom Tov Isbili, known as the Ritba (Spain d. 1330) collated a list of codified Jewish prayers that have as their conclusion the plea for peace; it includes the grace after meals, the principal doxology (Kaddish), the central prayer of evening, morning and afternoon services (Amidah), the priestly blessing (Numbers 6) and others.[3] Judaism believes in peace.

 

But the Hebrew Bible also knows violence. The commandment lo tirzah (Exodus 20:13) is inaccurately translated in the King James Bible as ‘thou shall not kill’. The correct rendition of the original Hebrew is ‘thou shall not murder’. The Bible justifies and even demands violence, even unto killing, on too many occasions to list. That said there is a noteworthy attitude towards violence that suffuses not only the Bible, but also the project of Rabbinic Judaism. Time and time again in the Bible and Rabbinic texts one can see the impulse to violence and war subjected to controls designed to ameliorate the destructive potential of military brutality.

 

The Bible mandates (Deut 20 & 21) that an invading army should offer peace to a city before waging war against it. It demands that fruit trees, around an ancient city, are not destroyed by siege warfare, asking rhetorically ‘is a tree a person, to be besieged by you?’ It insists that any beautiful woman captured in combat is not to be treated as chattel to be ‘used’ and/or abandoned at will … and the list goes on.

 

One can see the same tendency in Rabbinic texts.  Maimonides, (d. 1204) the greatest of medieval Jewish sages, set out precise Laws of War in his code the Mishneh Torah. One mandate demands that ‘when besieging a city in order to capture it, you should not surround it on all four sides, but only on three sides, allowing an escape path for anyone who wishes to save his life’.[4] Aside from noting the seeming military lunacy of a three-sided siege there are two other points to note when considering the significance of this kind of religious engagement with war. Firstly, while Maimonides is able to produce a Biblical verse to justify his codification (Numbers 31:7), on the face of it the verse mandates no such behaviour; Maimonides need not have included this mandate, he’s willing the mandate into existence driven by a greater sense and understanding of what Judaism must stand for. Secondly this militarily self-defeating mandate has had practical impact for the contemporary Israeli army, as will be discussed below.

 

The messy business of Israel’s contemporary engagement will be treated more extensively later in this paper, but it’s important to understand that for close to two thousand years Maimonides’ demands were of no practical import whatsoever. The dominant norm governing Judaism’s engagement with violence was not that of a military power, squaring military necessity and morality, but that of a wandering, stateless, army-less people subject to the attitudes to violence of other nations and nationally enshrined faiths. In 70CE the Romans destroyed the Israelite State based around Jerusalem, in the years before and after this all the other vestiges of Jewish national and military presence were also erased. Judaism became a people with no physical border to protect, no army and no possibility of waging war. From Seleucids to Romans to Christians to Muslims, across time and place Jews have been persecuted, beaten, burnt, and, in a period as dark as humanity has experienced, been subject to a level of genocidal brutality beyond decent humans’ ability to imagine. Throughout almost two millennia of Diaspora existence Jews were forbidden from bearing arms and, by and large, accepted this and other externally imposed regulations as the cost of survival, of ‘doing business’, in a world governed by foreign might. Jews became pacifists by circumstance. Any drive to conquer territory was sublimated into mercantile endeavour or the exegetical engagement characteristic of Rabbinic Judaism. In place of soldiers Judaism valorised scholars. The Rabbis even turned the soldiers of the Bible into intellectuals. The Book of Samuel refers to David, slayer of Goliath, as ‘a brave fighter and man of war’.  The Talmud explains this means he knew how argue his point in ‘the war of Torah.’[5] Offered only the opportunity of military surrender, Jews and Judaism waged war on the entire notion of military bravado and, playing by rules they themselves constructed, declared themselves victorious without recourse to sword or bullet.

 

But by the beginning of the twentieth century Jews were growing weary of this purely exegetical triumph. The pacifism was being beaten out of them. By the dark years of the ’30s and ’40s the suggestion that Jews could respond to antisemitic violence with words alone seemed more than vapid, it bordered on the offensive. The great pacifist, Mahatma Ghandi wrote, in 1938, that the Jews of Germany should protest against Hitler only using non-violent means. ‘I am as certain as I am dictating these words that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews], adopt active nonviolence… I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him’.[6] The Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (hardly known as a militarist!) took Ghandi to task. The Jews of Germany, as Buber knew from personal experience, were dealing with a genocidal mania that would not respond to non-violence. Non-violent resistance in the face of utter brutality was capitulation. Of course, said Buber, the violent response was one that could only be employed with ‘fear and trembling’ but ‘[I]f there is no other way of preventing the evil destroying the good, I trust I shall use force and give myself up into God's hands’.[7] Alongside its abnegation of violence and love of peace Judaism began to place increasing weight on the value of self-defence.

 

Then the wheels of history turned and Israel found itself with an army, a state and, arrayed around and even inside its borders, armed aggressors. Now what? Certainly ethical and religious factors have always been central to the vision of the defence of the Israeli State. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have an ethics code, drafted by religious leaders, professors, lawyers and generals and drummed into soldiers during training. The code articulates the values of ‘Human Dignity’, ‘Responsibility’, and ‘Purity of Arms’ – ‘IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property’. [8] When soldiers fail to live up to values espoused in the code they can expect investigation and reprimand. But the challenges faced by the Israeli State do not fit easily into categories outlined in a document written in ivory towers. Terrorist aggressors, usually dressed as civilians, tend to launch attacks from and/or into densely populated areas full of civilians; both Arabs and Jews are liable to suffer the consequences of terrorist actions. In the aftermath of Operation Cast Lead, December 2008, the philosopher Moshe Halbertal, a member of the team who drafted the IDF Code, expressed his empathy for Israeli soldiers confronted by recognisable military violence, but no recognisable army. ‘By disguising themselves as civilians and by attacking civilians with no uniforms and with no front’, he wrote, ‘paramilitary terrorist organizations attempt nothing less than to erase the distinction between combatants and noncombatants on both sides of the struggle’.[9] Israel faces what Halbertal calls acts of ‘assymetrical warfare’. It’s hard to balance out risks of loss and risks of collateral damage even in moments of security, let alone in the heat of incoming mortars and katyusha rockets.

 

The aftermath of an incident now fifty years old will serve as a test case from which to consider more contemporary religious responses. In 1953 Palestinian terrorists launched attacks on Israel from Kibiya, a village on the then Jordanian-controlled West Bank. The Israeli military responded ferociously. The village was all but destroyed; many villagers were killed. It was an action with uncanny echoes for our times. Some religious leaders expressed no compunction in accepting the validity of violence in the face of terrorist attack on Jewish lives. Rav Shaul Yisraeli, who went on to become one of the heads of Yeshivat Mercaz Harav Kook justified the use of force as follows: ‘There is a place for acts of retribution and revenge against the oppressors of Israel. … They are responsible for any damage that comes to them, their sympathizers, or their children. They must bear their sin.  There is no obligation to refrain from reprisal for fear that it might harm innocent people, for we did not cause it.  They are the cause and we are innocent’.[10] This is the tough uncompromising perspective of a hawkish politician, but Yisraeli justified the attack on Kibiya with reference to a classic Rabbinic concept. The community of nations, he claimed, believed these kinds of military actions were permissible, therefore Israel could avail herself of this international consensus in an application of a classic Rabbinic principle dina d’malkhuta dina – the law of the land is the law.[11] ‘The foundation of dina d’malkhutah dina relates not only to what transpires within a state, but also to international matters as is the accepted custom’, claimed Yisraeli. Putting aside the issue of whether the international community would have accepted the legality of actions taken in Kibiyah, Yisraeli’s claim is that Israel should be judged by the standard of the ethics of nations at large. If the British bomb Dresden and the Americans lay waste to Hiroshima (both examples cited in support of his position), the Israelis can lay waste to Kibiya not only as a matter of military expediency, but also without religious qualm.

 

More critical positions also crystallised in the aftermath of the attack on Kibiyah. The philosopher and commentator Yeshayhu Leibowitz acknowledged the attack could be defended with reference to Rabbinic tradition or the standards of other nations, ‘but let us not try to do so. Let us rather recognize its distressing nature’. Leibowitz compared Kibiya’s destruction to the Biblical tale of Dinah.[12] Dinah, daughter of Jacob, was kidnapped, taken to Shechem and raped, an action that resulted in her brothers destroying the town and its male inhabitants. Leibowitz claimed the brothers ‘had a decisive justification [for launching the all-out raid]. Nevertheless, because of this action, their father Jacob cursed the two tribes for generations…Let us not establish [the modern State of Israel] on the foundation of the curse of our father Jacob!’[13]

 

Both these responses – the hawkish and the cursing – can be observed in contemporary Jewish and Israeli discourse responding to contemporary acts of Israeli military violence, but there is a third way which, I argue is truer to Jewish discourse and analysis. Rav Shlomo Goren (d. 1994) founded the Israel Defence Forces Rabbinate and served as its first Chief Rabbi for about two decades, subsequently serving as Chief Rabbi of Israel. Much of his vast scholarly output concerned military matters. His formally collected Responsa on Matters of the Military, War, and Security[14] alone run to four volumes and cover a vast range of issues, theoretical and practical, as applied to Generals and to Privates. Goren was no apologist. In a radical and broad application of principles learnt from an obscure law in Deuteronomy[15] he deems Israelis responsible for any death that occurs anywhere in the occupied territories.[16] In 1982 Goren was Chief Rabbi of Israel and used his position to insist that an escape path be left open during the siege of Beirut, (in accordance with Maimonides’ demand as discussed above).[17] Responsa literature is technical, and there are many competing factors to be balanced as religious aspiration and ugly brutality come into conflict. It also requires deep scholarship and understanding of religious sensitivity and of military necessity. Goren’s approach is untidy, often unpopular and even occasionally unsafe. But it is, I argue, the truest reflection of a Jewish tradition torn between dreams of peace and harsh political and historical realities. Those who wish to speak on the validity, or otherwise, of various acts of military violence need to study much, speak carefully and know that the safety of certainty is not given to human beings. ‘Who knows if your blood is redder’, asks the Talmud, ‘perhaps their blood is redder’.[18]

 

Ethics and war make for uncomfortable bed-fellows. Military ethicists, particularly those who speak in the name of a religious tradition, should be troubled sleepers, uneasy and unsure, afraid that their pronouncements could condone the spillage of a single drop of blood. No matter whose blood may be shed, every drop is sacred, ‘for the soul of all flesh is in its blood’.[19] At the heart of Judaism lies an extraordinary articulation of the value of human life. All humans, the book of Genesis tells us, are created from one original template – Adam. This is so, state the Rabbis, in order to teach us that ‘whoever destroys a single soul, is considered as though they had destroyed an entire world; and whoever saves a single soul is considered as though they had saved an entire world’.[20] It is, of course, an articulation that Muslim scholars will recognise from their own scriptures.[21] The demand of the One God shared by both Jews and Muslims is that this message be taught and taught again and again until the day when swords can indeed be turned into ploughshares, nations and individuals will cease lifting up swords against one another and none shall learn war any more. And then every person, Jew and Palestinian, shall be able to sit under their vine and under their fig tree and none shall make them afraid.[22]

 

Jeremy Gordon is Rabbi of New London Synagogue.



[1] An earlier version of this paper appeared in Arches Quarterly (3:5, 2010), an interfaith journal aimed, in particular, at an Islamic audience.

[2] BMidbar Rabba 11.

[3] Ritba Megilla 18a d.v. U-Mah C14.

[4] Hil Melakhim 6:11. See Sifrei Bmidbar Mattot 157 beshem Rebbi Natan.

[5] Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 93b.

[6] The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India) v. 68, p. 189, Cf loc cit, pp. 191-92 & 205. 

[7] Published in The Letters of Martin Buber: A Life of Dialogue By Martin Buber, Nahum N. Glatzer, Paul Mendes-Flohr (Syracuse University Press, 1996). The full exchange may be found in A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs ed. P. Mendes-Flohr (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1983) pp. 106-126.

[9] Writing in the New Republic November 6th, 2009, available at http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-goldstone-illusion.

[10] See Edrei, Arye (2006) "Divine Spirit and Physical Power: Rabbi Shlomo Goren and the Military Ethic of the Israel Defense Forces," Theoretical Inquiries in Law: Vol. 7 : No. 1, Article 11.
Available at: http://www.bepress.com/til/default/vol7/iss1/art11 at p. 70. I am indebted to Prof Edrei for his original research.

[11] Talmud Bavli, Ned. 28a; Git. 10b; BK 113a; BB 54b and 55a. There is an irony, of course, in the notion that dina d’malkhuta, by its very nation a diasporic invention, is turned here into a staging post for bullish nationalism.

[12] Genesis 34.

[13] Y. Leibowitz, “After Kibiyeh,” in Judaism, Human Values and the Jewish State (Eliezer

Goldman ed., Eliezer Goldman et al. trans., 1992).

[14] Meshiv Milhama: She’elot U-teshuvot Be-inyene Tsava Milhamah U-vitahon (1983-1992).

[15] Deuteronomy 21:1-9, if a dead body is found between two Israelite towns the Priests of the town nearest must accept responsibility for the blood shed and seek forgiveness.

[16] See Edrie A. loc cit at p. 286.

[17] Rav Goren’s letter on the subject appeared in Hatzofeh 6th August 1982.

[18] Sanhedrin 74a.

[19] Leviticus 17:14.

[20] Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, dated to the second century. The text has been cited according to the Kauffman manuscript, acknowledged as bearing the correct original version of this text. See Eprhaim Elimelech Urbach, "Kol Hamekayem Nefesh Achat ..." Gilgulav Shel Nusach [Whoever Saves One Soul ... The Evolution of a Text], 40 Tarbitz 268 (1971).

[21] Kuran 5:32.

[22] Micah 4:4.

Sunday, 15 October 2023

For the Release of Hostages - Speech Given at Parliament Sq 15th Oct 2023


 I want to share words with you here as a Shaliach as a messenger for a dear friend, a member of my community at New London Synagogue and one of the most remarkable people I have ever met.

Noam Sagi’s mother, Ada Sagi, has been missing since the atrocities of last Saturday. Ada’s home is Kibbutz Nir Oz, a beautiful place close to the border of Gaza. Last Saturday, attacking on the religious festival of Succot, the Kibbutz was overrun by terrorists. As part of a ruthless planned military operation, Hamas broke into the Kibbutz, along with so many other peaceful Kibbutzim and villages along the Southern border, and murdered and destroyed and behaved with a brutality that is beyond description. There are 1,300 dead as a result of these invasions, some soldiers, but over 900 civilians.

In a country the size of Wales, with a population the size only of London. I remember the terrorist attacks of 7/7, I remember the loss and the grief – for 52 people murdered on that awful day.

But last week 1,300 were murdered.

And then over 150 are missing, presumed taken hostage, taken into Gaza. The mind, the decent human mind struggles to conceive what this must be like. Many of us have seen the awful footage of a father whose daughter was initially thought to be missing, when he expresses relief that she is merely dead. The heart breaks for a decent human being.

And yet, for Noam Sagi, and for so many family members of these innocent people, missing, presumed taken hostage, this is the time for action. There is no time for anything other than a rigorous focus on what needs to be done to get the hostages home.

He is hurting but he is so grateful for the support he gains from each of you here. He wants you to know that he is strong and resolutely focussed on ensuring his mum, and all the hostages, can come home.

Noam wants us to know about his mother – Ada – a teacher of Arabic, a former School principle, a 74-year-old grandmother, a woman who worked for peaceful co-existence for decades, who now, in the year of her husband’s passing, and in need of ongoing medical support, is presumed kidnapped.

Noam wants us to join with him in a demand that all the hostages be freed immediately and unconditionally; in particular the children, the under 18, and those over 65. In the name of everything that is human, how can anyone take such people from their homes and hold them hostage? It is, he says, and I agree with all my heart, an affront to anything that is human to take such people and hide such people. It , he says, and I agree with him, a matter of saving life – a moral claim and a religious claim that Jews and Muslim share – to save a life is to save an entire world.

This is his first priority – that all the hostages be freed immediately and unconditionally; in particular the children, the under 18, and those over 65.

His second priority is that a humanitarian corridor be opened to allow an appropriate organisation in to verify who is there, assess their most basic human needs. Ada is among the list of hostages taken who need ongoing medical treatment. An organisation – Red Cross, MSF, anyone – should be allowed into Gaza to assess and provide for the most basic human needs of the hostages.

Standing here, outside the Mother of All Parliaments, Noam wants to share his appreciation for the remarkably levels of support he has received from his own MP, Dawn Butler. Dawn, if you are listening, thank you.

His message to the British Government is this. There are 17 British National murdered, or missing presumed kidnapped and a further two British Nationals, of whom Noam is one, who have close relatives missing presumed kidnapped. He needs, we all need, the British Government to do anything they can to get them back. To show leadership, to return all civilian hostages, especially women and children, released immediately. He shares he wishes a representative of this Government would reach out to him directly. To any representative of this Government, Noam deserves you to be directly in touch, to understand, to show solidarity and to be inspired to fight for the release of the hostages.

His message to the Israeli Government is this – you have a responsibility to protect the citizens who lived along this border, who protected this border their lives. To any representatives of the Israeli Government – Noam calls on you to do everything in their power to get these people out.

Any pathway should be exploited, any government, any organisation can be contacted, must be contacted.

I think it’s also important to know that Noam carries no hate for the people of Gaza, no hate for Muslims or Arabs. He is, of course, most concerned for the health and return of his mother and other hostages taken from the kibbutz where he grew up, but his love for all humanity remains resolute and his concerns for those people of Gaza who are now caught up  in the aftermath of the murders and worse committed by Hamas remain. As they do, I am sure, for all of us here today. The immediate release of these hostages will save lives, it will save lives of the hostages and it will save lives of Gazans.

In our Synagogue, and in Jewish communities across the world, we shared a prayer for the immediate redemption of the hostages. With your permission, I would like to share it now. But before I do, I would love to take a photograph of you all – to share with Noam, to show him our support for his remarkable fight, to show him that we stand with him and all who are missing loved ones. Can I ask that we take a few moments to share these evocations of strength, this blessing for Noam and for all those engaged in this work in silence.

I will take a photo which I will share with Noam, and then I will lead a prayer, a plea, which I share with God and any human who can help.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...