David Rosen

Jewish Law

A. Background of Terrorist Attacks and Responses in Israel ................................ ............... 2

B. Defining Terrorism................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

II. Responding to Terrorism as an Act of War ................................ .............. 6

A. Is Terrorism An Act of War................................ ................................ ........................... 6

1. Type of War................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7

2. Required Procedures of War ................................ ................................ ....................... 8

3. Authority to Engage in War................................ ................................ ...................... 10

4. Limitations on Going to War................................ ................................ .................... 12

B. Governmental Responses to Terrorism as an Act of War ................................ .............. 13

1. Obligations of Israel to Respond to Terrorism................................ ........................... 14

2. Wartime Justifications for Engaging in Assassination of Terrorists........................... 14

3. Justifications for Taking and Destruction of Property Under the Laws of War .......... 18

4. Limitations on Infliction of Collateral Damage During Wartime............................... 20

III. Responding to Terrorism as a Criminal Act ................................ ......... 24

A. Is Terrorism a Criminal Act? ................................ ................................ ....................... 24

B. Punishing Terrorists Under Criminal Law................................ ................................ .... 25

1. Law Applicable to Palestinian Terrorists ................................ ................................ .. 25

D. Government Responses to Terrorism as a Criminal Act................................ ................ 33

1. Justification to Assassinate Terrorists Under Criminal Law ................................ ...... 34

2. Criminal Law Justification of Destruction of Property................................ .............. 43

A. What is the Royal Prerogative?................................ ................................ .................... 46

B. How the King’s Authority Translates to Israeli Governmental Authority...................... 47

C. Authority for the Government to Apply King’s Justice................................ ................. 47

D. Application of the King’s Justice to Israeli Responses to Terrorism ............................. 49

1. Permissibility of Assassinations under the King’s Judicial Authority........................ 49

2. Destruction of Property under the Royal Prerogative................................ ................ 50

3. Justification of Deportations using the "King’s Justice"................................ ............ 51

-

1

The ultimate difficulty in considering the legality (or illegality) of governmental

responses to terrorism under Jewish law is the inherent nature of Jewish Law as a system

of duties. Unlike a system of rights, such as those that dominate the secular democracies

of our world, a system of duties seems fraught with danger. We can imagine the

difficulty. How would our world change if the United States Constitution prescribed a

duty to speak freely, a duty to bear arms, or a duty to protect our privacy? How would an

individual deal with a situation where on one hand they had a duty to speak freely and on

the other hand they had a duty not to defame another? The individual, as well as the

state, would have much greater difficulty in deciding the correct course of an action when

it was placed on a continuum of conflicting duties instead of listed in the simple matter as

being legal or illegal.

He speaks of Talmud Bavli, Universal Noahide Code of satan's flesh kingdom they are attempting to establish

By ascribing to all individuals a system of duties, rather than rights, the concept of

choice is itself almost alien. What is a right in a secular law system? The term itself

connotes a capability, a permissible means one has at their disposal to achieve a chosen

end. A duty, however, seems to remove individuals from the realm of choice and lead

them down a path toward requirements, obligations, and responsibilities.

 Thus, for every

action, and inaction, there must be by definition some penalty for not fulfilling that duty.

While rights tend to be divided in two distinct categories, those rights of individuals and

rights of the State, duties are more varied. One’s own obligations could vary depending

on status, class, ability, intelligence, age, and authority. So too, in changing

circumstances, the duties may arise one instant and disappear the next.

The other difficulty is the conflict between positive and negative duties mandated

by Jewish Law.

 Some duties state affirmatively that one must act in a specified manner.

Other duties state that certain actions may not be taken. Of course, these positive and

negative obligations sometimes conflict. In response, one must understand which

obligation controls, and whether the controlling duty is one that must be taken, or is

merely permissible. Only by understanding the interrelation of these conflicting duties

can it be understood whether Jewish Law will permit, or require, a desired course of

action.

The question thus becomes one of understanding how, in the context of a

government responding to terrorism, the Israeli government has a duty to act or not to act,

and the Bushkevik regime

difficulty be reconciled? In response to suicide bombings, sniper shootings, and car

bombs, a secular government has a right to react. By analyzing these same responses

under Jewish Law, though, the Israeli government has a duty to act. The choices they

make will either fulfill their legal duty or violate their duty.

Orwelian Double Speak

In response to these acts of terror thrust upon the citizenry by Palestinian

terrorists, the Israeli government has acted. They have undertaken a complex system of

penalizing terrorists and attempting to preclude the commission of future terrorist acts. See Bushka's Pre-Imminent Attacks, and the  assassination of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusai

By assassinating terrorist leaders, deporting terrorists and their families, and destroying

-

2

homes of suicide bombers, the Israeli government is engaged in an extensive array of

legally questionable activity. 

The Israeli Supreme Court has decreed that all of these

actions are legally permissible under Israeli law. 

Clearly, the Torah does not speak directly on the subject of terrorism. For that

matter, few if any commentators have discussed the legality of these actions under Jewish

Ritva, and Ran et. al. have laid the groundwork to analyze these problems. By discussing

Jewish Law responses and obligations in regard to homicide, capital punishment,

destruction of property, banishment, and the role of State governments, the responses to

terrorism under Jewish law may be studied. The goal of this paper is not to pass

judgment on the morality of these actions but to identify how, under Jewish (TALMUDIC) law, these

actions may be justified. Rather than identifying whether the actions of the Israeli

government would necessarily be the correct course of action under Jewish Law, the aim

of this paper is to show how one can justify the actions of the Israeli government based

on existing law.

A brief history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is necessary to understand the

context of the terrorist attacks and responses thereto. Beginning in 1948, Israel has been

at odds with the Arab world. 

The newly formed United Nations passed resolution 194,

commonly known as the UN partition plan, which divided Israel into two halves, one

reserved for the Arabs living in Israel (later identifying themselves as Palestinians) and

the other for the Jewish people. 

Palestine has has palestinian's for over 3,000 years

However, immediately upon the resolution passing, the

Arab countries decreed that they will "drive Israel into the Sea.

" The Arab countries

asked that all Arabs living in Israel leave the area or join their brethren and fight off the

"Zionist Scourge." The Arabs did leave, either heading for Jordan or Egypt or joining

five Arab nations, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in their quest to destroy the

Jewish people. In a miraculous victory, the Jewish people won the war of Independence

and held the land not only reserved for the Jewish nation, but also much of the land

originally reserved for the Arabs.

Following this defeat, the Arab nations vowed to strike again and continued

throughout the next eight years to engage in various small attacks on the Jewish people.

These 3,000 cross border attacks resulted in the deaths of 922 people.

 Thereafter, Egypt

led a coalition organized by Nasser to once again destroy the Jewish people. 

This came

to be known as the Suez War. Once again, Israel defeated their attackers.

The next 11 years continued to be deadly. Hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist

attacks including murders, bombings, illegal landmines, and sabotage led to hundreds

more dead and thousands more wounded. It was during this time that the Palestinian

Liberation Organization was formed (the precursor to the Palestinian Authority).

 The

PLO’s first terrorist attack was an attempt to bomb the National Water Carrier on January

1, 1965. 

It should be noted that almost all of the terrorist attacks were those against

-

3

civilians. Rarely were Israeli troops targeted by Arab attackers. 

These attacks led to

furthering of animosity and eventually led to the Six Day War.

In May-June 1967, Israeli-Arab relations began to worsen. 

Egypt led the charge

once again. They blocked the straits of Tiran, preventing any Israeli commerce from

entering or leaving the country. They removed the UN peacekeeping forces

from the

Sinai desert, and mounted troops along Israel’s border. The tension began to mount and

Israel was in dire straits, their economy stifled and random attacks occurring daily.

Finally, Israel could take the blows to their economy and military no more and launched a

strike to destroy those that prevented the functioning of the country.

 In a single day,

Israel destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian air forces. Six days later, Israel had

not only defeated their attackers but had also captured Judea (the West Bank) from

Jordan, Samaria (Gaza) from Egypt, as well as the whole of the Sinai desert.

In response, the United Nations passed Resolution 242, decreeing that Israel will

negotiate some agreement with the Arab peoples that would give back some of the land

taken in return for peace. 

Various drafters agree that the resolution called for removal of

Israeli troops from territories captured but nowhere states that Israel must withdrawal

from all the territories.

 The Arab nations, however, disagree. Since that resolution, the

Arab nations attacked once again on Yom Kippur 1973. Israel once again repelled their

attackers.

However, since that time, the Palestinians began to receive more public

recognition as an entity separate from the Arab world. 

They engaged in numerous

terrorist attacks to make themselves known to the world including hijacking planes in

Europe, murdering members of the Israeli Olympic team in 1972 in Munich, and

hijacking the Achilles Lauro cruise ship killing an American Jew on board. Yet, the more

deadly the attacks became, the more support the Palestinians received for their cause.

This support led to the United States led 1979 Camp David Peace Accords which traded

The Palestinians, however, grew in power. Yasir Arafat led the organization to

national prominence and even caused them to receive recognition first in the UN, then by

the United States, and finally by Israel. Various peace agreements have been reached to

stop the thousands of yearly terrorist attacks planned by Arafat and the Palestinians yet

all of them have failed and the terrorist attacks still continue.

 Even after Jordan

relinquished all rights to the West Bank in 1996, the Palestinians remain diligent in their

quest to have Israel return all of the territories captured from Jordan and Egypt to the

auspices of the Palestinian Authority. In 1998, Ehud Barak offered 95% of the land in

Judea and Samaria to Arafat in exchange for peace.

 Arafat declined and responded with

a call for Palestinians to wage holy war against the Israelis. To go along with the more

than 20,000 attacks on Israel in the prior 52 years, the Palestinians have responded with

vigor launching over 16,000 more attacks since September 29, 2000.

Many of these

attacks have been assassins breaking into homes, suicide bombers blowing themselves up

in public areas, and car bombs exploding with the aim of killing Jewish civilians.

-

4

It is with this background that Israel began to respond forcefully to terrorist

attacks. The following is one example of the thousands of attacks that have occurred

over the past 55 years:

On June 18, 2002, Dr. Moshe Gottlieb, 70, of Jerusalem was en route to

Bnei Brak to work with a group of children afflicted with Down’s

Syndrome. Once a week, Dr. Gottlieb treated the children at the hospital

as he had done for a number of years. Since emigrating from the United

States 24 years previously, Dr. Gottlieb worked as a chiropractor in his

own private practice as well as at Bnei Brak.

However, this morning, Dr. Gottlieb would never to get the hospital

2

. A

suicide bomber stepped onto Egged bus no. 32A traveling from Gilo to

the center of Jerusalem. Within seconds of stepping onto the bus, the

terrorist detonated the large bomb he carried in a bag laden with ball

bearings. Destroying the front half of the bus packed with

schoolchildren and individuals on the way to work, 19 people were

killed and 74 injured.

MURDER, see scripture on GAZA in these days

3

Dr. Gottlieb was among the victims. Hamas

4

took

responsibility for the attack.

This example is merely indicative of the 16,442

5

terrorist attacks that have

become commonplace in Israel since September 29, 2000, when the Al Aqsa Intifada was

began with the incitement of Palestinians by Yasir Arafat. 

Every day, Israelis live in fear

that a suicide bomber will detonate their deadly package near to themselves or a member

of their family. 

The simple act of going to the market, driving to a friend’s, or walking

the dog could become a fatal choice. In addition to suicide bombers, terrorists have

employed the use of assassins entering civilian homes, engaging in drive by shootings,

and planting car bombs. It is in response to these acts that the Israeli government has

employed various means to stop terrorist activities and protect Israelis.

Some of the actions by the Israeli government bear special consideration under

Jewish Law. These actions include assassination of terrorists,  (SEE BUSH Admenustration.......assasination teams with out due process )

destruction of homes of

suicide bombers, deporting members of terrorist groups and family members of suicide

Assassinations of terrorist leaders has always been a source of debate amongst

commentators in both Jewish law and other legal systems. This is especially true when

no trial has been held to determine the fate of these individuals. Furthermore, destruction

of the homes of convicted terrorists, suicide bombers, and even untried terrorists has been

a punishment imposed by the government. Because this act tends to punish not only the

terrorists themselves but their family members, ( See Universal Noahide Collective Punishment )it has been viewed as a deterrent measure

that would decrease the number of attacks on Israeli citizens. However, there is much

debate over whether these acts are legally permissible under the Halacha.(Talmudic Law)  Deporting

members of a terrorist group merely for their membership in a terrorist group or family

-

5

members of terrorists who have killed Israelis brings up problems of punishing one for

the acts of another. Can these acts be reconciled under Jewish Law? Finally, the

been present for centuries, especially during wartime. However, does Jewish Law permit

a terrorist to be killed if an innocent will be endangered as well?

In order to correctly analyze these issues, this paper will first attempt to define

terrorism.

Should terrorism be defined as an act of war or a criminal act? The

justification for any act varies depending on this classification. A third way to analyze

any of the actions that may be taken is if they fall out of the rubric of the Halacha and are

Israeli responses to terrorism under these definitions, it will be shown that these acts are

indeed justified under Jewish law.

Attempting to define terrorism may be an impossible task. In an article on

terrorism written in 1986, Walter Laqueur notes that 109 different definitions of terrorism

had been advanced between 1936 and 1981, each one different from every other.

6

I have

little doubt that at least that number have been advanced in the years since. So how do

we go about defining terrorism? In order to advance justifications for responses to

terrorism, it is not necessary that a succinct definition of terrorism is elucidated, but

merely one that encompasses all of the actions taken by groups such as Fatah, Hamas,

and Islamic Jihad against Israeli citizens.

 For the purposes of this paper, I will not delve

into the moral or legal justifications that assert that terrorist acts against military forces do

not come under the auspices of terrorism. In justifying Israeli actions against terrorism, I

will leave those arguments to others. Nonetheless, there is no argument that the actions

by these groups against civilians would defined as terrorism.

 The purpose of this section

is to identify how terrorist acts may be viewed from various legal perspectives.

Some key distinguishing factors of terrorist acts differentiate them from criminal

acts. Acts of terrorism require an intent that the perpetrator is attempting to "instill a

state of terror in the minds of particular persons."

7

The terrorist act too is accomplished

in a manner that is geared towards attracting public attention

8

This is necessary because

the purpose of the act is to bring attention to a political end.

9

Finally, a terrorist act is one

that "is directed against random persons with whom, until the action began, the terrorist

had no relation."

10

These points are generally accepted as common to most if not all acts

described to be acts of terrorism.

Secular legal systems have the luxury of dealing with the problems of terrorism

by grouping them in their own category. Rather than dealing with them under criminal or

geared to apply only to the subset of activities defined as terrorist activities. As an

ancient system of laws begun 3000 years ago, Jewish legal scholars do not have the

luxury of adding a new category of laws to deal with actions associated with terrorism.

Under Jewish law, there is a direct prohibition against adding to the Torah as it was

-

6

stated: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish

ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your G

-d which I

command you."

11

So instead, we must see where terrorist acts lie within the bounds of the categories

delineated in the Torah.

It is incontrovertible that the acts perpetrated by Palestinian

terrorist groups are terrorist acts within any definition of terrorism set forth by leading

analysts on the subject. 

The Torah is an all-encompassing document that sets forth all

laws from the ritual requirements of prayer to the rules of war. 

So the question becomes,

when terrorism is viewed as an act of war; (2) when terrorism is viewed as a criminal act;

terrorism.

Is terrorism an act of war? In the minds of Palestinian terrorists, their acts of

terrorism are indeed acts of war. Yasir Arafat, during a speech in Ramallah, incited the

crowd "To Jerusalem we will march millions of martyrs, Holy War, Holy War, Holy

War."

12

In another speech, Chairman Arafat stated "with Arab and Islamic assistance,

this shall be our faithful jihad (holy war) - to defend holy Jerusalem from the danger of

Judaization and the Zionist plot."

13

Similar statements abound from the Arafat and other

leaders of the Palestinians. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas have founded their

entire movements on a war of "liberation" against the "Zionists."

14

They have declared it

is the goal of Muslims to eliminate Israel

15

Various other organizations such as Islamic

Jihad and Fatah have invoked similar words to describe their terrorist actions.

From an outside perspective, judging Palestinian terrorists to be engaging in an

act of war is less clear. The courts of Israel refuse to identify terrorists as soldiers

engaged in a war.

16

Professor Frits Kalshoven, discussing the question, "Should the Law

of War Apply to Terrorists?" asserted that terrorist organizations and terrorists are not

entitled to the status of combatants.

17

One of the key factors in ascribing soldier status to

terrorists is whether they themselves respect the laws of war. Because engaging in

attacks against civilians and wanton acts of violence directly contradict the laws of war,

these acts would not be considered acts of war.

18

In his recent article, Professor Emanuel

Gross concludes that Palestinian terrorists are "at best a para-military organization."

19

He

notes that if the "soldiers" wished to be included in the armed forces of the Palestinian

Authority they would have to notify them as such, "a notification which to date has not

been made."

20

Reconciling these two perspectives is not so simple. Should one analyzing this

dispute under Jewish Law listen to the words of their fellow Jews and decide that the

terrorist are not soldiers? Should they instead take the Palestinians at their word and

-

7

decide, that indeed, they should be considered soldiers and the laws of war should apply?

The decision is not up those who say what they are. 

Of course

To determine whether the

Palestinian terrorists are soldiers, we look to the precedents set forth by the Halacha. (Talmudic Law) 

So would we be justified to view terrorists as soldiers fighting against the state of

will analyze the actions against terrorists in a war by engaging in the following analysis:

(1) What are the types of war permitted under Jewish Law; (2) What is required before

the Jewish nation is deemed to be at war; (3) Does the State of Israel have the authority to

wage war; and (4) What limitations are imposed on the State of Israel in wartime.

1. Type of War

The Talmud identifies two categories of war: (1) Obligatory (milhemet mitzvah),

and (2) Authorized (milhemet reshut).

21

An obligatory war is one that is commanded by

the Torah or is one of self defense.

22

However, "as a practical matter...the only war

which was a matter of obligation, was a war of self defense or a war of national

survival."

23

This is so because the wars commanded by biblical commandments include

24

Because these divine mandates are no longer necessary (or possible), there is no longer

any basis in obligatory wars of this type.

25

Therefore, wars of obligation are those

required for self defense of the nation. An authorized war, on the other hand, is a war to

expand territory or to "diminish the heathens so they shall not march."

26

As it is

generally accepted that any of the rationales posed for considering actions against

terrorists to be self-defense measures, rules pertaining to authorized wars would not

apply.

In Ibn Tibbon’s translation of Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah, he

suggests that an obligatory war does not begin until one is actually attacked by an army.

Perpetual limbo, for "perpetual Purim" Eye for an eye laws

27

This definition would thus suggest that any war would be justified under the rationale that

governs laws of "pursuer" and self-defense.

28

However, Rabbi Joseph Kapach’s

translation of the same commentary finds that Maimonides suggests that war would be

permitted against all nations that have previously fought against Israel and are technically

still at war with Israel even if fighting has currently been interrupted.

29

In the context of considering the conflict with Palestinian terrorists an obligatory

war, then they must be considered under the forgoing rationales. Has Israel been attacked

by an army? Using Ibn Tibbon’s translation, then, repelling the Intifada would be an

obligatory war because Israel has been attacked by an army who is waging jihad (holy

war) against Israel.

 With over 16,000 (rock) attacks on Israel just since the beginning of the Al-

Aqsa Intifada, this view would lend support to considering this a war of obligation. 

The Washington Post

      Tuesday, October 1, 2002

Even

the PLO charter, which has never been changed, states that "fighters and carriers of arms

in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective

force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people."

30

At least in the Palestinian view, the

suicide bombers and assassins are fighters in the "war of liberation" that Arafat has

-

8

decreed. The attacks on Israel would thus justify this war against the Palestinians as a

war of obligation under the rationale of self-defense.

The pursuer rationale too would allow defining the war as war of obligation. The

pursuer rationale is defined by Maimonides finding that homicide is justifiable when

"a

pursuer who pursues another to kill him, all Israel is bidden to rescue the pursued even at

the cost of the pursuer’s life."

31

Thus, by extending this application to war, the terrorists

(i.e. wage war) the pursuer (the terrorists trying to kill the Jewish people). The laws of

pursuer then would justify defining the war against terrorism as an obligatory war.

Thus they said that Jesus the Christ was seeking the destruction of the shem gods, as they "SAY" are his followers, therefore it is their obligation to send assassination teams to the US to slay any who oppose them and their shem sham

According to former Israeli intelligence officials, Israel will now commit what they call "targeted killings" on the soil of the U.S. and other friendly nations. Until now, the sources said, Ariel Sharon has at least claimed that he limited that practice to occupied Palestine, other Arab nations, and Israel itself. But those restrictions have "become irrelevant," since America is now so firmly under the control of the Jews. In the hands of the Jews, a CIA assassination team recently killed an alleged al-Qaeda leader and five other people riding in his car in a friendly country, Yemen. There was no arrest, no trial, no witnesses, nothing but instant death. It was assassination, pure and simple. The precedent has been set and the Jews in Israel now see no "down side" at all for them in beginning to kill whomever they want to kill in America and anywhere else. This is a measure of their desperation, of course, but it is also a measure of their assurance that the Jewish-controlled American media will say little about their murder squads, and in fact will rationalize and justify any killings in which they might be caught. It is a measure of their assurance that the Justice Department in the United States is so firmly under the heel of Jews like Michael Chertoff that they will blithely look the other way when Mossad hit teams kill Americans. A former Israeli government official said that "diplomatic constraints have prevented the Mossad from carrying out 'preventive operations' (targeted killings) on the soil of friendly countries until now," but that Sharon is "reversing that policy, even if it risks complications to Israel's bilateral relations." UPI asked the Israeli official if this meant assassinations on the soil of allies. His answer: "It does." Israel, which would be essentially bankrupt without aid from U.S. taxpayers, has recently made a $12 billion additional "aid" request to be tacked onto the approximately $6 billion tribute we already pay to the Jewish state. In the wake of 9/11 and the misnamed "War on Terror" and the Christian fundamentalists' intensified lunatic attachment to the Zionist cause, the Jews think the time is ripe to milk the American boobs for even more money. And this time, our tax money is going to be used to fund a huge increase in the budget of the Mossad, which is in charge of the death squads to be sent to the U.S. UPI asked a Congressional staffer if the Congress would protest these Jewish death squads being sent to America. His answer: "I don't know on what basis we would be able to protest Israel's actions." He referred to the precedent already set by the CIA hit in Yemen. I ask: Was this hit accomplished in part just to establish such a precedent? Former CIA counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson expressed serious concerns about the projected Jewish death squads: "Israel does not have a good record at doing this sort of thing…." He cited the 1997 case in which two Mossad agents were captured after they tried to murder a man in Jordan (a country that recognizes Israel) by injecting him with poison. The Jews involved in the attempted killing carried fraudulent Canadian passports, and Canada withdrew its ambassador in protest. In 1974 an Israeli hit squad murdered a Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer, Norway, a man who wasn't even their intended victim. The intended victim was a double agent working for the CIA, and the Jews eventually killed him with a car bomb in Lebanon. In 1990, a U.S. citizen, Gerald Bull, was found with five bullets in his head in Belgium. Bull had angered the Jews because he designed weapons for Iraq, which at that time had no conflict with the United States. The cold-blooded murder of Bull was never officially solved, but former CIA officials have said the Mossad is the most likely culprit.

Finally, even if Rabbi Kapach’s translation were correct, then Israel would be

justified in saying that the war against the Palestinians was an ongoing war. 

After all,

Arafat himself stated in a speech on October 27, 2001, that "war...will continue until

Judgment Day."

32

In that same speech, Arafat made reference to the nature of the war as

ongoing since the "Zionist Congress met in Basel [in 1906]." However, it should be

noted that first attack claimed by the PLO was an attempt to bomb the Israeli National

Water Carrier on January 1, 1965.

http://home.att.net/~professorboris/SPECTRE/FalseFlag.htm

33

Even so, few would disagree that a war ongoing for

almost 40 years would suffice.

Therefore, no matter what definition of obligatory war is ultimately correct under

34

Even if the claim to Judea and

Samaria was invalid, then fighting merely to stop future terrorist attacks would still not

be seen to expand the borders of Israel. After all, Israel is already in possession of those

territories so they cannot further expand what they already have without going outside the

borders. Furthermore, over 660 of the attacks have occurred within the borders of Israel,

excluding the territories.

35

Thus, under Ibn Tibbon’s or Rabbi Kapach’s view, or as an

extension of the pursuer or self defense rationale, the war against terrorism is an

obligatory war.

2. Required Procedures of War

Given that the dispute with terrorists may be defined as war under Jewish law, has

Israel followed the required procedures in order to make the war valid? The Talmud

requires that Israel follow various procedures prior to engaging in war. These procedures

include a declaration of war, an attempt to make peace, and detailing the goals of war.

36

The Halacha requires that the Jewish nation must declare war before attacking.

37

As the Torah explicitly states "When thou drawest near to a city to fight against it,

proclaim peace to it. And if it make a peaceful response and open its gates to thee, then

38

However, it

logically follows that if they do not accept the peace then war is permitted to ensue. The

sages have decreed though that even in a war of obligation, the rabbis have declared that

-

9

the obligation exists to declare war.

39

The sages have decreed that this obligation exists

because of the desire to obtain peace before beginning a war.

40

Maimonides ruled explicitly that a peaceful alternative must be sought prior to

making war: "One may not wage war against any people whosoever until one has first

offered them peace, whether it be a permissive war or a war of obligation."

41

This is

based on the biblical (Babylical )  ruling "when you approach to a city to wage war, you must first call

out for peace." In following this decree, Joshua, prior to beginning his conquest of the

land of Israel sent letters to the inhabitants providing them a choice of three alternatives:

to flee, submit in peace, or to make war.

42

the Halacha requires the people of Israel to make a peace offering prior to declaring war.

The Halacha also requires the Jewish people to detail the goals of war prior to

engaging in battle. This includes detailing what one seeks by victory in the conflict.

43

Rabbi Michael Broyde, in his article Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics,

Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition, finds this is a requirement

because "this allows one’s opponents to evaluate the costs of war and to seek a rational

peace."

44

By following these three procedures, declaring war, asking for peace, and

detailing the goals of war, Israel may legally engage in a war against their enemies.

Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians? No formal declaration of war has

does not want to give credence to the Palestinian terrorists as an independent entity

separate from the Palestinian Authority.

] It is also thought that declaring war would

destroy the ongoing peace process. 

hahahhahahhheheeeeeeeeeeeehoooooooooooeyyyeyeyeyyeyyeyeyhavayeh hhhooooooeyyyyyy !!!!!!

However, in the minds of the Palestinian Authority,

Israel has declared war. 

The Financial Times reported that Saeb Erakhat, a senior

Palestinian Authority official, stated "This is a declaration of war" after Ariel Sharon

declared a government of national emergency soon after the Intifada began.

45

Is it required that Israel formally declare war, or is a functional declaration

enough? 

In current warfare, unlike ancient warfare, formal declarations of war are not

always given even though by all standard definitions, war would clearly define the events

at hand. This has been the case in the Vietnam War and the Gulf War when the United

States never formally declared war on their adversary.

46

Because the lack of formally

declaring war does not go against the purpose of the biblical commandment,  (Bablycal ) the lack of a

formal declaration does not render the actions taken against terrorists invalid under the

laws of war. 

As Nahum Rahover stated "Only in a case where the king's decree does not

merely demand going beyond the letter of the Torah's law but actually goes against it, do

47

Thus, Israel can be

deemed to have declared the functional equivalent of war even if the formal declara

tion

has not been issued.

Because the declaration of war is only necessary because of the desire to make

peace, 

has Israel followed through on this biblical commandment? Since the Camp

David Peace Accords, Israel has made at least 12 major efforts at peace including peace

offerings with the entire Arab world as well as negotiations solely with the Palestinian

Authority.

48

There is little dispute that Israel offered peace agreements where they would

-

10

refrain from any further violence in negotiations with th

e Palestinian Authority in the

Oslo Peace Accords and the Summit at Camp David.

49

These negotiations took place

prior to any Israeli violence against Palestinians related to the current fighting. Even

after the latest Intifada has begun, Israel has made numerous offers of cease-fires which

have all been violated by the Palestinian terrorist groups.

50

These agreements are the

only proof required to show that Israel has fulfilled the requirement to seek peace prior to

declaring war.

Israel has also declared what they seek from the war. The Israeli government has

often stated that they would like to end future terrorist attacks. Their goal then is to deter

any future loss of Jewish lives. 

Furthermore, in formal declarations, Israel has actually

proffered written goals as explicated in the Camp David Peace Summit and the Oslo

Accords.

51

Because Israel has stated what they hope to achieve by the war against

Palestinian terrorists, they have fulfilled the biblical commandments.

By fulfilling the requirements of initiating a war, Israel is engaged in a legally

valid war under Jewish law. They have functionally declared war, offered peace, and

3. Authority to Engage in War

Besides being used to identify the type of war, the laws regarding a war of

obligation define when Israel is permitted to engage in war. A Jewish state has the

52

They then are permitted to go to war if they are engaging in self defense,

53

or as an

54

In biblical times, the Jewish people had to follow three ritual requirements in

order to engage in warfare. However, these requirements have been limited by some

commentators. (rabid rabbi's)

55

The first requirement was the consent of the Sanhedrin.

56

Currently, the

Sanhedrin no longer exists in the state of Israel.

wannabet .......Liar of serpents seed

So how is Israel permitted to go to war?

57

The final requirement

was a consultation with the urim vetumim, an ornament worn by the High Priest.

The question of whether Halachic sanction exists for wars of the state of Israel

was discussed by Rabbi Shlomoh Yosef Zevin. He concluded that Halachic sanction

does indeed exist for Israel’s prior wars.

58

He notes that a defensive war does not require

the consent of the Sanhedrin.

59

Similarly, Rabbi Judah Gershuni asserts that the

requirement of the Sanhedrin "may be dispensed with in our day."

60

He reasons that only

"in the absence of a general desire on the part of the nation to engage in warfare" would

the consent of the Sanhedrin be necessary.

61

Therefore, under his view, the Sanhedrin’s

accord would only be necessary if the populace were unwilling to enter into a war.

The next ritual requirement is the presence of a king or a ruler of the State of

Israel. However, Nachmanides (Ramban) states that the requirement of a king itself is

-

11

not absolute but that this is the prerogative of "the king, the judge, or whosoever

exercises authority over the people."

62

Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, in Mishpat Kohen,

further argued that the requirement of a king is not literal because the king merely serves

as the agent of the people in exercising his royal function.

63

The sages would thus find

that a legitimate government serving as an agent of the state would be permitted to wage

war even if no king was present.

The final ritual requirement is that of consultation with the urim vetimim, a

vetumim no longer exist. Various interpretations of this requirement have arisen. While

Maimonides does not list the urim vetumim in his requirements, he does state elsewhere

that they are necessary.

64

Since Rabbi Zevin as well as the Aruch HaShulcan do not find

this procedural requirement necessary.

keep in mind all these rabid rabbi's of talmud bavli are long long dead.......Long in the pit

65

A middle position has been suggested by Rabbi

Gershuni when he states that consultation with the urim vetumim would be required for

authorized wars but consultation is not required for obligatory wars.

they got it all figured out don't they....hahahhahahahhahha

66

The State of Israel has satisfied the ritual requirements in order to wage war under

Jewish Law. Because the Sanhedrin is not necessary, and may only be necessary for a

non-obligatory war, their consent is not required. The government of Israel, serving as an

agent for the populace, has the authority to wage war because they exercise authority

over the people. As Rabbi Bleich notes that Rabbi Zevin would find Halachic sanction in

Israel’s prior wars, and he himself would logically then find sanction in the 1973 wars,

67

the same logic would permit a justification of Israel’s defensive war against the

Palestinians.

 Finally, even using Rabbi Zevin’s analysis of the urim vetumim

requirement, Israel would be permitted to engage in the defensive, obligatory war against

the Palestinian terrorists.

Israel also would have Halachic justification to engage in war when they are

acting in self defense. Just as we define a war as obligatory when it is in self defense, the

same logic would extend authority to the state to engage in such a war. The Talmud

posits the maxim "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first."

and EYE for an EYE

68

The

authority thus becomes an obligation required under the Halacha. Because self defense

applies to a group just as it would apply to an individual, then this implied authority is

granted to the state.

69

This is seen as an obligation rather than just a permissive action

responsibility.

70

Israel has the authority to engage in a war of self defense to prevent the killing of

the Jewish people. The Palestinians have decreed in Article 15 of the PLO charter that

their goal is "the liquidation of the Zionist presence."

71

In the context of the document

which urges the Palestinians to fight a war of liberation against the "Zionists", then the

Jewish people are engaged in a war of self defense. 

Furthermore, the self-defense

rationale has further justification because the terrorists have their goal to kill the Israeli

citizens, creating in Jews an obligation "to rise up and kill" the Palestinians first (before

they themselves are killed). In order to protect the community as a whole, Israel has an

-

12

obligation, and therefore, the authority, to engage in a war of self defense against terrorist

activity.

Israel may also get their authority to fight in the war against the Palestini

ans is

based on the commandments requiring Israel to fight a war against Amalek.

The Torah

commands that "You shall erase the memory of Amalek."

72

In an earlier section, the

Torah spoke of the war of G-d against Amalek.

73

While these sections would seem to be

obsolete because the tribe of Amalek no longer exists, commentators have disagreed on

their meaning. While Maimonides finds that the commandments to eradicate the seven

Cannanite nations have lapsed, he does not make the same statement regarding the

ancient people of Amalek.

74

In later years, rabbis have found that this omission is due to a higher meaning

given to these commandments. Rabbi Chaim Soleveitchik of Brisk, trying to resolve this

75

76

Rabbi Bleichtoo suggests that because the war against Amalek is an ongoing

and continuous one, the requirement of the urin vetumim is forsaken.

77

Therefore, by

viewing the commandment to destroy Amalek as one that requires the Jewish people to

engage in warfare against all who seek to annihilate Israel, and because biblically

commanded wars are obligatory, Israel would have Halachic sanction to engage in a war

against Amalek or those who hold the same views as the people of Amalek.

Would this biblical commandment give Israel authority to engage in war against

the Palestinians? As a biblical commandment, the war is obligatory. The terrorists have

publicly pronounced that their goal is the destruction of the nation of Israel.

78

While it

may not be true that the Palestinians are in fact genealogical descendents of the people of

Amalek, R. Soleveitchek noted that the commandment against Amalek was two fold: (1)

to destroy the genealogical descendents of Amalek, and (2) a communal (Communist) obligation to

defend the Jewish people against any enemy threatening their destruction.

79

Rabbi Bleich

argues that this is so because the commandments are recorded as two separate

commandments.

80

because they are threatening the destruction of Israel and wish to annihilate the Jewish

people, the nation of Israel has the authority to engage in an obligatory war against them.

Whether viewed using the ritual requirements necessary for the state to go to war,

the laws of self defense creating an implied authority to go to war, or the biblical

commandment to destroy Amalek requiring Israel to go to war, Halachic authority exists

permitting Israel to go to war against the Palestinian terrorists.

4. Limitations on Going to War

conduct warfare. Violation of these rules could prevent Halachic sanction of a war in

-

13

-

defense rationale must be allowed.

81

As Professor Naphtali Zevi Yehuda Berlin notes,

the very verse that prohibits murder would permit war.

82

He states that this is so because,

at wartime, Jews are not required to behave in a brotherly manner, then killing that would

be prohibited is now permissible.

83

Rabbi Broyde notes that when engaging in warfare Israel could not: (1) kill an

innocent third party to save a life; (2) compel a person to risk his life to save the life of

another; (3) kill the pursuer after the evil act; and (4) use more force than is minimally

needed.

84

These laws governing the pursuer rationale would be extended to their

equivalents in wartime. Nahmanides understands that this shows that the Jewish tradition

requires one to "show mercy to one’s enemies and not engage in unduly cruel activity."

85

Another limitation mentioned is that the number of casualties cannot ex

ceed 1/6 of the

population in order for the war to retain Halachic sanction.

86

Besides these limits, war

would be permissible under Jewish Law.

Israel has fulfilled their obligations in order to retain Halachic sanction of the war

against the Palestinians. Israel attempts to limit civilian casualties and reduce collateral

damage. While some of the specific actions taken will be discussed later, the goal of

Israel’s action in wartime maintain these ideals. There is no dispute that Israel has not

engaged in wanton destruction of property, rape of women, or attempts to harm the

general civilian population purposefully.

87

Furthermore, with a population of at least 2.6

million,

88

and even using the Palestinian figure purporting that casualties number 2,160,

this is well below 1/6th of the population. 

Halachic sanction thus remains for Israel’s war

against the Palestinian terrorists.

cause. Israel’s war is obligatory, they have fulfilled the requirements to go to war, the

State has authority to be involved in a war, and Halachic sanction has not been lifted due

viewed as an act of war and Israel thus has the right to treat the terrorists under the rules

governing war.

Since the beginning of terrorist attacks on Israel, the government has employed

various measures in hopes of deterring future attacks or preventing them outright. These

suicide bombers, and deporting family members of terrorists. These responses have

come after years of resorting to various means to achieve peaceful goals. However, when

these means have not proved fruitful, the Israeli government has elected to punish further

the terrorists who attack the nation.

from other forms of justifiable killing.

89

Despite this, the Halacha imposes limitations

-

14

governing specific actions related to actions against the enemy in wartime. In order to

determine whether Israel engages in lawful responses, the following questions will be

considered 1) What are the rights and obligations of Israel to respond to terrorist activity;

2) When is Israel justified to kill, and even assassinate their enemy; 3) When may Israel

destroy property belonging to terrorists; and 4) What are the limitations imposed in terms

of inflicting collateral damage on the civilian populace.

1. Obligations of Israel to Respond to Terrorism

The Talmud decrees that "if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first."

90

As

Halacha.

91

But when do we know when someone is coming to kill us? What if we are

unsure? The Shulcan Aruch has described when it is lawful to fight against those seeking

to wage war against the nation of Israel:

"When there is a [Jewish] city close to the border, then, even if [enemies

mount an attack, although they] come only for the purpose of [taking]

straw and stubble, we should [take up arms] and desecrate the Sabbath

because of them. 

For [if we do not prevent their coming] they may

conquer the city, and from there the [rest of the] land will be easy for

them to conquer."

92

This description illustrates that the threat of attack is enough even if no attack has

yet been made. 

Thus by preventing enemies from killing the populace and being

obligated to do so in the face of impending danger, Israel must engage in attacks against

In the same way we could compare this passage to a comparable situation in

modern day Israel. The places where terrorists convene, in the West Bank and Gaza

fire munitions from these locations into the heart of Israel and its cities.

 Just as Israel was

required to attack those outposts in Biblical times, this ruling would require the same in

the modern age. When an enemy takes up arms on the borders of Israel, the nation has a

duty to protect its citizens from the threat of attack. In this sense, it would be proper for

Israel.

In applying this to Israeli actions in the face of terrorism, the government has an

obligation to attack the terrorists. They must do all in their power to prevent the loss of

actions.

2. Wartime Justifications for Engaging in Assassination of Terrorists

15

As part of their war to combat terror, Israel engages in the assassination of known

terrorists whom they cannot capture through otherwise lawful means. In order to

determine whether Israel is justified in engaging in this behavior, we must consider (1)

the definition of homicide, and assassination, under Jewish Law; (2) When homicide is

justifiable in times of war; (3) When are terrorists culpable, and therefore legally liable to

be assassinated in times of war; and (4) What requirements or limitations govern killing

an enemy in wartime.

The Bible ( their Babble) speaks explicitly that homicide is unlawful: "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

93

It

also seems to even outlaw assassination itself by stating "Cursed be he that smiteth his

neighbour in secret."

94

Knowledge, however, that the intended target is subject to Israeli

repercussions would seem to render the prohibition against assassinations moot (i.e. not

in secret). The Mishnah too notes that some forms of killing are justifiable by illustrating

that murder is "blood shed without cause" (dam hinnam).

95

Different categories of killing are also distinguished in Jewish law. While the

Torah only identifies two categories of killings, premeditated homicide and negligent

unpremeditated homicide, reckless homicide, gross negligence, accidental homicides, and

justifiable homicides.

96

Because the Torah states that "blood unlawfully shed is innocent

blood" (dam naki)

97

, it acknowledges that justifiable forms of homicide exist. It is these

justifiable forms of homicide that must be considered to determine if Israel may lawfully

engage in assassinations. Three forms of homicide are justified under Jewish Law:

execution, rescue, and war.

98

The Torah distinguishes between justifiable homicides that are permissible and

include the laws of rodef (pursuer); and self-defense. Therefore, to identify whether

Israeli actions are justified under Jewish Law, the assassinations must be determined as to

their status and their justification.

Obligatory killings are those that are required in order to save a life. The Halacha

provides various examples of obligatory killings such as participating in a public

execution,

99

killing a man in self defense,

100

and to prevent a man from killing another or

committing rape.

101

Comparatively, permissible killings are those where one fears that

the example of a burglar breaking into one’s home at night.

102

Maimonides notes that

even in regard to obligatory duties, failure to perform, though a sin, is not punishable.

103

Maimonides further cites the command "thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy

brother" to show that these are obligatory and not permissible killings.

104

The question

must then must be asked, are the Israeli’s actions obligatory or merely permissible?

Israel’s actions to kill terrorist leaders are obligatory because they are required to

prevent murder rather than just merely a possible threat to the population. The leaders of

Hamas and Fatah have worked tirelessly, plotting to kill Israelis. The Talmudic examples

-

16

given, illustrating an obligation to save a life in the case of a pursuer are more akin the

Israeli actions, than is the possible threat of a burglar entering the home. One example

would be the assassination of Saleh Shehadeh:

On July 23, 2002, Israel found that Saleh Shehadeh was in a house in

Gaza with his family. The government had been after Shehadeh, the

head of Hamas’ military wing, for years. They had had previous

opportunities before when they knew of his whereabouts but had not

acted on their information in order to restrict collateral damage. Under

his leadership, the Hamas military wing had led to the murder of 232

Israelis including 220 civilians. His occupation was terror, and his only

task was to engineer the deaths of Jews. Twenty of the attacks he

missile into the house killing Shehadeh along with 15 other people.

Shehadeh was known to hide among civilians in order to make himself

less of a target. However, despite the killing of civilians, the Israeli

government noted that his death would save lives.

As Ariel Sharon

stated, "We hit perhaps the most senior Hamas figure on the operational

side, a man who reorganized and rebuilt Hamas forces in Samaria, in

addition to his actions in Gaza."

105

Was this an action in self defense? Was this an obligatory killing? The simple

answer would be yes. Shehadeh spent his life pursuing the Jewish people. He referred to

himself as a soldier, in fact, the leader of a "military wing." Furthermore, he planned

numerous suicide bombings and sent people to kill. In order to save the lives of their

citizens, Israel acted in self defense to eliminate a violent killer. Rather than consider

him as merely a possible threat, the Israeli government knew that he had people under his

command, the means and plans to kill certain Jews in certain areas, and would willingly

and at any opportunity engage in murderous behavior. Therefore, Halachic san

ction

would be granted for the assassination of the second most wanted Palestinian terrorist in

the world.

106

What are the Halachic justifications for obligatory killings? As mentioned

previously, the laws of pursuer and self defense justify killing in wartime. The laws of

war can be considered a mere extension of the laws of pursuer.

107

The law of pursuer

(rodef) permits one to kill a pursuer who is pursuing another in order to kill him.

108

In

wartime, the enemy soldiers can be deemed to pursue the army of Israel, thus making

themselves liable to be killed. The laws of self defense follow the same rationale. When

one comes to kill an individual, they have not only the authority but the obligation to kill

their attacker.

109

Thus, assassination of terrorists is obligatory and based on the permissible

justifications of the laws of pursuer and self-defense. Those military leaders who attempt

to kill Jews, whether they pursue them on the battlefield or pursue them in the streets of

-

17

Jerusalem, may be assassinated under the laws of war. Despite the prohibition against

assassination, these soldiers do not fight on a traditional battlefield, they fight in the dark

rooms hidden in the streets of Judea and Samaria. Were they attacked without

knowledge they would be? 

The terrorist in question, and others like him, are listed

explicitly on Israel’s most wanted list. Warrants are out for their arrest but they instead

hide from the police and the military. Because they are actively pursuing the Jewish

people, meaning to kill them, their assassinations are not only permitted, but obligatory

under the Halacha.

After deciding that Israel has Halachic sanction to engage in assassinations, when

is a terrorist culpable in warfare? It would be incorrect to assume that any soldier could

be indiscriminately assassinated merely for being a member of an army fighting against

Israel. The questions of capital murder have typically been answered in the realm of

criminal law. Therefore, the best way to analyze whether one is culpable would be to

apply the laws of self defense and rodef.

The targets of the assassinations are all those who are actively pursuing means to

murder the Jewish people. The thirty-two assassinated individuals have been listed high

on Israel’s most wanted list. Killing in war is itself sanctioned.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html

Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 9, 2003
The Guardian

Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.

110

Just as in war, soldiers

are liable to be killed when they are actively pursuing the Jewish people. In a war fought

by planning individual attacks, when the enemy is unseen, then, the pursuer only sho

ws

himself at the last possible moment. Israel, thus, may find the terrorist culpable when

they are actively planning these attacks on Jews. The Palestinian terrorist constructing a

bomb in a house in Gaza, is analogous to the sniper on a battlefield. The laws of pursuer

thus would apply, the terrorist would be culpable, and Israel would be justified in taking

that individual’s life through whatever means necessary in order to not transgress the

neighbor."

111

Despite the permissibility of killing in wartime, various limitations govern how

Jews may conduct themselves in war under the Halacha. The Halacha provides that, even

in wartime, killing must be justified under the laws of pursuer or self defense and deadly

force may only be used when necessary.

112

As long as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)

do not engage in killing that offends the Halacha, then their actions, even assassinations,

would still be justified.

How could they possibly offend satan's laws?

The laws of pursuer and self-defense must govern every wartime casualty. In the

context of the Intifada, how does Israel resolve this difficulty? There are two main forms

of killing that have occurred during the war. The first type is hand to hand combat as

seen in the street of Jenin.

113

Killing that occurred there would be seen under the self

defense rationale and those killings would not be deemed assassinations. Comparatively,

the killing of leaders of terrorist entities, and suicide bombers on the way to their targets,

would be justified under the pursuer justification. A common example of a terrorist

whose killing is justified is when a Palestinian assassin en route to break into a home in

one of the communities located in Judea or Samaria. These assassins, on sight may be

-

18

killed by the IDF or anyone else who spots them as they pursue their victims.

These

killings would clearly be justified under the pursuer rationale.

However, despite the ability to kill a pursuer or in self-defense, how does the IDF

justify the assassinations in those cases that are less than clear? This is especially

difficult considering the Talmudic requirement, found by Maimonides, that it would be

unlawful to kill him [the pursuer] where the victim could be rescued by other means.

114

Can we stop these terrorists through other means? 

Maimonides further notes, however,

that while this would be unlawful, the killer would not be guilty of murder. Does the

Israeli government have other means at their disposal? Perhaps this can be viewed based

on the intent of Israel to kill their enemies when other means are available.

What have the Israelis done when they have been able to capture terrorists? The

terrorists who planted the bomb at Hebrew University that killed five students, rather than

being killed, were arrested by Israeli authorities.

115

In the eight days after the

assassination of Israeli Defense Minister Rechavam Ze'evy, 42 terrorists with direct links

to the assassination were arrested and none were killed.

116

Just recently, on February 17,

2003, the latest head of the military wing of Hamas, Riad Abu-Zeid, was killed only

when he pulled a gun so he could avoid capture by IDF forces.

117

These examples

abound while the number of assassinated terrorists stands at 32 during the past two years.

This would seem to show that Israel does attempt to limit bloodshed when possible and

attempt to capture and subdue terrorists rather than kill them.

Despite the large number of deaths, and opposition assessment that Israelis try to

take as many terrorist lives as possible, that is not the case. The IDF has engaged in

justifiable killings. They have also limited bloodshed where possible. In regard to

wartime assassinations, the Israeli government has only engaged in justifiable homicide,

Therefore, they have Halachic sanction to engage in the assassinations of terrorists in the

war against the Palestinians.

3. Justifications for Taking and Destruction of Property Under the Laws of War

One of the most disputed tactics that Israel has engaged in during their war

against terrorism is the taking and destruction of homes of terrorists, their families, and

associates. While it is commonly thought in the world community that these actions are

done at the whim of various individuals, that is not the case. The Israeli government has

legislative authority to destroy homes in accordance with Regulation 119(1):

A Military Commander may by direct order the forfeiture to the

grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, detonated,

exploded or otherwise discharged, or of any house, structure or land in

any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the

inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed or attempted to

-

19

commit or abetted the commission or have been accessories after the fact

to the commission of any offence against these Regulations involving

violence or intimation or any Military Court offence; and when any

house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military

Commander may destroy the house or structure or anything in or on the

house, the structure or the land.

118

In summary, Regulation 119(1) provides that if a house or structure (a) was the

source from where an attack was made; or (b) was inhabited by anyone who committed a

violent offense or violated a military law; then the Military Commander may destroy the

house or structure. 

Chief Justice Meir Shamgar noted that the purpose was to pose an

ultimate deterrent effect in the face of restrictions on capital punishment imposed on

terrorists.

119

It should be noted that international law permits destruction of real or

personal property in occupied territories when necessary for military operations.

SEE US Military SWAT OPERATIONS @ www.prisonplanet.com

120

In the

face of this measure, permitting destruction of homes and structures if they have been the

source of an attack or the residence of an attacker, does Jewish Law preclude their

destruction?

The biblical commandment most often cited with regard to destruction of property

When you . . . wage war against [a city] . . . you must not destroy its

trees, wielding an ax against any food producing tree. Do not cut down a

tree in the field, unless it is being used by the men who confront you in

the siege. However, if you know that a tree does not produce food, then

until you have subjugated [the city], you may destroy [the tree] or cut off

[what you need] to build siege machinery against the city waging war

with you.

121

On its face, the ideals set forth in this passage seem to emulate Regulation 119(1).

The passage provides that property (a tree) may not be destroyed (cut down) unless it is

used by your enemies to attack you (by the men who confront you). The second sentence

provides that you may destroy property (the tree) if it is required to fight your war (cut off

what you need).

Under Jewish law, the following issues arise in regard to this debate: (1) When

may property be destroyed or taken; and (2) What is the extent of property that may be

destroyed in wartime? The Talmudic sages have remarked on the applicability of the

commandment "thou shalt not destroy."

Talmudic commentators have spoken explicitly as to the subject of when property

may be destroyed. Maimonides interpreted this passage to mean that property may not be

destroyed for the "mere purpose of afflicting the civil population and causing

suffering."

122

Nahmanides explained the comment further saying: "for direct military

advantage, anything and everything may be destroyed."

123

This applicability in biblical

-

20

times was noted by Jospehus, the famous Roman historian, stating that "it was enjoined .

. . to not destroy their land by fire and not kill beasts employed in labor."

124

These

comments may be summarized by asserting that anything that is only used for general

human well being is prohibited from being destroyed.

125

So how would Israel’s actions be viewed in this context? Destruction of property

that is used as the base for terrorist attacks seems well within the guidelines proposed by

the commentators. Clearly, if a structure is used to attack Israel or IDF forces, or to

construct weapons, then its destruction would be for "direct military advantage." The

issue of destruction, then, seems clear. When the property in question is used for actions

that would endanger Israel or Israelis, its destruction is not only permissible, but it is the

duty of the military to destroy such property. As long as purpose of the intent is military

advantage, rather than to cause suffering, the destruction of the property would be

permissible under the Halachic code. The deterrent effect, although applicable under the

criminal code, does not seem to have bearing when viewing these destructions as acts of

war.

EVERY ANGLE FIGURED IN THEIR QUEST TO BAFFLE THE WORLD

Considering the permissibility of when property may be destroyed, and whose

property may be destroyed, to what extent may property be destroyed? Nahmanides

noted "destruction was forbidden only if it was wanton mischief of no possible

advantage, or even a disadvantage."

126

The admonition against destruction of property

only covers that which is used for the use of the population with no military use.

However, Nahmanides noted that property may be destroyed if there was any possible

advantage. Note that he used the word possible to describe the advantage that must be

gained. It can be assumed that that he meant that there are few limits that may be placed

on the destruction of property if it will aid in the military effort. It must also be noted,

enough.

127

This strengthens the previous point by illustrating the weight given to the

military is making these decisions to lead to an ultimate military victory.

Israel, thus, would be well within their rights to destroy homes under the

procedures of Regulation 119(1). The Military, under the Regulation, like Nahmanides’

view, must look to the military advantage that may be gained. When a terrorist uses their

home as a base of attack, destruction then is well within the bounds of the Talmudic

pronouncements. In terms of destruction of the homes of residents, it may be viewed as a

deterrent effect to other military operatives thereby ensuring that there will be no military

disadvantage. Another view would show that if this was or even could be the base of

the demolition would be permitted under Halachic law.

By engaging only in necessary or permissible destruction of property, Israel has

not violated Jewish Law. They have not violated their Halachic sanction. Property is not

destroyed based on arbitrary determinations; rather, it is done to reflect a need for

military advantage and save Jewish lives.

4. Limitations on Infliction of Collateral Damage During Wartime

-

21

While not an actual response of the Israeli government, the impact of collateral

damage has clear ramifications in the fight against terrorism. Often, in order to

effectively assassinate terrorist planners, respond to attacks, or otherwise protect the

populace, Israel will engage in some action which leads to civilian casualties. These

civilian casualties are the cause of much of the negative public opinion that exists against

Israel’s responses to terror. Every legal system in the world permits some element of

collateral damage in wartime. Under Jewish law, then, what limitations exist in Israel’s

responses so that they may effectively fight terror, yet still maintain some limitation on

civilian casualties? Is public opinion correct in condemning Israel’s actions as inhumane

and unjust?

How do we begin to analyze this problem in the context of Israel’s actions in the

Intifada? Views of collateral damage vary depending on the type of action in which one

was killed, the degree of innocence of those inadvertently killed, and the ability to attack

in a way that would better limit casualties. The Halacha understands both the moral

problems associated with killing innocents as well as the need to permit innocent

casualties in defense of the nation. In order to answer these questions, I will attempt to

the Halacha, generally, permit collateral damage; (2) Does Jewish Law distinguish

between collateral damage of those who voluntarily remain in the field of combat

and

those who do not; and (3) To what extent must collateral damage be limited under Jewish

Law.

The Jewish belief has always held life in the highest regard. In the same vein,

saving lives of the Jewish people is one of the overriding principles of Jewish Law. The

ambivalence that Judaism has held towards the taking of life can be understood in Jacob’s

reaction before he was to encounter Esau for the first time in 20 years:

20 years after robbing his brother of his birthright, it came to pass that

Jacob was to leave Haran. Esau, along with 400 others, was en route to

find Jacob.

128

Unsure exactly of what the encounter would hold, Jacob

prepared to defend himself if the need would arise. In acknowledging

the possibilities in their encounter, it was written "Then Jacob was

greatly afraid and was distressed."

129

What does this passage have to do with collateral damage? Rashi suggests that

Jacob, unsure whether Esau and his followers had come to kill, was fearful that he

himself would be killed. His distress, however, was based in the possibility he might kill

others, perhaps unlawfully.

130

The distress refers to a moral anxiety. This ambivalence

towards the prospect of inflicting undue harm is further illustrated with the Talmudic

dictum that only minimum necessary force shall be used.

131

Despite this, it is also true

that war destroys the basic standards of morality. It is because of this that Jacob is

distressed.

-

22

This introduction to the Jewish ideas on the sanctity of life identifies the context

in which a discussion on collateral damage must be discussed. The idea that we should

inflict the minimum necessary harm led to Maimonides’ comment that "

it was permitted

to only surround a city on three sides so that they might flee from the beleaguered

city."

133

Even in wartime, the Jewish people did not want innocent people to be

accidentally killed, therefore, a means of escape must be provided. Ranban too agrees

that life is of overriding importance requiring that one have mercy on one’s enemies as

they would have mercy on one’s own.

134

In response to these sages, more recent

commentators have extended these thoughts to the issue of collateral damage.

Rabbi Michael Broyde noted that "Jewish law would allow the unintentional

135

Rabbi Bleich agrees with this sentiment. He asserts that "no . . . Rabbinic

source takes cognizance of the likelihood of causing civilian problems in the course of

hostilities legitimately undertaken as posing a Halachic or moral problem."

136

In the

context of war, it would seem that inadvertent civilian deaths would be permissible when

the goals themselves of war are legitimate.

Israel then has Halachic sanction for collateral damage sustained during the

course of normal wartime responses. In the realm of hand to hand combat and responses

to actual attacks, Israel’s inadvertent civilian deaths caused are morally, and legally,

permissible. When situations such as the recent fighting in Jenin are considered, this is

viewed as legitimate:

On April 2, 2002, in response to multiple suicide bomb attacks and

knowledge of terrorist planning and preparation, The IDF entered Jenin

in order to round up militant terrorists. Jenin, the home of top Islamic

Jihad officers, was a haven of terrorist activity. The IDF had specific

targets in mind, top Islamic Jihad terrorists known to have planned and

committed numerous atrocities, killing many Israelis. Seeking merely to

take captive the terrorists, Israel knew at least some violence was likely.

It turned out that even the mild hopes of minimal violence would turn

out to be wishful thinking. Violent fighting broke out between the

Palestinian militants and the IDF troops. 

Many of the residents of Jenin

fled, while others opted to stay. The IDF stopped no civilian from

leaving the territory, in fact they encouraged them to do so. 

However, in

the nine days of fighting, 22 civilians who stayed were killed when used

as human shields by Palestinian terrorists or caught in the crossfire of the

gunfire between terrorists and IDF troops.

137

In the case of Jenin, and similar instances, Israel followed the law as laid down by

those who stayed, knowing the circumstances, and that fighting is ongoing, they are no

longer considered innocents under Jewish Law, but have changed their status to that of

combatants.

Ooooh ooooh I know the answer to this one rabbi

138

Warning of impending attacks, using even bullhorns and public displa

ys

-

23

to encourage civilians to leave dangerous areas are just part of the responsibility that

Israel has undertaken in their quest to eliminate civilian casualties. However, would we

distinguish between these civilians, killed in the hand to hand combat, from those who

are killed because of their proximity to a terrorist assassinated by guided missiles,

targeted bombs, and other similar means?

On its face, these deaths would seem to be distinguishable. The Jewish tradition

discusses the field of battle. After all, those who remain in the field of battle are

"classified as combatants because the opportunity to leave is continuously present."

139

It

would seem then that one who is killed by the mere circumstance of being nearby to a

terrorist target would fall outside of the realm of permissible collateral damage.

However, that is not the case when dealt with from the perspective of this war.

The commentators discussing the field of battle only dealt with traditional war

fought on the battlefield. It is not so clear when we are dealing with a war that cannot be

fought in an organized manner. We have defined the field of battle in this war as being

unconfined, unbounded, and unknown to the public.

 The streets and homes themselves

are military targets because of their occupants. After all, it is from there they do all of

their planning, and some of their attacking. By judging the terrorist actions to be an act

of war, the terrorists, wherever they are, are deemed on the extended battlefield.

140

The

occupants with them, with few exceptions, have been associates of these terrorists who

knew full well the dangers and the possibility that an attack could come at any moment.

Even in the case of Saleh Shehada

141

, the civilians killed, including children, were

members of his own family.

142

Yet it was known that he traveled with his family in order

to make himself less of a target. In fact, he was known to never sleep in the same place

for more than a single night. So were those members of Shehada’s family in the

line of

fire? Not only would we consider them to be in the field of battle but it was Shehada

himself who had put them there. He attempted to use his own family as a human shield.

Just as the Jewish people would have sanction to kill a commander fighting in the plains

of Jericho even if his family was standing alongside him, Israel had moral sanction, when

other methods proved futile, to kill him despite the inevitable civilian casualties that

would, and did result.

Because the civilians killed are in the field of battle, has Israel abided by the

Halachic limitations on permissible collateral damage? While Israel has an obligation to

limit collateral damage, the deaths that due result in lawful fighting are permissible under

the Halacha. While some specific instances could prove questionable or even show

liability, we must judge Israel’s actions on the whole to determine if any breach of

Halacha sanction has occurred. We do know that Israel has encouraged civilians to leave

the field of battle, encouraged the Palestinian people to stay away from known and

wanted terrorists, and have used many safeguards to prevent civilian casualties. While

the Palestinian people have some cause to complain over the approximately 400 civilians

killed, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is below the number of Jewish civilians

killed, many of the civilians were killed during traditional fighting, many Palestinian

civilians killed have been later found to be terrorists themselves (or children and

-

24

teenagers attacking Israeli troops), and the remainder are justified in order to save further

lives.

Judging actions against terrorism to be an act of war proves to be a difficult task.

The Intifada has many components, some which mimic traditional battlefield encounte

rs

while others seem far removed from any classic definition of war.

143

For that reason it is

difficult at best to understand responding to terrorism solely as an act of war. While that

Talmud provides invaluable advice on how to approach these problems, the sages can in

no way have foreseen how warfare, and terrorism, would be waged in the 20th century.

It is my contention that many of the facets of this conflict may be correctly viewed, and

engaging in assassinations of military leaders, and having Halakhic sanction to permit a

minimal amount of collateral damage. In comparison, other actions taken by the

government, including deportations, certain killing of terroris

ts, and destruction of

property in many circumstances are not correctly viewed as acts of war, nor can they be

justified as such. Therefore, only by further analyzing this conflict using other aspects of

the Halacha can Israel’s actions against terrorism be fully justified.

By responding to terrorism under criminal law, Israel would be forced to treat

terrorists in a similar manner that they do other criminals. Some of the components of

terrorism including the political purpose, the organization, and the intent to put fear in the

populace must be functionally disregarded and the State must instead apply the rule of

law to these terrorists.

144

However, justifying government actions in response to these

activities requires an analysis of analogous acts that the sages have discussed throughout

the centuries.

To discuss responses to terrorism under criminal law, this paper will analyze the

following: (1) Is terrorism a criminal act; (2) How should Palestinian t

errorists be

punished under the criminal law and what law should apply to them; (3) What is the

court’s jurisdiction to impose criminal law; and (4) Can the government responses to

terrorism, assuming they are criminal acts, be justified.

Are acts of terrorism, and responses thereto, correctly treated under the criminal

laws defined in the Talmud? The specific actions taken by terrorists have been

traditionally treated under the criminal law. From random murders and bomb

ings to

stone throwing, the acts of terrorism undertaken by the Palestinians facially appear to be

criminal acts. Because the acts themselves are taken not under the authority (at least not

publicly stated authority) of a state, and the members are not a member of any recognized

military force, criminal law would seem to be the correct measure with which to judge

these acts.

-

25

The key difference between criminal and military actions is the distinction

between public and private acts. Because the terrorist actions do not have explicit public

sanction, they would be viewed as criminal acts. This seems even more true when the

terrorists are actually citizens of the country they are attacking. In the case of the Israel-

this is not as clear as it would seem. If we placed terrorist acts on a continuum between

acts of war and criminal acts, it would seem that acts of terrorism would fall in the

middle. The question is then whether terrorist acts would be more akin to the criminal

acts than to acts of war; it would not be difficult to see them as such. In the same vein

that terrorist acts have been viewed to be quasi-military acts,

145

we could also see them as

quasi-criminal acts and thus viewed under the criminal laws of the Halacha.

The key questions in analyzing terrorist acts under criminal law involve the rules

that govern criminal acts as opposed to the rules that govern the State’s response to

criminality. So when is something a crime? In the Halacha, crimes are identified

explicitly. These crimes have been extended through Talmudic interpretations and the

however, a larger emphasis on civil law and restitution that would entail many of the

crimes that are described in American law to be punishable by restitution and civil

penalties rather than penal sanction. Furthermore, unlike a secular system, the laws of

criminal acts.

For the purposes of this discussion, describing terrorist acts, the acts for which

bombs, abetting murder, etc. would all be individual crimes under the Halacha.

Therefore, the individual acts that terrorists engage in are criminal a

cts and Israeli

government responses may be treated as responses to those acts.

One of the difficulties in analyzing terrorist actions under the Halacha is that

Halachic law does not apply to non-Jews. 

Get ready..............you are ABOUT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE

While we must gauge Israel’s actions under

Jewish law, how do we handle Palestinian actions? Throughout history, Jews have

146

In order to determine

how we can correctly assess the culpability as well as appropriate sanctions for terrorism

under criminal law, I will discuss (1) What is the correct law that applies to Palestinian

Terrorists; (2) What are the Palestinian obligations under that set of laws; and (3)

Whether Israel has the ability, and/or the obligation to impose punishment on

Palestinians.

1. Law Applicable to Palestinian Terrorists

-

26

What Law is applicable to Palestinian terrorists? Jews are judged under the

Halacha. The Torah states: "Judges and officers shall you make in all your gates . . . and

they shall judge the people with righteous judgment."

147

Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven

Gerondi (Ran) commented that Israel, unlike other nations, is required to "render just and

true judgment" and only then will "divine grace will be visited upon our p

eople."

148

This

comment illustrates that Jews are judged under a different standard than are other

peoples. As Rabbi Bleich notes, Judaism posits a parallel legal code that is binding on all

149

The Noahide code describes the seven commandments that were binding on the

sons of Noah: the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, sexual offenses, bloodshed, theft,

and eating the flesh of a living animal as well as the affirmative obligation of dinim, to

establish courts.

150

151

While these laws differ from obligations under Jewish law, Rabbi Kook states that while

the Halacha as administered to Jews is based on the Torah, the Noahide laws are based on

"fundamental human honesty."

BUT NOT TRUTH OF JESUS THE CHRIST

152

Some commentators have expanded on the Noahide laws inferring greater

requirements than just the facial prohibitions. 

Nahmanides found that many of the

Halachic laws including those as pertaining to extortion, commercial transactions, rape

and seduction, overreaching, and personal injuries among others also apply to the

"descendents of Noah."

153

He notes that these obligations are inherent because human

society, even prior to the Revelation at Sinai, followed many established legal norms.

154

noted that the Noahide code is less restrictive than the Halacha. In criminal law,

court may be composed of a single judge.

155

Rabbi Kook asserts that the laws don’t

follow the same stringent standards of the Halacha because they "are rooted in common

decency, an affinity for justice . . . in everyday matters, an abhorrence of blatant evil . . .

common to all men on earth" and not in the holiness of the Torah.

156

In sum, the laws of Noah provide that apply to non-Jews are the natural law

inherent in mankind.

157

The Torah views that all men must be governed by some laws.

While less restrictive, the Noahide law still provides a way to ensure that non-Jews may

be governed and punished in a Jewish legal system. 

The common sense approach to

creating these laws shows that all people should have the internal desire to affirmatively

do certain acts and more importantly, not engage in those acts that are "blatant evil."

158

All non-Jews, in fact all people on earth (including Jews), must abide by the Noahide

laws.

159

The Halacha incorporates the Noahide law, so these laws would apply to Jews as

well, but in many cases are more stringently defined for the Jewish people.

Because the Palestinians are defined in Jewish law as "descendents of Noah" they

inherent in the Noahide laws would, and should, apply to the Palestinians. Because these

27

laws are less restrictive than Halachic standards, applying the Halachic standards would

be incorrect.

Furthermore, while it would seem that Jews are applying a system of laws

no differently than any other group.

160

that law governs man, and all men must be governed by some law in order to ensure that

there is no lawless society. 

So too, the Jewish nation, like all nations, must have some

standard with which to apply to non-citizens in order to correctly implement their own

punishment for those who violate the law.

Folio 56a

GEMARA. It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he 'blesses' the Name, by the Name.²  Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord … when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.³  How do you know that the word nokeb⁴  [used in the Hebrew] means a 'blessing'? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob]⁵  whom God hath not cursed;⁶  whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God.⁷  But perhaps it means 'to pierce,'⁸  as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob]⁹  a hole in the lid of it,¹⁰  the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?¹¹  — The Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other.¹²  But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name. But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu]¹³  by their names;¹⁴  the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God?¹⁵  — Firstly, the Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.¹⁶  An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob¹⁷  [and cursed],¹⁸  proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?¹⁹  You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed,²⁰  and not 'him that hath blasphemed and cursed', proving that one offence only is alluded to.

Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.²¹  It would have been sufficient to say], 'A man, etc:' What is taught by the expression any man?²²  The inclusion of heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.²³

Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.²⁴  — R. Isaac the smith²⁵  replied; This phrase ['any man'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name,²⁶  and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.²⁷  Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death?²⁸  Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. Whence do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included [in this law]? From the verse, Any man that curseth his God — shewing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]: this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name, is punishable by death: with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction. [but not punishable by death].

This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a heathen [son of Noah] blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name, he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death. Why so? — Because it is written, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death].²⁹  This teaches that only the stranger [i.e.. a proselyte], and the native [i.e., a natural born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the heathen is punishable even for a substitute only. But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land'? — It teaches that the stranger and citizen are stoned, but a heathen is decapitated. (Goyim Gentile) For I would think, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]: hence we are taught otherwise. Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land', on the view of the Rabbis?³⁰  — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?³¹  — The Torah employed normal human speech.³²

Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;³³  to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.³⁴

2. Obligations of Palestinians Under the Noahide Code

These obligations are separated in two main components, the prohibitions under the law

including the prohibition against murder and theft, and the affirmative obligation of

dinim, to create a just legal system.

161

I will describe the requirements of Noahide

commandments by showing the obligations under the laws of Noah and how these

obligations have been upheld or defied by the Palestinians.

The Talmud describes the six negative commandments of the Laws of Noah as

prohibiting (1) murder; (2) blasphemy; (3) theft; (4) sexual immorality; (5) idolatry; and

(6) eating the flesh of a living animal.

162

For the purposes of this discussion, and

acknowledging that the Palestinians are Muslims, the requirements of blasphemy, sexual

immorality, idolatry, and eating the flesh of a living animal are upheld by the Palestinian

society. These too are the requirements that many secular societies do not see as

unlawful. The prohibitions of murder and theft, though, are universal in their acceptance

by the peoples of the world.

The other main requirement of the Noahide code is the requirement of dinim

163

Rahum Nakover asserts that

"just as the Jewish People are commanded to establish courts, so too are the descendents

of Noah required to establish courts."

164

This requirement is due to the emphasis that the

Torah places on establishment of a legal system. As Rabbi Jacob Anotoli notes, the

requirement of dinim is imperative because "wholeness cannot be attained until men are

165

As Maimonides remarked,

requiring dinim would ensure that "the world would not be destroyed."

166

The Talmudic sages have also noted that the requirement of dinim was not just to

create a legal system but a just legal system. 

As Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) explained:

"Noahides are commanded to keep the local conventions, and to judge justly between

man and stranger."

167

This point is further underscored by the comments of Rabbi A.Y.

Karelitz (Hazon Ish) commenting that "the Noahides became obliged to establish laws of

honesty and right behavior."

168

Only by enacting laws that lead to a just society can the

Noahide pursuit of justice be maintained.

-

28

Maimonides noted that the unstated requirements necessary in a legal system are

embedded in the requirement of dinim.

170

Further, the obligations of dinim do not just

require the appointing of judges but the laws of dinim include such matters as theft and

extortion.

171

A dissenting voice can be heard by Rashi as he understood the laws of

dinim to be not even the enacting of laws but just the appointment of dayanim and

shofetim (judges and priests).

172

As Rahum Nakover explains, this is because Rashi felt

that only by appointing judges can the commandments be promulgated throughout the

land.

173

By appointing a system of judges, who adjudicate over the land, and do so to

create a just society, with the pursuit of justice, the Palestinians would fulfill the

requirement of dinim as handed down to Moses at Sinai.

The Palestinians must abide by the Noahide prohibitions against murder and theft

in order to be free of blame in the ongoing conflict. 

While there have been relatively few

reports of stealing and theft related to the Intifada, the prohibition against murder weighs

heavily in the forthcoming discussion when specific acts are analyzed according to

Jewish law principles.

 By committing acts of murder, the Palestinians are liable under

Jewish law to be penalized under Halachic criminal law.

Despite the acts for which they are liable under the Halacha, have the Palestinians

fulfilled the biblical commandment to appoint Dayanim or, similarly, impos

e a set of just

laws? There is no dispute that, at least recently, the Palestinian Authority has created a

court system and imposed a system of laws which, at least facially, appears to meet the

requirements of dinim. But have these laws led to a just society? Have their laws been in

the pursuit of honesty and right behavior? The Palestinian Authority basic laws have not

been put in final form but an International team of lawyers drafted a set of laws so that

they may have a just society.

174

To date, though, the Palestinian Authority has not

enforced these laws in a manner as required to be judged to have fulfilled their Noahide

obligation.

A multitude of violations of even their own laws have been decreed by various

international organizations. From lack of enforcement in the realm of intellectual

property and pirated media,

175

arbitrary arrests,

176

political prisoners,

177

to the imposition

178

the Palestinian Authority has become a den of lawlessness not

enforcing even their own basic laws. The Palestinian Authority may have the infamous

distinction as the country with fewer capital punishments imposed by the court then have

defendants standing trial for capital crimes be murdered during the proceedings.

179

Even

the Human Rights Watch, which regularly decries Israel’s use of "extreme" violence, has

found numerous instances of accused collaborators being sentenced to death in court

sessions lasting less than 90 minutes with no right to appeal.

180

Israel too has rejected the

trial of the Palestinian terrorists who killed the Israeli Defense Minister, Rehavem Zeevi,

when they were sentenced to one year in prison.

181

These examples illustrate that it is

clearly disputable whether the Palestinian Authority has enacted dinim to the standards

required by the Halacha.

-

29

In comparison, other countries have enacted just laws that parallel closely not

only the Halacha, but international law standards as well.

Every Elected Official in the UNITED STATES are NOW traitor's to the Constitution FOR the UNITED States of America...of the PEOPLE..BY the People and for the People...NOT ONE....not even one is left out of contempt and treason....not one, unless they shout the treason on Capitol Hill in the Whorehouse...........................Every Bar Mitzvah so called attorney and every Freemason Judge in this nation are traitors to the Christ Believers who are left and are now alive. EVER SINGLE ONE are in contempt of the laws of this Christian NATION....every zionist Churchizionian of the shem's are in contempt and Blaspheme the Name of ALL names, Jesus the IAM the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY the ALPHA and the OMEGA 

The war is own and the Soldiers of Jesus the Christ are on the front, where are you? are you in fear of the shem gods and their god and have sided with Darkness and satan? Who will not stand but hope to flee the evil to come? Who are not those that Jesus Prayed to the Father THAT HE NOT TAKE THEM FROM THE WORLD BUT THAT HE DELIVER THEM FROM THIS EVIL.

Are you one of those apostate lukewarm's of Scofield's Dispen-satan-alism of the "secret rapture Doctrine, who was snared into complacency so the shem gods could pull the shem sham without objection in Amaraka OF THE BUSHKEVIK GODSHIP?

the seventy GOYIM nations?

law standards exactly and they all have some of their own "spin" on enacting a "just

Well of course they do, after-all Bushkevik has given the ok....BUT beware this king of the North, and Arik Sheinerman of the south sit at one table and deceive each other while they vie for that whore city Jerusalem. YOU ARE WARNED BY THE LIVING LORD GOD

He does not, however, limit the

possibility that Jews may bring a non-Jew to justice.

Assassination squads sent to America......CIA say's.....so what

Remember any who oppose them are called "Terrorist" by these Talmudic satanic standards and say we seek to kill a jew shem god because we oppose them. We are called anti-Shem's and the Judeo-Churchizionian's of these shem gods who worship the creature more than the creator, The true Christ Jesus, who say their god is the same as them who crucified Jesus the Christ....also call us who oppose their Hoodlum haha...anti-shems AND "HATERS" when in fact it is they who hate the jews for they agree with the jews that they need not Jesus but have another covenant, and it is these who deliver the jews to damnation eternal....are you one of these of the superior shem sham?

commentators (rabid rabbi's long dead in the ground who have nothing to do with these United States of America and our LORD Jesus the Christ)disagree on the obligations of Jews to judge the sons of Noah. Maharam

These laws have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WORD which condemn's them in blasphemy....let them quake and tremble, for their destruction against the seed of Abraham the Spiritual ISREAL in faith of Christ Jesus, is their own destruction soon...DO YOU HEAR GREAT WHORE.......IAM become the NEW troubler of that WHORE CITY, in Jesus Mighty Name. 

DO you hear president dan bush'ka...do you hear freemason Judges in the Talmudic Satanic system? Do you hear Liars who say you are Lawyers and deliver the poor and the widows houses to your god the "ROBBER"?

 Do you hear Judeo-Zionist who only give Lip service to a watered down version of Jesus the Christ? Do you hear you Pastor's in sheep's clothing you wolves of MAMMON? Do you hear you whoremongers and nay sayers who e-mail me your accusations every hour and every day? Do you hear apostates who DENY the NAME above all names for another name which is not JESUS the Christ but substituted with your Yid-dish Jesus who is not the LIGHT unto the GENTILE'S and whom we trust?

Come with your staves and your swords as if I am a thief in the night, but I have ever told you the TRUTH in the open.

Damn all of you who blaspheme the Name of the LORD of LORD and the KING of KINGS, come get me in your thirty pieces of silver to your mammon gods the shem's and let your lust begin for I will cry out, and when I am gone by your lust of your father the ROCKS of the EARTH will cry out at your evil you do and the blood that you have shed.

And Jesus the Christ will deliver you to the Day of JUDGMENT for all the Blood you have shed upon the earth in the name of your "ROBBER" you have chose and your children have chose, who are now made twice the children of hell

Woe unto you officer of the peace sworn to up-hold the Constitution FOR the United States of America, who now work for your Kestapo, running rough shod upon the POOR and the WEAK and the Widows who lock up your Prisoners and do not release them for your mammon god who are traitors against Jesus the LORD for you will be locked up forever in that PIT of Hell and death along with your shem gods who you serve.

Woe unto you Sheriff, who was the last vestige of Freedom of these United States sworn to uphold the Constitution for the People who put you where you are, who say that I, am an enemy, anti-Government, for you are right I am anti-Talmudic New World Odour stinking filthy Government which you are now a part in your treason. 

But Let me tell you IT IS NOT ME THE BRINGER OF DEATH, for I seek to slay NO MAN neither jew or greek, BUT I  AM become your Troubler in this Nation the Voice of MY LORD the WORD of GOD

Woe unto you you Prosecutors of Satan's Talmudic WORLD ODOR, for your inheritance is the PIT of the Abyss, you who prosecute the innocent for your rich influential mammonite's of the Greed elite of the shem god's, for yours is the Prosecution of the LORD God's Wrath on that DAY, and where will you flee when you are convicted.

185

When they see the saints of Jesus the Christ decapitated...then they will bow and worship us and our god who has no Only Begotten Son Jesus of Nazareth.....our Moshiach ben Dovid, our son of perdition who will stand in the place of Christ as Christ shewing himself to be Christ, say the shem's....

The United States of America, Was made the TALMUDIC Jurisdiction of the jewish nation by treason 1991 by the 102nd congress

Follow closely how they snare the Judeo-Churchizionian's by their Collective Communitarian Laws of satan the murderer by "Justification" using the Written Word when convenient

peace." While the people of Shechem, thieves themselves, knew of the

Yoke themselves to their laws which make the WORD of God of none effect

known as Nablus, is considered a den of terrorist activity. 

a Perfect schech-me....almost...but failed at Calvary

Perhaps this

"Perpetual Purim"

Collectively by Borg Communitarian, after all it takes a Village Yid-diot

hahahahehehhhehhe Dinah won't you blow your horn

If they were of Jacob, they would not, for Jacob believed the WORD of God and did not know him by the name of tetragramatron YWVH

Awh come now......1/6 is only 433,000 to go to get the lust of your father out of your satanic systems

So if any stand firm for the Testimony of Jesus the Christ, whom they say commit blasphemy, and the Judeo-Churchizionian's do not deliver these to be afflicted and slain as per Talmud Bavli tractate 57A. then they too will be slain collectively. easy to see why they will think to do their god, the Judeo god a service when they deliver us to the synagogues and their Freemason Councils where the Freemason shem fearers rule, and they call courthouses in Amaraka, today................and they all stand in condemnation for the blood they shed 

Evil in the same context that they delivered Jesus to be crucified

According to their god the "Robber" they do, after all they are the master race shem god's who under authority of their god they have made the god of this world, has given them his ok to carry on his Lust for the blood of all mankind 

of course they can...see the Bushkevik Regime of Talmud at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq

Therefore see the evil that they do in these seventy weeks of the last days

are less simple to understand. Most commentators require that the Noahide laws are

upheld by the courts.

www.come-and-hear.com

US President George W. Bush "sent greetings and applauded the institute for promoting an 'understanding of Judaism's rich tradition of legal thought. As we face new challenges and welcome new opportunities, our society must continue to promote good character and strong values. Through the study and teaching of Jewish law and philosophy you are contributing to a growing culture of service, citizenship, and responsibility in America,' Bush wrote

The occasion was a kosher dinner held at the US Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC by the National Institute of Judaic Law to celebrate the occasion of the Institute's founding. According to the Jerusalem Post, the purpose of the Institute is to teach Judaic law to US law students and jurists, and to file legal opinions in US courts. (44)

  This would mean that Simeon and Levi’s actions then would not be

In the US under Jurisdiction of greater ISREALHELL

groups (CHAbad lubavitch) would use the story of Shechem to justify the actions of Baruch Goldstein, where

Wonder why the Palestinians fight for freedom of the zionist?

view would hold that the creation of a just society is so important that even mass murder

would be justified when the society is so corrupt that they do nothing to rein in

= Opposition to their shem sham Hoodlum haha.....If you ain't with us, then you must be against us, Homelandt "SAY"Kurity, Patriot AKT of the Reichstag of the Bushkevik order

See Amarakan Talmudic Criminal Law of Talmud bavli and the New Regime of the Homelandt SAYkurity enforcement of the Hoodlum haha of satan and his lacky's

Due Process...who is to be put to death first....then Due process to establish that fact "to be put to death"

Decapitation of Goyim per Sanhedrin 57 a. of Talmud Bavli

BY ONE MATERIAL witness....false witness....by one Judge, no appeal

Only for a shem

Or even if they "Incited" and other became inflamed in error

This nation was given sufficient warning 1991, HJR 104, Public Law 102-14 according to rabid rabbi's

Clearly why Sheinerman with the Bushkevik blessing would prefer to send assasination squads to Amaraka. Clearly why I was warned by a blue Lodge signet ring left in my public warehouse in 2003

Biblical law (Babylical) in order to impose punishment?

Neither do Amarakan Talmudic Courts....see Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq

Bee of Assyria....Mithra, I guess

TALMUD BAVLI OF SATAN's shem gods

NOT TORAH the Written WORD but Mishnah Torah of the traditions of the Pharisees...the chassidim....the CHABAD LUBAVITCH, satan's Talmud Bavli the leaven of the Pharisees.....beware

Of blasphemey of their god of forces the tetragramatron YVWH their god, the god of Judeo Churchizionist for the WITNESS of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ who they call in Talmud Bavli YESHU HA NOSTRI and say that he is in hell boiling in human excrement. If you do not worship their god, then you are to be put to death by decapitation for your transgressions of the shem sham on all of mankind.

Oh, go ahead and "HATE" me with your hate-crimes against Jesus the LORD, for your god's, I have gotten quite used to it, it is only because I tell you the TRUTH, that you hate me. I find that I am blessed for you hate me for the LORD's name sake....that name JESUS the Christ. I will never fall for your hegelian names in yid-iot, for that name Jesus of Nazareth is the Name above all names to me, who he came as a light unto the gentiles....and this gentile is ENGLISH speaking. Kep all of your hebrew names to your selves, for your ebers rejected the name and say Jeshu is an acronym for "May his name be blotted out".

This is how they will deliver my brothers and my sisters the saints to be slain. Satan's last enemy on earth are the saints of Jesus the Christ, all the rest worship the beast of zion

By permitting a court to violate the biblical (Babyly-cal)

Making their laws but not moving one finger to do them them selves

(TALMUD and the rabid Illuminated rabbi's....i.e, elohim....the gods....the judges

All about shem's the superior master race gods over all goyim on earth

Halacha (YOKE of TALMUD) and rule contrary to it, (SLAY AT WILL) courts may lawfully render decisions and impose

By the law, but not according to their law, by the will of one freemason judge obedient to the shen gods and their Moshiach

Get rid of them anti-Shem godites, those believers in that spirit Lord, Jesus of Nazareth who we crucified for his blasphemy to our Tetragramatron

courts may even permit individual rights to suffer for the greater good of the

as they did and allowed with Hitlers Theosophic Quabalah training. The sacrifice for their flesh zion

see 911, the coup

father in the community (Commune-itarian baa'l) and, in that role, is charged with maintaining law and order

see Freemason Corrupt anti-Constitution, treasonous Judges across Amaraka today.

EXTRA JUDICIAL  assassination squads....see Police State of Homelandt SAY kurity of the Bushkevik REGIME by the Burning of the Reichstag WTC 2001 Sept, 11

They would become obedient proselytes for fear of the jew shems, immediately and would stop at once in their support of their watered down Jesus, whom they only give seed of greed mammon creed to.

For he would have no head with which to think of it?

Who needs the Legislative branch when you have Judge Judy the Judge of the free world

The Freemason Judge calls up his freemason Chief of Police, the Chief of Police knows you are not obedient for you ain't a freemason Noahide, so he sends two jack booted thugs armed to the teeth displaying their Star of Moloch proudly upon their chest, that six pointed star which the fraternal of Police now sport, to your home, where they address you to come out, so they can Sodomize you then slay you in front of witnesses who will be critisised on Noahide News and Goy TV at TEN..Live 

Such as Jesus of Nazareth on GOOD Friday on Sabbath EVE

Thus they did on Sabbath eve breaking their laws of GOD even then....continuously and they will continue to do so for they are hypocrites

Mt:26:55: In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

as long as a saint is alive and giving testimony of Jesus the Christ, and when the last is slain for the testimony that seventh angel will sound his trump, and the LORD will send his angels to harvest them from the earth. Then Tribulation which this world has never seen now ever will see again will fall upon them who slept in apostasy, He will come like a thief in the night, and they will not repent their blasphemy against Him the Everlasting Covenant Jesus the LORD and they shall be cast into the pit with death and hell for eternity

They only use the Bible for convenience to deceive the apostates of the leaven of the Pharisees, the Bushkevites of Judeo-Churchizionity the chinese dimestore american flag waiving "Patriots" of the shem god manufacturing

AS LONG as needed to have the world whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of life bow and worship this son of Perdition their false Messiah, Moshiach ben satan of talmud bavli the perversion of lucifer

SIMPLE as that....so he was

So they will simply be slain.....just as simple as that, any who oppose the shem gods....jus that easy to them whose father who is a murderer since the beginning

Torah. (TALMUD BAVLI MISHNAH TORAH the oral tradition which makes the WORD of God of none effect

when the times

demand it, the courts may impose a harsher punishment than decreed by the Talmud.

Let them who have ears hear

and the US of Greater whoredom have declared a "state of emergency"

The Black Commentator - Permanent War - Issue 14
George Bush has embarked on a strategy of permanent war abroad. The inevitable result
will be a permanent state of emergency within the borders of the United ...

a Communist Communitarian of Noahides

Besides the obvious deterrent factor of

ways as well. Assassinating a killer may save lives and would in fact impose the capital

punishment that would have been an obligation of the court had the terrorist been

and More room for Greater ISREALHELL and the elite of her Pimp

Guillotine would certainly get those Judeo Churchizionian's passing the collection plate for the shem's now wouldn't it. Or will it? Perhaps satan will not snare as many as he hopes, maybe they are waking now, maybe the nations are getting angry for the whore's deceptions. BUT, If you are waking do not make Jerusalem your stumbling Block, do not seek to slay any of these, for the wrath belong's to the LORD, but pray for them that they too will awake from the long slumber and the err their leaders cause them.

See "TERRORISM" in the USA...and understand why it is needed...it is needed to enact these satanic Talmudic measures to make the people obedient to the shem gods and their Moshaich ben Perdition

Ooooh...oooohhh I know...NOW there is and it first began in Amaraka and will spread unto the Orwelian Prolitarian Communitarian Noahide World...........Emmanuel Goldstein (Usama ben Laden) will lob those bombs from Oceania and Eurasia.......

"desperate times call for desperate measures" would fit this situation. This, though, does

Three strikes......yer out is the good-old days

-Alert-

justified under Israeli law. But how does Jewish law resolve this dilemma? In order to

understand how the Halacha can deal with these problems, Talmudic justification must be

can you see America....can you see what they do? weep America, for what they do. Pray America for what we are become. Stand firm America against these murderers of the earth.

DO YOU HEAR ?

see anti-shem-itic laws being made in US as was in Russia, where 50-100 million Christians were slain in the Talmudic Holy-Cost which has been covered up for 50 years but has now been revealed. See the Talmudic Megillah of the planted book of Esther, Easter, Isis, Ishatar, Astarte, Semiramis, Venus, the Queen of heaven and he cohort the High Priest of the Sanhedrin Mordechai, where the Talmud Bavli gave them license to slay the 70,000 goyim. The ONLY book, in the bible which makes NO MENTION of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...and many became jews for the fear of the jews.

 The easy way to get around with killing your non Soldier Enemies, enemy combatants 

Easy, just abide in the perversion's of Talmud Bavli of satan that evil tetragramatron........ooooops, did I just blaspheme your flesh god of your hoodlum haha?

when the shem god's say? and nothing to do with US Legislation?

Just name it? when they reach maturity the age of three and can throw a rock at a tank?

can you be a little more specific shem?

Which the shem's do not heed

of course

a zionist think tank

Wait a second

Wheelchair-bound Palestinian killed during demonstration

Israeli soldiers have shot dead a man in a wheelchair during a demonstration, according to medics and witnesses in the West Bank.

They say the man, Arafat Yakoub, 31, had been shot twice before in confrontations with troops.

Medics say Mr Yakoub was shot in the head when troops opened fire on stone-throwing demonstrators near a checkpoint at Kalandiya refugee camp, north of Jerusalem.

An Israeli military source says the troops opened fire on several Palestinians suspected of trying to infiltrate an Israeli industrial zone near the camp.

The source said the Army was investigating the incident.

Kalandiya residents say Mr Yakoub was paralysed when soldiers shot him in a 1989 confrontation.

He was wounded again in a 2002 incident.

____________

Back to the sicko's of the Universal Satanic fallen away apostasy

oh neat the shem/sham/shame-ites have found yet another loop hole in which to slay the un-noahide proselytes

3. "If the king of Israel (Moshiach to be "REVEALED SOON)wishes to put them to death by royal decree or for

Of course this is the reason for the "WAR ON TERRORISM" it gives them the right to do the Lust of their Father the murderer since the beginning

royal prerogative, ( Bush's Dan-ite Royal Prerogative)  falls outside the bounds of traditional criminal law and will be

By Satan's Talmud Bavli

Dealing with these topics under criminal law and not the laws of war limits the ability of

Oh good, so no more wars will ever be DECLARED

a shem/shame

Amaraka's "War On Terror" the lobbing of missiles from Ole Emmanuel Goldstein on the Patriotic Proles Orwell 1984

determine causation and culpability of individuals under the Halacha.(Noahide Law)  They find that all

I hope you are listening to their lust and Justification for Decapitation against assassinations, all the while the same shem sham of shame advocate's their side the IDF and Mossad is Justified on the same assassination

of course the shem's will carry out their laws on Palestinians and Dan the Bushkevik's on their targets, but their targets have NO RESOLVE....but to throw rocks at the beast

Mammon EYE....see dollar bill

hahahahheeeeeeeeee "Blur the Lines" hahahahahhehehehhehehe

No more comments. I am quite sickened of their pretend play god and their pretend play godhood of their pretend hoodlum haha and their pretend righteous goyim. Their pretense was cast into the PIT at CALVARY

243

287

Wait until you see the "collateral Damage" on that DAY of the Lord's Wrath, Isrealhell Judah and Dan

____

Noahide News Part 13

The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25