IDF: Peace-Makers or Warmongers? Sabbath Observers or Heretics?

The Israeli Defense Force is known as one of the strongest, most technologically advanced military forces in the world. Strangely enough, the perpetual debate among Jewish thinkers is whether taking military action in order to gain political independence is permissible according to Jewish tradition and law. Sources from the Written and Oral Law give proof to both sides of the debate, thus causing uncertainty among modern political theorists as to whether Judaism champions or opposes war. Though one can find sources to verify both sides, a certain degree of militancy is arguably vital to the existence of the State of Israel, which is, according to many, a prerequisite for the survival of the Jewish nation. Mamlahtiyut, a neologism coined by David Ben Gurion to refer to the political sovereignty of the Jews, would practically have to encompass both Jewish Law and modernism in order to achieve independence while preserving Jewish identity.

In the Diaspora, Jews were considered a state within a state; they were often free to practice their religious traditions, but they weren’t given the rights of statehood, resulting in (This reaaly ought to say something like “instead suffering from”) political subjugation and repression. Over the centuries, the Jewish people were subject to cruel scrutiny from the other nations, possibly in part a reaction to the Jews’ view of themselves as the “Chosen People.”ⁱ This attitude of superiority pervades Jewish law, whether in the differentiation between Jewish and gentile blood or  the “resident alien” (ger toshav) status of the non-Jew in the Jewish state. Such an attitude, in addition to the timidity of the Jews because of halakhaⁱⁱ, led to the oppression of the Jews and therefore the need for a state to serve as their safe haven.

Once the reason behind the necessity for the state is clearly stated, its goals and  course of action for achieving these goals are more easily understood and justified. Because the state was established for a people who had been politically oppressed, the state does not just serve to achieve independence. It must also be a tool for the people to combat those forces of opposition who have and continue to persecute them,  resulting in the conclusion, I believe, that military force is not only justified, but necessary for the goals of the state. A famous source of this rationale is the commandment by God for the Jews to destroy all of the Canaanites. This biblical reference is utilized as an example of a “holy war,” a fulfillment of God’s will, as opposed to an “optional” or “unholy war.”ⁱⁱⁱ  Rav Kook builds on this distinction between holy and unholy wars and says that wars fought for Israel are divinely ordained and therefore do not challenge Jewish Law.^iv Thus, it seems logical to conclude that military force is both a permissible and necessary component of the Jewish state.

The next question that should be raised is the balance between nationalism and Judaism; between statehood and halakha . First and foremost, it is important to recognize that a total separation of politics and religion is simply impossible in any state because deeply held religious convictions will inevitably affect ones’ stances on policy issues. In the case of a Jewish state,  political power and halakha are used to maintain order in the state and in religion, respectively. The issue, however, with which Israel grapples is finding a healthy balance between the two forms of authority. Halakha seems to promote passivity on the part of the Jews when it comes to   war. Biblical law places limitations on the justifications for waging war, and Talmudic law expresses its strong aversion towards cruelty to the enemy during a time of war.^v So it would seem  that requisite for the success of Jewish statehood is a reconciliation of modern, essentially pagan, political tactics  with halakha and a compromise between the two arguably opposing forces.

The issue raised, however, in Daniel J. Elazar’s “Kinship and Consent,” is the dilemma posed by Machiavelli: “a Christian prince has to choose between being a Christian or being a prince,” claiming that such a balance would be impossible.^vi  Though arguably quite simple, the Archimedean point raised by Professor Nathan Rotenstreich,^vii which insists that the Jews should remain true to their beliefs but open-minded to the rest of the world, which will allow the Jews to live harmoniously in the world with the freedom to govern themselves. Elazar attempts to explain the  the Jews’ struggle to contribute to political theory and political activism, an issue necessisarily addressed   in legitimizing a nations’ claim to a land.^viii A nation cannot claim sovereignty over a land if it lacks a political system to govern its people.  Elazar argues that due to the Jews’ prolonged lack of autonomy, halakha has become antiquated and atrophied from disuse. Therefore, searching for a way for Judaism to contribute to political theory, Elazar mined the roots of the Jewish people to find a hint of political thought, discovering that the idea of transferring powers, or “social contract,” is based on the original covenant between man and God. (Because the Jews asked for a king to enforce the laws of God, the ruler’s powers were limited by the laws and absolute power of God, thus, as I’ve interpreted, establishing, in some form, a system of “checks and balances.”) Thus, Elazar provides evidence for political theory penetrating Jewish tradition and law.

It is imperative, however, to establish Jewish political thought assiduously and mindfully because of the tendency of the rest of the world to misinterpret Jewish thought and course of action, resulting in oppression. While it is argued that halakha and state can coexist, based on a compromise that allows “religious Jews to live according to godly way of life in a state which lives according to its worldly way of life,”^ix how is this situation any different than that of the Jews in America today? The State of Israel must, therefore, take a different approach in order to call itself a Jewish state. There must be a balance between halakha and opposing secular ideologies rather than a mere separation of the two. The Zionist interpretation of the Holocaust has always been that six million Jews died because they lacked a military force, a state-power. And while halakha does establish certain restrictions limiting the use of force, it is also important to recognize that Jewish law, to an extent, is ever-changing, which is most clearly exemplified by the fact that many Rabbis draw disparate halakhic conclusions based on the specific case with which they are dealing and the time in which they are living. It has become evident that a military force is not only justified by Jewish Law but arguably sanctioned by Judaism in order to guarantee the survival of the Jewish people.

However, while it seems to me that Israel has been careful not to conflict with halakha in its establishment of a military force, the question that is pertinent today is the battle within the state between secular Zionists and ultra-religious Jews. A Jewish state does not necessarily mean a religious state, and without making that distinction, religious Jews will continue to feel politically inferior, and the secular Zionists will continue to feel religiously inferior. Though many will argue that a Jewish state without Jewish laws is no Jewish state at all, I have observed that the importance of Jewish tradition takes precedence over the intricacies of halakha. For the sake of regaining and preserving the many links in the chain of Judaism, including all sects within it, Israel must recognize that the common link between all sects of Judaism is not halakha, but rather Jewish tradition and heritage.

Mamlahtiyut, plain and simple, refers to the sovereign power of the Jews, the statehood of the Jewish people. Arguments have been raised as to the legitimacy of a Jewish state, resting on the idea that Jews have not contributed to political thought. However, once scrutinized, both the Written and Oral Law contain many hints of political theory. Once the idea of a Jewish political body is sanctioned by Jewish texts, it is inevitable that the justification for military force will soon follow. While statehood denotes independence, Jewish statehood requires a level of halakhic consciousness in obtaining autonomy. The moral values of halakha are important to retain for the success of a Jewish state, but I certainly do not believe it is necessary or appropriate for halakhic values not pertaining to political matters to pervade the Israeli government. It is important for the state to find a way to balance halakha and politics in the same way other countries do. The Israeli government should accommodate and respect the religious Jew but should not impose the views of the more right-wing Jews on those who are secularized. What I believe makes the State of Israel Jewish is that it embraces Jewish tradition and culture, thus appealing not just to the Orthodox Jews, but to all Jews

Aviva Stavsky is a Sophomore at SCW majoring in Mathematics and Political Science

ⁱ Ehud Luz, Wrestling With An Angel: Power, Morality, and Jewish Identity (Yale University Press, 2003) p. 225.

ⁱⁱ Nicholo Machievelli discusses this point in reference to Christian virtues.  See Ibid. 27.

ⁱⁱⁱ Ibid. 22.

^iv Ibid. 223.

^v Ibid. 22.

^vi Daniel J. Elazar, Kinship and Consent:The Jewish Political Tradition and Its Contemporary Uses (Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc, 2002) 446.

^vii Ibid. 448.

^viii Ibid. 447.

^ix Ibid. 459.