Introduction

The Hamas attack on Israel of October 7, 2023 (or Hebrew date of 22 Tishri 5784) resulted in the largest killing of Jews in one day since the holocaust. Over 1,200 people — mostly civilians — were brutally murdered, men, women, children and elderly alike. Women were systematically raped and tortured in the most gruesome ways imaginable. Ambulances and medics were intentionally targeted. Many of the corpses were desecrated where they lay, while others were carried back to Gaza to be defiled by jubilant crowds. Approximately 240 Israelis, including some foreign nationals, were kidnapped and taken as hostages to Gaza, where they have been subjected to physical and psychological torture. Hence President Biden of the United States labeled these acts as “pure evil”.    

This article will examine this attack through the following perspectives:

• Classification of Attack.
• Resolution of War.
• Execution of War – Torah and Secular Principles (Including treatment of civilians).
• Moral Dilemma.
• Conclusion.

Classification of Attack

The secular press, including the government of Israel, has grappled with this evil and a proper from of classification. In the opinion of the author, the classification of this evil has significant bearing on the strategy to combat Hamas and the theological underpinnings when implementing this strategy. 

Some have compared this unprovoked attack to the following:

• Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbour (Dec 7, 1941).
• 9/11 terrorist attack in New York (Sept. 11, 2001).
• ISIS crimes in Syria (2014).

However these comparisons are not entirely accurate for the following reasons. The Japanese did not target civilians.  By contrast the October 7 attack targeted civilians, including women and children, in a brutal manner. Although the 9/11 terrorist attack targeted civilians this crime was not government supported and hence there is no country that was legally responsible for this crime. By contrast Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza, claimed responsibility for this attack. In fact this attack was planned 2 years in advance using Hamas military resources and the land of Gaza for training. Although ISIS was guilty of terror and inhumanity, ISIS was not voted in as a government. Rather they seized control by brute force against the will of the people.

Hence the closest comparison to Hamas is Nazi Germany where a democratically elected government implemented genocide against the Jews. In summary the key defining characteristics of the Hamas attack are:                       

• Genocide against Jews.
• Government sponsored. 

The following table summarizes this analysis:

Event	Terrorism	Government Sponsored
Nazi Germany	√	√
Pearl Harbour	X	√
9/11	√	X
ISIS	√	X
Hamas – October 7	√	√

Resolution of War

The reader may ask, “What difference does it make how Hamas is classified?” In the opinion of the author, the proper classification has direct impact on the strategy of war against Hamas.

Based upon the comparison to Nazi Germany the outcome of this war or in the vernacular “the endgame” should follow the outcome of the Second World War, namely:

• Unconditional surrender.
• Demilitarization.  
• Civilian Government.
• Reform of society.

Unconditional Surrender

The Allies demanded unconditional surrender from Germany before ending the European campaign of the Second World War. Although Germany requested an armistice leading to negotiations the Allies rejected this request realizing that Nazi Germany would continue fighting as they had violated previous agreements (e.g. Munich Agreement of 1938). Similarly Hamas will not stop fighting even after a truce because their charter calls for the destruction of Israel. In addition some of their leaders have publicly stated they will continue fighting after this war. Hence the only lasting solution is unconditional surrender.            

Demilitarization

After surrender Gaza must be demilitarized just as Nazi Germany was demilitarized after the Second World War despite their fanaticism for the Third Reich. The Germans abandoned militarism and abided by the terms of surrender without acts of terror or sabotage. Hence it is possible to demilitarize a country after a war if the people are willing. 

Admittedly the situation in the Middle East is more complex because the Germans retained most of their land after the war. By contrast many who in live in Gaza are descendants of refugees who left or were expelled from Israel during the 1948 War of Independence. Hence they seek to return to their native homes in Israel which will not happen because Israel will not accept potentially hostile Arab refugees. In addition some Arabs, based upon their interpretation of Islam, cannot accept a Jewish state in the Middle East which makes a lasting peace particularly difficult. Nevertheless a workable compromise, after dismantling of Hamas, must be sought to avoid the ever increasing cycle of violence.

Civilian Government

In parallel with the demilitarization, a new civilian government must be installed in Gaza which will reject the violence of Hamas and recognize the sovereignty of Israel. This government must be composed of moderate Gazans with administrative experience who truly want a better life for their people. Although this program appears ambitious and at times unrealistic it is possible with the right leadership. For example, Germany transformed from a totalitarian regime to a social democratic government after the war with democratic elections held in 1949.       

Reform of Society

In addition to the government, society in Gaza must be reformed with the same objectives of renouncing violence and accepting the sovereignty of Israel. Admittedly this is a long term goal which will require patience and constant scrutiny to stamp out extremism. However it is possible as Japan after the Second World War abandoned its belief in the divine nature of their emperor and adopted western values of coexistence and demilitarization. In addition the citizens of Gaza must be warned that failure to reform society will lead to disastrous repercussions.       

Execution of War

This conflict must be resolved by war because Hamas will not surrender without a fight.  Hamas may continue fighting despite numerous civilian casualties and destruction of property in Gaza. Hence the next sections will examine the responsibility of the Israeli army with respect to Torah and secular principles.    

Torah Principles

Although the Torah states (Exodus 20:13), “You shall not murder” this does not mean that war is prohibited by the Torah. Rather the Torah allows war under certain conditions, as explained below, and does not advocate pacifism. Hence there is a difference between murder (i.e. unjustified killing) and war (i.e. justified killing). Even in war the Torah does not permit indiscriminate killing.

The author will discuss the Torah approach to war as follows:

• War –Discretionary.  
• War – Obligatory – Amalek
• War – Obligatory – Self Defense.
• Treatment of Civilians.
• Hostages.

Maimonides (Laws of Kings 5:1) identifies the following types of wars:

• Discretionary – to expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation.   
• Obligatory – a war against the 7 nations of Canaan, against Amalek, or a war fought against an enemy which attacks or is preparing to attack Israel.

War – Discretionary

This war may only be fought by a Jewish king (ibid. 5:1) with authorization of the Sanhedrin of 71 judges (ibid. 5:2). Hence this war may not be fought at present. In fact the government of Israel does not consider waging this type of war; therefore their army is called,” Israel Defense Forces (or IDF in short).”  

War – Obligatory

Maimonides (ibid. 5:1) classifies these types of war as follows:

• 7 nations of Canaan (e.g. at time of Joshua) – not applicable because their memory has been obliterated.
• Amalek – a positive commandment to destroy Amalek based upon Deuteronomy 25:19, “You (Israelites) shall erase (even) the memory of Amalek from under the heaven.” In contrast to the 7 nations of Canaan, Maimonides does not say that the memory of Amalek has been obliterated, implying that they still exist today.  
• Self-defense – “When you go to war in your land against an enemy that oppresses you, you shall blow the trumpets and be remembered before Hashem, and thus be saved from your enemies (Numbers 10:9).”

Amalek

Some, including the prime minister of Israel, have compared Hamas to Amalek since both are mortal enemies of Israel. As discussed in Appendix 1 there are several concerns with this comparison. Hence a comparison of Hamas to Amalek is not valid from the point of view of Halacha. Rather the comparison is valid for rhetorical purposes and encouragement for Israeli soldiers on their holy mission to protect the Jewish people.                 

 Self Defense

Full Scale War

Hence the war against Hamas is classified as a war against an enemy of Israel. Maimonides (ibid. 6:4) writes that even civilians may be killed in this type of war a war until the warring nation agrees to surrender, accept the 7 Noahide laws, and respect Israel’s sovereignty. Maimonides (ibid. 6:5) explains that when Joshua entered the land of Canaan to conquer Israel he offered the 7 nations of Canaan the following:

• Surrender.
• Flee.
• Or Fight.

Hamas, the legal government of Gaza is certainly an enemy of Israel with intent to occupy the land of Israel and kill Israelis as stated in their charter and proven by their actions of October 7. Hence the current war in Gaza will entail civilian deaths or euphemistically termed “collateral damage”.  Hence Hamas should either surrender or fight with the ensuing consequences. (The mass evacuation of the residents of Gaza is not a realistic option.)  

The author is not advocating wholesale slaughter of civilians in Gaza because Israel must be a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6) and not behave as savages seeking revenge.  Israel must respect international law and maintain good relations with America and other Western powers. Since the messiah has not yet arrived the government of Israel must be prudent to avoid triggering a major confrontation within the Arab world. Nevertheless Israel may attack the enemy in presence of human shields, without compunction because international law forbids the use of human shields.  

Limited War

In addition to a full scale war, the Talmud Eruvin 45a describes a limited war as an act of self defense as follows, “If gentiles lay siege to a town primarily inhabited by Israelites, for banditry only, then the Israelites may not desecrate the Sabbath by fighting on the Sabbath. Rather they must wait until after the Sabbath to protect their property (since there is no fear of loss of life).” The Mishna Berurah (329:12) explains that one may not desecrate the Sabbath to avoid a monetary loss.

However the Talmud (ibid.) mentions the following exception to this ruling:

• Concern for loss of life.
• Border city.

Loss of Life

The Talmud (ibid.) rules, “If there is concern that the gentiles will attack and kill; then the Israelites must go to battle even on the Sabbath (as an act of self defense).” The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 329:6) cites both rulings of the Talmud (viz. gentiles attacking for banditry only or killing). The Rema (ibid.) adds that even if the gentiles have not actually attacked, the Israelites may launch a pre-emptive strike even on the Sabbath with evidence of an impending attack.  The Mishna Berurah (329:13) explains that the prohibitions of the Sabbath are set aside to protect lives even in the intention of the gentiles is not clear. The Halacha errs on the side of caution when human life is involved.     

 Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 329:6) cites this ruling of the Talmud for loss of property it also cites a contrary opinion that states (ibid. 329:7), “In our time even if the gentiles come for hay or straw the Israelites may fight back (even though this involves work on the Sabbath) because this attack may lead to loss of life. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) explains that some of the Israelites will likely resist the attackers in protecting their property leading to open warfare resulting in deaths. In the opinion of the author and many historians, attacks on Jews rarely stop at pillaging since they are motivated by virulent anti- Semitism (e.g. crusades, Spanish inquisition, pogroms, and the holocaust). The Mishna Berurah (329:17) adds that the Israelites are required to defend the nations where they live according to the Talmudic principle (Bava Kamma 113a-b) “The law of the land is law”.             

Border City

The Talmud (ibid.) rules, “For a border city, even if the gentiles only come with the intention to raid (literally for hay and straw) the Israelites must go to battle even on the Sabbath. The border must be carefully guarded to prevent enemies from gaining a foothold (which will lead to overrunning the country).” The Talmud extends this ruling to cities in a foreign country which demark the separation of its Jewish and gentile populations.

Summary

Maimonides (Laws of Sabbath 2:23) adds, “It is a mitzvah for every able bodied member of the Jewish people to aid their brethren and save them from the gentiles even on the Sabbath. It is forbidden to wait until Saturday night.”   

Hence based upon these rulings from the Shulchan Aruch, Israel is justified to wage war against Hamas because the latter attacked a border area and killed civilians.   

Treatment of Civilians   

Behaviour of Israelites – War and Peace

The Talmud (Yevamot 79a) states, “There are 3 distinguishing characteristics of the Israelites: merciful, modest, and kind.” This means that government in Israel should act in this manner even when dealing with hostile countries during peacetime. However in a time of war the Israelites must follow the advice of King Solomon (Ecclesiastes Chapter 3) as follows:

Verse 3 – “(There is) a time to kill [in war] and a time to heal [in peace]; a time to destroy [in war] and a time to rebuild [in peace].”

Verse 8 – “(There is) a time for war and a time for peace.” 

The comments in square brackets are based upon the Midrash (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:5).

Attitude towards Gentiles

Lest the reader think that Israelites are predisposed to dislike gentiles the author will cite the following sources to provide a perspective between Israel and other nations based upon the principle of reciprocity as follows:

• Friendly – Support (Leviticus 25:35).
• Neutral –Potentially hostile (Talmud Avodah Zarah 26a).
• Enemy – War (Tractate Soferim (15:10).

Friendly – Support

From the perspective of the Torah, a gentile resident (תושב גר) is a gentile who resides in Israel, observes the 7 Noahide laws, and accepts the sovereignty of Israel. Since this person does not represent a threat to Israel, the Torah commands (Leviticus 25:35) that he be supported by the Israelites, “If your brother becomes impoverished …you shall support him whether a convert or a foreign resident (ותושב), so that he can live with you.”

Maimonides (Laws of idolatry 10:6) states that this status of a foreign resident only applies when the Jubilee Year is observed, meaning that all 12 tribes of Israel must live in the land of Israel. Although from a literal interpretation of Halacha (i.e. de jure) the Israelites are not commanded to fully support him, from the principle of reciprocity (i.e. de facto) they are obligated to treat him as a citizen of Israel if he fulfills the requirements of a gentile resident (viz. observes the 7 Noahide laws and accepts the sovereignty of Israel). For example the Druze people in Israel are full citizens and serve in the Israeli army including the recent action in Gaza as described in the following article.  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-druze-arabs-who-fight-with-steadfast-loyalty-to-israel        

Neutral – Potentially Hostile  

The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 26a) speaks of an idolater whom the Israelites should neither help nor harm. For instance if the idolater falls into a well, an Israelite should not help him out and may even remove the ladder from the well. However the Israelite is not permitted to push him into the well. Although this behaviour appears somewhat cruel the sages of the Talmud realized that someone who does not follow the 7 Noahide laws cannot be trusted. Hence if the Israelite saves the idolater the latter in the future may harm other Israelites. Although the Talmud expresses this ruling in term of idolaters in the opinion of the author this ruling applies to belligerent gentiles who do not respect the sovereignty of Israel and may either directly harm or support those who attack Israelites. Hence by these hostile actions they violate 2 of the 7 Noahide laws (viz. failure to establish courts of law to prevent terrorism and murder).     

Even though the Talmud (ibid.) advises to maintain a distance from potentially belligerent gentiles, the Talmud (Gittin 61a) also realizes that it is both proper and prudent to maintain peaceful relations with gentiles especially when living in their lands. Specifically the Talmud states, “Israelites should sustain the poor of the gentiles along with the poor of the Jews, visit the sick of the gentiles along with sick of the Jews, and bury the dead of the gentiles along with dead of the Jews … to foster peaceful relations between Jews and gentiles.” However this generosity does not apply in a time of war as follows. 

Enemy – War

In a situation of war even gentile civilians may be killed as stated in Tractate Soferim (15:10), “Kill the best of the enemy in time of war.” Certainly this statement must be understood in its context. As discussed above Maimonides writes that enemy civilians may be killed in a war of self defense. However the former source suggests purposely targeting civilians which appears severe.

Rashi quotes this source in reference to Exodus 14:7 where the Egyptians pursued the Israelites with chariots after having set the latter free. In addition to the perfidy of the Egyptians, Rashi points out that most, if not all, of animals of the Egyptians were killed in the plague of pestilence (Exodus 9:6). Hence he asks, “How did the Egyptians have so many horses?” He responds that those who revered Hashem pay heed to the warning of Moses and hid the livestock in their barns (ibid. 9:20). Yet these were the same Egyptians who provided horses for Pharaoh’s chariots to pursue the Israelites. Hence the statement, “Kill the best of the enemy in time of war.” In the opinion of the author the key to interpreting this extreme statement is the following statement of this quotation, “Crush the head of the best of the snakes.” If the enemy, including their civilians, is ready to attack like a poisonous snake hiding in the grass then attack first and without mercy. It is interesting to note that the English language uses a similar idiom, adopted from the time of the Romans, for treachery, “A snake in the grass.”   

In addition to killing civilians in war, the Torah allows starving civilians during a siege until the enemy surrenders. The verse follows (Deuteronomy 20:12),” If the city does not make peace with you, and it wages war against you, you shall besiege it.” Rashi, quoting the Sifrei, explains that during the siege civilians may die of hunger or disease. Actually this verse refers to a discretionary war and certainly applies to an obligatory war.  

From a Torah perspective war against Israel is tantamount to a war against Hashem. The Sifre (Behaalotcha 84) elaborates on this point by quoting a number of verses in scripture. This source starts by commenting on Numbers 10:35. “When the ark set out Moses would say: Arise Hashem, may Your (divine) enemies be scattered and may those who hate You (Hashem) flee from You.”  The Sifre notes, in this verse, that the enemies of Israel are called the enemies of Hashem and those that hate Israel are termed haters of Hashem. Similarly at the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15:7) the Israelites sang about the Egyptians, “With Your great strength (literally grandeur) You (Hashem) shatter Your (divine) opponents (literally those who rise against You).”

In addition the prophet Zachariah (2:12) predicts, “He (Hashem) sent me (Zachariah) to the (warn) nations that plunder you (Israel), for whoever touches you (Israelites) touches the apple of his eye.” At a literal level the apple of his eye refers to the enemies of Israel meaning that any harm inflicted upon Israel will eventually boomerang to the enemy. By contrast the Sifre understands that the eye refers to Hashem (so to speak), meaning that those who harm Israel will receive divine retribution. Hence from a biblical perspective the attack of October the 7^th was both an affront against Israel and Hashem.                       

Summary

The above discussion provides a range of views about gentiles and a framework for foreign policy of the government in Israel. In the opinion of the author and many other political commentators the citizens of Gaza may be divided into these 3 groups with the proportion of each group a matter of dispute. However recent public opinion polls in Gaza suggest that support for violent confrontation against Israel is much higher than those in the west previously believed. Hence the unintentional killing of civilians is justified as part of war and especially considering that many of the so called civilians actively or passively support Hamas and their agenda.                             

Hostages

The Torah (Genesis 34:1-31) relates that on his way to his father Isaac, Jacob camped near the city of Shechem. Dinah, Jacob’s daughter went out to see the “daughters of the land” (ibid. 1). Subsequently she was raped by Shechem, prince of the region, and taken captive (ibid. 2). In love with Dinah, Shechem suggested that his father meet Jacob to discuss a marriage with her (ibid. 4). Jacob’s son were outraged by the rape (ibid. 7) and suggested that the men of Shechem undergo circumcision as a ruse (ibid. 15). When weakened by the circumcision, Jacob’s sons (i.e. Simon and Levi) attacked the city of Shechem, killed all of its men (ibid. 25), and rescued Dinah (ibid. 26).

Following the attack, Jacob criticized his two sons and said (ibid. 30), “You have troubled me, to discredit me among the inhabitants of the land … (In addition) I am few in number, should they band together and attack me, then I and my household will be destroyed.” His two sons responded (ibid. 31), “Shall he (Shechem) treat our sister like a harlot?” The Torah ends the narrative on this point without concluding who was right, Jacob or his sons.

This prompts the following question, “Were the sons of Jacob justified in killing the men of Shechem?” This issue is debated by Maimonides, who reasons that that the sons of Jacob were justified in their action, and Nachmanides who reasons that they were not justified. Both scholars agree that gentiles are required to follow the 7 Noahide laws. They both agree that establishing courts of law are included in these 7 laws. They disagree about the scope of this law and punishment for non-compliance.  

Maimonides – Justified  

Maimonides explains that after Dinah was kidnapped, the people of Shechem were required to judge the kidnapper and return her to Jacob.  By not judging this case they were complicit in kidnapping and therefore in violation of the law to enforce justice. Non-compliance to any of these laws is punishable by death. Hence Maimonides writes (Laws of Kings 9:14), “The gentiles are obligated to set up judges and magistrates in every major city to render judgment concerning these six laws and to admonish the people regarding their observance. A Noahide who transgresses these seven commands shall be executed by decapitation. For this reason, all the inhabitants of Shechem were obligated to die because Shechem kidnapped, his people were aware of his deeds, and did not judge him.”

Nachmanides – Not Justified

Nachmanides (on Genesis 34:13) explains that although Dinah was kidnapped the people of Shechem were not liable to capital punishment for failure to rescue Dinah. The law to establish justice is not a prohibition; rather it is a command to perform an action and therefore not punishable by execution. Only transgressions of prohibitions can lead to capital punishment. In addition, the command to establish justice relates to establishing laws to run a society (e.g. torts, prevention of fraud, damages, etc.) and not specifically to set up courts. Although the inhabitants of Shechem may have violated some of the Noahide laws in the past (e.g. idolatry or adultery) they must be brought to trial before execution. The sons of Jacob killed without a trial and therefore were not justified in their actions.    

Conclusion

In addition to war, the hostage situation adds another dimension to Israel’s conflict with Hamas. According to Maimonides the citizens of Gaza are complicit in the crime of taking hostages and must bear the consequences. According to Nachmanides the citizens of Gaza are not complicit in this crime. However according to both views Israel retains the right to wage war, while trying to avoid civilian losses in Gaza, until the hostages are returned and Hamas is defeated.        

Execution of War – Secular Principles

In addition to the Torah principles discussed above this section of the article will examine war from a secular viewpoint with respect to the following topics

• International Law.
• Proportionality.
• Treatment of Civilians.

Specifically the author will compare and contrast the war against Hamas to other conflicts of the 20^th and 21^st centuries to provide a perspective on the actions of Israel.  

International Law

Certainly Israel must comply with international law while achieving its objective to destroy Hamas as the government of Gaza. However the issue is not as black and white as portrayed in the media; rather the situation is complex and nuanced as follows:

• Hamas does not follow international law.
• Treatment of Civilians – Western governments do not always follow international law.
• Torah law overrides international law.

Hamas does not Follow International Law

International law is based upon the principle of reciprocity, meaning that both sides must respect the law when engaged in combat. However Hamas has violated these laws in almost every area of combat as follows:

• Identification of soldiers.
• Protection of Civilians.
• Protected Areas.

Identification of Soldiers

According to international law, soldiers must wear uniforms and identification tags bearing their number and country of origin, colloquially called “dog tags” to clearly identify combatants.   By contrast Hamas combatants wear neither uniforms nor identification tags making it impossible to distinguish between combatants and civilians until the fighting begins. Hence Israeli soldiers may fire at civilians before or during battle resulting in casualties. In addition, when capturing combatants the Israeli military may arrest innocent civilians until they can distinguish between combatants and civilians after questioning.              

Protection of Civilians

Since it is the primary responsibility of any government to protect its citizens in both war and peacetime, Hamas should have taken measures to reduce civilian losses. It should have stockpiled food, water, and medical supplies in preparation for war instead of relying upon international aid. It is unprecedented in world history that a nation supplies aid to civilians of its enemy during war time. In addition Hamas should have opened its tunnels to house those fleeing from battle. Rather the policy of Hamas is to purposely put their civilians in harm’s way acting as human shields to both prevent Israel from attacking Hamas positions and gaining world support against Israel.

Protected Areas

By international law a government is required to protect its citizen from battle by waging war away from civilian areas. In addition the government must keep their soldiers from protected areas (e.g. hospitals, schools, place of worship) to minimize civilian deaths. Failure to comply with these laws makes the defending government liable and not the opposing army. Hamas flagrantly violates these laws and then blames Israel for the resulting damage.

Treatment of Civilians – Western Governments do not follow International Law

Although international law prohibits targeting civilians during war this ideal is rarely followed in actual combat. An attacking army may kill civilians accidently or even intentionally as part of the military calculus to: 

• Minimize losses of their soldiers.
• Attack an enemy behind human shields.
• Weaken the enemy’s resolve to fight.

The author will provide examples of each of the above from America’s involvement in war during the 20^th and 21^st centuries starting with the following killing of non-enemy civilians:  

• Battle of Normandy (D- day June 6, 1944 and afterwards) with 25,000 – 39,000 civilian casualties of friendly country.
• Bombing in Cambodia (March 18, 1969 – May 28, 1970) with over 50,000 casualties of a neutral country.  
• Recapture of Mosul Iraq (October 2016 – July 2017) with over 5,000 casualties in an enemy country.

Minimize Losses – Normandy

The Allies knew, before the start of operation Overlord (Invasion of Normandy – June 6, 1944 also known as D-Day) that French civilians would pay a heavy price through fighting and bombing that would take place on their soil. Free France, represented by General de Gaulle, expressed great concern about the probable death of many of his fellow citizens who were allied with the Americans. Nevertheless the Allies decided to take the risk and bombed targets in Northern France controlled by the Germans to minimize their own losses. Since the bombing was not entirely accurate more than 25,000 French civilians were killed. Hence in this case “The ends justify the means”. 

Human Shields – Neutral Country (Bombing in Cambodia)

Operation Menu was a covert United States Strategic Air Command tactical bombing campaign conducted in eastern Cambodia from 18 March 1969 to 26 May 1970, as part of both the Vietnam War and Cambodian Civil War. The American government was concerned that soldiers from North Vietnam were using Cambodia as a base for supplies and attacking American soldiers. In response to these concerns the American air force carpet bombed areas near the Vietnam border killing many civilians and violating the neutral airspace of Cambodia.     

Human Shields – Enemy Country (Recapture of Mosul)

The battle for Mosul was one of the most brutal urban warfare campaigns in modern history. U.S.-led coalition warplanes dropped bombs that leveled building after building. When ISIS withdrew to the Old City of Mosul, it gave them a tactical advantage on the battlefield. These ancient narrow streets were impassible for most of the vehicles of the Iraqi army, forcing those soldiers to come on foot. Hence the rules of engagement, including how many civilians are acceptable to harm or kill during operations, were lowered in late 2016. Consequently the strategy was unrelenting airstrikes which endangered civilians and destroyed property. In addition ISIS purposely kept Iraqi civilians in the old city as human shields and threatened to kill any that left.      

The following are some quotes justifying airstrikes that killed civilians from an Associated Press article of December 20, 2017, “Mosul is a Graveyard” written by by Susannah George, Qassim Abdul-zahra, Maggie Michael and Lori Hinnant. “It is simply irresponsible to focus criticism on inadvertent casualties caused by the Coalition’s war to defeat ISIS,” Col. Thomas Veale, a coalition spokesman, told the AP in response to questions about civilian deaths. “Without the Coalition’s air and ground campaign against ISIS, there would have inevitably been additional years, if not decades of suffering and needless death and mutilation in Syria and Iraq at the hands of terrorists who lack any ethical or moral standards,” he added.

Weaken Enemy’s Resolve – Purposely Kill Civilians 

There are numerous examples where western governments purposely killed enemy civilians in the Second World War either to quickly end the war or simply for revenge to boost morale at home:

• Firebombing of Dresden Germany (February 13-15 1945) with 25,000 – 35,000 casualties.
• Firebombing of Tokyo (March 9-10 1945) with 100,000 or more casualties.
• Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima (August 6 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9 1945) combined casualties of 129,000 (immediate deaths) to 226,000 (death from radiation).    

In the latter case the Japanese government agreed to surrender. Otherwise America would have prepared a land invasion of Japan which would have resulted in terrible losses on both sides because Japan would not have easily surrendered.     

In summary, the above examples of controversial warfare should be considered before anyone criticizes the actions of the Israelis in Gaza.  In particle the Israeli army warns the citizens of Gaza to leave a combat area by flyers, drones with loudspeakers, and individual phone calls even though this warning allows the combatants to flee.    

Proportionality

Western governments and media frequently cite the principle of proportionality as Israel wages war against Hamas. This principle does not mean that Israel should stop the war when the number of casualties on both sides is equal. Rather this principle means that the number of casualties should be commensurate with the perceived threat of the enemy. Since Hamas, through its charter, pledges to destroy Israel the threat of genocide is real especially in regard to the brutal October 7^th attack. Hence the war against Hamas must continue until unconditional surrender and demilitarization as discussed above. Ending this war before surrender means that lives lost on both sides would have been in vain because the objective of a lasting peace in the Middle East will not be attained.

Torah Law Overrides International Law

Although Israel should attempt to comply with international law, Torah law overrides international because the former is based upon human reasoning which is both limited and expedient. By contrast Torah law is based upon divine teaching and therefore transcends both man and time. In this war Israel must follow the Talmud dictum (Berachot 58a), “If someone plans to kill you, then prepare to kill him first. This act of preemptive self-defense applies whether the attacker is an Israelite (e.g. burglar based upon Exodus 22:1) or gentile (e.g. Hamas).       

Moral Dilemma

After discussing both Torah and secular law about war, the author will analyze the moral dilemma of defeating Hamas in view of the high number of civilian casualties by answering the following questions:

1. Should Israel destroy the military arm of Hamas?
2. Does Hamas use their citizens as human shields?
3. If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative, then how can Israel achieve its objectives without killing civilians (i.e. collateral damage)?
4. Are the claims of supporters of Gaza factual (e.g. murder, genocide, starvation)?
5. What is the strategy of Hamas?
6. Is the onus entirely upon Israel?

Answer 1 – Destroy Military Arm of Hamas

Most western governments especially those of the United States of America consider Hamas a terrorist organization and unfit to govern Gaza. Hence they must be removed from office by force since they will not surrender willingly. In fact some of the leaders of Hamas have vowed to continue fighting until Israel is destroyed which is the goal of their charter.

In addition this current war must be viewed in terms of previous conflicts between Israel and Hamas (viz. Operation Cast Lead 2008-2009, Operation Pillar of Defense 2012 and Operation Protective Edge 2014, and conflict of May 2021). In each case Israel responded to Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. After each operation the governments of Gaza and Israel agreed to a ceasefire without resolving the underlying issues (viz. Hamas renouncing terrorism, Hamas respecting the sovereignty of Israel, and Israel ending blockade of Gaza). Hence both sides of this conflict were not satisfied with the outcome of the ceasefire but were willing to wait for a future resolution. However the attack of October 7^th changed the situation and both the citizens and government of Israel concluded that Hamas must be defeated leading to a demilitarized government in Gaza. Hence the current conflict is as result of a number of failed ceasefires with the Israeli public demanding a resolution to never ending violence and rocket attacks.     

Answer 2 – Human Shields

It is widely documented that the Hamas military operates in or near civilian areas including hospitals, mosques, schools, and personal dwellings thereby endangering civilians. Hamas purposely operates in this cynical fashion to prevent Israel from directly attacking Hamas and to seek world support for a ceasefire.

In addition the definition of a civilian in Gaza is complicated by a complete spectrum of complicity to terrorism. On one hand there are overt Hamas terrorists who intend to destroy Israel by force at the cost of their lives. On the other hand there are innocent residents of Gaza who truly want peace and co-existence with Israel and therefore are opposed to violence. In between these extremes are civilians who either provide material or moral support to Hamas. Current public opinion polls in Gaza place most of the residents of Gaza in this middle camp.

At the time of this article April 2024 or Nissan 5784) the Gaza Medical Authority has reported the death of 41,000 civilians. Although widely reported by the western media without question this number has not been verified by any other international group. In addition this number does not include actual combatants who are expected to die in war and women or minors who provide military support to Hamas. To put matters in perspective, in dense urban warfare the ratio of civilian to combatant casualties is 2-3 to 1 and in some cases much higher. Since the Israeli government has reported the killing of 17,000 Hamas combatants the total of 41,000 casualties is expected albeit unfortunate.

Answer 3 – Israeli Military Strategy 

 Hence the author opines that criticism about the Israeli military regarding civilian casualties in Gaza is unjustified by following through these questions. Israel attempts to reduce civilian casualties by establishing escape routes, warning of impending attacks, and allowing aid to enter Gaza.

Answer 4 – Factual Claims

Many supporters of the Palestinians cause make the following claims against Israel in the war in Gaza:

• Murder.
• Genocide.
• Starvation of Gazans.
• Blockade.
• Occupied Territory.

In the opinion of the author and many political observers the above claims are not factual and prevent serious discussion and resolution of this conflict.  

Murder

Both according to Torah and international law killing during a time of a declared war is permitted. Hence any claims of murder are not factual and ignore that the government of Israel formally declared a state of war of war against the Hamas government of Gaza on October 8^th one day after the Hamas attack. By contrast Hamas did not declare a state of war before the October 7^th in violation of international law.     

Genocide

The legal definition contained in Article II of the Convention against Genocide describes genocide as a crime with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. As explained above, Israel has declared war on the government of Gaza and therefore deaths that result are casualties of war and not murder. By international law Israel should not target civilians. However if Hamas combatants are embedded in civilian areas, the same international law permits Israel to kill civilians in pursuit of Hamas because human shields are not protected by this law. In fact according to this law Hamas bears responsibility for use of human shields. Nevertheless the Israeli government must weigh the loss of civilians against the importance of the military target.       

Starvation

Recently there have been reports of imminent starvation in Gaza caused by Israel restricting aid entering Gaza. The issue is not the entry of aid. Rather the problem is the distribution of aid because once the aid enters Gaza it is commandeered by Hamas militants who sell the food at many times fair market value. Hence people lack food because they cannot pay the black market price and in turn the money provides fresh funding for Hamas militants.

Blockade

Some have claimed that Israel maintains a blockage of Gaza which may justify action by Hamas to remove the blockade. It is true that Israel restricts supplies to Gaza through its border to prevent terrorism. However Israel does not control the southern border of Gaza which connects to Egypt. Hence Gaza may be fully supplied through Egypt pending approval of the Egyptian government. Furthermore before October 7^th Israel allowed 20,000 Gazans daily to work in Israel.

Occupied Territory

Supporters of Palestine have claimed that the dispute between Hamas and Israel relates to occupied territory. In fact Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, dismantled 21 settlements in Gaza, and removed the settlers to other parts of Israel. Some have referred to the occupied territory as lands taken by Israel after the 1948 War of Independence. This is a broad topic and beyond the scope of this article. For the sake of brevity the will note the following points:

• War.
• Jurisdiction.
• Negotiation.
• Scripture.

War

Israel took these lands after the 1948 War of Independence when the Arab states disregarded the UN partition of Israel into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. After this war there was no government in Palestine to negotiate a settlement. In fact the signatories to the peace treaty of 1949 with Israel (viz. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon) did not bring up the topic of these lands because they were not concerned about them.

Jurisdiction

Although Hamas is the elected government of Gaza they have do not have jurisdiction to claim land in Israel or in the West Bank. In fact the Palestinian Authority which governs most of the West Bank does not recognize the authority of Hamas to negotiate on behalf of Palestinians outside of Gaza.  Furthermore Hamas and the Palestinian Authority cannot even get along after many failed attempts to merge these two governments.

Negotiation   

Ultimately the crisis in the Middle East must be resolved through negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. This will be a long and difficult path which requires compromises from both sides but cannot be resolved through maximalist positions or terrorism. Certainly Hamas must be replaced by a demilitarized government in Gaza before negotiations can commence.     

Scripture

Promise

In addition to all of the above secular arguments, scripture clearly states that that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people as a permanent legacy from Hashem as a promise to the forefathers. For sake of brevity the author will cite only one verse for each of the patriarchs: 

Genesis 12:7 – Hashem appeared to Abram and said: To your offspring I will give this land (of Israel).” 

Genesis 26:3 – “Dwell in this land and I (Hashem) will be with you (Isaac) … I will give all these lands (Israel) to your offspring.”

Genesis 28:13-14 – “Hashem was standing over him (Jacob) and said: … The land upon which you are lying I will give to you and your offspring. Your descendants … shall expand westward, eastward, northward and southward. All the families of the earth shall be blessed through you (Jacob) and your descendants.”

Borders

The reader may ask, “Granted that Hashem promised the land of Israel to the patriarchs and their descendants, however where does the Torah specify the boundaries of this land?” The Torah clearly defines the boundaries of Israel in Numbers 34:2-12 starting from the south and continuing clockwise from the west to north and ending at the east border as explained below. Although some of the cities listed in the Torah are subject to interpretation other boundary markers (e.g. Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River) are indisputable.        

Southern Border

The southern border starts from the Dead Sea and moves to the east ending at the Mediterranean Sea. The Torah (ibid. 4) lists some of the border cities as Maaleh Akrabim, Kadesh Barnea, and Azmon which are obscure place names at present. However the Torah (ibid. 5) mentions that the border passes through the “stream of Egypt” before turning to the Mediterranean Sea. The Torah commentators differ on the identification of this stream as the Nile (Rashi on ibid. 3) or Wadi-el-Arish (Rav Saadiah Gaon) which is near the modern city of El Arish in Egypt 45 km (28 miles) west of the Egyptian-Gaza border. According to either opinion the southern border reaches Gaza.

Western Border

The Mediterranean Sea is the western border (ibid. 6) and therefore Gaza is part of biblical Israel.    

Northern Border

The northern border starts from the Mediterranean Sea and continues eastward to Mount Hor (ibid. 7).  There are different opinions about the location of this mountain with the Targum Yonatan and Mishna Sheviit 6:1 considering Mount Hor as Mount Amanus (now called Nur Mountains) in Turkey (latitude 36 degrees) or in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains (latitude 34 degrees). The latter range is about 60-84 km (35 -52.5 miles) north of the current border of Israel. Although the Torah (ibid. 8-10) mentions a number of cities on this border (e.g. Hamath, Zedad, Zifron, and Hazar-Enan) their identity is uncertain. The northern border then moves eastward and southward to end at the Sea of Galilee (ibid. 11).  

Although the identification of these northern cities is uncertain the extent of the northern border may be determined by allocation of the cities of refuge. The Torah (Numbers 35:11) states that if a person kills another he should flee to a city of refuge awaiting trial. If the court determines that he killed accidently he must remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest (ibid. 28).  The Torah (ibid. 14) stipulates that there should be 3 specific cities of refuge in Canaan (i.e. west of the Jordan River) in addition to the cities of the Levites. The Talmud (Makkot 13a) explains that in these 3 cities the accidental murderer can live rent free. By contrast in the other cities of refuge in Canaan he must pay rent to the Levites.  

The Torah (Deuteronomy 19:3) also specifies that these 3 cities should be approximately equidistant from each other and the end cities from the northern and southern boundaries of Israel as the verse states, “Divide into three parts the boundary of your land …, which Hashem … is giving you as an inheritance, and it will be for every (accidental) killer to flee there.” These equal distances facilitate the flight of the accidental murder wherever he is in Israel.

Although these 3 cities are not specified in the Torah the book of Joshua (20:7) lists them from north to south as “Kedesh in Galilee near Mount Naphtali, Shechem in Mount Ephraim, and Hebron in the mountain of Judah.” Using present day measurements the distance between Shechem (Nablus) and Hebron is 78 km (49 miles). The ancient city of Kedesh is close to the modern Kibbutz Malkiya in Israel on the Israeli-Lebanese border. Hence the distance from Shechem to Kedesh is about 90 km (56 mi). Using the average of these 2 distances ((78+90)/2 = 84 km or 52.5 miles), the northern border reaches from Kedem to Beirut in Lebanon. The southern border reaches 84 km from Hebron and includes the modern Sde Boker, Gaza, and some parts of northern Egypt.                  

Eastern Border

 The Jordan River is the eastern border which links the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea (ibid. 12).             

Summary

To summarize the borders of biblical Israel include Gaza, the west bank, and parts of southern Lebanon. It is interesting to note that Israel has attained these biblical borders through war (i.e. additional lands in the north and central Israel after the 1948 War of Independence, the west bank and Gaza after the Six Day War of 1967, and southern Lebanon after the 1982 war).  In addition Israel returned the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and withdrew from southern Lebanon in pursuit of peace. In each case Israel did not secure peace after withdrawing from these lands. On the contrary in each case these areas became a hotbed of terrorism against Israel weakening the argument of “land for peace”.       

Hence the slogan, “From the river (Jordan) to the sea (Mediterranean), Palestine will be free” is in a direct contradiction to the Torah because these landmarks define biblical Israel. Although some apologists will interpret this slogan as a hope for Palestinian freedom in Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank, the level of violence perpetrated by Hamas shows that this view is disingenuous.

Answer 5 – Strategy of Hamas    

To understand the conflict in Gaza one must understand the strategy of Hamas.  Cleary Hamas cannot defeat Israel militarily because they lack the soldiers and equipment. Before the October 7^th attack Hamas had 30,000 soldiers. After the attack Israel mobilized 300,000 reservists. In addition Hamas lacks an air force, anti-aircraft defenses, and armor. To neutralize the military advantage of Israel, Hamas purposely places their soldiers and rockets in civilian areas to prevent Israel from attacking in these dense urban areas.   

Rather the aim of Hamas is to survive as the governing body of Gaza, launch future attacks on Israel, and control the enormous aid they will receive from Western governments. It is no secret that the leaders of Hamas residing in Qatar and elsewhere have become exceedingly wealthy through diverting aid money to their own coffers.   

It could be argued that Hamas attacks Israel to force Israel to end the blockade of Gaza to improve the living conditions for the residents of Gaza. However during the current war one can see that the leaders of Hamas have little regard for their citizens. They should have stockpiled food and medical supplies, move their soldiers from protected areas especially hospitals, and opened the tunnels for protection from Israeli shelling. 

King David as both a warrior and psalmist expresses skepticism about making peace with insincere enemies as follows:

Psalms 120:6 – “My soul dwelt with those who hate peace.”

Psalms 120:7 – “I am at peace, but when I speak, they are for war. “    

Answer 6 – Onus Entirely upon on Israel?

The western media has frequently reported upon the devastation and human suffering in Gaza, portraying the Israeli army as entirely responsible for this suffering in Gaza. The same media never suggests alternatives other than a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.  However there are other solutions as follows:

• Surrender of Hamas.
• Change of government.
• Airlift of critically wounded or sick.

Surrender of Hamas

Although rarely reported in the media all of the fighting and suffering in Gaza would end immediately if Hamas would agree to surrender, lay down their arms, and allow a civilian government in Gaza. Israel has frequently stated that they have no intention of annexing Gaza and wish to live in peace. However Israel will continue fighting until the threat of Hamas is removed.    

Change of Government

The citizens of Gaza also bear responsibility for their suffering because they voted for Hamas in 2006 knowing their terrorist methods and plan to destroy Israel. Since that time there has not been a general election in Gaza. It is now time for the citizens of Gaza to change their government either by political means or if necessary by force. Otherwise they are indirectly complicit in terrorism and bear the consequences, as the American idiom states, “Freedom isn’t free” which means sacrifice during times of crisis.       

Care of Critically Wounded or Sick

Suffering of the critically wounded or sick by can be alleviated by free passage through Egypt and then airlift to the neighbouring Arab countries. The responsibility for this suffering does not rest with Israel alone.

The author found the following video about the war in Gaza very informative. The speaker John Spencer, Chair of the Urban Warfare Studies at Modern War Institute at the United States Military Academy at West Point New York is both an expert in urban warfare and unbiased towards Israel.

Conclusion    

This article discussed the Hamas attack of October 7 2023, the similarity of Hamas to the Nazis, and the resolution of the conflict (viz. unconditional surrender, demilitarization, civilian government, and reform of society).

The author has shown that both from Torah and international law that the Israeli army should not purposely target civilians. However they may kill civilians in pursuit of defeating Hamas especially when civilians are used as human shields. In addition some (or many) of these civilians may provide material support to Hamas and are therefore complicit in terrorism. The article also discussed the attitude of the written and oral Torah with respect to gentiles in peace and war.         

The author analyzed the execution of this war in terms of secular principles (viz. international law, proportionality, and treatment of civilians) and historical precedents. This article has shown that Israel is following these guidelines especially when Hamas violate these rules (viz. lack of identification of soldiers, failure to protect civilians, and misuse of protected areas).

The author has focused on the moral dilemma that Israel faces in the destruction of Hamas versus civilian losses and suggests that the citizens of Gaza take the initiative and change their government by political means or force if necessary because a better life.  

In conclusion the current situation is untenable meaning that Hamas must be removed from power and replaced by a demilitarized government which recognizes the sovereignty of Israel to end the cycle of violence. Following the installation of a stable and peaceful administration in Gaza, relations between Israel and Gaza may be normalized ending the blockade leading to a better life for Gazans.                  

Appendix 1 – Hamas as Amalek

Some, including the prime minister of Israel, have compared Hamas to Amalek since both are mortal enemies of Israel. However there are several concerns with this comparison.

• Identity of Amalek.
• Genocide.
• Context – King and Prophet.

Identity of Amalek

The reader may ask, “How can one identify the nation of Amalek?” At present we cannot definitively identify the nation of Amalek. The Talmud states (Berachot 28a) that at the time of the first temple Sennacherib, king of Assyria, through his policy of population transfer has mixed the nations. Consequently Amalek who originally dwelt south of Israel are now scattered amongst the nations of the world.

However one can identify characteristics of Amalek in certain individuals or terrorist groups as intense hatred of Jews and a plan to attack them at any cost. Those with an Amalek mentality (i.e. combatants) may be attacked before they implement their evil plans against the Israelites based upon the Talmudic dictum (Berachot 58a), “If someone plans to kill you; then kill him first.” By contrast if a person is definitively identified as Amalek the Torah commands the complete destruction of his family including women and children.

Some rabbinic figures have opined that any nation or individual who wants to destroy the Jewish people may be considered as Amalek. For example Haman the Amalekite (e.g. Book of Esther) attempted to commit genocide against the Israelites. However this comparison to Amalek is not accepted by most authorities in Halacha and certainly one cannot act on this comparison and kill an individual or his family as Amalek without provocation.      

Genocide

A literal comparison of Hamas to Amalek would lead to genocide of Hamas and their supporters which is unthinkable to the Israeli public and government. From the viewpoint of Halacha (Deuteronomy 25:19 and Maimonides Laws of Kings 5:1), the annihilation of Amalek applies equally to men, women, and children wherever they live and whether or not they are involved with a war against Israel. Hence this type of war is ethnic and not strictly military. The article “Amalek – Halacha” on this web site discusses the possibility of sparing Amalek if they surrender. Therefore the war against Hamas is better compared to an obligatory war where only combatants are targeted but not civilians.    

Context – King and Prophet

As discussed in the article “Amalek – Halacha” on this web site, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 20b) notes that the Israelites had to fulfill the following commandments when entering the land of Israel and in this order:

1. Appoint a king (Exodus 17:14).
2. Destroy Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:19).
3. Build the temple (Deuteronomy 12:10-11).

Appoint a King

The Talmud (ibid.) understands that a fitting king of Israel represents Hashem on earth who brings peace and prosperity to his subjects and is therefore justified to destroy Amalek in preparation of the building of the temple in Jerusalem. Accordingly this war does not apply at present because the messiah has not arrived and there is no immediate plan to build the temple.  

Destroy Amalek

Hence the battle against Amalek is not merely a military campaign against the enemies of Israel. Rather it is a commandment from Hashem to prepare the world for the kingdom of Hashem represented by the temple in Jerusalem as the prophet says (Zachariah 14:9), “Hashem shall become King over the entire world. On that day shall Hashem shall be one and His name one.”

Build the Temple

Furthermore in the article on this web site, “Amalek – History” the author points out that every major war against Amalek that led to the building of a tabernacle or temple to Hashem was either directed or commanded by a prophet. The following table summarizes this observation by listing the sanctuary type, leader (identified by Rashi Megillah 14a as prophets), verses for the war and building.

Structure	Leader(s)	Verse (War)	Verse (Building)
Sanctuary	Moses	Exodus 17:13	Exodus 40:17
1st Temple	David/Solomon	2 Samuel 8:12 and 14	1 Kings 6:1
2nd Temple	Mordecai	Esther 9:16	Ezra 6:15-17

Since at present no one can legitimately claim to be a prophet in Israel, a war against Amalek is premature.