The Jewish Tradition9

Jewish thought about war derives generally from the Old Testament and largely from Deuteronomy (especially 20: 10–15 and 19–20). Whereas Catholic thought originated in a period of collapse and chaos, Jewish thought originated at a time of tribal leadership enjoying its moment in the sun and facing the problems of governing.

Deuteronomy 20 distinguishes two types of war and regulates conduct in each. Wars of conversion are to be fought only by men who meet criteria such as being courageous and faithful (Deut. 20: 1–10). Such wars require approval by the Great Sanhedrin.¹⁰ Enlarging national borders, protection of reputation, or pursuit of greatness are legitimate goals. Deuteronomy is concerned with practical issues such as who should serve, be exempt, or be prohibited from service in Jewish armies and with how wars were to be fought. “When thou draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it” (Deut. 20: 10). Acceptance of the terms leads to enslavement and adherence to Jewish law (Deut. 20:11), while refusal leads after a Hebrew victory to killing all the males (Deut. 20:13) and taking all else as spoils of war, with some limits on the treatment of women (Deut. 21: 10–14).

Divinely commanded wars are fought in self-defense on the authority of the king alone, or against six specified nations (Deut. 20: 16–17). These are wars of extermination against “the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance. Save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded; that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices” (Deut. 20:16–18). In both types of war, food trees can be harvested but not destroyed, while non-food trees can be cut down in support of the siege (Deut. 20: 19–20). The Bible is not shy about guiding the Jewish people into war, even wars of extermination, although it does have its moderating moments.

Sometimes, the prophets identify other nations, particularly Assyrians and Babylonians, as God’s instrument to punish the religious failings of the Jews. Much of the book of Amos consists of indictments and condemnations of Judah, Israel, and surrounding nations (Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, and Moab) for what we might call war crimes. This assumes traditions that regulated the incessant fighting, negotiating, and peacemaking among these states. Despite very different religions, they had to deal with one another so had an implied code: Don’t violate treaties, don’t seek territorial expansion, don’t kill civilians, and don’t exile entire populations.

Medieval Jewish scholars,¹¹ influenced by Muslim and Christian thinking, stressed ethical and universal issues. The most coherent medieval thinking comes from Maimonides. He mirrored the ancient distinction between wars of self-defense and wars of conquest. Maimonides wrote that the sole aim of a Jewish king “should be to uplift the true religion, to fill the world with righteousness, to break the arm of the wicked, and to fight the battles of the Lord.”

Nahmanides identified 613 commandments regarding war in the Torah. Some medieval Jewish scholars suggested that killing civilians was immoral, and tried to mitigate, since they could not repeal, biblical commandments. For example, some argued that the commandment requiring slaughtering the enemy had lapsed as it only applied to the “idol worshippers of Canaan,” who no longer existed. Contemporary rabbis have extended these ideas, for example, prohibiting wars of extermination (on the similar ground that the six nations targeted no longer exist) and limiting environmental damage (extrapolating from the prohibition on destroying fruit trees).

There now is recognition among Jews of national self-rule but it is not always clear what constitutes a nation (Chapter 12). There is widespread agreement that imperialism is wrong, but what appears as such to one side may appear as legitimate recovery to the other. It is not merely permissible but mandatory, with or without foreign aid, for a nation to defend its territory and to protect its citizens by war if peaceful methods fail. Preemptive war is legitimate but a matter of judgment. Deterrent or preventive wars are permissible but less justifiable than preemptive ones. Spare noncombatants if possible—but this does not determine who is a combatant, what risks must be taken to spare them, or what restraints are required to avoid collateral damage. There is general recognition of a semblance of international law leading to the following principles:

· Competent authority must judge when preemptive war is justified

· Defense of allies is just but not mandatory

· Defensive wars are mandatory rather than permissible

· Deterrent (preventive) wars are less justifiable but not prohibted

· International law is independent of religious authority

· It is not acceptable to impose religion by force

· Nations are entitled to self-rule, but what defines a nation is ambiguous

· Negotiation free of threat is preferred for settling international disputes

· One cannot always discriminate between combatants and non-combatants

· The only just wars defend national territorial or citizen safety

As to the conduct of war:

· Hostages should not be taken

· Casualties should be minimized in attaining objectives

· This may mean maximizing force, as short wars cause fewer casualties

· Noncombatants should be spared, but not at the price of defeat

· Prisoners’ rights should be respected

· Weapons destructive of the environment should be avoided if possible