6

I am reading the "The Jewish State" by Theodor Herzl, he proposes the creation of a Jewish State through mostly financial means. I don't recall a war in recent (hundreds of years) where the Jewish people were the aggressors. Google points me to a couple of conflicts long ago which are arguably defensive rather than aggressive.

There are three existing questions that address participation in defensive, and/or integration as a soldier into wars of home countries. I don't find anything about aggressive acts being initiated with a Jewish religious rationale.

Is there a religious reason that prevents Jews from aggressive acts of war?

To Clarify: Aggressive as opposed to defensive. Where defensive acts are as defined 1. "the act of defending someone or something from attack" 2. "something that is used to protect yourself, your country, etc."

Community
  • 1
James Jenkins
  • 523
  • 2
  • 14
  • 2
    What exactly do you mean by aggressive? Not that the State of Israel is a halachic entity, but the 1967 Six Day War is an example where Israel attacked preemptively. You could say that's an example of Jews being the aggressor. If attacking first isn't what you mean, please clarify how time decide who the aggressor is. – Daniel Oct 28 '14 at 11:16
  • Also arguably a defensive move. I am not looking for specific conflicts, just listing examples. I am looking for the Jewish religious stance on acts of aggression. Some other religions, while proclaiming "love the neighbor" find religious motivation for any number of aggressive acts, but Jewish religion is neither actively proclaiming their pacifism (like the Amish), nor actively being aggressive. Why? – James Jenkins Oct 28 '14 at 11:30
  • 3
    Just because it's defensive doesn't mean it's not aggressive. And not everyone would agree it was defensive. I'm just pointing out that you haven't defined "being the aggressor" and until you do, the premise of the question is in doubt – Daniel Oct 28 '14 at 12:12
  • 1
    @Daniel did you read Dave's answer before posting this comment? – James Jenkins Oct 28 '14 at 13:43
  • 1
    What does Dave's answer have to do with the comment? Dave has assumed an answer to my question (aggression means expanding territory) but it is not clear from the question that that's what you mean. – Daniel Oct 28 '14 at 14:19
  • 2
    @JamesJenkins No one should ever need to read an answer to understand a question. Please clarify in the question what you are asking. – Double AA Oct 28 '14 at 15:48
  • Dave was able to provide the answer, I was looking for. Further clarification does not seem to be indicated. – James Jenkins Oct 28 '14 at 18:28
  • This is of course a sensitive topic. Without choosing side, some (without quantification) people would say that capturing (part of) the land of the Palestinians is an aggressive war in slow motion. Furthermore some claim that the defensive war in 1948 turned into an aggressive one since after the successful defense, Israel took more land than it originally owned... – willeM_ Van Onsem Oct 28 '14 at 19:05
  • 1
    @JamesJenkins Is Daniel not indicating a need for further clarification? – Double AA Oct 28 '14 at 20:38
  • I don't know much about the "religious reasons" for permitting aggressive/discretionary wars, but there seems to have been plenty of them in Israel/Judah/Judea's history. In Melachim and Divrei, the Kings of Israel and Judah are usually fighting the Arameans, Edomites, Philistines, and each other trying to expand their territories and control over the area's trading routes. Even when the Assyrians were on the scene threatening them, they were STILL busy "aggressively fighting'. Later, the Hasmoneans did a good job of expanding Jewish territory, especially John Hyrcanus and Alexander Janneus. – Gary Oct 29 '14 at 01:44
  • Related question posted How many ways are there of classifying “aggressive acts of war” in the Jewish Religion? – James Jenkins Oct 29 '14 at 10:33
  • 1
    @jamesjenkins we're not asking for a Jewish classification. We want to know *your* definition of an ambiguous English word. – Daniel Oct 29 '14 at 12:00
  • Would you say that going into a land and wiping out the native population (the Canaanites) is an aggressive war? According to Dave's answer, that is an example of a not aggressive war. That's not a wrong answer according to your question because he uses a non standard definition of the word "aggressive" – Daniel Oct 29 '14 at 12:34

1 Answers1

8

Milchemet Reshut, an optional and/or permitted war, is the term describing offensive wars. It stands in contrast to Milchemet Mitzvah, war by commandment, which describes defense war. The two terms are used to discuss past wars, since they are relevant only when the state have both a king and Sanhedrin in place. A king can go to a Milchemet Mitzvah based on his own judgment, without the Sanhedrin's approval, in order to defend the state or to fulfill a Mitzva like fighting Amalek.

A king needs the Sanhedrin's approval in order to start a Milchemet Reshut. When approval is given, the participation requirement is weaker than in case of Milchemet Mitzvah. Participation in Milchemet Mitzvah is general and there are no exemptions, while in Milchemet Reshut there are exemptions for various personal causes: engaged men, those who built a new house but haven't entered it and the like.

The related Wikipedia entry contains additional info and sources.

Lee
  • 7,462
  • 1
  • 25
  • 57
Dave's tux
  • 194
  • 3