The Israeli response to the Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023 has been massive and all-encompassing.

It has caused multiple relocations of a large proportion of the population of Gaza, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, including many women and children, and mass starvation.

There is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence, from both international and Israeli sources, that the actions carried out on behalf, and on the instructions, of the Israeli Government have also included torture of prisoners, sexual violence, imprisonment without trial or due legal process, illegal appropriation of property and destruction of livelihoods, attacks on hospitals and health workers, murder of humanitarian workers, destruction of places of learning and worship, murder of journalists, use of human shields and prevention of delivery of food and other humanitarian aid.

The extent and ferocity of the Israeli response has attracted widespread international concern and has raised questions about its underlying moral justification. Opponents of the actions of the Israel Defence Force have referred to international humanitarian principles. Supporters have argued that these actions are in conformity not only with a modern legal right to self-defence but also with ancient ethical and legal principles of Judaism, on the basis of which they accuse their critics of antisemitism.

Indeed, in its Nation-State Law, Israel defines itself as the “nation-state of the Jewish people” and the Israeli prime minister, in a famous speech on 28 October 2023, invoked a passage from Deuteronomy 25:17 to justify ruthless, aggressive actions against perceived adversaries. Many similar claims have been made that passages in the Bible support or justify the actions of the IDF in Gaza.

This raises an important question: Are the acts of the Israeli Government and the IDF consistent with the philosophy and ethics of Judaism? Or, more specifically, does the Judaic tradition permit or support the specific actions and outcomes listed above?

To address this question we have carried out a detailed analysis of key arguments, claims and imperatives in the corpus of Jewish ethical thinking, encompassing the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Old Testament) and the ensuing rabbinic commentaries, including, in particular, the Babylonian Talmud, an encyclopaedic compendium of wisdom compiled over hundreds of years that is regarded as the authoritative document on Jewish ethics. Our full discussion, which includes extensive documentation and references, can be found here. In this brief article we present our key conclusions.

Consistent with the statements by the prime minister and other members of the Israeli Government, the Bible does indeed contain passages that provide apparent support for at least some of the acts and policies referred to. These include claims by the Jewish people to the land of Israel, inclusive of Gaza, acceptance or promotion of violent acts that aim to drive out and kill all opponents, and justification for acts of revenge and retribution. However, “fundamentalist” readings of these passages are in almost all cases repudiated by the subsequent Talmudic and other rabbinic commentaries, which interpret them in relation to context and underlying values. These latter texts set out foundational ethical principles which establish the framework for, and regulation of, the conduct of individual Jews and Jewish communities globally. Although subject to ongoing consideration in each generation, these foundational principles have remained stable for nearly 2000 years.

Foremost among the principles is respect for the sanctity of life, which is prioritised above almost all other commandments. Another is the imperative to pursue peace and reconciliation, which expresses itself as a core Talmudic obligation to seek ways to resolve conflicts with minimal harm to all parties involved and to avoid violence. A principle of responsibility and compassion for others is repeatedly emphasised, with a specific requirement to care for and support those who are particularly vulnerable, especially children. Multiple passages stress the need to avoid indirect harm to innocent people and to prevent collateral damage when conflict arises.

These principles are applied in many discussions in the Talmud of direct relevance to the events in Gaza, offering clear guidance regarding contemporary challenges. Here are a few salient examples:

• Civilian protection as a moral imperative, and proportionality. While the Talmud permits lethal force in cases of imminent danger, if a threat can be neutralised without killing the aggressor — such as through wounding or disarming — one is obligated to pursue the less extreme option.
• Human shields. This argument is complicated because while Israel cites the alleged use by Hamas of human shields as a justification for bombing civilian installations, there is evidence that the IDF itself has adopted this practice and also widely employs human shields in its operations. Whatever is the case, Talmudic ethics stresses a moral imperative to protect innocent people, even when they are used as shields, requiring that strict steps be taken to limit harm to such people and imposing moral culpability on those who fail to do so. The Talmud emphasises that one may not take an innocent life, even to save one’s own life, underscoring an ethical prohibition against intentionally harming non-combatants regardless of the tactical situation.
• Prohibition of collective punishment is a strong, unequivocal and unconditional injunction, repeatedly affirmed in all biblical and Talmudic literature.
• The right to self-defence is recognised and supported, subject to elaborate but clear conditions explicitly intended to prevent this right from being used as a device to engage in aggression, including in the context of the existence of an immediate and direct threat and the absence of alternative means to neutralise the danger. Even when self-defence is justified, the responsibility to minimise harm remains absolute: aggression disguised as self-defence is a serious ethical and legal violation.

Our analyses of the Talmudic and later texts have therefore identified multiple substantive propositions relevant to the conduct of war, in Gaza and elsewhere. The conclusions regarding the actual conduct of the IDF in Gaza are clear and inescapable:

• The obstruction of deliveries of food, humanitarian aid, medical care, and safe evacuation of civilians blatantly contravenes the obligation to prioritise life.
• The targeting of civilians and, in particular, the large-scale murder of children, is directly contrary to the most elementary precepts of Jewish ethics.
• The arguments that attacks on civilians and the widespread devastation of homes, hospitals, schools, public spaces, and agricultural land are justified by the right to self-defence are inconsistent with Jewish law and ethics.
• The claim that such actions are justified by the alleged or real use of human shields directly contradicts Talmudic teachings.
• Collective punishment, exemplified in the onslaught on Gaza, is unequivocally prohibited by Jewish law.
• The refusal to resolve political grievances through reconciliation and negotiation contradicts the Talmud’s vision of peace.

In other words, Israeli Government policy and the conduct of the IDF diverge in fundamental ways from the core ethical precepts of Judaism. Put more bluntly, the current Israeli regime cannot be understood as a legitimate representative of Judaic ethical traditions or of Jewish thought and culture more generally. Neither its actions nor the arguments it advances to justify them are supported by the authoritative texts; hence, they cannot be regarded as consistent with the deep and enduring body of knowledge and wisdom that is constitutive of Judaism.

This conclusion raises many questions of its own, some of which are wide-ranging, including: the degree to which criticism of the Israeli Government and its policies can be appropriately attributed to antisemitism; the general character of Israel as a purported “Jewish State”; and the self-identity of the Jewish people and how they understand their relationships and obligations to other cultures, their own history, and to each other. It is likely that resources to address these questions too can be found in the deep and fecund tradition of Jewish ethical thought.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.