I found the following discussion on Torah.org @
http://www.torah.org/learning/issues/goldstein.html
From Volume 1 Digest 25
From: Jeff Weiner <----->
Regarding the post by Mordechai Horowitz in V1 N23, I venture the following thoughts.
There are several issues that should be discussed.
1. The dictum "ha ba l'horgecha, hashkem l'horgo" - if one is being attacked (by someone with the intent to kill), then it is incumbent for you to kill that person first in self defense.
It is interesting to note that the Hebrew "ha ba l'horgecha" may mean not only if one has actually started to physically attack you, but who has actual intent and is about to do so. In this case, halacha would seem to mandate pre-emptive self defense on the part of the about-to-be victim.
2. The concept of "rodef" - that is one who is engaged in active persecution of, and who maliciously intends to harm a Jewish person.
3. The concept of "milhemet mitzva" - a war whose active participation in by all Jewish physically able males is required by Jewish law.
As far as point 1 above is concerned, the Arabs in the Cave Of Machpela on Purim morning a year ago were not engaged in physically attacking any Jews. Arguably, it should be noted that virulent anti-Jewish sentiment is regularly whipped up among the crowds of Moslem worshippers when they go to their Mosques. Anyone who lives in Israel can readily testify to the uneasiness and dread that greets all Jewish Israelis when Friday rolls around. Will the Arabs riot when they come out of the mosque on Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount) ? , is a question whose answer has all to often been anwered with a chilling "yes".
So while the Arabs at the Cave of Machpela on Purim were not physically attacking any Jews, there is evidence (I believe it was recorded in the Inquiry following the incident) that anti-Jewish statements "itbach el-yahud" (slaughter the Jews) were being made in the Cave.
Does this confer upon them the status of an enemy who has revealed his deadly intent to attack (but hasn't yet done so), thus requiring a preemptive act of self defense?
2. The concept of "rodef" would also seem to apply here to the hostile elements of the Arab population in Hebron. The situation of the Jewish community in Hebron, and quite possibly in all of Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) is one of "sakanat nefashot" (life threatening situation), because the hostile Arab population is engaged in active persecution of the Jewish population.
3. Regarding "milhemet mitzva" (a war, the partcipation in which is required (a postive commandment)) - I think that there is no doubt that there is a common halachic concensus that the security situation in Israel is one of "milhemet mizvah". Regardless of the various "peace" treaties and agreements that have been signed with Israel's Arab neighbors, the intent to destroy the Jewish state is still the major driving force in the Arab world.
Another halachic issue that should be raised is: Is an action permitted, given that it probably will lead to additional murderous attacks by the Arabs on Jews ?
Obviously, in a state of war, on the conventional battlefield, this issue is overridden by the rule of self defense. The question here is are we dealing with a conventional battlefield situation in current day Israel, or are we all (Jews living in Israel) in a non-conventional battlefield , where the same rules of self defense would apply ?
I welcome any thoughts and comments
Jeff Weiner