Poor, sad, dancing Israeli soldiers

[Yaakov Mendel]

No one is trying to kill children.  There is no military mission that says go and kill off as many "good arabs" as you can see and as many women and children as possible.   Military missions are necessitated by security needs and objectives.   If children die in the process, that is sad (sometimes), however these children are raised and grow up to be our adult enemies, so there is less of a sense of loss involved when they are programmed to hate us, and G-d can reward and punish in the next world those truly deserving.  Furthermore, the idea that one would "cut his own finger" or in other words put their own soldiers in increased danger during  a military mission in order to go out of the way to avoid the deaths of children or possible good enemies, is completely insane and illogical.   Aside from the fact that this is not the way the Torah views warfare, certainly common sense rejects such insanity without any need for scriptural explanation, and the Torah in this regard serves simply as a support for common sense.   No military endangers its own soldiers to save the enemy.  If that means more of the enemy dying including so-called "non-combatants" so be it.

"Those who are merciful to the cruel eventually come to be cruel to the merciful."

If you know anyone who has served in the US army, they can tell you how they wiped out villages in Iraq and afghanistan without regard to "good enemies" or others that might have gotten in the way "by accident."

Resistance is put down with violence, and there is no other way.  If you purposely endanger your own soldiers during this process, you will have less resources with which to put down future resistance in other missions or have less ability even to achieve the objective of the current mission.   That is like an assembly line where one guy puts an axl onto a wheel, the next guy takes the axl off and sends the wheel back to the first guy to put an axl on it...

I basically agree with what you write. All I am saying is that, as a general rule, military operations should target military objectives, not civilian objectives, and I find it honourable that the Israeli army takes care to minimize civilian casualties, as long as this does not unduly endanger her own soldiers. I never said that Israeli soldiers should be sacrificed in order to save Arabs.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I find it honourable that the Israeli army takes care to minimize civilian casualties

I find it disgusting. G-d commanded the Jews to wipe out Nazi scum without mercy--every single last one. It is revolting that the lives of Nazis matter more than the lives of Jews in the minds of Israelis.

as long as this does not unduly endanger her own soldiers. I never said that Israeli soldiers should be sacrificed in order to save Arabs.

But there is no way to spare Muslim "civilians" (an oxymoron) without endangering Israeli soldiers.

[Yaakov Mendel]

That's great. We do not stoop to their level - they murder us and we bury our dead because we care more about non-existent so-called "good" ( what a great contempt you have for Arabs) Arab more than we do about ourselves.

I never said that we should let Muslim Nazis murder us !
What I meant is that the worst thing my ennemy can do to me is not to take away my body but to take away my soul, that is, to have me renege on all the principles I stand for. We will not defeat Nazis by becoming Nazis ourselves. Quite the opposite, that would mean they have won. 

So you can't differentiate between these children:



and these children:



.

I do not respond to insults.

Maybe he's amazed to see a Jew who accepts un-Jewish and anti-Jewish "morals" that certaintly fit to Thomas Jefferson morals and not Torahnic morals?!
It's an elementary Jewish principle - "those who are merciful to the cruel, will eventually be cruel to the merciful" - the very fact that these people belongs to a hostile civilizations makes them enemies, and even if they've left this civilization, it makes NO sense to any human being (besides to Jews, sady) that the lives of our own worths 2 billion times more than the lives of others.

Be kind to the kind and cruel to the cruel - that is judaism.
I can only repeat myself : it is an elementary principle of justice that those who should be punished are those who are guilty. All-out indiscriminate revenge is not justice.

Yes, same Altruist BS. Your Jewish finger is G-D given Holy figure that if you'd cut it off for a dirty Ishmaelite ("good" or bad) that would be treason.

I can live without a finger. If that could allow to save the life of someone who does not deserve to die, I have no problem with that, even if he is an Arab.

Then no wonder you don't think like a Jew but like an American. Hellenized, Western concepts are alien to Judaism and contradicts basic elements of our faith.

I am not a bigot, that's all.

[Dr. Dan]

i would post a JTF video with that dancing video since that video ended up going viral and on the news...we need to look for popular to be videos and attach JTF videos to them.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

May I kindly suggest that you take a closer look at what Judaism truly is...

Then who and what were the Maccabees fighting against if not Hellenism (Western ideas and cullture)? 

You know what they say, Ron, Great minds think alike.   (even though that was a really obvious point we both made).

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

All-out indiscriminate revenge is not justice.

You never answered my question. What did the L-rd tell the Israelites to do to Amalek?

I am not a bigot, that's all.

Excuse me? It's being a "bigot" to hate the Nazis who want to kill us all? It's not bigotry for them to want to murder all non-Muslims???

[muman613]

And what has all this to do with the original posting?

I don't think that it was wrong for them to do this... Unfortunately, once again the timing is terrible. I think it is funny...

Regarding the argument above, Judaism requires us to very strongly oppose the enemies of the Jewish people. The issue is to determine who the enemy is. Sure the commandment to remember Amalek is important, but we cannot assume just because someone is fighting against us that they are Amalek. We are faced with a variety of enemies each and every day, in our personal lives and in our public lives. Torah teaches us to treat others with kindness through our actions, and our speech.

But Torah also is clear that when one violates the law he is liable for punishment, up to and including death.

National enemies must be dealt with through military action. There are a number of mitzvot concerning going to war against an enemy. For instance there is a law that trees cannot be destroyed during a war... There is also the law of the beautiful captive... And there is the admonition that the Kohein gives to the troops before they enter battle.

As I said before, it is not an easy matter to determine how to deal with our enemies. The issue can only be understood through how we define our enemies.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/961313/jewish/Cutting-Down-Fruit-Trees.htm

"When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them, for you may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Is the tree of the field a man, to go into the siege before you? However, a tree you know is not a food tree, you may destroy and cut down, and you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until its submission." - Deut. 20:19-20.

http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.60/48kitetz.htm

a. A TIME FOR WAR AND A TIME FOR PEACE

"Inter arma silent leges," says the Latin proverb – "During war the law is silent." This proverb expresses the view that war is not part of civilized human life, subject to the rules of morality. Rather, war represents an outburst of primordial instincts of aggression and survival, and is therefore not subject to any legal system. War strips man of all garments of human civilization and returns him to his original primitive state.

As a description of the horrible reality of the wars conducted throughout human history, this view has – unfortunately - a firm factual basis. But if it is meant to express a world view which surrenders in advance any demand for lawful and moral behavior during war, then it is perverted and dangerous. The Torah certainly disagrees with the Latin proverb quoted above. Several laws are laid down pertaining to the conduct of war, and these are concentrated mainly in two parashot of Sefer Devarim: Shoftim and Ki-Tetze.

The fundamental aim of war is obviously to conquer the enemy, and the Torah's regulations pertaining to warfare are certainly meant to help realize this aim. But on the other hand, owing to the potentially corrupting nature of war, it requires boundaries and restraints in various spheres, and the laws of warfare are meant to achieve this, too. The question we shall address here is to what extent we may deduce from these laws the Torah's fundamental attitude towards the problematic human phenomenon of war.

Clearly, the ultimate vision of the Israelite prophets is one of peace – "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any more" (Mikha 4:3). However, it goes without saying that this vision cannot serve as an operative principle for Israel at a time when the nations of the world wage war with one another and when Israel too must defend itself. The same prophet quoted above – Mikha – also describes a different vision: "Arise and thresh, daughter of Tzion, for I will make your horn iron and I will make your hoofs brass, and you shall beat many nations into pieces..." (4:13). There is no contradiction between these two prophecies, for each is appropriate for its own time: "a time of war" – in the present reality, and "a time of peace" – at the end of days, when "the mountain of God's house is re-established at the head of all mountains and the nations stream to it," as Mikha himself describes in the same prophecy.

The laws of warfare in Sefer Devarim apply to a period that belongs to the category of the second prophecy above. Do they contain any hint at the first prophecy?

...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

i would post a JTF video with that dancing video since that video ended up going viral and on the news...we need to look for popular to be videos and attach JTF videos to them.

Yes great idea, I suggest we use one of AsheDina's songs and make them dance to her JTF song instead of the pop song.

[wonga66]

Look at the seriousness, intensity and no mucking around of even paltry young Kahanists with no military training from 1993 at "Camp Meir" under Mike Guzofsky in this clip


The dancing, over relaxed, uninhibited poor empty-headed Israeli 'dib' 'elite' overrated zomboid dudu Zahal soldiers are a travesty, especially jiving to Black coon music whilst in uniform. Zahal stands for "Zava Hagana L'Israel", and it is emblazoned on every Israeli soldier's shirt pocket. Israel" contains Hashem's Name in it, & they should act accordingly, & not 'let off steam' for puplic Youtube consumption. They wouldn't dance like that in the other Holy cities of Jerusalem, Tiberias or Safed. Hebron is where the Avos are buried, a special locale where "Heaven & Earth meet", unlike the other 3 cities, and where the Resurrection of the Dead will first occur, even before Jerusalem.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Look at the seriousness, intensity and no mucking around of even paltry young Kahanists with no military training from 1993 at "Camp Meir" under Mike Guzofsky in this clip


The dancing, over relaxed, uninhibited poor empty-headed Israeli 'dib' 'elite' overrated zomboid dudu Zahal soldiers are a travesty, especially jiving to Black music.

lol.  You're not serious.

[wonga66]

Camp Meir was great, even under Guzofsky.

Can you imagine a camp under Chaim?! Even better!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Camp Meir was great, even under Guzofsky.

Can you imagine a camp under Chaim?! Even better!

Ok, but have you seen the kind of soldiers that are guarding Hevron?

[Spiraling Leopard]

If you're gona dance in uniform, at least do it like a North Korean!

That was funny.

[Yaakov Mendel]

You never answered my question. What did the L-rd tell the Israelites to do to Amalek?

Oh I am so sorry I forgot to answer that question... My answer to that is two-fold. First, I am not so arrogant as to be certain to know who Amalek is. Judaism teaches me to be humble. Second, I would never embark on a campaign of extermination of any given group of people based on a doubtful interpretation of the Bible. Judaism teaches me to be fair and critical.

[muman613]

You never answered my question. What did the L-rd tell the Israelites to do to Amalek?

Oh I am so sorry I forgot to answer that question... My answer to that is two-fold. First, I am not so arrogant as to be certain to know who Amalek is. Judaism teaches me to be humble. Second, I would never embark on a campaign of extermination of any given group of people based on a doubtful interpretation of the Bible. Judaism teaches me to be fair and critical.

This article is interesting in its discussion of Amalek...

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48939037.html

...

MAIMONIDES SAYS

A careful reading of Maimonides' "Mishna Torah," indicates that Maimonides was of the opinion that a person from Amalek may, in fact, convert to Judaism. Apparently, he preferred the tradition recorded in the Babylonian Talmud to the explicit dictum in the Mechilta. Maimonides writes:

    All non-Jews when they convert and accept all the commandments ... are like Jews for all matters ... except the four nations exclusively (who cannot convert) and they are Amon, Moab, Egypt, and Edom. These nations, when they convert, are Jews for all matters with the exception of joining the community in marriage. (Mishna Torah Issuri Biah 12:17).

The inference seems quite clear: the option of conversion is open to the erstwhile Amalekite. Furthermore, Maimonides mentions a second possibility for an Amalekite to lose the status of Amalek without entering the fold of Judaism.

Maimonides (in "Laws of Kings" 6:4) describes the etiquette of war, and says that prior to battle the opposing side should be offered the possibility to accept the commandments and subjugation. This offer is also extended to Amalek. Apparently, when Amalekites accept the seven Noachide laws, they lose the status of Amalek and must no longer be obliterated. In other words, there are three possibilities for an individual born of Amalekian blood:

   1. Maintaining his initial status of Amalekite and thus being slated for obliteration.

   2. Accepting the seven Noachide laws, at which point his status becomes that of a righteous gentile.

   3. Full-fledged conversion.

It is important to consider the other side of this coin: Can a person become an "Amalakite"?

* * *

HOW TO BECOME "AMALEK"

According to Rav Chaim Solovietchik's understanding of Maimonides, the answer is affirmative. When describing the obligation to eradicate the seven nations who occupied the Land of Israel at the time of Joshua's conquest, Maimonides writes that by his time they had already assimilated among the nations, and therefore this commandment cannot be fulfilled. The source for this teaching is a tradition cited in the Talmud:

    Said Rabban Gamaliel to him: "Is it not already laid down, 'An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord'?"

    Rabbi Joshua replied to him: "Do Ammon and Moab still reside in their original homes? Sancherev King of Assyria long ago went up and mixed up all the nations, as it says, 'I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as a mighty one their inhabitants.' And whatever strays [from a group] is assumed to belong to the larger section of the group." (Brachot 28a)

On the other hand, in the very next law, Maimonides writes of the obligation to destroy Amalek. Here he leaves out this important caveat. For some reason Maimonides believes that the identities of the seven nations have disappeared due to the policy of massive population transfers employed by Sancherev, yet Amalek lives as a distinct, identifiable entity!

Rav Chaim explained that Amalek is therefore a conceptual category and not merely an historical reality. One who behaves as an Amalekite can achieve the status of Amalek. Rav Chaim's grandson, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, applied this teaching to the Nazis who adopted an Amalakian worldview, unfortunately with more success than the historical Amalekites.

[Dr. Dan]

We should do unto Nazis and anti-semites what they want to do to us...and if it means they want to throw us in ovens, we should throw them instead in the ovens... Don't forget what happened to Haman and his henchmen on Purim when he planned to murder 100's of thousands of Persian Jews...they reversed the very thing he wanted to do to them on himself....

THe same go with the Arab Muslim Nazis.  While I might have some personal issues to go blow up arab muslim villages unprovoked, I wouldn't feel bad if it happened. Furthermore, during war and fighting, I wouldn't care if an arab muslim school were blown up if terrorists were hiding inside of them.  Finally, if the arab muslims hurt a single Jew or planned on it, I would have no problem with sieges being laid on these villages even if it ends up killing non combat civilians.  If Israel sent a true message, our enemies would think twice about hurting a single Jew...and we need to react harshly and brutally to our enemies who want to do brutal things to us.

That's great. We do not stoop to their level - they murder us and we bury our dead because we care more about non-existent so-called "good" ( what a great contempt you have for Arabs) Arab more than we do about ourselves.

I never said that we should let Muslim Nazis murder us !
What I meant is that the worst thing my ennemy can do to me is not to take away my body but to take away my soul, that is, to have me renege on all the principles I stand for. We will not defeat Nazis by becoming Nazis ourselves. Quite the opposite, that would mean they have won. 

So you can't differentiate between these children:



and these children:



.

I do not respond to insults.

Maybe he's amazed to see a Jew who accepts un-Jewish and anti-Jewish "morals" that certaintly fit to Thomas Jefferson morals and not Torahnic morals?!
It's an elementary Jewish principle - "those who are merciful to the cruel, will eventually be cruel to the merciful" - the very fact that these people belongs to a hostile civilizations makes them enemies, and even if they've left this civilization, it makes NO sense to any human being (besides to Jews, sady) that the lives of our own worths 2 billion times more than the lives of others.

Be kind to the kind and cruel to the cruel - that is judaism.
I can only repeat myself : it is an elementary principle of justice that those who should be punished are those who are guilty. All-out indiscriminate revenge is not justice.

Yes, same Altruist BS. Your Jewish finger is G-D given Holy figure that if you'd cut it off for a dirty Ishmaelite ("good" or bad) that would be treason.

I can live without a finger. If that could allow to save the life of someone who does not deserve to die, I have no problem with that, even if he is an Arab.

Then no wonder you don't think like a Jew but like an American. Hellenized, Western concepts are alien to Judaism and contradicts basic elements of our faith.

I am not a bigot, that's all.

[muman613]

Dan,

Do you know who 'The King'/HaMelech is in the Megillah Esther? It is not just Achashveros, the king is a metaphor for Hashem... To teach us that only Hashem controls all of the world, and sometimes he sends us an evil decree/gazera.

http://www.beingjewish.com/yomtov/purim/hidden.html

Overall I agree that those who seek to destroy the Jewish people will themselves be utterly destroyed. We have witnessed this with the Ancient Egyptians, the ancient Greek & Roman civilizations, and most recently with Nazi Germany {although there are remnants in this world}...

May Hashem grant us the strength to overthrow his enemies, and may we merit to witness their destruction.

http://www.koltorah.org/volume 14/27_Tzav-Purim.htm

Rabbi Menachem Genack states that what most people did not realize during the time in which these events took place was that Hashem was guiding all of these incidents with a hidden hand. Hashem’s subtle coordination of the events is expressed in the Megillah in that the name of Hashem is not written even once in the entire Megillat Esther; it is the only book in the entire Tanach to not include Hashem’s name.
However, our Mesorah teaches us that the commonly used word in the Megillah, Hamelech, does not only refer to king Achashverosh, but also refers to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, Who has controlled all of the world events with His hidden hand throughout history. This differs greatly from the worldview of Amalek, and its descendant Haman. They believed in all of their evil and wickedness that G-d does not control anything, and that the fate of the world is based on pure chance.

[Yaakov Mendel]

While I might have some personal issues to go blow up arab muslim villages unprovoked, I wouldn't feel bad if it happened.

If it is really unprovoked, meaning :
(i) there is no legitimate target inside the village
(ii) the operation is not in retaliation to attacks made against Jews
then this is terrorism.
Btw, the bombings carried out by the Irgun in the 1930s in the colonial Palestine do not fit into this category because they came in retaliation against savage violence by the Arabs and they were motivated by the fact that the British did not protect the Jews, so I do not view them as terrorist actions.

Furthermore, during war and fighting, I wouldn't care if an arab muslim school were blown up if terrorists were hiding inside of them.

I would care. I am not saying that I would not do it ultimately, but it would be a moral dilemna. That is the typical situation in which Israel regularly gets nabbed because of the dirty methods of fighting of Arab terrorists. Should you cancel a planned operation because you know it will result in a bloodshed among civilians ? If you have a conscience, you can understand why one would answer yes to that question. On another hand, if you cancel the operation, you play the terrorists' game and you keep these bastards alive, thus endangering Jewish lives. In my opinion, there cannot be a systematic answer "yes" or "no" to that question, it is all a matter of circumstances and judgement.

If Israel sent a true message, our enemies would think twice about hurting a single Jew.

It would not deter our ennemies if we killed a lot of Arab civilians. Terrorists couldn't care less about their own people.
However, Israel should be as brutal as possible as far as targeted killings are concerned. This is more effective.

[wonga66]

There is a tradition that the Resurrection of the Dead will start first in Hebron. And one day there will be JUSTIFIED dancing in the streets of Hebron....when Goldstein Hakodosh clambers out of his grave.....to finish the job!!!!

[Dr. Dan]

While I might have some personal issues to go blow up arab muslim villages unprovoked, I wouldn't feel bad if it happened.

If it is really unprovoked, meaning :
(i) there is no legitimate target inside the village
(ii) the operation is not in retaliation to attacks made against Jews
then this is terrorism.
Btw, the bombings carried out by the Irgun in the 1930s in the colonial Palestine do not fit into this category because they came in retaliation against savage violence by the Arabs and they were motivated by the fact that the British did not protect the Jews, so I do not view them as terrorist actions.

Furthermore, during war and fighting, I wouldn't care if an arab muslim school were blown up if terrorists were hiding inside of them.

I would care. I am not saying that I would not do it ultimately, but it would be a moral dilemna. That is the typical situation in which Israel regularly gets nabbed because of the dirty methods of fighting of Arab terrorists. Should you cancel a planned operation because you know it will result in a bloodshed among civilians ? If you have a conscience, you can understand why one would answer yes to that question. On another hand, if you cancel the operation, you play the terrorists' game and you keep these bastards alive, thus endangering Jewish lives. In my opinion, there cannot be a systematic answer "yes" or "no" to that question, it is all a matter of circumstances and judgement.

If Israel sent a true message, our enemies would think twice about hurting a single Jew.

It would not deter our ennemies if we killed a lot of Arab civilians. Terrorists couldn't care less about their own people.
However, Israel should be as brutal as possible as far as targeted killings are concerned. This is more effective.

1. I'll give you an example..There were a couple of settlers who planned on bombing an Arab Muslim girl school.  They failed and were caught in their attempt.  Personally, I would not subscribe to the point of view of doing that unprovoked.  However, if they had been successful, I would have refrained myself from rebuking their actions. Rather, my only comment would be that, it is better to achieve a goal by following the law rather than breaking it.  At the same time, I will not be sad for the arab muslim school girls since in my mind, they are rodfim. There would be no chance they would be our friends in the future, but rather, pursuers of Jewish blood directly or indirectly.

2. If there was a terrible murdering terrorist hiding amongst civilians and he was a dangerous man about to kill other Jews, whether it would be a targeted killing or destroying a whole structure, I'm for killing him one way or the other.  My issue with targeted killings is that it puts important Jewish soldiers in danger if they are on the ground.  But in a time of war, such as the Lebanon war, in my opinion, Israel should have indiscrimenantly flattened many of those villages rather than put Jewish men in danger.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

I never said that we should let Muslim Nazis murder us !

By willing to give up lives of Jews for the Arab enemy speculating (a very contemptuous speculation) that there are traitors for the Arabs, you let Jews die for the sake of others, this is not Judaism, this is "the Just War" of the Catholic Church, this is anti-Jewish, immoral and self-hating, and this is called treason.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp

What I meant is that the worst thing my ennemy can do to me is not to take away my body but to take away my soul, that is, to have me renege on all the principles I stand for. We will not defeat Nazis by becoming Nazis ourselves. Quite the opposite, that would mean they have won. 

So now you compare between Jewish self-defense and killing of our enemy to murder of Jews. Get some mental help.

I do not respond to insults.

Not an insult but a question, would you answer or not?

Be kind to the kind and cruel to the cruel - that is judaism.
I can only repeat myself : it is an elementary principle of justice that those who should be punished are those who are guilty. All-out indiscriminate revenge is not justice.

First you say you don't even know what Amalek is, and you allow yourself to ignore it?!

G-D wiped off the entire Amalekite people, with no exception how many "moderates" or "good" Amalekites there were. By being part of a hostile nation, they're considered enemy, get it through your head already.

Don't mix Judaism with Christianity.

I can live without a finger. If that could allow to save the life of someone who does not deserve to die, I have no problem with that, even if he is an Arab.

So the life of a non-existent Arab who doesn't deserve to die worths much more than yours.

Really, you would be a good Pastor.

I am not a bigot, that's all.

So thinking insanely and facing the truth and fight against the enemy nation, with self-respect and value of the lives and destiny that G-D gave to you to and your fellow Jewish brothers, this is bigotry?

You worship the "other" and have no value for your own life and your own people's lives. I can't understand why do you even bother considering some Arabs enemy just because they threaten your life, I thought you would give up on your life for the other?! and that it is good to commit suicide in order to save the life of the other?!

You ignore Jewish history better than a Communist, ignore the story of Dina in Schem, ignore the story of Amalek, ignore the story of King Saul's war on Agag, ignore Halachot Milhama of the Rambam, ignore everything. and then people wonder why the Jewish people have been murdered so easily.

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

I'm really sick of you, Ya'akov. All you've done here is bashing people's pride, you attacked me for willing to destroy Germany (what's more rational than that?) even after I gave you an explanation why Judaism not only allows that but commands that, you attacked the Serbs for committing "crimes" against the Nazi Albanians and Croats (it's not like I care about the Serbs, I'll be honest, but at least they're not our mortal enemies like the Croats and the Albanians), you talk so much about Judaism without knowing basic stuff in Judaism, please, at least be honest, and don't speak in the name of Judaism, because you don't know anything about it.

Rabbi Kahane answered your so-called arguments in this debate.

[muman613]

Ron,

I think you are a little off base on some of the things you are saying here...

The issue with Schem and Dina was seen by their father as a big mistake. The Rabbis do not suggest that that episode is the way to deal in such a situation.

Also regarding Amalek... As I stated in some of my postings, at this time there is nobody today who we identify as the actual Amalek. There are those who act like Amalek and we must oppose them, but to say that the command to destroy Amalek is a clear case of killing all Arabs is not supported by anything I have heard any Rabbi say.

The Torah does promote the concept of tempered War... We are supposed to offer a peace before we go to war, we are supposed to allow an exit route for those who want to flee from the war. In cases of wars of conveniece there are three classes of people who can be excused from military duty...

I will bring you proofs of these concepts of a Jewish war... I don't know about the Christian idea, but it seems to me that they were pretty brutal when they went to war during the Crusades and the Inquisitions...

http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-category/the-land-of-israel/page/6/?p=1580
War and Murder

Torah has valued human life above all and under every circumstances we should try to save human as it is said to save one human being is like to save entire entire mankind. On the other hand, the laws of war of Deuteronomy says that when we go to war with faraway nations we are to give people chance to surrender and if they won’t we are to kill all the men in it. So how can we justify killing all the men just like that when we consider human life above all ? In self defense its proper to kill but for territorial expansion why should we shed blood? I am sure that G-D too wouldn’t allow us to shed innocent blood.

Hi,

Thanks for asking this important question. The first thing that needs to be said is that we think of all wars as equal. That is not true. We cannot equate a war that G-d commanded us to fight and a war that we choose to fight. If you learn the Torah’s perspective on warfare you will see that warfare in Torah law is totally different from warfare in the non-Jewish world. That is not possible to understand unless you go very in depth into the Torah’s perspective. To help you do that, here is a link that will describe the concept in great detail. I give this information over in a class format and I find that if you study it well it will give you a great overview of “Jewish warfare.” http://www.nerleelef.com/mar3.pdf

Next, let me just say that we are not talking about the modern concept of “holy wars” where people think that they know the will of G-d. The Torah’s concept of war is that G-d commands the Jews to do certain things because in His wisdom this is what needs to happen to bring balance to the world. There is a commandment in the Torah to completely destroy the nation of Amalek. This nation, according to the Torah, is evil through and through. There is no way that anyone from that nation can survive and the world be a safe place. King Saul almost destroyed this nation once but left the king alive for one night. He was wrong and he lost his kingship over that. The results of that night were that the king had relations with a woman, the child grew up and his ancestor ended up being the evil Haman and, according to many Hitler was also a descendant of Amalek.

http://www.aish.com/tp/b/lp/48952216.html
LAWS OF WAR

What follows are 3 laws concerning the Jewish people waging war (excluding a war of liberation of the land). Two of these laws are in this Parasha, followed by one in the next Parasha, and interrupted by the law of the "broken-necked calf."

LAW #1: When the soldiers are assembled to join the battle, they are first asked if anyone had recently gotten married, built a new house, planted a new vineyard, or was afraid of his misdeeds. Those who replied positively were exempted from military duty. The concept is that they would make bad soldiers due to the fact they would always be focused on "who will take my wife, house or vineyard if I don't return?" The sinner has his embarrassment alleviated by grouping him with the others.

LAW #2: When besieging a city, if you must cut down trees to build a platform to attack the city, do not cut down fruit trees. This is environmentalism in the Torah! This is the general prohibition against wasting food or any commodity. (Remember the starving children in Africa and finish your spinach!) The Torah also compares people to trees in the power of growth that they share.

LAW #3: The captive woman is discussed in next week's Parasha.

I think you should remember that Jews should not insult another Jew... I know you get excited in these kinds of situations, and I understand what you are trying to say.

I don't think he has said anything too out of line. Dont you think we should not personally attack another for having a slightly different understanding than yourself?

One more link:

http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.60/48kitetz.htm

c. OFFERING PEACE BEFORE WAR

(20:10) "When you approach a city TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IT, you shall PROCLAIM PEACE TO IT."

What is the reason for this mitzva? We may perceive in it some pragmatic logic: if surrender may be achieved peacefully, why wage war? The Sefer Ha-chinukh (#527) detects a different pragmatic reason:

"This (a peaceful surrender of the enemy) holds benefit for us, in that our king would thus have slaves to serve him and to pay him a permanent tax... By killing them there is no benefit, if they are prepared to remain subservient to us, and so it would be a matter of corruption and would represent cruelty on our part, such that it would be a disgrace for anyone to hear of it."

According to these pragmatic reasons, this mitzva is aimed at promoting the victory of the Israelite army without any cost in blood.

But an examination of the style of the verse immediately reveals the paradox that underlies its words: You are approaching a city TO WAGE WAR AGAINST IT, and I command you TO PROCLAIM PEACE TO IT! Furthermore, note the difference in the participle: proclaiming peace TO it is the opposite of war AGAINST it.

The way in which the Rambam formulates this mitzva (Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1) indeed points to a fundamental moral principle that underlies it – a perception which has nothing to do with military, political or economic pragmatism:

"War is not waged AGAINST ANYONE IN THE WORLD unless peace is first offered; neither in a voluntary war nor in an obligatory one... and it is forbidden to violate the covenant and to cheat them once they have surrendered peacefully and accepted the seven Noahide laws."

The Sefer Ha-chinukh, in his first reason for this mitzva, regards it as being of fundamental moral importance:

"Since mercy is a good quality, and it is appropriate that we – of holy seed – conduct ourselves accordingly in all matters, therefore [we act with mercy] even towards pagan enemies."

Thus we understand that the mitzva of offering peace, which precedes any war whatsoever (including an obligatory war, even a war against Amalek!), also includes – like the speech of the officers to the nation in the previous parasha – a subdued protest against war. But the protest in the previous parasha was directed at the suffering of Israelite casualties, whereas the protest in the present parasha is directed against the suffering of the enemy. Spilling the blood of the enemy should be avoided if possible.

[muman613]

I would also like to add the following:

The current situation in Israel is beyond the point of offering peace. Originally I believed that Israel should not have given up Gaza, Gush Katif, and the other concessions... In retrospect all those give aways was for naught.

I think that Rabbi Kahanes idea of relocating those arabs to an arab state sounds like the only rational idea. If they don't want to move, move them physically, as they did the poor Jews who were evicted from their homes.

But I don't think that we should round them all up and put them in ovens... That idea sounds too much like what the Nazis did to the Jewish people. I agree that we should not become that which we hate.

"You shall not aggrieve a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Exodus 22:20)

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

Ron,

I think you are a little off base on some of the things you are saying here...

The issue with Schem and Dina was seen by their father as a big mistake. The Rabbis do not suggest that that episode is the way to deal in such a situation.

The Rambam ruled that Schem and all of his fellow residents of the city deserved death for violating the Seven Laws of Noah. He writes, "(הם) חייבין להושיב דיינין ושופטים בכל פלך ופלך לדון בשש מצוות אלו (מצוות בני נח), ולהזהיר את העם; ובן נוח שעבר על אחת משבע מצוות אלו, ייהרג בסיף" (ט',י"ג).

Thereby, he justifies the actions of Shihttp://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/beshiv/66beshiv.rtfmon and Levi "ומפני זה נתחייבו כל בעלי שכם הריגה שהרי שכם גזל, והם ראו, וידעו, ולא דנוהו".

The MaHaRal and others also praise Shimon and Levi for their actions.

Also regarding Amalek... As I stated in some of my postings, at this time there is nobody today who we identify as the actual Amalek. There are those who act like Amalek and we must oppose them,

It's a well known fact that every nation that declares mortal war on the Jewish people is considered Amalek in the essence. Agag the King of Amalek and his descendant, Haman, are examples. The Gaon from Vilna said it very clearly - the German people are descendants of Amalek and they should be eliminated.

http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=4465

http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/beshiv/66beshiv.rtf

but to say that the command to destroy Amalek is a clear case of killing all Arabs is not supported by anything I have heard any Rabbi say.

What's not clear about - Masechet Sukka paper 52 page 2:

"אמר רב חנא בר אחא אמרי בי רב ארבעה מתחרט עליהן הקב"ה שבראם ואלו הן גלות כשדים וישמעאלים ויצר הרע גלות דכתיב (ישעיהו נב) ועתה מה לי פה נאם ה' כי לקח עמי חנם וגו' כשדים דכתיב (ישעיהו כג) הן ארץ כשדים זה העם לא היה ישמעאלים דכתיב (איוב יב) ישליו אהלים לשודדים ובטוחות למרגיזי אל לאשר הביא אלוה בידו"

The Ishmaelites are worthless, they have no right to exist.