‘Unlicensed’ War in Jewish Tradition: Sources, consequences and implications

Abstract

The prevalence of military activity in the experience of modern Israel has recently generated several attempts to compare western teachings on warfare and its exercise with those found in Jewish sources. The present article constitutes a contribution to that enterprise, focusing on attitudes towards what are here termed ‘unlicensed wars’ in the overall just war tradition. The article first defines that specific category of armed conflict, arguing that ‘unlicensed wars’ are characterized by a failure to follow the constitutional procedures required to set the military apparatus in motion. It then goes on to analyze specifically Jewish textual traditions relating to the consequences of this situation. Finally, the paper discusses the broader messages conveyed by the term ‘unlicensed war’, demonstrating how it reflects the Jewish conception of the polity as a covenantal community.

Keywords:

• Bible
• Jewish political tradition
• ius ad bellum
• constitutional sanction

Research for this paper was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 157/04). Thanks are also due for comments received from: Amichai Cohen, Avner Cohen, Moshe Hellinger, Aaron Kirschenbaum, Michael Walzer and George R. Wilkes.

Notes

1. Compare El Fadl (1999), Kelsay (2003) and Knapp (2003)

2. This view is generally attributed to the school of thought initiated by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935). For an introduction to his brand of ‘religious Zionism’, see Shimoni (1995).

3. ‘(The decision to launch hostilities) is entirely dependent on the wish of the king. The Sanhedrin is consulted and asked to agree – but they have to agree (my emphasis)’. R. Naftali Zvi Hirsh Berlin (the ‘Netziv’, 1817–1893), Meromie Sadeh to T.B. Sanhedrin 20b.

4. A slightly different version of the same incident is found in Paragr. 74:15 of the 4th Century Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, (translated by H. Freedman [London, The Soncino Press, 1939], pp. 686–7). The entire exchange calls to mind that between the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury in Shakespeare's Henry V, Act 1, Scene 2.