Israel has the most moral army in the world – but what does this mean? What are the principles of Jewish ethics by which the IDF must act and defeat its enemies? They are neither the corrupted morals of the Western world, nor do they approach the cruel norms of Hamas. 

But to accurately answer this question, let us consult a recently-published work entitled "Master of Wars, Grower of Salvations" (Baal Milchamot, Matzmiach Yeshuot), by my father and teacher Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan. It provides a Halakhic-Jewish outlook on war in general and on the current war in Gaza in particular. 

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Torah sets certain ethical ground rules for war: The king can lead Israel into an optional war only if the Sanhedrin approves of it and determines that it is justified. Even a mitzvah war, such as a war of defense or other obligatory war such as against the Seven Nations, is waged only under certain conditions: We must first offer peace; we must leave open a corridor for retreat; and even fruit trees must not be destroyed. In addition, the encampment must be "sanctified" via the specific mandated manner in which the soldiers may relieve themselves. 

The Torah thus emphasizes that war does not allow us to break through our ethical boundaries; these must rather be defined. The difficulty in making clear ethical decisions during wartime was expressed by our Patriarch Yaakov, who, in the words of Rashi to B'reshit 32,8, "was afraid that he might be killed, and was troubled that he might have to kill others."

This responsibility for retaining our moral restrictions requires clear and level thinking. Therefore, even though vengeance is essentially a positive emotion, in that it expresses our sense of obligation to justice and tikkun olam (rectification of the world), it must be actualized only for the sake of Heaven, based on solid legal principles, and certainly not with abandon. See, for instance, Psalms 149: "Lofty praises of G-d are in their throats, and a double-edged sword is in their hands, to execute vengeance among the nations… to execute upon them written judgement – that will be the splendor of all His pious ones."

For this reason, and without offering final judgement on whether Shimon and Levi did the wrong thing in Sh'chem, their father Yaakov sharply reprimanded them specifically for their hot-headedness (B'reshit 49,10) that did not allow for appropriate assessment of what they had set out to do. 

INDIVIDUAL VS. COLLECTIVE

An altercation between two individuals has rules of what may and may not be done, but a war between two collectives is not governed the same way. A body is made up of individual organs, yet is treated as one entity, and the same is true for an enemy nation: Just like an enemy's right leg is fair game for his rival even though the latter was kicked with the former's left leg, we also do not seek to ascertain exactly what role the enemy's individuals played in their national war effort against us. Rather, when a national entity or body stands against us in war, we view each individual as a partner in the war effort against us, and we may target him (though see below). 

Conversely, each of our soldiers must see himself and his comrades as inseparable parts of our national organism that is defending itself, to the point where he must sacrifice his life for the victory, and even, under certain circumstances, to save another soldier.

This does not mean that indiscriminate killing of the enemy is blanketly permitted. Striking the enemy is necessary for victory, and if non-combatants are incidentally hurt or killed, this is the enemy's responsibility. However, in general, striking non-combatants is not necessary for victory; harming non-combatants under such circumstances is not permitted. This is why King Sha'ul called upon the elders to stay away from the battlefield, so that they would not be hurt in the war against Amalek. Sometimes extraordinary means must be taken, not only for a short-term battle victory, but also to ensure the achievements for the long-range. Rav Kook writes (Letters I, 89) that there are times when extreme measures are needed to "instill fear in the wild enemy, even via cruel measures." 

On the other hand, when King Amatzia of Judea fought against Edom (Chronicles II 25,12) and captured 10,000 enemy fighters and threw them off a cliff, this led to further ethical deterioration, and he was severely censured. That which is necessary is a mitzvah, and pointless persecution is a sin. 

THE SOCIETAL NATURE

One is permitted to strike at enemy forces only if he is acting as an appointed representative of his country. But if one acts on his own volition, without official public authorization, he does not receive the same "dispensations" that a wartime soldier receives. This is because the ethical basis for his actions has disappeared. On the contrary; if he kills an enemy soldier against the army's rules, this could be considered an act of murder. There are also situations where individuals taking the law into their own hands endanger the entire nation. The collective is an organized group, not a vigilante mob.

BOOTY

The basic law is that all private property that remains in conquered territory is ownerless and may be taken (D'varim 20,14). This rule, too, is rooted in the communal, national nature of war. However, IDF regulations forbid taking booty. This raises the question of whether one who does take booty is in violation only of army rules, and/or of stealing from a non-Jew, and/or of stealing from the State. In any event, it is forbidden to do so even if there are open questions that have not yet been resolved.

THE HOSTAGES

The issue of our hostages in Gaza must also be addressed in terms of the public-national nature of war. 

When hostages are taken by criminals for ransom, Jewish Law famously states that "captives are not redeemed for more than they are worth." This is so that the community not be impoverished, and so not to encourage further kidnappings. However, when we are dealing with captives who were essentially sent by the nation – as is the case with soldiers, and even settlers of the western and southern Negev – the State has an extra responsibility towards them that must be taken into account. This is true even if it means the State must pay a high price. 

And on the third hand, in wartime, there are even more considerations to consider: What will contribute more to a lasting victory – the soldiers' and settlers' knowledge that the State will rescue them under any and all circumstances? Or will refraining from surrendering to the terrorists' dictates contribute more? The answer to this question, obviously, is not simple – but formulating the dilemma in this manner gives the decision-makers clear lines and a solid scale of values by which to approach it. 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OUR WARS

Israel does not fight only for its own existence, and certainly not for territory and resources, which have been the goals of most wars in history. The State of Israel, even if it is not consciously aware of it, represents not only its own citizens, but the entire Nation of Israel throughout all its generations. It also stands for the faith of Israel and the G-d of Israel. No one can ignore the religious dimension of our wars of the past 76 years since Israel was established – and certainly not regarding the current war which began when we were cruelly attacked by an extremist Islamist organization. This war is a fight between two clear ideologies: Jewish morals and Islamic murderousness. Our end-goal, even if not all of us are regularly conscious of it, is the Sanctification of G-d's Name and the rectification of the world in the Kingdom of G-d. 

As such, let us adopt the call of King David (Shmuel II 22): "I pursued my enemies and destroyed them, and did not return until I had consumed them… Exalted is the Rock of my salvation, the G-d Who avenges me… saves me from men of violence."