The Curious Jew: Terrorism, Tanakh, and Truth

Monday, February 06, 2006

Terrorism, Tanakh, and Truth

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

The Battle of Algiers

What is the role of terrorism in the Torah?

Terrorism is defined in many different ways. One of the most pivotal ways is that the attack is unprovoked. For example, no one would claim that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is a form of terrorism against the Nazis, even though it was a few citizens against a large body of people. Terrorism is often miscast as asymmetrical warfare. I think that assymetrical warfare makes sense in terms of the Nazis vs. the Jews, or enslaved African Americans vs. white plantation owners, but I cannot condone terrorism when it refers to bodies and groups of free people, such as it is often today, namely, with Palestinians vs. Israelis.

However, leaving aside that the most common definition of terrorism is that it seems to be unprovoked, there are other similarities between terror attacks. They often include disguised participants, suicide bombers (so small numbers of participants, limited to one person), and the like. The question is, how is this represented in our own Torah? And how are we to understand this?

One of the most thought-provoking episodes in the Torah is that of Shimon, Levi, Shechem and Dinah. Look at what happens here:

Genesis 34

There are several problems with this scenario.

1. Look at the phrasing of the verse. The sons answer before Jacob. This is problematic because we have seen in Genesis 24 that:

Apparently Rashi learns from the fact that Laban answered before Bethuel that Laban was a wicked person. So...what does this seem to say about Levi and Shechem?

2. Look at the word used here. The sons answer with "guile." We have seen this word before as well.

Genesis 27

Now, Jacob was so worried about this blessing and the trickery behind it that he felt he was going to be cursed. What does that say about the brothers in this scenario?

Now, as we all know, Shechem and Levi go on to single-handedly decimate the entire city. But how does this reflect on them? The verse says:

These two men take the city when the men are in pain and the city is unawares. Who does that seem like?

Well, most unfortunately, it sounds like:

Deuteronomy 25

And that verse refers to Amalek.

When Jacob rebukes the brothers, he does not say that what they did was morally wrong, but rather that they have put him into a reprehensible position. Later on, when he blesses them, he curses their anger but he does not curse them...

and

Genesis 49

This second rebuke is much stronger, however; their anger is described as being cruel.

What do Shimon and Levi have to say in their defense?

1. They were provoked- "Shall he treat our sister like a harlot?"
2. The entire city is to blame, for they should have set up courts of law to try Shechem for his crime of abduction and rape. That is why they are justified in killing out the entire city. (Rambam)

End of episode one.

Enter next episode.

Samson/ Shimshon, man of strength and power, the pillar of the Jews, mightiest amongst them.

It is clear that Samson is born into a time when/where the Philistines (Pelishtim) are attacking the Jews, and they must fight back. However, his methods seem unfair. That is why we must explore them further.

Judges 15

Warfare is one thing, people coming to meet each other at the battlefield is one thing, even people coming to a duel (later on, David and Goliath) seems understandable, but is this permissable? And all because his wife was given to another man? (Interestingly, there are sources that state that once again, all the Philistines were held accountable because they did not create court systems to try the people who had taken his wife and given her to another man.) But the Gemarah provides a different sort of reasoning, and one that might seem more applicable.

Sotah 10

What oath was this?

Genesis 21:23

Once the Pelishtim went back on their oath, it seems that Samson was given the right to punish them (perhaps similar to the idea that when the Jews throw off the yoke of Torah, the nations are given the ability to 'punish' them, as it were.)

But are Samson's methods correct? He disguises himself, taking Pelishti wives for himself, seeming to be one amidst his enemy. Is this permissable?

It seems, while not desirable, disguise itself is not a capital crime. Where do we learn this?

From here:

Joshua 9

Now, the Givonim are liars and they are deceitful; they come with guile and trick the Israelites, but though the people "murmur" against them; still they are sworn and must keep their oath. What this seems to demonstrate is that disguise itself is not forbidden- after all, if the disguise were considered deceitful enough, surely they would have been permitted to go back on the oath of peace! This is similar to the situation by Jacob, Esau and Isaac- if Jacob's disguise had been considered a true crime, then surely Isaac would have been able to rescind the blessings! Then again, perhaps it is also important to consider the intent. In both situations, nothing bad was happening- the Givonim wanted peace, and Jacob wanted the blessings. If they had disguised themselves with the intent of harm (like suicide bombers) perhaps this would have been seen differently.

Even Samson is unable to act until he is given a pretext...."You have plowed with my calf" to learn the answer to the riddle.

But it is now that we reach the most disturbing part. Samson commits suicide- killing thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Pelishtim alongside him.

Judges 16

What are we to make of this? Samson asks God to allow him to die alongside the Pelishtim, so long as he is able to bring them down and topple the entire hall.

What are the differences between Samson's attack and a terrorist attack?

Some possible answers-

1. The Pelishtim knew very well that they had an enemy in their midst. It was their mistake to think Samson harmless- remember, they forgot that Samson's hair "had grown again." It is logical to assume that they are given their fair chance at stopping Samson from doing anything of the kind, and it is their own foolishness that causes his death.

2. They provoke him, calling him in order to "make sport of him." All the members of the party either participated or observed this, and no one seems to have attempted to stop it.

3. From the Gemara, "And Samson called unto the Lord, and said: O Lord God, remember me, I pray Thee and strengthen me, I pray Thee, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.4 Rab said: Samson spoke before the Holy One, blessed be He, Sovereign of the Universe, Remember on my behalf the twenty5 years I judged Israel, and never did I order anyone to carry my staff from one place to another. " (Sotah 10) His action is a form of vengeance as opposed to a suicide bombing, which generally seems unprovoked.

But this answer (from the Gemara) seems difficult, for did not God ordain that Samson must lose his two eyes?

Sotah 9a

One could suggest the sort of answer we often receive when it comes to the Egyptians- "God gave them permission to punish us, but not to the extent that they did so, and hence they themselves were punished," but this answer has never fully satisfied me. Either God gives them permission to punish, in which case they seem blameless, or He does not, in which case they are guilty. How can it work both ways?

Even the answers I suggest- that in both scenarios (Shimon and Levi and/or Shimshon) the perpetrators are provoked, this still does not explain their behavior (sweet-talking the enemies/ Shimshon takes wives from amongst them!) If they truly felt they were correct and right in all they did, should they not have been honest? Can one mislead people if one intends to hurt them?

And, as my father mentioned, David was told that he must bring a dowry of 100 foreskins to receive Michal's hand in marriage. David doesn't bring 100, but more- 200! Doesn't this seem bloodthirsty, an unprovoked crime? How are we to understand this?

I don't have the answer...

12 comments:

Jewish Atheist said...: Chana,

To me, the difference between terrorism and assymetric warfare is whether civilians are targeted. Obviously, blowing yourself up in a disco in Tel Aviv is terrorism, but I would argue that blowing yourself up near a U.S. army jeep in Iraq is just assymetric warfare. (When it's moral to fight a war to begin with is outside the scope of this argument.)

I also think that the Palestinians (and M. Ben M'Hidi) have a point when they talk about the many civilians killed by the other side. Yes, Israel targets the guilty (or those they presume guilty, anyway) and take steps to reduce civilian deaths, but they still take action knowing that they're going to kill many civilians.

I would argue further that the U.S.'s nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as its firebombing of many other Japanese cities (killing more civilians than the nukes) were terrorist actions, albeit committed by a nation's military.

Many argue that the slaughter of Japanese civilians saved lives and/or that it was morally acceptable because of the consequences. I'm not here to say if that's right or wrong, but I think it's important to note that terrorism is essentially a tactic. Theoretically, it could be moral.

To take an extreme example, what if Iran got nuclear weapons and were going to detonate them over many cities, killing hundreds of millions of civilians. Assume for the sake of this example that we have 100% certainty that they will do this and 100% certainty that a small terrorist attack on Iranian civilians will somehow turn them against their government and lead to saving hundreds of millions of lives. Perhaps it would be moral to do it, at least as far as one can talk about morality with regard to war and killing.

In real life, we can never be 100% certain of such things, though, so the questions are more complicated. But I think in the Torah, the perpetrators of the actions you write about are 100% sure. They have a direct line to God. In the Torah, the Jews are God's people and are essentially good, and the nations and peoples they clash with are bad.

Ask yourself why the Hebrews are permitted to attack the nations of Canaan. It's because God gave the land to the Israelites.

This answer makes the analogies even more troubling I think, since the suicide bombers presumably believe that their God, their moral arbiter, has condoned and encouraged their terrorist actions.

Theists criticise us atheists for not having a basis for objective morality, but I think objective morality is more dangerous, since more often than not, it says that "our" people are better than "their" people and that God wants us to be victorious.; February 06, 2006 9:13 PM
e-kvetcher said...: I think that a common definition of terrorism involves the notion of disregard of the rules and conventions of war. Of course, without sounding like a Flower Child, I believe that the term "rules of war" is a complete oxymoron, so I don't really think we can define terrorism.

Furthermore, I don't really know how the classification of whether an act of violence is an act of terrorism really moves humanity forward.; February 06, 2006 11:36 PM
Anonymous said...: I think the real issue with terrorism is what the aims are.

As you point out, deceit for the purposes of making peace that otherwise wouldn't be granted is a different sort of offense than deceit for the purposes of violence.

Similarly, asymmetric warfare and killing of civilians for a strategic goal needs to be judged in context of the goal. 1) Can the goal be achieved with less violence, particularly to civilians 2)Is the goal achievable.

I think what strikes most people about Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is that its goals are fundamentally not achievable. The Israelis are simply not going to pick up and leave the land entirely to the Palestinians. The Western world is not going to give up its values and political system and become Islamicized.

The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that the goals are divorced from reality, and not recognized as moral by the other side - we are not about to grant that Fundamentalist Islamic repression is more moral than Western values of free speech. This is not a war they can win, and not just because they are outnumbered conventionally or outpowered by Western armies.
They are blowing up civilians for no ultimate purpose save glorification of violence.; February 07, 2006 1:21 AM
Chana said...: Thanks, you've all helped me clarify my question.

Is terrorism always morally wrong, or is it the cause behind it that makes it wrong (i.e. terrorism is simply a tactic?)

I have always been of the view that terrorism itself, no matter the cause, is wrong (because it hurts civilians without cause, etc...)

That's why I find these verses in Tanakh troubling.; February 07, 2006 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...: -->I have always been of the view that terrorism itself, no matter the cause, is wrong (because it hurts civilians without cause, etc...)

That's why I find these verses in Tanakh troubling.

I'm confused (not an all together uncommon occurance, but I digress...). If the issue is one of targeting civilians, then I fail to see the problem w/ any of the given instances in TN"K. In both the cases of Shimon/Levi & Shimshon the individuals involved, on both sides, are all willing players on the field of battle, as it were.; February 07, 2006 10:41 AM
Tobie said...: First off, I don't think the question is one of disguise. Secret agents, saboteurs, and members of the Resistance also disguise their identities with the intention of causing harm.
The question of defining terrorism as opposed to legitimate warfare has always been a tricky one. Asking whether terrorism is wrong is often a tautology, since people define whatever they see as wrong as terrorism and everything else as "asymetric warfare" or "legitimate tactics". The more pertinent question is "Is it always wrong to target civilians?"
The answer to this is also complex. Everyone does make a moral difference between a suicide bombing and, say, an air force bombing a city. But even within the latter category- bombing runs, yes, nuclear bombs, probably not. The boundaries are unclear, and I think that the most convenient guide for this sort of thing is international law, which attempts to capture all of these same sorts of instincts and inclinations.

That said, I don't really see anything wrong with the examples from Tanach. Judging warfare 3000 years ago by modern international law is unfair to the protagonists. Shimon and Levi's tactics sound objectionable to modern ears, but does that make them necessarily illegitimate? How else could one small tribe hold its own against a larger, more powerful, and oppressive one? As for Shimshon, he chose his tactics, according to most commentators, to avoid having retaliation boomerang back to the other powerless Jews by disguising it as a personal vendetta.

I know that this sort of talk smacks of relative morality, and yes, this fact bothers me as well. But, on the other hand, the Torah's morality has always been very aware of context and what is a legitimate expectation. Prescribing Marquis of Queensbury rules to people living in the Bronze Age is unrealistic, unfair, and pretty much suicidal.

Which leaves us with the question of how to deal with these incidents. I personally am disgusted when I hear people singing "Zachreini Na V'Chazkeini Na..."(Shimshon's final prayer) at weddings, although I do not think that Shimshon was wrong to have said it the first time. Just becuase Biblical figures are role models does not mean that every action that they did is right or appropriate today, or should be viewed as ideal. Qualms like yours are probably the best reaction out there.; February 07, 2006 1:25 PM
e-kvetcher said...: Tobie,

You virtually read my mind with your response.; February 07, 2006 4:16 PM
Anonymous said...: way too long to read why do you let it get so long winded; February 07, 2006 4:20 PM
dbs said...: First of all, I thing that JA’s definition of terrorism is the most commonly accepted one – that the targets are civilians. This, by the way, is different from the idea of having civilian casualties from an action in which the target is military and the civilians are ‘collateral damage’ (a terrible expression, by the way).

Without getting into the question of which tactics are allowed or the overall moral dilemma yet, it may be helpful to get a better handle on when warfare and/or killing is permissible in the Torah. I don’t have you’re gift for typing speed and hyperlinking, so I’m just going to do this from memory. (By the way, I’m not expressing moral agreement here – I have a problem with much of this.)

Here are the primary principles of justifiable warfare in the torah:

1. Self-defense, including preemptive strikes.
2. Defense of property and liberty.
3. Enforcement of law and punishment.
4. Royal decree (which is usually associated with one of the above situations).

There is also classification of killing which is “patur aval asur”, such as someone who kills an accidental murderer of a family member. [I think that you’d find the Rambam’s Hilchos Milchamah and Rotzeach very interesting.]

Using the above categories, you can pretty much understand the rational for many of the cases which you cited. For example, Shimon and Levi were allowed to commit murder to rescue Dina. Further, had they not killed all men in sh’chem, there would have been retaliation, so preventing this was also permitted.

Certain cases are simply difficult. If you look at it from my ‘secular’ perspective, the reasons for those cases has to do with human factors. It doesn’t all have to jibe with divine perfection. If you look at it from the orthodox perspective, you can always find a rational using either medrash, drash or creative halachic application.

Regarding the use of trickery and deception: The Torah allows jews to use the accepted tactics of war. In biblical times, war was a winner take all proposition, so what is certainly mass murder by today’s standards (well, any standards) was the norm of the day. Likewise, it is acceptable to use trickery and deception, but not acceptable to break a treaty. To a certain degree, there isn’t really an absolute halacha here nor is there a moral principle. It is just a fact of life, which the Torah accepts, that if you’re going to go to war, you need to use the weapons which the other side is using. In the same way, you can’t go to battle today and only use tasers when the other side is using lethal weapons. The norms of war have evolved a lot (though not enough) over two thousand years. There is no longer use of gas, for example. It is illegal to kill prisoners of war – this wasn’t always the case.

My point is that the Torah is not setting a permanent principle that you can do what Shimon and Levi did. It was ‘justifiable’ based on the norms and needs of the time.

How does the Torah view stack up with other legal systems? It depends on your perspective, but probably pretty well in most cases. (Except for the issue of divine right.) First, there is a very high value placed on human life and a strong prohibition against murder. Second, there is a broad category of exceptions for self defense, which modern law universally recognizes. Third, there is an acceptance of capital punishment, which is a matter of ongoing moral debate. Forth, there is a high degree of latitude given for battlefield conditions – far more than one would argue for today, but look at JA’s point about the atom bomb. Fifth, there is virtually unlimited discretion of the king and court – also a principle which is problematic in today’s world.

The biggest moral problem in absolute terms is divine rational for murder. This extends both to the wars of conquest as well as for capital punishment for ‘crimes against god’.

I guess when all is said and done, I think that the Tanach took place in a brutal time, and that the stories told reflect these times. Whether you want to explain them in terms which are consistent with halacha depends on your point of view.

(By the way, another extreme case which always fascinated me was Pelgesh B’Givah – killing virtually an entire shevet in retaliation for one murder.); February 08, 2006 1:07 AM
Jameel @ The Muqata said...: Chana: Yaakov Avinu didn't have an answer to Shimon and Levi either.

He cursed their anger, they replied, "You want our sister to be as if a harlot?"

And Yaakov had no answer.; February 08, 2006 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "I have always been of the view that terrorism itself, no matter the cause, is wrong (because it hurts civilians without cause, etc...)"

The key words are "without cause." Do you really think the allied bombing of German cities was immoral? Or do you accept that they did what they needed to do to demoralize the Germans and win the war.
Blowing up civilians in a pizza shop is different isn't it. It is their only tactic - they are not otherwise in a conventional war - and they can't accomplish anything except random violence.; February 08, 2006 5:11 PM
Ezzie said...: Related: Watch the first few minutes of the movie Swordfish. One of the few movies that has an interesting discussion on morality... and terrorism.; February 10, 2006 3:37 PM