Q&A: The Limits of "If Someone Comes to Kill You, Rise Early to Kill Him"
The Limits of "If Someone Comes to Kill You, Rise Early to Kill Him"
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Recently a report was published showing IDF forces evacuating from Jenin, during which Palestinian gunmen fired at the IDF force. During the withdrawal, IDF snipers were observing those Palestinian gunmen, and when they saw that one of them raised his weapon toward the IDF soldiers, they immediately shot him in the head and killed him. However, next to that gunman who was shot dead stood several other Palestinian gunmen holding weapons in their hands, but they were not shot by the snipers because they had not yet used their weapons against the IDF soldiers. I wanted to ask whether, in your opinion, it would also have been correct to shoot those gunmen who had not yet raised their weapons toward the IDF soldiers, on the assumption that if an armed Palestinian gathers together with other gunmen around an IDF force that is withdrawing, his intention is probably somehow to harm the IDF force, and therefore there is sufficient justification to shoot him dead משום "if someone comes to kill you, rise early to kill him." On the other hand, it is possible that the more Palestinian casualties there are, the more it will inflame passions on the Palestinian side and perhaps ultimately lead to more deaths on our side overall. If that is true, maybe it is preferable to avoid such preventive killings as much as possible, and to shoot only those who are actually firing at the IDF force, and not those who might shoot and might not.
Best regards,
Answer
One must distinguish here between the tactical question, which can be debated and on which I have no clear position (you would need to ask the Shin Bet and the IDF, who know the terrain), and the halakhic-ethical question. On the ethical plane, anyone who carries a weapon in a terrorist organization—and really any member of such an organization, even without a weapon—deserves immediate death, no nonsense. I simply do not understand the policy of waiting for them to shoot before dealing with them. Just as I do not understand the distinction between a terrorist with blood on his hands and one without. This is unlike Palestinian police, who carry weapons with our authorization (despite all the problems with that).
Discussion on Answer
test comes here
What is the status (ideally, not for practical implementation) of supporters of terror who demonstrate and openly support terror, but would not dare carry out a terror attack themselves—what is their ethical status in your opinion?
That is a general question and not well defined. Someone who supports terror—that is part of freedom of speech, unless as a result of his support there is a near-certain concern of violence. In any case, someone who is not himself involved in terror (at least as an accomplice) of course has no death sentence whatsoever.
What do you mean by “part of freedom of speech”? If someone calls for murdering innocent babies and children because they are black, for example, is that part of freedom of speech? (It could be that people will indeed be influenced by such content and it will encourage them to violence, but there is no way to know that for certain.)
What is the status of a person who launches missiles at us, but we know for certain that the missiles will cause no damage at all, yet he clearly reveals that he desires our death, though technically he cannot cause it—is he liable to death (a terrorist without blood on his hands), or is his status different? And how is he different from a supporter of terror who wants to murder but will not do it himself?
You are repeating questions I already answered.
So I didn’t understand the answers, so I’ll ask again with the Rabbi’s permission. Is everything that will not cause violence considered freedom of speech—even the most horrific views in every respect? Why should one kill a terrorist who realistically cannot harm us? How is that different from a supporter of terror whose expressions will not actually lead to terror?
Yes.
One should not, only if he is assisting harm against us.
test