Q&A: Ezekiel 17: Is the King of Israel Obligated to Obey International Law?
Ezekiel 17: Is the King of Israel Obligated to Obey International Law?
Question
I studied Ezekiel 17
and it seems there that God was angry with him because he thumbed his nose at what in our language would be called international law, and made a treaty with Egypt rather than with Babylonia, and therefore disaster followed.
If this was not in the best interest of the Jewish people—security-wise, economically, religiously, in terms of identity, etc.—and he made a mistake in judgment…
If he did it deliberately because he is a ruler of the Netanyahu-type, then that should be the claim made against him.
But if it was inadvertent, then what is the claim?
Apparently, and that seems to be the plain meaning of the text, there is no claim at all regarding what he or his advisers thought was good for the Jewish people—not whether they erred, acted deliberately, or were merely negligent.
Rather, the only issue is that he did not obey international law (a desecration of God's name?).
Am I right?
Answer
You could invest a minute in phrasing and typing before posting a question. I should just preface that I do not deal with the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
Discussion on Answer
I studied Ezekiel 17.
The Holy One, blessed be He, is angry with the king,
sends a prophet with a parable to warn him about making a treaty with Egypt rather than with Babylonia.
There is no claim there about the effectiveness of the treaty, that it was not good for the Jewish people, and that the king erred, was negligent, or acted deliberately in the strategy of this military alliance.
Rather, only that he acted improperly within the framework of something like the international law practiced then.
He was appointed by the king of Babylonia and had to remain loyal to him.
(Seemingly, even though the good of the Jewish people pointed the other way—to an alliance with Egypt… otherwise that should have been the claim.)
Is it possible that the Holy One, blessed be He, expects a king of Israel 👑
to keep international law even at the expense of the security / welfare of the Jewish people?
Hope I managed to phrase it better…
Yes, you did. Let this teach you not to lean on elementary religious school to make life easy for yourself. I am already turning to my good friend Betsy Roth with a complaint.
As for your question, it can be interpreted in many ways. Specifically what you suggested does not sound plausible. What we have here is a breach of a treaty with the king of Babylonia. That has nothing to do with international law but with keeping commitments. One could also say that there is criticism here of the risk he took, and no criticism at all of the treaty breach as such. It reminds me of the discussion about Jacob's rebuke of Simeon and Levi (“You have troubled me, making me odious…” ).
As usual, I do not see how one can learn anything clear from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).
Much appreciated.
By the way, I did not study with Rabbi Shepsel but in the parallel class with his son Yoel.
🙂
The question, and also the answer, actually stem from not studying the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh):
The problem is the breach of the treaty, and the problem in that is the breach of the oath (and the curse that comes with the oath) that accompanies the treaty, together with the desecration of God's name that follows from it—not because of what the nations think, but because the oath was in God's name. And that is what is written: “He despised the oath and broke the treaty.”
There are not several ways to interpret this. There is only one way, which is the simple plain meaning, and that is it.
Please accept the wording as it is.
That is the maximum my teachers taught me in elementary religious school in Bnei Brak almost four decades ago.