Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenIsrael
Israel Hamas WarAnalysisIsrael

This is not Judaism: IDF actions in Gaza breach Jewish ethics

Analysis of Jewish ethics of war shows the current Israeli regime cannot be understood as a legitimate representative of Judaism.
Paul Komesaroff & Jeremiah Kenner
Print this
A soldier wearing tefillin and reading from a siddur

An Israeli soldier recites morning prayers (IDF)

Published: 4 August 2025

Last updated: 5 August 2025

The Israeli response to the Hamas attacks on 7 October 2023 has been massive and all-encompassing. It has caused multiple relocations of a large proportion of the population of Gaza, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, including many women and children, and mass starvation.

There is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence, from both international and Israeli sources, that the actions carried out on behalf, and on the instructions, of the Israeli Government have also included torture of prisoners, sexual violence, imprisonment without trial or due legal process, illegal appropriation of property and destruction of livelihoods, attacks on hospitals and health workers, murder of humanitarian workers, destruction of places of learning and worship, murder of journalists, use of human shields and prevention of delivery of food and other humanitarian aid.

The extent and ferocity of the Israeli response has attracted widespread international concern and has raised questions about its underlying moral justification. Opponents of the actions of the Israel Defence Force have referred to international humanitarian principles. Supporters have argued that these actions are in conformity not only with a modern legal right to self-defence but also with ancient ethical and legal principles of Judaism, on the basis of which they accuse their critics of antisemitism.

Indeed, in its Nation-State Law, Israel defines itself as the “nation-state of the Jewish people” and the Israeli prime minister, in a famous speech on 28 October 2023, invoked a passage from Deuteronomy 25:17 to justify ruthless, aggressive actions against perceived adversaries. Many similar claims have been made that passages in the Bible support or justify the actions of the IDF in Gaza.

This raises an important question: Are the acts of the Israeli Government and the IDF consistent with the philosophy and ethics of Judaism? Or, more specifically, does the Judaic tradition permit or support the specific actions and outcomes listed above?

To address this question we have carried out a detailed analysis of key arguments, claims and imperatives in the corpus of Jewish ethical thinking, encompassing the Hebrew Bible (also known as the Old Testament) and the ensuing rabbinic commentaries, including, in particular, the Babylonian Talmud, an encyclopaedic compendium of wisdom compiled over hundreds of years that is regarded as the authoritative document on Jewish ethics. Our full discussion, which includes extensive documentation and references, can be found here. In this brief article we present our key conclusions.

Consistent with the statements by the prime minister and other members of the Israeli Government, the Bible does indeed contain passages that provide apparent support for at least some of the acts and policies referred to. These include claims by the Jewish people to the land of Israel, inclusive of Gaza, acceptance or promotion of violent acts that aim to drive out and kill all opponents, and justification for acts of revenge and retribution.

Israeli Government policy and the conduct of the IDF diverge in fundamental ways from the core ethical precepts of Judaism

However, “fundamentalist” readings of these passages are in almost all cases repudiated by the subsequent Talmudic and other rabbinic commentaries, which interpret them in relation to context and underlying values. These latter texts set out foundational ethical principles which establish the framework for, and regulation of, the conduct of individual Jews and Jewish communities globally. Although subject to ongoing consideration in each generation, these foundational principles have remained stable for nearly 2000 years.

Foremost among the principles is respect for the sanctity of life, which is prioritised above almost all other commandments. Another is the imperative to pursue peace and reconciliation, which expresses itself as a core Talmudic obligation to seek ways to resolve conflicts with minimal harm to all parties involved and to avoid violence. A principle of responsibility and compassion for others is repeatedly emphasised, with a specific requirement to care for and support those who are particularly vulnerable, especially children. Multiple passages stress the need to avoid indirect harm to innocent people and to prevent collateral damage when conflict arises.

These principles are applied in many discussions in the Talmud of direct relevance to the events in Gaza, offering clear guidance regarding contemporary challenges. Here are a few salient examples:

  • Civilian protection as a moral imperative, and proportionality. While the Talmud permits lethal force in cases of imminent danger, if a threat can be neutralised without killing the aggressor — such as through wounding or disarming — one is obligated to pursue the less extreme option.
  • Human shields. This argument is complicated because while Israel cites the alleged use by Hamas of human shields as a justification for bombing civilian installations, there is evidence that the IDF itself has adopted this practice and also widely employs human shields in its operations. Whatever is the case, Talmudic ethics stresses a moral imperative to protect innocent people, even when they are used as shields, requiring that strict steps be taken to limit harm to such people and imposing moral culpability on those who fail to do so. The Talmud emphasises that one may not take an innocent life, even to save one’s own life, underscoring an ethical prohibition against intentionally harming non-combatants regardless of the tactical situation.
  • Prohibition of collective punishment is a strong, unequivocal and unconditional injunction, repeatedly affirmed in all biblical and Talmudic literature.
  • The right to self-defence is recognised and supported, subject to elaborate but clear conditions explicitly intended to prevent this right from being used as a device to engage in aggression, including in the context of the existence of an immediate and direct threat and the absence of alternative means to neutralise the danger. Even when self-defence is justified, the responsibility to minimise harm remains absolute: aggression disguised as self-defence is a serious ethical and legal violation.

Our analyses of the Talmudic and later texts have therefore identified multiple substantive propositions relevant to the conduct of war, in Gaza and elsewhere. The conclusions regarding the actual conduct of the IDF in Gaza are clear and inescapable:

  • The obstruction of deliveries of food, humanitarian aid, medical care, and safe evacuation of civilians blatantly contravenes the obligation to prioritise life.
  • The targeting of civilians and, in particular, the large-scale murder of children, is directly contrary to the most elementary precepts of Jewish ethics.
  • The arguments that attacks on civilians and the widespread devastation of homes, hospitals, schools, public spaces, and agricultural land are justified by the right to self-defence are inconsistent with Jewish law and ethics.
  • The claim that such actions are justified by the alleged or real use of human shields directly contradicts Talmudic teachings.
  • Collective punishment, exemplified in the onslaught on Gaza, is unequivocally prohibited by Jewish law.
  • The refusal to resolve political grievances through reconciliation and negotiation contradicts the Talmud’s vision of peace.

In other words, Israeli Government policy and the conduct of the IDF diverge in fundamental ways from the core ethical precepts of Judaism. Put more bluntly, the current Israeli regime cannot be understood as a legitimate representative of Judaic ethical traditions or of Jewish thought and culture more generally. Neither its actions nor the arguments it advances to justify them are supported by the authoritative texts; hence, they cannot be regarded as consistent with the deep and enduring body of knowledge and wisdom that is constitutive of Judaism.

This conclusion raises many questions of its own, some of which are wide-ranging, including: the degree to which criticism of the Israeli Government and its policies can be appropriately attributed to antisemitism; the general character of Israel as a purported “Jewish State”; and the self-identity of the Jewish people and how they understand their relationships and obligations to other cultures, their own history, and to each other. It is likely that resources to address these questions too can be found in the deep and fecund tradition of Jewish ethical thought.

This article was first published in Pearls and Irritations. A fuller version will be published in Springer Nature and is available as a Monash University preprint.

RELATED STORY

Israeli author David Grossman says his country is committing genocide in Gaza (Guardian)

Writer says for many years he has refused to use word but now must ‘with immense pain and with a broken heart’

You might also like
  • Tame apologises – but with little grace
    Deborah Stone
  • Confronting Richard Flanagan and the myth of the Israel lobby
    Mary Garden
  • UK’s dramatic policy change on Israel-Palestine
    Colin Shindler
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    Erdogan Turkey
    AnalysisIsrael

    Turkey emerges as military threat to Israel

    Dror Doron
    Segalovitz Abbas
    Israel Votes 2026AnalysisIsrael

    Segalovitz decision to join Arab party is a paradigm change for Israel

    Eetta Prince-Gibson
    altalena
    Israel Votes 2026OpinionIsrael

    The Altalena should be a warning, not a political weapon

    Shahar Burla 1

About the author

Paul Komesaroff & Jeremiah Kenner

Paul Komesaroff is Professor of Medicine at Monash University and Executive Director of the international NGO Global Reconciliation. His books include 'Experiments in Love and Death' and 'Riding a Crocodile: A physician’s tale'. Jeremy Kenner is a public servant, employed by an Australian government agency. An American by birth and rearing and an educator and lawyer by training, his professional interests lie at the juncture of research, clinical care, public health, policy making and regulation of science and technology. He also draws on a reservoir of Jewish learning received earlier in life at the feet of his father and grandfather.

Comments7

  • Avatar of Rachel Sussman

    Rachel Sussman8 August at 10:09 am

    Attending point by point to this article who takes great care to show the ‘moral and Jewish failure’ of the IDF – as I want to do- is unfortunately beyond the allowable scope of this response… to just point that I find the ‘accusations’ and ‘interpertations’ and the ‘generalisations’ of incidents into systemic actions and much more, disheartening and simply following the rethorics of the world, is just words since I do not have here the scope to explain why and to bring ‘facts’…
    So I will just say this: I have fairh in IDF, even if it fails and stumbles at times… I know who our soldiers are, I know who I and our people are…
    I do not advocate immoral behavior but remember that Moses did not deliver the Israelites only by ‘negotiation’.
    When negotiations failed, the ten plagues were delivered one by one without apologising…
    I wish we too learn to stop apologising for needing to survive, I wish we learn to be aware of and point to our stumbling but see the whole picture as it is… I wish we stop following the voice of others and have faith in our people’s voice….

  • Avatar of Judy

    Judy8 August at 01:29 am

    Simon Krite responded with: “You Do Not Speak for Judaism” and more.

    I have but one question: If Komesaroff and Kenner “do not speak for Judaism,” what empowers Krite to assert that he does?

    Sadly, Krite’s response did not enlighten me in any way; I found nothing of “reason” in it, merely blame, attempted shame, and almost all “you-messages” … scolding. To me, Krite’s message came off as an invective screamed by someone who was severely wounded and in pain.

    The history of Judaism is rife with different people advocating differing interpretations about the same set of inputs; sometimes those interpretations are a little bit different; sometimes they are totally opposing interpretations. In fact, the TJI article about “Teaching Zionism” exemplifies this … in a positive way. While I do not agree 100% with the author, he writes with honour and respect … for his students, his school, and his readers.

    I do not suggest that Krite withhold his interpretations; I do suggest that he reflect upon his overt refusal to allowing others to have their own interpretations while demanding others to support his and only his.

    Thank you,
    Peace,
    Judy

  • Avatar of alan rosen

    alan rosen5 August at 10:48 pm

    A timely moral reckoning thank you.

  • Avatar of Simon krite

    Simon krite5 August at 07:15 am

    You Do Not Speak for Judaism

    This article twists Jewish ethics into a weapon against the Jewish people. You cherry-pick Talmudic principles while ignoring their context, their purpose, and the real-world threat facing Israel.

    October 7 is reduced to a passing mention, as if the rape, torture, and slaughter of Jews is a mere detail. You ignore Hamas’ stated goal of genocide, its use of civilians as shields, and the hostages still held. Instead, you fixate on Israel’s response, accusing it of crimes while excusing the monsters who caused this war.

    Judaism does not demand surrender. It demands protection of life. It obliges the defence of innocents. It permits force against those who pursue you with intent to kill. That is exactly what Hamas is. Your article erases this, because you are not interested in ethics. You are interested in condemning Jewish power.

    The IDF is not above criticism, but your accusations are not critique. They are propaganda dressed as morality. They give cover to those who would see more Jews murdered.

    You do not speak for Judaism. You speak for your own comfort, at the expense of Jewish survival. And history has seen this cowardice before.

  • Avatar of David Schulberg

    David Schulberg5 August at 07:10 am

    On ‘The Israel Connexion’ on J-AIR on Wednesday August 6th between 4-5 pm (AEST) there will be a live discussion on the this article ‘IDF actions in Gaza directly contradict Jewish ethical tradition’ that has been produced by Paul Komesaroff, Professor of Medicine at Monash University and Executive Director of the international NGO Global Reconciliation and his colleague Jeremiah Kenner a public servant, employed by an Australian government agency.

    They will be participating alongside Rabbi Daniel Rabin, the chief rabbi from Caulfield synagogue in Melbourne and Brigadier General (Res) Amir Avivi, who is the founder and chair of the Israel Defence and Security Forum, otherwise known as Habithonistim, who will together be opposing the proposition that IDF actions in Gaza contradict Jewish ethical principles.

  • Avatar of Ian Light

    Ian Light4 August at 10:02 pm

    It is a relief for the Humane amongst the Jewish People and the Righteous Amongst the Nations that Talmudic based Arguments support at the very least the flooding of Gaza with aid and insisting that Hamas stop the heinous starving of hostages and provide care under the Humane Conventions even care in neutral lands .

  • Avatar of Larry Stilllman

    Larry Stilllman4 August at 07:40 am

    Gosh. For many people, this may be, difficult to read. There will be 1) nitpicking over their knowledge or lack of it in some eyes of Jewish texts or Jewish thought 2 ) general outrage at such criticisms of Israel coming from with the tradition 3) anger and refusal to acknowledge that anything is wrong.