"god the jews"

rainbow stew

Noahide News

Part 12

mason seal


Extra Extra

read all about it !

are they serious, these gods? You better betcha


The Talmudic Satanic Zionist Communist New World Obedient Goy Hoodlum haba....a joose veiw 


Final Note on Civil Society

The lessons of premodern history suggest that commonwealth alone is not enough, that even the most well-meaning commonwealth has a tendency to be corrupted by replacing consensus and cooperation with coercion by elites for lack of competition, while the modern experience suggests that marketplace is not enough. However great its advantage is in economics, it has a tendency to degenerate quickly into dog-eat-dog competition or to transform itself into monopoly if there is no commonwealth dimension present by which it can set its compass. It is the development of an appropriate synthesis of marketplace and commonwealth that is the task of the postmodern man - in some cases, with commonwealth developing out of the marketplace framework and in others where the marketplace is developing within a commonwealth framework. The difference will no doubt reflect antecedent developments of individualistic or communitarian social orders. Commonwealths must be democratized; marketplaces must be given their direction by democratic commonwealths, and then must keep those commonwealths competitive, open and honest. The best way to do that is through covenant and its expression in federal liberty and democracy.


Noahide Palestine...hear their lies and distortions of satan and his minions the talmudic SAYERS

The need of "Terrorism" to enforce a Noahide World Odor and "Purim Palestine of the shem god's. They have laid out their plan, their vision of their flesh kingdom of their king, that son of Perdition who is about to be "REVEALED". All nation's will become obedient Universal Noahide's bound to this false Christ and his "Illuminated masters" of the chassidic Pharisees their Hoodlum haba, where they hope to purge all Jesus the Christ saints, by decapitation, according to their laws of satan's Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin Tractate 57a. Yes today, right this moment they are establishing their vision against the Everlasting Holy Covenant of Salvation, through Jesus the Christ. Follow carefully the implemented Plan on the Palestinians and Bushkevik's war on Iraq and His Police State war on Christian America....then go whine about this "Conspiracy Theory" based upon fact. Then Repent quickly in Jesus the Christ and Stand Firm and Testify of him the Creator of all things, the lamb of God. Will the Talmudic Bushkevik Son of perdition, Moshiach goon squads come after us soon? Of course they will, for read the scripture, the Word testifies of His saints who stand firm, and fear not, for it is them who will come and worship at our feet and they know it. It is they who tremble in fear of our Lord Jesus the Christ who will take his power unto himself. Are you a saint the Word spoke of? Or are you one of them who deny the True IAM the ONLY Word of God, who will worship their Talmudic Scofield Judeo- Churchizionian apostate lukewarm Dispen-satan-alist Christ?


Does Ariel Sharon Consult His Rabbi?


Di-section in Blue Font

How Israeli Responses To Terrorism Are Justified Under Jewish


David Rosen

Emory University School of Law

Jewish Law

March 5, 2003


Page 2

Does Ariel Sharon Consult His Rabbi? How Israeli Responses to Terrorism are

Justifiable under Jewish Law


I. Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1

A. Background of Terrorist Attacks and Responses in Israel ................................ ............... 2

B. Defining Terrorism................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

II. Responding to Terrorism as an Act of War ................................ .............. 6

A. Is Terrorism An Act of War................................ ................................ ........................... 6

1. Type of War................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 7

2. Required Procedures of War ................................ ................................ ....................... 8

3. Authority to Engage in War................................ ................................ ...................... 10

4. Limitations on Going to War................................ ................................ .................... 12

B. Governmental Responses to Terrorism as an Act of War ................................ .............. 13

1. Obligations of Israel to Respond to Terrorism................................ ........................... 14

2. Wartime Justifications for Engaging in Assassination of Terrorists........................... 14

3. Justifications for Taking and Destruction of Property Under the Laws of War .......... 18

4. Limitations on Infliction of Collateral Damage During Wartime............................... 20

III. Responding to Terrorism as a Criminal Act ................................ ......... 24

A. Is Terrorism a Criminal Act? ................................ ................................ ....................... 24

B. Punishing Terrorists Under Criminal Law................................ ................................ .... 25

1. Law Applicable to Palestinian Terrorists ................................ ................................ .. 25

2. Obligations of Palestinians Under the Noahide Code................................ ................ 27

3. Ability and Obligation of Israel to Enforce the Noahide Obligations........................ 29

C. Authority of the Court to Impose and Enact Criminal Law................................ ........... 30

D. Government Responses to Terrorism as a Criminal Act................................ ................ 33

1. Justification to Assassinate Terrorists Under Criminal Law ................................ ...... 34

2. Criminal Law Justification of Destruction of Property................................ .............. 43

IV. Responding to Terrorism Under the "King’s Justice" .......................... 46

A. What is the Royal Prerogative?................................ ................................ .................... 46

B. How the King’s Authority Translates to Israeli Governmental Authority...................... 47

C. Authority for the Government to Apply King’s Justice................................ ................. 47

D. Application of the King’s Justice to Israeli Responses to Terrorism ............................. 49

1. Permissibility of Assassinations under the King’s Judicial Authority........................ 49

2. Destruction of Property under the Royal Prerogative................................ ................ 50

3. Justification of Deportations using the "King’s Justice"................................ ............ 51

V. Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ 52


Page 3



I. Introduction

The ultimate difficulty in considering the legality (or illegality) of governmental

responses to terrorism under Jewish law is the inherent nature of Jewish Law as a system

of duties. Unlike a system of rights, such as those that dominate the secular democracies

of our world, a system of duties seems fraught with danger. We can imagine the

difficulty. How would our world change if the United States Constitution prescribed a

duty to speak freely, a duty to bear arms, or a duty to protect our privacy? How would an

individual deal with a situation where on one hand they had a duty to speak freely and on

the other hand they had a duty not to defame another? The individual, as well as the

state, would have much greater difficulty in deciding the correct course of an action when

it was placed on a continuum of conflicting duties instead of listed in the simple matter as

being legal or illegal.

He speaks of Talmud Bavli, Universal Noahide Code of satan's flesh kingdom they are attempting to establish

By ascribing to all individuals a system of duties, rather than rights, the concept of

choice is itself almost alien. What is a right in a secular law system? The term itself

connotes a capability, a permissible means one has at their disposal to achieve a chosen

end. A duty, however, seems to remove individuals from the realm of choice and lead

them down a path toward requirements, obligations, and responsibilities.

The Yoke of their cursed laws which is not Salvation

 Thus, for every

action, and inaction, there must be by definition some penalty for not fulfilling that duty.

While rights tend to be divided in two distinct categories, those rights of individuals and

rights of the State, duties are more varied. One’s own obligations could vary depending

on status, class, ability, intelligence, age, and authority. So too, in changing

circumstances, the duties may arise one instant and disappear the next.

The other difficulty is the conflict between positive and negative duties mandated

by Jewish Law.

Which was made Amarakan Law by House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14 by the 102nd Congress in 1991


 Some duties state affirmatively that one must act in a specified manner.

Other duties state that certain actions may not be taken. Of course, these positive and

negative obligations sometimes conflict. In response, one must understand which

obligation controls, and whether the controlling duty is one that must be taken, or is

merely permissible. Only by understanding the interrelation of these conflicting duties

can it be understood whether Jewish Law will permit, or require, a desired course of


The question thus becomes one of understanding how, in the context of a

government responding to terrorism, the Israeli government has a duty to act or not to act,

and the Bushkevik regime

and that the actions they take are obligations under Jewish Law. So how can this

difficulty be reconciled? In response to suicide bombings, sniper shootings, and car

bombs, a secular government has a right to react. By analyzing these same responses

under Jewish Law, though, the Israeli government has a duty to act. The choices they

make will either fulfill their legal duty or violate their duty.

Orwelian Double Speak

In response to these acts of terror thrust upon the citizenry by Palestinian

terrorists, the Israeli government has acted. They have undertaken a complex system of

penalizing terrorists and attempting to preclude the commission of future terrorist acts. See Bushka's Pre-Imminent Attacks, and the  assassination of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusai

By assassinating terrorist leaders, deporting terrorists and their families, and destroying


Page 4



homes of suicide bombers, the Israeli government is engaged in an extensive array of

legally questionable activity. 

No Due Process, see US 2003-2004

The Israeli Supreme Court has decreed that all of these

actions are legally permissible under Israeli law. 

(See The Is REAL Hell-i Supreme Court complete with it's Pryamid and eye of Horus)

Clearly, the Torah does not speak directly on the subject of terrorism. For that

matter, few if any commentators have discussed the legality of these actions under Jewish

Law. However, in the Talmud, (Which makes the word of God of None effect the Oral tradition they have in their Talmud Bavli Mishnah Torah and their commentaries of Gemara of the Illuminated "Masters" who say they are god's)commentators including Maimonides, Nahmanides,

Ritva, and Ran et. al. have laid the groundwork to analyze these problems. By discussing

Jewish Law responses and obligations in regard to homicide, capital punishment,

destruction of property, banishment, and the role of State governments, the responses to

terrorism under Jewish law may be studied. The goal of this paper is not to pass

judgment on the morality of these actions but to identify how, under Jewish (TALMUDIC) law, these

actions may be justified. Rather than identifying whether the actions of the Israeli

government would necessarily be the correct course of action under Jewish Law, the aim

of this paper is to show how one can justify the actions of the Israeli government based

on existing law.

Justification of their lust of their father who is a murderer since the begnning

A. Background of Terrorist Attacks and Responses in Israel

A brief history of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is necessary to understand the

context of the terrorist attacks and responses thereto. Beginning in 1948, Israel has been

at odds with the Arab world. 

Because Balfour and Rothschild and Herzle and the zionist Congress created war and Terror to establish their vision of zion therough their hireling the Thesophist student of Blavatsky, Hitler to create fear and terrorism to have their flesh kingdom of the god's. Because they robbed the peoples of their homes and their lands, with the applause of the Amarakan Judeo-Churchizionians of the Lie of satan.


The newly formed United Nations passed resolution 194,

commonly known as the UN partition plan, which divided Israel into two halves, one

reserved for the Arabs living in Israel (later identifying themselves as Palestinians) and

the other for the Jewish people. 

Palestine has has palestinian's for over 3,000 years

However, immediately upon the resolution passing, the

Arab countries decreed that they will "drive Israel into the Sea.

Because their country was taken by force, Illegally, set up by the Sofiet Controlled UN


" The Arab countries

asked that all Arabs living in Israel leave the area or join their brethren and fight off the

"Zionist Scourge." The Arabs did leave, either heading for Jordan or Egypt or joining

five Arab nations, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in their quest to destroy the

Jewish people. In a miraculous victory, the Jewish people won the war of Independence

and held the land not only reserved for the Jewish nation, but also much of the land

originally reserved for the Arabs.

Miraculous that the Pimp of the Great Harlot who crucified the Savior, the United Stets of greater Is Real Hell provided the WMD's to do it

Following this defeat, the Arab nations vowed to strike again and continued

throughout the next eight years to engage in various small attacks on the Jewish people.

These 3,000 cross border attacks resulted in the deaths of 922 people.

Murder is murder, does not matter who does it, they are of their father and will do his lust. The god of the jews has no only begotten SON and neither does the god of the Egyptian's...as does neither the "Judeo-Churchizionian's, for they too have forsaken the SON for the god of the jews

 Thereafter, Egypt

led a coalition organized by Nasser to once again destroy the Jewish people. 

Yet according to Talmud Bavli the books of tradition, it is the Jews obligation to slay all the seven nation's of the caanites, Iraq, Syria, Jordon, Turkey, Saudi, Lebanon and Iran...as well as them who follow Jesus of Nazareth. This is well documented fact.

This came

to be known as the Suez War. Once again, Israel defeated their attackers.

The next 11 years continued to be deadly. Hundreds, if not thousands of terrorist

attacks including murders, bombings, illegal landmines, and sabotage led to hundreds

more dead and thousands more wounded. It was during this time that the Palestinian

Liberation Organization was formed (the precursor to the Palestinian Authority).

set up as the anti-Thesis for the synthesis Olam Hoodlum Haha haba


PLO’s first terrorist attack was an attempt to bomb the National Water Carrier on January

1, 1965. 

about the time when the Mossad attacked the USS Liberty

It should be noted that almost all of the terrorist attacks were those against


Page 5



civilians. Rarely were Israeli troops targeted by Arab attackers. 

Yet American Troops were attacked by ISREALHELL

These attacks led to

furthering of animosity and eventually led to the Six Day War.

In May-June 1967, Israeli-Arab relations began to worsen. 


So ISREALHELL attempted to strike US Military Targets and blame the Palestinian's


Egypt led the charge

once again. They blocked the straits of Tiran, preventing any Israeli commerce from

entering or leaving the country. They removed the UN peacekeeping forces

from the

Sinai desert, and mounted troops along Israel’s border. The tension began to mount and

Israel was in dire straits, their economy stifled and random attacks occurring daily.

see War declared on Germany by Judaism and the ensuing Boycotts which lead to the starvation of  Hundreds and thousands of german peoples for their ZION of the flesh


Finally, Israel could take the blows to their economy and military no more and launched a

strike to destroy those that prevented the functioning of the country.

USS LIberty?

 In a single day,

Israel destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian air forces. Six days later, Israel had

not only defeated their attackers but had also captured Judea (the West Bank) from

Jordan, Samaria (Gaza) from Egypt, as well as the whole of the Sinai desert.

In ah ha name ah ha of Judeo-Jaysoose


In response, the United Nations passed Resolution 242, decreeing that Israel will

negotiate some agreement with the Arab peoples that would give back some of the land

taken in return for peace. 

Nevah, foah gawd gave it to them foreveh

Various drafters agree that the resolution called for removal of

Israeli troops from territories captured but nowhere states that Israel must withdrawal

from all the territories.

and their land of their broken covenant that God made with Abraham in flesh, and WAS Fullfilled was taken by zionist flesh force. Had nmothing to do with the LORD ALMIGHTY the EVERLASTING COVENANT of SALVATION


 The Arab nations, however, disagree. Since that resolution, the

Arab nations attacked once again on Yom Kippur 1973. Israel once again repelled their


However, since that time, the Palestinians began to receive more public

recognition as an entity separate from the Arab world. 

Backed By the US Thesis-anti-Thesis-synthesis machine CIA

They engaged in numerous

terrorist attacks to make themselves known to the world including hijacking planes in

Europe, murdering members of the Israeli Olympic team in 1972 in Munich, and

hijacking the Achilles Lauro cruise ship killing an American Jew on board. Yet, the more

deadly the attacks became, the more support the Palestinians received for their cause.

Sound Familiar.............BERG CIA Decapitation to stir the JUDEO-CHURCHIZIONIAN DECEIVED into action against ISHMAEL?


This support led to the United States led 1979 Camp David Peace Accords which traded

the Sinai desert and $3 billion dollars a year from the United States to Egypt in exchange

for an agreement not to attack Israel and a relinquishment of the rights to the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians, however, grew in power. Yasir Arafat led the organization to

national prominence and even caused them to receive recognition first in the UN, then by

the United States, and finally by Israel. Various peace agreements have been reached to

stop the thousands of yearly terrorist attacks planned by Arafat and the Palestinians yet

all of them have failed and the terrorist attacks still continue.

Because the Purging of the zionist god nation of the shem's must be completed to have their coveted invoked Moshiach ben Perdition and their establishment of global control via Universal Noahidism unto their false god unto all mankind


 Even after Jordan

relinquished all rights to the West Bank in 1996, the Palestinians remain diligent in their

quest to have Israel return all of the territories captured from Jordan and Egypt to the

auspices of the Palestinian Authority. In 1998, Ehud Barak offered 95% of the land in

Judea and Samaria to Arafat in exchange for peace.

Wrong move....a set up

 Arafat declined and responded with

a call for Palestinians to wage holy war against the Israelis. To go along with the more

than 20,000 attacks on Israel in the prior 52 years, the Palestinians have responded with

vigor launching over 16,000 more attacks since September 29, 2000.

with 15, 999 rocks being thrown

Many of these

attacks have been assassins breaking into homes, suicide bombers blowing themselves up

in public areas, and car bombs exploding with the aim of killing Jewish civilians.



Page 6



It is with this background that Israel began to respond forcefully to terrorist

attacks. The following is one example of the thousands of attacks that have occurred

over the past 55 years:

On June 18, 2002, Dr. Moshe Gottlieb, 70, of Jerusalem was en route to

Bnei Brak to work with a group of children afflicted with Down’s

Syndrome. Once a week, Dr. Gottlieb treated the children at the hospital

as he had done for a number of years. Since emigrating from the United

States 24 years previously, Dr. Gottlieb worked as a chiropractor in his

own private practice as well as at Bnei Brak.

However, this morning, Dr. Gottlieb would never to get the hospital


. A

suicide bomber stepped onto Egged bus no. 32A traveling from Gilo to

the center of Jerusalem. Within seconds of stepping onto the bus, the

terrorist detonated the large bomb he carried in a bag laden with ball

bearings. Destroying the front half of the bus packed with

schoolchildren and individuals on the way to work, 19 people were

killed and 74 injured.

MURDER, see scripture on GAZA in these days


Dr. Gottlieb was among the victims. Hamas



responsibility for the attack.

This example is merely indicative of the 16,442


terrorist attacks that have

become commonplace in Israel since September 29, 2000, when the Al Aqsa Intifada was

began with the incitement of Palestinians by Yasir Arafat. 

the incitement of Arik Sheinerman (Ariel Sharon) who instigated it on the Temple Mount in July 2001, just before their attempt to establish this global vision of Universal Noahide Laws when the Mossad was allowed to destroy the WTC Towers, to get their Homelandt "SAY" Kurity and thus the Global War on Terror, which is the global war on any who "ain't wif em" (Bushkevik) in their One World Odor of the shem god's who will rule the earth with their false king god, Moshiach ben Satan


Every day, Israelis live in fear

that a suicide bomber will detonate their deadly package near to themselves or a member

of their family. 

They should be, for they are deceived by the leaders of their People who worship the beast

The simple act of going to the market, driving to a friend’s, or walking

the dog could become a fatal choice. In addition to suicide bombers, terrorists have

employed the use of assassins entering civilian homes, engaging in drive by shootings,

and planting car bombs. It is in response to these acts that the Israeli government has

employed various means to stop terrorist activities and protect Israelis.

Some of the actions by the Israeli government bear special consideration under

Jewish Law. These actions include assassination of terrorists,  (SEE BUSH Admenustration.......assasination teams with out due process )

destruction of homes of

suicide bombers, deporting members of terrorist groups and family members of suicide

bombers, and the collateral damage associated with Israeli attacks on terrorists.

a Favorite word these days since the fake Timothy MCVEIGH Oklahome City Bombing to guage the sleeping apostate's of Amaraka

Assassinations of terrorist leaders has always been a source of debate amongst

commentators in both Jewish law and other legal systems. This is especially true when

no trial has been held to determine the fate of these individuals. Furthermore, destruction

of the homes of convicted terrorists, suicide bombers, and even untried terrorists has been

a punishment imposed by the government. Because this act tends to punish not only the

terrorists themselves but their family members, ( See Universal Noahide Collective Punishment )it has been viewed as a deterrent measure

that would decrease the number of attacks on Israeli citizens. However, there is much

debate over whether these acts are legally permissible under the Halacha.(Talmudic Law)  Deporting

members of a terrorist group merely for their membership in a terrorist group or family


Page 7



members of terrorists who have killed Israelis brings up problems of punishing one for

the acts of another. Can these acts be reconciled under Jewish Law? Finally, the

problem of collateral damage has been discussed by commentators. (the rabbi's of the oral tradition of Mishnah Torah..the Gemara of Talmud Bavli) This problem has

been present for centuries, especially during wartime. However, does Jewish Law permit

a terrorist to be killed if an innocent will be endangered as well?

Here comes total Talmudic shem god justification of murder of the Goyim Nation's who do not submit to their godhood

In order to correctly analyze these issues, this paper will first attempt to define


Terrorism has been defined in George's Amaraka as any who are in opposition to the shem gods


Should terrorism be defined as an act of war or a criminal act? The

justification for any act varies depending on this classification. A third way to analyze

any of the actions that may be taken is if they fall out of the rubric of the Halacha and are

to be justified under the powers granted to the King (Moshiach who is about to be revealed and run their global hoodlum haha) (and the Government). By analyzing

Israeli responses to terrorism under these definitions, it will be shown that these acts are

indeed justified under Jewish law.

Justification of the god's...the shem's

B. Defining Terrorism

Attempting to define terrorism may be an impossible task. In an article on

terrorism written in 1986, Walter Laqueur notes that 109 different definitions of terrorism

had been advanced between 1936 and 1981, each one different from every other.


In the state of Oregon Terrorist is defined as any who writes a bad check or a DUI, see www.prisonplanet.com


I have

little doubt that at least that number have been advanced in the years since. So how do

we go about defining terrorism? In order to advance justifications for responses to

terrorism, it is not necessary that a succinct definition of terrorism is elucidated, but

merely one that encompasses all of the actions taken by groups such as Fatah, Hamas,

and Islamic Jihad against Israeli citizens.

Create new Orwelian definitions daily for the shem sham

 For the purposes of this paper, I will not delve

into the moral or legal justifications that assert that terrorist acts against military forces do

not come under the auspices of terrorism. In justifying Israeli actions against terrorism, I

will leave those arguments to others. Nonetheless, there is no argument that the actions

by these groups against civilians would defined as terrorism.

Yet they have ascertained that the so-called Terrorist are not military, an oxymoron of the shem moron's

 The purpose of this section

is to identify how terrorist acts may be viewed from various legal perspectives.

Some key distinguishing factors of terrorist acts differentiate them from criminal

acts. Acts of terrorism require an intent that the perpetrator is attempting to "instill a

state of terror in the minds of particular persons."

How they will define the Christian's who follow the true Christ Jesus the Creator of everything Created



The terrorist act too is accomplished

in a manner that is geared towards attracting public attention


This is necessary because

the purpose of the act is to bring attention to a political end.


Finally, a terrorist act is one

that "is directed against random persons with whom, until the action began, the terrorist

had no relation."


These points are generally accepted as common to most if not all acts

described to be acts of terrorism.

Secular legal systems have the luxury of dealing with the problems of terrorism

by grouping them in their own category. Rather than dealing with them under criminal or

wartime laws, they have decided to define terrorism for the purpose of enacting laws

geared to apply only to the subset of activities defined as terrorist activities. As an

ancient system of laws begun 3000 years ago, Jewish legal scholars do not have the

luxury of adding a new category of laws to deal with actions associated with terrorism.

hahahhahhhehehehehehheehhhooooooooooooey olam hum bug hoodlum haha.....they add every second in their useless interpretations of the Pharisees the Chabad Lubavitch.....They added to the WORD of GOD then they struck the WORD entirely........for their traditions of their Oral Torah Mishnah of Talmud Bavli. They only make reference to the Written Word when convenient to dupe the "Judeo-Churchizionians"


Under Jewish law, there is a direct prohibition against adding to the Torah as it was


Page 8



stated: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish

ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your G

-d which I

command you."

so off they went and rejected the WORD of God the IAM who Abraham believed and started their "replacement Theology" of Talmud Bavli of their god the "Robber" they "Chose"


So instead, we must see where terrorist acts lie within the bounds of the categories

delineated in the Torah.

Mishnah Torah of Talmud Bavli...the oral tradition...do not be confused

It is incontrovertible that the acts perpetrated by Palestinian

terrorist groups are terrorist acts within any definition of terrorism set forth by leading

analysts on the subject. 

Please see the Mossad, CIA. Please see the Abu Graib Torture scandal....Please see the IS REAL HELL I terror. Please see Waco texas lead by General Clarke and Janet Reno to guage the resolve of the Amarakan people of Terrorism control

The Torah is an all-encompassing document that sets forth all

laws from the ritual requirements of prayer to the rules of war. 

Whis has nothing to do with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who knew God not by their name of the tetragramatron YVWH

So the question becomes,

how is terrorism defined under the Torah? (Talmud bavli of Satan)  Under Jewish law, justifications of

governmental responses to terrorism can be viewed under three broad categories: (1)

when terrorism is viewed as an act of war; (2) when terrorism is viewed as a criminal act;

and (3) the state’s authority under the "royal prerogative" or "King’s Justice" to combat


See the Noahide King Bushkeviks.....Justice...Homelandt "SAY" Kurity

II. Responding to Terrorism as an Act of War

A. Is Terrorism An Act of War

Is terrorism an act of war? In the minds of Palestinian terrorists, their acts of

terrorism are indeed acts of war. Yasir Arafat, during a speech in Ramallah, incited the

crowd "To Jerusalem we will march millions of martyrs, Holy War, Holy War, Holy


For they know the plan to enslave them. the Talmudic Controlled zionist media do not report this to the "Judeo-Churchi-zionazi's


In another speech, Chairman Arafat stated "with Arab and Islamic assistance,

this shall be our faithful jihad (holy war) - to defend holy Jerusalem from the danger of

Judaization and the Zionist plot."

Yes they understand, yet they too reject the Savior Jesus the Christ, their murders are no different then the zionist talmudicist the chassidim pharisees


Similar statements abound from the Arafat and other

leaders of the Palestinians. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas have founded their

entire movements on a war of "liberation" against the "Zionists."

Rightly so


They have declared it

is the goal of Muslims to eliminate Israel

as the goal of the Talmudic Elders of zion seek to eliminate all who oppose their shem sham, as Bushkevik of the North, Dan, seeks to inherit Jerusalem for the Chabad Lubavitch to install the KING SHEM of the anti-Christ shem sham


Various other organizations such as Islamic

Jihad and Fatah have invoked similar words to describe their terrorist actions.

From an outside perspective, judging Palestinian terrorists to be engaging in an

act of war is less clear. The courts of Israel refuse to identify terrorists as soldiers

engaged in a war.

contrary to their own approach earlier...catch 22 to the Palestinian rock throwers, if only they knew that Jesus has and will do battle against the beast and has won at Calvary


Professor Frits Kalshoven, discussing the question, "Should the Law

of War Apply to Terrorists?" asserted that terrorist organizations and terrorists are not

entitled to the status of combatants.

Thus no due process, no POW status, No Geneva Convention guidelines.....just assassinations and bulldoze homes collectively.....see Bushka's "War and Rumors of wars" on terrorism...the talmudic Orwell style


One of the key factors in ascribing soldier status to

terrorists is whether they themselves respect the laws of war. Because engaging in

attacks against civilians and wanton acts of violence directly contradict the laws of war,

these acts would not be considered acts of war.

No they are NOT ALLOWED Collateral Damage, that is confined to the shem god's


In his recent article, Professor Emanuel

Gross concludes that Palestinian terrorists are "at best a para-military organization."

Much like the Branch Davidians at Waco was determined, as was Randy Weaver, Timothy McVeigh, etc...etc.... Iraq's, Afghanistani's



notes that if the "soldiers" wished to be included in the armed forces of the Palestinian

Authority they would have to notify them as such, "a notification which to date has not

been made."

For if they do, then they can all Talmudically be slain


Reconciling these two perspectives is not so simple. Should one analyzing this

dispute under Jewish Law listen to the words of their fellow Jews and decide that the

terrorist are not soldiers? Should they instead take the Palestinians at their word and


Page 9



decide, that indeed, they should be considered soldiers and the laws of war should apply?

The Palestinian's oncwe again have no say in the matter of Ethnic Cleansing

The decision is not up those who say what they are. 

Of course

To determine whether the

Palestinian terrorists are soldiers, we look to the precedents set forth by the Halacha. (Talmudic Law) 

So would we be justified to view terrorists as soldiers fighting against the state of

Israel? In order to do so, the first step is to understand the Jewish definition of war. I

will analyze the actions against terrorists in a war by engaging in the following analysis:

(1) What are the types of war permitted under Jewish Law; (2) What is required before

the Jewish nation is deemed to be at war; (3) Does the State of Israel have the authority to

wage war; and (4) What limitations are imposed on the State of Israel in wartime.

1. Type of War

The Talmud identifies two categories of war: (1) Obligatory (milhemet mitzvah),

and (2) Authorized (milhemet reshut).


An obligatory war is one that is commanded by

the Torah or is one of self defense.


However, "as a practical matter...the only war

which was a matter of obligation, was a war of self defense or a war of national



This is so because the wars commanded by biblical commandments include

wars to defeat the seven Caananite nations and the War to destroy the tribe of Amalek.




Jews to Join Palestinians Against PLO

The world is divided into 72 nations: the Jews, the Amalekites, and "the Seventy Nations," a collective reference to all non-Amalekite gentiles. The holiday of Purim is a celebration of the victory of the Jewish people and the Seventy Nations over the nation of Amalek twenty-three centuries ago. This was the third of the four wars to be fought against Amalek, an evil nation which, unlike the rest of the gentile world, is permanently engaged in a battle to remove G-d, His Law and the messengers of that Law (the Jews) from the world.



Because these divine mandates are no longer necessary (or possible), there is no longer

any basis in obligatory wars of this type.


Therefore, wars of obligation are those

required for self defense of the nation. An authorized war, on the other hand, is a war to

expand territory or to "diminish the heathens so they shall not march."


As it is

generally accepted that any of the rationales posed for considering actions against

terrorists to be self-defense measures, rules pertaining to authorized wars would not



Therefore Bushka under Talmudic Authority cannot declare war according to the Constitution For the United States of America, for we fight the proxy wars of the shem gods AND THEIR ORAL TRADITIONS. Thus we need not give the prisoner's at Guontonomo Bay POW status nor do we give the citizen's of the US DUE Process, but can now detain any person indefinitely under the US Newly aquired laws of satan the god of the shem gods

In Ibn Tibbon’s translation of Maimonides’ commentary on the Mishnah, he

suggests that an obligatory war does not begin until one is actually attacked by an army.

Perpetual limbo, for "perpetual Purim" Eye for an eye laws


This definition would thus suggest that any war would be justified under the rationale that

governs laws of "pursuer" and self-defense.

Thus the Homelandt "SAY"Kurity of the Bushka Regime


However, Rabbi Joseph Kapach’s

translation of the same commentary finds that Maimonides suggests that war would be

permitted against all nations that have previously fought against Israel and are technically

still at war with Israel even if fighting has currently been interrupted.

hahahahahhahahhheeeeeeeeeeeehoooooooooey hoodlum humbug a haha

Syria, Iran, Jordon, Lebanon, Saudi, Turkey.....Iraq


In the context of considering the conflict with Palestinian terrorists an obligatory

war, then they must be considered under the forgoing rationales. Has Israel been attacked

by an army? Using Ibn Tibbon’s translation, then, repelling the Intifada would be an

obligatory war because Israel has been attacked by an army who is waging jihad (holy

war) against Israel.

Either they are are they are not. They say they are, you say they are not then you say they are, do you even know what you say? No...because you are a "SAYER" of Lies and will do the lust of your father the murderer since the beginning

 With over 16,000 (rock) attacks on Israel just since the beginning of the Al-

Aqsa Intifada, this view would lend support to considering this a war of obligation. 

The Washington Post

      Tuesday, October 1, 2002

Shooting comes as Amnesty International issues a report on child deaths in conflict 


JERUSALEM - A 12-year-old Palestinian schoolboy was shot and killed by Israeli soldiers Monday and 22 other children were wounded by Israeli gunfire while throwing rocks and debris at army tanks in the besieged West Bank city of Nablus, local officials reported. Five adults were also wounded.




the PLO charter, which has never been changed, states that "fighters and carriers of arms

in the war of liberation are the nucleus of the popular army which will be the protective

force for the gains of the Palestinian Arab people."


At least in the Palestinian view, the

suicide bombers and assassins are fighters in the "war of liberation" that Arafat has


Page 10



decreed. The attacks on Israel would thus justify this war against the Palestinians as a

war of obligation under the rationale of self-defense.

Thus pre-cog pre-imminent perpetual wars of terrorism of the Bushkeviks

The pursuer rationale too would allow defining the war as war of obligation. The

pursuer rationale is defined by Maimonides finding that homicide is justifiable when


pursuer who pursues another to kill him, all Israel is bidden to rescue the pursued even at

the cost of the pursuer’s life."

Talmud Only Applies to a Goyim seeking to kill a shem "sayer" and not to the Jews who seek to slay the Goyim


Thus, by extending this application to war, the terrorists

are pursuing the Jewish people and an obligation arises requiring the Jewish people to kill

(i.e. wage war) the pursuer (the terrorists trying to kill the Jewish people). The laws of

pursuer then would justify defining the war against terrorism as an obligatory war.

Thus they said that Jesus the Christ was seeking the destruction of the shem gods, as they "SAY" are his followers, therefore it is their obligation to send assassination teams to the US to slay any who oppose them and their shem sham

According to former Israeli intelligence officials, Israel will now commit what they call "targeted killings" on the soil of the U.S. and other friendly nations. Until now, the sources said, Ariel Sharon has at least claimed that he limited that practice to occupied Palestine, other Arab nations, and Israel itself. But those restrictions have "become irrelevant," since America is now so firmly under the control of the Jews. In the hands of the Jews, a CIA assassination team recently killed an alleged al-Qaeda leader and five other people riding in his car in a friendly country, Yemen. There was no arrest, no trial, no witnesses, nothing but instant death. It was assassination, pure and simple. The precedent has been set and the Jews in Israel now see no "down side" at all for them in beginning to kill whomever they want to kill in America and anywhere else. This is a measure of their desperation, of course, but it is also a measure of their assurance that the Jewish-controlled American media will say little about their murder squads, and in fact will rationalize and justify any killings in which they might be caught. It is a measure of their assurance that the Justice Department in the United States is so firmly under the heel of Jews like Michael Chertoff that they will blithely look the other way when Mossad hit teams kill Americans. A former Israeli government official said that "diplomatic constraints have prevented the Mossad from carrying out 'preventive operations' (targeted killings) on the soil of friendly countries until now," but that Sharon is "reversing that policy, even if it risks complications to Israel's bilateral relations." UPI asked the Israeli official if this meant assassinations on the soil of allies. His answer: "It does." Israel, which would be essentially bankrupt without aid from U.S. taxpayers, has recently made a $12 billion additional "aid" request to be tacked onto the approximately $6 billion tribute we already pay to the Jewish state. In the wake of 9/11 and the misnamed "War on Terror" and the Christian fundamentalists' intensified lunatic attachment to the Zionist cause, the Jews think the time is ripe to milk the American boobs for even more money. And this time, our tax money is going to be used to fund a huge increase in the budget of the Mossad, which is in charge of the death squads to be sent to the U.S. UPI asked a Congressional staffer if the Congress would protest these Jewish death squads being sent to America. His answer: "I don't know on what basis we would be able to protest Israel's actions." He referred to the precedent already set by the CIA hit in Yemen. I ask: Was this hit accomplished in part just to establish such a precedent? Former CIA counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson expressed serious concerns about the projected Jewish death squads: "Israel does not have a good record at doing this sort of thing…." He cited the 1997 case in which two Mossad agents were captured after they tried to murder a man in Jordan (a country that recognizes Israel) by injecting him with poison. The Jews involved in the attempted killing carried fraudulent Canadian passports, and Canada withdrew its ambassador in protest. In 1974 an Israeli hit squad murdered a Moroccan waiter in Lillehammer, Norway, a man who wasn't even their intended victim. The intended victim was a double agent working for the CIA, and the Jews eventually killed him with a car bomb in Lebanon. In 1990, a U.S. citizen, Gerald Bull, was found with five bullets in his head in Belgium. Bull had angered the Jews because he designed weapons for Iraq, which at that time had no conflict with the United States. The cold-blooded murder of Bull was never officially solved, but former CIA officials have said the Mossad is the most likely culprit.

Finally, even if Rabbi Kapach’s translation were correct, then Israel would be

justified in saying that the war against the Palestinians was an ongoing war. 

Perpetual palestinian Purim....then Perpetual Purim all opposed Goyim to the shem sham of the earth


After all,

Arafat himself stated in a speech on October 27, 2001, that "war...will continue until

Judgment Day."

As will be the case when Jesus the Christ comes on that Great and terrible day of the Lord's Wrath


In that same speech, Arafat made reference to the nature of the war as

ongoing since the "Zionist Congress met in Basel [in 1906]." However, it should be

noted that first attack claimed by the PLO was an attempt to bomb the Israeli National

Water Carrier on January 1, 1965.

see USS Liberty attack by Mossad to stir the Grecians against Ishmael



Even so, few would disagree that a war ongoing for

almost 40 years would suffice.

Therefore, no matter what definition of obligatory war is ultimately correct under

Jewish law, the war against the terrorists is one of obligation.

Thus Bush's pre-eminent Perpetual wars on DUI's and Bad check writers without due Process, skirting the Constitution For the US, By Talmud Law made Public Law 102-14, HJR 104, 102 Congress 1991


 It is clearly not within the

definition of an authorized war to "enlarge the borders of the kingdom of Israel and to

increase his [the king’s] greatness and prestige."

Moshiach ben satan they will soon "REVEAL"


Even if the claim to Judea and

Samaria was invalid, then fighting merely to stop future terrorist attacks would still not

be seen to expand the borders of Israel. After all, Israel is already in possession of those

territories so they cannot further expand what they already have without going outside the

borders. Furthermore, over 660 of the attacks have occurred within the borders of Israel,

excluding the territories.


Thus, under Ibn Tibbon’s or Rabbi Kapach’s view, or as an

extension of the pursuer or self defense rationale, the war against terrorism is an

obligatory war.

Thus Bushka is obligated to them who eat of his meat to consume a hundred year war

2. Required Procedures of War

Given that the dispute with terrorists may be defined as war under Jewish law, has

Israel followed the required procedures in order to make the war valid? The Talmud

requires that Israel follow various procedures prior to engaging in war. These procedures

include a declaration of war, an attempt to make peace, and detailing the goals of war.


The Halacha requires that the Jewish nation must declare war before attacking.


As the Torah explicitly states "When thou drawest near to a city to fight against it,

proclaim peace to it. And if it make a peaceful response and open its gates to thee, then

shall all the people that are found in it to be compelled to...serve thee."

or else die


However, it

logically follows that if they do not accept the peace then war is permitted to ensue. The

sages have decreed though that even in a war of obligation, the rabbis have declared that


Page 11



the obligation exists to declare war.


The sages have decreed that this obligation exists

because of the desire to obtain peace before beginning a war.


Maimonides ruled explicitly that a peaceful alternative must be sought prior to

making war: "One may not wage war against any people whosoever until one has first

offered them peace, whether it be a permissive war or a war of obligation."


This is

based on the biblical (Babylical )  ruling "when you approach to a city to wage war, you must first call

out for peace." In following this decree, Joshua, prior to beginning his conquest of the

land of Israel sent letters to the inhabitants providing them a choice of three alternatives:

to flee, submit in peace, or to make war.

Flee their homes, submit to the god's or die at the hand of the whore and her US Pimp


These biblical commandments remind us that ( Have nothing to do with the WORD of God to them who have made a covenant with death and hell, who were chiosen for Salvation and when the Savior came, Chose to crucify him and choose the "Robber" who is the author of the Talmudic Oral Tradition of satan and his stooges the chassidim. They use Biblical only when seeking to confuse the apostate sleeping "Judeo Churchizionian's who are fallen to the fables of the joose...the "SAYERS" of the shem sham, to send their children to die for their proxy wars of death and destruction...they say...."SAY" Peace, peace and there shall be no Peace, and when they do say Peace and SAYKurity, then sudden destruction shall fall upon them, and they shall know who the LORD GOD IS on that Great and Terrible Day of the LORD'S wrath

the Halacha requires the people of Israel to make a peace offering prior to declaring war.

And By their oath to nullify oaths to Goyim they use their satanic Kol Nidre deception.

The Halacha also requires the Jewish people to detail the goals of war prior to

engaging in battle. This includes detailing what one seeks by victory in the conflict.

Universal Noahidism of Obedient Goyim of all the earth


Rabbi Michael Broyde, in his article Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics,

Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition, finds this is a requirement

because "this allows one’s opponents to evaluate the costs of war and to seek a rational



By following these three procedures, declaring war, asking for peace, and

detailing the goals of war, Israel may legally engage in a war against their enemies.

Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians? No formal declaration of war has

been issued. However, analysts have decreed that this is so because the state of Israel

does not want to give credence to the Palestinian terrorists as an independent entity

separate from the Palestinian Authority.

The Sayers...say. yet when they say...they SAY Kol Nidre of the chief SAYER and nay say the TRUTH for they are LIARS of Oxymoronism's


] It is also thought that declaring war would

destroy the ongoing peace process. 

hahahhahahhheheeeeeeeeeeeehoooooooooooeyyyeyeyeyyeyyeyeyhavayeh hhhooooooeyyyyyy !!!!!!

However, in the minds of the Palestinian Authority,

Israel has declared war. 

Are you people up to par yet on what this complete Yid-iot has thus said?


The Financial Times reported that Saeb Erakhat, a senior

Palestinian Authority official, stated "This is a declaration of war" after Ariel Sharon

declared a government of national emergency soon after the Intifada began.


Is it required that Israel formally declare war, or is a functional declaration


ASK the CONGRESS of the United States of Greater Israel...........then see the Protocols of the "Illuminated Elders" of Zion of satan www.samliquidation.com/protocolstoday.htm


In current warfare, unlike ancient warfare, formal declarations of war are not

always given even though by all standard definitions, war would clearly define the events

at hand. This has been the case in the Vietnam War and the Gulf War when the United

States never formally declared war on their adversary.

For the whorehouse is ruled by zionist of talmud bavli, and ALL US Government are Traitors to the Constitution FOR the UNITED States of America, one a Christian Nation, but now the Proxy whore's pimp, who for the mammon of their masters will slay their own citizen's soon with all their "Judeo-Apostate's with them carrying the sword's of satan's Hoodlum haha. As soon as they find that they were deceived by scofield they will cry for TRUE Christ Believers heads under their god's they worship the shems


Because the lack of formally

declaring war does not go against the purpose of the biblical commandment,  (Bablycal ) the lack of a

formal declaration does not render the actions taken against terrorists invalid under the

laws of war. 

The Talmudic Interpretation's

As Nahum Rahover stated "Only in a case where the king's decree does not

merely demand going beyond the letter of the Torah's law but actually goes against it, do

we rule that the king's authority does not override the Torah."

and you ain't seen nuthin yet, wait until bubba dubya's King Moshaich shows up, then according to their Baby-lical laws all who stand firm for the witness of One Yeshu Ha Nostri......Jesus the Christ to his saints....they will all be purged from the shem hoodlum haha 



Thus, Israel can be

deemed to have declared the functional equivalent of war even if the formal declara


has not been issued.

against soldiers, who are not soldiers, but who say they are soldiers, but the SAYERS say they are not soldiers, because then if they did say they are soldiers, then their would not really be a war on terrorism, but a real war, which has not been declared, because the "SAYERS" do not have to declare war on non-soldiers, so there is a war.........Go figure out your own wisdom

Because the declaration of war is only necessary because of the desire to make


By Peace they shall destroy wonderfully


has Israel followed through on this biblical commandment? Since the Camp

David Peace Accords, Israel has made at least 12 major efforts at peace including peace

offerings with the entire Arab world as well as negotiations solely with the Palestinian


Jimmy Carter said the ISREALHELLI'S did not truly want war because they think they are supreme god's over all mankind, but what does a dumb believer in Christ Jesus know?


There is little dispute that Israel offered peace agreements where they would


Page 12



refrain from any further violence in negotiations with th

e Palestinian Authority in the

Oslo Peace Accords and the Summit at Camp David.

why the Prime Minister had to be assassinated?


These negotiations took place

prior to any Israeli violence against Palestinians related to the current fighting. Even

after the latest Intifada has begun, Israel has made numerous offers of cease-fires which

have all been violated by the Palestinian terrorist groups.


The Roadmap to hell


These agreements are the

only proof required to show that Israel has fulfilled the requirement to seek peace prior to

declaring war.

Therefore it is now perpetual Purim Palestinia time by the talmud Bavli of Satan' their god of their synagogues.

Israel has also declared what they seek from the war. The Israeli government has

often stated that they would like to end future terrorist attacks. Their goal then is to deter

any future loss of Jewish lives. 

are you hearing their satanic justification to murder the innocent "collateral Damage" on the double speak they sputter from their foul sick perverted mouths?


Furthermore, in formal declarations, Israel has actually

proffered written goals as explicated in the Camp David Peace Summit and the Oslo



Because Israel has stated what they hope to achieve by the war against

Palestinian terrorists, they have fulfilled the biblical commandments.

So now killem goyim time....forever

By fulfilling the requirements of initiating a war, Israel is engaged in a legally

valid war under Jewish law. They have functionally declared war, offered peace, and

stated what they hope to gain from war. If we call the conflict with the Palestinians a

war, it is lawful under the Halacha.


3. Authority to Engage in War

Besides being used to identify the type of war, the laws regarding a war of

obligation define when Israel is permitted to engage in war. A Jewish state has the

authority to declare war by first following the ritual requirements from the Talmud.

ritual of blood lust of their father the murderer since the beginning


They then are permitted to go to war if they are engaging in self defense,


or as an

obligation extended from the law requiring war against the tribe of Amalek. (They who oppose them) who ain't wif em, musted be agins't em)


In biblical times, the Jewish people had to follow three ritual requirements in

order to engage in warfare. However, these requirements have been limited by some

commentators. (rabid rabbi's)


The first requirement was the consent of the Sanhedrin.


Currently, the

Sanhedrin no longer exists in the state of Israel.

wannabet .......Liar of serpents seed


So how is Israel permitted to go to war?

The second requirement was the presence of a ruler or a king.

Oh how they wait on their Moshiach so they can really destroy wonderfully all who oppose them their godhood of hoodlum haha


The final requirement

was a consultation with the urim vetumim, an ornament worn by the High Priest.

They must ask his garments

The question of whether Halachic sanction exists for wars of the state of Israel

was discussed by Rabbi Shlomoh Yosef Zevin. He concluded that Halachic sanction

does indeed exist for Israel’s prior wars.


He notes that a defensive war does not require

the consent of the Sanhedrin.

So the Soopreme god Court makes the decision


Similarly, Rabbi Judah Gershuni asserts that the

requirement of the Sanhedrin "may be dispensed with in our day."


He reasons that only

"in the absence of a general desire on the part of the nation to engage in warfare" would

the consent of the Sanhedrin be necessary.

But all the PEOPLE Cried out "GIVE US WAR"


Therefore, under his view, the Sanhedrin’s

accord would only be necessary if the populace were unwilling to enter into a war.

hahaahheheeeeeeeeeehooooooey...Where are you ORWELL?

The next ritual requirement is the presence of a king or a ruler of the State of

Israel. However, Nachmanides (Ramban) states that the requirement of a king itself is


Page 13



not absolute but that this is the prerogative of "the king, the judge, or whosoever

exercises authority over the people."

Arik Sheinerman the Son of Sofiet Communitarians


Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, in Mishpat Kohen,

further argued that the requirement of a king is not literal because the king merely serves

as the agent of the people in exercising his royal function.

Skirting all requirements.....JUSTIFIED no Matter what


The sages would thus find

that a legitimate government serving as an agent of the state would be permitted to wage

war even if no king was present.

The final ritual requirement is that of consultation with the urim vetimim, a

mystical ornament worn by the high priest. The rabbis are in agreement that the


vetumim no longer exist. Various interpretations of this requirement have arisen. While

Maimonides does not list the urim vetumim in his requirements, he does state elsewhere

that they are necessary.


Since Rabbi Zevin as well as the Aruch HaShulcan do not find

this procedural requirement necessary.


keep in mind all these rabid rabbi's of talmud bavli are long long dead.......Long in the pit


A middle position has been suggested by Rabbi

Gershuni when he states that consultation with the urim vetumim would be required for

authorized wars but consultation is not required for obligatory wars.

they got it all figured out don't they....hahahhahahahhahha


The State of Israel has satisfied the ritual requirements in order to wage war under

Jewish Law. Because the Sanhedrin is not necessary, and may only be necessary for a

non-obligatory war, their consent is not required. The government of Israel, serving as an

agent for the populace, has the authority to wage war because they exercise authority

over the people. As Rabbi Bleich notes that Rabbi Zevin would find Halachic sanction in

Israel’s prior wars, and he himself would logically then find sanction in the 1973 wars,


the same logic would permit a justification of Israel’s defensive war against the


What Logic? what a viper

 Finally, even using Rabbi Zevin’s analysis of the urim vetumim

requirement, Israel would be permitted to engage in the defensive, obligatory war against

the Palestinian terrorists.

Israel also would have Halachic justification to engage in war when they are

acting in self defense. Just as we define a war as obligatory when it is in self defense, the

same logic would extend authority to the state to engage in such a war. The Talmud

posits the maxim "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first."

and EYE for an EYE



authority thus becomes an obligation required under the Halacha. Because self defense

applies to a group just as it would apply to an individual, then this implied authority is

granted to the state.

so they declare a war which is not declared on an enemy who are not soldiers but who say they are soldiers


This is seen as an obligation rather than just a permissive action

because the Talmud regards the legitimate use of force as a communitarian


Communitarian Noahide. Now People slowly see and understand why, Sharon went to the Temple Mount. Understand why the WTC MOSSAD Destruction Treason. Understand the "Homelandt "SAY KURITY and the Unconstitutional Patriot AKT I @& II. Understand the WAR on IRAQ and the so-called ERumor of WAR on invisible soldiers called "TERRORIST", then UNDERSTAND that you were warned 2,000 years ago by the Spirit of All Prophecy, and was warned to beware of the Leaven of the of these Pharisee's who are the Chabad Lubavitch who have set their viosion of their satanic Talmudic Universal Noahide laws up to Kill wonderfully. Understand that there is no Scofield "Secret Rapture" you were lured to complacency so they would not have any opposition from the apostate Judeo-Churchizionians. Understand that you are in the Midst of the Literal seventy weeks of the Last Days Spoken of By Daniel the Prophet of God the Most High. Understand they are about to close this vision against Jesus the Christ the Everlasting Covenant with His Own, His Sheep, who hear his voice..... and REPENT! In the Name of Jesus of nazareth the Lord Almighty. 


Israel has the authority to engage in a war of self defense to prevent the killing of

the Jewish people. The Palestinians have decreed in Article 15 of the PLO charter that

their goal is "the liquidation of the Zionist presence."


In the context of the document

which urges the Palestinians to fight a war of liberation against the "Zionists", then the

Jewish people are engaged in a war of self defense. 

NOW read that again slowly...war to liberate....war to liberate....war to liberate....and when America wants to Liberate from the zionist whorehouse????? Waco II mass scale.


Furthermore, the self-defense

rationale has further justification because the terrorists have their goal to kill the Israeli

citizens, creating in Jews an obligation "to rise up and kill" the Palestinians first (before

they themselves are killed). In order to protect the community as a whole, Israel has an


Page 14



obligation, and therefore, the authority, to engage in a war of self defense against terrorist


Makes no mention of the Palestinian Right to Rise up and Kill them who come to KILL you, now doest it? Do you know why? because Jewry is Contrary unto all mankind.


Israel may also get their authority to fight in the war against the Palestini

ans is

based on the commandments requiring Israel to fight a war against Amalek.

Here let me translate: They who are the Amalekites against the seed of Abraham who are in faith of jesus the Christ, according to the Everlasting Covenant, who say, they are the seed, who have no faith and who crucified the LORD, and who will kill the seed of Abraham by faith are simply of their Father the Liar and the Murderer since the beginning satan the adversary. So, if you aint with them, you are against them, and they feel that you threaten their Hoodlum Haha, and they will deliver you up to be slain, Just like they did Jesus the Christ, by false witness, ONE witness, to their synagogues of satan

The Torah

commands that "You shall erase the memory of Amalek."


In an earlier section, the

Torah spoke of the war of G-d against Amalek.

the shems against the anti-shems


While these sections would seem to be

obsolete because the tribe of Amalek no longer exists, commentators have disagreed on

their meaning. While Maimonides finds that the commandments to eradicate the seven

Cannanite nations have lapsed, he does not make the same statement regarding the

ancient people of Amalek.


In later years, rabbis have found that this omission is due to a higher meaning

given to these commandments. Rabbi Chaim Soleveitchik of Brisk, trying to resolve this

difficulty, was said to have declared that the commandment to destroy Amalek extends to

all who embrace the ideology of Amalek and seek to annihilate the Jewish nation.

any who oppose zion


Rabbi Bleich also notes that Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague remarked that all enemies of

Israel throughout the generations of dispersion are in fact genealogical descendents of


flesh ISREALHELL, as I am their enemy, they will seek to slay me, yet I am a harbinger of My Lord and Life abundantly who has no wrath of vengeance for the vengeance belong's to the Day of the Lord's wrath.


Rabbi Bleichtoo suggests that because the war against Amalek is an ongoing

and continuous one, the requirement of the urin vetumim is forsaken.

They do not need to talk to the Mystical Robes of the Prophet of Baal, they can just simply slay who they will


Therefore, by

viewing the commandment to destroy Amalek as one that requires the Jewish people to

engage in warfare against all who seek to annihilate Israel, and because biblically

commanded wars are obligatory, Israel would have Halachic sanction to engage in a war

against Amalek or those who hold the same views as the people of Amalek.

Perpetual Purim


Would this biblical commandment give Israel authority to engage in war against

the Palestinians? As a biblical commandment, the war is obligatory. The terrorists have

publicly pronounced that their goal is the destruction of the nation of Israel.


While it

may not be true that the Palestinians are in fact genealogical descendents of the people of

Amalek, R. Soleveitchek noted that the commandment against Amalek was two fold: (1)

to destroy the genealogical descendents of Amalek, and (2) a communal (Communist) obligation to

defend the Jewish people against any enemy threatening their destruction.


Rabbi Bleich

argues that this is so because the commandments are recorded as two separate



Extending this reasoning to the conflict with the Palestinian terrorists,

because they are threatening the destruction of Israel and wish to annihilate the Jewish

people, the nation of Israel has the authority to engage in an obligatory war against them.

to annihilate them First

Whether viewed using the ritual requirements necessary for the state to go to war,

the laws of self defense creating an implied authority to go to war, or the biblical

commandment to destroy Amalek requiring Israel to go to war, Halachic authority exists

permitting Israel to go to war against the Palestinian terrorists.

Or any opposed to their shemhood

4. Limitations on Going to War

The Talmudic sages have places various rules limiting the way that Israel may

conduct warfare. Violation of these rules could prevent Halachic sanction of a war in


Page 15



which Israel is engaged. However, if war is to be permitted as a morally sanctioned

event, some forms of killing which otherwise would not be permitted under the self


defense rationale must be allowed.


As Professor Naphtali Zevi Yehuda Berlin notes,

the very verse that prohibits murder would permit war.


He states that this is so because,

at wartime, Jews are not required to behave in a brotherly manner, then killing that would

be prohibited is now permissible.

See Talmud Bavli how it is ok for a jew to slay a goyim, but a goyim who slays a jew must be slain


Rabbi Broyde notes that when engaging in warfare Israel could not: (1) kill an

innocent third party to save a life; (2) compel a person to risk his life to save the life of

another; (3) kill the pursuer after the evil act; and (4) use more force than is minimally


all a lie see www.come-and-hear.com read the Talmud Bavli of satan your self and see the god's Jesus waRNED YOU OF, WHO SAY THEY ARE GODS AND ARE NOT GODS


These laws governing the pursuer rationale would be extended to their

equivalents in wartime. Nahmanides understands that this shows that the Jewish tradition

requires one to "show mercy to one’s enemies and not engage in unduly cruel activity."

SANHEDRIN TRACTATE, Talmud Bavli 57A. decapitate any who break their satanic laws of their god satan


Another limitation mentioned is that the number of casualties cannot ex

ceed 1/6 of the

population in order for the war to retain Halachic sanction.


Besides these limits, war

would be permissible under Jewish Law.

Israel has fulfilled their obligations in order to retain Halachic sanction of the war

against the Palestinians. Israel attempts to limit civilian casualties and reduce collateral

damage. While some of the specific actions taken will be discussed later, the goal of

Israel’s action in wartime maintain these ideals. There is no dispute that Israel has not

engaged in wanton destruction of property, rape of women, or attempts to harm the

general civilian population purposefully.


Furthermore, with a population of at least 2.6



and even using the Palestinian figure purporting that casualties number 2,160,

this is well below 1/6th of the population. 

Only 433,000 to go

Halachic sanction thus remains for Israel’s war

against the Palestinian terrorists.

Israel may be viewed as fighting a war against the soldiers of the Palestinian

cause. Israel’s war is obligatory, they have fulfilled the requirements to go to war, the

State has authority to be involved in a war, and Halachic sanction has not been lifted due

to violations of Talmudic law by Israel.

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ALMIGHTY LORD, but their god of forces, a strange god of Judaism

 Therefore, terrorist actions against Israel may be

viewed as an act of war and Israel thus has the right to treat the terrorists under the rules

governing war.

they may be free for Collateral Damage. See Bushkeviks

B. Governmental Responses to Terrorism as an Act of War

Since the beginning of terrorist attacks on Israel, the government has employed

various measures in hopes of deterring future attacks or preventing them outright. These

measures have included assassinating leaders of the terrorist groups, destroying homes of

suicide bombers, and deporting family members of terrorists. These responses have

come after years of resorting to various means to achieve peaceful goals. However, when

these means have not proved fruitful, the Israeli government has elected to punish further

the terrorists who attack the nation.

The Talmud notes that permitted killing justified by war is distinctly different

from other forms of justifiable killing.


Despite this, the Halacha imposes limitations


Page 16



governing specific actions related to actions against the enemy in wartime. In order to

determine whether Israel engages in lawful responses, the following questions will be

considered 1) What are the rights and obligations of Israel to respond to terrorist activity;

2) When is Israel justified to kill, and even assassinate their enemy; 3) When may Israel

destroy property belonging to terrorists; and 4) What are the limitations imposed in terms

of inflicting collateral damage on the civilian populace.

1. Obligations of Israel to Respond to Terrorism

Two Talmudic verses control the obligation of Jews to respond to terrorist attacks.

The Talmud decrees that "if someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first."

an eye for an eye



noted previously, this is a communitarian responsibility, thus an obligation under the



But when do we know when someone is coming to kill us? What if we are

unsure? The Shulcan Aruch has described when it is lawful to fight against those seeking

to wage war against the nation of Israel:

"When there is a [Jewish] city close to the border, then, even if [enemies

mount an attack, although they] come only for the purpose of [taking]

straw and stubble, we should [take up arms] and desecrate the Sabbath

because of them. 

Pre-cog Pre-eminent war

For [if we do not prevent their coming] they may

conquer the city, and from there the [rest of the] land will be easy for

them to conquer."


This description illustrates that the threat of attack is enough even if no attack has

yet been made. 

See Bushka's Lies of Saddam's Weapons of Mass discussion the pretext to kill your sons and daughters for the whorehouse


Thus by preventing enemies from killing the populace and being

obligated to do so in the face of impending danger, Israel must engage in attacks against

the terrorist threats under Talmudic law.

saith the Robber

In the same way we could compare this passage to a comparable situation in

modern day Israel. The places where terrorists convene, in the West Bank and Gaza

Strip, are within range of Israel, not only to attack at short notice, but they may actually

fire munitions from these locations into the heart of Israel and its cities.

since they "may" then we must kill them all.

Since the Christians "May" Lynch the Traitors in the whorehouse, then we'uns musted kaeel em all

 Just as Israel was

required to attack those outposts in Biblical times, this ruling would require the same in

the modern age. When an enemy takes up arms on the borders of Israel, the nation has a

duty to protect its citizens from the threat of attack. In this sense, it would be proper for

Israel to attack their enemies who have such intentions with such close proximity to


In applying this to Israeli actions in the face of terrorism, the government has an

obligation to attack the terrorists. They must do all in their power to prevent the loss of

Jewish lives. In the face of a known danger, as the Palestinian terrorists pose, Israel has a

duty to attack first in order to protect the people from being easily killed by terrorist


2. Wartime Justifications for Engaging in Assassination of Terrorists


Page 17

-without due process...see Bushkeviks


As part of their war to combat terror, Israel engages in the assassination of known

terrorists whom they cannot capture through otherwise lawful means. In order to

determine whether Israel is justified in engaging in this behavior, we must consider (1)

the definition of homicide, and assassination, under Jewish Law; (2) When homicide is

justifiable in times of war; (3) When are terrorists culpable, and therefore legally liable to

be assassinated in times of war; and (4) What requirements or limitations govern killing

an enemy in wartime.

The Bible ( their Babble) speaks explicitly that homicide is unlawful: "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

which they do so wonderfully



also seems to even outlaw assassination itself by stating "Cursed be he that smiteth his

neighbour in secret."


Knowledge, however, that the intended target is subject to Israeli

repercussions would seem to render the prohibition against assassinations moot (i.e. not

in secret). The Mishnah too notes that some forms of killing are justifiable by illustrating

that murder is "blood shed without cause" (dam hinnam).

MURDER is ok if you have cause ?


Different categories of killing are also distinguished in Jewish law. While the

Torah only identifies two categories of killings, premeditated homicide and negligent

homicide, the Talmud identifies five other categories of killings: intentional but

unpremeditated homicide, reckless homicide, gross negligence, accidental homicides, and

justifiable homicides.


Because the Torah states that "blood unlawfully shed is innocent

blood" (dam naki)


, it acknowledges that justifiable forms of homicide exist. It is these

justifiable forms of homicide that must be considered to determine if Israel may lawfully

engage in assassinations. Three forms of homicide are justified under Jewish Law:

execution, rescue, and war.


The Torah distinguishes between justifiable homicides that are permissible and

those that are obligatory. Furthermore, the Talmud has illustrated justifications that may

be used to illustrate that homicide in times of war is justifiable.  

all we need do boys is, to make a war, but do not declare a war on soldiers who say they are soldiers, but we do not acknowledge them as enemy combatants, and then we can kill wonderfully in the name of peace, Got It? This way we can have Perpetual war on any body we decide, understand ? Without the Geneva Convention's rules of War. Then we can detain any we want, Torture them, and have not to allow the one's on our soil, our citizen's their constitutional Due Process. What a shem sham of Lucifer's concoction and treason.


These justifications

include the laws of rodef (pursuer); and self-defense. Therefore, to identify whether

Israeli actions are justified under Jewish Law, the assassinations must be determined as to

their status and their justification.

Obligatory killings are those that are required in order to save a life. The Halacha

provides various examples of obligatory killings such as participating in a public



killing a man in self defense,


and to prevent a man from killing another or

committing rape.


Comparatively, permissible killings are those where one fears that

their life is in danger even if that did not turn out to be the case

even if that did not turn out to be the case

even if that did not turn out to be the case

even if that did not turn out to be the case




The Talmud provides

the example of a burglar breaking into one’s home at night.


Maimonides notes that

even in regard to obligatory duties, failure to perform, though a sin, is not punishable.


Maimonides further cites the command "thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy

brother" to show that these are obligatory and not permissible killings.

jews to non-jews...see Talmud Bavli



The question

must then must be asked, are the Israeli’s actions obligatory or merely permissible?

Israel’s actions to kill terrorist leaders are obligatory because they are required to

prevent murder rather than just merely a possible threat to the population. The leaders of

Hamas and Fatah have worked tirelessly, plotting to kill Israelis. The Talmudic examples


Page 18



given, illustrating an obligation to save a life in the case of a pursuer are more akin the

Israeli actions, than is the possible threat of a burglar entering the home. One example

would be the assassination of Saleh Shehadeh:

On July 23, 2002, Israel found that Saleh Shehadeh was in a house in

Gaza with his family. The government had been after Shehadeh, the

head of Hamas’ military wing, for years. They had had previous

opportunities before when they knew of his whereabouts but had not

acted on their information in order to restrict collateral damage. Under

his leadership, the Hamas military wing had led to the murder of 232

Israelis including 220 civilians. His occupation was terror, and his only

task was to engineer the deaths of Jews. Twenty of the attacks he

engineered were suicide bombings. Finally, despite the collateral

damage that would ensue, Israel chose to strike. They fired a targeted

missile into the house killing Shehadeh along with 15 other people.

Shehadeh was known to hide among civilians in order to make himself

less of a target. However, despite the killing of civilians, the Israeli

government noted that his death would save lives.

Kill to save

As Ariel Sharon

stated, "We hit perhaps the most senior Hamas figure on the operational

side, a man who reorganized and rebuilt Hamas forces in Samaria, in

addition to his actions in Gaza."


Was this an action in self defense? Was this an obligatory killing? The simple

answer would be yes. Shehadeh spent his life pursuing the Jewish people. He referred to

himself as a soldier, in fact, the leader of a "military wing." Furthermore, he planned

numerous suicide bombings and sent people to kill. In order to save the lives of their

citizens, Israel acted in self defense to eliminate a violent killer. Rather than consider

him as merely a possible threat, the Israeli government knew that he had people under his

command, the means and plans to kill certain Jews in certain areas, and would willingly

and at any opportunity engage in murderous behavior. Therefore, Halachic san


would be granted for the assassination of the second most wanted Palestinian terrorist in

the world.


What are the Halachic justifications for obligatory killings? As mentioned

previously, the laws of pursuer and self defense justify killing in wartime. The laws of

war can be considered a mere extension of the laws of pursuer.


The law of pursuer

(rodef) permits one to kill a pursuer who is pursuing another in order to kill him.



wartime, the enemy soldiers can be deemed to pursue the army of Israel, thus making

themselves liable to be killed. The laws of self defense follow the same rationale. When

one comes to kill an individual, they have not only the authority but the obligation to kill

their attacker.


Thus, assassination of terrorists is obligatory and based on the permissible

justifications of the laws of pursuer and self-defense. Those military leaders who attempt

to kill Jews, whether they pursue them on the battlefield or pursue them in the streets of


Page 19



Jerusalem, may be assassinated under the laws of war. Despite the prohibition against

assassination, these soldiers do not fight on a traditional battlefield, they fight in the dark

rooms hidden in the streets of Judea and Samaria. Were they attacked without

knowledge they would be? 

Of course not, for they have not declared a war that is declared a war on soldiers who are not soldiers, who they seek to assassinate, who cannot be assassinated because they are not officially soldiers who are soldiers, so how possibly could the ISREALHELL Assassinators know that the soldiers who are not soldiers were out to get them?


The terrorist in question, and others like him, are listed

explicitly on Israel’s most wanted list. Warrants are out for their arrest but they instead

hide from the police and the military. Because they are actively pursuing the Jewish

people, meaning to kill them, their assassinations are not only permitted, but obligatory

under the Halacha.

After deciding that Israel has Halachic sanction to engage in assassinations, when

is a terrorist culpable in warfare? It would be incorrect to assume that any soldier could

be indiscriminately assassinated merely for being a member of an army fighting against

Israel. The questions of capital murder have typically been answered in the realm of

criminal law. Therefore, the best way to analyze whether one is culpable would be to

apply the laws of self defense and rodef.

The targets of the assassinations are all those who are actively pursuing means to

murder the Jewish people. The thirty-two assassinated individuals have been listed high

on Israel’s most wanted list. Killing in war is itself sanctioned.


Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday December 9, 2003
The Guardian

Israeli advisers are helping train US special forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations in Iraq, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders, US intelligence and military sources said yesterday.



Just as in war, soldiers

are liable to be killed when they are actively pursuing the Jewish people. In a war fought

by planning individual attacks, when the enemy is unseen, then, the pursuer only sho


himself at the last possible moment. Israel, thus, may find the terrorist culpable when

they are actively planning these attacks on Jews. The Palestinian terrorist constructing a

bomb in a house in Gaza, is analogous to the sniper on a battlefield. The laws of pursuer

thus would apply, the terrorist would be culpable, and Israel would be justified in taking

that individual’s life through whatever means necessary in order to not transgress the

biblical (Byblical) commandment that "Neither shall thou stand idly by the blood of thy



Despite the permissibility of killing in wartime, various limitations govern how

Jews may conduct themselves in war under the Halacha. The Halacha provides that, even

in wartime, killing must be justified under the laws of pursuer or self defense and deadly

force may only be used when necessary.


As long as the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF)

do not engage in killing that offends the Halacha, then their actions, even assassinations,

would still be justified.

How could they possibly offend satan's laws?

The laws of pursuer and self-defense must govern every wartime casualty. In the

context of the Intifada, how does Israel resolve this difficulty? There are two main forms

of killing that have occurred during the war. The first type is hand to hand combat as

seen in the street of Jenin.

See the Massacre's of Sharon Sheinerman


Killing that occurred there would be seen under the self

defense rationale and those killings would not be deemed assassinations. Comparatively,

the killing of leaders of terrorist entities, and suicide bombers on the way to their targets,

would be justified under the pursuer justification. A common example of a terrorist

whose killing is justified is when a Palestinian assassin en route to break into a home in

one of the communities located in Judea or Samaria. These assassins, on sight may be


Page 20



killed by the IDF or anyone else who spots them as they pursue their victims.

Voy, he iz a burglar, shoot him...shooot him, How do you know..he looks like one that is vhy..shoot him...shooooot him



killings would clearly be justified under the pursuer rationale.

However, despite the ability to kill a pursuer or in self-defense, how does the IDF

justify the assassinations in those cases that are less than clear? This is especially

difficult considering the Talmudic requirement, found by Maimonides, that it would be

unlawful to kill him [the pursuer] where the victim could be rescued by other means.


Can we stop these terrorists through other means? 

hahahahhahahahhheeeeeeeeeeeoyyy Voy Hoy haha hoodlums at best..........of course not


Maimonides further notes, however,

that while this would be unlawful, the killer would not be guilty of murder. Does the

Israeli government have other means at their disposal? Perhaps this can be viewed based

on the intent of Israel to kill their enemies when other means are available.

What have the Israelis done when they have been able to capture terrorists? The

terrorists who planted the bomb at Hebrew University that killed five students, rather than

being killed, were arrested by Israeli authorities.


In the eight days after the

assassination of Israeli Defense Minister Rechavam Ze'evy, 42 terrorists with direct links

to the assassination were arrested and none were killed.


Just recently, on February 17,

2003, the latest head of the military wing of Hamas, Riad Abu-Zeid, was killed only

when he pulled a gun so he could avoid capture by IDF forces.


These examples

abound while the number of assassinated terrorists stands at 32 during the past two years.

This would seem to show that Israel does attempt to limit bloodshed when possible and

attempt to capture and subdue terrorists rather than kill them.

Token captures

Despite the large number of deaths, and opposition assessment that Israelis try to

take as many terrorist lives as possible, that is not the case. The IDF has engaged in

justifiable killings. They have also limited bloodshed where possible. In regard to

wartime assassinations, the Israeli government has only engaged in justifiable homicide,

has only attacked those culpable, and has limited the use of murder to the minimum.

Therefore, they have Halachic sanction to engage in the assassinations of terrorists in the

war against the Palestinians.

3. Justifications for Taking and Destruction of Property Under the Laws of War

One of the most disputed tactics that Israel has engaged in during their war

against terrorism is the taking and destruction of homes of terrorists, their families, and

associates. While it is commonly thought in the world community that these actions are

done at the whim of various individuals, that is not the case. The Israeli government has

legislative authority to destroy homes in accordance with Regulation 119(1):

A Military Commander may by direct order the forfeiture to the

Government... of any house, structure or land from which he has reason

to believe that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, (hhhhhhoooooooooooooooey)

grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, detonated,

exploded or otherwise discharged, or of any house, structure or land in

any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the

inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed or attempted to


Page 21



commit or abetted the commission or have been accessories after the fact

to the commission of any offence against these Regulations involving

violence or intimation or any Military Court offence; and when any

house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the Military

Commander may destroy the house or structure or anything in or on the

house, the structure or the land.

See US Bushkevik POLICE STATE, if they just smell gunpowder you are dead meat



In summary, Regulation 119(1) provides that if a house or structure (a) was the

source from where an attack was made; or (b) was inhabited by anyone who committed a

violent offense or violated a military law; then the Military Commander may destroy the

house or structure. 

Or where a firearm was discharged


Chief Justice Meir Shamgar noted that the purpose was to pose an

ultimate deterrent effect in the face of restrictions on capital punishment imposed on



It should be noted that international law permits destruction of real or

personal property in occupied territories when necessary for military operations.

SEE US Military SWAT OPERATIONS @ www.prisonplanet.com


In the

face of this measure, permitting destruction of homes and structures if they have been the

source of an attack or the residence of an attacker, does Jewish Law preclude their


Of course the more homeless you make the more power you have

The biblical commandment most often cited with regard to destruction of property

in time of war is Deuteronomy 20:19-20, Token reference to the Bible

When you . . . wage war against [a city] . . . you must not destroy its

trees, wielding an ax against any food producing tree. Do not cut down a

tree in the field, unless it is being used by the men who confront you in

the siege. However, if you know that a tree does not produce food, then

until you have subjugated [the city], you may destroy [the tree] or cut off

[what you need] to build siege machinery against the city waging war

with you.


On its face, the ideals set forth in this passage seem to emulate Regulation 119(1).

The passage provides that property (a tree) may not be destroyed (cut down) unless it is

used by your enemies to attack you (by the men who confront you). The second sentence

provides that you may destroy property (the tree) if it is required to fight your war (cut off

what you need).

Under Jewish law, the following issues arise in regard to this debate: (1) When

may property be destroyed or taken; and (2) What is the extent of property that may be

destroyed in wartime? The Talmudic sages have remarked on the applicability of the

commandment "thou shalt not destroy."

Talmudic commentators have spoken explicitly as to the subject of when property

may be destroyed. Maimonides interpreted this passage to mean that property may not be

destroyed for the "mere purpose of afflicting the civil population and causing



Nahmanides explained the comment further saying: "for direct military

advantage, anything and everything may be destroyed."



This applicability in biblical


Page 22



times was noted by Jospehus, the famous Roman historian, stating that "it was enjoined .

. . to not destroy their land by fire and not kill beasts employed in labor."



comments may be summarized by asserting that anything that is only used for general

human well being is prohibited from being destroyed.


So how would Israel’s actions be viewed in this context? Destruction of property

that is used as the base for terrorist attacks seems well within the guidelines proposed by

the commentators. Clearly, if a structure is used to attack Israel or IDF forces, or to

construct weapons, then its destruction would be for "direct military advantage." The

issue of destruction, then, seems clear. When the property in question is used for actions

that would endanger Israel or Israelis, its destruction is not only permissible, but it is the

duty of the military to destroy such property. As long as purpose of the intent is military

advantage, rather than to cause suffering, the destruction of the property would be

permissible under the Halachic code. The deterrent effect, although applicable under the

criminal code, does not seem to have bearing when viewing these destructions as acts of



Considering the permissibility of when property may be destroyed, and whose

property may be destroyed, to what extent may property be destroyed? Nahmanides

noted "destruction was forbidden only if it was wanton mischief of no possible

advantage, or even a disadvantage."


The admonition against destruction of property

only covers that which is used for the use of the population with no military use.

However, Nahmanides noted that property may be destroyed if there was any possible

advantage. Note that he used the word possible to describe the advantage that must be

gained. It can be assumed that that he meant that there are few limits that may be placed

on the destruction of property if it will aid in the military effort. It must also be noted,

that Ramban specifically mentioned that even a possible disadvantage would be



This strengthens the previous point by illustrating the weight given to the

military is making these decisions to lead to an ultimate military victory.

Israel, thus, would be well within their rights to destroy homes under the

procedures of Regulation 119(1). The Military, under the Regulation, like Nahmanides’

view, must look to the military advantage that may be gained. When a terrorist uses their

home as a base of attack, destruction then is well within the bounds of the Talmudic

pronouncements. In terms of destruction of the homes of residents, it may be viewed as a

deterrent effect to other military operatives thereby ensuring that there will be no military

disadvantage. Another view would show that if this was or even could be the base of

planning attacks, and the least possible advantage is enough to permit destruction, then

the demolition would be permitted under Halachic law.

By engaging only in necessary or permissible destruction of property, Israel has

not violated Jewish Law. They have not violated their Halachic sanction. Property is not

destroyed based on arbitrary determinations; rather, it is done to reflect a need for

military advantage and save Jewish lives.

or at least POSSIBLE Advantage...Possible....Possible

4. Limitations on Infliction of Collateral Damage During Wartime


Page 23



While not an actual response of the Israeli government, the impact of collateral

damage has clear ramifications in the fight against terrorism. Often, in order to

effectively assassinate terrorist planners, respond to attacks, or otherwise protect the

populace, Israel will engage in some action which leads to civilian casualties. These

civilian casualties are the cause of much of the negative public opinion that exists against

Israel’s responses to terror. Every legal system in the world permits some element of

collateral damage in wartime. Under Jewish law, then, what limitations exist in Israel’s

responses so that they may effectively fight terror, yet still maintain some limitation on

civilian casualties? Is public opinion correct in condemning Israel’s actions as inhumane

and unjust?

How do we begin to analyze this problem in the context of Israel’s actions in the

Intifada? Views of collateral damage vary depending on the type of action in which one

was killed, the degree of innocence of those inadvertently killed, and the ability to attack

in a way that would better limit casualties. The Halacha understands both the moral

problems associated with killing innocents as well as the need to permit innocent

casualties in defense of the nation. In order to answer these questions, I will attempt to

justify collateral damage by answering the following questions: (1) How and when does

the Halacha, generally, permit collateral damage; (2) Does Jewish Law distinguish

between collateral damage of those who voluntarily remain in the field of combat


those who do not; and (3) To what extent must collateral damage be limited under Jewish


The Jewish belief has always held life in the highest regard. In the same vein,

saving lives of the Jewish people is one of the overriding principles of Jewish Law. The

ambivalence that Judaism has held towards the taking of life can be understood in Jacob’s

reaction before he was to encounter Esau for the first time in 20 years:

20 years after robbing his brother of his birthright, it came to pass that

Jacob was to leave Haran. Esau, along with 400 others, was en route to

find Jacob.


Unsure exactly of what the encounter would hold, Jacob

prepared to defend himself if the need would arise. In acknowledging

the possibilities in their encounter, it was written "Then Jacob was

greatly afraid and was distressed."


What does this passage have to do with collateral damage? Rashi suggests that

Jacob, unsure whether Esau and his followers had come to kill, was fearful that he

himself would be killed. His distress, however, was based in the possibility he might kill

others, perhaps unlawfully.



The distress refers to a moral anxiety. This ambivalence

towards the prospect of inflicting undue harm is further illustrated with the Talmudic

dictum that only minimum necessary force shall be used.


Despite this, it is also true

that war destroys the basic standards of morality. It is because of this that Jacob is




Page 24



This introduction to the Jewish ideas on the sanctity of life identifies the context

in which a discussion on collateral damage must be discussed. The idea that we should

inflict the minimum necessary harm led to Maimonides’ comment that "

it was permitted

to only surround a city on three sides so that they might flee from the beleaguered



Even in wartime, the Jewish people did not want innocent people to be

accidentally killed, therefore, a means of escape must be provided. Ranban too agrees

that life is of overriding importance requiring that one have mercy on one’s enemies as

they would have mercy on one’s own.


In response to these sages, more recent

commentators have extended these thoughts to the issue of collateral damage.

Rabbi Michael Broyde noted that "Jewish law would allow the unintentional

killing of civilians as a necessary (but undesired byproduct) of the moral license of



Rabbi Bleich agrees with this sentiment. He asserts that "no . . . Rabbinic

source takes cognizance of the likelihood of causing civilian problems in the course of

hostilities legitimately undertaken as posing a Halachic or moral problem."


In the

context of war, it would seem that inadvertent civilian deaths would be permissible when

the goals themselves of war are legitimate.

Israel then has Halachic sanction for collateral damage sustained during the

course of normal wartime responses. In the realm of hand to hand combat and responses

to actual attacks, Israel’s inadvertent civilian deaths caused are morally, and legally,

permissible. When situations such as the recent fighting in Jenin are considered, this is

viewed as legitimate:

On April 2, 2002, in response to multiple suicide bomb attacks and

knowledge of terrorist planning and preparation, The IDF entered Jenin

in order to round up militant terrorists. Jenin, the home of top Islamic

Jihad officers, was a haven of terrorist activity. The IDF had specific

targets in mind, top Islamic Jihad terrorists known to have planned and

committed numerous atrocities, killing many Israelis. Seeking merely to

take captive the terrorists, Israel knew at least some violence was likely.

It turned out that even the mild hopes of minimal violence would turn

out to be wishful thinking. Violent fighting broke out between the

Palestinian militants and the IDF troops. 

Sheinerman's Blood Lust kick into full gear

Many of the residents of Jenin

fled, while others opted to stay. The IDF stopped no civilian from

leaving the territory, in fact they encouraged them to do so. 

Then shot them in the backs 

However, in

the nine days of fighting, 22 civilians who stayed were killed when used

as human shields by Palestinian terrorists or caught in the crossfire of the

gunfire between terrorists and IDF troops.


In the case of Jenin, and similar instances, Israel followed the law as laid down by

Maimonides, (Not the WORD of GOD) permitting and encouraging civilians to flee the field of battle. Yet, for

those who stayed, knowing the circumstances, and that fighting is ongoing, they are no

longer considered innocents under Jewish Law, but have changed their status to that of


Ooooh ooooh I know the answer to this one rabbi

But if they left they would have no homes for it would be justified that they were a Possible Advantage to destroy


Warning of impending attacks, using even bullhorns and public displa



Page 25



to encourage civilians to leave dangerous areas are just part of the responsibility that

Israel has undertaken in their quest to eliminate civilian casualties. However, would we

distinguish between these civilians, killed in the hand to hand combat, from those who

are killed because of their proximity to a terrorist assassinated by guided missiles,

targeted bombs, and other similar means?

On its face, these deaths would seem to be distinguishable. The Jewish tradition

discusses the field of battle. After all, those who remain in the field of battle are

"classified as combatants because the opportunity to leave is continuously present."



would seem then that one who is killed by the mere circumstance of being nearby to a

terrorist target would fall outside of the realm of permissible collateral damage.

However, that is not the case when dealt with from the perspective of this war.

The commentators discussing the field of battle only dealt with traditional war

fought on the battlefield. It is not so clear when we are dealing with a war that cannot be

fought in an organized manner. We have defined the field of battle in this war as being

unconfined, unbounded, and unknown to the public.

Deja joo of the Busheviks


 The streets and homes themselves

are military targets because of their occupants. After all, it is from there they do all of

their planning, and some of their attacking. By judging the terrorist actions to be an act

of war, the terrorists, wherever they are, are deemed on the extended battlefield.



occupants with them, with few exceptions, have been associates of these terrorists who

knew full well the dangers and the possibility that an attack could come at any moment.

Even in the case of Saleh Shehada


, the civilians killed, including children, were

members of his own family.


Yet it was known that he traveled with his family in order

to make himself less of a target. In fact, he was known to never sleep in the same place

for more than a single night. So were those members of Shehada’s family in the

line of

fire? Not only would we consider them to be in the field of battle but it was Shehada

himself who had put them there. He attempted to use his own family as a human shield.

Just as the Jewish people would have sanction to kill a commander fighting in the plains

of Jericho even if his family was standing alongside him, Israel had moral sanction, when

other methods proved futile, to kill him despite the inevitable civilian casualties that

would, and did result.

Because the civilians killed are in the field of battle, has Israel abided by the

Halachic limitations on permissible collateral damage? While Israel has an obligation to

limit collateral damage, the deaths that due result in lawful fighting are permissible under

the Halacha. While some specific instances could prove questionable or even show

liability, we must judge Israel’s actions on the whole to determine if any breach of

Halacha sanction has occurred. We do know that Israel has encouraged civilians to leave

the field of battle, encouraged the Palestinian people to stay away from known and

wanted terrorists, and have used many safeguards to prevent civilian casualties. While

the Palestinian people have some cause to complain over the approximately 400 civilians

killed, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is below the number of Jewish civilians

killed, many of the civilians were killed during traditional fighting, many Palestinian

civilians killed have been later found to be terrorists themselves (or children and


Page 26



teenagers attacking Israeli troops), and the remainder are justified in order to save further


Rock throwers

Judging actions against terrorism to be an act of war proves to be a difficult task.

Now make up you satanic mind

The Intifada has many components, some which mimic traditional battlefield encounte


while others seem far removed from any classic definition of war.


For that reason it is

difficult at best to understand responding to terrorism solely as an act of war. While that

Talmud provides invaluable advice on how to approach these problems, the sages can in

no way have foreseen how warfare, and terrorism, would be waged in the 20th century.

Yet they depend upon their long dead rabbi's and Not the God of heaven who said Do not kill. Murder begats Murder

It is my contention that many of the facets of this conflict may be correctly viewed, and

justified, under the laws of war. These would include the legitimacy of acting at all,

engaging in assassinations of military leaders, and having Halakhic sanction to permit a

minimal amount of collateral damage. In comparison, other actions taken by the

government, including deportations, certain killing of terroris

ts, and destruction of

property in many circumstances are not correctly viewed as acts of war, nor can they be

justified as such. Therefore, only by further analyzing this conflict using other aspects of

the Halacha can Israel’s actions against terrorism be fully justified.

OK People now they move in for the Complete Talmudic Olam Hoodlum haha Kill of satan's vision


III. Responding to Terrorism as a Criminal Act

By responding to terrorism under criminal law, Israel would be forced to treat

terrorists in a similar manner that they do other criminals. Some of the components of

terrorism including the political purpose, the organization, and the intent to put fear in the

populace must be functionally disregarded and the State must instead apply the rule of

law to these terrorists.

SEE Bushkevik's Homelandt "SAY" Kurity and their Darpa Prgrommes, Patriot AKTS


However, justifying government actions in response to these

activities requires an analysis of analogous acts that the sages have discussed throughout

the centuries.

To discuss responses to terrorism under criminal law, this paper will analyze the

following: (1) Is terrorism a criminal act; (2) How should Palestinian t

errorists be

punished under the criminal law and what law should apply to them; (3) What is the

court’s jurisdiction to impose criminal law; and (4) Can the government responses to

terrorism, assuming they are criminal acts, be justified.

A. Is Terrorism a Criminal Act?

Are acts of terrorism, and responses thereto, correctly treated under the criminal

laws defined in the Talmud? The specific actions taken by terrorists have been

traditionally treated under the criminal law. From random murders and bomb

ings to

stone throwing, the acts of terrorism undertaken by the Palestinians facially appear to be

criminal acts. Because the acts themselves are taken not under the authority (at least not

publicly stated authority) of a state, and the members are not a member of any recognized

military force, criminal law would seem to be the correct measure with which to judge

these acts.


Page 27



The key difference between criminal and military actions is the distinction

between public and private acts. Because the terrorist actions do not have explicit public

sanction, they would be viewed as criminal acts. This seems even more true when the

terrorists are actually citizens of the country they are attacking. In the case of the Israel-

Palestinian conflict, this distinction is less clear because the Palestinians are not citizens

of the state of Israel. The terrorist actions taken may be viewed as private acts, although

this is not as clear as it would seem. If we placed terrorist acts on a continuum between

acts of war and criminal acts, it would seem that acts of terrorism would fall in the

middle. The question is then whether terrorist acts would be more akin to the criminal

acts than to acts of war; it would not be difficult to see them as such. In the same vein

that terrorist acts have been viewed to be quasi-military acts,

Here they come with their Universal Laws of Noahide People.....wake up....be alert....listen...... understand.


we could also see them as

quasi-criminal acts and thus viewed under the criminal laws of the Halacha.

The key questions in analyzing terrorist acts under criminal law involve the rules

that govern criminal acts as opposed to the rules that govern the State’s response to

criminality. So when is something a crime? In the Halacha, crimes are identified

explicitly. These crimes have been extended through Talmudic interpretations and the

application of common law in the Jewish Law system. From laws governing murder to

commercial transactions, the Halacha delineates what constitutes a crime in Jewish Law.

Most of the crimes in American law parallel their counterpart in Jewish law. There is,

however, a larger emphasis on civil law and restitution that would entail many of the

crimes that are described in American law to be punishable by restitution and civil

penalties rather than penal sanction. Furthermore, unlike a secular system, the laws of

obligation in Jewish law specifically prohibit certain acts and prescribe a duty to engage

in others. The affirmative act/omission dichotomy dominates how Jewish law treats

criminal acts.

For the purposes of this discussion, describing terrorist acts, the acts for which

terrorists are complicit are crimes under the Halacha. Murder, stone throwing, planting

bombs, abetting murder, etc. would all be individual crimes under the Halacha.

Therefore, the individual acts that terrorists engage in are criminal a

cts and Israeli

government responses may be treated as responses to those acts.

B. Punishing Terrorists Under Criminal Law

One of the difficulties in analyzing terrorist actions under the Halacha is that

Halachic law does not apply to non-Jews. 

Get ready..............you are ABOUT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY HAVE DONE


While we must gauge Israel’s actions under

Jewish law, how do we handle Palestinian actions? Throughout history, Jews have

treated gentiles (non-Jews) under a different standard of law.


In order to determine

how we can correctly assess the culpability as well as appropriate sanctions for terrorism

under criminal law, I will discuss (1) What is the correct law that applies to Palestinian

Terrorists; (2) What are the Palestinian obligations under that set of laws; and (3)

Whether Israel has the ability, and/or the obligation to impose punishment on


1. Law Applicable to Palestinian Terrorists


Page 28



What Law is applicable to Palestinian terrorists? Jews are judged under the

Halacha. The Torah states: "Judges and officers shall you make in all your gates . . . and

they shall judge the people with righteous judgment."


Rabbi Nissim ben Reuven

Gerondi (Ran) commented that Israel, unlike other nations, is required to "render just and

true judgment" and only then will "divine grace will be visited upon our p




comment illustrates that Jews are judged under a different standard than are other

peoples. As Rabbi Bleich notes, Judaism posits a parallel legal code that is binding on all

humanity, the Noahide Code.


So there you have it, and that is what all of it is about, making all seventy so-called Goyim Nations Obedient Goyim Universal Noahides who if they worship Jesus the Christ will become 'Terrorist" to the shem gods of their satanic shem sham, these will be called anti-Shemites....."TERRORIST...Amalekites who seek the destruction of the shem gods


The Noahide code describes the seven commandments that were binding on the

sons of Noah: the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, sexual offenses, bloodshed, theft,

and eating the flesh of a living animal as well as the affirmative obligation of dinim, to

establish courts.


House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14 the 102nd Congress of the United States, 1991, signed by Pro Tempor Senator Byrd and the papa of geroge w. Bushkevik the Grand son of Prescott Bushkevik the financer of the Blavatsky student of Talmudic Quabalah....Hitler.......disguised as "Education Day, USA.....No child left behind....all given to the shem gods and their false Moshiach ben satan their false Messiah



Rabbi Bleich notes that these laws are applicable to all mankind.

All who oppose the shem god's sham are "Terrorist" defined by the New Laws of the United States of greater ISREALHELL.....to be decapitated according to their commentators the rabid rabbi's of hell and their god whom they have made the god of this flesh hoodlum haha..........satan


While these laws differ from obligations under Jewish law, Rabbi Kook states that while

the Halacha as administered to Jews is based on the Torah, the Noahide laws are based on

"fundamental human honesty."



Some commentators have expanded on the Noahide laws inferring greater

requirements than just the facial prohibitions. 

and they will expand unto extinction of mankind


Nahmanides found that many of the

Halachic laws including those as pertaining to extortion, commercial transactions, rape

and seduction, overreaching, and personal injuries among others also apply to the

"descendents of Noah."

so you have seen the Prosecution of American Corporations under this new regime. And you aint seen nothing yet, wait until that raiser of Rich man Taxes comes in this years election at the ending of the seventy weeks



He notes that these obligations are inherent because human

society, even prior to the Revelation at Sinai, followed many established legal norms.


Despite the expansion of the Noahide code as it pertains to non-Jews, it has been

noted that the Noahide code is less restrictive than the Halacha. In criminal law,

punishment may be imposed by a court using testimony from a single witness and the

court may be composed of a single judge.


Rabbi Kook asserts that the laws don’t

follow the same stringent standards of the Halacha because they "are rooted in common

decency, an affinity for justice . . . in everyday matters, an abhorrence of blatant evil . . .

common to all men on earth" and not in the holiness of the Torah.

Yep we have just seen what the intentions are in this Jew World Order of the wars on Terrorism, what is good for the shems aint good for the shams



In sum, the laws of Noah provide that apply to non-Jews are the natural law

inherent in mankind.


see Judge Roy Moore's shem, sham fight of empty eloquence of his Monument of the Ten Commandments which also stated these "natural Laws" to be binding on all mankind


The Torah views that all men must be governed by some laws.

While less restrictive, the Noahide law still provides a way to ensure that non-Jews may

be governed and punished in a Jewish legal system. 

Exactly what the jews did in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution, just before annihilating 50-100 million Christians in their HOLY-COST 

The common sense approach to

creating these laws shows that all people should have the internal desire to affirmatively

do certain acts and more importantly, not engage in those acts that are "blatant evil."

Duties and Obligations -v- Inherent God Given Sovereign Rights to Personal Freedom of the Declaration of Rights, But to be yoked to their godhoodhoodlum haha and their god of this world their Beast they are about to "REVEAL" soon at the END of this seventy weeks of the Last Days


All non-Jews, in fact all people on earth (including Jews), must abide by the Noahide


Yet their are No penalties of death by decapitation to a jew who breaks any one of these Talmudic Universal Noahide Laws unto their shemhood


The Halacha incorporates the Noahide law, so these laws would apply to Jews as

well, but in many cases are more stringently defined for the Jewish people.

They water down the penalties they conceal with total deception.........wait where did this satanic bastard of hell began?????? Oooooh I know....On the Palestinian Problem

Because the Palestinians are defined in Jewish law as "descendents of Noah" they

must abide by the Noahide code. All the restrictions, obligations, and requirements

inherent in the Noahide laws would, and should, apply to the Palestinians. Because these


Page 29



laws are less restrictive than Halachic standards, applying the Halachic standards would

be incorrect.

because the goyim of the world are not as superior as the shem god who will rule over them


Furthermore, while it would seem that Jews are applying a system of laws

on the Palestinians, these laws in fact "bind all humanity" and the Palestinians are treated

no differently than any other group.


see how easily they moved from Killing the Palestinians who refuse the zionist plan, to "Terrorism, to Assassination, to Amalek to any and all mankind who oppse them and their hoodlum haha of satan and his son of perdition their Moshiach ben Satan their soon to be "revealed False Christ who will come in his own name to his god of forces?


The purpose behind enacting the Noahide code is

that law governs man, and all men must be governed by some law in order to ensure that

there is no lawless society. 

Now go you sleeping apostates and read www.samliquidation.com/protocolstoday.htm



So too, the Jewish nation, like all nations, must have some

standard with which to apply to non-citizens in order to correctly implement their own

standards on those with whom they have contact. By applying the Noahide code on the

Palestinian terrorists, we can correctly ascertain the degree of culpability and the proper

punishment for those who violate the law.

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin


Folio 56a


GEMARA. It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he 'blesses' the Name, by the Name.2  Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord … when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.3  How do you know that the word nokeb4  [used in the Hebrew] means a 'blessing'? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob]5  whom God hath not cursed;6  whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God.7  But perhaps it means 'to pierce,'8  as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob]9  a hole in the lid of it,10  the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?11  — The Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other.12  But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name. But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu]13  by their names;14  the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God?15  — Firstly, the Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.16  An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob17  [and cursed],18  proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?19  You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed,20  and not 'him that hath blasphemed and cursed', proving that one offence only is alluded to.

Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.21  It would have been sufficient to say], 'A man, etc:' What is taught by the expression any man?22  The inclusion of heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.23

Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.24  — R. Isaac the smith25  replied; This phrase ['any man'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name,26  and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.27  Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death?28  Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. Whence do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included [in this law]? From the verse, Any man that curseth his God — shewing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]: this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name, is punishable by death: with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction. [but not punishable by death].

This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a heathen [son of Noah] blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name, he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death. Why so? — Because it is written, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death].29  This teaches that only the stranger [i.e.. a proselyte], and the native [i.e., a natural born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the heathen is punishable even for a substitute only. But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land'? — It teaches that the stranger and citizen are stoned, but a heathen is decapitated. (Goyim Gentile) For I would think, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]: hence we are taught otherwise. Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land', on the view of the Rabbis?30  — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?31  — The Torah employed normal human speech.32

Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;33  to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.34



2. Obligations of Palestinians Under the Noahide Code

The Palestinians, like all other peoples, have obligations under the Noahide code.

These obligations are separated in two main components, the prohibitions under the law

including the prohibition against murder and theft, and the affirmative obligation of

dinim, to create a just legal system.


I will describe the requirements of Noahide

commandments by showing the obligations under the laws of Noah and how these

obligations have been upheld or defied by the Palestinians.

The Talmud describes the six negative commandments of the Laws of Noah as

prohibiting (1) murder; (2) blasphemy; (3) theft; (4) sexual immorality; (5) idolatry; and

(6) eating the flesh of a living animal.


For the purposes of this discussion, and

acknowledging that the Palestinians are Muslims, the requirements of blasphemy, sexual

immorality, idolatry, and eating the flesh of a living animal are upheld by the Palestinian

society. These too are the requirements that many secular societies do not see as

unlawful. The prohibitions of murder and theft, though, are universal in their acceptance

by the peoples of the world.

The other main requirement of the Noahide code is the requirement of dinim

(laws). Dinim refers to the requirement of nations to impose a set of laws to create a

"just legal system" in order to create an orderly society.


House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14 102nd Congress of the United States of Greater whoredom....1991


Rahum Nakover asserts that

"just as the Jewish People are commanded to establish courts, so too are the descendents

of Noah required to establish courts."


This requirement is due to the emphasis that the

Torah places on establishment of a legal system. As Rabbi Jacob Anotoli notes, the

requirement of dinim is imperative because "wholeness cannot be attained until men are

possessed of regulations that govern social discourse."

Talmudic Judaic Communism, Communitarianism of Universal Noahidism


As Maimonides remarked,

requiring dinim would ensure that "the world would not be destroyed."

Or else we will nuke it with World Wars and 450 Nuclear weapons we possess saith the nation of the shem shams, who seek to do the lust of their father the murderer since the beginning. Who is responsible for ALL who were slain upon the earth, who killed the prophets of God and Crucified the Lord Jesus the Christ and slew his disciples and his saints


The Talmudic sages have also noted that the requirement of dinim was not just to

create a legal system but a just legal system. 

Just only to the shem gods

As Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) explained:

"Noahides are commanded to keep the local conventions, and to judge justly between

man and stranger."


This point is further underscored by the comments of Rabbi A.Y.

Karelitz (Hazon Ish) commenting that "the Noahides became obliged to establish laws of

honesty and right behavior."


Christians of the TRUE Christ Jesus already have these traits thank you....you must be talking of the seed of greed creed the mammonites you have created the "Judeo-Churchizionian's of the Scofield cult....foah onlay 30 pieces of silver you too can buy them and their Loyalty...and geeave thaem the exclusive WORD of you Gawd, so hep me allelujah and ameeeeeean.


Only by enacting laws that lead to a just society can the

Noahide pursuit of justice be maintained.

"Persuers" of Justice




Page 30



Maimonides noted that the unstated requirements necessary in a legal system are

embedded in the requirement of dinim.


Further, the obligations of dinim do not just

require the appointing of judges but the laws of dinim include such matters as theft and



A dissenting voice can be heard by Rashi as he understood the laws of

dinim to be not even the enacting of laws but just the appointment of dayanim and

shofetim (judges and priests).


As Rahum Nakover explains, this is because Rashi felt

that only by appointing judges can the commandments be promulgated throughout the


See the usefull Yid-Iots of Freemason who run their captain kangaroo courts today....go to a court house nearest your blind carcase and see the evil they do....come to Baldwin County Alabama and go to Judge Robert aka Freemason Wilters courhouse and have a ball at the evil they do to the God Loving People.... see our "re-Puppet-Kin Neo Conservative appointed Prosecutor run roughshod on the poor and the widows...Wein stein...now known as David Whetstone


By appointing a system of judges, who adjudicate over the land, and do so to

create a just society, with the pursuit of justice, the Palestinians would fulfill the

requirement of dinim as handed down to Moses at Sinai.

and become obedient slaves to the master race shems of the shem sham of satan the serpent their seed bearer


The Palestinians must abide by the Noahide prohibitions against murder and theft

in order to be free of blame in the ongoing conflict. 

If you do not bow to their beast you to will be the blame....the "Terrorist" see Homelandt "SAY" Kurity of the "Judeo Churchizionian AshKroft.......

If I silently disappear soon you will know the TRUTH and the TRUTH will MAKE....MAKE...not set....but MAKE you FREE and you shall free forever more stand firm in the Witness of Jesus the IAM and have Everlasting Life with him in His Kingdom which is not of this world

While there have been relatively few

reports of stealing and theft related to the Intifada, the prohibition against murder weighs

heavily in the forthcoming discussion when specific acts are analyzed according to

Jewish law principles.

ONLY to the JOOISH Principle...ONLY to the shem sham gods Principles of their satanic Talmud bavli......WE...They...THEM...US....why we are god's


 By committing acts of murder, the Palestinians are liable under

Jewish law to be penalized under Halachic criminal law.

Collectively unless they SUBMIT to the BORG


Despite the acts for which they are liable under the Halacha, have the Palestinians

fulfilled the biblical commandment to appoint Dayanim or, similarly, impos

e a set of just

laws? There is no dispute that, at least recently, the Palestinian Authority has created a

court system and imposed a system of laws which, at least facially, appears to meet the

requirements of dinim. But have these laws led to a just society? Have their laws been in

the pursuit of honesty and right behavior? The Palestinian Authority basic laws have not

been put in final form but an International team of lawyers drafted a set of laws so that

they may have a just society.

Yep see Noah Feldman the Talmudic jew



To date, though, the Palestinian Authority has not

enforced these laws in a manner as required to be judged to have fulfilled their Noahide


People I have warned you for five years what the Lord warned about over two thousand years ago. The Word of God warned about the Leaven of these Chassidic Pharisees and their oral traditions which would deceive all of mankind except for the elect. The Only reason for the WTC was to implement the Purim Palestine and the enforcement of these talmudic Noahide Laws to yoke all of mankind. The War on Afghanistan and Iraq was a cover up for the shem god's to secure their Universal Noahide Laws upon the Palestinians and then upon the US and the rest of the World. The Talmudic Communistic Communitarian scheme, the Capitalist Scheme and the Socialist Scheme was to create the synthesis of the ONE world Super Power the United States of Greater ISREALHELL to implement and enforce the laws which would cause as many who did not believe the Truth in all Righteousness, that Jesus the Christ is not the same as the Father and he and his Father are ONE, that they would fall for the fables of the leaven of these shem gods and would worship after their beast their "REVEALED" Moshiach. Well it is upon us...and Most of the World lead by the mammonite's are unaware.

Take everything which you read here, regarding the "Terrorist" and the Palestinian's becoming obedient Goyim Noahide's unto their god the "Judeo" god and Know, that you have been deceived.

Repent, Now....Immediately for the time is drawn night, for the Son of perdition , their Messiah, who is no Christ, but a mere flesh king they cry to have over them and over all the earth, and his temporary kingdom of the useless flesh is here and now.

Get away from those mammonite's of Talmud Bavli, them whose god is money, these Hagee's Crouch's, Copeland's, Fall-Well's Perry Stone's, Jake's, all the Babylonian Network wolves in sheeps clothing and return to the ONLY IAM Christ Jesus. Get away from that zionist god the Judeo-Churchizionian god of the jews who has no only Begotten Son, and return to your first Love if you ever knew HIM, Jesus the Christ sent By the Father for Salvation to as many as would believe.

You who are in Judea, Repent, and ask Jesus of Nazareth to forgive you your sin, take him into your heart, believe that He is the God of Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, for the anti-Christ, false Christ is upon you and seeks to devour you and your families.....you too are deceived...REPENT in the Name of Jesus the Christ of the Prophets of God, the Lamb according to the Promise, and have everlasting Life, and not everlasting damnation.

I know you are there, I know you are reading, have an ear, check what I am telling you, seek and search and understand, that your leaders who have seated themselves upon the seat of Moshe have lead you into error and into the abyss, where there will be gnashing and gnawing of teeth and eternal damnation.

They worship Lucifer and they know it, for he has lied to them and they think they will share in his kingdom, but they know not that it is a temporary Olam Hoodlum haba of the flesh which profit's man nothing, New World Satanic Order".

If you want, e-mail me, call me....come and let us talk of Life abundantly. We, of Jesus of Nazareth seek to slay no man ever, but you have been deceived. We are not bringers of death for the Lord told us it is not in our Power, but we are the bringers and preacher's of Life abundant.

Look and listen, how your rabbi's seek to slay all Goyim, their word for non-shem's who do not bow and worship them, who seek to behead us all who do not worship them the shem god's of satan

They call you lesser jews who they must control.....Repent wake now the time is short, when you see that abomination which causes desolation that false Messiah come in his own name stand in the Place of the TRUE Christ Jesus, know the time is up, and he seeks to devour you like a ravening lion.......for he hates all mankind. Search the scripture the Torah and the Tenakeh for it testifies of Jesus the Lamb of God. get ye away from the un-holy Talmud Bavli the fables of the Pharisees. Search the Word of God, for it too testifies of me and my brothers and my sisters, the saints of God who will be slain for our testimony that we held and stood firm. Know these things are to happen, and when you see them begin with their death by decapitation, know then that your time is very short, and if you have not received Jesus the Only Christ, then you are damned eternal.

YOU and the Chassidim Chabad Lubavitch are in Contempt of the Living God and are again warned of the doom and damnation of the covenant that you have made with death and hell.

I stand firm in the Mighty Name of Jesus of Nazareth the Lamb of God, this date June 4, 2004 AD of Our LORD with my testimony, sealed by my Lord God. 

Remember there is no greater love, than a man lay down his life for his friends, will you come and be my friend in Christ Jesus?

All of you nay sayers who have fallen for the master race shem god's, you too are in contempt and blaspheme the name of the Living Word, Jesus the LORD. Repent for you are in damnation and blaspheme him who is neither jew nor greek, but the Creator.



A multitude of violations of even their own laws have been decreed by various

international organizations. From lack of enforcement in the realm of intellectual

property and pirated media,


arbitrary arrests,


political prisoners,


to the imposition

of capital punishment (Decapitation Sanhedrin 57a.)


the Palestinian Authority has become a den of lawlessness not

enforcing even their own basic laws. The Palestinian Authority may have the infamous

distinction as the country with fewer capital punishments imposed by the court then have

defendants standing trial for capital crimes be murdered during the proceedings.



the Human Rights Watch, which regularly decries Israel’s use of "extreme" violence, has

found numerous instances of accused collaborators being sentenced to death in court

sessions lasting less than 90 minutes with no right to appeal.


Israel too has rejected the

trial of the Palestinian terrorists who killed the Israeli Defense Minister, Rehavem Zeevi,

when they were sentenced to one year in prison.

Of course you have, for they slew a shem god and if a goy does that Death by decapitation.....must get those laws in place immediately the goyim nations are waking.............Oh how these little men god's are in complete fear


These examples illustrate that it is

clearly disputable whether the Palestinian Authority has enacted dinim to the standards

required by the Halacha.

*Beth Din or synagogue or councils of Talmud Bavli the oral tradition of the Illuminated "Masters" of satan the chief Illuminated Phosphorus One who has transformed himself to an angel of life that Tetragramatron their god....and they intend to deliver those who refuse them,  to be afflicted and slain.................you were warned two thousand years ago....comprehend?

This is not the Christ of Life abundant, but a false Christ, who will do the lust of his father who is a murderer since the beginning...their god the god of the shem sham hoodlum ha ba their new world satanic order


Page 31



In comparison, other countries have enacted just laws that parallel closely not

only the Halacha, but international law standards as well.

See the Bushkevik Talmudic Treason of Satan his God and the shem god of ALL the traitors of Congress, and ALL who are now in Congress and HIM who is NOW in the whorehouse of Lucifer. These are Murderer's and are in Contempt of the Living God, and all who follow them are in damnation......are you one of these "Judeo-Churchizionian's of the shem gods?


Public Law 102-14 -
102d CONGRESS, 1st Session -
H. J. RES. 104 -



To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day , U.S.A. '.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Because the shem gods will destroy the earth by nuclear war if the nations do not bow to their godhood of hoodlum haba, their "New World Odour" BUSH is DAN, PEOPLE wake up...Nebuchednezzer was DAN...wake up

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe,' this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving,' the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A. '. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Every Elected Official in the UNITED STATES are NOW traitor's to the Constitution FOR the UNITED States of America...of the PEOPLE..BY the People and for the People...NOT ONE....not even one is left out of contempt and treason....not one, unless they shout the treason on Capitol Hill in the Whorehouse...........................Every Bar Mitzvah so called attorney and every Freemason Judge in this nation are traitors to the Christ Believers who are left and are now alive. EVER SINGLE ONE are in contempt of the laws of this Christian NATION....every zionist Churchizionian of the shem's are in contempt and Blaspheme the Name of ALL names, Jesus the IAM the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY the ALPHA and the OMEGA 

The war is own and the Soldiers of Jesus the Christ are on the front, where are you? are you in fear of the shem gods and their god and have sided with Darkness and satan? Who will not stand but hope to flee the evil to come? Who are not those that Jesus Prayed to the Father THAT HE NOT TAKE THEM FROM THE WORLD BUT THAT HE DELIVER THEM FROM THIS EVIL.

Are you one of those apostate lukewarm's of Scofield's Dispen-satan-alism of the "secret rapture Doctrine, who was snared into complacency so the shem gods could pull the shem sham without objection in Amaraka OF THE BUSHKEVIK GODSHIP?


 Examples of these countries

would include most of the countries in the world, including Israel.

the seventy GOYIM nations?

 It must be noted that

very few, if any, countries have legal systems that parallel the Halacha or international

law standards exactly and they all have some of their own "spin" on enacting a "just

law." However the only way to determine whether a system is in fact just and lawful is

to gauge the system on the whole.

My contention is that the Palestinian Authority legal system does not meet the

requirement of dinim. Words such as corrupt, arbitrary, and inconsistent dominate the

discourse on the Palestinian Authority legal system. The Palestinian Authority has not

effectively prosecuted criminals nor enforced the laws they have enacted. So the

question becomes whether Israel has the ability or the obligation to enforce the Noahide

laws on the Palestinians.

Well of course they do, after-all Bushkevik has given the ok....BUT beware this king of the North, and Arik Sheinerman of the south sit at one table and deceive each other while they vie for that whore city Jerusalem. YOU ARE WARNED BY THE LIVING LORD GOD


3. Ability and Obligation of Israel to Enforce the Noahide Obligations

There is a dispute in the Halacha over whether there is an obligation or just the

mere ability to enforce the Noahide laws. Some commentators even dispute that the

Jewish people can enforce laws of dinim at all. Rabbi Gershuni points out that Jews do

not have an obligation to bring a non-Jew to justice.


He does not, however, limit the

possibility that Jews may bring a non-Jew to justice.

Assassination squads sent to America......CIA say's.....so what



Comparatively, Rabbi Gershuni

understands Maimonides to say that in cases of capital crimes, a Jew does have an

obligation to impose the death penalty on non-Jewish transgressors.

Remember any who oppose them are called "Terrorist" by these Talmudic satanic standards and say we seek to kill a jew shem god because we oppose them. We are called anti-Shem's and the Judeo-Churchizionian's of these shem gods who worship the creature more than the creator, The true Christ Jesus, who say their god is the same as them who crucified Jesus the Christ....also call us who oppose their Hoodlum haha...anti-shems AND "HATERS" when in fact it is they who hate the jews for they agree with the jews that they need not Jesus but have another covenant, and it is these who deliver the jews to damnation eternal....are you one of these of the superior shem sham?



commentators (rabid rabbi's long dead in the ground who have nothing to do with these United States of America and our LORD Jesus the Christ)disagree on the obligations of Jews to judge the sons of Noah. Maharam

These laws have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WORD which condemn's them in blasphemy....let them quake and tremble, for their destruction against the seed of Abraham the Spiritual ISREAL in faith of Christ Jesus, is their own destruction soon...DO YOU HEAR GREAT WHORE.......IAM become the NEW troubler of that WHORE CITY, in Jesus Mighty Name. 

DO you hear president dan bush'ka...do you hear freemason Judges in the Talmudic Satanic system? Do you hear Liars who say you are Lawyers and deliver the poor and the widows houses to your god the "ROBBER"?

 Do you hear Judeo-Zionist who only give Lip service to a watered down version of Jesus the Christ? Do you hear you Pastor's in sheep's clothing you wolves of MAMMON? Do you hear you whoremongers and nay sayers who e-mail me your accusations every hour and every day? Do you hear apostates who DENY the NAME above all names for another name which is not JESUS the Christ but substituted with your Yid-dish Jesus who is not the LIGHT unto the GENTILE'S and whom we trust?

Come with your staves and your swords as if I am a thief in the night, but I have ever told you the TRUTH in the open.

Damn all of you who blaspheme the Name of the LORD of LORD and the KING of KINGS, come get me in your thirty pieces of silver to your mammon gods the shem's and let your lust begin for I will cry out, and when I am gone by your lust of your father the ROCKS of the EARTH will cry out at your evil you do and the blood that you have shed.

Shik finds that Jewish courts do have an obligation to bring Gentiles to Justice.

And Jesus the Christ will deliver you to the Day of JUDGMENT for all the Blood you have shed upon the earth in the name of your "ROBBER" you have chose and your children have chose, who are now made twice the children of hell

Woe unto you officer of the peace sworn to up-hold the Constitution FOR the United States of America, who now work for your Kestapo, running rough shod upon the POOR and the WEAK and the Widows who lock up your Prisoners and do not release them for your mammon god who are traitors against Jesus the LORD for you will be locked up forever in that PIT of Hell and death along with your shem gods who you serve.

Woe unto you Sheriff, who was the last vestige of Freedom of these United States sworn to uphold the Constitution for the People who put you where you are, who say that I, am an enemy, anti-Government, for you are right I am anti-Talmudic New World Odour stinking filthy Government which you are now a part in your treason. 

But Let me tell you IT IS NOT ME THE BRINGER OF DEATH, for I seek to slay NO MAN neither jew or greek, BUT I  AM become your Troubler in this Nation the Voice of MY LORD the WORD of GOD

Woe unto you you Prosecutors of Satan's Talmudic WORLD ODOR, for your inheritance is the PIT of the Abyss, you who prosecute the innocent for your rich influential mammonite's of the Greed elite of the shem god's, for yours is the Prosecution of the LORD God's Wrath on that DAY, and where will you flee when you are convicted.




notes that reason for this is that "judging transgressors, even descendents of Noah, is our

concern, for others will learn from any evil done in public and follow suit."


When they see the saints of Jesus the Christ decapitated...then they will bow and worship us and our god who has no Only Begotten Son Jesus of Nazareth.....our Moshiach ben Dovid, our son of perdition who will stand in the place of Christ as Christ shewing himself to be Christ, say the shem's....


He also

finds that any person within the jurisdiction of the Jewish nation is within the jurisdiction

of its courts.


The United States of America, Was made the TALMUDIC Jurisdiction of the jewish nation by treason 1991 by the 102nd congress

Follow closely how they snare the Judeo-Churchizionian's by their Collective Communitarian Laws of satan the murderer by "Justification" using the Written Word when convenient


This dispute may best be analyzed by recounting the biblical story of Shechem:

When Dinah, daughter of Jacob, went into the city Shechem to become

acquainted with her neighbors, Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite

took her and defiled her. He refused to let her leave. When he wished to

make her his son’s wife, Jacob upon confronting Hamor "held his

peace." While the people of Shechem, thieves themselves, knew of the

incident, they did nothing. They did not try Shechem nor did they

permit Dinah to leave. Tricking the people of Shechem that they would

make peace, Jacob and his sons convinced the people to join with the

Jews and abide by the laws. They convinced them to show that they will

become Jews they must circumcise themselves. 

Yoke themselves to their laws which make the WORD of God of none effect

Upon doing this, two of

Jacob’s sons, Simeon and Levi, went into the city of Shechem and slew all

the males and rescued their sister. Simeon and Levi attributed their act


Page 32



to the rampant criminality and lawlessness prevalent in the city

evidenced by the lack of culpability attributed to Shechem son of Hamor

and that no individual had done anything to prevent the act or rescue

Dinah afterward. It seems omniscient that this vein of lawlessness flows

through Shechem to this day where the ancient city of Shechem, now

known as Nablus, is considered a den of terrorist activity. 

a Perfect schech-me....almost...but failed at Calvary

Perhaps this

is why Shechem, and now Nablus has been cited as Makom muchan

l’furanut: A place predestined for misfortune.

"Perpetual Purim"


Some Commentators often cite the story of Shechem to understand how the

Noachide laws may be applied.

Collectively by Borg Communitarian, after all it takes a Village Yid-diot



They understand that even Dinah’s name comes from

the same root as dinim, meaning justice.

hahahahehehhhehhe Dinah won't you blow your horn

It has been asked though "how the righteous

sons of Jacob could spill innocent blood?"

If they were of Jacob, they would not, for Jacob believed the WORD of God and did not know him by the name of tetragramatron YWVH


According to Nahmanides, he understands

Maimonides to find that Simeon and Levi were obliged to punish the people of



It does appear, however, that Nahmanides expresses reservations that all the

people should be murdered.

Awh come now......1/6 is only 433,000 to go to get the lust of your father out of your satanic systems


Maimonides view would limit no such action as he states

"All the residents of the city were guilty, deserving of capital punishment. After all,

Shechem seized and raped Dinah; they saw it, they knew it, and yet did not bring him to



So if any stand firm for the Testimony of Jesus the Christ, whom they say commit blasphemy, and the Judeo-Churchizionian's do not deliver these to be afflicted and slain as per Talmud Bavli tractate 57A. then they too will be slain collectively. easy to see why they will think to do their god, the Judeo god a service when they deliver us to the synagogues and their Freemason Councils where the Freemason shem fearers rule, and they call courthouses in Amaraka, today................and they all stand in condemnation for the blood they shed 



His reasoning was simple, the Torah commands that the Jewish People have an

obligation: "you shall destroy the evil from your midst."

Evil in the same context that they delivered Jesus to be crucified


It is thus a difficult question. Do the Jewish people have an obligation to impose

laws on others? 

According to their god the "Robber" they do, after all they are the master race shem god's who under authority of their god they have made the god of this world, has given them his ok to carry on his Lust for the blood of all mankind 


May they inflict punishment without trial? 

of course they can...see the Bushkevik Regime of Talmud at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq

When could Israel then try

the Palestinians under the laws of Noah? As it applies to the Palestinians, the ability of

Israel to bring the terrorists to justice seems to be permitted.

Therefore see the evil that they do in these seventy weeks of the last days

Limits of judicial authority

are less simple to understand. Most commentators require that the Noahide laws are

upheld by the courts.



US President George W. Bush "sent greetings and applauded the institute for promoting an 'understanding of Judaism's rich tradition of legal thought. As we face new challenges and welcome new opportunities, our society must continue to promote good character and strong values. Through the study and teaching of Jewish law and philosophy you are contributing to a growing culture of service, citizenship, and responsibility in America,' Bush wrote

The occasion was a kosher dinner held at the US Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC by the National Institute of Judaic Law to celebrate the occasion of the Institute's founding. According to the Jerusalem Post, the purpose of the Institute is to teach Judaic law to US law students and jurists, and to file legal opinions in US courts. (44)





  This would mean that Simeon and Levi’s actions then would not be

permitted under Jewish law. 

In the US under Jurisdiction of greater ISREALHELL

This makes sense when we consider that the extreme Jewish

groups (CHAbad lubavitch) would use the story of Shechem to justify the actions of Baruch Goldstein, where

he opened fire in a mosque in Hebron, killing many Muslims.

Wonder why the Palestinians fight for freedom of the zionist?



However, the other

view would hold that the creation of a just society is so important that even mass murder

would be justified when the society is so corrupt that they do nothing to rein in


= Opposition to their shem sham Hoodlum haha.....If you ain't with us, then you must be against us, Homelandt "SAY"Kurity, Patriot AKT of the Reichstag of the Bushkevik order


Assuming an intermediate position, where Israel may impose punishment,

but cannot do so without individual culpability, we can gauge whether Israel’s responses

to terrorism are justifiable under criminal law.


See Amarakan Talmudic Criminal Law of Talmud bavli and the New Regime of the Homelandt SAYkurity enforcement of the Hoodlum haha of satan and his lacky's


C. Authority of the Court to Impose and Enact Criminal Law

In determining whether terrorist masterminds who send their emissaries to

perform their deadly tasks are liable, we must determine what requirements Israel must

undertake in order to impose the criminal law. Generally Jewish Law requires that one

who is to be put to death must be tried in a court of law. 

Due Process...who is to be put to death first....then Due process to establish that fact "to be put to death"


Does Israel comply with these

requirements? The issue becomes (1) What are the requirements for the court to impose

capital punishment; 

Decapitation of Goyim per Sanhedrin 57 a. of Talmud Bavli

(2) When may the court impose capital punishment without

following classic torah rules; and (3) are their any limitations on the ability of the court to

impose such punishment.


Page 33



As Maimonides stated, one who is liable for a capital crime "is liable to death . . .

upon judgment of the court."

BY ONE MATERIAL witness....false witness....by one Judge, no appeal


Classic Torah rules require two eyewitnesses in order to

impose capital punishment.

Only for a shem


The court also prescribed that capital punishment was

only to be invoked for one who directly killed another.


The terrorist actions would

suffice to meet the direct requirement.

Or even if they "Incited" and other became inflamed in error


The accused was also entitled to prior warning,

This nation was given sufficient warning 1991, HJR 104, Public Law 102-14 according to rabid rabbi's

if possible, from witnesses before the accused committed his crime.


Clearly, in the

context of assassinations, the accused is not tried in a court of law. 

Clearly why Sheinerman with the Bushkevik blessing would prefer to send assasination squads to Amaraka. Clearly why I was warned by a blue Lodge signet ring left in my public warehouse in 2003

Often these people

are not able to be brought before the court. So then how may the court go outside of

Biblical law (Babylical) in order to impose punishment?

Rabbi Judah ben Asher ("Rabbi Judah") declares that Jewish courts do not always

follow Talmudic rules in capital cases.

Neither do Amarakan Talmudic Courts....see Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq


Rabbi Elazar ben Yose agrees and finds that

punishment may be imposed as not provided for "even in the case of a zimzum


Bee of Assyria....Mithra, I guess


These extrajudicial punishments are permitted because there is an

"emergency clause" in Talmudic Jurisprudence that allowed for flexibility and

adaptability in the Jewish Legal system.

Thailand: Bush Should Press Thaksin on Extrajudicial Executions ...
Thailand: Bush Should Press Thaksin on Extrajudicial Executions, Burma.
(New York, June 9, 2003) -- President George W. Bush should ...



Various reasons for these emergency clauses

in criminal jurisdiction have been raised including : (1) To prevent vi

olation of the Torah;


(2) For the benefit of society; and (3) In emergency situations due to exigencies of the


Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated that "the court may impose punishment not

proscribed in the Torah – not to transgress the law but in order to preserve the Torah."

NOT TORAH the Written WORD but Mishnah Torah of the traditions of the Pharisees...the chassidim....the CHABAD LUBAVITCH, satan's Talmud Bavli the leaven of the Pharisees.....beware


This statement has been and shows that the intent was to safeguard the law in order to

preserve it from future transgressions. 

Of blasphemey of their god of forces the tetragramatron YVWH their god, the god of Judeo Churchizionist for the WITNESS of Jesus of Nazareth the Christ who they call in Talmud Bavli YESHU HA NOSTRI and say that he is in hell boiling in human excrement. If you do not worship their god, then you are to be put to death by decapitation for your transgressions of the shem sham on all of mankind.

Oh, go ahead and "HATE" me with your hate-crimes against Jesus the LORD, for your god's, I have gotten quite used to it, it is only because I tell you the TRUTH, that you hate me. I find that I am blessed for you hate me for the LORD's name sake....that name JESUS the Christ. I will never fall for your hegelian names in yid-iot, for that name Jesus of Nazareth is the Name above all names to me, who he came as a light unto the gentiles....and this gentile is ENGLISH speaking. Kep all of your hebrew names to your selves, for your ebers rejected the name and say Jeshu is an acronym for "May his name be blotted out".


As he continued, these enactments may be used

"to seep out evil from your midst."

This is how they will deliver my brothers and my sisters the saints to be slain. Satan's last enemy on earth are the saints of Jesus the Christ, all the rest worship the beast of zion


By permitting a court to violate the biblical (Babyly-cal)

commandments in order to prevent further transgressions, courts are granted a large

degree of autonomy in determining when these decisions may be made. 

Making their laws but not moving one finger to do them them selves


This assessment

is agreed upon by Rabbi Judah when he found that measures, even extreme measures,

may be taken by the courts in order to curb behavior that that is injurious to the Torah 

(TALMUD and the rabid Illuminated rabbi's....i.e, elohim....the gods....the judges

therefore harming the Jewish people.

All about shem's the superior master race gods over all goyim on earth



By permitting the court to deviate from the

Halacha (YOKE of TALMUD) and rule contrary to it, (SLAY AT WILL) courts may lawfully render decisions and impose

punishments that depart from the law.

By the law, but not according to their law, by the will of one freemason judge obedient to the shen gods and their Moshiach


In addition to imposing punishments to safeguard the Torah, (Talmud Bavli) courts may also do

so for the benefit and welfare of society.

Get rid of them anti-Shem godites, those believers in that spirit Lord, Jesus of Nazareth who we crucified for his blasphemy to our Tetragramatron


To fulfill the ultimate purpose of Jewish Law,

courts may even permit individual rights to suffer for the greater good of the


as they did and allowed with Hitlers Theosophic Quabalah training. The sacrifice for their flesh zion



The courts, though, would enact laws not to promote suffering but to

maintain law and order so that the courts could restore order to the community when in


see 911, the coup


Rabbi Judah explains the reason why courts have the power to make laws not in

the Halacha for the benefit of the community is because the judge is characterized as the

father in the community (Commune-itarian baa'l) and, in that role, is charged with maintaining law and order

through whatever means possible.

see Freemason Corrupt anti-Constitution, treasonous Judges across Amaraka today.



Another purpose correlated to the idea of

maintaining law and order is that extrajudicial punishment may have to be imposed n


Page 34



order to demonstrate the force of the law to the people. 

EXTRA JUDICIAL  assassination squads....see Police State of Homelandt SAY kurity of the Bushkevik REGIME by the Burning of the Reichstag WTC 2001 Sept, 11



As R. Yom Tov b. Abraham

Ashbili (Ritba) stated: "The people would hear (of the crime and punishment) and fear (to

commit such crimes). 

They would become obedient proselytes for fear of the jew shems, immediately and would stop at once in their support of their watered down Jesus, whom they only give seed of greed mammon creed to.


Also, the (person convicted) would no longer have (means) with

which he could continue to perform such an evil deed as this ever again."

For he would have no head with which to think of it?


By issuing

rulings to increase law and order, the judge would do so to better the community as a

whole even if the Halacha would have to be violated.

Who needs the Legislative branch when you have Judge Judy the Judge of the free world

The sages have also permitted the courts to have extrajudicial authority in

emergency situations.

The Freemason Judge calls up his freemason Chief of Police, the Chief of Police knows you are not obedient for you ain't a freemason Noahide, so he sends two jack booted thugs armed to the teeth displaying their Star of Moloch proudly upon their chest, that six pointed star which the fraternal of Police now sport, to your home, where they address you to come out, so they can Sodomize you then slay you in front of witnesses who will be critisised on Noahide News and Goy TV at TEN..Live 

 Even in biblical times the Sanhedrin was "empowered to deviate

from classical criminal procedure as an emergency measure."

Such as Jesus of Nazareth on GOOD Friday on Sabbath EVE


What would define an

emergency measure under Jewish Law? Rabbi Judah suggested that it was up to the

courts do determine what defined an emergency measure.

Thus they did on Sabbath eve breaking their laws of GOD even then....continuously and they will continue to do so for they are hypocrites


He further noted that the

exigent jurisdiction would apply based on "the needs of the hour" when there was an

urgent and pressing need to apply them.

Mt:26:55: In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.



Given then that judges may impose emergency jurisdiction when it is required by the

needs of the time, and it is up to the judges to decree such acts, the only remaining

question is how long these emergency measures may last. 

as long as a saint is alive and giving testimony of Jesus the Christ, and when the last is slain for the testimony that seventh angel will sound his trump, and the LORD will send his angels to harvest them from the earth. Then Tribulation which this world has never seen now ever will see again will fall upon them who slept in apostasy, He will come like a thief in the night, and they will not repent their blasphemy against Him the Everlasting Covenant Jesus the LORD and they shall be cast into the pit with death and hell for eternity

There are two views of this

concept: 1) a temporary measure and 2) a measure taken because the times demand it. A

temporary measure is defined by the rule from Deuteronomy 4:2 as "one taken for a

limited amount of time because a deviation may never be decreed for limitless time

because it would violate Torah law."

They only use the Bible for convenience to deceive the apostates of the leaven of the Pharisees, the Bushkevites of Judeo-Churchizionity the chinese dimestore american flag waiving "Patriots" of the shem god manufacturing



In comparison, Maimonides finds that a measure

taken because the times demand it does not limit the amount of time a measure may

extend as long as it is still required due to exigent circumstances.

AS LONG as needed to have the world whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of life bow and worship this son of Perdition their false Messiah, Moshiach ben satan of talmud bavli the perversion of lucifer


By analyzing how

the Talmud has treated situations in this sense we can understand how to apply these

rules in modern day Israel. The following exigent jurisdiction circumstance has been

discussed at length by the commentators: (Pharisaic rabbi's long dead, in their whited sepulchres)

"Once a man rode his horse on the Sabbath in the time of the Greeks. At

the time sinfulness was rife and obedience of the Torah was becoming

common. In response the judges decreed that he shall be stoned to death

so he was."

SIMPLE as that....so he was


In typical times, violation of the Sabbath would entail a just punishment, one

befitting such a violation. Yet in this case, the court decided that the man should be

stoned to death and the court adjudicated him so that he was. Why would the court

permit it? Rashi stated that he was stoned "because sinfulness was rife, for, seeing the

oppression and persecution of Israel by the Greeks, people were contemptuous of the


So they will simply be slain.....just as simple as that, any who oppose the shem gods....jus that easy to them whose father who is a murderer since the beginning


Rabbi ben Jacob when he made his comment about prescribing

punishment not permitted by the Halacha directly referred to this case because the

stoning of the man would help provide a deterrence from future violations of the

Torah. (TALMUD BAVLI MISHNAH TORAH the oral tradition which makes the WORD of God of none effect


This illustrates that even for relatively minor violations,


when the times

demand it, the courts may impose a harsher punishment than decreed by the Talmud.

Let them who have ears hear

In the case of Israel and their responses to terror, they have decreed that they are

in a "State of Emergency."


and the US of Greater whoredom have declared a "state of emergency"


The Black Commentator - Permanent War - Issue 14
George Bush has embarked on a strategy of permanent war abroad. The inevitable result
will be a permanent state of emergency within the borders of the United ...


So may the courts make judgments outside the bounds of


Page 35



criminal law? Following the three possible purposes in imposing extrajudicial

punishment, Israel would have Halachic authority to impose punishment that is outside

Jewish law.

Would Israel protect the Jewish people from violations of the Torah? 



Since the

Intifada began, violence by Jews against Arabs has risen dramatically. Many living in

Judea and Samaria have even rioted and lynched Arabs after attacks. These violations of

the Torah may be stopped by enacting harsh punishments to stop the violence that leads

to these acts. The courts may decide that assassinating leaders and stopping future

violence will prevent further violations of the Torah.



In the same sense, the judges may decree that for the benefit of society,

punishments disallowed by the Torah may be permitted. Is there a benefit to society by

these kinds of punishments? One can argue that these are used to maintain law and order

to better the welfare of society as a whole. 

a Communist Communitarian of Noahides

Besides the obvious deterrent factor of

assassinations, deportations, and destruction of homes, these may benefit society in other

ways as well. Assassinating a killer may save lives and would in fact impose the capital

punishment that would have been an obligation of the court had the terrorist been

available for capture or arrest.

NO DUE PROCESS see Bushkevik regime

 The threat of deportation may prevent a suicide bomber

and the destruction of a home could be one less base for terrorist attacks. 

and More room for Greater ISREALHELL and the elite of her Pimp

Thus, the

courts would have authority to impose these punishments for the benefit of society and

the maintenance of law and order.

Guillotine would certainly get those Judeo Churchizionian's passing the collection plate for the shem's now wouldn't it. Or will it? Perhaps satan will not snare as many as he hopes, maybe they are waking now, maybe the nations are getting angry for the whore's deceptions. BUT, If you are waking do not make Jerusalem your stumbling Block, do not seek to slay any of these, for the wrath belong's to the LORD, but pray for them that they too will awake from the long slumber and the err their leaders cause them.


The final purpose was in emergency situations. The emergency measure here

would be deemed to be of the second type as described by Maimonides that it is a

measure taken because the times demand it and is thus for a limitless amount of time.

Israel has undertaken some of these acts since the terrorists began to use unimaginable

methods to attack Israeli citizens. Are terrorist attacks as much an emergency as frequent

violations of the Sabbath? Besides that terrorist attacks cause constant violations of the

Sabbath because of the extra security required, the constant terror and murder would

easily be enough to impose extrajudicial punishment. When the people are being

attacked on a daily basis, living in constant fear, there are few who would argue that the

courts would not have the requisite authority to declare an exigent circumstance

permitting Halachic violation.

See "TERRORISM" in the USA...and understand why it is needed...it is needed to enact these satanic Talmudic measures to make the people obedient to the shem gods and their Moshaich ben Perdition


D. Government Responses to Terrorism as a Criminal Act

here come de Homelandt "SAY" Kurity

The responses of Israel in reaction to terrorism are not traditional responses in

international legal systems. However, there has never been a country that has been

consistently racked by terrorism, especially those with such disregard for their own lives

let alone others lives.

Ooooh...oooohhh I know...NOW there is and it first began in Amaraka and will spread unto the Orwelian Prolitarian Communitarian Noahide World...........Emmanuel Goldstein (Usama ben Laden) will lob those bombs from Oceania and Eurasia.......

How can a state that operates under a system of penal laws impose

those laws on a people who so openly defy them? Perhaps the well worn cliché

"desperate times call for desperate measures" would fit this situation. This, though, does

not solve the problem because Israel does operate under a structured penal code. For

years, Israel has punished crimes from murder to fraud when committed in the State.


Three strikes......yer out is the good-old days


Page 36


Israel Uses 'Chemical'
Ammo Against
Palestinians - Doctor

By Samer Khuwayera
IOL Correspondent
NABLUS (IslamOnline.net) - Israeli occupation forces are using a brand new chemically contaminated ammunitions to finish off Palestinian resistance fighters, a Palestinian doctor unveiled.
"The Israeli forces use chemical-contaminated ammo, which makes the skin of the victim fall once touched," Dr. Mohamed El-Hashim, of the Health Department in the West Bank town of Qalqiliya, told IslamOnline.net.
The Palestinian doctor cited Israeli-killed Mazen Yassin was the first case in point.
The 45-year-old leader of the Hamas military wing in Qalqiliya was shot by Israeli occupation forces while walking down one of the city's streets on May 20.
The Israeli soldiers fired one bullet at him, left him bleeding in the street and prevented civilians and ambulances from approaching him.
Two hours later, after using a Palestinian civilian to make sure he breathed his last, the Israeli soldiers removed the body, which was later handed to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
"A white-colored substance appeared on the lips of the deceased, an unprecedented thing I've never seen before," said Al-Hashim, who examined the body.
He said that Yassin was shot in the pelvis, an injury which he ruled could not lead to his death, noting that he did not even loose much blood.
"He could not die simply because of being hit in the pelvis, a bony funnel-shaped cavity which causes no intensive bleeding," averred the doctor.
"I have been examining dead bodies since 1987, and I have never seen this before. The skin was falling out upon touching any part of the body."
"The odds is that he was hit by a bullet contaminated with a chemical material that gradually killed him or that he was injected by other poisonous substance the Israelis used for the first time." said Al-Hashim.


Traditional purposes of punishment though, cannot be applied to the terrorists in

question. With a conscious disregard for life, an inability to care about personal penal

sanction, and knowledge that the government must operate within a framework of laws,

the Palestinian terrorists have maneuvered around the mainstay of the Israeli pena


system, possible imprisonment.

To find a way to deter terrorist acts, then, the government willingly assassinates

terrorist leaders, deports families of terrorists, and destroys their homes. These are now

justified under Israeli law. But how does Jewish law resolve this dilemma? In order to

understand how the Halacha can deal with these problems, Talmudic justification must be

found for assassinations and destruction of homes.


can you see America....can you see what they do? weep America, for what they do. Pray America for what we are become. Stand firm America against these murderers of the earth.


1. Justification to Assassinate Terrorists Under Criminal Law



Assassination is the preeminent method that Israel uses to combat terrorism at its


As with the Talmudic US...now days without Constitutional Due Process, No courts, No Jurors...Just pure Blood Lust, Welcome to the Home of the Brave and land of the Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. GAWD BLESS AMARAKA


 When Israel finds that individual terrorist leader’s whereabouts are known and

they are wanted by the authorities for planning murders of citizens, assassination may be

used to prevent their commission of further crimes.

see anti-shem-itic laws being made in US as was in Russia, where 50-100 million Christians were slain in the Talmudic Holy-Cost which has been covered up for 50 years but has now been revealed. See the Talmudic Megillah of the planted book of Esther, Easter, Isis, Ishatar, Astarte, Semiramis, Venus, the Queen of heaven and he cohort the High Priest of the Sanhedrin Mordechai, where the Talmud Bavli gave them license to slay the 70,000 goyim. The ONLY book, in the bible which makes NO MENTION of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...and many became jews for the fear of the jews.


 The easy way to get around with killing your non Soldier Enemies, enemy combatants 

 Jewish law, though, maintains

specific offenses for which one may be held capitally liable. How do we determine

whether assassinations should be permitted by the government of Israel?

Easy, just abide in the perversion's of Talmud Bavli of satan that evil tetragramatron........ooooops, did I just blaspheme your flesh god of your hoodlum haha?


 The analysis

begs the following questions: (1) When is one held liable for a capital crime; 

when the shem god's say? and nothing to do with US Legislation?

and (2)

What are the justifications for Israel to kill a terrorist.

Just name it? when they reach maturity the age of three and can throw a rock at a tank?

Talmudic law not only permits but requires the state to impose capital punishment

on transgressors of specific laws. 

can you be a little more specific shem?


While various crimes are capital crimes under Jewish

law, the only crime that is dealt with in this section is the biblical proclamation: "Thou

shalt not murder."

Which the shem's do not heed


Of course murder is a broad proposition.

of course

Direct, premeditated

murder of an individual is an easy case in Jewish law.

without due process by one witness with one elohim, without appeal, I am sure it is.


Americans would trade rights for security -experts

NEW YORK, June 7 (Reuters) - In today's America, prisoners are held incommunicado for years, newspapers can't photograph soldiers' coffins returned from Iraq and the government can secretly track the books citizens read and the movies they watch.

But civil liberties can erode much further before Americans will say enough is enough, say experts in social history and political behavior.
Fear struck by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks helped launch the curtailment of civil liberties in the name of national security, and that fear keeps Americans willing to trade away rights for safety, they say.
"We're at war," said Ken Weinstein of the Hudson Institute, a policy think tank. "That's why it doesn't bother us."

a zionist think tank

Nor is there a clear "tipping point" to swing opinion the other way, added Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "We don't seem to be anywhere near it at this time."

see protocols

Just after Sept. 11, 2001, polls showed two-thirds of Americans felt it would be necessary to give up some civil liberties to protect the nation. A year later, that number still stood at about half, Bowman said.
"Most people don't see a broader threat," she said. "People seem to be pretty comfortable with the general state of affairs regarding civil liberties."
Historically, losing civil liberties in a time of fear is nothing new in America.
"The question is how tolerant can a tolerant society be to the intolerant who may seek to destroy it?" said Weinstein. "This is a fairly standard process in American history."
Historians cite the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, when a threat of war with France led to the law making it illegal to speak critically of the United States. Editors were arrested, and newspapers closed down.
In the U.S. Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus writs, which protect against unlawful imprisonment.
During World War One, fear of rising communism led to anti-immigrant sentiment, deportations and a violent crackdown on the labor movement. The 1917 Espionage Act prohibited anti-war activity and under the 1918 Sedition Act no one could "utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the government.

or any anti-shem against the Illuminated gods of hoodlum haha

Cold War fears of communist infiltration helped fuel the powerful House Un-American Activities Committee and a "Red Scare" led to discrimination and detention. Under the Smith Act, one could not advocate overthrow of the U.S. government.


But, said Isaac Kramnick, professor of government at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, "all of those moments of fear pale in significance to 9/11 in reality and also in the way it's being exploited and manipulated by the Bush regime."
"Holding prisoners without charge and things of that sort are being justified in terms of the old argument of national security," he said.
But civil liberty issues such as prisoners rights do not trouble the average American, experts say. People look the other way when their own personal life is not at stake.
Polls proposing telephone taps and e-mail monitoring evoke far more resistance from Americans, Bowman said.
For Americans to speak out about their civil liberties, she said, "They would have to see some widespread, wide-scale abuses in what they think are private and personal areas. Then again, they're not particularly attentive."
But things may not be as insidious as they sound.
"Are we headed for a fascist dictatorship or a fascist regime with fascistic denials of civil liberties? I doubt it," said Kramnick. "Were the denials of civil liberties to really spread to the mainstream population and outside aspects of terrorism, then I think there would be a hue and cry which you do not hear now."

the Rocks cry out, for the blood spilled upon them

The question of how far is too far may be like pornography. Maybe you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.
"Americans react pretty quickly when they think their liberties are being curtailed to any serious degree," said Weinstein. "The policies of the Bush administration have been fairly well accepted because I don't think they've crossed that barrier where people say, 'Wait a second."'

© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

Wait a second


Wheelchair-bound Palestinian killed during demonstration

Israeli soldiers have shot dead a man in a wheelchair during a demonstration, according to medics and witnesses in the West Bank.

They say the man, Arafat Yakoub, 31, had been shot twice before in confrontations with troops.

Medics say Mr Yakoub was shot in the head when troops opened fire on stone-throwing demonstrators near a checkpoint at Kalandiya refugee camp, north of Jerusalem.

An Israeli military source says the troops opened fire on several Palestinians suspected of trying to infiltrate an Israeli industrial zone near the camp.

The source said the Army was investigating the incident.

Kalandiya residents say Mr Yakoub was paralysed when soldiers shot him in a 1989 confrontation.

He was wounded again in a 2002 incident.


Back to the sicko's of the Universal Satanic fallen away apostasy


The more difficult cases involve

indirect killings. Such crimes as accessory to murder, abetting a murder, third party

murders such as hiring a killer, criminal negligence, and unpremeditated homicide

present difficulties in prescribing capital punishment. In order to make one liable for

capital punishment though, they must come "presumptuously upon [their] neighbor, to

slay him with guile."


The question is whether the actions of terrorists fit within the

accepted categories of culpable crimes for which capital punishment may be


Noahide laws, Talmud bavli, Tractate Sanhedrin 57a. If any break any law they are to be decapitated

The starting point of any discussion on murder emerges from Maimonides concise

definitions of murder that he reveals in his commentary on the Mishnah:


1. "If one person kills another himself, such as by striking him with a

sword or with a deadly stone, or by strangling him, or by thrusting him

into a fire, he must be put to death by the court, seeing that he himself

killed another in some manner"

2. "If, however, one hires an assassin to kill another, or sends his slaves

to kill him, or ties up another and leaves him in front of a lion...the rule


Page 37



in each of these cases is that he is a shedder of blood, has committed the

crime of murder, and is liable for death at the hands of Heaven but there

is no capital punishment at the hands of the court"

oh neat the shem/sham/shame-ites have found yet another loop hole in which to slay the un-noahide proselytes

3. "If the king of Israel (Moshiach to be "REVEALED SOON)wishes to put them to death by royal decree or for

the benefit of society, he has a right to do so. Similarly, if the court

deems it proper to put them to death as an emergency measure, it has

the authority to do as it deems fit, provide that circumstances warrant

such action."

Of course this is the reason for the "WAR ON TERRORISM" it gives them the right to do the Lust of their Father the murderer since the beginning


For the purposes of this section, the third comment by Maimonides, regarding the

royal prerogative, ( Bush's Dan-ite Royal Prerogative)  falls outside the bounds of traditional criminal law and will be

considered later.


We can see, however, that capital punishment is not permitted in

cases where causation is indirect and not premeditated. So how can we justify, under

criminal law, killing terrorists who have engaged in plann

ing and ordering of others?

By Satan's Talmud Bavli

Dealing with these topics under criminal law and not the laws of war limits the ability of

Jewish law to impose such punishment. 

Oh good, so no more wars will ever be DECLARED


Also with no concept of transferred intent, the

idea that the murderer must have killed a specific individual is necessary for a terrorist to

be culpable.

a shem/shame


To identify when one may be considered liable for a capital crime, the

Mishnah and Gemara of Talmud Bavli have dealt with numerous case studies to identify capital

culpability. I will analyze these cases and describe their analogous counterparts in

Israel’s fight against terrorists.

Amaraka's "War On Terror" the lobbing of missiles from Ole Emmanuel Goldstein on the Patriotic Proles Orwell 1984

The first case expounded in the Mishnah describes the following:

"A perpetrator hits and kills the victim with a stone or iron



The Mishnah finds the murderer culpable in this instance.


In their article,


Irena Rosenberg, Yale Rosenberg, and Bentzion Turin, discuss this and other cases to

determine causation and culpability of individuals under the Halacha.(Noahide Law)  They find that all

the elements of the crime are present: they place the victim in a life threatening situation,

performed the murderous act with intent, and clearly and directly caused the victim’s



They note that because the act, intent, and result are simultaneous, this case is

clear illustrating the perpetrator’s liability.


An analogous situation in modern Israel would be when an assassin enters the

home of an individual and murders them. Here the elements are set out. A murderous

implement is used, they place the victim in a life threatening si

tuation, have intent to

murder, and individually cause the victim’s death. The assassin has done little different

from the situation described in the Mishnah. Culpability for a capital crime is clear in

this case. 

I hope you are listening to their lust and Justification for Decapitation against assassinations, all the while the same shem sham of shame advocate's their side the IDF and Mossad is Justified on the same assassination


The terrorist in question, by directly causing the death of the victim, is liable

for capital punishment. Maimonides would agree (assuming the criminal is convicted in

a court of law) 

of course the shem's will carry out their laws on Palestinians and Dan the Bushkevik's on their targets, but their targets have NO RESOLVE....but to throw rocks at the beast


because this instance fits directly with his definition of capital murder.


We must also note that Maimonides would find not only is it permissible that capital


Page 38



punishment be imposed but that it is an obligation of the court that "they must be put to


Mammon EYE....see dollar bill


The next case study begins to blur the lines of culpability:


hahahahheeeeeeeeee "Blur the Lines" hahahahahhehehehhehehe

"The perpetrator chances upon a victim under water or in a fire, a life-

threatening situation that the perpetrator did not create. The perpetrator

thereafter prevents the victim from saving himself, causing his death."

Here the article describes this as an "opportunistic homicide."


While this case

is not actually stated in the Mishnah, the article notes that it would follow "a fortiori"

from the result in the first. This would also be analogous to Maimonides’ commentary in

the Code of Maimonides.

No more comments. I am quite sickened of their pretend play god and their pretend play godhood of their pretend hoodlum haha and their pretend righteous goyim. Their pretense was cast into the PIT at CALVARY



The authors note that while the perpetrator did not place the

victim in the life threatening situation, the perpetrator did not cause the death through

direct contact but affirmatively prevented the victim from saving himself.



Mishnah notes that by taking advantage of a pre-existing situation, and preventing one

from saving himself, makes him liable for capital punishment under Jewish law.



Gemara comments on this case, concurring that "even though the perpetrator did not push

the victim into the water or fire, since the victim was not able to escape, and he died, the

perpetrator is liable to execution."


In regard to terrorist actions, when would a terrorist be liable under this scenario?

One situation that would seem to be comparable is when, after a suicide bomber

detonates the bomb on a bus, often accomplice terrorists are nearby, standing outside the

bus with guns, aiming to kill anyone who would leave the burning bus. Here these actual

terrorists (arguably) do not create the life threatening situation but prevent victims from

saving themselves from ultimate death by burning and asphyxiation. Of course, if they

do kill anyone coming off the bus they will be culpable for direct homicide, but the threat

that keeps an individual on the bus would make them culpable as well for capital

punishment. By capitalizing on the dangerous situation, the terrorists would be held

capitally liable.

The Mishnah also refers to the following circumstance:

"A perpetrator incites a dog or a snake to attack the victim."


In this circumstance, some of the elements of the crime are in place, but others are

not present as in the second situation mentioned above. Here the property has created the

life threatening context. However, the intervention of a third party, the dog or snake, is

required in order for the killing to be complete. Does this make one culpable? The

article finds that the Halacha would not hold culpability in this case. The intervention of

a superceding cause with an "independent will" would release the defendant from capital

crime liability.


The Mishnah considers the animal to have an independent will similar

to a victim who would be able to escape but does not do so of their own accord.



Maimonides view, this circumstance is similar to one soliciting another and would th


not be held liable.



Page 39



Many countries have attempted to hold people liable for inciting violence. Just

recently, on February 24, 2003, the United Kingdom arrested a Muslim cleric for inciting

people to commit mass murder.


In the same way that the perpetrator incited a wild

animal to attack the potential victim, Palestinian clerics often do the same, inciting the

populace to engage in terrorist acts such as suicide bombing in order to wage a Jihad

against the Jewish people. Under the Mishnah, however, these clerics may be liable for a

crime, but capital punishment would not be permissible.

Another instance that subscribes to the same tenets is when a terrorist leader may

engage another to perform a terrorist act resulting in the death of civilians.

The hired

party would be a third party intervener with their own free will. Because they have the

ability to change their mind or change the eventual result, the terrorist leader in this case,

the liability for the crime of murder, would not be guilty of

the premeditated murder

required to impose capital punishment.

The final of the Mishnah cases, before I move on to the Gemara cases, recounts a

similar circumstance:

"The perpetrator places a snake on the victim’s body, holding it so that

his fangs are on the victim’s flesh."


In this case, there is a dispute whether capital liability would be imposed. Rabbi Judah

would find liability because he finds that the murderous animal has no exercise of free

will in this circumstance.


However, other sages disagree. The Mishnah recounts that

if any free will may be exercised on the part of another, even an iota, then liability will

not be imposed.


The Gemara view has a less strict definition of culpability. As Rabbi

Judah noted "the poison of snake is between his fangs" and by placing the snake in

position to kill, then one is capitally liable.


The article also notes the similarity

between this circumstance and that as recounted in the bible, where capital punishment is

to be imposed when one does not contain a wild oxen and they bore another to death.


The Torah then, like the Gemara, allows a third party to have the ability to exercise free

will, but when they are placed by another in position to kill, that person may be held

capitally liable.

So how would the Gemara deal with a situation in modern day Israel where a

terrorist leader provides a suicide bomber with the bomb, instructs them where to carry it,

how to carry it, how to detonate it, and when to detonate it.. They also instruct the

bomber that they must do this to wage Jihad, they will be rewarded for this act in the

afterlife, their family will be provided for, and in effect brainwash that bomber into

performing this task. An argument can be made that this situation is no different from

placing the snake on the victim’s back. The Mishnah may argue that the bomber

themselves can exercise free will to change the intended result, so the terrorist leader

would not be culpable of a capital crime. However, the Gemara may argue the reverse.

In this circumstance the suicide bomber himself becomes the weapon rather than a person

blessed with free will. Because they have been instructed to do this by an authority they


Page 40



deem to be issuing the words of G-d, they have become the instrument of the killing. By

sending them off to a specific area to detonate the bomb in a specific way, just as the

owner of the dangerous oxen may be put to death, so may the terrorist be put to death for

unleashing a dangerous object into a crowded area of civilians.

Some empirical evidence may support this conclusion. It is instructive to note

that suicide bombers, even if they end up in an uncrowded area still set off their charge as

planned on many occasions. It will be difficult to argue that these people have exercis


the free will to even salvage their own life. The functional brainwashing done by the

terrorist leaders have eliminated the free will from the bomber and transferred their own

will unto them. Thus, just as the Bible would find the owner of the oxen liable, the

Gemara too would find these terrorists liable for capital punishment.

The most analogous case illuminated in the Gemara illustrates a parallel situation

in Gemara Case M:

"The perpetrator throws up a stone at a 45 degree angle and kills

someone as it descends."


The Gemarah notes that although the perpetrator only created part of the force

that led to the ensuing death, the perpetrator is capitally liable. The discussion hinges on

the fact that part of the force that leads to the stone traveling downward, gravity, makes

up a large part of the force of the object.


Because the perpetrator remains responsible

for propelling the stone, even if other forces may affect the outcome, the perpetrator is



By using the same situation just described, would the terrorist be liable for

sending the suicide bomber in a path towards other’s deaths? This seems to show even

more that the terrorist would be liable. The terrorist has in effect propelled the suicide

bomber in the direction of the killing, yet other forces are at work. Despite this, the

Gemara would find the perpetrator liable. Had the suicide bomber not been instructed

where to kill, how to kill, or why to kill, the result may be different. But in this situation

the terrorist did all these things. Therefore, the terrorist, like the perpetrator in Case M,

would be capitally liable and would be subject to the death penalty.

Rashi notes that one of the key distinctions between one held to capitally liable

and one who is not is whether they are the direct cause of death.


The Gemara

distinguishes between whether one’s death is caused by a force that is the direct result of

the perpetrator’s actions or if the victim is killed only as a result of the wrongdoer’s

secondary force.


Rashi remarks that the difference between the direct (primary) and

secondary force is often a function of time and distance.


So how much time and

distance is required in order to affix culpability?

Unfortunately, the Talmud does not define the specific requirements of time and

distance required. The main distinction that the Talmud notes is the difference between

direct and indirect force as opposed to intended manner of killing. For one to have


Page 41



caused another’s death, they must have used some force to send the fatal object towards

the victim. The time and distance may only be inhibited by an intervener.


So how can

we conclude whether one is culpable?

In the case of terrorists, it is my view that when one sends a suicide bomber

directly to a specific site at a specific time then they have caused the force necessary to

be guilty of direct causation. The functional equivalent of free will has been erased from

the scenario. If a terrorist were to instruct a terrorist to engage in this activity at some

time a week later, then an intervening cause may be considered. However, when the

bomber is strapped by others with bombs and sent to specified locations to commit their

atrocities, those who sent him are the force that propelled that bomber toward their

destructive end.

These views are ratified by the biblical pronouncements which address

aggravating factors in assessing capital liability. The Torah finds that those who use a

deadly instrument to kill another are shown to have the requisite premeditati

on and



The use of a bomb strapped to a willing bomber killing would clearly satisfy

any definition of a deadly weapon. So too the bible finds that those who harbor hatred

toward the victim are also more likely to be liable for capital punishment.


There is no

dispute that terrorists who profess as their goal the liquidation of the Jewish people

harbor hatred towards the intended victim. These terrorists are criminally and capitally

liable for their terrorist activities and Israel may impose capital punishment upon them.

However, can we justify Israel’s use of assassination?

Having decided that terrorists are capitally liable the only question is how they

may be put to death. In criminal law, the requirements to impose capital punishment are

clearly set forth. Yet how can we justify Israel’s actions in response to the formal

procedures that cannot be followed in the case of terrorists who are not easily captured?

There is a distinction that criminal law holds in justifying killing a terrori

st prior to their

act of murder and after they kill another. For the purpose of this section, we will assume

that while the court has given legal permission to engage in assassination generally based

on the court’s exigent jurisdiction, we must determine whether Israel may justify the

killing of an actual terrorist in various situations.

To find whether an act of assassination is justifiable, we must analyze these

actions as they take place (1) prior to their terrorist actions and (2) after their terrorist

actions. Within this analysis, I will consider, in regard to prior actions, the justifications

of self defense and that of the pursuer rationale. For post-crime analysis, I will justify

Israel’s action by discussing when capital punishment may be imposed for murder. So

using this analysis, how can Israel’s actions be justified under criminal law?

The law of rodef as it applies to criminal law holds basically the same premises

defined in rodef under the laws of war.


As Maimonides notes, "it is justifiable . . . to

take the life of the pursuer only to prevent commission of the crime [murder]."



the laws of rodef apply also to one who intends to rape another, for the purposes of this

discussion it is only relevant that it also applies when one pursues another with the intent


Page 42



to kill them.


However, even if one pursues another with the intent to kill them, if the

pursuer may be stopped without killing him, then it is not permissible to kill the



It should be noted that the laws of rodef are considered obligations. As the

Baraita states "If one pursues another with the intent to take his life, it is the duty of

everyone seeing the attempted crime to prevent it even if it necessitates taking the

pursuer’s life."


To not rescue would be to transgress the commandment that "Neither

shall thou not stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor."


The obligation to use force to

protect another in danger is an extension of the principle that one must help another in



Knowing that under the Halacha, we have an obligation to rescue the life one

being pursued, what is the standard to kill that individual who is pursuing? When is the

threat enough to justify their killing? The sages have disputed the correct standard.


strictest standard posited has been that of a contemporary authority, Rabbi Moshe

Feinstein, who would determine that a pursuer may only be killed when the threat was

"approaching certainty."


A much looser standard, however, was put forth by Rabbi

Elijah of Vilna (Gra) finding that execution may be the proper punishment when the

threat is only "feared."


Gra found that execution of counterfeiters was appropriate

when they were sought after and the danger to the community was unknown.


However, a balance between these two poles has been found in the writings of Rabbi

Eleazar ben Simeon who, while not invoking it only when the danger is only feared, he

maintained that a significantly less degree of certainty was required than that of virtual



There are two ways we could use the standards outlined by the rabbis as to the

degree of threat required. On one hand we could judge the standard to be absolute. A

single standard would apply to any and all situations, no matter the extraneous

circumstances present. A better method would be to judge the standards set forth as

dependent on the times. In times of tranquility, the stricter standard, that of "approaching

certainty" would seem to be correct, because a greater harm would be done possibly

killing an innocent person. However in times of danger, and emergency situations, the

mere threat is enough to have the obligation to kill the pursuer.

So when we apply this to Israel’s actions when it comes to combating terrorism, it

is easy to reach the conclusion that a terrorist is pursuing an individual in order to kill

them. Terrorist leaders do not have a day job. Their entire livelihood is spent focusing

their energies on planning the events that will lead to the death of Jews. When a membe


of Hamas is seeking out potential crowded spots with poor security, seeking out potential

Palestinians who will be willing to strap a large bomb to their chest, and seek out

weapons dealers willing to sell them tons of plastic explosive, they are doing so with the

intent of killing another. This intent is not a mere hope. They will try to use these

weapons. Under the laws of rodef then, they are pursuing the Jewish people in order to

kill them and it is the obligation of the government to kill them bef

ore they succeed.


Page 43



Of course, this view could change depending on the standard set. Is it

approaching certainty that these terrorists will kill another? Empirical evidence would

show that a majority of terrorists acts fail to kill anyone due to security forces, inept

actions, incorrectly made weapons, etc. So for a particular planning activity, it is not

certain that it will lead to civilian deaths. However, when dealing with over 16,000

attacks in barely two years, this translates to almost 40 attacks per day. So if we judge

this to be an emergency situation, and knowing that so many attacks are planned, Gra

would probably assess this situation to deem that the mere threat of death is enough when

we know for certain that the attacks are being planned. Israel, then, even under Rabbi

ben Simeon’s middle standard, would have justification to find that the terrorists are

pursuers and may be killed to prevent them from killing their intended target.

Similar to the pursuer rationale is the law of self defense. The Talmud applies the

same maxim for self defense in the area of criminality as it does to war: "If someone

comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first."


Every individual has the right to defend

his or her person against wrongful aggression and, if necessary, kill the aggressor.


While the distinction between the public right of punishment and the private right of self

defense must be kept distinct,


these methods may overlap when it comes to the state

acting in self defense of itself and its citizens. It is noted that Talmud posits that use of

force in self defense is not a personal obligation but a unitary responsibility.


The law

of self defense retains the same elements of the law of pursuer and are conceptually

identical with rodef being merely to protect others while self defense applies the same

criteria to defense of oneself. There is dispute over whether the state may actually act in

self defense or if all actions by the state in this sense are in fact under the law of



We should also note that the same standards that apply and are discussed

regarding the law of pursuer are identical in the discussion for self defense.

By applying the laws of self defense to Israel’s defense of itself and its citizens,

we must view the government as acting as an agent for the individuals who will be

attacked. This conclusion is not hard to reach because, as Rabbi Samuel ben Meir

(Rashbam) notes that the government itself serves at the consent of the governed.



logical conclusion will be that if the government operates under the consent of the

people, they also act on behalf of the people, and assassinating a terrorist or inflicting any

other form of punishment to protect them could be seen as an act of self defense because

the people are, in essence, an extension of the state. It is therefore perfectly permissible,

if not obligatory, for the government, when they know of a dangerous terrorist planning

deadly attacks, that they act in self defense by killing him before he kills the people.

Following too the standards of proof necessary under the laws of the rodef, Israel would

be justified to assassinate a terrorist under the "threat" or "approaching certainty"

standards depending, of course, on the information available as to attacks planned.

Israel is justified in assassinating a terrorist leader before they commit their

terrible crime. Under the standards available, only the standard "approaching certainty"

may not be enough to punish these terrorists in this manner. If we consider Israel to be in

a state of emergency, it is clear then that the standard would be much lower than certain

and would only require a mere threat or other similar standard. The laws of pursuer and


Page 44



self defense not only permit, but obligate the government to protect the people and kill

the enemy before he himself kills. Therefore, assassination is not only a permissible form

of punishment under criminal law, but would be obligatory when the government knows

of planned attacks.

In addition to pre-crime remedies, Israel may also punish terrorists after they

commit their acts. In criminal law, this may be accomplished by imposing capital

punishment in the courts of law. For the purposes of this section, we must affirm that the

terrorists would be culpable of a capital crime, that assassination is equivalent to capital

punishment when the terrorist cannot be captured, and the court has permitted the action

that is to be taken by the Israeli government. With these assumptions in place, then, are

Israel’s assassination of terrorists permissible after the commission of their crime?

The roots of capital punishment in Jewish Law stem from the biblical

commandment "Whoever sheds the blood of man so shall his blood be shed."


Prescribing capital punishment though is not absolute and is only permitted for willful

murder of another.


Not only is the imposition of capital punishment not absolute but

death sentences may only be handed out by the judgment of the court.


Using the death

penalty is, however, an obligation to be administered by the court in cases of capital



This obligation is limited to capital punishment, noting that there is no capital

murder in Jewish law unless death is caused by the direct physical act of the assailant."


Homicide was justifiable, or in capital punishment permissibly done, when carried

out under the lawful mandate of the court by their appointed officer.


In biblical times,

the Sanhedrin could only carry out capital punishment in a court composed of not less

than 23 members.


It was said that the Sanhedrin who inflicted capital punishment once

every seven years was considered a "bloody Sanhedrin."


However, the Jewish view of

capital punishment, however, is not so tame. The famous debate between Rabbi Trafon,

Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Gamliel illustrate the opposing views. As the discussion is

remembered, "Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say ‘were we in the Sanhedrin (during the

period when it possessed capital punishment jurisdiction), no man would have been

killed.’ Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel says ‘They, too, would multiply spillers of blood in

Israel.’ "


The meaning of these statements are clear, just as capital punishment is

something that the Jewish people abhor, it may be necessary to protect lives.

Despite the ambivalence of the sages, capital punishment was used more

frequently in various time periods. The justification for capital punishment, even after

the end of the Sanhedrin, was found in the biblical commandment that laws shall be

decided "by the judges found in those days."


Maimonides agrees that the courts have

the power to inflict capital punishment outside the bounds of biblical law finding that

courts were empowered to impose capital punishment even if the offender would not be

liable to be put to death.


The justifications for this stems from the justifications for the

court under emergency measures and to maintain law and order. As Maimonides sums

up his argument, he decrees that a regular court may execute such person as a temporary

measure "for if the emergency requires it they may do as they see fit."



Page 45



Considering the evolution and use of capital punishment, Israel has the Halachic

authority to impose capital punishment. Assuming that an assassination order comes

from the court and that the assassin is under the authority of the court, they have the

lawful ability to impose this punishment on offenders. It is true that the Halacha is not

endeared with the concept of capital punishment. However, it does permit and even

obligate its use when the times demand it. Because of the obligation to save lives, the

times demand that Israel engage in these actions.

When it comes to combating terrorism, assassination is obligatory for the Israeli

government. All assassination orders come from the government. The procedures are

not known in detail whether the orders derive from the courts or from the executive

branch. However, the orders from the court would be lawful. But would they be

necessary and befitting of the Jewish tradition?

I assert that the assassination orders would be necessary. In order to save lives,

the government must do whatever they must in order to protect the citizens. It is well

known, and well documented that terrorists in groups such as Yasir Arafat’s Fatah

movement, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas actively engage in assassinations. So too it is

known, often, who has planned these attacks. Judging that these individuals are culpable

under Jewish law, they may be put to death. The justifications for capital punishment in

this situation differ from the laws of pursuer and self defense which is to prevent those

individuals from committing future acts. They instead act as a deterrent. So Israel may

follow Rabbi ben Gamliel’s logic in decreeing that not imposing capital punishme


"would multiply spillers of blood in Israel."


It is noted that the bible may also be

deemed to permit this under the logic of lex talionis, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a

tooth, an arm for an arm, a life for a life."


There is some thought that the retribution

aspect meant to impose a monetary value for these acts, but the idea of deterrence, as well

as restraint (not permitting one to commit such crimes again) remains strong in the

Jewish tradition. As Rabbi Judah noted "The people would hear (of the crime) and fear

(to commit such crimes). Also (the person convicted) would no longer have (means)

with which he could continue to perform such an evil deed again."


In order to deter future crimes and ensure that the evildoers in the nation were

well aware of the ramifications of their evil deeds, capital punishment was, and is

necessary. Israel has the authority to use these measures and because they will save

future lives through the ideas set forth in the Halacha, these acts become obligatory fo


the government.

Assassination is justified under Jewish Law. Whether the justifications are found

in the laws of rodef, self defense, or proper imposition of capital punishment, the law still

provides that these terrorists may be assassinated to prevent the greater evil: their reckless

and wanton murder of the Jewish people.

2. Criminal Law Justification of Destruction of Property


Page 46



Israel has engaged in a systematic method to deter and combat terrorism:

destroying the homes of suicide bombers, convicted terrorists, and places used to plan

terrorist acts. Are these actions justified in the Halacha? These categories must be

delineated into two distinct groups, those that are imposed on living terrorists, and those

that are imposed on terrorists after they have been killed either at the hands of bombs

they willingly strapped on their person or those that have been killed at the hands of the

IDF. It must be noted, however, that any destruction of property discussed under this

section refer to penal penalties and not to Military Regulation 119(1)


which is under

military law.

When it comes to destruction of homes for living terrorists, these actions seem

easy to justify under Jewish Law. The bible mentions confiscation of property as a

criminal sanction when one disobeys lawful orders.


It is not hard to permit one to

permit, once they have taken property, to destroy it at their whim. The Talmud too

agrees that courts, relying on the biblical commandment, have the power to expropriate



Under the authority given to Ezra, the power to expropriate property was

necessary to impose punishment.


The justification given for these actions was decreed

by the sages to be that the courts have the power to take property, "in the manner of kings

. . . for the promotion of public welfare and the furtherance of peace and tranquility."


Therefore in determining the court’s power to destroy homes of terrorists

convicted of crimes, to punish them, is permitted under Halachic authority. The court,

under the biblical commandment, may expropriate property in order to promote the

public welfare. Sometimes this may be deemed, generally to include civil expropriation,

but promotion of public welfare may also be enhanced by deterring criminal acts.

Because destruction of property is permitted as a criminal sanction, Israel is well within

their rights to destroy homes of terrorists to punish them Also, the justification that

courts have to destroy property to further peace and tranquility clearly qualifies th

e taking

of homes from terrorists. While I am not one to judge the effectiveness of this technique,

it has been allowed by the government that destruction of homes acts as a deterrent.

Therefore, destroying the homes of living, convicted terrorists has Halachic authority.

The destruction of homes of deceased terrorists seems to be a different matter.

While the same general rules apply, Jewish Law does not punish the dead. The only ones

punished would be the other residents of the home. This would seem impermissible as

the Bible commands "fathers shall not be put to death for their children, neither shall

children be put to death for fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."


The logic of this argument has been extended to include not only capital punishment but

to include all punishment imposed for all transgressions. So if the families of the

deceased terrorists are the ones who suffer, how can Israel be justified in these actions?

Chief Justice Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court in Ajuri v. IDF Commander


found that the destruction of homes was permissible even under penal law because the

petitioner, Amtassar Muhammed Ahmed Ajuri, knew of the terrorist activities her brother

was perpetrating. Her brother, a suicide bomber, was by all definitions a terrorist.



court found that she had even aided and abetted his terrorist acts by among other


Page 47



activities, sewing on an explosive belt, not informing authorities when she knew terrorist

associates had weapons and plans to kill Jews, and aided in other ways as well.



court cited various cases where the relatives did not know of the terrorist activities and

the actions were unlawful under penal law.


It can thus be inferred that when the other residents had in some way been aware

of, or abetted the terrorist activities, then destruction would be appropriate.


It is the

degree of involvement of the other residents that would determine whether


would be permissible.


Because expropriation is permissible upon disobedience of

lawful orders, the courts have the authority to order or permit destruction of property

when lawful orders, such as not relaying information of terrorist activities, are not

obeyed. Even under Jewish law, not disclosing information that one plans to kill another

transgresses the biblical command that "one shall not stand idly by the blood of they



Of course the Palestinians do not have to abide by Jewish law, but the

failure to obey simple laws such as aiding in terrorist activities violates the law of dinim.

Therefore, the lawful orders are not obeyed and the government has Halachic

authority to

engage in destruction of property for the families of terrorists, as long as they have

violated the lawful orders of the State of Israel.

Just as deciding governmental responses to terrorism do not fit neatly under the

laws of war nor do they fit neatly under criminal law. This is even more instructive by

considering the issues not discussed in this section such as deportations of Palestinians.

There is little authority that would support those actions under the criminal law. Yet the

criminal law does help solve some of the problems associated with terrorism.

Criminal law would permit the terrorists to be deemed culpable in a variety of

ways and permit the government to respond. The flexibility of criminal law in the

Talmud can be understood when we consider the multiple possible justifications found

for engaging in assassinations as well as destroying homes. The justifications are not

limitless, but they would permit a Jewish court to look towards the more important

criteria which is the prevention of future acts of violence and the saving of human lives.

We can see the overriding importance of life in Jewish law evidenced by the great


awarded the court to go outside Talmudic law "if the times demand it."

Criminal law then does solve many of the problems in bringing terrorists to

justice because of the flexibility of the system. But it is still disputable whether terrorist

acts should even fall under criminal law. While some instances seem to fit, others seem

so horrific that criminal law could not even begin to apply. Still, however, Halachic

criminal law does permit the Israeli government to justify assassinations and d


of property against the Palestinian terrorists.

Criminal law on the whole would be a valid source to consider how to punish

terrorist acts. There is a set law that applies to Palestinians, the Noahide code.

Culpability may be readily determined, set methods are in place to impose capital

punishment, and the actions of Israel would be justified. There are also problems because

criminal law does not plan for the array of actions perpetrated by terrorists. Halachic law


Page 48



also has never dealt with some of the horrific circumstances that arise in the way these

terrorist actions are performed. However, criminal law would aid in the analysis of these

problems and I would be willing to assess many of the terrorist acts as criminal acts and

allowing punishment to be imposed under those rules.

IV. Responding to Terrorism Under the "King’s Justice"

Unlike justifications under criminal law or the laws of war, the King’s Justice,

which derives from the monarch’s royal prerogative, is a much broader met

hod that the

government may use to permit their actions. Specificity that is required for the most part

to analyze the actions under traditional laws gives way to a broad granting of authority in

biblical law to the king to do, in effect, whatever he so chooses. However, does the royal

prerogative give Israel the Halachic authority to respond to all forms of terrorism?

Using the King’s Justice will permit Israel to do many things they would not be

permitted to under traditional Jewish law. In order to see how this operates, I will discuss

(1) what the royal prerogative is; (2) whether the King’s Talmudic authority equates to

the government’s authority in modern times; (3) the reasons and authority for the King’s

Justice to be applied; and (4) how the specific responses to terrorism are justifiable under

the royal prerogative.

A. What is the Royal Prerogative?

In biblical times, the king, or sovereign, was granted very broad powers to govern

the nation of Israel. Under Halachic law, the monarchy exists as an independent legal



The monarchy had special rights and privileges under Jewish law,

sometimes referred to as the royal prerogative. The monarch is vested with the right to

promulgate the laws of the kingdom and, in doing so, they are vested with certain legal

authority to enforce those laws.


According to Ritva, one of the powers granted to the

king under Talmudic law is the ability impose punishment.


While Ritva limits the imposition of punishment by a king to those acts that

conform with the "law of the land."


There are two possible explanations of this

limitation. First, as Rabbi Bleich seems to suggest, Ritva’s limitation is only in regard to

non-Jewish monarchs governing the Jewish people. The second limitation is that the

King could not order one to do what even the court could not.


This is shown by his

support of the King’s authority to impose capital punishment without following the

procedural guidelines set forth in classical Talmudic law.


However, Ritva is not the

only commentator to agree that the King may impose punishment outside of the court


Maimonides too believes that extrajudicial punishment may be handed down by

the king "by virtue of the law of monarchy and the perfection of the world."


Even the

Torah itself, in the book of Samuel, suggests that the monarch may impose "the King’s

Justice" as it states "appoint for us a King to judge us like all nations."


As Rabbi

Nissim explained during this time, the monarch served two purposes: 1) as commander i



Page 49



chief of the army and 2) as magistrate in chief who could order extrastatutory laws when



He would agree then that the King had the authority to issue laws or

impose punishment in order for the needs of the Jewish people.

Thus, the royal prerogative allows the king to impose punishment and enforce

laws in order to govern over the people. There have been times when the King’s

authority was necessary to impose punishment on those who were unable to be tried in

the courts. However, just because the King was granted the authority to impose

punishment, do those same rights have any application today?

B. How the King’s Authority Translates to Israeli Governmental Authority

After the destruction of the temple, the Jews were exiled to Babylonia, beginning

their existence in the diaspora, and were left without a king. How were they to be

governed? The Halachic authorities established that "the exilarchs in Babylonia stand in

place of the king."


The exilarch in Babylonia, like the king, "were vested with the

power to deviate from the rules of the Halacha, even in judicial matters."


In finding a

logical concurrence between the Babylonian exilarch and modern governments, the

Talmud authorities noted during the middle ages that the doctrine of "The Law of the

Land is the Law" would not apply to a Jewish government.


Instead, a Jewish State

would be "governed by the King’s Law, which applies to all forms of Jewish government

as they continue to develop over the course of time."


As this pertains to a modern Israel, Rabbi Abraham Kook has spoken directly on

the subject. His comments seem to be derived from the Talmudic passage which reads

"The king’s law applies at all times and in every generation to the leaders of the time in

their respective countries."


Rabbi Kook notes that the royal prerogative governs the

nation stating that the "king’s law-making prerogatives revert to the nation as a



The king’s law applies to the government where they have flexibility to

maintain order because the government is responsible for "the totality of the needs of the

people at any time for the general security."


Noting the comparison with the biblical

story, Rabbi Kook explains "the duly constituted leaders of the nation, whatever their

caliber . . . are certainly not inferior to the exilarchs in Babylonia."


He concludes, "a

fortiori . . . the leader certainly stands in place of the king with regard to king’s law,

which concerns the leadership of the public [and general administration of the nat



Under these standards, the government of Israel has authority to rule the Jewish

people under King’s law. They do not have to abide by the Halacha when the interest to

society would require steeping around the bounds of Jewish law. In an emergency

situation, when it comes to maintaining law and order, and imposing punishment on those

deemed dangerous to society, the Knesset is thus granted the same powers that King

David would have been granted. In matters of general administration for the publ

ic good,

these powers are necessary to improve the welfare of the Jewish people.

C. Authority for the Government to Apply King’s Justice


Page 50



Having ascertained that the government may follow the King’s law, when may

they apply it? What are the proper circumstances when the government may exercise

power that is not specifically permitted under the Halacha? There are three main

circumstances when the government has such power: (1) To maintain law and order; (2)

for the benefit of society or welfare of the community; (3) in an emergency situation. I

will also discuss the limitations on superceding Talmudic law.

One of the purposes behind granting the king extrajudicial powers is to maintain

law and order in society. The king could, in biblical times, "exercise his royal

prerogative when the times call for it."


Ran refers to the principle of hassidur

hamedini, "the maintenance of law and order" as one of the primary purposes behind the

authority of the government under the king’s law.


The judicial powers granted to the

king were in part granted to ensure that strict reliance on Talmudic procedure would not

endanger society as in those times when "killing becomes commonplace and there is no

fear of punishment."


Ran finds that non-Jewish law may better serve this goal in some circumstances

and remarked that "it is possible to find some of the laws and ordinances of the nation

measures more effective for the establishment and maintenance of law and order than in

the laws of the Torah. This is not to our detriment, for whatever is lacking with regard to

law and order may be filled by the king"


He notes that the king must have this

authority because the administration of criminal justice is "practical in nature" and must

cope with the "everyday ordering of society."


These comments echo the intent of

Maimonides when he noted that the "king of Israel has the lawful authority" to maintain

law and order "for the sake of social order and stability."


Under this doctrine, the government of Israel has the lawful authority to go

against Jewish law to maintain law and order. Especially at a time "when killings are

commonplace" and "there is no fear of punishment," more drastic measures must be

taken to ensure a law-abiding nation. By granting the king the Talmudic authority, we

see this as a granting of the same authority to the Israeli government and they may do

what they must to maintain law and order and protect the people from criminals.

Authority granted for the purpose of benefiting society acts almost as a corollary

to the purpose of maintaining law and order. Ran agrees, noting that the prerogative of

hasiddur hamedini (maintaining law and order) has "as its avowed purpose yishuvo shel

olam (the benefit of society)"."


Because some authorities base the king’s authority

solely on the basis of a contract between the people and government,


the king has as

their ultimate duty the protection of populace and to better the welfare of society as a

whole. It is clearly, though, within the government’s authority to "issue decrees for the

common good."


Under this rationale it is easy to realize that the Israeli government has the lawful

authority to issue orders outside of Halachic tradition. The benefit to society is the

primary and perhaps only reason that any extrajudicial punishments are imposed. There

is no bloodlust or religious superiority that has been publicly announced as a motive


Page 51



behind imposing punishment on Palestinians, rather, the public purposes behind every act

has been the same: to protect the Jewish people and create a better country so that the

Jews may live in security and prosperity.

The third purpose identified for the granting of authority to the government is also

related to the first to but identifies a time period rather than a overriding rationale: the

king may impose extrajudicial punishment as an emergency measure as the times

demand. Maimonides specifically decrees, that the death penalty may be imposed when

not permitted under the Halacha in situations of emergency at the hands of the king.


It should be noted that the emergency measure acts not only as a purpose but as a

limitation. Because the emergency measure is by its nature, temporary, the king’s

authority would naturally be removed when the emergency has ended



However, this

argument could seem to be circular because it was left to the king to decide what

constitutes an emergency measure.


Despite this possibly limitless limitation, the

Talmud describes one firm rule in regard to the royal prerogative. The

king’s decree may

go outside the letter of the law, but if actually goes against the Talmud, and the purpose

of Talmudic law, then the decree is extortionate and is not lawful.


Understanding these points, when is Israel justified to call an emergency

situation? The government may, as the king could, determine when that emergency

situation was. There would be little dispute that Israel is currently in a crisis period.

With hundreds of attacks each month, that could clearly justify the declaring of an

emergency situation. However, has Israel went beyond the letter of the law or actually

against the purposes? In imposing punishment on terrorists, who are criminals

themselves, to save lives, the government has upheld the purposes of Talmudic law even

if they have had to bend the laws in order to achieve their goals. Some of the specific

instances will be discussed in more detail in the next section.

D. Application of the King’s Justice to Israeli Responses to Terrorism

Having determined that the Royal prerogative is a legitimate form of extrajudicial

authority under Halachic law, the king’s authority translates to the authority of the state

of Israel, and having found when the king’s justice may be imposed, the question

becomes, how would this apply to the specific responses to terrorism that Israel has used?

I will discuss how the application of the royal prerogative is justifiable in instances of

assassinations of terrorists, destruction of homes, and other responses used by the Israeli


1. Permissibility of Assassinations under the King’s Judicial Authority

Maimonides ruled on capital punishment by the king, stating "If the king of Israel

wishes to put them to death by royal decree or for the benefit of society, he has the right

to do so."


Maimonides mentions an example when the king lawfully issued capital

punishment decrees. The king, in Maimonides’ view, is permitted to kill any person who

disobeys his orders or slanders him.


Continuing, he noted that the king has the


Page 52



authority not only to go outside the bounds of formal Talmudic procedure but also that

the king may even order the death of one acquitted if he considers it for the public



Maimonides is not the only commentator to hold these views. Ritva, despite

some hesitancy in allowing such a broad decree, acknowledges the king’s authority to

impose capital punishment as long as it is within the bounds Talmudic law.


What does this mean for terrorists? In simple terms, they have no recourse to

complain that Israel would not comply with Jewish law. The king, in this case, the

government, has the authority, and the right to issue those capital decrees instructing

death for those who plan murders. How do the assassinations of terrorists fit under the

categories discussed earlier?

The king has the power to maintain law and order. There is little doubt that

killing those who violate the law and disrupt order would fall under the category of

maintaining law and order. The Knesset must deal with the everyday functioning


society. Society works better when people are not in fear of terrorist attacks, and society

is not disrupted by rampant use of suicide bombers. While some may wish that other

methods would be used, that does not take away from the lawful ability to assassinate

terrorists to further law and order in Israeli society.


Would the assassination of terrorists be permitted for the benefit of society?

Maimonides would find that they would as he would allow even the imposition of capital

punishment for a slanderer if it was for the benefit of society. When a terrorist actively

incites people to kill, actively plans murders, and actively evades justice, his death would

benefit the Israeli society. The people of Israel frightened about the possibility of more

terrorist attacks. On the other hand they feel incapable of protecting themselves. With a

swift action to eliminate these killers, Israel can allay the people’s fears and also provide

the justice that is badly needed in order to show terrorists that they will not get away with

their rampant acts of murder. Assassinating top terrorists are a benefit to Israeli society

and they are indeed justified.

2. Destruction of Property under the Royal Prerogative

The ability to impose criminal punishment extends also to the taking of property.

Under biblical law, the king was permitted to expropriate property only for military

necessity and for the building of roads.


These powers were expanded in the Talmudic

period permitting unlimited expropriatory powers.


Of course, when the king takes title

to the property in question, he has the right to destroy it as it is his own. Furthermore,

when it comes to terrorists who have been killed, Talmudic law states that "property of a

person executed for an offense against the king reverted to the king."


In this vein, then the property of terrorists is justifiably taken and destroyed by the

state. If the state has basically unlimited authority to expropriate property, then the

justification is not even required. Of course, were further justification required, similar

justification to assassinations could be found by appealing to the benefit to society and

maintenance of law and order that are both improved by the taking of terrorists’ property.


Page 53



After all, the deterrent measure alone could prevent terrorist bombings. If the terrorist

had been killed, the under this law, their property would be forfeited to Israel anyway and

Israel would have perfect right to destroy the property.

Is the royal prerogative the method then that all responses to terrorism can be

safely viewed under Jewish law? It depends in many cases on the actual response, who

gave the order, and how it was carried out. More importantly, though, the actual

response is more dependent not on what the act was but why. If it can be shown that any

particular act was intended for the benefit of society or to maintain law and order, and

does not go against Talmudic law (even if it does not actually coincide with Halachic

law) then these actions would be justified under Jewish law. Based on a facial

examination, it would appear that all actions can be brought under the broad sweep of the

King’s Justice. However, only by looking at a particular act and analyzing it under

criminal law or the laws of war can one determine whether that act does go against the

Torah, or merely oversteps the boundaries of Jewish Law.

3. Justification of Deportations using the "King’s Justice"

There are no real justifications for deportations of individuals under criminal l


or the laws of war. In the Jewish tradition, deportation and banishment was reserved

strictly for manslayers.


The royal prerogative may be able to sidestep this requirement,

however. The "king’s justice" gives the monarch (and the government) wide l

atitude in

determining when one may be permitted to be punished, what the punishment will be,

and how the punishment will be carried out. In order to determine whether deportations

are permitted, it is necessary to justify them under the criteria used to determine

punishment under the royal prerogative.

The first of the criteria I discussed was that of maintaining law and order. Does

deportation suit this cause? Israel has stated that their purpose in deporting relatives of

terrorists would be to deter future terrorist attacks.


If deporting family members of

terrorists would potentially save human life, and would deter future attacks, there is little

that would prevent these from being permissible under the Halacha. One of the purposes

stated was when there was no fear of punishment. Yet, the terrorists do not fear their

own death. Because of this direct punishment would have no recourse and would lead to

no result. However, if a suicide bomber would reconsider their horrific action in order to

prevent harm to their family, then there is no reason that these acts by the government

would not be permitted. While the Talmud specifically decries capital punishment for

conspirators against his throne,


deportations would not kill the party. Instead,

deportation seems relatively minor compared to some other possible punishments that

could be meted out.

Would the deportations lead to a benefit to society? There would seem to be

evidence that it would. Besides the deterrent factor alone creating fewer future murders,

the benefit to society could also be inferred from deporting those who may have

collaborated to aid in a terrorist attack. The benefit would be gained when these

collaborators would no longer be able to work with their associates and aid in another


Page 54



family member committing horrific acts. Most of the family members of terrorists

support their relative’s choice. From proclaiming them a martyr to idolizing them on

playing cards, these terrorist acts are lauded in the Palestinian community. The benefit to

society as a whole would be obtained by making these acts deemed to cause harm rather

than good. If deporting a relative would serve this purpose there can be no excuse for not

permitting these actions under the Halacha.

Finally, the extenuating circumstances would allow these acts to take place. In

times of emergency, the king may resort to actions that would have little justification in

normal situations. We note that the rule remains whether the act perpetrated by the

government goes against the Torah or merely is not permitted by it. Banishment is used

in Biblical law. Manslayers have not purposefully committed any harm yet they are

punished. So too, the deportees may not have purposefully caused any harm, or at least

have not directly created any harm, but they know that this fate may befall them if their

relative performs such a horrible deed. After all, Israel has not deported individuals

unless they have at least knowledge of the terrorist attack so the deportees are not

innocents. Israel would be justified to engage in these acts in order to prevent further

transgressions of the law.

The King’s justice is broad, but it seems to be intentionally so. There must be

some means for a ruler to adjust for circumstances that the law does not address. There

are still specific reasons when such actions may be used. The power is not unlimited.

Yet the power does go far beyond the strictures of criminal and wartime laws. But

dealing with terrorism seems to be exactly the type of situation the sages had in mind

when they permitted such stretching of the law. After all, who could disagree that a Jew

murdering Hitler, who never killed anyone himself and never declared war on the Jews,

would be justified in doing so? The same justifications would apply to Israeli

government actions in regard to terrorism. These actions would be justified under Jewish


V. Conclusion

There is much debate in Jewish community, and even greater debate in the world

community, over justifications for many of Israeli actions in responding to the terrorist

acts that have plagued the nation of Israel. While much of the criticism is attributed to

anti-Semitic groups that would (and do) criticize any action undertaken by the Jewish

people, criticism has also been levied by many Jews and Israel supporters. From the

religious community to civil rights activists, Israel’s deportations and assassinations

garner intense scrutiny.

Despite this, the Jewish people support Ariel Sharon’s tough stand against the

Palestinians. Relatively few Israelis believe that conceding land and rights will lead to

peace. Instead they feel that the only way to prevent future acts is to take a forceful

position when it comes to responding to terrorism.


Page 55



I agree with the majority of Israelis in deciding that the State’s responses should

be justified. I also feel that the actions are justified under Jewish law. It is true that some

of the justifications are made through broad interpretation of the Halacha. However, in

trying times that have never been dealt with before in Jewish history, broad interpretation

is not only permissible but necessary.

It is true that a narrow interpretation of the same laws I have described throughout

this paper may lead to a lack of justification for Israel’s action. But I believe that the

Sages would approve of Israel’s actions. I do not think a narrow interpretation would be

appropriate. A broad view is necessary to consider the extreme variation of terrorist

actions from anything before dealt with under Talmudic law.

My view is that the primary purpose behind the Talmudic laws are to promote the

values that we hold dear. These values, in essence, are the upholding of Talmudic

principles. The Talmud places an incredibly high value on life, especially innocent life.

They also place a great deal of value on upholding just laws. It is in these areas that the

terrorists strike right at the heart of Jewish ideals. When a terrorist has as his supreme

goal to take innocent lives, the Talmud requires that any and all means must be taken to

stop that killing. When the terrorist lives by rules of law that directly contradict even the

basic Noachide commandments, it is our obligation to ensure that these laws do not

interfere with the Jewish dedication to follow the rules of the Torah.

Would I prefer that Israel did not have to engage in any of these actions? Of

course. I would love see Israel and Palestinians live side by side in a just society devoid

of violence and mayhem. Unfortunately, that is not that case.

It is to ensure a just society that the Talmud provides flexibility. The sages have

permitted interpretation of the Torah as a living document, not unlike the United States

Constitution. These decrees then must be used with the current times, and the current

dilemmas in order to resolve them in the way that will best benefit the Jewish people and

still be lawful.

The flexibility was broadened many times by permitting courts, governments, and

individuals to break the biblical laws for the greater good or to prevent the greater evil. Is

this not the goal of Israel’s actions? Israel is not trying to start a war against the Muslim

people, after all, on .1% of the land and barely 1% of the population in the Middle East, a

war would be extremely difficult at best. Israel is trying to maintain peace and order in a

difficult time.

And because these desperate times call for desperate measures, Israel has resorted

to such. The Jewish people have attempted cease-fires to encourage peace on numerous

occasions. Every single cease fire was broken by the murder of more Jewish people. So

at some point, the Talmudic rules must be suspended and other actions must be taken. It

is only because of dire need that assassinations, deportations, and expropriation has been



Page 56



And so, while we all pray that the violence ends, in the mean time, the violence of

Israel is justified. I hope that Israel uses restraint in continuing these actions but is not

unwillingly to save every life they can. In the future, the creation of a just Palestinian

society is a noble goal. In the meantime, as the Noahide commandments continue to be

defied and the sanctity of life is rendered meaningless, Israel has an obligation to engage

in whatever actions necessary to maintain law and order and protect the Jewish people

from danger, wherever and however it may arise.


Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?


In Memoriam;http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0lud0 Government web site dedicated to the

memory of victims of Palestinian Terrism since September, 2000.


Id. Other victims of that terrorist attack were: Boaz Aluf, 54, of Jerusalem; Shani Avi-Zedek, 15, of

Jerusalem; Leah Baruch, 59, of Jerusalem; Mendel Bereson, 72, of Jerusalem; Rafael Berger, 28, of

Jerusalem; Michal Biazi, 24, of Jerusalem; Tatiana Braslavsky, 41, of Jerusalem; Galila Bugala, 11, of

Jerusalem; Raisa Dikstein, 67, of Jerusalem; Baruch Gruani, 60, of Jerusalem; Orit Hayla, 21, of Jerusalem;

Helena Ivan, 63, of Jerusalem; Iman Kabha, 26, of Barta; Shiri Negari, 21, of Jerusalem; Gila Nakav, 55, of

Jerusalem; Yelena Plagov, 42, of Jerusalem; Liat Yagen, 24 of Jerusalem; Rahamim Zidkiyahu, 51, of



Hamas was formed in 1987. The group engages in various forms of terrorism against Israel including

suicide bombings, assassinations, and random shootings of civilians.


Israeli Defense Forces website (http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/1.gif) provides the following

figures: 5071 people injured including 3,595 civilians and 731 persons killed including 506 civilians. The

16,442 attacks include 665 inside Israel not including the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


W. Laqueur, "Reflections on Terrorism," 64 Foreign Affairs 86, 88 (1986).


K. Skubiszewski, "Definition of Terrorism," 19 Israeli Yearbook on Human Rights 39, 42 (1989).


Id. at 43


Id. at 42


Id. at 44


Deuteronomy 4:2; See Also Deut. 12:32 "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt

not add thereto, nor diminish from it."


January 27, 2002, Broadcast on Al Jazeera


Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, July 30, 1998


See Hamas Charter http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html




Gross, Emanuel. "Democracy in the War Against Terrorism – The Israeli Experience," 35 Loyola L.

Rev. 1161, 1189 (2002).


Id. at 1191


See Id. at 1992


Id. at 1190




Broyde, Michael J. "Fighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and

Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition" http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war1.html.


Horowitz, George. Spirit of Jewish Law, §86 Kinds of War, p. 146 (1993).




Broyde, supra note 21


Id. These wars are no longer possible because the seven Cannanite nations mentioned in the Bible as

those who Israel must defeat have all been defeated or they no longer exist as distinct peoples in the way

they are identified in the Torah. But See discussion, infra at 12, on Amalek encompassing all who embrace

the goal of destroying the Jewish nation.


Broyde, supra note 21




Page 57






Id. One of the problems associated with this view is that it would be difficult to determine if fighting has

ceased or has merely been interrupted. This issue has not been discussed, but it would seem that some

could view this statement as referring to a gap such as the months at a time when no fighting continued

during the Hundred Years War and others could view it as referring to the recurring disputes between India

and Pakistan over the state of Kashmir where the countries are not deemed, technically, to be at war. I

belive this should be viewed on a case by case basis, a bright line test would not aid in this analysis.


PLO Charter, Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968



Horowitz, supra note 22

at §74 Duty to Rescue p. 124


Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yasser Arafat, at a speech at the Palestine General Confederation of

Trade Unions in Gaza, October 27, 2001




Broyde, supra note 21


See supra note 5


Broyde, supra note 21


See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §86 Kinds of War p.146


Deut. 20:10-11


See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §86 Kinds of War p.149


Ibid. at 149-150


Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Kings 6:1


See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §88 Conduct of Military Operations, p.149-150


Broyde, supra note 21




Financial Times, Palestinians Accuse Israel of Declaring War , October 12, 2000.


From Revolution to Reconstructi on, Chapter 13 (1994)


Rahover, Nahum, Jewish Law and Noahide Obligation to Preserve Social Order 12 Cardozo L. Rev.

1073, 1090-1091 (1991).








The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; September 29, 1995;

Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities, May 4, 1994, Agreement on the Gaza

Strip and Jericho Areas, May 4, 1994; Sharm el -Sheikh Fact Finding Committee, April 30, 2001


Broyde, supra note 21 at n.19


Broyde, supra note 21


Blecih, J. David, Contemporary Halachic Problems, 17 ***FULL CITE***


Broyde, supra note 21


Sanhedrin 29b


Sanhedrin 20a


J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 13. This statement was made prior to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Rabbi

Zevin referred to the three wars Israel had engaged in to that point: the 1948 War for Independence, the

1956 Suez Canal War, and the 1967 Six Day War. He found that the consent of the Sanhedrin was not

needed and the formal procedures not applicable for these wars and they were thus permissible by Jewish



Id at 17






Ramban, addendum to Maimonides Sefer ha-Mitzvot, no. 17. Note also that Ramban would require the

consent of the Sanhedrin although the presence of the king is itself not necessary.


J. D. Bl eich, supra note 54 at 15


Broyde, supra note 21 at n.19




J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 16


Page 58




Id. at 13. Rabbi Bleich states th at he would follow Rabbi Zevin’s analysis (that consent of Sanhedrin not

needed for wars in self defense) and find sanction of the 1973 war. I am extending this analysis to the

current conflict with the Palestinians.


Sanhedrin 72a


Broyde, supra note 21


Fletcher, George P., Self Defense as a Justification for Punishment , 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 859 at 862 -863.


See PLO Charter supra note 30, Article 15.


Deut. 25:19


Exodus 17:16 And he said: 'The hand upon the throne of HaShem: HaShem will have war with Amalek

from generation to generation.'


J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 17; Bleich is noting the statements from Hilkhot Melakhim 5:4-5.




Id. at n.6


Id. at 17


See Hamas Charter, PLO Charter supra note 30


J. D. Bleich, supra note 54 at 17. This seems to suggest that the requirement to destroy Amalek does not

refer to an enemy who fulfills both requirements but to destroy any enemy who fulfills either of these





Broyde, supra note 21












Israel’s opponents and criticizers do feel that Israe l has been reckless in regard to their actions but

judged under the standards of any war in history, these claims would be extremely exaggerated at best.




Broyde, supra note 21. Rabbi Broyde notes that the scope of wartime justifications is broader than those

in times of peace.


Sanhedrin 72a


See Fletcher, supra, note 70 at 862-863. This logic would require the community to defend themselves

sin the same manner that an individual must.


Shulcan Aruch, Orach Chaim 329:6


Ex. 20:13


Deut. 27:24


I Kings 2:31; I Samuel 25:31


Rosenberg, Irena Merker; Rosenberg Yale; and Turin, Bentzion, Murder by Gruma: Causation in

Homicide Cases Under Jewish Law, 80 B.U.L. 1017, 1028 -1029 (2000).


Deut. 19:10


Sokol, Moshe. Some Tensions in the Jewish Law Attitude Toward the Taking of Human Life 7 Jewish

Law Annual 97, 99. For this section, the justifications of execution does not apply and will not be

discussed. Rescue too is related to the criminal law aspect and will be discussed in Part III.


Leviticus 21:2; 24:14


Sanhedrin 72a


Sanhedrin 8:7


Lev 20:2; Lev. 24:14


Maim. Yad Roze’ah, 1:15-16


See Spirit of Jewish Law, supra note 22 at p. 177


See Head of Hamas Military Wing Killed in Military Strike





Broyde, supra note 21


Maimonides, Commentary, 1:13


Page 59




See Fletcher, supra, note 70 at 862-863. Following the self-defense maxim to "if someone comes to kill

you, rise up and kill him first."


Sokol, Moshe. Some Tensions in the Jewish Law Attitude Toward the Taking of Human Life 7 Jewish

Law Annual 97, 99


Lev. 19:16


Broyde, supra note 21




Maimonides, Yad Roze’ah 10




42 terrorists with direct connections to terrorist actions ar rested in action by the IDF and security

forces since the assassination of the late Minister Rechavam Ze'evy on Oct 17 http://www.israel-



IDF commandos kill Hamas millitary commander in Gaza, Jerusalem Post, February 17, 2003


The Rule of Law in the Areas Administered by Israel", Israel National Section of the International

Commission of Jurists, 1981


The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories (1971). Shamgar is referring to

the lack of deterrence because Israel does not generally impose capital punishment under their criminal law



Article 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention (Aug 12, 1949)

See Pictet, J.S., "Commentary, IV Geneva Convention" (1958). Pictet states that the prohibition against

destruction would not apply if there is an "imperative military requirement." Pictet also notes that Article

78 of the 4th Geneva Convention which restricts doing anything except "at most placing protected person

in an internment camp" only applies to innocent people.


Deut. 20:19-20


Maimonides, Book of Commandments, Negative No. 57


See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §88 Conduct of Military Operations, p. 148


Contra Apion, II, 29. Josephus wrote these words when accompanying the Roman legions in their

conquest of the Holy Land.


See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §73 Public Safety "Thou Shalt Not Destroy," p. 123


See Horowitz, supra note 22 at §88 Conduct of Military Operations, p. 148




Genesis 32:6-7


Genesis 32:8


Genesis Rabbah 76:2; See Also Lekach Tov in Torah Shelemah, VI, 1266, n.9 "If he overpowers me,

that is bad; and if I overpower him, that is bad."


Sanhedrin 74a.


Sifte Hachamim, Gen. 32:8


Mishna Torah, Kings, 6:7


Broyde, supra note 21




Bleich, J. David, "Preemptive War in Jewish Law."


Time Magazine at http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html


See Broyde, supra note 21. Finding that those who stay to fight or stay in the battlefield are no longer

innocents and are considered combatants under Jewish law and their killing would not be considered

collateral damage.




This is analogous to a naval or air battle. If country A and Country B were at war, and Country A had a <div style="position:absolute;to


Wait until you see the "collateral Damage" on that DAY of the Lord's Wrath, Isrealhell Judah and Dan




Noahide News Part 13



The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

 Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II


"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

 ADDED Material 3-25-2004 Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

 Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

Chabad Satan Part 11

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5

One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7 Religion Part 7

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

Nazi Part 2

Nazi Part 3

Nazi Part 4

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws

The Leaven of the Chabad Lubavitch Chassidim Pharisees

Exod-U.S the coming Geula 


Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of
 Judaic Talmudism

Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2

Noahide News Part 3

Noahide News Part 4

Noahide News Part 5

Noahide News Part 6

Noahide News Part 7

Noahide News Part 8

Noahide News Part 9

Noahide News Part 10

Noahide News Part 11

Noahide News Part 12

Noahide News Part 13

Noahide News Part 14