Israel’s War of Total Annihilation of Gaza from a Jewish Perspective

Zionist supremacist elements within the Israeli government and society,
exemplified by figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit), Bezalel
Smotrich, Yoav Gallant, and Benjamin Netanyahu, are weaponizing biblical
references—particularly 1 Samuel 15:3—to frame their actions in Gaza as
a divinely sanctioned “holy war” of total annihilation against the
Palestinian people. This verse, which commands the annihilation of
Amalek (“put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and
sheep…”), has been invoked, either explicitly (e.g., Netanyahu’s October
28, 2023, transcript reference) or implicitly (e.g., Gallant’s “human
animals” rhetoric, Smotrich’s “not a grain of wheat” policy), to justify
a campaign of siege, starvation, and mass killing. This narrative
portrays Palestinians, or at least Hamas, as modern Amalekites,
legitimizing extreme measures such as the deaths of 46,600 people,
including 13,319 children (UNRWA), and the displacement of 1.9 million,
with 1.8 million facing acute food insecurity (IPC, BBC). However, under
the Jewish legal framework (Halakha), these claims are invalid, and the
actions violate fundamental Jewish commandments and ethics, including
proportionality, the prohibition against suffering, pikuach nefesh
(preservation of life), and b’tzelem Elohim (the divine image in all
humans). Moreover, their defense mechanism of labeling criticism as
antisemitism—extending to the UN, ICJ, and ICC—casts a shadow on
Judaism’s ethical integrity, while the U.S. crackdown on student
protests risks fueling a renaissance of antisemitism.

Invalidity of Claims Under Jewish Legal Framework

The invocation of 1 Samuel 15:3 as a justification for a “holy war” of
total annihilation against Palestinians is halakhically baseless. The
command to destroy Amalek was a specific, divine mandate given to Saul
through the prophet Samuel, tied to Amalek’s unique historical
aggression against the Israelites post-Exodus (Sanhedrin 96b, Mishneh
Torah, Hilchot Melachim 5:5). Modern application requires prophetic
authority, which ceased with Malachi, and a clear identification of
Amalek as a distinct entity—neither of which exists today. The Talmud
notes Amalek’s assimilation into other nations, rendering literal
identification impossible, and Rabbi Menachem Meiri (Beit HaBechirah,
Sanhedrin 59a) interprets Amalek symbolically as evil, not a
contemporary ethnic group. Palestinians, an Arab Muslim/Christian
population with regional roots, have no historical or genealogical link
to Amalek, making this framing a theological distortion.

Furthermore, declaring a milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) to enact
this annihilation lacks legitimacy. Milchemet mitzvah, as defined by
Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 5:1), requires a Sanhedrin
or divine command, neither of which is present. Even in defensive wars
(e.g., post-October 7, 2023, Hamas attack), Jewish law demands
proportionality and discrimination (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim
6:7), targeting only combatants (rodef, Sanhedrin 72a). The siege, aid
blockades, and strikes on civilian areas (e.g., UNRWA schools in
Jabalia, UNRWA) exceed these bounds, affecting 1.9 million, including 1
million children, contradicting the war’s defensive intent.

Violation of Fundamental Jewish Commandments and Ethics

The actions of Zionist supremacists violate core Jewish commandments and
ethics:

-   Proportionality: Jewish law requires that military actions be
    proportionate to the threat (Sanhedrin 72b). The killing of 46,600,
    including 13,319 children, and the starvation of 1.8 million (HRW,
    IPC) far exceed the response to Hamas’s October 7 attack (1,200
    deaths). This imbalance violates the ethical constraint of
    minimizing harm, as emphasized by Maimonides.
-   Prohibition Against Suffering: The Talmud (Bava Kamma 60a) and Torah
    (Deuteronomy 24:17-21) prohibit causing unnecessary suffering,
    especially to the vulnerable. The siege’s denial of food, water, and
    medicine, leading to child malnutrition deaths, constitutes cruelty
    (tza’ar ba’alei chayim), a principle extended to human welfare.
-   Pikuach Nefesh: This principle mandates saving all human lives,
    Jewish or non-Jewish (Yoma 85b, Sanhedrin 74a), even at the cost of
    violating other commandments (e.g., Shabbat). The deliberate
    endangerment of 1.9 million lives, including through starvation and
    bombardment, directly opposes pikuach nefesh. The Talmud (Gittin
    61a) further obligates aiding non-Jewish poor for darchei shalom
    (ways of peace), reinforcing the duty to alleviate Palestinian
    suffering.
-   B’tzelem Elohim: The belief that all humans are created in the
    divine image (Genesis 1:27) underpins Jewish ethics, demanding
    respect for all life. Dehumanizing Palestinians as “human animals”
    (Gallant) or Amalekites and targeting civilians violate this
    principle, as articulated by Rabbi Meiri, who extends moral
    protections to all “nations bound by morality.”

Defense of Criticism as Antisemitism

Zionist supremacists, including Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, have deflected
criticism by labeling the UN, International Court of Justice (ICJ), and
International Criminal Court (ICC)—which have accused Israel of war
crimes (HRW, UN)—as antisemitic. This tactic shields their actions from
scrutiny, framing legitimate human rights concerns as attacks on Judaism
itself. This misrepresents Jewish ethics, which, as seen in pikuach
nefesh and b’tzelem Elohim, align with universal justice and compassion.
By equating criticism with Jew-hatred, they distort Judaism’s moral
legacy, suggesting it endorses ethnic cleansing or genocide—claims
antithetical to its teachings. This not only tarnishes Judaism’s global
image but also alienates Jews who advocate for ethical governance, as
seen in the opposition from groups like the Rabbinical Assembly.

U.S. Crackdown on Students and the Risk of Antisemitism Renaissance

The U.S. response, including crackdowns on student protests against
Israel’s actions (e.g., arrests at Columbia and UCLA in 2024, NYT),
risks exacerbating antisemitism. Suppressing free speech under the guise
of combating antisemitism (e.g., conflating anti-Zionism with
Jew-hatred) alienates young activists, who may perceive Judaism as
complicit in oppression. Historically, antisemitism has surged when
Jewish identity is tied to controversial state policies—e.g., post-WWII
backlash against Zionist lobbying (ADL reports). A 2023 Anti-Defamation
League survey noted a 140% rise in U.S. antisemitic incidents, partly
linked to Israel-Gaza tensions. By stifling dissent, the U.S. risks
fostering resentment, potentially reviving antisemitic stereotypes
(e.g., Jewish global control), undermining Jewish safety and interfaith
dialogue.

Conclusion

Israel’s war of total annihilation of Gaza, driven by Zionist
supremacists wielding 1 Samuel 15:3 to frame Palestinians as Amalek in a
misapplied milchemet mitzvah, is invalid under Jewish law, lacking
prophetic sanction and misidentifying Palestinians as Amalek. The
actions—killing 46,600, starving 1.8 million—violate proportionality,
the prohibition against suffering, pikuach nefesh, and b’tzelem Elohim,
contradicting Halakha’s ethical core. Labeling criticism as antisemitism
misrepresents Judaism, casting it as a doctrine of supremacy, while U.S.
crackdowns on students risk a renaissance of antisemitism by alienating
critics and reinforcing negative stereotypes. True adherence to Jewish
ethics demands rejecting this narrative and prioritizing life over
ideology.