Jump to content

Talk:Voluntary war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Source: Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 228–229 (s.v. מלחמה). OCLC 54817857.; Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 21b–22a
  • Reviewed:
Created by Davidbena (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Davidbena (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Drive by comment: "forcibly have marital relations" should either be changed to "rape and forcibly marry" or attributed to a source, this is far too euphemistic to have in Wikipedia's voice. Rusalkii (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll make the change, although I do think that it is a bit too strong.Davidbena (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see how the word "rape" can be in the hook if it isn't in the article. I also think "traditional" may be misleading, unless they are still in effect or only recently stopped being active laws; if they haven't been in effect for hundreds or even thousands of years, then that should be clear as well. Note to Davidbena: rather than edit hooks in situ, please show any revised wordings as an alternate hook (i.e., ALT1, ALT2). I've done so to restore your original hook and show the requested revision as ALT1. Thanks. Also, don't forget to supply your QPQ review (see WP:QPQ); you're supposed to do so within seven days of nominating, and definitely within seven days of being reminded to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:, thanks for your comment. Sometimes it is common practice among writers to use "euphemisms" in Belles-lettres and in prose, rather than use a word having the exact same meaning, but viewed as repugnant (e.g. "to forcibly have marital relations" instead of writing "to rape"). Would it help if I put, in the article, the word "rape" in parentheses, immediately following the words "to forcibly have marital relations"? If so, an alternate reading of the hook can be this:
 Done - Davidbena (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt3 (see below) is my preferred hook, as it clarifies everything. I will also go ahead and add "rape" in the main article. As for your question about use of the word "traditional," the word is still applicable today, since Jews in Israel recognize these ancient customs as being bona-fide Jewish traditions. They, in fact, could still be upheld today if we had an active Sanhedrin, which, in this case, we don't. Another option might simply be to write, instead of "traditional," the word "obsolete." This word, however, is tricky, because if the Sanhedrin were ever to be reinstated, these laws of warfare would still be applicable today. See, for example, Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin. Finally, I do not understand what you mean by saying that I must supply my QPQ review. Give me time to read-up on this.Davidbena (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, I have nominated four articles on "Did you know...", and this present article, if accepted, will be my fifth. The rules in WP:QPQ state that if I've nominated 5 or more articles, only then would I be required to work on the nomination of another person's DYK. I take that to mean that I can begin doing that now. Okay, no problem.Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:, I have begun the review process of the DYK article here.Davidbena (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: and @Rusalkii:, this is to remind you that I have just concluded the work on another author's DYK (see Talk:Architects' Tombs), in order to qualify for approval of my own DYK. Hope that things can be expedited here.Davidbena (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to rape and forcibly have marital relations with a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war? The Talmud (Kiddushin 21b) calls this act a concession to man's evil inclination.
  • Full review needed now that QPQ has been submitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This feels like a walking time bomb and shouldn't be run. At least, as long as we're rejecting Template:Did you know nominations/Animal stereotypes of Jews in Palestinian discourse. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I, personally, would not draw a connection between the article that you mentioned above and this article, here, for the very reason that this article speaks about the laws of warfare in ancient Israel, at a time when there used to be a Sanhedrin. A brief reminder of Wikipedia guidelines for DYK state: "Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area" (End Quote). Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's certainly interesting – and as someone who was raised Orthodox Jewish herself, I'm well aware of the anachronism. Most people aren't, though, and at the end of the day, it's not about what's exactly said – it's about what message people think we're trying to send by choosing to run certain hooks. Sadly, I remain opposed to an otherwise fine-looking hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Theleekycauldron:, would it at all help if we added the caveat that, according to Jewish law (Talmud, Sanhedrin 59a), the laws pertaining to a ‘beautiful captive woman’ apply only to the men of Israel, but do not apply to gentile soldiers? In this sense, women are still protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces (The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 [in Articles 13 to 16]).[1] While unto the men of Israel, the laws bequeathed to them by their forefathers are immutable,[2] without the Sanhedrin, this law would not apply today. And even when it did apply, the concession was made only after the fact that, in warfare, a soldier would have given vent to his passions anyway, whether he was allowed to do so or not, and the Torah wanted the men of Israel to be blameless, therefore, it excused the first act of passion. The conceptual-jurisprudential question that may be asked by students of International law is whether or not these laws pertain only to the inner circle of Jews when it comes to conquest by war, or can we say that these laws apply also to the Gentiles although they do not see themselves related to the Jewish law, as they have no access to it, nor do they have any say in the matter. In reply to this question the answer is, unequivocally, "No, they do not apply to non-Israelite armies". Davidbena (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gardam, Judith; Charlesworth, Hilary (2000). "Protection of Women in Armed Conflict". Human Rights Quarterly. 22 (1). The Johns Hopkins University Press: 157 (note 55). JSTOR 4489270.
  2. ^ Bleich, J. David; Jacobson, Arthur J. (2012). "The Jewish legal tradition". In Mauro Bussani; Ugo Mattei (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Comparative Law. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139017206.017. Judaism is fundamentally a religion of law, a law that governs every facet of the human condition. Jewish tradition maintains that the Torah – the first five books of the Bible that include the Written Law transmitted by Moses at Mount Sinai as well as the Oral Law accompanying it – contains not merely a set of laws, but also canons of interpretation and principles according to which conflicts among the rules of law may be resolved. Maimonides, the pre-eminent early medieval philosopher and expounder of the Torah, records the doctrine that the Torah will not be altered, either in its entirety or in part, as one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith. The divine nature of the Torah renders it immutable and hence not subject to amendment or modification.
-Davidbena (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29:, Okay, I'll reword the hook. How does this one sound?
-Davidbena (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding some intrigue to this: ALT5a: ... that in certain circumstances Jewish soldiers may abandon Kosher dietary laws?--Launchballer 13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer:, Yes, of course, that is an excellent idea! People will click onto the link right away!Davidbena (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are these the only circumstances in which abandoning the kosher laws is permitted? If not, the link becomes rather MOS:EGGy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29:, these are extenuating circumstances. The only other time when Jews can eat non-Kosher foods, including ordinary people that are not soldiers, is when they are faced with famine and if they do not eat the non-Kosher animal they would surely die of starvation. In all commandments a Jew may transgress in order to save his own life, except in three things: 1) to murder someone; 2) to worship idolatry; and 3) to engage in a forbidden sexual act.Davidbena (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would ALT5b: ... that there is a circumstance in which Jewish soldiers may abandon Kosher dietary laws? solve the problem?--Launchballer 22:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer:, Yes, that is a better way of wording it.Davidbena (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still prefer this DYK over all the rest:
ALT6: ... that there is a circumstance in which it was permissible for Jewish soldiers to abandon the Kosher dietary laws and to eat non-Kosher foods?Davidbena (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbena, ALT6 only works if it is no longer permissible today under any circumstances. Also, the hook wording is a bit convoluted and unnecessarily lengthy. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:, as I said, there are other instances where a Jew is permitted to eat non-Kosher foods, such as when he is faced with a choice between life and death; life if he eats the non-Kosher food, and death from famine if he declines it. I think that we have remedied the problem by simply saying "there is a circumstance," which does NOT exclude all other circumstances. You see, it still works. Am I missing something? As for making the DYK more concise and less wordy, we can do so. I'll work on it. How does this sound? ALT7: ... that there is a rare circumstance in which it was permissible for Jewish soldiers to abandon the Kosher dietary laws? ---Davidbena (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion of ALT5b BlueMoonset?--Launchballer 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any objection to ALT5b. However, since ALT7 still uses "was permissible" which implies it isn't permissible any longer; as far as I can tell from the article, it's still permissible as of the present day, so I don't understand why "was" is in the ALT7 hook. For that matter, the entire phrase "it was permissible for" could be removed entirely and "are allowed" inserted before "to" (which is very similar to ALT5b):
  • ALT7a: ... that there is a rare circumstance in which Jewish soldiers are allowed to abandon the Kosher dietary laws?
—BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:, I have no objection to ALT7a, and the only reason why I worded the former DYK as "was permitted", rather than "is permitted," is because the laws governing a Voluntary war in Israel only pertain to when there is an active Sanhedrin. Since there is no Sanhedrin today, the entire body of laws governing such a war do not apply today. The matter is merely a technical issue.Davidbena (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: Not seeing a review on this page, which means this would be the oldest fully unreviewed nomination and I need a QPQ, so I'm taking it. Long enough, new enough. All the facts in ALT5b are also in ALT5, so I could review it, and (if I'm interpreting it correctly) it checks out to "Soldiers taking part in the war effort, in the event of food scarcity, are permitted to eat of animals that have been improperly butchered, and even to feast on the 'necks of swine'". Earwig is nice and quiet and the QPQ has been done. There are an awful lot of WP:CLUMPs in the article, and parts of the prose could be tidied up; as an example, WP:BULLET lists should be one sentence. Ping me when you're done and I'll take another look.--Launchballer 15:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer:, In accordance with your directives, I have reduced the bullets to one sentence, and I have eliminated the clutter, in accordance with the rules of WP:CLUMP. Please feel free to comment if there is anything else that I must do.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, although I've just noticed there's quite a lot of stuff in the lead which isn't in the body. Leads should summarise the rest of the article and should not contain new content. I think this should be moved.--Launchballer 11:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer:,  Done. -- Davidbena (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better, although a) Template:Bibleverse is in effect deprecated per WP:EL (which I've fixed), references shouldn't really be in the lead without good reason (which I was going to fix until I discovered that) c) the body says "A voluntary war may only be waged by authorization of the greater Sanhedrin, composed of seventy-one judges,[17] presumably in order to impose a religious and moral check on reckless warfare." and the lead says "Such a war cannot be waged without either the command of a king,[a] or the approbation of the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of no less than seventy-one judges.", and these are not the same thing.--Launchballer 08:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer:, You're right; they're not the exact same thing, but I have rectified the problem. I have added details about a king's ability to wage war in the body of the article.Davidbena (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Just one last thing; does 'Such laws do not apply to Jews serving in foreign armies.' need a source?--Launchballer 14:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer:, Since the legality of a voluntary war (Hebrew: milhemet reshut) is contingent upon the Sanhedrin, and since there is no Sanhedrin outside the Land of Israel, this was implied. Moreover, the commentators say explicitly that a voluntary war can only be waged by Jews who reside in the Land of Israel. That would exclude waging a voluntary war as a conscript in a foreign army outside the Land of Israel. Again, this is only implied, similar to WP:BLUESKY. There is, however, another instance where Jews conscripted in a foreign army can engage in armed conflict with the enemy, but that refers specifically to a Mandatory war. Unlike a voluntary war, a mandatory war is fought because of an existential threat to the Jewish people. Jewish soldiers serving in foreign armies are, therefore, permitted to set-out and rescue other Jewish and Gentile soldiers who had been taken captive by enemy forces, under the guise of saving of Jewish life. This is explained by Rabbi Joel Sirkis in his commentary on the Arba'ah Turim (Orach Chayim 249:1) and such a war may be waged without obtaining permission from the Court.Davidbena (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving ALT5b and ALT7a (all ALTs from ALT5 onwards are shorter derivatives of that ALT, which checks out).--Launchballer 18:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The theorem had been advanced in the 2nd-century CE that "war[1] comes into the world because of a delay of judgment and because of the miscarriage of justice, and because of those who wrongfully apply[2] the constitution,"[3][4] The way to prosecute the war differs according to a nation's constitution, and is mostly grounded, both, in reason and in a country's Theocentric view.

International law may, occasionally, come in conflict with local, written constitutions having the force of law, such as where the UN Charter prohibits "the use of force" (Article 2, paragraph 4), as well as "the threat of the use of force," etc., in an effort to resolve disputes between nations, but where a local, written constitution may allow for such methods when the state's security is thought to be threatened.[5]

Roman law

[edit]

The traditional laws of war, as defined in Roman law under the term occupatio rerum hostilium, or more commonly as occupatio bellica, provide for the occupation of the enemy's land after a victorious war, while the things belonging to the enemy are conveyed to the state on the condition that they were seized in war time by a common action of the army as booty.[6] If, however, chattels were seized during an isolated military operation by a lone soldier, they became his property.[6] Occupation of immovable property (e.g. lands; buildings) was excluded from such kind of acquisition of private ownership, since they were always acquired for the state.[6]

Lands acquired through an act of war became known as agar occupatorius (occupied territory), in ordinary Roman law.[7] Such lands were not only occupied by the victors, but effectually annexed to the territory of the conquering state.[7] Just as in modern law, where there were occasionally conflicts between a newer statute having international implications (such as a law enshrined in 19th-century law) and an older, more provincial law, and where there have been precedents where the older and more provincial law prevailed,[8] so, too, there have been cases in antiquity where legislators in ancient societies have enacted countervailing statutes to ensure the preservation and keeping of their own ancient laws and polity. Thus, using the nation of Israel as a case study, in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, when the Imperial Roman army took lands away from Jewish peasants in Palestine by force,[9][10] a statute was devised by the rabbis under the laws governing Sicaricon ("the usurping occupant"), whereby any prospective buyer of such expropriated land was first required, by rabbinic edict, to gain the willful consent of the land's original owner, or of his heirs, before he could legally purchase the field held by a sicaricon. The original Jewish owner, or his heirs, retained the right of first refusal. In modern history, the same rule has been the practice whenever a local statute stands in direct contradiction to customary international law.[11]

Jewish law

[edit]

As with ancient Rome, the laws governing the conduct of warfare (jus in bello) among civilised nations were often given an air of "legal status" by the writs then issuing in their legislative bodies and which were often enshrined in their constitutions. The nation of Israel, in the Late Bronze Age, had as its constitution that of the Hexateuch, namely, the Five Books of Moses and the Book of Joshua, and which the nation of Israel viewed as having an ascendancy over all other constitutions used in the Old World, as well as over all other legal codes that were to be subsequently compiled and written in future generations, being of a later origin.[12] According to Alt, the Mosaic law was originally a "customary law," later given a fixed literary form and "included in a unified legal corpus."[13]

International law

[edit]

Women are protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces (The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 [in Articles 13 to 16]).[14]

References

  1. ^ Lit. חרב‎ = "a sword," being the word used to denote war.
  2. ^ Lit. מורים‎ = "instruct"
  3. ^ Danby (1977), Avot 5:7
  4. ^ Yerushalmi (1976), 38:3 (p. 103)
  5. ^ Wright 1917, p. 4.
  6. ^ a b c Berger 1953, p. 606.
  7. ^ a b Berger 1953, p. 357.
  8. ^ Wright 1917, p. 7.
  9. ^ Danby 1977, p. 313 (note 6).
  10. ^ Josephus alludes to this law in The Jewish War, VII.6.6 (VII, 216), where he says that "Caesar (Vespasian) gave order that all Judea should be exposed to sale." Although not conclusive, Emil Schürer thinks that this may have referred to the lease of confiscated Jewish property by non-Jewish tenants (farmers), with the money accruing unto the Roman treasury. See: Emil Schürer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit (The Congregation of the Jews in Rome in the Imperial Age), Leipzig 1878, v. i p. 640. See also term, ager publicus, in Adolf Berger's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, vol. 43, part 2, Philadelphia 1980 ISBN 0-87169-435-2, p. 357. Berger, citing Charles Giraud (Recherches sur le droit de propriété chez les Romains, p. 163), writes that in such cases the lessee paid monies for the lease either in periods of five years (quinquennial leaseholds) or perpetually, i.e. , by emphyteutic lease or copyhold. From these lands the Roman treasury (fiscus) received an income of from one-tenth to one-fifth of the annual crops.
  11. ^ Wright 1917, pp. 7–11.
  12. ^ Alt (1966), p. 80
  13. ^ Alt (1966), p. 92
  14. ^ Gardam & Charlesworth 2000, p. 157 (note 55).

-Davidbena (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional laws of armed conflict" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Traditional laws of armed conflict has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 29 § Traditional laws of armed conflict until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voluntary_war&oldid=1236672018"