How Is Scripture Being Used to Frame the War?
Since the outbreak of the war on Gaza, debate has intensified both inside and outside Israel over the nature of the rhetoric accompanying military operations. Particular attention has focused on the prominent use of religious language and biblical symbolism in statements made by political leaders, military figures, and influential rabbis.
This has revived longstanding questions about the role of religious heritage in shaping the Zionist vision of the conflict with the Palestinians.
What has made the debate even more intense is that references to biblical texts are no longer confined to religious study circles or theological literature. They have become increasingly visible in official speeches, religious rulings, and political positions that influence Israeli decision-making.
Three Thousand Years of Sins: Examining the Intellectual Roots
In his well-known book Jews and Judaism: Three Thousand Years of Guilt, Jewish writer Israel Shahak examined what he described as the darker aspects of Jewish religious tradition and its historical and political applications.
Shahak cites a striking passage in which he writes:
“Since the prohibition against killing non-Jews, in its most limited form, applies only to non-Jews with whom Jews are not at war, many religious commentators reached the logical conclusion that in wartime it is permissible, or even obligatory, to kill all members of a hostile people.”
The significance of this quotation lies not only in its content but also in the broader discussion it opens regarding how certain religious interpretations are employed during periods of conflict and war. That debate has returned to the forefront during the current war on Gaza.
South Africa included speeches by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu containing extensive biblical references among the evidence it submitted to the International Court of Justice in its case accusing Israel of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Israeli Ministers and the Language of Exclusion
In recent years, several prominent members of the Israeli government have made statements that sparked widespread international criticism.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated in Paris on 19 March 2023 that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people”, a remark that reflected a broader pattern of views he has expressed regarding the conflict.
In October 2021, he addressed Arab members of the Knesset by saying:
“Ben-Gurion made a mistake by not finishing the job and expelling you in 1948.”
In a Facebook post, Smotrich also wrote:
“I spoke in a room full of people from every stream of Jewish religious life and said that we would all like to live in a country governed by the Torah and Jewish law.”
Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu caused widespread outrage on 30 July 2025 when he called for a nuclear strike on Gaza, one of the most extreme statements made by an Israeli government official during the war.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, whom Israeli military figures have described as excessively dangerous and extremist, has built his political profile around confrontation and defiance. He presents himself as the politician who “does not apologise and does not bow to Western pressure”, using the language of force and humiliation as a central part of his appeal to the far right.
Following Operation Al Aqsa Flood, Ben-Gvir increasingly portrayed himself as the “protector of the Jews”, benefiting from heightened fear and anger within Israeli society. His popularity is particularly strong among poorer Mizrahi Jews and younger Israelis who have grown up amid continuous conflict and war.
Amalek: When Biblical History Returns to Modern Politics
One of the most controversial aspects of the war has been Netanyahu’s repeated invocation of the biblical concept of Amalek.
Saqr Jabayli, a political science professor at An-Najah National University, argues that Netanyahu’s use of biblical quotations is intended to “fuel a religious war by stirring the emotions of the Jewish public”.
These references did not pass unnoticed. South Africa cited Netanyahu’s speeches containing biblical imagery as part of its evidence before the International Court of Justice.
South Africa’s legal team argued that Netanyahu’s statements provided Israeli soldiers with moral and psychological justification for actions against Palestinians. Observers have argued that invoking Amalek in the context of a modern war carries implications that extend beyond symbolism, raising concerns about how the enemy is defined and stripped of its humanity.
According to religious rulings attributed to several rabbis during the war:
“The correct path before us today is to continue the war with all our strength without stopping, to seek the destruction of the Palestinians, and to increase pressure on them as much as possible until complete control is achieved.”
Rabbinical Platforms and Calls for Open-Ended War
If politicians invoke biblical narratives in their speeches, some rabbis have gone further by issuing religious rulings that frame the war in explicitly theological terms.
Several observers argue that rulings issued by prominent Religious Zionist rabbis, particularly Rabbi Dov Lior and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, have directly contributed to calls for the continuation of military operations and opposition to prisoner exchange agreements.
These rulings have been linked to a biblical passage describing a battle against the Canaanite king of Arad, which some interpretations present as a precedent for defeating enemies by force and recovering captives through military means.
Other wartime rulings attributed to rabbis stated:
“The correct course today is to continue the war with full force, without interruption, and to seek the destruction of the Palestinians while increasing pressure upon them until control is imposed. At that point, all captives will be released.”
Additional religious rulings have also been cited as permitting the killing of Palestinian civilians under various security justifications.
In this context, Rabbi Baruch Efrati reportedly endorsed the use of lethal force against Palestinians accused of stone throwing and expressed regret that Israeli law does not formally permit such measures.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the Shas party and a highly influential religious figure in Israeli politics, also made a series of controversial statements and rulings. He described Palestinians as “evil”, expressed a desire to see them removed from the world, and referred to them using a range of derogatory terms while condemning their religion in highly offensive language.
Testimonies From Within the Israeli Military
Alongside official and religious rhetoric, testimonies have emerged from within the Israeli military itself.
International media outlets, including CNN and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, published testimonies collected by the Israeli organisation Breaking the Silence from soldiers who served after 7 October.
The testimonies included accounts connected to the Sde Teiman military facility, as well as allegations involving the use of Palestinians as human shields.
Breaking the Silence Executive Director Nadav Weiman stated:
“The dehumanisation of Palestinians in Israel has become so normalised that it also leads to these practices within the Israeli military.”
He added:
“This is a horrifying moral failure.”
Weiman highlighted what he described as a contradiction between Israel’s condemnation of the use of human shields and testimonies from Israeli soldiers describing similar practices.
Critical Israeli and Jewish Voices
Despite the rise of nationalist and religious rhetoric, critical voices continue to exist within Israeli and Jewish circles.
The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has argued that the reality in the occupied Palestinian territories is based on a system of structural discrimination affecting rights, freedoms, movement, and access to resources.
Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has also warned of the growing dehumanisation of Palestinians within Israeli public discourse, arguing that the war has exposed unprecedented levels of hatred and incitement.
Outside Israel, the organisation Jewish Voice for Peace has publicly opposed the war on Gaza and criticised the use of Jewish identity and religious narratives to justify military operations or grant them moral legitimacy.
Religion, Politics, and the Conduct of War
The current rabbinical discourse cannot be viewed simply as a reaction to the events of 7 October or as a temporary political response shaped by wartime circumstances. The debate unfolding today is rooted in deeper questions about the place of religious authority within contemporary Zionist thought and the role it plays in mobilising Israeli society and shaping perceptions of Palestinians.
In this context, rabbinical rulings, ministerial statements, and the invocation of biblical texts appear as interconnected elements within a broader ideological framework in which religion and politics become intertwined, and religious discourse becomes an active force in shaping both policy and war.
In the absence of decisive international accountability for this type of rhetoric, questions remain about the extent to which religious authorities contribute to prolonging the conflict and about the human and political costs of turning a modern war into a confrontation fought with the technology of the twenty-first century but framed through narratives and myths rooted thousands of years in the past.
