| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voluntary war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidbena ( talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with a beautiful woman who had been taken captive?
- ALT1: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to rape and forcibly marry a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?
- 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:
Davidbena ( talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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:
- ALT2: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with (i.e. rape) a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?
- 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)
- 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)
- @ BlueMoonset:, I have begun the review process of the DYK article here. Davidbena ( talk) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
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:
- 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)
- 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)
- @ 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @ 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, these laws 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
- ^ 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.
-
^
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.
- @ DYK admins: , Your views on this, please. Davidbena ( talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
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
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
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
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
- ^ Lit. חרב = "a sword," being the word used to denote war.
- ^ Lit. מורים = "instruct"
- ^ Danby (1977), Avot 5:7
- ^ Yerushalmi (1976), 38:3 (p. 103)
- ^ Wright 1917, p. 4.
- ^ a b c Berger 1953, p. 606.
- ^ a b Berger 1953, p. 357.
- ^ Wright 1917, p. 7.
- ^ Danby 1977, p. 313 (note 6).
- ^ 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.
- ^ Wright 1917, pp. 7–11.
- ^ Alt (1966), p. 80
- ^ Alt (1966), p. 92
- ^ Gardam & Charlesworth 2000, p. 157 (note 55).
- Davidbena ( talk) 11:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- Articles that have been nominated for Did you know
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voluntary war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidbena ( talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with a beautiful woman who had been taken captive?
- ALT1: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to rape and forcibly marry a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?
- 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:
Davidbena ( talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC).
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @
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:
- ALT2: ... that in the Israelite traditional laws of armed conflict it was permissible for a Jewish soldier to forcibly have marital relations with (i.e. rape) a beautiful woman who had been made a prisoner of war?
- 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)
- 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)
- @ BlueMoonset:, I have begun the review process of the DYK article here. Davidbena ( talk) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- @
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:
- 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)
- 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)
- @ 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @ 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, these laws 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
References
- ^ 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.
-
^
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.
- @ DYK admins: , Your views on this, please. Davidbena ( talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
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
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
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
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
- ^ Lit. חרב = "a sword," being the word used to denote war.
- ^ Lit. מורים = "instruct"
- ^ Danby (1977), Avot 5:7
- ^ Yerushalmi (1976), 38:3 (p. 103)
- ^ Wright 1917, p. 4.
- ^ a b c Berger 1953, p. 606.
- ^ a b Berger 1953, p. 357.
- ^ Wright 1917, p. 7.
- ^ Danby 1977, p. 313 (note 6).
- ^ 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.
- ^ Wright 1917, pp. 7–11.
- ^ Alt (1966), p. 80
- ^ Alt (1966), p. 92
- ^ Gardam & Charlesworth 2000, p. 157 (note 55).
- Davidbena ( talk) 11:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- Articles that have been nominated for Did you know