If someone is coming to kill you, rise up to kill them.

TALMUD, SANHEDRIN 72a

Rising Up

The talmud teaches:1 “If someone is coming to kill you, rise up to kill them.” This principle applies to individuals2 as well as the Jewish people’s collective security.3 On a basic level, this means that Israel should respond to immediate threats. More comprehensively, it means taking preemptive action when facing dangers such as enemies amassing weapons or preparing to attack. This principle prescribes preventative, not offensive, warfare.4 When Israel demonstrates its readiness to confront threats, it deters enemies, preventing full-scale wars.5

Despite the diplomatic discomfort and moralizing invectives thrown at it from around the world, Israel resolutely neutralizes its adversaries.6

Credible Deterrence

While the simple meaning of the proverb “rise up” is that a person who is threatened must neutralize their enemies, even using deadly force when warranted, the Rebbe discloses a deeper strategic layer of meaning in this teaching.

“Rise up” means creating credible deterrence – deterrence enemies actually fear, not false security that leaves us vulnerable to surprise attacks. As the Rebbe explains:7

When someone comes to kill you, you have no obligation to reason with them. You must rise up to kill them. The precise wording here is significant – the proverb says “rise up to kill them,” not “rise up and kill them.” The meaning of this is not that you must actually kill them! Rather, if they merely see that you have risen at dawn, not to write letters, but rather, you are prepared to kill them if they try to kill you – then they will not even approach you with malevolent intent.

When the Jewish people engage in credible deterrence, its enemies will be cowered into doing nothing but sending meaningless complaints to ineffective institutions:

[The representative of Israel’s enemies] will send his demands to the U.N., and then we can be certain that a year will pass, and then another year, and at that point, the institutional leadership will have changed and have new agendas.8 Meanwhile, “the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps” (Psalms 121:4), and G‑d will send other problems so that they forget about this issue.

Credible deterrence prevents war. Enemies will not risk engaging a powerful foe when they stand a high chance of defeat.9 As the Rebbe framed it:10

When the enemy knows that the Jewish people are a nation that ferociously responds to aggression, they will be so terrified that they will not even contemplate initiating a war. This accords with the teaching that “If someone is coming to kill you, rise up to kill them.” The very fact that we “rise up” and demonstrate our readiness to defend ourselves strikes fear into the hearts of our enemy.

This principle also demands maintaining a strong army, with divisions posted at probable flash points to deter attacks.11 In the Rebbe’s words:12

When the Jewish people follow Jewish law and project strength, fear will befall their enemies. As the Torah teaches,13 “And all the nations of the world shall see that the name of G‑d is called upon you, and they shall fear you.” This fear will not only deter them from attempting to attack Jews, but will also cause them to “flee before you on seven paths.”14 In other words, they will flee from the Land of Israel and areas vital to Israel’s security. This outcome will ultimately benefit the terrorists themselves, as they will avoid harm by having already fled the area. This approach is the only path to ensure true peace.

A Truly Humane Approach

While some might complain that the proverb “rise up” promotes violence, the Rebbe explains that it is the truly humane approach. Naive pacifism leads to more deaths on both sides, as the October 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war tragically demonstrated. The following talk delivered on Purim 1969, in the heat of Israel’s War of Attrition with Egypt, rings true when applied to Israel’s regional enemies then as well as now.15

The Rebbe notes that the enemy against whom we are called upon to rise up is not a hapless, unknown, innocent party. Instead, they have richly demonstrated their desire to kill us – time and again:

The person in question is no ordinary person [in this case, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser] whose character we do not know. Rather, we know that he has hostile intent, like the biblical serpent, of whom it is said, “I will set enmity between you [the serpent – the archetypal manifestation of evil] and the woman [the archetypal representation of humanity].”16 In such a case, one must crush the serpent’s head. There is no other choice. This is the only way to remedy such an individual.

We know this to be true, and the proof is that he has already done this [made a treaty and then attacked] three, four, and five times over the course of many years.

Any attempt to negotiate leads to false promises followed by violence:

We see in practice that “their mouths speak falsehood and their right hand is a right hand of lies.”17 [Nasser – representative of Israel’s enemies –] signed one document and a second document, all to no avail.

Thus, the solution is not to take a conciliatory approach to unrepentant enemies, but to engage in credible deterrence:

He himself says that he is coming to kill you, so the Torah of Life [the Torah values life and offers us a path towards a good life] says, “Rise up to kill him.” This only means to be ready to kill, but in practice, it will not be necessary! Therefore, if you truly want what is best [for your enemy] – that he shouldn’t end up at war and will thus remain alive – [credible deterrence] is the way he will take you seriously. Sending letters through official channels and talking today, tomorrow, and the day after – all these methods have already been tried and have already cost many lives. Not only did they not improve the situation, but they made it worse, since the enemy saw this method used once, twice, three times, four times, five times, and everything just passed by without any real consequences.

But when you rise up to kill them, you fulfill your obligation with that alone. You only need to rise and stand ready. With respect to the next step, the Torah does not say, “and kill him.” Instead, the Torah says, “rise up to kill them.” Ultimately, this is also for the benefit of the Egyptian [in this case Nasser – but the Rebbe extends the point to archetypally represent Israel’s enemies]. This approach [credible deterrence] ultimately benefits the one of whom our sages say, “If someone comes to kill you, rise up [to kill them].”

If the enemy is deterred, they will not attack to begin with – and then no one will die. Thus, while credible deterrence sounds harsh, it is truly a more peaceful option than kind but empty political pronouncements and the farce of negotiations with bad actors.

The Rationale Behind “Rise Up!”

The proverb “rise up” has a primal ring to it. It is a healthy, instinctive human response to threat, and the Rebbe roundly critiques moralizing reasons offered for not acting on this principle.

But the principle is more than a mere instinctive response. It is based on clear logic and understanding of human psychology. The Talmud tells us:18

The Sages taught: One who comes through a tunnel [which he dug into someone else’s house in order to break in and steal] is judged based on his eventual intentions.

What is the reason?

Rava said: It is a chazakah [an established principle] that a person will not restrain himself when faced with [losing] his property. And if the homeowner opposes him, [the bandit] will kill him.

And the Torah said: ‘If someone comes to kill you, rise up to kill him.’

Let’s examine the logic of Rava’s analysis. On the one hand, the bandit in question has not attacked the homeowner. He has merely dug a tunnel into his home. What could justify the homeowner using lethal force? Rava responds by invoking the concept of chazakah. “Chazakah” is a legal presumption in Jewish Law. In this case, the chazakah is a psychological assessment of the two parties in the interaction. Rava is saying that:19

1) A thief who has gone to the extreme of breaking into someone’s home is desperate and determined.

2) The bandit knows that a homeowner will not just sit idly by while their property is taken, so the bandit is likely prepared to use violence, to the point of lethal force.

3) Given this high probability of violence, the homeowner is justified in taking preemptive action to protect himself.

The Talmud continues to clarify that one does not have carte blanche to kill just any intruder – it must be clear that the intruder is hostile:

The Rabbis taught: The thief has no blood [i.e., may not be killed by the homeowner] if the sun has risen upon him (Exodus 22:3).

But does the sun rise only upon him? Rather, [the meaning is that] if it is as clear to you as the sun that he has no peaceful intentions towards you – kill him; but if not – do not kill him.

Given this logic, the applicability of “rise up” in the battle for the Land of Israel leaves little room for question. The bandit who dug the tunnel demonstrates a reasonable probability that he will use lethal force, and thus, one may preemptively use force against him. The enemies of the Jewish people have been trying to kill Jews in Israel for over a century. The application of “rise up” in a literal sense in our context is thus amply warranted. The proverb’s application is even more apt given Israel’s enemies’ ubiquitous use of tunnel warfare.20

Case Studies

Having unpacked the principle of “rising up,” we can now examine how this principle has played out in Israel’s major conflicts. The following case studies span from 1967 to 2024, showing both successful applications of this principle and the tragic consequences of failing to apply it.

A) The Six-Day War: Successful Application of the Principle

The Six-Day War was not an act of unprovoked Israeli aggression or expansionism.21 Egypt and Syria, with support from Russia, had been threatening Israel in the months leading up to the war. Ahmad Shukeiri, Chairman of the PLO at the time, said of the Jews in Israel: “Those who survive will remain in Palestine, but I imagine that no one will survive.”22

On June 5, 1967, Israel preemptively struck. It destroyed 90% of the Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground. This proactive action saved countless Jewish and Egyptian lives by neutralizing the Egyptian means of making war before they could be used in battle.

In the ensuing six days, capitalizing on the element of surprise, Israel fought the enemy coalition of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq. Miraculously, the war ended with a total rout of the surrounding enemies who had much larger armies, territories, and populations. Israel also reclaimed the ancestral Jewish lands of Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula.

What appeared to be a serious existential threat to Israel evaporated in the face of a bold preemptive strike. This also gave Israel deterrence against future attacks, positioning it as a fierce enemy to be reckoned with .

B) The Yom Kippur War: Failure to Apply This Principle

Weak Defense

Prior to the Yom Kippur War, Israel’s defense of the Sinai Desert, bordering Egypt, relied heavily on the “Bar-Lev Line,” a complex system of fortifications. Two years before the war’s outbreak, the Rebbe began sounding the alarm about the Bar-Lev Line. In a 1971 letter, he wrote the following to General Aharon Yariv, then head of Aman, the IDF’s military intelligence:23

Since you touched on the issue of the interim agreement with Egypt,24 permit me to express my thoughts on a topic that has been of great confusion to me for about three years now. It is known and accepted by all experts, that in our era, defense systems like the Maginot Line25 relying on fortifications and army platoons constrained in bunkers, etc. – are ineffective. This is especially so in the age of fighter jets, paratroopers, and so on, and particularly when the front stretches for several hundred kilometers (if one includes the Suez Canal front and the Mediterranean front).

Rather, the strength of the army lies in mobility and ability to move swiftly from place to place using mobile units26 for rapid deployment across varied terrain.

This holds true even when there are several footholds in the natural landscape – such as mountains, hills, etc. – in the rear of the defensive line. All the more so does it apply in the desert. Yet, despite all this, vast sums and enormous efforts were invested in this line of defense.

Granted, constructing the Bar-Lev Line had the psychological benefit of saving the soldiers there from boredom,27 a very serious problem in such a situation, but it’s not plausible to say that this is why the line was built.

The Rebbe sounded the alarm that Israel was using a highly vulnerable defense strategy on the Egyptian border, one that had already proven ineffective in World War II.

Ignoring Impending Attack

While their defense strategy was weak, Israel had advance warning of the attack. Yet, despite Israeli intelligence pointing to an imminent Egyptian offensive, Israel chose not to launch a preemptive strike to avoid being seen as the aggressor.28 When Egypt eventually attacked, its forces overwhelmed the Bar-Lev Line in under two hours and proceeded to make serious incursions into the Sinai. The Rebbe characterized the fact that the Egyptians did not progress further into Israeli territory as a miracle.29 He explained:30

It is a great miracle, even greater than the miracles of the Six-Day War, that when the Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal and the Bar-Lev Line, they did not advance further than they did. Nothing would have stopped them from reaching Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. They might have pressed further, G‑d forbid, and the Syrian army might have done the same. The fact that they did not is nothing less than a miracle. The United States thought that Israel might be done for.

The greatest proof that this is a miracle is the formidable Maginot Line, built by the French in World War II. The Nazis overwhelmed the Maginot Line with their tanks using precisely the same military strategy used in the Sinai, conquering all of France. Moreover, in France, the Nazis needed to pass through many cities with military garrisons. In contrast, in the Yom Kippur War, the Egyptian army only had to traverse a desert and were faced with a smaller number of defenders.

Commenting on Israel’s failure to strike preemptively, the Rebbe continued:

We must listen to military experts, not diplomats. The diplomats and politicians, disheartened due to the exile,31 did not accept the advice of military experts, who suggested an immediate call up of the reserves. Had the army mobilized the reserves, this may have created a deterrent effect and there might have been no war.

The political hesitation stemmed from the fear that a preemptive strike would evoke other countries’ condemnation and perhaps even withdrawal of support. Israel thus refrained from attacking. As a result of the leadership’s inaction, Israel suffered the loss and permanent injury of thousands of soldiers, along with the irreparable trauma and sorrow of thousands of widows and orphans.32

On that fateful Yom Kippur itself, military experts asserted that in order to prevent the war and save Jewish lives, it would be necessary to publicly call up the reserves.33 Tragically, however, the Israeli government rejected this recommendation in order not to be seen as aggressors.34 The Rebbe explicitly noted that this was a failure in applying the principle of “If they are coming to kill you, rise up to kill them.”35

After witnessing the tragedies of the war, caused in large part by her hesitation and inaction, Golda Meir, then Prime Minister, said in retrospect: “If, G‑d forbid, such a situation were to recur, we must discount the international community’s opinion and go to war.”36

C) The October 7, 2023, Simchas Torah Massacre: Failure to Apply This Principle

Bad Fences: The Breached Billion-Dollar Barrier

Gaza has been home to groups hostile to the Jewish people for close to a century.37 Instead of addressing the problem by demonstrating that hostility will not be tolerated, the Israeli government has progressively used containment. The successive border fences between southern Israel and Gaza reflect a naive belief that Gaza can just be cordoned off without endangering the Jewish people.

Gaza had been isolated from Israel under Egyptian control until 1967. While Israel conquered the land from Egypt in 1967, it only lightly settled the region, primarily allowing it to function as a Palestinian stronghold.

Soon after the Oslo Accords, which handed most of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority, Israel constructed a more formidable fence. In 2005, following the Gaza disengagement, Israel built an even stronger barrier. Finally, in 2021, Israel completed another iteration of its Gaza barrier, which cost an estimated 1.1 Billion U.S. dollars. The seemingly mighty border fence stretched for approximately 40 miles (64 kilometers). It featured a sensor-equipped underground wall to prevent tunnel infiltrations. Above ground, it consisted of a nearly 20-foot high fence with advanced surveillance systems. The fence included cameras, radars, motion sensors, and remote-controlled weapons systems and lookout towers.38

On October 7, 2023, 3,800 trained terrorists along with large unskilled mobs quickly breached the imposing fence at sixty different points. They used low tech tools like wire cutters, bulldozers, and primitive explosives.39 The Gazan horde, 6,000 strong,40 easily overpowered the mere 600 Israeli soldiers at the border. They kidnapped the unarmed IDF female lookouts and killed most of the few male Israeli soldiers manning tanks and guarding the bases or border with small arms.

They then proceeded to massacre or kidnap any Israeli they could find, altogether murdering 1,139, injuring 3,400, and abducting 251.

E) Judea and Samaria:Failure to Apply This Principle

Tolerating Terror

The extent to which current Israeli policy allows a certain number of Israelis to be killed, instead of exercising a zero-tolerance policy, is well illustrated by an Israeli intelligence officer’s take on the war launched in response to the October 7 attacks.41 When asked how we should deal with the conflict, he said, “Look, the public can tolerate a Fogel family from Itamar [tragedy]42 once in a while. But what happened in the Gaza Envelope [on October 7th, 2023,]43 is beyond the public’s tolerance level.”

The Fogel family lived in the community of Itamar in Samaria. One Shabbos evening in 2011, two teenage Palestinian terrorists infiltrated their home. The terrorists brutally slaughtered the two Fogel parents Ehud and Ruth, their 10 year old son Yoav, 4 year old son Elad, and their three months old daughter Hadas. In their killing spree, the terrorists missed the Fogel’s eight year old and two year old. At midnight, 12 year old Tamar Fogel returned home from a youth group to find a living nightmare: her parents and siblings brutally murdered in cold blood.

According to the perspective of the officer we quoted, the government tacitly sacrifices some residents of Judea, Samaria, and the rest of Israel44 on the altar of international opinion. Israel decides as a matter of policy to allow a certain number of Jews to be killed with only surface level responses until the number of murders exceeds some threshold of “tolerance.”45 This leads to the worst outcome for everyone involved – Palestinian terrorism continues and Israel responds with counter-terrorism operations, creating a hostile situation for all parties. International opinion remains unchanged, despite Israel’s restraint.46 The international community consistently condemns Israel for its mere presence in Judea and Samaria and for doing anything at all to defend itself.

The Rebbe bemoaned the persistence of unaddressed terrorism. Sadly, in the decades since the Rebbe commented on the situation, terrorist attacks have remained a constant threat and have only become more serious. Violence targeting Israelis, especially in Judea and Samaria, occurs on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

Terror attacks have been a continuous problem since the year 2000, but even 2023, a year where terror was underreported until October 7 provides an unsettling picture into the daily challenges of Jewish living in Israel.

Demanding a New Policy

The Israeli army’s domestic strategy against terrorism resembles a cat-and-mouse game. Israel captures terrorists, only to release them soon after in negotiations. Moreover, it does not address the large stores of Palestinian weapons and violent rhetoric. This is an open secret. One night, during the Israel-Hamas War, an IDF soldier serving in the special forces in Judea and Samaria shared47 :

We confiscate weapons from time to time. Often, when we make arrests, we search their phones. In their camera rolls, they have pictures of weapons, including heavy machine guns. We know exactly what they plan on using them for… but we cannot do anything about it because the government’s policy ties our hands.

As the Rebbe often said in response to earlier iterations of this same policy, the change must happen on a policy level. The government and the IDF must acknowledge that allowing our enemies to hold heavy quantities of weaponry which could easily be turned on vulnerable Israeli populations is unacceptable. Persistently adopting a tougher stance, similar to Operation Defensive Shield but with greater vigilance and perseverance, would play a large part in ending the cycle of violence and making peace. It would bring safety to Israel’s roads, sparing both Jewish and Arab families from loss. This decisive approach against terror will pave the way for a new era of prosperity.

F) 2024: A Turning Point?

When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, the future looked uncertain. Would Israel respond with a limited, symbolic attack, allowing Hamas to fester once more? Would Hezbollah attack in the North?

Over the course of the year, Israel decimated Hamas, too slowly perhaps, but it did so nonetheless.48 Then, in a matter of two weeks, Israel sent Hezbollah into disarray. The once formidable terrorist organization was shamed and crippled. First, Israel blew up Hezbollah member’s handheld pagers, killing and maiming hundreds of Hezbollah terrorists.49 Then, the next day, Israel blew up Hezbollah’s two way radios.50 Just a few days later, the Israeli air force dropped 80 tons of explosives on a building complex where Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah and his executive board were meeting, destroying the movement’s leadership.51

Then, largely as a result of Hezbollah’s fall,52 Bashar al-Assad’s tyrannical regime in Syria fell to rebels. Israel seized the opportunity and amidst the chaos preemptively destroyed most of Syria’s air force, navy, and air defense system, thereby eliminating a serious military threat. Moreover, this bold action cleared Israel’s flight path to address threats in Iraq and Iran.

In Judea and Samaria as well, the Israeli government showed a promising shift in policy. Israel responded to terrorism across Judea and Samaria with stricter rules of engagement, leading to greater peace and quiet in the region.

Then, Israel adopted a more serious policy in the cities of Tulkarm, Jenin, and Nablus, hotbeds of terror in Samaria. Instead of tolerating the terror groups in these cities, the Israeli air force began air raids against them, treating them as proper military threats to be eliminated before they can cause harm.53

The work is far from done. All this is a promising gesture in the right direction. But it cannot be a one-time response to terror. Instead, it must be a permanent shift in policy. If such a shift is in fact implemented, then Israel’s enemies will not attack to begin with, as they will know that Israel is a force to be reckoned with.

Summary

The principle of “rising up” is crucial for Israel’s security. The case studies we explored in this class richly demonstrate that when Israel boldly confronts threats and takes decisive action, as exemplified by the Six-Day War and Operation Defensive Shield, it can deter its enemies and save countless lives.

However, when Israel hesitates to apply this principle out of concern for international opinion or a desire to avoid being seen as the aggressor, it leads to tragic consequences. The heavy death toll and permanently maimed soldiers of the Yom Kippur War, the October 7, 2023, massacres and the perennial terror in Judea and Samaria serve as stark reminders of the price of inaction in the face of real threats.

Israel must consistently embrace the principle of “rising up” to neutralize those who seek to harm it, with unwavering strength and resolve. By maintaining a powerful deterrent force, taking threats seriously, and taking preemptive military action when necessary, Israel will create an environment where its enemies dare not attack, paving the way for a new era of security and prosperity for all inhabitants of the region – making peace.

Exercises:

  1. Comment Below: The class argues that the "rise up" principle is actually the most humane approach because it prevents greater casualties on both sides. How do you reconcile this seemingly paradoxical claim? Can violence ever truly be the path to peace?
  2. Comment Below: The Rebbe warned about the Bar-Lev Line's ineffectiveness years before the Yom Kippur War. What modern Israeli security measures might be similarly creating false confidence?