I have made you swear, daughters of Jerusalem… that you not arouse or awaken the love, until the time is right.

SONG OF SONGS 2:7, 3:4, 8:5

We have explored one popular set of Jewish arguments, based on the Torah values of peace and justice, which maintains that we should make concessions ranging from giving away parts of Israel to relinquishing it entirely. While at first glance, these sentiments are laudable, careful inspection shows that they are both practically dangerous and do not align with the Torah’s view. Notably, these arguments based on peace and justice most often come from Jews who are assimilating into the prevailing Western culture.

Yet there is another set of arguments often advanced in the Torah’s name which opposes Jewish self-defense and favors concessions. Unlike the first cluster of claims we explored, this second group of arguments tends to be championed by Jews who are deeply committed to Torah study and practice. However, a careful analysis of Torah sources and the current reality reveals that these concepts are being misapplied in a way that endangers Jewish lives and contravenes Jewish law.

Briefly, the arguments against Jewish self-defense, which are often extended to the point of saying that Jews should altogether relinquish the Land of Israel, are based on the following two Talmudic passages:

A) The Three Oaths

The Talmud1 teaches that G‑d issued three oaths concerning the Jewish people and their relationship with the nations of the world:2

1) The Jewish people are not to ascend to the Land of Israel “as a wall” — namely forcefully and en masse.3

2) The Jewish people are not to rebel against the nations.

3) The nations are not to subjugate the Jews excessively.

Some cite the first two oaths as proof that the Jewish people may not defend themselves and must acquiesce to all demands the non-Jewish nations make, be they demands of the West, the Muslim world, or the Palestinians. They argue that any form of Jewish self-defense violates these oaths.

Others go further, claiming that the Jewish people’s presence in the Land of Israel is altogether illegitimate given that they came to Israel “by force.” Instead, the Jewish people must wait for the arrival of Mashiach, when G‑d will miraculously redeem them and give them the Land; until then, they are not permitted to establish a sovereign state in the Land of Israel.

B) Do Not Provoke the Nations

Another argument advanced against Israel’s right to self-defense is the Talmudic teaching,4 “Do not provoke a small gentile.” Some interpret this to mean that the Jewish people may not assert their rights to the Land or defend themselves, since doing so will provoke “the small gentile” (the Palestinians and other less powerful countries, such as the many powerless and war torn countries that routinely vote against Israel in the U.N.). They argue that such actions will also provoke “the great gentile” (the United States and other powerful actors on the world stage) who enjoins Israel to make territorial concessions and restrain or withhold defensive measures.

The Rebbe’s Response

While some loudly proclaim these two Talmudic teachings to present a valid argument against Israel’s right to exist or to defend itself,5 the Rebbe offered a number of arguments refuting the relevance of these teachings to contemporary policy. In the following sections, we will delve into the Rebbe’s arguments and explore how to properly understand these Talmudic teachings.

A) Pikuach Nefesh Overrides These Concerns

The Rebbe notes that both the “Three Oaths” and the admonition against provoking the gentiles are irrelevant given the concern of pikuach nefesh (saving lives). Neither of these arguments are cited in the Code of Jewish Law. The Three Oaths are mentioned in a non-halachically binding Midrash — and a matter of debate at that — while the statement against provoking the gentiles is a piece of Talmudic advice.

In contrast, the Talmud and Code of Jewish Law clearly rule that Jews living in any location have an obligation to defend themselves when their lives are threatened. Thus, the Rebbe maintains that while one could have used the argument of the Three Oaths to discourage a concerted effort by Jews to leave the Diaspora and settle in Israel, such arguments became irrelevant once historical circumstances forced a sizable Jewish community to move to Israel.6

The Rebbe strongly emphasizes this point in his teachings:7

There is no reasoning with those who advocate concessions — thus, we should pay them no heed. Rather, we must protest against their claim and clearly state that theirs is not the Torah view! This view is contrary to the clear ruling in the Code of Jewish Law that one must take up arms and not allow them [hostile parties] to approach a city near the border, even if it is outside the Land of Israel. This has no connection at all to the talmudic teachings they invoked — not to the prohibition of “lo techanem,”8 “do not provoke a small gentile,” and not to [the matter of] the Three Oaths. Rather, there is only one, essential factor, that of saving many Jewish lives [pikuach nefesh].

The Rebbe repeats this view, underscoring the paramount importance of pikuach nefesh and calling on people to stop mixing confounding variables into their discussions of the Jewish people's presence in the Land of Israel:9

I keep reiterating: There are those who are convinced that the issue of defending the land is connected to the ‘Three Oaths,’ ‘Zionism,’ and the ‘coming of Mashiach.’ So it must be emphasized: Defending the land has absolutely no connection to these concepts!… This is a matter of pikuach nefesh, plain and simple!

B) Examining these Arguments Through the Lens of 20th-Century History

The Rebbe dismantles the relevance of the principles of the Three Oaths and ‘do not provoke’ by providing historical context for the Jewish people’s presence in Israel.

The Rebbe begins his analysis by referencing the Holocaust. He notes that the argument to not provoke the nations was applied historically before the founding of the contemporary State of Israel. During the Holocaust, when it became evident that the Nazi regime was slaughtering the Jewish people in Europe, some Jews attempted to lobby the U.S. government to bomb the train tracks that the Nazis were using to transport European Jews to the concentration camps. However, other Jews rejected this idea on the ground that doing so would “provoke the gentiles.”10 As the Rebbe puts it:11

We cannot, G‑d forbid, repeat the mistakes of the past, when, out of fear of provoking Washington, the terrible decrees were allowed to happen. There were Jews [at the time] who said, ‘We must be silent; we must not start up with Roosevelt.’ When others responded, ‘Jews are in danger! Trains are traveling to concentration camps,’ those who said not to engage the government retorted, ‘do not provoke a small gentile!’

This timidity contributed to the fact that the United States ultimately did not bomb the railroad tracks leading to the camps, as demonstrated by reliable historical documents. The United States had the opportunity to take action, and yet some Jews mistakenly said that we could not contend with Washington. So no action was taken.

Now, some of the Jewish leadership and their disciples who have influence over policy in the Land of Israel are not ashamed to use their influence in the same misguided way. They urge Israel not to defend itself and promote U.S. foreign policies that leave Israel vulnerable to harm.

No matter how many [repentive] fasts they undertake,12 they cannot atone for the harm they caused by insisting that no one should say a word against Washington. Not only does this approach not help, but it manifests the verse, ‘Your destroyers and demolishers will come from within you.’13

The historical record demonstrates the tragic consequences of misapplying the teaching of “do not provoke a gentile.” This approach can, and has, led to countless Jewish deaths, which is an unforgivable sin.

Survival, Not Ideology: Why Jews Came to Israel

Pikuach nefesh played a crucial role in shaping the Jewish people’s relationship with Israel throughout the 20th century, justifying both Jews moving to Israel and the subsequent imperative to remain and defend the land.

In the early 20th century, as Europe became increasingly unstable and war-torn, many Jews sought refuge in the Land of Israel. The primary motivation for this wave of aliyah (immigration to Israel) was not nationalist ideology, but rather the urgent need to escape persecution and mortal danger.

Rabbi Shalom Wolpo,14 one of the key expositors of the Rebbe's teachings on Israel’s security, clarifies the distinction between establishing a Jewish state for nationalist purposes and immigrating to Israel to save lives:15

The approach of establishing a state for the purpose of Jewish nationalism, [to institute] a Jewish kingdom, is fundamentally flawed. This is because, besides the fact that this government is not based on the laws of the Torah, the very idea of conquering the Land during the time of exile and establishing Jewish rule in it through rebelling against the nations contradicts the Three Oaths. This is the meaning of the oaths not to rebel against the nations and not to ‘ascend as a wall’ to conquer the Land of Israel in order to supposedly bring redemption before its time.

However, in that time [in the early 20th century], immigration to the Land of Israel for the purpose of saving lives was halachically mandated. When the Arabs and others later came to interfere with the Jewish immigration, halachah obligated the Jewish people to form an organized Jewish defense force and ‘confront them with weapons.’ Similarly, there was a halachic obligation to ensure the livelihood of the land’s inhabitants. Therefore, there is no contradiction between supporting saving lives through the orderly immigration of Jews to the Holy Land and the war against the enemies who come to exile us, G‑d forbid, and the principle of ‘they shall not ascend as a wall.’

Once the Jewish people were already in Israel as a result of the practical reality, then the prohibition to leave the Land took hold.16 As Rabbi Wolpo continues:

All this was true in 1948, and all the more so in our time, when the question of the Three Oaths is completely irrelevant. This is because once one is already in the Land of Israel, they are forbidden to leave it, in accordance with the ruling of Maimonides that it is forbidden to leave Israel for foreign lands. We are not talking about conquering the land or establishing Jewish rule in the land anymore. There are millions of Jews in the Holy Land and the gentiles want us to put these millions of Jews in mortal danger. It is forbidden to listen to them and one must strongly oppose their agenda. The current situation has no connection at all to the Three Oaths — not to the oath not to ‘ascend as a wall’ and not to the oath not to rebel against the nations.

Chabad and Zionism: Eternal Principles, Changing Circumstances

In this context, although the leaders of the Chabad movement opposed the Zionist movement when it was primarily a nationalist ideology in Europe,17 they took a more nuanced view once Jewish settlement in Israel became a matter of life and death.

A note on terminology: “Zionism” in early 20th-century Europe meant something quite specific – a secular nationalist ideology that often defined itself in opposition to traditional Judaism. Many early Zionist leaders explicitly sought to create a “new Jew” who would shed religious observance and replace Torah identity with national identity. This is what Chabad’s Rebbeim opposed. Today, the term “Zionism” is used far more broadly, often simply denoting support for Jewish presence and sovereignty in the Land of Israel. When understanding Chabad's historical position, this distinction is essential.

After the Holocaust, when it became increasingly clear that a Jewish presence in Israel had become imperative to protect and preserve Jewish life, the Rebbe Rayatz, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, began to express support for the critical work of Jewish settlers in the Land of Israel. While maintaining Chabad’s opposition to the secular, nationalist ideology, he acknowledged the vital importance of establishing a safe haven for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland.

On the second day of Rosh HaShanah in 1947, 243 days before the State of Israel was founded, the Rebbe Rayatz addressed the efforts of young Jews working to secure Jewish settlements in Israel and establish a state in light of the impending British withdrawal and the coming Arab onslaught. He exclaimed:18

In the Holy Land, may it be built and established, there are young people putting their lives on the line for the Jewish people. They are doing tremendous work — may the Almighty strengthen them and grant them success. Yes, they need to improve their observance of practical mitzvos, such as Shabbos, tefillin, and kosher. They are human beings with shortcomings, and we must make every effort to bring them closer to mitzvah observance. But for the good they do with such passionate Jewish self-sacrifice, all Jews — regardless of affiliation—should bless them and declare: ‘May their hands be strengthened!’

Even while urging these young pioneers toward greater mitzvah observance, the Rebbe Rayatz applauded their self-sacrifice on behalf of the Jewish people.

Israel’s Victory in 1948: A Miraculous Act of G‑d

In 1948, after Israel miraculously defeated five Arab armies, the Rebbe saw this as further proof against the contemporary relevance of the Three Oaths. Moreover, the Rebbe understood Israel’s continued victories in its wars despite formidable odds as clear indication that G‑d decided to return the Land to the Jewish people with open miracles. In the Rebbe’s words:19

The obligation to retain the Land does not at all contradict the prohibition against ‘ascending as a wall’ [en masse] and rebelling against the nations — ‘do not provoke a small gentile’— because in this case, we are talking about something that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to the Children of Israel in a supernatural manner. Everyone admits, the Jewish people did not receive the Land in return through their own abilities, G‑d forbid, but rather miraculously.

Since we are now at the end of the exile, [right] before the redemption, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Children of Israel additional parts of the Land of Israel. And, therefore, the Children of Israel must be in those parts of the Land of Israel.

The open miracles surrounding the Jewish people’s reclamation of their ancestral lands make it such that giving away the Land demonstrates profound ingratitude toward G‑d. As the Rebbe stated:20

We are in the time of exile and, as such, there are parts of the Land of Israel that have not yet been given to the Children of Israel;21 with regard to these areas, the command, ‘Do not provoke a gentile’ applies. But here we are talking about areas of the Land of Israel that have already been given by the Holy One, blessed be He, to the Children of Israel through open miracles and, therefore, this has nothing at all to do with the matter of ‘Do not provoke the gentiles’ — this is not a provocation at all, because these areas were given to the Children of Israel by the Holy One, blessed be He!

Rabbi Wolpo further highlights the miraculous nature of the Jewish people reclaiming their ancestral homeland, illustrating why the Three Oaths do not apply to the contemporary reality:22

This Talmudic statement has no relevance to the conquest of Jerusalem during the Six-Day War. The oath not to ‘ascend as a wall’ is an instruction about the manner of the redemption from exile — meaning, it is a directive not to attempt, during the time of exile, to bring the redemption before its time by ascending with a strong hand to conquer Jerusalem. However, once a Jewish community is already living in the Holy Land, it is obvious that conquering Jerusalem for the security of those living in the Land of Israel has no connection to the Three Oaths. For they are not doing this to hasten the end [of exile], but only for security purposes.

This was especially the case during the Six-Day War, where there was no intention at all to conquer Jerusalem. On the contrary, [Israeli leaders] called on the King of Jordan many times not to wage war against them. Afterwards, when he did not heed the call and attacked Israel and Jerusalem,23 they fought against him in a defensive war.24 In the tumult of battle, the commanders advanced and conquered Jerusalem. The political leadership did not intend to take this action or achieve this outcome.

There was no intention of bringing the redemption before its time. Rather, it was something that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us against our free will and against the will of those who planned the war’s objectives. Through Divine providence the course of the defensive war necessitated, from a security standpoint, the conquest of Jerusalem and all the other territories.

Supporting the Jewish Settlement in Israel: A Response to Critics

In a letter to Zalman Shazar,25 the Rebbe reiterated the importance of basing our claim to the Land on the Torah's teaching and Jewish values:26

Some criticize me for my support of Israel saying: ‘Why did you invoke the Torah concepts of the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, and the Covenant Between the Parts and mix in the Almighty — with respect to the modern state!’ After all, those who strove for the establishment of the State of Israel, those who stood and now stand at its head, and those who speak in its name proclaim that it is a State founded in the year 5708 [1948] in the areas the British left and from which the Haganah [a precursor to the IDF] expelled the Arabs (or entered and took possession without opposition). The representatives of the nations of the world (led by the Communists in the U.N.) agreed to approve the establishment of a State.

The Rebbe’s religious opponents critiqued him for defending this G‑dless enterprise. The Rebbe responded that he is merely applying the appropriate religious concepts to the situation at hand.27

I respond that this framing is completely false. The Jewish people’s presence in Israel is not new; rather, in the year 5708 [1948], they liberated an important part of the Land of Israel [which was historically theirs] (and also conquered a certain area outside of it, adding to the Land of Israel)....28

For the Rebbe, the modern state is not new. It is the continuation of what Moses envisioned and Joshua built — the Jewish commonwealths of the Judges, Saul, David, the Second Temple, and the Maccabees — resumed after a two-thousand-year interruption. G‑d promised this land to Abraham. That promise endures. As heir to that legacy, modern Israel must live up to those ideals and surpass them.

C) Concessions Are a Greater Provocation

The rationale behind the principle of ‘do not provoke a small gentile’ is that engaging in provocative behavior will lead the gentile to retaliate.29 The Rebbe explains that this rule does not apply with respect to Israel’s security. In the context of Israel’s security, concessions are a provocation. This is because if Israel is resolute in asserting its rights, then other countries will respect that position. In contrast, if Israel makes concessions, it will simply "provoke" other countries to demand even greater concessions.30

Summary

Some of the strongest arguments against Jewish self-defense come not from secular critics but from deeply religious Jews who cite two Talmudic teachings: the “Three Oaths” — the first two of which forbid Jews from returning to Israel en masse or rebelling against the nations — and the principle of not provoking gentiles.

The Rebbe systematically refuted these arguments. First, neither teaching is cited in the Code of Jewish Law, while the obligation to defend Jewish lives — pikuach nefesh — is. Pikuach nefesh overrides all other concerns. Second, history has shown the catastrophic consequences of misapplying ‘do not provoke’: during the Holocaust, some Jews opposed lobbying Washington to bomb the railroad tracks to concentration camps, fearing it would anger the government. The results were devastating.

Third, Jews did not come to Israel en masse to establish a nationalist state but to escape persecution — a halachically mandated act of saving lives. Once there, Jewish law forbids them to leave.

Fourth, Israel’s miraculous victories against overwhelming odds in 1948 and 1967 demonstrate that G‑d Himself returned the Land to the Jewish people. To surrender it would be an act of ingratitude toward the Divine.

Finally, the Rebbe inverted the “provocation” argument entirely: concessions, not strength, provoke further demands. Resolve earns respect; weakness invites aggression.

We have thus stated (and defended) our claim to the Land. But a claim alone is not sufficient in order to win the battle. To achieve victory, we need to communicate our claim passionately and cultivate that passion within ourselves and, even more importantly, within our children. The next class will explore the role of faith and commitment and the critical need to cultivate passion for the Land of Israel purely within the framework of the Torah and its commandments.

Exercises

Share your thoughts below!

1. The Rebbe argued that saving lives (pikuach nefesh) overrides other religious considerations. When have you seen this principle applied—or ignored—in contemporary debates about Israel?

2. Difficult Conversation A religious friend argues: "True faith means waiting for God to act, not taking matters into our own hands. Jewish self-defense shows a lack of trust in Divine providence." Using the principles from this chapter, write out your response in 200 words or less.

3. The Rebbe Rayatz praised young Jewish pioneers in 1947 despite their lack of religious observance, saying "may their hands be strengthened." What does this teach about how we should relate to Jews whose values differ from ours but who sacrifice for the Jewish people?

4. The Rebbe viewed Israel's miraculous military victories as evidence that God returned the Land to the Jewish people. How does this framing change the way you think about Israel's wars?

5. The chapter describes how some Jews opposed pressuring Washington during the Holocaust, fearing it would "provoke" the government. What lessons does this hold for how we engage with world powers today?