“Content question:
SD

I read on this site about captive beautiful, and the laws in the Torah, and still remains my question -

Various wars between nations, as the First World War, for example, different peoples fought each other, and no one was particularly good for the Jews or bad for the Jews special …

But if they had captured a village and there were Jews and Jewish girls were raped, it is considered, rightly, disaster and tragedy to the girl and the family.

If yes, rape in war is considered something shocking. How, then I was told by a long, handsome woman may, by some authorities, even before the process described in the Torah, I mean, surrender and lay with her created, and only then take her home, etc.?

This seems contradictory. After all, if rape is considered a civil war to something forbidden and shocking, why, apparently, Jews allowed?

And can kind IDF soldier, for example, to rape women during warfare, or that is forbidden?

Thanks”

Ok so we’re clear that the question is specifically about rape and that rape is mentioned 3 times. Furthermore, it is clearly in the context of rape being used as a weapon of war.

“Contents answer:
Israel’s wars – are wars and wars commanded authority – are wars Mitzvah. Beige different from the rest of the wars taking place among the nations of the world among themselves.”

This first part is clearly creating an exception to the usual rules of war.

“Since that war is essentially an individual matter but a whole nation fighting, there are situations of individual personality “deleted” for the public. And vice versa, there is a single risk to save an individual when it is necessary for reasons of moral setbacks.”

This part is troubling as he takes on the rhetoric of a Nazi. Where he says “there are situations of individual personality “deleted” for the public” what is clearly being discussed is dehumanisation.

Making this section even more problematic is the end caveat that should “morale” require it,

“One of the most important values ​​and decisive war is keeping the military’s combat capability. Therefore, faint-hearted editor war returns to the heart, not his brother James, and his feelings and needs of the individual notes to finance angle plate fund the nation at war.”

This section is telling as it refers to the priority for an army being whatever keeps the army in optimum combat readiness. In isolation, this would be harmless, however, the fact that this is referring to rape as a weapon of war, makes this section disturbing.

“Just war “breached” barbed venturing for others, so also “breached” war modesty and training. Wayne gave not allowed in my peace, allowed the war to keep the well-being of the fighters. Forbidden foods allowed in the war (and some methods even when there kosher food), to maintain the ability of the fighters, even under conditions of peace are prohibited.
It also rejects war certain aspects of incest, also connects to Goya is a very serious thing, but he allowed war (under conditions that permitted), in consideration of the difficulties of fighting. And since the general success of the war before us, the Torah permitted the individual to provide the conditions permitting the evil inclination, for the success of the whole.”

I’ll deal with the first section. The Rabbi initially talked about that things normally forbidden should be allowed in war, which essentially is saying “all bets are off” in terms of the usual prohibitions.

This is completely foreboding in terms of the last sentence, which I’ll repeat for effect:

“And since the general success of the war before us, the Torah permitted the individual to provide the conditions permitting the evil inclination, for the success of the whole.”

So according the Rabbi, if permitting any evil will ensure the success of the whole, it should be permitted. Let’s be clear here – the “evil” referred to here is the one raised in the initial question, namely the use of rape as a weapon of war.

Ergo, the Rabbi is completely justifying the use of rape as a weapon of war in his response.

Also it’s important to put this in the context of IDF soldiers. Here is an account from an IDF soldier in 1948, recorded by Israeli writer Amos Kenan:

“At night, those of us who couldn’t restrain ourselves would go into the prison compounds to @!$%# Arab women. I want very much to assume, and perhaps even can, that those who couldn’t restrain themselves did what they thought the Arabs would have done to them had they won the war.”

Note he says “those of us who couldn’t restrain ourselves” in the context of contextualising an epidemic of prison rape.

This draws an interesting parallel with “evil inclinations” here:

“And since the general success of the war before us, the Torah permitted the individual to provide the conditions permitting the evil inclination, for the success of the whole.”

In conclusion, let’s cut the Zionist apologetics crap here. The Military Rabinate clearly at minimum, defended the use of rape as a weapon of war, which is merely going on record with something those historians who have properly scrutinised Israel have known for a while- that the IDF has an institutionalised culture of not only rape internally, but rape as a weapon of war.

It’s called common sense.

“The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species.

This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of all nations of the world. The entire creation exists only for the sake of the Jews.”

Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

Washington Report of Middle East Affairs, MARCH 2000, p. 105-106

“The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse “whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses” is applied to them…

Therefore, the concept of adultery does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather the Talmud equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality… ”

Professor Israel Shahak

Of course the good rabbi is being disingenuous. Christians share the same Old Testament – actually more faithful to the original Hebrew – and we know that the Levites, after resurrecting Moses, put these words in his mouth.

“And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. ”

Hence, the original “Torah” only permitted the rape of little girls – whose virginity would come back according to the Talmud.