Introduction

The “Jewish Rules of War” must be grounded in Jewish moral and legal values. The objective is not merely theoretical, but practical: to develop principles and policy guidelines capable of informing real-time life-and-death decision-making.

This project seeks the development of a broadly supported framework rooted in Jewish values, drawing on a wide range of Torah sources and interpretive traditions. At the same time, such a framework must be responsive to contemporary realities. For proposed rules to be meaningful and actionable, they must be capable of application within current military and political contexts and, ideally, command the support of a substantial portion of Jews in Israel.

There is no single required method for addressing this question. Respondents are encouraged to adopt approaches that are analytically rigorous and grounded.

One possible approach is comparative and evaluative: to examine the existing rules of war and rules of engagement employed by the State of Israel and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), both prior to and during the Gaza war, and to assess their alignment with Jewish moral values. Such an analysis may identify areas of convergence, as well as points of tension, and propose modifications where current practices appear inconsistent with Jewish values. A detailed list of recommended changes to existing IDF rules of engagement and government policy is welcome.

An alternative approach is issue-centered: to engage in focused, in-depth analysis of specific moral dilemmas arising in warfare, addressing underlying Jewish principles and their application. Given the complexity of the subject, multiple methodologies are acceptable and desirable.

The aim is not to produce an exhaustive codification analogous to contemporary military manuals. Rather, the expectation is the submission of carefully reasoned analyses that address central moral questions within a Jewish framework. Interaction between different participants on different issues is encouraged. We seek interactive online discussion and debate.

Framework for Analysis

Respondents may draw upon both Jewish law and international legal frameworks as potential sources of normative guidance, to the extent that they are relevant and compatible with Jewish values. However, the proposed “Jewish Rules of War” are not bound by existing United Nations or international conventions, state agreements, or the jurisprudence of Israel’s secular courts. Their primary normative foundation is Jewish moral and legal tradition, which may, in some cases, diverge from or transcend prevailing secular legal standards.

In addressing the central question—what should constitute the Jewish Rules of War—respondents are encouraged to consider the current operational reality, including the policies and practices of the State of Israel and the IDF. Analysis should address whether existing rules align with Jewish values, and where divergences exist, whether they warrant revision.

Submissions should:
• Clearly articulate the relevant moral and legal principles
• Apply those principles to concrete or realistic scenarios
• Engage with existing practices and policies
• Provide reasoned argumentation supported by appropriate sources
• Contribute to ongoing scholarly and communal discussion

Methodological Note

The Four Question Project is designed as a dynamic and interactive initiative. Background and Research materials will continue to evolve in response to participant contributions. Readers and respondents are encouraged to suggest revisions, propose additional sources, and engage critically with the material.

Background briefing and research content will incorporate information generated through artificial intelligence tools or other secondary sources. While these resources may be useful, they are not inherently authoritative and may contain inaccuracies. Participants bear responsibility for verifying all factual claims and sources used in their submissions.

Materials included in the designated “Fact” sections have undergone prior verification. Additionally, many of the sources provided in connection with this question may be relevant and interact with the other three questions in the project.

Up-to-date Background Briefing documents and extensive research materials are available at Jewish-Survival.com.

Definitions

Combatant – A combatant is a person who actively participates in or directly supports hostile or military actions, regardless of whether they are formally part of a recognized armed force or identifiable by uniform.

This includes individuals who engage in or support violent operations, even when operating within civilian environments. This definition reflects the realities of modern conflict, in which combatants may operate outside traditional military structures and deliberately blur the distinction between civilian and military roles.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Civilian – A civilian is a person who is not actively participating in or directly supporting hostile or military actions, and who is therefore not a legitimate target in armed conflict.

Civilian status is based on behavior, not location or identity, and may be lost if an individual begins to actively participate in or support hostile activities. Civilians retain protected status unless and for such time as they take a direct or supportive role in hostile activities.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Darkei Shalom (דרכי שלום – “Ways of Peace”) – Darkei Shalom is a principle in rabbinic Jewish law that permits or requires actions that promote peaceful relations between Jews and non-Jews, even when such actions would not otherwise be allowed under Jewish law.

This principle reflects the idea that maintaining social harmony, moral responsibility, and peaceful coexistence is itself a significant value within Jewish law. As a result, certain prohibitions or distinctions may be set aside or applied more flexibly to avoid conflict, prevent hostility, and promote stable and respectful relations between Jewish and non-Jewish communities.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Deterrence – Deterrence is the principle that the threat or application of consequences is used to prevent hostile or military actions by influencing the behavior of an adversary.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Extrajudicial Killing – An extrajudicial killing is the intentional killing of an individual by a state or its agents without a formal judicial process.

Its legitimacy depends on whether the target qualifies as a legitimate target under the rules of war, and whether the action complies with military necessity, distinction, and proportionality.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Genocide, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity

Genocide – The intentional effort to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group through actions directed against that group. The defining element of genocide is specific intent—the deliberate objective to eliminate a protected group as such.

War Crimes – Serious violations of the laws and customs of armed conflict, involving unlawful conduct in the course of war.

Crimes against humanity – Large-scale or systematic attacks directed against civilians as a matter of policy, carried out with knowledge of that attack. They do not include incidental collateral damage from lawful military operations, even when extensive, unless such harm forms part of a broader pattern or policy intentionally or effectively directed against civilians.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Human Shield – An innocent civilian intentionally used in proximity to military targets to deter attack or exploit legal and moral constraints.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Islamists

Good Islamists

Jewish Perspective

Good Islamists are those who recognize and affirm the right of the Jewish people to live in Israel with self-determination and are willing to support that reality in practice. They reject the belief that Islam must dominate other cultures or religions and oppose violence against Jews or other groups. Instead, they uphold principles of respect for life, coexistence, and moral responsibility.

These actors serve as a counterforce within Islam, opposing both the ideological and physical expressions of violence. They contribute to stability by challenging incitement, rejecting religious justifications for harm, and supporting peaceful relations between Muslims and Jews. In doing so, they represent a strand of Islamic thought and practice that is compatible with mutual recognition and peaceful coexistence.

Academic / International Perspective

These actors can be described as cooperative or normalization-oriented Islamist figures who accept pluralism and the legitimacy of existing states, including Israel. They engage in diplomatic, political, and economic cooperation, reflecting a pragmatic, non-rejectionist approach within Islamist political thought. Their behavior aligns with institutional engagement, coexistence, and conflict de-escalation, and they are often viewed as stabilizing actors within the broader geopolitical environment.

Illustrative examples:
Examples include state actors and leadership aligned with normalization efforts, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other Abraham Accords participants, as well as political, religious, and civil society figures who actively support coexistence and cooperation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Moderate Islamists

Jewish Perspective

Moderate Islamists are those who do not believe it is a religious obligation to harm Jews or oppose Jewish self-determination in Israel, and who do not participate in the broader conflict. They are largely disengaged, focusing on their own religious, social, and political lives without involvement in hostility toward Jews or Israel.

They do not provide financial, ideological, or political support to those who promote or carry out violence. This group represents a critical middle ground, influenced by both peaceful and radical elements within the broader Islamic world. While not necessarily allies, they are not active participants in the conflict and may serve as a barrier to escalation. Many in this group seek to balance modern life with Islamic identity without engaging in confrontation.

Academic / International Perspective

Moderate Islamists are typically defined as non-violent actors who pursue religiously informed goals through political, social, or democratic means. They operate within institutional frameworks and reject militant tactics. Their positions on geopolitical conflicts may vary, but they are not operationally or materially involved in extremist networks, often functioning as a buffer group between radical and cooperative actors.

Illustrative examples:
Examples include non-violent Islamist political parties, religious communities and broader populations within Muslim societies that are not engaged in ideological or operational conflict.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Radical Islamists

Jewish Perspective

Radical Islamists are those who believe, on religious grounds, that Jewish self-determination is illegitimate and must ultimately be reversed, and who actively support that objective without necessarily carrying out violence themselves. They view the conflict as part of a broader religious struggle over dominance and legitimacy, and act accordingly.

They wage a religious war of values through multiple channels, including:

• Propaganda and narrative control in media, universities, and cultural institutions
• Political influence and international pressure, including the use of international organizations
• Financial and material support for militant actors

This includes significant investment in shaping global narratives, delegitimizing Jews and Israel, and leveraging majority power within international institutions to isolate and weaken Israel. From this perspective, radical Islamists operate not only as individuals or movements, but also through state actors and transnational systems, forming the ideological, financial, and institutional backbone of the broader conflict.

Academic / International Perspective

Radical Islamists can be understood as ideological actors within Islamist thought who promote a maximalist and often exclusive religious-political vision, including support for confrontation and violence.

Within certain strands of Islamist thought, religion becomes a totalizing ideological system centered on violence, in which the killing of Jews is framed as a divinely mandated obligation rather than a political act.

These actors play a central role in shaping narratives, providing religious justification, and mobilizing support through financial networks, education, media, and political advocacy. They often operate across state, institutional, and transnational levels, functioning as the bridge between ideology and action.

Illustrative Examples:
Examples include ideological movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as state-aligned or state-supported actors, including Qatar and Turkey, and broader transnational networks engaged in ideological, financial, and institutional influence.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Suicide Islamists

Jewish Perspective

These actors represent those who explicitly believe it is their religious duty to attack and kill Jews, and who are willing to sacrifice their own lives in the process. For them, violence is not political—it is religious service, and death in the act is seen as fulfillment of a divine command.

They are the direct operational force in this conflict, carrying out attacks that target Jewish civilians and the Jewish state. Their actions are supported and enabled by the broader ideological system, but they themselves are the executioners of that belief in practice.

Traditional deterrence is largely ineffective against them, as they are motivated by religious conviction and willingness for self-sacrifice, rather than by material, family or political considerations.

Academic / International Perspective

Militant Islamist actors, including those engaged in suicide operations, represent the operational expression of violent Islamist extremism. They may act individually or as part of organized armed groups and carry out attacks with the expectation of death as part of the mission.

These actors often operate within an ideological framework in which violence—particularly against Jews—is understood not as political resistance, but as a divinely inspired obligation and form of religious fulfillment.

Their actions are sustained by a broader ecosystem of intergenerational ideological justification, recruitment, and logistical support, linking them directly to radical ideological structures. This creates a continuum in which belief, support, and action reinforce one another.

Illustrative Examples:
Examples include Hamas, ISIS, and other jihadist organizations that employ suicide tactics and religiously framed violence.

Application Note:
These categories apply across individuals, organizations, movements, and state actors, depending on their behavior and underlying ideology, and reflect both a spectrum of religious interpretation and an internal struggle within Islam itself.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just War – A just war is a war conducted for a legitimate purpose and carried out in accordance with accepted moral, legal, and strategic principles, including distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Legitimate Target – A legitimate target is a person, group, or object directly engaged in or supporting hostile or military actions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Military Necessity – Military necessity is the principle that force must be used to achieve a legitimate military objective and be necessary to accomplish that objective.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Proportionality – Proportionality requires that anticipated military advantage must not be outweighed by excessive civilian harm.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reciprocity – Reciprocity is the principle that parties to a conflict respond to each other’s conduct, though it may be limited in asymmetric conflicts.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Terrorist – A terrorist is a person or organization that deliberately targets innocent civilians to advance ideological, political, or religious objectives.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Zionist – A person who supports Zionism, which is the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in their historic homeland, the Land of Israel, expressed today through the existence of the State of Israel.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources of Information and Areas of Inquiry

Many of the sources provided below, as well as those included in the Research section, are relevant to the other three questions in this project. We encourage readers to suggest additional sources for review when considering the Jewish Rules of War. Please email recommendations to Elimelech@Jewish-Survival.com.

International Law Sources

These sources are not binding within this framework but may provide relevant comparative and analytical perspectives.

1. The IDF Code of Ethics and rules of engagement before and during the Gaza War. What “Rules of War” did the IDF apply?
2. The role of Israel’s Supreme Court rulings related to warfare, before and during the Gaza War.
3. Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) and Freedom of Occupation (1994).
4. The Geneva Conventions and Israel’s current international governmental commitments. Israeli Supreme Court rulings should not be treated as equivalent to international governmental commitments.
5. Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I (AP I), which has not been signed by Israel or the United States.
6. The United Nations International Bill of Human Rights.

Jewish Sources

Jewish law, developed over many generations by expert Rabbinic Poskim, provides extensive guidance regarding the moral values that should inform the Jewish Rules of War. These sources should be reviewed from a Daat Torah perspective, with the objective of identifying policy-relevant principles grounded in Jewish law. Consideration is also given to how such principles are implemented in real-time operational contexts.

The Research section, available at Jewish-Survival.com, provides extensive background material related to Jewish sources and is continuously updated. Online comments and suggested additions are encouraged.

Our primary reference text for the Four Question initiative is Rabbi Shlomo M. Brody’s Ethics of Our Fighters. The book provides a contemporary and structured analysis of Jewish ethics in warfare and serves as a foundational resource for this project. It is available at https://korenpub.com/products/ethics-of-our-fighters (discount code: ETHICS15). An eBook version is also available on Kindle for $9.99.

The following should be reviewed when considering the Jewish Rules of War. Review the extensive background information about each topic in the Research section.

1. The Rambam’s views on the rules of war.
   1. Extensive information provided in the Research section
2. The laws of Milchemet Mitzva;
   1. Are the laws of Milchemet Mitzva applicable today?
   2. Are the following Milchemet Mizva?
      1. Wars against Hamas, Hizbollah, Hutis, Iran and other groups that attack Israel.
      2. Wars against entities that do not attack Israel directly but support those that attack Israel. Example: Radical Islamists who provide financial, ideological, or political support to suicide Islamists. This would include the governments of Qatar and Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations that support suicide Islam.
      3. Battles against those that that threaten the lives of Jews outside of Israel.
   3. Does a declaration of war by the government of Israel make a war a Milchemet Mitzva? Dows a decision by a majority of Jews in Israel have the effect of a decision by a Great Sanhedrin.
   4. Is Milchemet Mitzva limited to defensive wars or does it also apply to offensive battles to take control of Yehuda V’Shomron?
   5. Does Israel have an obligation to protect Jews overseas?
   6. What obligation do Jews have to participate in a Milchemet Mitzva?
      1. Is Milchemet Mitzva an individual or community obligation?
      2. Must Jews join the IDF or can they fight independently?
      3. Does the IDF have a monopoly on staging a Milchemet Mitzva?
      4. Does the IDF have the right to force Jews to participate in a MIlchemet Mitzva?
3. Laws of Self-Defense
   a. What is allowed and not allowed for self-defense?
   1. Consider the case of HaBa B’Martef – Tunnel intruder, (Exodus 22:1–2)
      1. Can you kill someone who does not intend to kill you?
   2. Are preventive strikes permitted, or only preemptive strikes?
   3. What can and cannot be done to create deterrence?
      1. Are reprisal attacks against civilians allowed? What are the limits of reciprocity when fighting an asymmetrical religious war?
   4. How should Israel deal with supreme emergencies that threaten its existential survival?
      1. Is the use of nuclear force ever an option?
      2. What should Israel’s policy be regarding nuclear deterrence?
4. Din Rodef – Extrajudicial Killing
   1. When is it permissible to use lethal force to prevent imminent killing or sexual violence?
   2. If a suicide Islamist intends to kill innocent civilians, can he be killed without a judicial process?
   3. What can be learned from the law of HaBa B’Martef?
   4. What can be learned from the law of the snake?
   5. Is it permissible to kill leaders of countries that attack or support attacks against Israel or Jews?
5. The Laws of Amalek and the Seven Nations
   1. Are the laws of Amalek and the Seven Nations relevant today?
      1. Compare the views of R’ Sachs and R’ Kook (Ethics of Our Fighters, pp. 29–35).
   2. Is genocide ever allowed? What if the only way to stop a genocidal war against Israel or Jews, is to genocide the enemy?
6. Humanitarian Considerations
   1. Should Israeli soldiers be required to risk their lives to save the lives of innocent civilians? If yes, who makes such decisions?
   2. What if the ‘innocent civilians’ are voluntary suicide Islamis acting as human shields, can they be targeted?
   3. What if the innocent civilians are forcibly held by Hamas?
   4. Do human rights outweigh the right of a country to defend its citizens?
   5. Is Jewish law compatible with international humanitarian law? What are the differences?
   6. Can soldiers be required to kill innocent human shields if it is the only way to stop the enemy from killing them, their families, or innocent civilians in their country?
7. Laws About Hostages
   1. What should be done and what should not be done to free hostages?
   2. Should soldiers risk their lives to return the body of a dead hostage or soldier?
   3. Is it ever permissible to intentionally kill one’s own citizens or soldiers?
8. Laws About Military Occupation and Sieges
   1. From a Jewish perspective, is Judea and Samaria disputed or occupied territory?
   2. What obligations do Jews have toward local populations in territory captured in a “just war?”
   3. If the local non-Jewish population attacks the Jewish population can they be deported? If large numbers of the captured population target Israelis, as in an Intifada, can these people be killed or deported without raising the charge of genocide?
9. Darkei Shalom – Ways of Peace with Non-Jews
   1. How should Darkei Shalom be applied to the Jewish Rules of War?
   2. What actions should or should not be taken to meet Darkei Shalom requirements?
   3. Is Darkei Shalom relevant in the context of asymmetrical warfare?
   4. Should the lives of soldiers be risked for political purposes, such as the desire of the government to comply with international laws that conflict with Jewish laws?
10. The Seven Noahide Laws
    1. What rights and obligations do non-Jews have relative to Jewish law?
       

Primary Question

1. What Should Be the “Jewish Rules of War?”
   1. Option One: Compare the current Israeli Rules of War and IDF rules of engagement and suggest changes to current policy and implementation. Provide sources and reasons for your recommendations.
   2. Option Two: Identify an important area that neither Jewish or International law deals with correctly and suggest policy based on Jewish values.
   3. Option Three: Be creative, write new policy. Think out of the box.

The associated questions, and sources of Information are an integral part of the Jewish-Survival challenge. Answer those you are interested in from a Jewish perspective. Don’t be afraid to communicate your opinions. We seek dialogue and debate.

Associated Questions

1. Authority and Governance
   1. Who should define the Jewish Rules of War?
      1. Is there an opportunity to convene a Jewish Court of Justice (JCJ) that makes recommendations to government and military?
   2. Who should decide the IDF’s Rules of War, The Knesset or the Judiciary?
      1. Should the Judiciary have the power to overrule the government and the IDF on the IDF’s Rules of War and rules of engagement?
   3. Should the Prime Minister have direct control over the military as does the President of the U.S..
      
2. Milchemet Mitzva
   1. Are the laws of Milchemet Mitzva applicable today?
   2. What can we learn from the laws of Milchemet Mitzva that can help us define the Jewish Rules of War.
   3. When are Jews obligated to wage a Milchemet Mitzva?
   4. Is Milchemet Mitzva limited to defensive wars or can they apply to proactively taking control of Yehuda V’Shomron?
   5. If Israel has control over Yehuda V’Shomron can the government give it back for the promise of peace.
      1. What happened with the Oslo Accords and Gaza withdrawal.
      2. Is Jewish law based on the Rabbis assessments of the success of land for peace initiatives.
   6. What are the limits to Milchemet Mitzva? What can you not do?
   7. What obligation do Jews have to participate in a Milchemet Mitzva?
      1. Who is required to participate in a Milchemet Mitzva?
      2. Is Milchemet Mitzva an individual or community obligation?
      3. Must Jews join the IDF or can they fight independently?
      4. Does the IDF have a monopoly on Milchemet Mitzva?
         
3. Is the Israeli government or the IDF guilty of (1) genocide, (2) war crimes, or (3) crimes against humanity?
   1. Review our definitions of each term and compare them to the international definitions supported by the UN.
      1. Have the international definitions changed? Did Israel agree and accept the new changes?
      2. What are the definitions that Israel has agreed to.
      3. Is Israel being held to standards it never agreed to and that Hamas constantly violates?
   2. Is international law relevant when dealing with asymmetrical warfare where the enemy intentionally violates international law resulting in the death of innocent civilians.
   3. Provide an analysis for each of the three terms and explain why Israel and the IDF are guilty or are not guilty of these charges.
   4. Should Israel follow international law if it results in the death of its citizens.
      
4. Proportionality
   1. Are international laws of proportionality compatible with Jewish values?
      1. What are legitimate military objectives?
      2. What precautions should be taken to reduce civilian harm?
      3. How should commanders weigh expected excessive civilian harm compared to the military advantage?
   2. Must Israeli soldiers risk their lives to avoid harming innocent civilians?
   3. If the enemy attacks using human shields for cover, can you stop the attack even though doing so will result in the unintentional but certain death of innocent civilians?
   4. Is it correct to use overwhelming or non-proportionate force against an enemy? If the enemy kills 10 of your soldiers, can you kill 1,000 of theirs assuming there is little or no collateral damage?
   5. Are international law proportionality considerations limited to collateral damage calculations?
      
5. Asymmetrical Warfare
   1. How should a Jewish army defend itself against asymmetrical warfare?
   2. What moral obligations do Jewish soldiers have to innocent civilians used as human shields?
   3. How should you respond when your enemy systematically uses innocent civilian human shields as a tactic to prevent you from defending yourself? Is the use of human shields a legitimate form of defense?
   4. If Hamas soldiers attack without uniforms and then routinely hide among the civilian population, how does one define who can be targeted? Who is a civilian?
   5. Is reciprocity a Jewish value? If the enemy does not apply international rules of war is a Jewish army still required to do so? Must the IDF fight with one hand tied behind its back?
   6. Is there a fundamental conflict between liberal democratic humanitarian ethical values and Jewish moral values? If so, can this conflict be resolved?
      
6. Occupation
   1. Is Yehuda V’ Shomron “occupied Palestinian territories” or “disputed territories?”
   2. Does Israel have the right to retain the disputed territories?
   3. Does Jewish law require Israel to retain or return territories captured in a just war?
   4. According to Jewish law is Israel allowed to trade Eretz Yisrael land for peace
   5. What obligations does Israel and the IDF have to local civilian populations in the disputed territories?
      1. Is there a difference between Israel’s obligations to the local populations of Yehuda V’Shomron verses Gaza?
         
7. Supreme Existential Threat
   1. In the event, that Israel and/or the Jewish people face a supreme existential threat such as what happened in Nazi Germany, should Israel use unlimited force that transcends the Jewish Rules of War?
   2. Should Israel use proactive deadly force against civilians if required to defend its existence?
   3. When and how should Israel use nuclear weapons? Is disclosure of Israel’s nuclear policy an important deterrent? How should such nuclear policy compare to the policy of other nuclear powers?
      

Case Study – 1

A hospital controlled by Hamas is launching rockets at Israeli civilian centers. There are at least ten infants in the hospital. The hospital is funded by Qatar and UNRWA with volunteers from Médecins Sans Frontières who refuse to leave. The hospital supplies electricity and other vital resources to Hamas military headquarters located in tunnels beneath the hospital. It also fires rockets from the roof. The hospitals building is booby-trapped and inaccessible to Israeli soldiers.

A rocket barrage from the Hamas hospital strikes Israeli, killing 10 people. More rockets are regularly fired from the hospital. Recently a school playground was hit by a rocket from the Hamas hospital.

You are the chief of staff of the Israeli army. What Should you do?

1. Should the IDF issue warnings and bomb the Hamas hospital even though the bombs will unintentionally kill innocent children and other civilians who refuse to leave?
2. What if Hamas brings another hundred women and children into the hospital using them as human shields? Does it matter how many civilians are in the Hamas hospital?
3. How should a Jewish army weigh the military advantage of bombing the hospital and stopping rockets that kill Israeli civilians against the death of the innocent Gaza civilians when the hospital is bombed.
4. Are political consequences and public relations a factor in the decision to bomb the hospital?
5. What if there are Israeli hostages in the Hamas hospital? Do the considerations change? Should you kill your own civilians or soldiers to stop the Hamas attacks form the hospital?
6. What criteria should be used for deciding whether to bomb the hospital and unintentionally kill the civilians?
7. Under what conditions should you not bomb the hospital?

This is a Topic: