Jewish Political Ethics: A Blueprint for Righteous Nations ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, April 07, 2025

Jewish Political Ethics: A Blueprint for Righteous Nations

If you thought coming up with those eleven principles of universal personal ethics based on Jewish concepts last chapter was audacious, well, buckle your seatbelts. This chapter argues that Jewish tradition doesn’t just offer personal ethics—it provides a robust system for national conduct.

It is not enough to have a set of moral ideas for people. Jewish philosophy goes far beyond that. 3,500 years of history, including 2,000 years of rabbis arguing with each other about anything and everything, is going to cover more than how we should treat each other.

Jewish morality can, and does, have a lot to say about how nations are supposed to act, too.

Jewish ethics extends into the realms of statecraft, diplomacy, justice, and war. The wisdom embedded in Jewish political ethics provides a powerful guide to governance in a complex and morally fragile world.

Hugo Grotius is often called the "father of international law." He laid out the foundations for just war theory and global order in his 1625 work De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace). Grotius was deeply influenced by Jewish sources - particularly Maimonides, the Talmud, and earlier rabbinic commentaries on the Noachide laws.

Like Selden, Grotius believed in universal natural law, binding on all people and nations regardless of their religion or location. He cited rabbinic sources as evidence that such moral principles were truly universal. He particularly embraced the idea that international conduct must be governed by shared ethical principles, including:

The right of self-defense
The obligation to honor treaties
The sanctity of noncombatants
Proportionality in war
The preference for peace over conquest

There are the foundations of international law to this day - and it came from Grotius' study of Jewish wisdom.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing more than a century later in The Social Contract, secularized another core idea from the Jewish tradition: the covenant at Sinai. While Rousseau does not explicitly cite the Sinai revelation, the influence is clear: he refers to Moses as the ideal legislator, and evokes the Hebrew Scripture by saying, "Any man can carve tablets of stone or write laws on parchment. But only a true legislator can inscribe them on the hearts of the people."

Rousseau's "Social Contract" is the concept of a people voluntarily entering into a binding moral and legal covenant, as Israel did at Sinai. The Hebrew term for the United States is "Artzot HaBrit" - the Lands of the Covenant. The Covenant is the Constitution. (Significantly, the plural "Lands" nods to the idea of the United States as a federation of states, not a single monolithic land.)

Both Grotius and Rousseau, these two intellectual cornerstones of modern Western political theory, derive core aspects of their political ideas from Jewish sources.

We will present ten principles - rooted in Jewish jurisprudence and Scriptural ideas - that define a Jewish political ethic. These are not designed only for the Jewish nation, but to serve as a framework any nation could and should aspire to adopt. In a world where power often overwhelms principle, this model offers a moral compass.

Before we delve into the actual ideas, let's see what problems we are trying to solve in the current system of modern international law.

Where International Law Falls Short: A Jewish Ethical Analysis

Modern international law, as codified through institutions like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), aspires to establish global norms for peace, justice, and human rights. But noble intentions alone do not make a moral system. From a Jewish ethical standpoint, the current international system suffers from five critical weaknesses:

1. Lack of Moral Accountability

The Jewish model demands that laws be rooted in moral truth, and that judges be accountable to a higher ethical standard. But many international institutions confuse consensus with morality.

The UN General Assembly, composed of both democracies and brutal dictatorships, passes non-binding resolutions as if they reflect moral clarity.
The ICJ may render judgments based on political considerations, not objective justice.
Member states with horrific human rights records are routinely elected to “human rights” panels.

From Judaism's standpoint, a court that includes wicked judges is invalid. A law detached from truth is not law.

2. Biased Application of Law

Laws are only as good as their application. International law is riddled with inconsistent enforcement, especially regarding Israel.

“Occupation” is defined differently depending on who occupies whom (e.g., Gaza vs. Crimea).
Human shielding is condemned in Yemen but redefined in Gaza.
Targeted killings by Western powers are considered self-defense, but condemned when done by Israel.
Settlements are uniquely criminalized under a Rome Statute clause added solely to target Israel.

A court that treats one people differently from others violates the concept of mishpat echad lachem—“one law for all.” Selective law is no law at all.

3. Moral Equivalence and the Erasure of Priorities

Jewish ethics insists on moral triage—life before property, justice before process, dignity before consensus.

International law treats many violations with formal equivalence, leading to absurd outcomes:

Equating murder and torture with Jews building homes in disputed areas - all "war crimes" under the Rome Statute.
UN bodies condemning Israel more often than North Korea, Iran, or Syria—combined.
Giving equal weight at the UN to nations that protect minorities and those that jail, mutilate, or kill them.

Treating grave offenses and minor slights equally distorts the moral order.

Even more troubling: any system that gives equal legal weight and legitimacy to all nations—including those that systematically violate human rights, suppress dissent, and commit atrocities—cannot claim to be a moral system at all. Morality cannot be constructed from the votes or political pressure of the immoral. Justice cannot emerge from the unjust.

4. Rigidity and Lack of Reform Mechanisms

International law is notoriously rigid, slow, and politically paralyzed. When its rules are outdated or flawed, they cannot be revised easily—especially when dictatorships hold the majority.

The Jewish system, by contrast, includes:

Prophetic critique
Halachic debate
Flexibility in light of new realities

Law must grow with truth, or it fossilizes into injustice.

5. Erasure of National Sovereignty and Moral Diversity

Modern international law, under the guise of universality, often erases legitimate national identity and cultural differences.

Sovereign nations are pressured to adopt global norms, even when those norms conflict with local ethics or religious obligations.
Supranational courts override national judgments, even in democracies.
“Human rights” language is used to enforce so-called "progressive" values with no room for principled disagreement.

From a Jewish perspective, "These and those are the words of the living God.” There is more than one valid way to live ethically. Jewish political ethics expects that each nation that uses its ethical framework will come up with different priorities and conclusions, and inevitably come into conflict with other nations. The framework allows for disagreements and encourages negotiations and bilateral treaties as the preferred method of solving problems.

In a world where institutions are losing trust and law is bent by politics, the Jewish political ethic offers a better alternative.

Here are the ten principles that do a good job defining Jewish political ethics on a national level.

National Preservation and Self-Defense A nation has a sacred obligation to protect its people, land, and identity. The Talmudic principle of milchemet mitzvah—a mandatory war of self-defense—recognizes that preserving life and sovereignty is a national duty. While war is not glorified, pacifism in the face of existential threat is seen as immoral. This principle affirms the legitimacy of defensive deterrence, including economic protection and border security. A just state must seek peace first, but prepare to defend itself when necessary.
Justice and Just Courts The Torah mandates a system of impartial courts. Bribery, favoritism, and systemic corruption are condemned. Justice is not merely procedural but substantive: it must lead to truth and protect the vulnerable. Jewish law also recognizes the legitimacy of non-Jewish legal systems if they are just, and setting up such systems is one of the Noachide laws. No society can endure without trust in fair and transparent justice.
Moral Leadership and Prophetic Responsibility. Political power is a moral burden, not a privilege. Kings in the Torah are commanded to write a personal Sefer Torah and read it daily to avoid arrogance. Leaders must be subject to law and moral scrutiny. The prophets of Israel modeled a culture where truth-tellers were not silenced but honored. This principle affirms that a healthy society must foster internal critique—through press freedom, civic engagement, and public ethics. Leadership must be accountable not only to law, but to conscience.
Covenantal Consent Jewish political legitimacy begins with covenant, not conquest. At Sinai, the people accepted the law voluntarily. The idea that people consent to be governed lies at the heart of legitimate sovereignty. Most modern constitutions derive legitimacy from force, tradition, or revolution, not voluntary moral acceptance. Any regime that rules by fear or fiat contradicts this foundational principle. Consent must be informed, renewed, and grounded in shared ethical purpose.
Sanctity of Human Life As we've seen, life is the highest value in Jewish law—pikuach nefesh overrides almost all commandments. A state must protect its citizens’ lives not only from external enemies, but from citizen criminals and internal neglect: poverty, injustice, poor health care, and avoidable violence. The murder of innocents and avoidable deaths are a desecration. Many other ethical systems prioritize national honor or religious purity over life; this is not moral. National policy must be rooted in a culture of life.
Ethical Sovereignty Judaism affirms national sovereignty but limits it morally. Nations do not have unbounded power. National policy must reflect compassion, justice, and restraint. A nation may control its borders, defend its interests, and protect its culture—but not at the cost of cruelty, exploitation, or injustice.
Compassionate Treatment of Strangers and Minorities “You shall not oppress the stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt” appears over 30 times in the Torah. A Jewish political ethic mandates minority protection—not as a gesture, but as a core duty. This includes religious minorities, migrants, and ethnic outsiders. It does not mean undermining national identity, but ensuring dignity, fairness, and inclusion under law.
Peace as a Goal, Not a Dogma The Torah commands: “When you approach a city to wage war, offer it peace first.” Peace is the ideal but not an absolute. Appeasement is not peace. Moral peace requires mutual respect and justice. Peace that enables tyranny is betrayal. A Jewish vision of peace is active and righteous—not naive surrender.
Moral Warfare and Limits of Force Even in war, Jewish law mandates boundaries: sparing civilians, offering surrender, avoiding unnecessary destruction. Total war is forbidden. A just war is one fought reluctantly, ethically, and for a righteous cause. Modern implications include military codes of conduct, civilian safeguards, and proportionality in force.
Environmental Stewardship and Bal Tashchit The Torah commands, “Do not destroy trees by swinging an axe against them…” , a law taught even in the context of war. From this emerges the broader principle of Bal Tashchit, the prohibition against wanton destruction.. It mandates conservation of natural resources, responsible land use, and sustainable development. Judaism regards the Earth as a divine trust: humanity are its stewards, not its owners. A righteous nation must not pillage its forests, pollute its rivers, or degrade creation for short-term gain. This ethic challenges modern states to balance growth with preservation, consumption with responsibility, and power with humility before the natural world.

As with the personal moral codes, the actual application of these principles are as important as the principles themselves. Situations come up often where two principles indicate different courses of action. There needs to be a methodology to prioritize one over the other, and that methodology must be consistent.

Also, Jewish principles do not tend to be empty, feel-good ideas. Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism all preach that violence is an absolute last resort, if at all. Yet nations that have these faiths as state sponsored religions maintain active, trained armed forces.

In Christian-majority Europe, several countries maintain state churches or official Christian identities in their constitutions. Their military manuals do not say "turn the other cheek." Hindu and Buddhist nations also field professional militaries, complete with air forces, intelligence agencies, and nuclear or cyber warfare capabilities. No military manual in these countries instructs soldiers to surrender when attacked. No army teaches its fighters to love the enemy into repentance. In practice, these nations accept the necessity of force, even if their religious or philosophical foundations refuse to articulate a clear moral framework for it.

Judaism does not share this doublethink. It confronts the problem of violence directly, with laws for war, peace, proportionality, restraint, and justice. The Torah does not glorify violence—but it recognizes that when innocent life is under threat, failure to act is itself a moral crime. Because Judaism values life, it sometimes requires force to defend it. There is no pretense—only responsibility.

If you ask who was the most admired man of the 20th century, many if not most would say Mahatma Gandhi. Yet Gandhi, more than once, said that Jews should allow the Nazis to slaughter them, in the vain expectation that world horror would somehow shame the Nazis into stopping their genocide. Pardon my language, but screw you, Gandhi. His ethical universe may not admit the existence of true evil, but Jewish experience does - the paradigm is Amalek. When faced with pure evil, the proper and ethical response is to obliterate it, not feed it more bodies. Extremist ideologies lead to immoral results, even when the extremism appears to be for the most praiseworthy principles.

Political morality is a rich topic, with infinite variations and questions. That is exactly what makes it a perfect object for Jewish ethics. This framework is mature, tested and flexible.

Jewish political ethics offers more than ancient wisdom—it provides a living model for moral governance. In a time when trust in global institutions falters, Jewish sources offer an ethic that values life, honors sovereignty, protects minorities, welcomes debate, and balances justice with compassion.

This is not utopia. It is hard, real, moral politics. And it may be the best chance the world has to restore order without losing its soul.