It's amazing how contemporary some Bible stories are! The biblical story of Dinah being kidnapped and raped by the Prince of Shechem contains many modern parallels. Before I go into them, I must make one comment. How beautiful it is to see a proper journalism in the Bible. The Bible simply tells us the story, gives us the facts. Nowhere does it say who was right and who was wrong. We are left to decide that on our own. We see the consequences, we draw the conclusions.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if our contemporary media did the same? Just tell us what happened, accurately, and let us draw our own conclusions.

In a nutshell, the story goes as follows. Prince Shechem kidnaps and rapes Jacob's daughter, Dinah. Her brothers, Simon and Levi, are incensed. When Prince Shechem comes to ask for Dinah in marriage, the brothers demand that all the men of the city undergo circumcision. They agree, and they do it. Three days later, when the circumcision pains are at their peak, Simon and Levi come and annihilate all the males. They take their sister, and they go home.

Jacob is upset with his sons, and says to them, "You have made me ugly in the eyes of the Canaanites, who will now gather together and annihilate us." The brothers respond, "Shall he make our sister into a harlot?"

The biggest question here is how could Simon and Levi do that? Even if the Prince was deserving of death, which is very questionable, what justification was there for killing all the men of the city? The commentaries struggle with this, as it is so far away from Judaism that the simple story cannot be the end. One suggests that the brothers had only intended to attack the Prince, but found the entire city rallied to his defense. The result was a war, in which the brothers destroyed their enemies.

In modern terms, the Prince had a lot of human shields. But they were more than human shields, they were active participants in the battle. Thus, the brothers had never intended to kill so horribly, but found themselves with little choice.

Others explain that this city, by virtue of the crime committed by their Prince, proved itself to be lawless. One of the obligations of humanity is to have a proper system of law. A lawless society is a cancer in the world. Thus, justifying crimes makes everyone responsible. For this they deserved to be destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrah. (Hollywood defenders of Roman Polanski, take note!)

Both of these explanations attribute guilt to the people of the city. However, a straightforward reading of the text leads me to think otherwise. Let's look at the dialogue between Jacob and his sons.

Jacob does NOT rebuke his sons for doing something immoral. His concern is for what the world will think. He is afraid the nations of Canaan will gather and attack him. Notice how the brothers do not answer that fear. They simply state that it is unthinkable that their sister should be turned into a harlot. Why don't they answered Jacob's fears?

The Or Hachaim claims that they do answer it, directly. What they are saying is that Jacob's approach will actually be more dangerous. If they respond "disproportionately," and show that they will not tolerate violence against them, that will cause their enemies to think twice. Jacob is broadcasting weakness, and weakness invites further violence. In other words, they argue in favor of disproportionate responses to attacks. Even if bystanders are harmed.

They argue in favor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If it stops the war, it saves lives in the big picture. Does Jacob agree?

I don't think so. My proof lies not in this chapter, but in previous chapters. Remember, Jacob is a man of faith. He has been promised to inherit the land, and to be the father of a great nation. The one who promised it is none other than Almighty God. How, then, can Jacob have the slightest fear that the nations of Canaan will gather and destroy him?

Perhaps it is because he felt that this sin of destroying the the men of Shechem was so great that it abrogated that divine promise. Another indication is what happens next. God tells Jacob to "Go up to Beit El, and make for Me an altar..." In other words, you must purify yourselves after this terrible episode. You must put your house back in order.

As Jacob and the family make their way, God sends a fear to the land, and the Canaanite nations do not pursue the fledgling Israel. It may very will be that had Jacob not immediately acted to correct the family, his fear of destruction may have come true. The divine intervention came because Jacob was once again ascending and spirituality, on his way to build a sanctuary. When he does so, God repeats his promise for the future of the Israelite people. If he had not, perhaps the sin would indeed have been too great.

So let us summarize the answer. Vengeance is anti-Jewish. Killing innocent people is anti-Jewish.

Self defense is very Jewish. A response was absolutely necessary, but the response must be against those who attacked. Innocent people are no threat, and should not be caused to suffer. Israel is justified in its policy of restraint when civilians are in proximity to terrorists.

However, as those commentaries mentioned above say, if there is no choice, there is no choice. Israel must not allow terrorists to attack. If stopping them cannot be done without innocent bystanders being caught up, then that is a tragic necessity. It is quite another thing, however, to simply flatten the town. Israel does not do this, and lives up to standards that are much higher than any other army in the world.