A recent ruling by Israel’s Supreme Court has triggered global outrage after one of its justices invoked a biblical commandment as part of the legal rationale for upholding Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. The decision, steeped in religious language, has drawn sharp criticism from legal scholars, human rights organizations, and international observers, many of whom accuse the court of paving the way for theocratic rule under the guise of judicial authority.
Religious Texts Invoked in Legal Ruling
The ruling, issued on March 27, 2025, dismissed a petition by Israeli human rights groups seeking to compel the government to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, where over two million Palestinians face catastrophic conditions. The most incendiary element came from Justice David Mintz, who cited the biblical commandment to “annihilate Amalek” as part of the legal justification.
“Jewish law recognizes three justifications for war,” wrote Mintz, “to inherit the land, to destroy Amalek, and to defend against an attacker.” His opinion argued that Gaza’s current status fell within these categories, effectively giving theological cover to the military campaign.
The invocation of scripture as legal precedent shocked observers around the world. “This is the kind of justification you’d expect from ISIS or the Taliban—not from a country that claims to be a liberal democracy,” said one international legal scholar.
Who Was Amalek?
The biblical figure of Amalek has long represented the archetype of evil in Jewish tradition. According to the Book of Deuteronomy, Amalek was the first enemy to attack the Israelites after their exodus from Egypt. The commandment to “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven” has traditionally been interpreted as a historical mandate, though some religious nationalists argue it remains relevant today.
In modern Israeli discourse, the term “Amalek” has resurfaced at times of heightened tension—used by extremist rabbis and nationalist politicians to describe a range of enemies, including Palestinians, Hezbollah, and Iran. While such rhetoric has typically remained on the fringes, Mintz’s incorporation of it into a legal ruling marks a significant and troubling departure.
On October 28, 2023, during a televised address announcing the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked a biblical reference to the Amalekites.
He stated: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible.”
This phrase originates from Deuteronomy 25:17, where the Israelites are commanded to remember the Amalekites’ attack during their exodus from Egypt. The passage continues in verses 18–19 with a directive to “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
Netanyahu’s reference drew significant international criticism, with some interpreting it as a call for the total destruction of Hamas, likening them to the biblical Amalekites. Critics, including human rights organizations and scholars, expressed concern that such rhetoric could be perceived as inciting violence or even genocide.
Justice David Mintz: Background and Ideology
Justice Mintz, born in London in 1959, immigrated to Israel with his family as a European settler in 1970. He resides in the West Bank settlement of Dolev, considered illegal under international law, and is known for his alignment with religious Zionism—a movement that fuses Jewish religious doctrine with political nationalism.
Mintz’s legal philosophy has raised concerns for years, particularly regarding his views on the role of Jewish law in civil jurisprudence. His ruling in the Gaza case, observers say, marks a culmination of that ideology: a legal system increasingly willing to draw upon scripture to shape national policy.
“Mintz didn’t just reference Jewish tradition—he turned it into constitutional logic,” said legal analyst Dana Geffen. “That’s a serious breach of the separation between religion and state.”
Collapse of Ceasefire and Renewed Siege
The ruling comes amid a collapse of the January 2025 ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Despite initial commitments to allow humanitarian aid and reduce hostilities, Israeli forces resumed large-scale military operations in early March following renewed rocket fire from Gaza. Over 1,500 Palestinians have been killed in the latest wave of airstrikes, many of them civilians. Tens of thousands have been displaced from both northern and southern regions—areas that had been previously designated as “safe zones.”
Aid agencies say conditions in Gaza have deteriorated to unprecedented levels. Food, clean water, electricity, and medical supplies are all in critically short supply. United Nations officials have described the situation as a “full-blown humanitarian collapse.”
Legal and Humanitarian Fallout
International law experts argue that, under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel remains the occupying power in Gaza and is therefore obligated to ensure the welfare of the civilian population. However, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation, ruling that Israel does not exercise effective control and thus bears no legal duty to provide aid.
This conclusion directly contradicts the stance of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has issued provisional measures requiring Israel to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid and refrain from actions that could constitute genocide. By asserting that biblical imperatives override international obligations, critics say, Israel’s judiciary is asserting an unprecedented form of legal exceptionalism.
Rise of Religious Zionism Within Israeli Institutions
Justice Mintz’s ruling is part of a broader trend: the growing dominance of religious Zionist ideology within Israeli state institutions. Over the past decade, political appointments and judicial reforms have tilted the balance of power toward religious-nationalist actors who see the state not just as a political entity but as a divine vessel for Jewish destiny.
This transformation has accelerated under the influence of powerful settler movements and coalition governments dependent on ultra-Orthodox and religious Zionist parties. Many fear that the Israeli judiciary—once viewed as a guardian of liberal democracy—is now becoming a vehicle for theocratic governance.
“There’s a difference between being a Jewish state and becoming a halachic state,” warned former Supreme Court Justice Eliyakim Rubinstein. “This ruling threatens to erase that line.”
Domestic Response: Division and Dissent
Inside Israel, the ruling has sparked fierce debate. Supporters argue that the judiciary is finally aligning with the country’s Jewish character, while opponents warn of irreversible damage to civil society.
Protests have erupted in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, led by legal professionals, human rights groups, and families of reservists. “This is not what we fought for,” said Yael Dayan, daughter of former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. “Using the Bible to justify bombing civilians is a betrayal of everything our democracy was meant to stand for.”
International Repercussions
The ruling has also drawn criticism from world capitals and international institutions. The European Union expressed “grave concern” over the humanitarian impact and warned that using religious justifications for collective punishment may constitute incitement under international law.
In Washington, the U.S. State Department issued a measured statement calling on Israel to uphold humanitarian standards, but pressure is mounting on President Trump to reevaluate the terms of American military aid.
Several progressive lawmakers in Congress have called for hearings into whether U.S. weapons are being used in potential violations of international law. “This is not just about Israel’s legal system,” said Rep. Ilhan Omar. “It’s about whether American taxpayers are complicit in a war driven by religious zealotry.”
Theological Warfare and the End of Diplomacy?
Analysts warn that framing the Gaza conflict in theological terms risks foreclosing any hope of diplomacy. “If this is a holy war, then compromise becomes heresy,” said Middle East scholar Dr. Tareq al-Naim. “It transforms a political conflict into an existential one, where the only solution is total victory.”
Human rights groups have urged the United Nations to launch an independent investigation into the ruling and its implications, arguing that legitimizing war through religious decree sets a dangerous precedent—not only for Israel, but for the world.
What Comes Next?
As Gaza teeters on the brink of famine and disease, international pressure is intensifying. But within Israel, the Supreme Court’s decision may grant political and legal cover for further escalation, deepening the suffering of millions without consequence.
Legal experts say the ruling could reverberate for years to come—entrenching a form of religious nationalism that views civilian suffering as divinely sanctioned collateral damage.
“In this moment,” said Israeli historian Amos Gilad, “we are not just losing our moral compass—we are rewriting the map entirely.”
