[Avodah] Why is Milchemes Reshus allowed?

[Shoshana L. Boublil]

>From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" <kennethgmiller at juno.com>

>I wrote:
>: Even in a case where, Rachmana Litzlan, our countrymen 
are dying
>: of starvation, and that could be remedied by attacking 
another
>: country, I can't see any justification in killing those 
foreigners
>: unless they are actually responsible for our starvation. 
Pikuach
>: nefesh can justify stealing their food, but not killing 
their
>: people.
>
>R' Micha Berger questioned:
>> Is this so? Even an ubar can be a rodeif.

I believe that R' Akiva Miller has just managed to add 
Milchemet Reshut to a whole list of dinim that we learn but 
do not actually carry out -- like Ben Sorrer U'Moreh etc.

Until WWII, economic reasons, and not piku'ach nefesh type 
ones, were sufficient to start a war.   Just look through 
the Torah and then general history and you'll see plenty of 
occasions where kings led their people to war for economic 
reasons that included the possibility of future needs.

Actually, the arabs make that claim towards Israel all the 
time nowadays -- that we will attack them b/c as we are an 
country that encourages immigrants, we will need more 
resources and will therefore, for sure, attack them one day, 
so they have to be ready, and they have used this excuse to 
justify their attacks again and again.

Many of the current tribal wars in Africa nowadays are based 
on such claims (I'm not talking about truth in 
advertising...)

In any case, in a world where such behavior, expansion b/c 
the leadership considers it a necessity that warrants war, 
Hashem provided a mechanism for Jews to be able to do so as 
well. As usual, it limits; it demands deeper thought before 
going to war, but it does not actually prohibit it in a 
world that considers such wars valid.

>Here's an example which might be very comparable to the 
ubar: There is a river which flows through a neighboring 
country, and then into ours. It supplies plenty of water for 
both of us. The other country decides to divert the flow so 
that it stays in their area. They're not doing it to hurt 
us, but only for their own purposes. But the lack of a water 
source has become (or will become) a life-threatening 
emergency to us, and we attack them to restore the original 
flow of the river.
>
>That would seem, to me, to be a justifiable military 
action, and a milchemes mitzva. Am I mistaken? Is this the 
sort of "economic" reason which other posters would consider 
to be a milchemes reshus?
===

In this case, let's examine it realistically.
Milchemet Mitzva is only valid regarding Eretz Yisrael (or 
saving Jewish lives). Geographically, the sources of the 
Jordan river are actually within Jewish borders, so the only 
way another country could divert the source would be if, 
like today, areas of Eretz Yisrael were in foreign hands.  
In such a case, the reason for going to war would actually 
be under the heading of Kibbush HaAretz which is a basis for 
Milchemet Mitzva, and the issue of the water would have been 
a specific cause as to why to go to war "now".

So, this would not be a milchemt reshut at all.

Shoshana L. Boublil