(יח) שֹׁפְטִ֣ים וְשֹֽׁטְרִ֗ים תִּֽתֶּן־לְךָ֙ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְהוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לְךָ֖ לִשְׁבָטֶ֑יךָ וְשָׁפְט֥וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם מִשְׁפַּט־צֶֽדֶק׃ (יט) לֹא־תַטֶּ֣ה מִשְׁפָּ֔ט לֹ֥א תַכִּ֖יר פָּנִ֑ים וְלֹא־תִקַּ֣ח שֹׁ֔חַד כִּ֣י הַשֹּׁ֗חַד יְעַוֵּר֙ עֵינֵ֣י חֲכָמִ֔ים וִֽיסַלֵּ֖ף דִּבְרֵ֥י צַדִּיקִֽם׃ (כ) צֶ֥דֶק צֶ֖דֶק תִּרְדֹּ֑ף לְמַ֤עַן תִּֽחְיֶה֙ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ֣ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ׃ (ס)
Civil disobedience
Can we say that breaking the law can never be justified?
I just think Rosa Parks was overrated. Last time I checked, she got famous for breaking the law.
Stephen Colbert
"Lex injusta non est lex." (Latin)
An unjust law is not a law.
Attributed to St. Augustine.
An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.
Mahatma Gandhi
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law”
Martin Luther King Jr.
“If you accept a democratic system, this means that you are prepared to put up with those of its workings, legislative or administrative, with which you do not agree as well as with those that meet with your concurrence. This willingness to accept, in principle, the workings of a system based on the will of the majority, even when you yourself are in the minority, is simply the essence of democracy. Without it there could be no system of representative self-government at all. When you attempt to alter the workings of the system by means of violence or civil disobedience, this, it seems to me, can have only one of two implications; either you do not believe in democracy at all and consider that society ought to be governed by enlightened minorities such as the one to which you, of course, belong; or you consider that the present system is so imperfect that it is not truly representative, that it no longer serves adequately as a vehicle for the will of the majority, and that this leaves to the unsatisfied no adequate means of self-expression other than the primitive one of calling attention to themselves and their emotions by mass demonstrations and mass defiance of established authority.”
George F. Kennan
דִּינָא דְּמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא - "The law of the land is the law"
How do we decide what is an unjust law?
(ז) וְדִרְשׁ֞וּ אֶת־שְׁל֣וֹם הָעִ֗יר אֲשֶׁ֨ר הִגְלֵ֤יתִי אֶתְכֶם֙ שָׁ֔מָּה וְהִתְפַּֽלְל֥וּ בַעֲדָ֖הּ אֶל־יְהוָ֑ה כִּ֣י בִשְׁלוֹמָ֔הּ יִהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶ֖ם שָׁלֽוֹם׃
(י) שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֱהֹב אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה, וּשְׂנָא אֶת הָרַבָּנוּת, וְאַל תִּתְוַדַּע לָרָשׁוּת:
(10) Shemayah and Avtalyon received from them. Shemayah says, "Love work, hate lordship and do not become familiar with the government."
(ג) אבל בעיני פשט הכתוב כך הוא. ידוע הוא כי המין האנושי צריך לשופט שישפוט בין פרטיו, שאם לא כן איש את רעהו חיים בלעו ויהיה העולם נשחת, וכל אומה צריכה לזה ישוב מדיני, עד שאמר החכם שכת הלסטים הסכימו ביניהם היושר.
(3) I understand the plain meaning of the verse as follows: It is accepted that men need judges to judge between them, for in their absence (Avoth 3:2) "One man would swallow the other alive" and the world would become corrupt. And every people requires some form of government, the sage going so far as to say: "Even thieves recognize the necessity of justice within their society."
(יד) כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל דִּין שֶׁיַּחְקֹק אוֹתוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ לַכּל וְלֹא יִהְיֶה לְאָדָם אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ גֵּזֶל. וְכָל שֶׁיִּקַּח מֵאִישׁ זֶה בִּלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא כַּדָּת הַיְדוּעָה לַכּל אֶלָּא חָמַס אֶת זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּזֶל. לְפִיכָךְ גַּבָּאֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְשׁוֹטְרָיו שֶׁמּוֹכְרִים הַשָּׂדוֹת בְּמַס הַקָּצוּב עַל הַשָּׂדוֹת מִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר. אֲבָל מַס שֶׁעַל כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא מִן הָאָדָם עַצְמוֹ וְאִם מָכְרוּ הַשָּׂדֶה בְּמַס שֶׁעַל הָרֹאשׁ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מִמְכָּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה דִּין הַמֶּלֶךְ כָּךְ:
(14) The general principle is: Any law that a king decrees to be universally applicable, and not merely applying to one person, is not considered robbery. But whenever he takes from one person alone in a manner that does not conform to a known law, but rather seizes the property from the person arbitrarily, it is considered to be robbery. Therefore, the king's dues collectors and his officers that sell fields with a defined tax on the fields, their sale is valid. But a personal tax is only collected from the person himself, and if they sold the field with a personal tax, behold this is not a valid sale unless the king has decreed that it is.
Application to Modern Israel
Does the state of Israel have this status?
Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Tradition Volume 12, No.3-4 (Winter/Spring 1972) - translated by David Landau
We have no right to connect the establishment of this State of Israel with religious concepts of Messianic redemption, which entail the idea of the religious salvation of the world, or at least of the Jewish People. One must not affix a religious halo to a politico-historical event, and one must not view the very existence of this state as a religious phenomenon.
Yael Tamir, "A Jewish Democratic State." In Walzer et al., ed., The Jewish Political Tradition, vol 1. Authority. Yale UP: 2000.
[...] Israel can be a Jewish democratic state as long as this dual nature expresses the preferences of the majority of its citizens. Its non-Jewish citizens must be given a due place in public life, but this will not redeem their sense of estrangement. The Palestinian citizens of Israel are bound to feel excluded. [...]
Israel can retain its Jewish character only so long as Jewishness enjoys democratic support. Hence democratic values take precedence over Jewish ones.