Jewish tradition is adamant that the forefathers observed the law before it was given to Moses on the Sinai. Why, therefore, did Jacob’s sons slaughter the people of Schem for raping their sister instead of allowing Schem to marry her, as he pleaded? The background is simple: upon coming back to Canaan, Jacob purchased a field near Schem; Palestinian Arabs call that place Nablus and claim Jews have no business there. The son of the ruler of Schem raped Dina, after which offered to marry her. At that point Simeon and Levi pretended to accept the marriage, but demanded that the population of Schem circumcise. While the locals were incapacitated after the surgery, Jacob’s sons killed them all, enslaved their wives, and took their property.

The immediate problem with Schem’s offer to marry Dinah was him keeping her hostage. Schem did not deliver Dinah to her family and then humbly ask to marry her, but kept her in his house, thus making the marriage offer a sham. Accordingly, Jacob’s family had every reason to be suspicious of Hamor’s offer to live in that land. Just as his son kept Dinah hostage, he could one day lay claim on their possessions. The ruse of circumcision is suspicious: long before then, Abraham was commanded to circumcise before entering the land of Canaan, in order to be like the locals, and so were the Hebrews under Joshua. In historical perspective, the tribe of Schem was likely circumcised. Whether abetted by the post-circumcision fever or not, Simeon and Jacob chose to slay the Schemites.

In doing so, they rebelled against common sense. Ever-fearful Jacob decries their unspeakable act of brutality, which could cause other tribes to fight his clan. Jacobs’ fear is odd because his sons acted within the commonly accepted legal principle of blood revenge: they avenged their sister. Indeed, no Canaanite tribe rose against Jacob on that occasion. Simeon and Levi, however, exceeded the legal limits by killing the entire male population. They also rejected Schem’s offer of hospitality. Probably for that reason, the narrative contains a suspicious interpolation: after credibly arguing before his people for welcoming Jacob’s clan, Schem drops a wry remark, “Shall not their cattle and their substance and all their beasts be ours?” Such an evil intent justified the assault.

But what if Schem didn’t harbor evil intentions? What if he held Dinah just because of his brutish nature rather than as a deliberate act of kidnapping? That was likely the case.

Jacob’s attack on Schem wasn’t an act of conquest: immediately after the attack, his clan moved to Beth-El, leaving the large territory of Schem a no-man’s land. Simeon and Levi plundered Schem, which was typical of the Hebrews’ retributive raids. They deceived the Schemites, and the Bible explicitly sanctions military deceit: “For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war.” Shimon and Levi acted not without anger, but the Torah praises Pinchas, who slew even a Jew engaging in an idolatrous sexual rite; contrary to the stance of modern rabbis, Pinchas slew the transgressor on the spot without referring the matter to judges—obvious transgressions need no due process.

Their actions need not comply with legal norms or practicality. Simeon and Levi acted on a higher moral plane, that of revenge. And so their laconic reply to Jacob’s lamentations was, “Should one deal with our sister as with a harlot?”

The lesson Simeon and Levi gave us is straightforward: there are cases when neither intentions nor repentance matter. Society can deal leniently with a lone criminal, even a rapist, by allowing him to marry the victim. In national matters, we are one, and the sister is always ours. Like in the NATO charter, an attack on a single Jew is an attack on every Jew.

Israeli Arabs routinely rape Jewish women.