From Hadesh - Renewal Vol. I Issue. 1
By: Jacob Levin
There are a few arguments often made to justify the Jews’ sovereignty over the land of Israel. These arguments are rarely made by the same person, as each one has certain political and philosophical assumptions built-in. Unfortunately, each argument fails to stand up to scrutiny on its own, whereas taken together they might support the claim.
One of these arguments is indigeneity. This is likely the most common argument today, since Liberal political philosophy is dominant all over the world, and Progressive ideology in particular is prominent in Western Jewish circles. The argument is that Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel, just as the Viets are to Vietnam, so they should have sovereignty over the land.1 The Liberal version of this argument has roots at least as deep as US President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which was a set of guidelines for peace after World War I. The fifth point emphasizes the principle of popular sovereignty to all peoples within colonial borders.2 Additionally, Wilson proposes redrawing borders according to “nationality”, especially in the cases of Italy3 and Austria-Hungary.4 Though there is moral merit to this argument, it does have a major fault.
There is no clear definition of “indigenous”.5 In fact, the United Nations, as of the writing of this article, has not adopted a definition of the word. The most common definition (and thus what people most often mean) refers to populations before colonization.6 Since this most often means “European colonization”, the Arabs would also be indigenous. Even using Wilson’s approach, which does not use the term “indigenous” itself, the Arab population would be consulted on the character of the resultant government.
If, however, one chooses to categorize the Arab conquest as colonization, then the Israelite conquest would also be colonization. That is, if one were to redefine “indigenous people” as “the population that has the oldest claim to the land through ethnicity”, then the descendants of the Canaanites– the Lebanese7– would be the rightful sovereigns over Israel, even according to our own Jewish texts.
A more Progressive set of criteria for “indigenous people” is “self-identification as indigenous peoples (1), cultural difference from larger groups in a state (2), a special relationship with their traditional territory (3), and an experience of subjugation and discrimination under a dominant cultural model (4)”.8 According to these criteria, the Palestinian Arabs would be indigenous to Israel. The claim that the Jews are indigenous is only true historically; the Jews lack criteria 2 and 4 in modern-day Israel. Strangely, this definition of “indigenous” rejects a people who have always lived in or have reclaimed their land.9
Considering the lack of clear definition and the incongruence of the Jews with the most common definitions, this argument must be rejected.
The oldest argument for Jewish sovereignty over the land is probably that God gave it to us. Since God is the Creator of the world, and therefore He owns it,10 He can allot it to whomever He chooses.11 He chose to give the land to us, so the land is ours.
Not only does this argument only convince religious Jews, who therefore already believe the claim, but there is a major flaw: God subsequently gave the land to others. Sure, we might say those are only temporary land grants, but many if not most Muslim Arabs fully believe that the land was forever given to them.12 At this point, the only way to prove one claim over the other is to fight and see who God chooses to win. (Not to mention that the losers could just as easily try again later!)
The third argument is that “We made the desert bloom!” Since we worked the land and made it productive, we should have sovereignty over it.13
This, too, is a bad argument. The Jews are helping countries in the Sahel stave off desertification, and possibly even reverse it.14 Do the Jews have a claim to sovereignty there? If we exploit the land irresponsibly, should we leave and give the land to someone else? If we struggle with something ecological, and bring in German scientists and engineers to help us solve the problem, have they laid claim to even a piece of our land?
Not only that, but the argument isn’t even true! The amount of cultivable land, land that could be used for agriculture, has largely remained the same since the Ottoman period, about 30%.15 The Negev is still a desert. What is true is that the Jews made the marshes bloom– by fighting a war against malaria and draining swamps, the amount of usable land increased. However, the Hula Swamp drainage has caused serious environmental concerns.16 The Jewish National Fund also planted millions of trees, reforesting wide swaths of Israel.17 Israeli water technology has also greatly improved agricultural efficiency. Nevertheless, the argument is misleading at best, and outright false at worst. Per the questions in the previous paragraph, it proves to be a faulty argument anyway.
I propose a new argument. It is just as land-conscious as the third argument. Its origin is in the Torah like the second argument. It appeals to morality and justice like the first argument.
The Jews should be sovereign over the land of Israel because we have an inherited responsibility to care for the land. Not just its productivity, but even its spiritual and moral state.
You shall faithfully observe all My laws and all My regulations, lest the land to which I bring you to settle in spew you out. You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am driving out before you. For it is because they did all these things that I abhorred them and said to you: You shall possess their land, for I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I, Hashem, am your God who has set you apart from other peoples. So you shall set apart the pure beast from the impure, the impure bird from the pure. You shall not draw abomination upon yourselves through beast or bird or anything with which the ground is alive, which I have set apart for you to treat as impure. You shall be holy to Me, for I, Hashem, am holy, and I have set you apart from other peoples to be Mine.18
Our laws require us to administer the land. We should not be arguing over who has the right to sovereignty, but who has the responsibility of sovereignty. We are commanded– we have a duty!– to control the land.
Neither the Muslims nor the Christians benefit from this argument, despite their religions’ origins in the Bible. Being universalist religions, they claim that their religions work for all lands. Thus, the land of Israel is not special, nor are their laws special to this land. In fact, no people save Jews and Samaritans has this argument. Considering the Tanakh’s claims about the origins of the Samaritans,19 their potential use of this argument is a testament to the particularity of our commandments to this land, and this land to us.
Shrinkhal, R. (2021). “Indigenous sovereignty” and right to self-determination in international law: a critical appraisal. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180121994681
“A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable government whose title is to be determined.”
The ninth point. “A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.”
The tenth point. “The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development.”
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2011). Indigenous and tribal peoples’ rights over their ancestral lands and natural resources. Organization of American States. Section IIIa.
Sanders, D. (1999). Indigenous peoples: issues of definition. International Journal of Cultural Property, 8(1), 4–13. doi:10.1017/S0940739199770591
Haber, M., Doumet-Serhal, C., Scheib, C., Xue, Y., Danecek, P., Mezzavilla, M., Youhanna, S., Martiniano, R., Prado-Martinez, J., Szpak, M., Matisoo-Smith, E., Schutkowski, H., Mikulski, R., Zalloua, P., Kivisild, T., & Tyler-Smith, C. (2017). Continuity and admixture in the last five millennia of Levantine history from ancient Canaanite and present-day Lebanese genome sequences. American Journal of Human Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1101/142448
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2009). State of the world's indigenous peoples. United Nations.
Duile T. (2021). Paradoxes of indigeneity: identity, the state, and the economy in Indonesia. Dialectical anthropology, 45(4), 357–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10624-021-09640-7
Consider קונה הכל.
Rashi. (11th century). Commentary on Genesis 1:1.
Parvin, M., & Sommer, M. (1980). Dar al-Islam: The Evolution of Muslim Territoriality and Its Implications for Conflict Resolution in the Middle East. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 11(1), 1–21. doi:10.1017/S0020743800000246
This is the Labor Theory of Property. Cf. Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. Section 27.
Surkes, S. (2022, November 12). Israel’s DeserTech partners with UN to help African nations build Great Green Wall. The Times of Israel.
Isseroff, A. (2007). Land question in Palestine. Zionism & Israel Information Center.
Tal, Alon (2002). Pollution in a Promised Land: An Environmental History of Israel. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-520-23428-4.
Jewish National Fund. (2023). Forestry and green innovations.
Leviticus 20:22-26. JPS 2006.
II Kings 17:24-28.