On the right of the people of Israel to their land
Hello Rabbi,
If theoretically we had the power to conquer all of the entire Land of Israel, would there be a moral/legal/halachic justification for this (i.e., could we do so by virtue of the right that God gave us to inherit the land, and is there such a right at all)? And beyond that, is there a mitzvah to settle all of the entire Land of Israel? Or is it enough to settle parts of it?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
To Isaiah the Fourth (the third is already taken) peace. If we had the power to conquer all of the territories of Palestine, I think it would be justified in every way. Halachically, of course (see Rashi the First on the Torah). But also morally, since this is our land and the other peoples who settled in it are fictitious peoples who deserve to go to the places they came from and stop harassing us. Legally, the question is not defined (because international law is nothing more than agendas). The commandment is to colonize all of Palestine, but the constraints of reality (and not moral considerations) dictate not to do so for the time being. What’s more, the Jewish public today is not really obligated to all of this, and conquering the land is a commandment on the public, not on individuals.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Regarding the moral aspect, why do you see the other peoples who settled in this country as “fictitious peoples”? How are they different from the Swiss people who settled in Switzerland? Why is their (moral) right to their land different from the Swedes’ right to Sweden?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The difference is on two levels: 1. The Swedes have already created a common ethos. If only because they are older. 2. There are no other claims of superiority over Sweden (as far as I know).
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Regarding 2, why do you think Jews have priority (on a moral level) over other ethnic groups (Palestinians/Syrians/Jordanians) over the land?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
First, even if we don’t have priority, here at least there is competition between two factors. Second, I do think we have priority because we were ahead here and were exiled. For exactly the same reason that the Palestinians claim they deserve (because we supposedly expelled them). And I haven’t even mentioned the divine promise about Israel.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Regarding the Risha, if these were two equal factors, from considerations of symmetry it would be possible to conclude that Jews also have no moral right to Israel.
Regarding the end, we did advance, but the land came to us by conquest in the first place, so what difference does it make who conquered first for the purpose of establishing moral right?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
This is already starting to sound like a gibberish. I didn’t say that when there are two parties, no one has a right, but I brought this up as a contrast to the situation in Sweden. The land came to us through occupation, so when the Gergeschi comes, we will talk to him. And besides, the occupation was by divine decree. Forgive me, but I think we’ve exhausted it.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
According to your line, if theoretically one day the Indians were strong enough to conquer US lands back, do you think they would have justification to do so? Or let’s say that once a certain status quo is created or international recognition of a certain people’s ownership of an unknown piece of land is established, any violation of the status quo, or infringement of ownership, is a moral injustice.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
First, the Indians did not have a sovereign state. Therefore, their claim by virtue of the presumption of prima facie can be to private property and not to sovereignty. Second, if they had sovereignty or a reasonable claim to sovereignty, they do indeed have the right to reconquer. International recognition is a practice, not a morality. Sometimes, as a practical matter, the world prefers to give up legitimate rights and reward the aggressor.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Indians did have a sovereign state. Would that allow the French to morally occupy US lands (similar to stealing from an exempt thief)? Or do the Americans also have some right to the land (and if so, why), and only the Indians’ right is stronger than theirs.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
ZEAG, Lit Nagar and Bar Nagar, Delifrance.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Please don’t be a carpenter, please
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
