Question

Some argue that the Jewish people’s entire right to the Land of Israel stems from the Torah and faith in God — and therefore only a believing person, who accepts the authority of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), can claim a moral right to be in the land. By contrast, the question arises: does a secular or atheist Jew also have a moral and national right to be here, even apart from religious faith?
 
Can one argue that the Jew’s right to the land derives from being part of the Jewish people — a people whose history shows that it had a real hold on this land — especially after emerging from the ovens of Auschwitz and seeking a place that could guarantee its existence in the safest and best possible way?
 
In addition, it should be noted that the conquest of the land by the ancient Jews thousands of years ago cannot be considered an immoral conquest in today’s terms, since in that period conquests and territorial expansion were a natural and unavoidable part of the world order. There were no modern moral standards then of human rights or national sovereignty, and therefore the actions of the past should not be judged by the standards of the present.
 
Moreover — even if the nations of the world recognized the Jewish people’s right to return to its land out of belief in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) or in a divine promise — that is their belief, not necessarily mine. The fact that they saw the biblical right as a basis for supporting the establishment of the state does not obligate me to believe in it; it is enough that they, according to their faith, saw it as just in order for political recognition to be granted in practice.
 
Accordingly, the central question is: are the history, suffering, and national-cultural belonging of the Jewish people not in themselves enough to grant even a Jew who does not believe in the Torah a moral and legitimate right to live in the Land of Israel — out of national, human, and historical identity, and not necessarily a religious one?