A Theological Examination of Israel’s Claim to the Land
Premise 1 — Reality of Existence
The modern State of Israel exists. Since 1948, it has functioned as an independent state, recognized by many other nations. Despite disputes over some borders, Israel governs its territory, maintains diplomatic relations, and operates as a sovereign country.
Premise 2 — Foundational Idea
The main driving force behind Israel’s creation was Zionism — the belief that Jews have a historical and ancestral bond with the land. Modern Zionism took shape in the late nineteenth century as a response to rising antisemitism and violence in Europe. It combined political aims with cultural revival, built on the conviction that Jews should return to what they regard as their ancient homeland. At its heart lies the claim that the Jewish people’s connection to this land is not only historical but, for many, also rooted in faith.
Premise 3 — Religious Basis
Many religious Zionists and conservative supporters refer to the Hebrew Bible when defending Israel’s right to exist in its current territory. Passages like God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis and the instructions in Deuteronomy are often cited as proof that the land belongs to the Jewish people. For some, these texts are more than symbolic — they are treated as literal confirmation of a divine promise, which is used to reinforce political arguments and justify settlement policies.
Premise 4 — A Conditional Promise
However, the same biblical texts that describe God’s promise also state that it is conditional. The Israelites are granted the land only if they follow God’s commandments and live justly. Books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus repeatedly warn that disobedience, injustice, or corruption will lead to losing the land. The prophets echo this idea too, linking injustice and moral failure with exile and loss of divine protection.
Premise 5 — One Basic Commandment
Among the core commandments given in the Bible is the simple rule: “You shall not steal.” This appears in the Ten Commandments — the foundation of the covenant between God and the Israelites. It establishes a clear moral expectation about respecting other people’s property and upholding justice.
Premise 6 — Historical Breaches
When Israel was established during the 1948 war, historians have documented widespread looting of Palestinian homes and property by Jewish fighters and civilians. Accounts from researchers like Benny Morris and Adam Raz show that taking homes, furniture, and valuables was not just isolated but occurred on a large scale. Often, authorities did little to stop it.
Premise 7 — Ben-Gurion’s Remark
Israel’s founding leader, David Ben-Gurion, is said to have admitted this uncomfortable reality. According to historian Adam Raz, Ben-Gurion remarked that “most of the Jews are thieves,” acknowledging how common the looting was and how deeply it troubled him. This has been cited in Haaretz too.[1] It shows that even within Israel’s early leadership there was awareness of a serious moral failure.
Premise 8 — Theological Consequence
If the divine promise depends on obeying commandments, then breaking a fundamental one like “do not steal” would violate the conditions attached to the land. The Bible itself shows that when the people fail to live by the covenant, they risk losing the land and God’s favor. This idea runs through the prophets and covenant texts again and again.
Premise 9 — Consistency of Argument
If supporters appeal to the Bible to justify Israel’s claim to the land, they cannot ignore the moral requirements that come with that claim. One cannot invoke divine authority for ownership while ignoring commandments that define the covenant. To do so would be logically and theologically inconsistent.
Conclusion
This argument does not seek to deny Israel’s existence on historical, political, or legal grounds. Rather, it speaks only to those who invoke the Bible as the foundation of Israel’s claim to the land. If one appeals to divine promise, one must also accept the covenant’s moral conditions in their entirety. To uphold the authority of scripture selectively—affirming the promise while disregarding the commandments—is to argue inconsistently. The widespread looting of 1948, recognized even by Israel’s own founding leadership, stands as a breach of covenantal obligation. Therefore, the biblical justification for Israel’s claim, if taken seriously, collapses under the weight of its own moral requirements.