The premise that the Israeli state’s “tyrannical actions since its inception” belie the foundational covenant to the Promised Land is a core argument used by critics across various religious and political spectra, including dissenting Jewish voices. This critique fundamentally resides in the concept of conditional possession of the land of Israel.
For many deeply religious anti-Zionist and Orthodox Jewish groups (like Neturei Karta, and historical figures in the Old Yishuv), the entire enterprise of establishing a sovereign Jewish state before the arrival of the Messiah is a rebellion against divine will. They argue that Zionism, as a secular nationalist movement, replaced the traditional Jewish concepts of Diaspora and Messianic Redemption with a human-driven political project. By attempting to force the end of the exile and regain sovereignty through military and political means, they violated a religious decree of waiting (sometimes referred to as the “Three Oaths” in rabbinic tradition).
The moment the state was established in 1948 and began to engage in actions associated with national power— such as warfare, displacement, and territorial control— it was viewed by these critics as engaging in secular, and often unjust, acts that stood in direct opposition to the moral obligations required for a truly “Promised Land”.
Furthermore, the claim that the tyrannical actions of the State of Israel since its inception disqualify it from being the Promised Land represents a profound ethical synthesis, contrasting the conditional nature of a divine covenant with violations of both biblical injunctions and contemporary international law. The Hebrew Bible is unequivocal that the right to national dwelling is contingent upon upholding justice (mishpat) and righteousness (tzedek), establishing a conditional covenant.
This conditional tenure is dramatically underscored by the “vomiting out” injunction found in Leviticus: “The land will vomit you out, as it vomited out the nation that was before you, when you defile it” (Leviticus 18:28).
This ethical critique gains potent legal weight from the body of international law. Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) are widely cited as violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, particularly Article 49, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the territory it occupies —the legal basis for declaring Israeli settlements illegal. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its recent Advisory Opinion (19 July 2024), determined that Israel’s prolonged occupation of the OPT is unlawful as it violates the Palestinian right to self-determination.Â
The defilement explicitly includes acts of moral corruption, bloodshed, and injustice, directly linking the physical possession of the land to the inhabitants’ moral behavior. Prophets like Amos reinforced this, asserting that religious ritual is worthless without justice: “let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream” (Amos 5:24).
This theological framework suggests that if a state’s conduct— such as the systemic dispossession of Palestinians (the Nakba) or the creation of a vast system of illegal control— violates these primary ethical laws, its moral right to the land is nullified, mirroring the biblical precedent for exile following injustice.
This ethical critique gains potent legal weight from the body of international law. Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories (OPT) are widely cited as violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, particularly Article 49, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the territory it occupies —the legal basis for declaring Israeli settlements illegal. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its recent Advisory Opinion (19 July 2024), determined that Israel’s prolonged occupation of the OPT is unlawful as it violates the Palestinian right to self-determination. The ICJ found that Israel’s policies, which include settlement building and the imposition of restrictions on Palestinians, demonstrate systematic discrimination and annexation, obligating Israel to end its presence “as rapidly as possible,” evacuate settlers, and make reparations. Thus, the argument concludes that the “tyranny” of the State of Israel fails the test of both the ancient, ethical mandate for righteousness and the modern, binding principles of international law, thereby invalidating its claim to legitimate tenure.
