The Myth of the Promised Land | Pakistan Today

Israel's actions are deemed immoral, even by its own foundational Jewish law.

A central contention employed by critics from diverse religious and political backgrounds—including a significant number of dissenting Jewish voices—asserts that the State of Israel’s oppressive actions since its inception fundamentally contradict the divine covenant pertaining to the Promised Land. This critique is deeply rooted in the theological principle of conditional possession of the land of Israel.

For many staunchly religious anti-Zionist and Orthodox Jewish communities, such as Neturei Karta, and following the tradition of historical figures from the Old Yishuv, the very act of establishing a sovereign Jewish state prior to the arrival of the Messiah constitutes an act of defiance against divine will. They contend that Zionism, as a secular nationalist movement, has supplanted the traditional Jewish concepts of Diaspora and Messianic Redemption with a human-driven political agenda. By striving to prematurely end the exile and re-establish sovereignty through military and political means, they argue, Zionism has violated a sacred religious injunction to wait—often referred to as the“Three Oaths”in rabbinic tradition.

From the moment the state was founded in 1948 and subsequently engaged in activities characteristic of national power—including warfare, population displacement, and asserting territorial control—these critics perceived its actions as secular, and frequently unjust, directly conflicting with the moral obligations requisite for a truly“Promised Land.”

Furthermore, the assertion that the State of Israel’s oppressive conduct since its establishment disqualifies it from embodying the Promised Land represents a profound ethical synthesis. It starkly contrasts the conditional nature of a divine covenant with violations of both ancient biblical commands and contemporary international legal standards. The Hebrew Bible explicitly states that the right to national dwelling is contingent upon upholding justice (mishpat) and righteousness (tzedek), thereby establishing a conditional covenant.

This conditional tenure is powerfully emphasized by the“vomiting out”injunction detailed 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 defilement is explicitly linked to acts of moral corruption, bloodshed, and injustice, thereby directly connecting the physical occupation of the land to the moral conduct of its inhabitants. Prophets like Amos further reinforced this notion, asserting that religious ritual holds no value without justice:“let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream”(Amos 5:24).

Within this theological framework, if a state’s actions—such as the systematic dispossession of Palestinians (known as the Nakba) or the creation of an extensive system of illegal control—transgress these fundamental ethical laws, its moral claim to the land is invalidated. This mirrors the biblical precedent of exile following periods of grave injustice.

This ethical critique gains significant legal weight from the comprehensive 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—a core legal basis for declaring Israeli settlements illegal. Moreover, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its recent Advisory Opinion issued on July 19, 2024, determined that Israel’s prolonged occupation of the OPT is unlawful, as it infringes upon the Palestinian right to self-determination. The ICJ concluded that Israel’s policies, which encompass settlement construction and the imposition of restrictions on Palestinians, demonstrate systematic discrimination and annexation. Consequently, Israel is obligated to end its presence“as rapidly as possible,”evacuate settlers, and provide reparations. Thus, the argument posits that the“tyranny”of the State of Israel fails to meet the standards of both the ancient, ethical mandate for righteousness and the modern, binding principles of international law, thereby invalidating its claim to legitimate tenure.