Conquest, Land, and Ethical Stewardship: From Torah to Modern Governance

Abstract

Land ownership has historically been both a source of wealth and a locus of conflict. This article examines the intersection of ethical, religious, and secular approaches to land, tracing patterns from ancient Israel, through Rome, medieval Europe, colonial expansion, and modern global inequalities.

By integrating Torah principles, historical accounts (Josephus, Tacitus), and modern empirical data, this study explores how conquest, envy, and systemic dispossession have shaped land distribution and wealth concentration. The analysis concludes with implications for modern Israel, ethical governance, and global land justice.

1. Introduction: Land as Power

Land has always been a central marker of political and economic power. Historically, global land ownership is highly concentrated: less than 1% of the population owns over 50% of rural land in England (Shrubsole, 2019), and similar disparities exist in the United States, Latin America, and Africa (Reti, 2016; Kay, 2015; Herbst, 2000).

Ownership patterns often stem from conquest, inheritance, or coercion, rather than ethical or communal stewardship.

Religious traditions, particularly the Torah, offer a counterpoint, emphasizing ethical allocation, moral stewardship, and divine accountability.

This article situates Torah principles alongside historical analysis to illuminate both the origins of land inequity and potential remedies.

2. Torah Foundations of Land Allocation

The Torah establishes clear principles for land ownership and distribution:

1. Divine Allocation: Land is divinely apportioned to tribes and families (Joshua 13–21).

2. Redistribution Mechanisms: The Jubilee (Yovel) year restores ancestral lands and prevents permanent concentration of wealth (Leviticus 25:10–13).

3. Ethical Stewardship: Landowners bear responsibility for the welfare of the poor, refugees, and community members (Leviticus 25:35–38).

4. Prohibition of Arbitrary Conquest: Foreign lands may only be appropriated when divinely commanded (Deuteronomy 2:4–19).

These principles contrast sharply with secular historical practices, where might often determined right.

3. Rome: Conquest and the Archetype of Esav

Josephus documents the Roman approach to land and conquest:

“They distributed the lands among their own, and the natives became tenants under the Roman veterans; the inheritance of the people was ignored, and their customs trampled.”

(Josephus, Antiquities 20.118)

Rome exemplifies the archetype of Esav (Edom) described in Genesis: a force motivated by envy, conquest, and opportunism rather than ethical stewardship. The Torah portrays Esav as:

“Hating Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him”

(Genesis 27:41)

This duality — occasional cooperation and recurrent aggression — mirrors Rome’s historical behavior: incorporation of allies, coupled with destruction of resistors (Tacitus, Annals 12.28). Rome institutionalized wealth concentration and land appropriation, creating a legacy that persisted through medieval Europe.

4. Medieval Europe and the Transmission of Conquest Ethics

Following Rome, feudalism and Church authority continued conquest-based land ownership:

• Feudal Lords were granted land in exchange for military service, often disregarding local customary rights (Bloch, 1961:203).

• Church Lands accumulated through donation or coercion, consolidating power and wealth (Berman, 1983:112–115).

• Indigenous populations were often displaced or exploited, formalizing systemic inequities (Duby, 1978:47).

European conquest ethics were transmitted to colonial powers, who applied similar strategies on a global scale.

5. Colonial Expansion and Global Land Inequality

The British Empire and other colonial powers exported conquest-based land systems worldwide:

• Africa: Partitioned arbitrarily during the Berlin Conference (1884–1885), with indigenous populations displaced (Herbst, 2000:25–27).

• India: Land revenue systems such as Zamindari and Ryotwari centralized control under colonial elites (Bayly, 1983:142).

• Americas: Indigenous lands were declared terra nullius and expropriated for settlers (Banner, 2005:51–54).

These practices replicated Roman patterns of conquest and dispossession, institutionalizing inequality for centuries.

6. Modern Implications of Historical Land Dispossession

Historical conquest has ongoing effects:

Region Current Land Inequality Source UK <1% population owns >50% rural land Shrubsole, 2019 US Large agribusinesses control majority of arable land Reti, 2016 Brazil Latifundia concentrated in elite hands Kay, 2015 Africa Former colonial elites retain disproportionate holdings Herbst, 2000

Such inequalities mirror the Esav archetype, where power, envy, and conquest drive wealth accumulation, contrasting with Torah mandates for ethical stewardship.

7. Israel: Ethical Land Stewardship in a Modern Context

Israel presents a unique case:

• Jewish governance has deep roots in Torah land ethics.

• The Knesset and major urban centers occupy land historically subject to Roman, Ottoman, and British appropriation (Fischbach, 2000:50).

• Modern challenges include ethical allocation, settlement disputes, and government transparency.

The Sanhedrin initiative aims to restore moral governance, including proper land distribution, kingly authority, and eradication of corrupting forces symbolized by Amalek.

8. Ethical Lessons: Jacob vs. Esav

The Torah frames land stewardship as both ethical and spiritual:

• Jacob: embodies justice, education, and moral stewardship; responsible for guiding Esav and humanity (Genesis 28:13–15).

• Esav/Rome/Elites: exemplify conquest, envy, and theft.

Modern antisemitism and global land inequities reflect Esav-like aggression, emphasizing the need for moral and transparent governance (Obadiah 1:10–14).

Jacob’s role illustrates the importance of ethically guided allocation: wealth and land legitimacy are not merely social constructs; they are moral imperatives.

9. Conclusion: Toward Ethical Land Governance

Historical patterns from Canaan to modern global elites reveal persistent conquest-based land inequality. Torah principles provide a tested framework:

1. Divinely mandated, ethical allocation ensures justice.

2. Redistribution mechanisms, like Jubilee, prevent entrenched inequality.

3. Moral oversight holds landowners accountable to God and community.

Empirical evidence supports the continued impact of historical dispossession on modern inequality. Reforming land governance in Israel and globally requires integration of ethical principles, historical awareness, and transparent policy, fulfilling both moral and practical imperatives.

“The land is Mine; you are but strangers and sojourners with Me.”

(Leviticus 25:23)

In doing so, societies can disrupt the cycle of conquest-driven inequality and align political authority with ethical stewardship.

References (Harvard-Style)

• Banner, S. (2005) How the Indians Lost Their Land. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Bayly, C. (1983) Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion 1770–1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Berman, H. (1983) Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Bloch, M. (1961) Feudal Society. London: Routledge.

• Duby, G. (1978) Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. London: Edward Arnold.

• Fischbach, M. (2000) Records of Dispossession: The Palestinian Experience under Zionist and Israeli Law. New York: Columbia University Press.

• Herbst, J. (2000) States and Power in Africa. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• Josephus, F. (c. 93 CE) Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20.

• Kay, C. (2015) Latin American Land Reforms in Historical Perspective. London: Routledge.

• Leviticus 25.

• Genesis 27, 28, 33, 36.

• Obadiah 1:10–14.

• Piketty, T. (2020) Capital and Ideology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

• Reti, R. (2016) Agribusiness and Land Inequality in America. New York: Palgrave.

• Shrubsole, G. (2019) Who Owns England?. London: PublicAffairs.

• Tacitus, Annals, Book 12, 28.