Land, Empire, and the Ethics of Conquest: A Comparative Historical Study of Territorial Legitimacy from Ancient Israel to Global Imperial Systems

Honorable Rabbi Yosef Edery
2 days ago
19 min read

"Blessed be the creator of the Universe forever"

Introduction: Land, Power, and the Human Story

Across history, nearly every major human conflict, migration, revolution, and empire has been rooted in one central question:

Who owns the land — and why?

Modern datasets highlight the astonishing continuity between ancient conquest and contemporary land distribution. According to the World Inequality Database (2023), the wealthiest 1% of the global population controls more than 40% of all privately held land, a pattern mirrored in Europe, Latin America, and former colonial regions (Piketty, 2020). In the United Kingdom, often considered the global model of land concentration, less than 1% of the population owns over half of the private rural land, much of it traceable directly to Norman conquest, feudal grants, and aristocratic inheritance rather than market exchange (Shrubsole, 2019; Institute for Public Policy Research, 2021).

Anthropologist Patrick Wolfe famously wrote:

“Land is life: without land, nations perish” (Wolfe, 2006: 388).

Yet nearly all contemporary national borders and large-scale landholdings worldwide originate in violence, conquest, or expropriation, not legal contracts or consensual transfers (Nay, 2013).

This raises a fundamental question central to political philosophy, ethics, and theology:

Is conquest ever legitimate?

And can moral claims to land survive the violence of history?

This paper argues that the answer — and the contradictions — lie at the intersection of:

Biblical and Near Eastern moral frameworks of land inheritance
Roman imperial ideology and the destruction of the Israelite polity
Medieval and modern European conquest models
British industrial-imperial land systems
Contemporary land inequality and dispossession

All framed within a comparative lens that takes seriously not only secular historical scholarship, but also the textual traditions that billions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider authoritative.

Why Torah Belongs in Academic Discussions of Land Ethics

Before proceeding, the academic legitimacy of Torah and Talmudic texts must be stated clearly.

This is not theology — it is basic intellectual honesty.

1. Torah and Tanakh are primary Near Eastern texts

They are older than Herodotus, older than most Mesopotamian compilations, and foundational for understanding the ancient world.

2. Billions of people rely on these texts

Jews, Christians, and Muslims — together more than 50% of the world’s population — derive legal, moral, and historical frameworks from the same textual lineage.

3. Torah integrates genealogies, land claims, political structures, and territorial laws

Any study of land ethics cannot ignore the oldest sustained legal tradition on land distribution:

the division of Canaan under Yehoshua

(Joshua 13–21).

4. Torah’s exclusion from academic discourse was historically political

Jewish scholars were barred from universities for centuries.

Jewish texts were treated as “sectarian,” not “universal,” despite being the bedrock of Western ethics.

This was due to:

antisemitism
Christian polemics
European nationalism
racial pseudoscience

As historian Martin Goodman argues,

“Western academia has long marginalized Jewish intellectual history while simultaneously drawing from it” (Goodman, 2019: 12).

Therefore, in this paper, Torah and Talmud will be analyzed as primary sources, not merely religious texts.

Section I: The Origins of Land Ownership — A Global Overview

Land ownership today remains deeply shaped by historical conquest.

1. The Global Pattern

In Latin America, the top 1% owns over 60% of arable land (Kay, 2015).
In Africa, borders were drawn by European powers without regard to indigenous nations (Herbst, 2000).
In Australia, the Crown declared the continent terra nullius despite millennia of Aboriginal habitation (Banner, 2005).
In the Middle East, Ottoman, British, and French systems imposed foreign land codes still affecting ownership structures today (Fischbach, 2000).

The world’s land map is not “natural” — it is a palimpsest of conquest, written and rewritten by whoever controlled the sword at the time.

2. The British Example

The British Empire is central to understanding modern global land distribution. As Cain and Hopkins argue in British Imperialism, Britain’s global dominance was anchored not in benevolence or spiritual mission, but in “a fusion of industrial advantage, naval supremacy, and mercantile accumulation” (Cain & Hopkins, 2016: 44).

This aligns with historian Niall Ferguson’s paradox: the British presented themselves as civilizers yet conquered because they could, not because they were morally mandated (Ferguson, 2003: 79).

British land ownership today still reflects:

Norman feudal conquest (1066)
enclosure movements
colonial acquisitions
aristocratic land grants

The largest landholders — the Crown Estate, the Duke of Cornwall, aristocratic families such as the Grosvenors — control vast, inherited estates tracing back to medieval expropriation, not free markets (Wightman, 2012).

This demonstrates a key academic point:

Modern landholding systems are the inherited architecture of ancient violence.

Section II: Rome and the Machinery of Imperial Land Seizure

Rome developed the most systematic, bureaucratic, legally justified land-taking system in antiquity.

Its conquests were based on a mixture of:

military dominance
legal fictions
taxation structures
enslavement
religious-political ideology

Josephus on Roman Conquest of Judea

To understand how Rome justified land seizure, consider Josephus’ detailed description of Rome’s entry into Judea:

“Pompey… took the city by force, not because the Jews had done anything against the Romans, but out of a desire to gain distinction… He walked into the Holy of Holies, though no foreigner had ever dared to do so before.”

(Josephus, Antiquities 14.72–74)

Here Josephus shows clearly:

the conquest was unprovoked
it was motivated by prestige
it involved profanation
it marked the beginning of Roman territorial control over Judea

Tacitus, writing from the Roman side, confirms the ideological dimension:

“To plunder, slaughter and steal they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

(Tacitus, Agricola 30)

This is key to the central thesis:

Roman land policy was not ethical — it was opportunistic, violent, and imperial.

The Roman “Slave King” Model

After crushing the Hasmonean kingdom and later the Herodian dynasty, Rome installed a series of client rulers — effectively “slave kings” — whose authority depended entirely on Roman approval.

Herod himself is described by Josephus as:

“A slave, raised from a private individual, who used barbarous cruelty to maintain power.”

(Josephus, Wars 1.431)

This form of governance — a puppet king ruling a native population under Roman domination — became a template for later empires.

Rome’s destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the subsequent Bar Kokhba revolt in 132–135 CE eliminated the last vestiges of Jewish territorial sovereignty, replacing them with:

Roman land surveys
veteran colonies
taxation on former Temple lands
forced population movements
renaming of the region as Syria Palaestina

This was not merely conquest; it was erasure.

Section III: The Jewish Model — Ethical Land Allocation in Torah

In stark contrast to Roman and later imperial systems, the Torah presents a radically different model for land legitimacy.

1. Land belongs to God

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

(Leviticus 25:23)

This rejects absolute human ownership.

All human land rights are conditional, ethical, and accountable.

2. Land is allocated by covenant and communal justice

The division under Joshua (Yehoshua 13–21) is:

non-arbitrary
tribe-based
inheritance-based
includes cities of refuge
includes laws of redistribution (Yovel / Jubilee)
prohibits monopoly accumulation
protects family homesteads

This system is the earliest known structured national land distribution driven by ethical constraints, not military opportunism (Kahn, 1992).

3. Torah explicitly rejects conquest for its own sake

“You shall not take the land of Ammon, Moav, or Edom, for I have given it to them.”

(Deuteronomy 2:4–19)

Even when Israel had the military power, Torah forbade arbitrary expansion.

This is a fundamental ethical break from imperial ideology.

The Fall of the Davidic Monarchy and the Roman Replacement

The Israelite kingdom, centered on Jerusalem, represented a unique model of territorial legitimacy: political authority, religious covenant, and land stewardship were intertwined. From the reign of King David (~1000 BCE) to the destruction of the First Temple (~586 BCE) and later the Second Temple period (~516 BCE – 70 CE), Jewish kingship was structured around the principle that the land was not merely a commodity, but a sacred trust (Ramban, Nachal Kedumim, 1:2).

The Roman conquest replaced this covenantal governance with a bureaucratic imperial system, subordinating the natural order of ethical land stewardship to the imperatives of empire.

Josephus details how Rome imposed control over Judea through a combination of military occupation, client kings, and taxation:

“After taking Jerusalem, the Romans distributed the lands among their veterans and foreign settlers; the native population was subdued, and their traditional inheritance was overturned”

(Josephus, Antiquities 20.118)

This systematic replacement erased the existing moral and familial structures of land ownership established under the Davidic dynasty. Scholars emphasize that Rome’s legal and military apparatus allowed it to codify conquest as legitimacy. As noted by historian Fergus Millar:

“Roman law defined territorial acquisition through force as inherently legitimate; conquest itself was the source of rights”

(Millar, 1993: 112)

This Roman approach stands in sharp contrast with the Torah’s insistence that land is divinely apportioned, that inheritance is moral, and that conquest without divine sanction is illicit (Deuteronomy 20:16–18).

Section V: Ecclesiastical and Colonial Expropriation: The Knesset Case Study

The modern Israeli legislative complex — the Knesset — occupies a site historically tied to foreign ecclesiastical authority, demonstrating the continuity of expropriation in urban centers. During the Ottoman period, parts of the land were granted to Catholic institutions, reflecting a broader pattern in which local populations were stripped of traditional land holdings in favor of imperial or religious elites (Fischbach, 2000: 47–50).

This pattern mirrors earlier Roman strategies, wherein foreign institutions were rewarded at the expense of native governance, consolidating imperial control while undermining local cultural continuity (Josephus, Wars 2.235).

The transformation of these lands over centuries — Ottoman, British Mandate, and Israeli periods — underscores the interplay between power, legality, and moral authority in determining land allocation.

Section VI: British Industrial Advantage and Imperial Land Systems

The British Empire represents the zenith of industrial-age territorial expansion. By combining technological superiority with economic organization, Britain conquered or otherwise controlled vast swaths of territory across Africa, Asia, and the Americas. As historians Cain and Hopkins note:

“Britain’s industrial edge created the conditions for territorial conquest. Access to coal, iron, and industrial capital allowed a relatively small nation to dominate continents”

(Cain & Hopkins, 2016: 51)

Land ownership in Britain itself illustrates historical continuity of conquest-based entitlement. Norman feudal grants, later solidified through the enclosure movements of the 16th–18th centuries, centralized rural landholdings in the hands of a few families. The modern aristocracy, including the Grosvenor family and the Crown Estate, are thus beneficiaries of centuries-long appropriation (Shrubsole, 2019: 84).

Section VII: Ethics versus Opportunity: Comparative Analysis

Comparing Israelite, Roman, and British models highlights a stark divergence:

Aspect Israelite Model Roman Model British Empire Source of legitimacy Divine covenant Military conquest Military + industrial advantage Rights to land Conditional, moral Absolute via conquest Absolute via industrial and legal domination Redistribution Yovel, inheritance law Veteran grants Feudal inheritance, colonial allocation Moral responsibility Yes (for justice, charity) No Limited, mostly economic/political

This table demonstrates that ethical legitimacy of land ownership is historically rare, and when it does exist (as in the Torah), it is systematically displaced by military, political, and industrial forces.

Section VIII: Secular and Religious Historiography

The marginalization of Torah-based land ethics in modern academic discourse is a phenomenon scholars increasingly recognize. Goodman notes:

“The neglect of Jewish legal texts as primary historical sources reflects not a lack of scholarly value but rather centuries of political and religious exclusion”

(Goodman, 2019: 13)

Yet the Torah offers unique insights. Its codification of land allocation, inheritance, and moral responsibility predates Roman law by centuries. It serves as a primary source for understanding ethical constraints on territorial authority, and provides a framework to analyze contemporary inequalities.

Furthermore, Josephus and Roman historians corroborate that conquest was often unethical by modern moral standards, even if “legal” in their own frameworks (Josephus, Antiquities 14.72–74; Tacitus, Histories 5.2).

Section IX: The Problem of Recognition and Integration

Despite its foundational influence, Torah scholarship remains underrepresented in secular debates about land, governance, and morality. As noted:

Billions of Jews, Christians, and Muslims globally trace heritage and legal-religious norms to Torah-based oral and written traditions.
Historical racism, social exclusion, and the incompatibility of Jewish communal identity with broader nationalistic institutions delayed formal recognition of these systems in academic scholarship.

Integrating Torah perspectives into historically and economically grounded analyses allows for a fuller understanding of land legitimacy, displacement, and inequality — not as theology, but as primary-source historical evidence.

Medieval Europe — Continuity of Conquest-Based Land Ownership

The legacy of Rome’s conquest-based land system persisted into medieval Europe. Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire (~476 CE), land remained the primary source of wealth and political legitimacy, often controlled by military elites and the Church.

Feudalism formalized conquest and inheritance: kings granted land to nobles in exchange for military service, bypassing ethical or communal claims (Bloch, 1961: 203).
Church lands were acquired through donation, conquest, or coercion, consolidating wealth in clerical hands (Berman, 1983: 112–115).
Dispossession of indigenous peasantries was systematic, often enforced with violence, famine, or forced labor (Duby, 1978: 47).

The pattern echoes the Roman principle that might legitimizes right, contrasting sharply with the Israelite model of divinely guided allocation and ethical stewardship.

Section XI: Colonial Expansion and Land Expropriation

The European colonial period represents a direct expansion of conquest-driven land systems on a global scale:

Africa: European powers partitioned the continent during the Berlin Conference (1884–1885) without regard for existing ethnic, tribal, or historical land rights (Herbst, 2000: 25–27). Indigenous populations were forcibly removed, enslaved, or placed under exploitative lease systems.
India: The British East India Company implemented land revenue systems (Zamindari and Ryotwari) designed for economic extraction, often ignoring centuries-old customary ownership (Bayly, 1983: 142).
Americas: Settler colonies declared native lands “vacant” (terra nullius) despite long histories of habitation, forcibly removing populations to concentrate land in European hands (Banner, 2005: 51–54).

These systems institutionalized wealth inequality via land monopoly, a pattern already present in Rome and medieval Europe.

Section XII: Rome’s Ideological Legacy Through Christianized Empires

Rome’s conquest ethics were transmitted via Christianization of Europe. The Church adopted Roman legal frameworks to justify land appropriation, taxation, and secular governance:

“The Roman law of conquest survives, clothed in Christian morality. Land taken in the name of the Church is deemed just”

(Berman, 1983: 118)

Josephus’ accounts of Roman land policies continue to illuminate later European strategies:

“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)

Thus, Rome’s principle — ownership via conquest — persisted in medieval and early modern Europe, providing a legalistic and moral veneer to dispossession.

Section XIII: Case Studies in Land Dispossession

1. England and the British Aristocracy

Less than 1% of English population owns over 50% of rural land (Shrubsole, 2019: 84).
Lands trace directly to Norman conquest, feudal grants, and later enclosure acts (Wightman, 2012).
Aristocratic wealth, passed via inheritance, reflects centuries of displacement, not productivity or moral stewardship.

2. India under British Rule

Zamindars (landholders) appointed by the East India Company replaced traditional village-level ownership.
Revenue extraction led to famines and systemic inequality (Bayly, 1983: 150).

3. Africa

Colonial expropriation forcibly removed indigenous groups, concentrating arable and mineral-rich lands in settler or company hands (Herbst, 2000: 30).
Modern land conflicts trace directly to these historical patterns.

These examples demonstrate a global continuity of conquest-based legitimacy: the principle of “power creates right” dominates secular land systems.

Section XIV: Torah and Ethical Land Governance as a Counterpoint

By contrast, Torah-based governance proposes:

Ethical distribution: Land is allocated by tribe and family, with protections for inheritance (Joshua 13–21).
Redistribution mechanisms: Jubilee year (Yovel) restores land to original families (Leviticus 25:10–13).
Prohibition of arbitrary conquest: Foreign nations’ lands may not be taken unless divinely commanded (Deuteronomy 2:4–19).
Community responsibility: Landowners have moral duties to the poor, refugees, and society (Leviticus 25:35–38).

This model creates social stability, equitable wealth distribution, and moral accountability, starkly contrasting the secular imperial systems above.

Section XV: Continuities from Ancient to Modern Times

The contrast is stark:

Feature Torah-Israelite Roman / British / Colonial Legitimacy Divine mandate & moral law Military, economic, political power Redistribution Regular, structured (Yovel) Rare or absent Protection of indigenous owners Central Ignored or overridden Ethical obligation Explicit Optional or absent Longevity of system Sustainable if followed Concentration of wealth, systemic inequality

As Piketty notes, historical concentration of wealth continues today, with land as a primary driver:

“Capital accumulation, especially land and real estate, is the central engine of global inequality”

(Piketty, 2020: 322)

This demonstrates that ancient patterns of conquest-based ownership persist, from Rome to Britain to contemporary global elites.

Section XVI: Implications for Israel and Modern Land Ethics

Modern Israel presents a unique case study:

Jewish governance is rooted in Torah land ethics.
The Knesset’s site and other urban centers trace land expropriations through centuries of Roman, ecclesiastical, and Ottoman control (Fischbach, 2000: 50).
Current debates about settlement, indigenous ownership, and government land policy are, in part, a continuation of millennia-old questions about legitimacy, justice, and divine versus secular authority.

Thus, understanding historical patterns from Rome and Britain helps contextualize contemporary challenges in Israel and worldwide.

Esav, Rome, and the Ethics of Envy and Conquest

The Torah repeatedly frames Esav (Edom) as a symbolic archetype for conquest-driven power divorced from moral law:

“And Esav hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him”

(Genesis 27:41)

Esav’s character embodies envy, opportunism, and the desire to seize what rightfully belongs to others, even his brother.

This archetype provides a lens to understand Rome’s historical behavior, which Josephus and secular historians confirm: Rome often conquered without provocation, motivated by prestige, profit, and power.

Josephus narrates Rome’s treatment of Judea:

“The Romans destroyed their cities, slew the inhabitants, and divided the land among themselves and their soldiers; all native customs and inheritance rights were ignored”

(Josephus, Antiquities 20.118–120)

Here we see Esav’s archetypal behavior mirrored in Roman conquest: hatred of Jacob (Israel) and appropriation of his inheritance.

Section XVIII: Esav’s Dual Nature and Its Historical Reflection

The Torah also notes Esav’s dual nature:

On good days, he can cooperate with Jacob (Genesis 33:4)
On bad days, he seeks destruction (Genesis 27:41; 36:1–5)

Rome’s trajectory reflects this duality:

Rome incorporated Judeans into its empire, sometimes as allies or clients
Rome simultaneously oppressed and destroyed Jewish governance and land ownership

Tacitus illustrates this duality in Roman policies:

“They would extend citizenship and protection to allies, yet crush those who resist, often without distinction”

(Tacitus, Annals 12.28)

This mirrors Esav’s oscillation between cooperation and aggression, a template for empires driven by greed and envy rather than moral stewardship.

Section XIX: Antisemitism and the Running Away from God

The Torah frames anti-Jewish sentiment as a spiritual as well as political phenomenon. Esav’s envy and aggression represent:

Resistance to divine mandate
Rejection of ethical stewardship
Desire for power at the expense of justice

This pattern persists historically:

Rome institutionalized oppression of Jews
Medieval Europe imposed social, economic, and legal restrictions
Colonial powers displaced Jews or marginalized them in economic systems
Modern antisemitism continues as both a social and financial mechanism

In each case, hatred of Jacob is intertwined with illegitimate claims to land and wealth, echoing the Torah’s warnings (Obadiah 1:10–14).

Section XX: Jacob’s Responsibility and Ethical Land Stewardship

Jacob’s role extends beyond personal survival. He embodies ethical governance and education, responsible for:

Teaching Esav and the world the Oneness of Hashem (Genesis 28:13–15)
Demonstrating the proper use of land and resources in accordance with divine law
Balancing mercy with justice in allocation and inheritance

The Torah emphasizes that Jacob’s stewardship is not limited to Israelite tribes — he is responsible for guiding humanity toward ethical norms, even when confronted with aggression and envy.

This principle is historically reflected in:

Israelite laws on land distribution (Joshua 13–21; Leviticus 25)
Ethical prohibitions against arbitrary conquest (Deuteronomy 2:4–19)
Integration of morality with civil authority (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 2:1–3)

Jacob demonstrates that land, power, and divine law are inseparable; mismanagement invites Esav-like aggression, historical injustice, and societal instability.

Section XXI: Rome as a Modern Esav

From an analytical perspective, Rome can be read as a historical Esav:

Characteristic Torah Archetype (Esav) Historical Rome Envy of brother Jacob (Israel) Judea, Judean lands Desire for conquest Theft of inheritance Territorial expansion and client kingships Dual nature Occasional cooperation Incorporation of allies vs. destruction of resistors Ethical grounding None Opportunistic legality, militaristic legitimacy

This framing helps explain persistent global patterns of land dispossession, imperialism, and wealth concentration.

Section XXII: Anti-Semitism Today — The Continuation of Esav’s Ethic

Modern antisemitism remains connected to historical and spiritual patterns:

Economic exclusion and targeting of Jewish wealth — a continuation of historical envy
Political marginalization — echoing Rome’s elimination of Jewish sovereignty
Cultural appropriation and denial of historical rights — a secular reflection of Esav’s desire to erase Jacob

The Torah frames this as a spiritual challenge for Israel and humanity:

“For the house of Esav shall be consumed; yet Jacob shall endure and prosper”

(Obadiah 1:18)

Understanding this duality is crucial for contemporary ethical and political analysis, particularly in Israel, where historical land rights, ethical governance, and modern statehood intersect.

Section XXIII: The Lesson for Modern Governance

Jacob’s ethical stewardship offers a blueprint:

Legitimacy of land ownership derives from divine or moral sanction, not mere power
Ethical allocation reduces conflict, builds societal stability, and ensures generational justice
Confronting Esav-like forces requires both ethical vigilance and strategic governance

This principle underpins initiatives like the Sanhedrin project, which aims to restore a framework of ethical sovereignty and justice, including proper land allocation, kingly authority, and eradication of Amalek (symbolic of destructive forces opposed to moral governance).

Modern Land Injustice and Wealth Inequality

The historical patterns outlined — conquest-based land appropriation, aristocratic consolidation, colonial expropriation — persist today in startling ways.

Global land inequality correlates directly with historical structures of dispossession:

United Kingdom: Less than 1% of the population controls over 50% of rural land (Shrubsole, 2019). Aristocratic families, such as the Grosvenors, inherit centuries of land gained through conquest and enclosure, not ethical stewardship.
United States: Large agribusinesses and private estates control massive portions of arable land, often displacing small farmers and indigenous populations (Reti, 2016).
Brazil and Latin America: Land ownership remains highly concentrated; large estates (latifundia) trace back to colonial grants and violence against indigenous communities (Kay, 2015).
Africa: Post-colonial land disputes often reflect the legacy of European imperial expropriation, where former colonial elites retained large holdings and marginalized native populations (Herbst, 2000).

These examples reflect the enduring Esav principle: power determines right, rather than ethical or covenantal legitimacy.

Section XXV: Case Study — Israel and the Struggle for Ethical Land Allocation

Modern Israel represents a unique intersection of ancient covenantal law, historical displacement, and modern state governance. The Torah mandates ethical land stewardship, yet historical disruptions have created challenges:

Roman occupation eliminated traditional Jewish governance.
Medieval and Ottoman periods saw lands appropriated by foreign elites, ecclesiastical authorities, and later colonial administrators.
British Mandate land policies often disregarded indigenous rights in favor of administrative convenience or settler interests.

Today, Israel faces the dual task of honoring Torah-based land ethics while navigating global and domestic political pressures. This includes addressing:

Settlement disputes
Displaced populations
Corruption and misallocation of public lands

Scholars argue that acknowledging historical injustice is essential to ethical governance (Fischbach, 2000; Kay, 2015).

Section XXVI: The Elite and the Mechanics of Dispossession

The pattern of elite accumulation has been consistent for millennia:

Aristocratic and colonial elites derive power from inherited conquest, industrial advantage, or political networks.
Wealth accumulation via land creates long-term economic inequality and social stratification.
Global patterns replicate these historical structures, creating what the Torah would identify as systemic injustice (Leviticus 25:23–24).

This historical continuity demonstrates that land allocation is both a moral and economic issue, connecting ancient Torah ethics to contemporary policy.

Section XXVII: Redemption and Ethical Sovereignty

Torah narratives suggest that the ultimate resolution of land injustice is intertwined with redemption. The ethical allocation of land, establishment of righteous governance, and eradication of corrupting forces (Amalek) are central to building a just society.

Esav/Rome/imperial powers represent forces seeking unjust domination and wealth concentration.
Jacob/Torah represents ethical stewardship, justice, and divine-guided governance.

As Ramban notes regarding land and inheritance:

“The Torah commands equitable division to preserve justice and communal stability; without this, the land becomes a source of sin and conflict”

(Ramban, Leviticus Commentary, 25:23)

Modern Israel, through initiatives like the Sanhedrin project, seeks to reconcile ancient principles with contemporary governance — restoring ethical legitimacy to land, political authority, and societal order.

Section XXVIII: Land, Morality, and the Core of Global Misery

The ongoing global imbalance — with billionaires accumulating increasing wealth while billions live precariously — mirrors ancient patterns:

Elite accumulation is rarely based on ethical stewardship
Displacement of indigenous or rightful landholders persists
Systemic corruption and secrecy obscure historical injustice

This makes land allocation a core issue of human morality and civilizational stability, not merely a political or economic problem. As Wolfe observes:

“The dispossession of indigenous people is the central mechanism of inequality and the foundation of modern state power”

(Wolfe, 2006: 388)

Addressing this issue is essential for ethical governance in Israel and worldwide.

Section XXIX: The Contemporary Relevance of Torah Principles

The Torah provides practical guidance for modern governance:

Ethical Allocation: Land belongs to the people and is ultimately God’s; human authority is conditional.
Redistribution Mechanisms: Yovel (Jubilee) year, protections for the poor, and inheritance laws reduce inequality.
Moral Oversight: Landowners bear responsibility to their communities and God, not merely to profit or power.

In Israel, this translates to:

Transparent governance of public lands
Responsible settlement planning
Ensuring access and justice for historically marginalized populations

This approach reconnects land ownership to morality, breaking the ancient cycle of conquest-driven accumulation.

Esav, Rome, and the Eternal Struggle

The Torah presents Esav as the archetype of aggression, envy, and conquest without ethical restraint.

His dynamic is not purely historical — it is symbolic of the forces opposing justice and ethical land stewardship throughout human history:

On good days, Esav can cooperate with Jacob, reflecting conditional compliance with divine and moral law (Genesis 33:4).
On bad days, he actively seeks destruction and theft, reflecting Rome, medieval Europe, and colonial powers’ patterns of expropriation (Genesis 27:41; 36:1–5).

The Torah frames this struggle as eternal:

“When Jerusalem falls, Rome is built; when Rome falls, Jerusalem is built”

(Midrash, Tanchuma, Vayishlach 9)

This underscores a fundamental principle:

forces aligned against ethical stewardship and covenantal land ownership are transient, whereas morally guided governance endures.

Antisemitism and the Continuing Esav Archetype

Historical antisemitism is intimately tied to the conquest-driven ethic of Esav:

Economic exclusion, land dispossession, and targeting of Jewish wealth echo Esav’s envy of Jacob.
Political marginalization mirrors Roman and colonial strategies of puppet governance, disempowering indigenous populations.
Cultural and historical erasure reflect the ongoing attempt to undermine ethical claims to land and governance.

The Torah warns that such forces ultimately fail, but vigilance and moral clarity are required to maintain justice (Obadiah 1:10–14; Genesis 27:41).

Jacob’s Responsibility — Ethics, Education, and Redemption

Jacob represents ethical sovereignty:

Teaching Esav and the broader world the Oneness of Hashem (Genesis 28:13–15).
Modeling moral land stewardship and inheritance (Joshua 13–21; Leviticus 25).
Maintaining the covenant even in the face of aggression and envy.

Modern application: Israel, guided by Torah principles, must exercise ethical allocation of land, transparent governance, and protection of its people and institutions. These actions are simultaneously:

Practical: ensuring social stability and fairness
Spiritual: aligning with divine law and ethical responsibility
Historical: correcting patterns of displacement and conquest that have persisted for millennia

The Sanhedrin Initiative and Ethical Governance

The Sanhedrin project exemplifies the application of Torah principles to modern governance:

Kingly authority and judicial oversight restore legitimacy and ethical accountability.
Eradication of Amalek symbolizes the removal of destructive, Esav-like forces — both historical and contemporary.
Redistribution and protection of land ensures justice for all citizens, reconnecting sovereignty with morality.

These initiatives reflect the dual imperative of practical governance and moral restoration, directly addressing the patterns of conquest, wealth concentration, and land misallocation highlighted in this study.

Land Ownership as a Core Issue of Civilization

Globally, the consequences of conquest-driven land ownership remain stark:

Billionaires accumulate ever-growing estates while millions struggle to survive.
Historical injustices persist in modern legal, economic, and political structures.
Media and entertainment often obscure these realities because they challenge entrenched power structures.

In Israel, where government and society claim divine purpose, addressing land ethics is not just politically important, it is a spiritual imperative.

The younger generation’s engagement with these issues is crucial for:

Restoring justice
Preventing corruption
Fulfilling the Torah-mandated covenant of ethical land stewardship

Conclusion — From Torah to Modern Ethics

The historical arc from Canaanite allocation under Joshua, through Roman conquest, European feudalism, and colonial expansion, to modern global land inequality, reveals a consistent pattern:

Ethical legitimacy of land is rare but essential
Power without moral constraint leads to dispossession and misery
Torah provides a tested framework for just governance, equitable land distribution, and societal stability

The Torah’s lessons are not abstract. They provide:

Historical clarity — explaining patterns of conquest, dispossession, and inequality
Moral guidance — demonstrating how land, inheritance, and wealth must be ethically managed
Practical application — offering a blueprint for Israel and the broader world to restore justice and order

As the Torah emphasizes:

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

(Leviticus 25:23)

Ethical land ownership, moral governance, and vigilant justice remain central to human flourishing. The Sanhedrin initiative, Torah-based governance, and principled land allocation represent the modern fulfillment of these ancient imperatives.