Examining Israel and Palestine’s Claims to the Holy Land: A Journey Through Religious, National, and Ethical Perspectives

an appeal to all just and fair-minded people to stand on the right side of history, supporting those who strive for justice and are destined to be victorious. A central claim made by many Jewish people today is that they are fulfilling a divine promise by establishing the State of Israel. They believe this land is their rightful homeland, to which they have returned, with a divinely sanctioned right to establish a state.  

Is the Jewish claim to this land valid based on nationality, nationalism, or religion? Let's first consider it through the lens of nationalism. If the justification is that Jewish people lived here 2,000 years ago and therefore have a right to the land and to establish their state, then this reasoning is flawed. The Jewish people were not the first nation to inhabit this area. While Jewish people did indeed live here, two tribes, today recognized as Arab tribes, preceded them by thousands of years. These tribes were the Yabus and the Canaanites. Both the Yabus and Canaanite tribes have a long history in this land, and their descendants are the current Palestinian people. In fact, the Yabus are even mentioned in the Torah.

The world today recognizes these ancient inhabitants as Arabs. Many centuries later, Prophet Abraham arrived in this area, but he was already over a hundred years old when he came. Despite residing here for nearly a century, there was not a single piece of land that Prophet Abraham owned an assertion confirmed by the Torah. Among Abraham’s descendants, Prophet Isaac lived here, followed by his son, Prophet Jacob. Jacob had twelve sons, eleven of whom lived in this region; only Prophet Joseph moved to Egypt. Historically, this family is believed to have resided here for about 230 years. After these 230 years, Prophet Jacob and his sons joined Prophet Joseph in Egypt. Eventually, by God's command, they returned to the Holy Land. This event is recounted in the Qur’an, specifically in Surah Al-Ma'idah (verses 20-22).

When Prophet Moses led his people out of slavery in Egypt and brought them to the Holy Land, they were told that the land was ordained for them by God, but they would need to fight its inhabitants to claim it. Some people interpret this as meaning the land belongs to the Israelites solely by divine right, yet these verses in the Qur’an clarify that the promise was conditional.

God’s promise depended on the Israelites’ willingness to fight for the land. However, the Israelites refused, as they feared the strength of those who already inhabited the region. They told Moses, “You and your people go forth and fight. Once you have won, let us know.” Thus, by not fulfilling the condition, they forfeited the promise; God’s pledge to them would only hold if they accepted the challenge.

In the time of Moses, the Israelites rejected the condition upon which their claim to the Holy Land was based. Looking at this issue historically, we can assess which nation has the strongest claim to this land. From a national perspective, the Jews have no exclusive right to it, as numerous civilizations lived there long before them, and their descendants are now known as Arabs.

If this land inherently belonged to the Jews, then why, during the rise of Zionism, did Theodor Herzl—the founder of Zionism, a journalist and self-proclaimed social activist—initially not propose Palestine as the location for a Jewish homeland? When the movement first gathered to discuss the need for a Jewish state, Palestine was not the first choice. Instead, Mozambique was suggested. However, consensus could not be reached on this location. at a time when colonialism dominated, European powers ruled vast regions, including Congo, a Belgian colony. The Zionist leaders proposed Congo as another possible homeland, facilitated by close ties with European rulers, making it an accessible option. In 1897, Argentina was proposed; in 1901, Cyprus was considered; and in 1902, the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt was put forward. In 1903, Uganda became a contender. 

Only later did they decide on the Holy Land, or Palestine. The continual change in proposals reflected the Zionists’ realization that Jewish communities in Russia, America, and various European countries were unwilling to leave their lives in more comfortable locations like Russia, America, and Europe for distant places like Mozambique, Uganda, or Congo. 

To galvanize Jewish communities worldwide, the Zionists then invoked religious sentiment, arguing that the Holy Land was where Jewish shrines stood, where holy sites lay, and where figures like Prophet Solomon once lived. By claiming it was the land promised by God, they encouraged Jews to migrate from across the world to Palestine. The strategy succeeded, and Israel eventually came into being, largely due to this religious appeal. 

We have seen the power of religious sentiment used effectively elsewhere, too. In Ayodhya, for example, the demolition of the Babri Mosque was fueled by a religious narrative, despite historical evidence showing that no temple was demolished to build the mosque. Yet, the religious appeal succeeded, and its instigators continue to benefit from it today.

Thus, from a historical and national perspective, there is little evidence to support an exclusive Jewish claim to this area.

If the argument rests on ancestral ties to the land, then the case for the Arabs becomes even stronger, as their ancestors have lived there for far longer. There's also a religious dimension to this claim. According to the Torah, the Jews argue that Prophet Abraham was promised that this entire region would belong to his descendants, which forms the basis of their claim.

However, if the Torah’s promise truly applies to Abraham’s descendants, then it must be noted that the children of Abraham include not only the descendants of Prophet Isaac but also those of Prophet Ishmael. If this inheritance encompasses both Isaac and Ishmael's lines, then why are the descendants of Ishmael—the Arabs not equally entitled to the land?

Consider an analogy: if a father leaves a home to two sons, is it just for one son to disregard the other’s share? Does one brother inherently have more right to the inheritance than the other? Similarly, from a religious perspective, if Jews base their claim to this land on the Torah’s promise, then the descendants of Ishmael, who also descend from Abraham, have an equal claim. Indeed, the faith community that honors Abraham should, by this reasoning, hold an equivalent right to the land.

It is essential to understand that the true descendants of the prophets are those who follow the path and mission of the prophets. If someone is related by blood but does not adhere to the teachings of the prophets, they cannot truly be considered the progeny of the prophets. Even in the story of Prophet Noah, who is revered by Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike, there is a powerful example of this principle. 

We should remember that our faith teaches us a fundamental belief: there are no separate religions from Allah in this universe. There is only one true religion with Allah. From Prophet Adam to the Prophet Muhammad, there has been one continuous faith, and that faith is Islam. While the laws, or Shariahs, brought by each prophet differed—Noah had his Shariah, Abraham his own, Moses another, as did Jesus, and finally, the Prophet Muhammad—the message was consistent. The prophets were all Muslims, each calling people to submit to Allah through Islam. This truth is clearly stated in the Qur’an. Allah says that Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but a Muslim. This direct statement in the Qur’an affirms Abraham’s identity as a monotheist, devoted solely to Allah, without any association with later sects.

It follows that before the arrival of Jesus, Jews who maintained the original teachings of the Torah were indeed Muslims. When Jesus arrived as a prophet, those who followed him were also called Muslims, as long as they preserved his teachings without alteration. This pattern continued with each prophet, including Abraham.

Now, if we look at history today, who truly follows the legacy of Abraham? This is not a question of lineage but of religious devotion. In Islam, the Shariah of Abraham is deeply honored and practiced. For instance, the rituals of Hajj are a direct remembrance of Abraham's journey: Muslims go to Mina, Tawaf, Arafat, Muzdalifah, and do the Ihram just as Abraham did. The proclamation of Hajj, made by Abraham centuries ago, is carried out by Muslims each year, as every Muslim aspires to perform Hajj at least once in their lifetime. During Eid-ul-Adha, Muslims who do not attend Hajj still perform Qurbani (sacrifice) in their own homes to remember Abraham’s devotion. The Jews once performed Qurbani as well, but after the Roman occupation of Palestine, they ceased the practice. Muslims, however, have preserved this tradition. Even in daily Salah, Muslims send blessings upon Abraham and Prophet Muhammad, reinforcing this connection to his legacy.

This continuous adherence shows that Muslims are the true inheritors of Abraham’s legacy. Allah confirms this in the Qur’an, stating that those who follow Abraham are the closest to him. Another verse declares, “And We have written in the Psalms after the mention that the earth will be inherited by the righteous.” This verse, present even in the Old Testament, promises the inheritance of the earth to Allah’s pious servants. The righteous are those who, through the teachings of Islam, have recognized and followed Abraham’s path. Thus, if Allah promised the holy land to Abraham, it stands that his true followers—those who have upheld his teachings—are the rightful heirs. From the perspective of lineage, as well as religious devotion, Muslims hold a rightful claim to this land, in accordance with the teachings of both the Qur’an and the Torah. 

all are expressed here because, for some time now, due to Western and Jewish propaganda, many have begun to believe that this land belonged to the Jewish ancestors and that they have therefore returned with a right to establish a state here. However, based on the arguments presented, it is evident that the Jews have no right to establish a state on this land—neither on the grounds of nationality nor on the basis of religion.

Interestingly, within the Jewish community itself, there exists an ultra-Orthodox group known as "Neturei Karta," who uphold one of the oldest interpretations of the Torah, found in the Midrash. According to this commentary, it is forbidden for Jews to collectively enter and establish a state in this land through their own efforts. This group believes that if the Jewish people are ever meant to establish a government here, it will occur not through human means but through divine intervention. They contend that any state established through human efforts would not only be illegitimate but would also prevent divine forgiveness.

This conflict, therefore, is not just a dispute between two nations; it is a broader struggle between justice and oppression, good and evil. Muslims and all just, fair-minded people should stand with those who seek justice and uphold the principles of equality and peace. By advocating for the rights of Palestinians, they contribute to a broader movement for justice and fairness.

this article explores the complex historical and religious claims to the Holy Land, emphasizing that a rightful claim must be grounded in both lineage and true adherence to the teachings of Prophet Abraham. Through examining historical narratives, scriptural promises, and contemporary politics, it questions the exclusivity of Jewish claims to the land based on either nationality or religious grounds. Additionally, it highlights internal dissent within the Jewish community, notably from ultra-Orthodox groups like Neturei Karta, who oppose Israel’s establishment on religious grounds. Ultimately, the article calls for global support for justice and an end to double standards, encouraging fair-minded individuals to recognize and advocate for the rights of Palestinians as a matter of historical justice and ethical responsibility.