Rabbi Dov Lior published last Friday a religious ruling permitting Jews to harvest olives from Palestinian groves in the West Bank, including areas far from Jewish communities. He argued that the land remained Jewish property and that Palestinians prevented from reaching their trees for security reasons could be presumed to have given up on the fruit. Harvesting it, he wrote, could fulfill the commandment of conquering the land.
Such a ruling deserves an unequivocal rejection. Giving religious sanction to taking another person’s livelihood carries consequences for the farmer, for those encouraged to take his crop, and for the society that allows it.
Rabbi Kenneth Brander, president and rosh yeshiva of the Ohr Torah Stone educational network, has offered a forceful response. Drawing on Jewish legal sources, he explains why the Jewish people’s historic attachment to this land does not erase the private property rights of its non-Jewish inhabitants. A national claim cannot establish who owns a particular orchard. Being unable to reach a tree does not mean surrendering its fruit.
Brander deserves support. So do the Gush Etzion rabbis who rejected taking Palestinian olives and the Tzohar rabbinical organization, which backed their position. Their interventions demonstrate the religious leadership this moment requires. They should be heard in classrooms, synagogues, and the communities closest to the groves.
For Palestinian families, the harvest means income earned from land and trees they have tended. Anyone wishing to dispute ownership should produce evidence and pursue the claim through the competent authorities. Arriving with sacks and invoking a divine promise is an extraordinary way to appoint oneself judge, beneficiary, and enforcement officer.
Israel has duty to protect its citizens, responsibility to those whose livelihoods are affected
Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. Where a genuine security threat requires restricting access to farmland, the military must address it. Those restrictions also create responsibilities toward people whose livelihoods they affect. Commanders should arrange safe harvesting wherever possible and prevent others from exploiting a closure to seize the crop. A farmer kept outside his grove should be able to expect that the authorities controlling access will protect what remains inside.
The educational danger deserves particular attention. Brander explains his intervention plainly: “I write out of responsibility to our youth, who are searching for direction.” A young person who hears that taking a neighbor’s olives fulfills a religious commandment learns whose rights count. Adults who offer that instruction bear responsibility for the conduct they encourage.
Jewish education must teach restraint alongside attachment to the land. It must explain that another person’s rights remain binding when respecting them is inconvenient, politically unpopular, or emotionally difficult. The strength of a religious commitment is tested precisely when it imposes obligations on the believer.
Brander recalls Rashi’s explanation of the dispute between Abraham’s shepherds and Lot’s shepherds. Lot’s shepherds justified grazing on other people’s land through the promise made to Abraham. Abraham’s shepherds rebuked them for theft. That account gives educators a concrete starting point for discussing the responsibilities that accompany the biblical promise.
The Jerusalem Post supports the Jewish people’s right to national life in their ancestral homeland. Exercising that right demands institutions capable of restraining wrongdoing by Jews and protecting people subject to Israeli authority. Every failure to do so weakens public trust and places another burden on soldiers charged with maintaining security.
Lior ruling must be explicitly rejected, denounced
Religious Zionist leaders should reject this ruling explicitly. Settlement leaders should tell residents that taking Palestinian crops without permission is unacceptable. Police must investigate theft and assault, and military commanders must ensure that security restrictions cannot become an opportunity for private enrichment. Disputed ownership requires a proper hearing; a farmer’s ethnicity cannot settle the case.
Those who have taken crops should return them. Where olives have already been sold, authorities should pursue restitution. A public condemnation gains credibility when the community also makes a serious effort to repair the damage done to its neighbors.
These obligations stand regardless of who photographs the harvest or which foreign government issues a condemnation. A Palestinian family’s loss is significant in its own right. Rabbis who defend that family’s property deserve public backing, and farmers need to see that support translated into protection on the ground. The harvest is happening now. Authorities should make clear whom farmers can contact, how access will be coordinated, and who will respond when their crops are taken.