One Jewish State: Ambassador Friedman’s New Book Echoes Yiftah’s Proclamation to the Ammonite King—and Not By Accident
The conflict over Jewish sovereignty in Judea and Samaria is far from new. This struggle echoes across millennia, with roots deeply embedded in ancient texts and traditions. One of the most profound moments in this historical debate can be found in the Book of Judges, where Yiftah (Jephthah), a leader of Israel, responds to the Ammonite king’s claim over the land east of the Jordan. Don Isaac Abarbanel, the great Jewish leader and statesman, identifies four key arguments in Yiftah’s message that remain relevant today, particularly in addressing Palestinian claims to Judea and Samaria. These arguments not only clarify the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty but also highlight the historical, legal, and moral grounds for the Jewish people’s right to their ancestral homeland.
In modern times, these same arguments resonate in the new work of Ambassador David Friedman, whose recent book, One Jewish State, embodies the strength and clarity of Yiftah’s platform. Friedman builds upon these age-old principles to advocate for a unified, sovereign Jewish state, a vision rooted in justice, history, and faith. The arguments laid out in his book echo Yiftah’s call for Jewish self-determination and challenge flawed counterclaims that undermine Jewish sovereignty.
Argument 1: The Land Was Not Taken from Amon but from the Amorites
Yiftah’s first point to the Ammonite king is crucial: Israel did not take the land from the Ammonites; it took it from the Amorites, who themselves had taken it from the Moabites. In other words, Amon’s claim to the land was not legitimate even at the time of Yiftah. The Ammonites had no valid historical right to the territory because they were not its original owners. This argument can be directly applied to modern debates over Judea and Samaria.
The claim that these areas belong to a Palestinian state presupposes that there was, at some point, an Arab Palestinian state that held legitimate sovereignty over this land. However, such a state has never existed in history. The land was governed by the Ottoman Empire, then by the British Mandate, and then became disputed territory following Israel’s War of Independence in 1948. Just as Amon had no legitimate claim to the land taken from the Amorites, the Palestinian claim is similarly flawed, given the lack of any historically sovereign Palestinian state that governed the land. Friedman’s arguments in One Jewish State bolster this point, highlighting that the modern-day claimants to the land have no more right to it than the Ammonites did in Yiftah’s time.
Argument 2: Israel Was Not the Aggressor in Its Exodus from Egypt
Yiftah’s second argument concerns Israel’s exodus from Egypt. The Torah tells us that Israel sent messengers to negotiate peaceful passage through the lands of Moab but was met with violence. Israel did not seek conflict; it sought peace and only fought in self-defense. Similarly, in the modern era, Israel’s actions in Judea and Samaria have consistently been defensive. In 1967, Israel did not initiate the Six-Day War that led to the capture of Judea and Samaria; it was responding to aggression from its neighbors who sought its destruction.
This argument highlights a key principle: Israel is not the aggressor in its historical or contemporary conflicts over the land. In both ancient and modern contexts, Israel’s actions have been driven by the need to protect its people and secure its borders against hostile forces. Ambassador Friedman, in One Jewish State, reflects on this fundamental truth, arguing that Israel’s pursuit of sovereignty over all of its historic territories is a continuation of its legitimate defense against aggression, not an act of unwarranted conquest. The narrative that paints Israel as an aggressor in Judea and Samaria is a distortion of historical facts, ignoring the repeated instances in which Israel has sought peaceful resolutions and been met with violence.
Argument 3: The Land Is Divinely Granted to Israel
The third argument presented by Yiftah is the most profound, and most essential: the land of Israel, on both sides of the Jordan, was not taken by Israel but was granted by HaShem, who removed it from the dominion of Israel’s enemies. This is not merely a historical claim but a theological assertion that the Jewish people’s connection to the land is one of a divine grant. The Torah explicitly describes the allocation of this land to Israel as a fulfillment of a divine promise made to the forefathers: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
In the modern context, this argument remains central to Jewish identity and claims to Judea and Samaria. For thousands of years, Jews have maintained a continuous presence in these territories, driven by the knowledge that this land is their God-given heritage. Friedman’s book reiterates this divine right, drawing upon the same scriptural and theological sources that have sustained Jewish claims for millennia. Just as Yiftah invoked divine providence against the claims of the Ammonites, so too does Friedman in his work assert that modern Israel stands on the foundation of a divinely sanctioned bond to its ancestral land.
Argument 4: The Test of Time: Why Act Now After Hundreds of Years?
Yiftah’s final argument to the Ammonite king is perhaps the most practical: hundreds of years had passed since Israel had taken the land, so why had Amon not attempted to reclaim it until now? This point is a challenge to the sudden resurgence of a claim that had lain dormant for centuries. It highlights the weakness of a claim based on delayed grievances or opportunistic timing.
This argument is similarly relevant to Palestinian claims to Judea and Samaria. Before the 20th century, there was little to no advocacy for a separate Arab Palestinian state. The territories known as Judea and Samaria were not recognized as belonging to a distinct Palestinian people but were part of broader regional and tribal affiliations, and always referred to in tandem with the Jewish People. The emergence of Palestinian claims aligns more with geopolitical changes and conflicts than with any continuous or historical assertion of statehood or sovereignty. Like Amon’s sudden assertion, the modern Palestinian claim seems driven more by political opportunism than by any rooted historical right. Ambassador Friedman, in One Jewish State, underscores this argument, pointing out that the suddenness of these claims lacks credibility and historic continuity.
Applying Yiftah’s Lessons Today
The arguments Yiftah presented to the Ammonite king are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago. They demonstrate that Jewish sovereignty is built on firm historical, legal, and theological foundations. Just as Yiftah dismantled the flawed claims of Amon, these principles help to clarify and strengthen the modern Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria, while dismantling the complex of false Palestinian allegations. They show that Israel has not been an aggressor but has acted in self-defense; that Jewish claims to the land are divinely sanctioned; and that competing claims, like those of the Ammonites and Palestinians, lack historical validity.
Ambassador David Friedman’s One Jewish State embodies this same strength and clarity. His arguments echo Yiftah’s timeless appeal for Jewish self-determination and sovereignty over its historic homeland. Today, as in the time of Yiftah, these truths must be asserted with clarity, confidence, and conviction, ensuring that the Jewish people’s rightful claim to their land is never forgotten or compromised.
The post One Jewish State: Ambassador Friedman’s New Book Echoes Yiftah’s Proclamation to the Ammonite King—and Not By Accident appeared first on Israel365 News.
Israel in the News
