Earlier this month, Rabbi Dov Lior, a prominent Religious Zionist figure and senior rabbinic authority of Otzma Yehudit—the party led by Itamar Ben-Gvir—issued a ruling permitting the appropriation of olives from Palestinian groves in the West Bank. This pronouncement came in response to an earlier directive from a group of moderate rabbis in the Gush Etzion region, who had condemned the practice of stealing Palestinian olives as forbidden under Jewish law and considered it a desecration of God’s name.
Rabbi Lior’s ruling is based on three principal religious arguments: first, that the land has belonged to the Jewish people since biblical times, thereby framing Palestinians residing there as the actual transgressors; second, that the olives may be taken under the halachic principle of “abandonment by the owners,” citing that many groves are no longer harvested because their owners cannot safely access them; and third, that harvesting olives serves as both a mitzvah, affirming Jewish ownership, and a fulfillment of the commandment to conquer the land.
Recent developments suggest that Rabbi Lior’s stance resonates with certain settler communities who regard his authority as paramount and dismiss the moderate rabbis’ ruling as nonbinding. Moreover, these groups appear to disregard Israeli law and international agreements recognizing the West Bank as Palestinian territory. Incidents this month included the assault on a Washington Post photojournalist documenting the olive harvest, followed by an attack on a diplomatic delegation accompanying harvesters from Taybeh—an entirely Christian Palestinian village—which involved violations of the Sabbath.
Critics argue that while Rabbi Lior’s interpretation draws on a possible reading of religious texts, it overlooks broader halachic and ethical considerations. Commentators reference the words of Nachmanides (Ramban), who emphasized the necessity of moral integrity and holiness even when formal permission might exist to act otherwise, warning that failure to adhere to such standards makes one a “scoundrel within the bounds of the Torah.” Similarly, the Jerusalem Talmud recounts Rabban Gamliel’s decision to prohibit robbing non-Jews to prevent desecration of God’s name, countering interpretations that allowed such discrimination.
Opponents contend that Rabbi Lior’s ruling not only distorts these texts but also contributes to the tarnishing of Israel’s image globally by fostering actions that many perceive as aggressive and unjust. The recent violence involving settlers, photographs of attacks on journalists and diplomats, and the perceived leniency of Israeli security forces and political leaders have amplified international criticism. Observers note the troubling combination of settler violence, government alignment with some extremist elements, and insufficient governmental response.
The controversy underscores broader tensions about the role of religious authority in Israeli society and governance. Some voices emphasize that no single rabbinic interpretation should hold unilateral authority, highlighting the importance of pluralistic discourse within the framework of Israeli democracy and law. There is concern that religious coercion and official endorsement of extreme interpretations risk eroding democratic principles and alienating both Israelis and the international community.