Land division and Jubilee in practice - the Jewish perspective

מאת: אראל

" The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land. If thy brother be waxen poor, and hath sold away some of his possession, and if any of his kin come to redeem it, then shall he redeem that which his brother sold. And if the man have none to redeem it, and himself be able to redeem it; Then let him count the years of the sale thereof, and restore the overplus unto the man to whom he sold it; that he may return unto his possession. But if he be not able to restore it to him, then that which is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the year of jubile: and in the jubile it shall go out, and he shall return unto his possession " (Leviticus 25: 23-28, KJV).

" And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying: Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance: to every one shall his inheritance be given according to those that were numbered of him. Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few. "  (Numbers 26:52-56).

" Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it. " (Deuteronomy 19:14).

The Israelite society in Biblical times (approx. 1400-600 BC) was based upon two principles: An initial equal division of the land of Israel among Israeli citizens, and a continuous re-establishment of this division once in 50 years through the commandment of Jubilee (See ).

These two principles were canceled when the Israelites lost their land and were carried away in exile. Even when some of them retuned to their land, during the times of the second temple (approx. 500 BC - 70 AD), these principles were not re-established, probably because this return included only a small part of the exiled Israelites.

However, in modern times, especially since the wake of Zionism, there are many Jewish scholars who seek to renew these principles in modern-day Israel. This article will summarize the various ideas raised in this context. The article is composed of two parts:

First part: Chronological Survey

1. Benjamin Ze’ev ( Theodor) Herzl (1860–1904; a Jewish Austro-Hungarian journalist, famous for being the father of modern political Zionism and the visionary of the State of Israel) claimed (In his last literary work, "Altneuland" (English: "The Old New Land"), published 1902, trying to forecast what a modern Jewish state should look like. The citation is from book 3, part 1, page 67; available online: ) that all land should belong to a public company, which will lease plots to citizens, and get them back at the Jubilee year: " I leased [the plot] only till the next jubilee year , as my friend Reschid did his groves." "Jubilee year? Please explain that. I really seem to have overslept myself on that island." "The jubilee year," explained David, "is not a new but an ancient institution set up by our Teacher Moses. After seven times seven years, that is to say, in the fiftieth year , land which had been sold reverted back to its original owner without compensation. We, indeed, arrange it a bit differently. The land now reverts back to the New Society . Moses, in his day, wished to distribute the land so as to ensure the ends of social justice. You will see that our methods serve the purpose none the less. The increases in land values accrue not to the individual owner, but to the public." ".

In contrast to the Biblical law, Herzl suggests that land will not be divided to individuals, but rather owned by a public body called "the new society".

Herzl also emphasized, that the non-Jewish citizens of the Jewish state will have equal rights in everything, including land. 

2. Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880–1940; a Zionist leader, author, orator and soldier, famous for establishing the Revisionist Zionism. His philosophy contrasted with the socialist oriented Labor Zionists, in that it focused its economic and social policy on the ideal of the Jewish Middle class in Europe) claimed ("The Jubilee: The Biblical Plan for Expanded Ownership", 1930, Part B; available online: ) , that in the Jubilee year, all property - not only land - should be collected and re-divided equally among all citizens: " The main difference between the biblical revolution and socialist revolutions is that the latter are supposed to occur once and for all, while the jubilee revolution should occur at regular intervals. According to plans based on the socialist ideal, a just distribution of land (and measures of social justice in general) will be set one day and admit no further changes. According to the Biblical plan, economic life will preserve after the jubilee full liberty for further changes . People will continue to make projects, to scheme, to struggle and compete; some will become rich, some will become poor; life will keep the character of an arena in which it is possible to lose or win, show initiative and fail or succeed. This economic liberty would have only two limitations... The other limitation, or rather antidote, to economic liberalism is the jubilee. It is as if a huge axe sweeps once in a while like a storm over the forest of humanity, and cuts down those treetops which have grown above the average; debts are cancelled, the impoverished regains his property, the slave goes free. Balance is restored, and the economic game starts over again , until the next upheaval. "

Jabotinsky viewed economy as a huge game of monopoly: The players can buy and sell assets, some get rich and some get poor, but once in 50 years, the game is over. Just like in the game, the "rich" willfuly return their "property" to the game box in order to start a new game, so it should be in economy: the rich should understand that it's only a game, and return all their wealth to the public once in 50 years.

3. Rav Dov Rozen (1914-1989; a Jewish Orthodox Rabbi, teacher and writer, member of a socialist religious party, and a senior official in Israeli administration) suggested ("The Jubilee Teaching", 1954, available online in Hebrew: a 100% inheritance tax on all kinds of property. He claimed that in this way, every citizen fulfils the commandment of Jubillee, not once in 50 years, but once in a lifetime - when he dies. He claimed that all property belongs to society, and leased to the citizens for a lifetime, and so when a person dies, he must return all property to the society.

In Israel, inheritance tax (of less than 100%) was levied since 1950, but was abolished in 1981.

4. Shabtay Ben Dov (1924-1978; a warrior in Lehi - an extremist militant group founded for forcibly evicting the British authorities from Palestine and the formation of a Jewish state. This group was disarmed and dismantled after Israel's independence declaration, and Ben Dov turned to studying Jewish law and its implications to modern-day Israel) repeated ("The Jubilee Regime", 1960, available online in Hebrew: Jabotinsky's suggestion of total wealth distribution once in 50 years, explaining why it is important: " The Bible comes to prevent the danger, that freedom will become slavery, by the concentration of economic power in the hands of rising sectors... At that time, land was the only capital, but at our time, if we limit the principle of Jubilee to land, it will be empty... ".

Ben-Dov related to the practical question of how this redistribution could take place. In this regard, he mentioned the special status of the Levite tribe, which were not given any land, but were given the job of spiritual teachers: " This gave them the power to ensure the fulfilment of the Jubilee commandment " . He envisioned the rise of a small revolutionary group, similar to Lehi, that will fill this role in our times.

5. The Knesset (Israel's parliament) accepted, in 1960, several laws related to land. Most important are the Basic Law: Israel Lands , which states that all the lands owned by the state of Israel (about 93% of all lands in Israel) will remain in state ownership, and will never be sold or given; and the Israel Land Administration Law , which sets the rules of operation for the Israel Land Administration. The ILA is responsible for leasing the state-owned lands to citizens, usually for periods of 49 years.

The Israel Land Administration is obviously inspired by Herzl's "new society".  However, in Altneuland, all land reverts to the new society in the same year - the Jubilee year - like in the Biblical law; and in Israel, land reverts to the ILA 49 years after it is leased, which may be different for each plot.

I will now briefly describe some ideas raised closer to our time, by Israelis of various backgrounds:

6. Dr. Yitzhaq Hayut-Man endorsed ("The Jubilee Foundation", 1998) Jabotinsky's suggestion, but in contrast to Ben Dov, he claimed that the distribution should also include Palestinian refugees, and other groups in the world who see themselves as related to the land of Israel in some way. In his view, all these groups can be seen as descendants of the 10 lost Israelite tribes. (available online in Hebrew: .

7. Ehud Tokatly suggested ("NeuAltNeuLand" - a revision of Herzl's vision in AltNeuLand, 2002; chapter 4; available online in Hebrew: ;  "Seven", 2009) to found an autonomous Jewish community, that will collect money and buy private lands in Israel. The community will then divide the lands gradually to all Jews, by selling equally-valued plots of land. In contrast to Herzl's vision 100 years earlier, Tokatly supports private ownership of land. The new Jewish organization will not own the land, it will only arrange the equal division of plots.

Some suggestions were published in a book called "On Economy and On Living - Judaism, society and economy" ("on economy and on living", 2008, Editors: Aharon Ariel Lavi and Itamar Brenner; available in Hebrew in print: :

8. Yossi Tzuria (a chief technological officer at NDS, a hi-tech company) suggests ("The Slaves of Time - Seventh Year and Jubilee in Hi-Tech", ibid. 226-237) that in the Jubilee, all leases given by the state to private companies regarding natural resources (such as the dead sea minerals, radio frequencies, etc.) will return to the state. Additionally, private companies acquired by corporations will return to their founders. Additionally, all intelectual property rights will expire, so that patents will be free for all. Finally, all workers will be exempt from their obligations towards the company, and will be free to take their options and leave (this is relevant mainly for the hi-tech industry, where many workers are bound by long-term contracts).

9. Yoav Rubin suggests ("Seventh year, Jubilee, and inheritance tax", ibid. 257-273) an inheritance tax - similarly to Dov Rozen's suggetion above (3), although he does not say it should be 100% tax. He claims that the revenues from such taxes should be used to empower the poor using two means - free education and free housing.

10. Rav Yaakov Ariel claims ("Bible of the economy and economy of the Bible", ibid. 241-256) that the Jubilee should apply for all "means of production" (he does not explain exactly

11. Avraham Sabag claims ("Laws for Public Assets", 2006; available online in Hebrew: , that the Biblical land division laws should be implied to all state-owned companies. He suggests   Voucher Privatization - distributing equal shares of ownership to all citizens for free. Every citizen will be able to trade his share in the stock market, but once in a Jubilee, all shares will be re-distributed evenly.

A similar idea was raised (though not in the context of Jubilee) by Yaron Zlicha, Israel's Accountant General in 2003-2007, and Natan Nissani, regarding Bank Leumi - Israel's state-owned bank. The idea was canceled in the last minute by Israel's then prime minister - Ariel Sharon. More details can be found in Zlicha's book "The Black Guardia" (Available in print: ) .

12. Yitzhaq Dvira (an archaeologist famous for the Temple Mount Sifting Project) suggests ("A new economy based on the Biblical Jubilee", suggestion to the Trachtenberg social justice commitee, 2011; available online in Hebrew: ) to levy a land-value tax of 100% once in 50 years, and divide all revenues equally as a citizen's dividend.

Second part: Critical Discussion

The historical survey suggests that there are many questions that should be answered in order to translate the Jubilee commandments to our time:

We will now study each of these questions, and try to find out whether the diversions keep the original intent of the Biblical commandment.

A. What to divide?

The suggestions can generally be divided into three approaches: 

1. The minimalist approach , represented by Herzl, Tokatly and Dvira, is that the Jubilee laws should apply to land only - like in the Biblical commandment.

2. A medium approach is that land is only an example of a natural or a public resource. Therefore, the Jubilee laws should apply to natural resources or public companies as well. The important natural resources in Israel are water, dead sea minerals and natural gas. The important public companies are Israel's electricity company, railway, postal office, stock market, and some banks.

3. The maximalist approach , represented by Jabotinsky, Rozen and Ben Dov, is that land is only an example of a capital, so in our times, all kinds of capital should be divided.

The maximalist approach is based upon the assumption, that land had a special status in Biblical law, only because the economy was agricultural, and therefore in our times, when agriculture is only about 2% of the economy, all types of capital should be treated like land (see the citation of Ben Dov above). IMO there are several reasons why this is incorrect:

The latter argument may support some of the medium approaches - those that claim that natural resources such as gas and minerals should also be divided equally, since they too were not created by human labour.

However, land is much more than just a natural resource. It is the site where all beings takes place. One can live an entire life without using natural gas, for example; but one cannot exist even a fraction of a second without occupying some spot of land. Therefore, a person without a land is forever a slave of the land owners. This is why the Bible links the freeing of slaves and the returning of lands: " And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family " (Leviticus 25:10).

Thus, the unique property of land as a "site" explains why the Jubilee should applies to land only, and supports the minimalist approach.

B. How much to divide?

Applying the Biblical laws to land requires some procedure for fair division. The simplest way is to divide equal-sized plots. This is the simple understanding of the law: " Unto these the land shall be divided... according to the number of names. To many thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to few thou shalt give the less inheritance... " (Numbers 26:53-54). 

However, the Talmud sages (200-500 AD; Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 122, p.265-266; ) interpreted this passage differently: " It was divided by money... money was paid by those who had shares near to Jerusalem to those who took their shares far from Jerusalem (nearness to Jerusalem being preferable, as it was nearer to the Temple and farther from the land of the natives, therefore in less danger than if near to them)... And on this point the following Tanaim differ. R. Eliezer said that they were rewarded with money, and R. Joshua maintains that this reward was in land, as, e.g., compared with where a saah can be sown nearer to Jerusalem, they took five saahs ". According to this interpretation, the division was based upon the land value, which was determined by two factors: its agricultural value (the number of "saah"s - 20 litres - that can be sown there), and its distance from Jerusalem.

It is obvious that at least one of these factors - the number of saahs - is not relevant today for estimating the land value. It is also obvious that there are many other factors that are relevant today, which were not relevant in the past, for example, the existance of crude oil in the land. These changes raise a question: what happens if, 50 years after the initial division of land, the land value changes, for example, because of changes in the economy or culture? There are two possible answers, according to which principle we view as the primary principle of the Jubilee:

  1. If equality is more important, then we should re-divide the lands in the Jubilee year, according to their current value. This will force many people to leave their lands or give some of it to others. A similar result may be caused by land-value tax, for example, if a person with a low income leases a cheap land, and then the land value rises and he cannot afford the updated tax.
  2. If stability is more important, then we should let each one keep his land, even if its value changes.
There is some evidence that the original Biblical law preferred the second option - stability:

The intention of all these laws is to strengthen the connection between person and land, to help people return to their original inheritance, the inheritance of their family, and not force them to leave their land! Imposing laws that force people out of their land, either directly or indirectly using land-value tax, transgresses these laws.

But if stability is more important than equality, then probably the original division should also disregard the differences in land value, and just apply a simple division of equal-sized plots, as is the simple meaning of the Biblical law. The plots should be divided by lot, so that everyone has the same chance to get a "cheap" land or an "expensive" land. The value of the plots will change in the future anyway. 

An additional advantage to this approach is, that if one knows that his plot will be in his possession forever, he will have an incentive to improve it, and cooperate with his neighbours in improving their plots, in order to increase his value.

To summarize sections a and b: The Bible probably supports a direct one-time random division of equally-sized plots of land, which should stay in the possession of their original owner forever.

C. How to divide?

In the times of Yehoshua Bin Nun, all Israelites came to Knaan together, so it was possible to divide all land equally among them. Today, people come gradually, so the division process is more complex. Here there are four approaches:

1. The direct approach (endorsed by Jabotinsky, Ben Dov, and Tokatly) is to actually divide the land (or other types of property) among all citizens. Regarding land, Tokatly's suggestion is to create a system of gradual division: instead of dividing all the lands that are currently available, every member of the community will be entitled to a small plot, so that there will be enough land reserve for future newcomers. To make this more concrete, we can conceive a law that states that each citizen is entitled to own no more than 250 sqm. every citizen that buys more than this, will have to return the surplus to the seller, or to the state, at the next Jubilee year. This way, more and more people will gradually become land owners.

2. The shares approach is to divide shares, just like in the stock market. This was suggested by Sabag with regard to state-owned companies, but it's also compatible with other types of property. For example, to apply this approach to land division, we can give each citizen an equal share in the Israel Land Administration. Shares in public companies give the shareholder two benefits:

  • Participation in a general assembly of the company, with a right to vote on general policy issues, and elect the company's directors;
  • Dividend from the company's profit.

The land administration, and other state-owned companies, have a large influence over the daily life of the citizens. Having a share in each of these companies will give citizens much more control over their own lives, as well as give them a decent side-income.

This can be a good solution to the long debate of privatization-vs-nationalization. Instead of selling state-owned companies to tycoons, a practice that was criticized for encouraging corruption and increasing social gaps, the companies be given to the citizens in equal shares.

The shares approach can be generalized to the entire state. The entire state can be seen like a huge corporation, whose main estate is the land, and whose profits come from taxes levied on the inhabitants. The land belongs equally to all citizens, so every citizen is actually a share-holder in this corporation. This gives each citizen two benefits:

  • Participation in the elections - as is already done in a democratic state;
  • Dividend from the state's profits, which are its tax revenues minus the expenditure.

This approach is very simple to implement: just decide what percentage of the annual tax revenues is the "expenditure" (for example: the budget of the security services), and divide all other revenues evenly among all citizens.

This can be a good replacement to the current welfare system. The current system has many different welfare programs, which create perplexion among the needy, a negative incentive to work, and a positive incentive for corruption. The dividend system gives every citizen an income, which is a constant percentage of the state's tax revenues, and is not lost when the citizen goes to work. It is fair and simple. And as a side advantage, people will have an incentive to report tax offenders.

3. The rent approach is to divide only the monetary value. This was suggested by Dvira with regard to land: sell all lands once in 50 years, and divide all revenues evenly among all citizens. This idea reminds the Biblical tithe law. The Levite tribe, who was excluded from the land division, was entitled to 10% of the annual crop, together with other people that had no land: " At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest " (Numbers 18:28-29). Thus, a percentage of the crops can serve as a compensation for those that have no land.

4. The centralist approach is that the state should own all land (or other property), and use it to the benefit of the citizens. This approach was first endorsed by Herzl. He admitted that this approach diverts from the Biblical law: " We, indeed, arrange it a bit differently: The land now reverts back to the New Society ". Israel's land law also states that the state owns all lands. Rav Dov Rozen also endorsed the centralist approach, by suggesting a 100% inheritance tax that the state will use to supply the basic needs of all citizens. Yoav Rubin, suggesting a similar plan, explained why this is better than direct division: " Such money, when it comes as direct pensions or grants, may do more harm than good, since pensions make the citizens dependant upon the state, and grants are wasted quickly ", Therefore, the state should take the money and use it to fund public education and public appartments,  that will help people out of the cycle of poverty.

In my opinion, the centralist approach is not " a bit different " from the Biblical law, as Herzl said; it is entirely opposite to the original intent. There are two main reasons:

  • Spiritually : The Bible says that all land belongs to The Lord, while the centralist approach replaces The Lord with a man-made state. This is similar to idolatry.
  • Socially : The Bible endorses equality in the division of ownership, while the centralist approach gives all ownership to a small group of government officers. The citizens own no land, no shares, no rent - the only remnant of their ownership is the right to vote in the elections, once in four years, in an attempt to influence the identity of those officers. This is similar to serfdom.
  • Practically : The Biblical law splits the power among many people, while the centralist approach leads to concentration of power, and the power corrupts. This problem was demonstrated recently in the Holyland-park affair (available online in Deutsch Wikipedia, "Holyland-Affäre") , a large plot in Jerusalem that was given to private entrepreneuers in very good terms. There is some evidence that very senior officials, including a former PM of Israel and a formar mayor of Jerusalem, were involved in bribery. Some senior officials in the tax authority were also involved in lowering the evaluation of the land value from 80 to 12 million USD. Moreover: even in the unlikely case, when all senior officers are totally honest, it is impractical that a small group of people will manage so many plots in an efficient way. This is a loophole that invites land robbery.
The shares approach and the rent approach are midway between the centralist approach and the direct approach: on one hand, the state still holds most of the power, but on the other hand, the citizens get much more power than just a single vote once in four years - they get a vote in every state-owned company separately, and they get a permanent income.

However, land is much more than a share or a monetary value: land is freedom. One with no land may become a slave of the landowners or the state, even if he has a permanent income. Therefore, I believe we should strive to implement a direct actual division of land. The other approaches should be used only as a default, until we can achieve this direct division.

D. Who should get a share?

‎The original land laws were given only to the Israelites, and only regarding the land of Israel. This can be seen as a "pilot experiment", that should serve as an example to all nations. In this view, ideally, the entire world should be divided evenly between all people. The division should, ideally, be hierarchical, just like in the Bible: " according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit " (Numbers 26:55). The entire world should be divided between nations, then each nation should divide its land between sectors or "tribes", etc., until each person gets his share.

But what should we do in the meantime, when most states do not divide their land equally?

1. According to Herzl, the Jewish state should give equal rights to all citizens - including the Arab minority (in Herzl's days, the entire Arab population in Palestine west of the River Jordan was about 500 thousand, while the entire Jewish population in the world was about 11 million). This should serve as an example to all other nations, that will hopefully also give equal land rights to their minorities. This stance is currently endorsed by Israel's supreme court, who ruled that every settlement built on state-owned land must provide equal access rights citizens of all nationalities.

2. Tokatly criticizes this view in two aspects:
  • Firstly, one of the basic human rights is the freedom of association. This entails that Jews, too, have the right to be in a community that owns land together, in order to build an exclusive settlement for community members only, even if this land currently includes only a part of Israel's lands.
  • Additionally, since most Muslim states in the Middle East don't give equal land rights to the Jewish minority, Israel is the only place in the Middle East where Jews may have land rights, and so it is justified to use a ffirmative actions in order to secure the rights of Jews in this small plot. Ideally, in the future, all Muslim states will divide their lands equally to all their citizens, so every person will have some land, either in Israel or in a Muslim state.

3. Hayut-man takes Herzl's ideas to the other extereme: he claims that land rights (including rights to get shares in other types of capital) should be given to " all those that see themselves as part of Israel, either spiritually or territorially ". This also includes Palestinian refugees, evangalist Christians, Makuya Japanese, etc. This is a part of his vision of a " New Tribe System " (available online in the author's blog: . It is not clear how this system will cope with impostors, who will "discover" their spiritual connection to Israel, just in order to get a land in a bargain price.

4. In my opinion, the Biblical criteria for land rights is the national service. This is hinted in several verses related to land laws:

  • " Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, throughout their fathers' house, all that [go out with the army] in Israel... Unto these the land shall be divided for an inheritance according to the number of names " (Numbers 26:2-53). Note that the KJV translation is " all that [are able to go to war] in Israel ", but original Hebrew is "יוצא צבא", and the literal translation is "go out with the army" - only those that participate in the national army get a share.
  • The Levite tribe was counted separately, because they didn't serve in the army like the other tribes, and accordingly, they didn't get a share like the others: " for they were not numbered among the children of Israel, because there was no inheritance given them among the children of Israel " (26:62).
  • Later, when the tribes of Reuben and Gad asked to get land in trans-Jordan, Moses told them: " Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?! " (32:6). He then told Joshua and Elazar, that were responsible for the land division: " If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass with you over Jordan, every man armed to battle, before the LORD, and the land shall be subdued before you; then ye shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession " (32:29).
  • Land was probably also given to non-Israelis, such as Hobab, who did other types of national service, as Moses promised him: " Leave us not, I pray thee; forasmuch as thou knowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou mayest be to us instead of eyes. And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what goodness the LORD shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee " (10:31-32). His descendants probably settled in Jericho (see Judges 1:16).

I believe this approach is a good balance between dividing lands to everyone and dividing lands only to people of a specific origin. In this approach, land rights are related to national duties. Anyone who fulfils his national duties should have the same rights. In Israel, national duties include 2 to 3 years of army service, which can be replaced by civil service in hospitals, schools or other non-profit organizations.


After analyzing the previous suggestions for implementation of the Biblical land laws in our time, I conclude that there are several practical ideas that are compatible with the original Biblical intent:

  • Land division - Gradually divide equal-sized land plots to citizens who fulfilled their national duties. The size of the plots will be determined so that there will be enough reserve for future generations. Once divided, the plots will return to their original owners in the Jubilee year.
  • Voucher privatization - divide shares of the land administration and other state-owned companies, such that all citizens who fulfilled their national duties will have a right to vote in their general assembly, and will be entitied to a dividend from their profits. People will be able to sell their share in the stock market, but they will get them back in the Jubilee year.
  • Citizen's dividend - divide a pre-determined percentage of the state's tax revenues as an annual grant, to all citizens who fulfilled their national duties.

Each of these ideas will increase the freedom of the citizens. They will not be slaves of the state, nor slaves of tycoons. Power will be divided among all citizens, instead of concentrating in the hands of a small group of government-officers or capital-owners. And we " shall proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants ".

-- Erel Segal the Levite

-- Israel 2012