Founding, territory and feasibility

No state will relinquish territory and sovereignty because it finds Yehodaya’s vision inspiring. It will agree to discuss such a proposal only if it concludes that the transaction serves its national interests and offers consideration greater than the economic, political, and symbolic value it attributes to the territory.

Yehodaya is therefore not asking for a donation or a historic gesture. It seeks to create a transaction between two entities with interests of their own.

For a country with a vast territory, low population density, and remote regions that are barely developed, the practical value of a small part of its territory may be limited. By contrast, a substantial inflow of capital, infrastructure development, job creation, and new opportunities for trade and cooperation may materially affect its economy and its future.

The agreement could combine several elements:

• Direct financial consideration for the territory and the transfer of sovereign powers.
• Investment in shared infrastructure, including roads, ports, energy, water, and communications.
• Job creation and preference for local suppliers and workers during the establishment period.
• Cooperation in technology, agriculture, medicine, education, and security.
• Trade agreements and access to markets, capital, and international business networks.
• Economic development of the regions adjacent to Yehodaya, not only of the territory transferred to it.
• The creation of a long-term strategic partnership between Yehodaya and the host state.

For a country facing a shortage of capital, unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, or difficulty developing remote regions, such a package of benefits could become a significant engine of growth. A successful transaction would be judged not only by the price paid for the land, but by the economic and political value it creates over decades.

Sovereignty, however, is not an ordinary economic asset. Even uninhabited and undeveloped territory is part of a state, and relinquishing it may carry emotional, national, and security significance. Some countries will refuse to discuss such a proposal under any circumstances, while in others the constitution may not permit a transfer of territory without a complex process, parliamentary approval, or a referendum.

The search should therefore focus on countries in which several conditions exist simultaneously:

• The proposed territory is not a population center, a focus of national identity, or an area of decisive strategic importance.
• The country has sufficient land that transferring the area will not impair its future development capacity.
• The overall consideration can have a genuine, potentially transformative impact on the country.
• The transfer of territory and sovereignty can be completed through a constitutional, transparent, and legitimate process.
• The public and leadership can be persuaded that Yehodaya will be a stable, peaceful neighbor of strategic value.
• The rights of residents and communities in and around the area are fully protected.

It is equally essential that the transaction be free of any suspicion of exploitation or corruption. The agreement of a handful of officeholders is not enough. A transfer of territory and sovereignty must be carried out openly, in accordance with the host country’s constitution, and with the approval of the competent institutions and the public wherever local law requires it. An agreement born of bribery, pressure, or circumvention of the public would provide neither a moral nor a stable foundation for establishing a state.

Ultimately, an existing state will consider transferring territory and sovereignty to Yehodaya only if it is offered something difficult to obtain by other means: large-scale economic investment, regional development, a strategic partnership, and an opportunity to alter the course of its development.

The question is not why any country would give up part of its land, even a small part. The question is whether there is one country in the world for which, under the right terms, such an agreement would be a sufficiently good national bargain that it would choose it. One is enough.

The best way to address the problem is to choose, from the outset, an area with as small a permanent population as possible and with most of the land owned by the host state. Yehodaya is not intended to be a project for displacing a local population, and therefore a densely populated area or one with a complex pattern of ownership would not be suitable for its establishment.

Before negotiations begin, a complete review of land ownership and land use will be required. Even an area that appears empty on a map may contain privately owned land, grazing areas, rights of passage, water sources, or other local uses. The purpose of this review is not to create a new system of rights, but to identify existing rights precisely so that they can be respected within the transaction.

A distinction must be made between the transfer of sovereignty and the transfer of ownership. The host state may agree to transfer sovereignty over a particular territory, but privately owned land within it does not thereby become the property of Yehodaya. Acquiring private property will require a separate agreement with its owners at a price to which they voluntarily agree.

Property owners who do not wish to sell may continue to own their property under the new sovereignty, or their land may be excluded from the boundaries of the transaction where feasible. If their refusal to sell prevents the creation of a contiguous and viable territory, another territory will have to be chosen. There is neither justification nor practical wisdom in beginning the life of the state with expropriation of property and a prolonged dispute with landowners.

Permanent residents living in the transferred territory will be offered several options:

• Remain as permanent residents, retain their previous citizenship, and live under a special arrangement to be defined in an agreement between the two states.
• Sell their property and move voluntarily to the territory of the host state, at a price and with compensation to be determined through negotiation.
• Remain where they are and receive full citizenship in Yehodaya, subject to an oath of allegiance to the state, its Constitution, its laws, and its values, but without any requirement to be Jewish or to convert to Judaism.

The payment made to the host government for the territory and sovereignty will be separate from the consideration paid to private landowners. A state cannot sell property it does not own, and property owners should not be expected to rely on a promise that some portion of the governmental payment will eventually reach them.

The agreement will also have to regulate practical matters arising from the change of border: access to roads and water sources, recognition of existing contracts and ownership records, movement between family members on opposite sides of the border, and continued use of shared infrastructure. These are not ideological principles; they are necessary conditions for creating a stable border and preventing future disputes.

The fewer residents and private rights there are in the area, the easier it will be to reach clear and straightforward agreements. This is one of the most important criteria in selecting the territory.

The guiding principle is simple: sovereignty can be transferred by agreement between states; private ownership can be transferred only with the owner’s consent. If both cannot be achieved voluntarily and on clear terms, the territory is not suitable for the establishment of Yehodaya.

Namibia is a candidate with significant potential because it combines several of the conditions most important to the establishment of Yehodaya: vast territory, low population density, ocean access, proximity to trade routes, and geographic and strategic distance from the Middle East.

Namibia covers approximately 825,000 square kilometers and has a population of just over three million. Its average population density is only about 3.7 people per square kilometer, and in the //Kharas Region in the south of the country it is approximately 0.7 people per square kilometer. This means there is a possibility of identifying a large, contiguous area that could allow a new state to grow for generations without creating friction with major population centers.

Namibia has a long Atlantic coastline and two commercial ports, at Walvis Bay and Lüderitz. The Port of Walvis Bay is connected to trade routes linking southern and central Africa with Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Such a location could allow Yehodaya to integrate into global trade, develop an independent port, and build an economy that is not dependent on a neighboring country for access to the sea.

There is also a possible economic basis for partnership. Namibia seeks investment, job creation, infrastructure development, and expansion of economic activity beyond the mining sector. Yehodaya could offer a transaction combining financial consideration, investment and infrastructure construction, participation by local suppliers and workers, and cooperation in technology, energy, agriculture, medicine, and trade. For Namibia, such an agreement could transform territory that is not realizing its full potential into an engine of regional growth.

Water scarcity is one of the country’s central challenges, but it is not a reason to rule Namibia out. It requires Yehodaya to plan from the outset a system based on desalination, energy generation, water storage, recycling, and transmission. A new state will in any event have to build its infrastructure from the ground up; the ability to integrate water, energy, and urban planning into a single system is also an opportunity to build efficient and advanced infrastructure without dependence on legacy systems.

Namibia is not the only possibility, and the final choice will follow a professional comparison among several candidates. The principal criteria will be:

• A large, contiguous territory capable of accommodating future growth to millions of residents.
• Low population density and an ownership structure that can be regularized.
• Independent access to the sea and to international trade routes.
• A practical ability to supply water, energy, and transportation.
• Strategic depth and the ability to defend the state’s borders.
• Distance from the regional threats confronting Israel.
• A host state that can derive substantial benefit from the capital, infrastructure, and cooperation that Yehodaya would bring.
• The possibility of reaching a lawful and clear agreement for the transfer of territory and sovereign powers.
• Acquisition and establishment costs within a range that can realistically be raised and financed.
• A regional environment that permits normal neighborly relations, trade, and diplomatic recognition.

The objective is not to find a place without difficulties. No such place exists. The objective is to find a place where the advantages are substantial, the problems can be solved, and the transaction can be beneficial both to Yehodaya and to the host state.

At this preliminary stage, Namibia satisfies a significant share of these conditions. It therefore deserves to be placed among the first group of candidates, subjected to comprehensive research, and, when the time comes, explored through channels of communication with relevant parties in the country.

Dozens of countries do not need to agree to the idea. One country, one territory, and one agreement that is good for both sides are enough.

The exact amount can be determined only after the territory has been selected and the establishment plan completed, but the order of magnitude can already be defined: establishing Yehodaya will require initial capital in the tens of billions of dollars.

As an initial working assumption, a target of approximately $30–60 billion may be sufficient to acquire the territory and transfer sovereignty, establish the essential infrastructure, build the first centers of settlement, and put in place the basic systems of government, security, and public services. This is not a final budget estimate, but an initial framework that clarifies the scale of the undertaking.

The full development of a state that may eventually be home to millions of residents will require much greater investment over the years, but there is no need to raise all of it before the process begins. A state grows gradually, and a substantial share of its cities, housing, industry, commerce, and infrastructure can be built with private capital as the population and economic activity expand.

Financing can be divided into three principal stages:

1. Planning and negotiation: establishing the Founding Council, recruiting experts, conducting legal and geographic reviews, preparing economic and security plans, engaging governments, and drafting agreements. This stage will require tens of millions of dollars.
2. Acquisition of territory and sovereignty: the consideration paid to the host state, regularization of land ownership, demarcation of borders, and establishment of transition mechanisms. The cost may range from several billion to tens of billions of dollars, depending on the size of the territory and the terms of the transaction.
3. Initial establishment: water, energy, a port, roads, communications, housing, security, government, and services for the founding population. This will be the largest component of the initial capital requirement.

The capital will come from a combination of sources:

• The Foundation Fund: wealthy individuals, entrepreneurs, and philanthropists who identify with the vision will be able to provide founding capital that is not intended to be repaid. Their contributions will make it possible to finance stages that do not generate direct revenue, including planning, negotiation, security, and establishment of state institutions. These are the people who will be recorded in Yehodaya’s history as its founders.
• Private infrastructure investment: energy and desalination facilities, ports, communications, housing, transportation, and industrial areas can be built and operated by private companies. Investors will earn returns from operating the assets and providing services, not from a promise of repayment out of tax revenues.
• Sale of land and development rights: once the territory has been acquired and planned, land can be sold for residential, commercial, and industrial development. Appreciation in land value resulting from the establishment of the state and its infrastructure can become an important source of development financing.
• Investment by companies and entrepreneurs: businesses that choose to operate in Yehodaya will bring capital, employees, knowledge, and technology. A low-tax environment, limited regulation, and a competitive market may attract companies seeking to establish new operations or regional centers.
• Capital brought by the first settlers: home purchases, business formation, and investment in local projects will inject additional capital as settlement expands.
• Partnerships with states and international entities: foreign states and companies may participate in commercial projects involving energy, infrastructure, ports, water, and technology when doing so also serves their interests.

Any lending mechanism used by the Foundation Fund must be structured so that it does not become government debt. Yehodaya’s Constitution prohibits the state from borrowing money and placing repayment obligations on future generations. Loans may therefore be made to the establishment fund or to private project companies and repaid from the revenues of the asset or venture they financed, but they may not be guaranteed by future taxes or the state treasury.

Fundraising should proceed according to milestones. In the first stage, funds will be raised for feasibility studies and to establish the team. Once a framework agreement has been reached with a host state, capital commitments for the acquisition of the territory will be activated. Infrastructure capital will be raised only after the territory, borders, and sovereign powers have been settled. In this way, very large commitments can be assembled without requiring every investor to transfer the full amount at the beginning of the process.

The capital Yehodaya requires exists in the world. The central challenge is to build a credible project capable of attracting people with ability, capital, and a willingness to act. A clear vision, an excellent team, an interstate agreement, and a practical economic plan can turn Yehodaya from an idea into a historic opportunity that founders and investors will want to help realize.

Yehodaya does not need millions of residents in order to begin. It needs a founding core of people who want to participate in building the new state. This core will establish the first city and villages, set the economy in motion, and shape Yehodaya’s culture and institutions in practice.

The initial population is expected to come from several principal groups:

• Jews living in the Diaspora who want to live in a Jewish state but do not see Israel as the right home for them.
• Israelis who want to combine life in Hebrew and Jewish culture with broad personal liberty, limited government, and a free economy.
• Entrepreneurs, engineers, physicians, educators, infrastructure builders, security professionals, and other specialists drawn to the opportunity to build new systems from the ground up.
• Young people and families looking for a place where they can build a future, acquire land, establish a business, and take part in shaping the society in which they will live.
• People with a pioneering spirit, for whom Yehodaya is not merely a migration destination but a life project of historical significance.

There is no magic number at which a state becomes viable. There are several stages of development, each with its own critical mass:

• A founding core of several thousand people can lead the planning, capital raising, diplomatic negotiations, and establishment of the first systems.
• A population of approximately 25,000–50,000 can populate the first urban settlement and the beginning of rural and agricultural settlement, operate the central infrastructure, and create an initial local market.
• A population of approximately 250,000–500,000 would give Yehodaya a critical mass of labor, entrepreneurship, consumption, education, medicine, security, and cultural life. At that point it could already function as a small, stable state with a diversified economy.
• In the long term, Yehodaya should be designed to grow to one million residents and beyond, and should from the outset select a territory capable of accommodating several million people in the future.

Yehodaya will be built as a state connected to the world, importing what it makes sense to import and developing advantages in fields in which it can excel.

The potential population is far larger than what is required in the first stage. Of the approximately eight million Jews living outside Israel, only one percent choosing to move to Yehodaya would create a population of about 80,000. Five percent would provide a base of approximately 400,000 residents—a substantial critical mass for a new state.

Growth will occur gradually. Residents will bring businesses; businesses will create jobs; jobs will attract more residents; and the success of the first city will make it possible to establish additional cities and communities. The more Yehodaya proves that it offers security, the rule of law, liberty, economic opportunity, and Jewish identity, the more people will want to become part of it.

An autonomous city is not an early stage of a sovereign state. It is a local entity operating with the permission of another state and subject to it. Even when broad powers are granted to it, the source of authority remains with the host state.

As long as Yehodaya is not sovereign, its laws are subordinate to another country’s constitution, its courts are not the final judicial authority, its borders are not under its control, and it cannot independently determine citizenship, immigration, security, currency, or foreign policy. Nor can it guarantee that its Bill of Rights, tax ceilings, and limits on government will be preserved if the host government later decides to change the arrangement.

More importantly, there is no automatic legal path that transforms an autonomous city into a state. Obtaining sovereignty in the future would require opening a new negotiation and persuading the host state to relinquish territory that remains under its ownership and sovereignty. Once the city’s success has attracted capital and turned it into a valuable economic center, the host state will have an even stronger incentive to retain it rather than separate from it.

Founders and investors will not commit major investment on the basis of a diplomatic hope either. Before billions are invested in land acquisition, infrastructure, and building a city, it must be clear who the sovereign is, which constitution applies to the territory, and who has authority to change the rules. That certainty can arise only from a binding agreement transferring the territory and sovereignty.

The first stage in establishing Yehodaya must therefore be an interstate agreement under which an existing state transfers to it a defined territory and full sovereign powers. Only after that agreement has been signed and lawfully approved can construction of infrastructure, recruitment of the population, and operation of state institutions begin.

Sovereignty from the first day does not require every state system to be ready on that same day. During the establishment period, Yehodaya may purchase services from the state from which the territory was acquired or from other states, but those services will be provided under agreements between sovereign states, not as powers that the host state remains free to grant or withdraw.

The state can begin with one city, a small population, and institutions still under construction. It cannot begin without the supreme authority to determine its own laws and its own future.

Yehodaya will be built in stages, but sovereignty is not one of those stages. It is the starting point.