A Jewish Glass Ceiling on the American Dream

The American Dream promises that anyone can achieve anything. Build a business, accumulate wealth, enter politics and shape culture. Pursue your ambitions without an artificial ceiling imposed by your ancestry or religion.

Unless, according to antisemitic conspiracy theories, you are Jewish.

For centuries, Jews have been accused of controlling banks, manipulating politicians, owning the media and starting wars. The accusations change with the times, but the underlying claim remains: Jews possess too much power, and that power is dangerous.

Nazi Germany defined Jews by ancestry. Fighting for Germany, converting to Christianity, marrying a non-Jew or even supporting Hitler could not erase Jewish ancestry. As explored in What Does a Jew Have to Do to Be Accepted?, there was no reliable way to become acceptable under Nazi racial ideology.

The contemporary jihadi-socialist alliance presents a different challenge. Some of its rhetoric portrays Zionists and Jewish institutions as part of a privileged elite, accused of colonialism, oppression and Jewish supremacy. The objection is framed not simply around Jewish ancestry, but around Jewish power.

Left-wing media The Nation, described the grassroots organizing to oust unpopular incumbent Congressman Jamaal Bowman as a fight waged by Jewish billionaires against a poor Black man

That suggests a different solution. If Jews have too much power, perhaps they can become acceptable by surrendering some of it.

But how much?

A Jewish businessman can succeed, but at some undefined level of wealth, as success becomes evidence of financial domination. A Jewish politician can gain influence, but too much influence becomes proof of a conspiracy. Jewish writers, journalists and entertainers can flourish, until their achievements are portrayed as Jewish control over American culture.

How much Jewish wealth is acceptable? How many Jewish members of Congress? How many newspapers, universities or businesses may Jews lead before their achievements become threatening?

There is no published limit. No established threshold.

The conspiracy theory supplies its own answer: Jewish success is evidence of Jewish power, and Jewish power is something to fear.

This is a peculiar kind of glass ceiling. Jews are not necessarily prevented from achieving success. They are condemned for achieving too much of it. The ceiling becomes visible only after they have supposedly crossed it.

Perhaps Jews should stop contributing to political campaigns, lobbying Congress or advocating for their interests. Perhaps they should withdraw from finance, become less prominent in entertainment and apologize for their prosperity.

Would that make them acceptable?

What about their synagogues? Jewish institutions increasingly rely on security guards, police protection and barriers against attacks. Should Jews abandon those protections to demonstrate that they enjoy no special privileges? Must Jewish worshippers accept intimidation outside their synagogues to prove they deserve no more protection than anyone else?

And what about Israel?

Americans routinely celebrate their ancestral homelands which is a core part of Judaism. Yet Jewish support for Israel is sometimes portrayed as evidence of divided loyalty or Jewish supremacy. Must American Jews abandon their homeland and support for the Jewish state or distance themselves from Jewish organizations to demonstrate that they are acceptable Americans?

Is there an emerging demand that Jews can participate in American society, provided they never become too wealthy, too influential, too visible or too supportive of Israel? An invisible glass ceiling over Jewish achievement, with the height determined by those who resent it.

That is not the American Dream.

In 1790, George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island: “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”

George Washington’s letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport

Washington rejected the idea that Jews lived in America by the generosity of a Christian majority. Their rights were inherent. They could worship, prosper, participate in government and pursue their ambitions without asking permission. There was no provision that Jews must remain sufficiently poor, powerless or inconspicuous to avoid offending others.

The demand that Jews surrender their supposed power would turn Washington’s promise upside down. Political participation becomes a privilege. Economic success becomes an offense. Supporting Israel becomes a test of American loyalty. The American Dream becomes something Jews may pursue only until their success makes someone uncomfortable.

That is unacceptable.

The American Dream has no Jewish ceiling. Those who would impose one are challenging something far greater than Jewish success.

Jewish Students for America

What Does a Jew Have to Do to Be Accepted?

Kristallnacht, November 9, 1938 – November 9, 2026

Imagine being a Jew living in Germany in 1910, with the extraordinary ability to see the future. You know that Adolf Hitler will come to power in 1933, that antisemitic laws will follow, and that on November 9, 1938, synagogues will burn across Germany and Austria.

You love Germany. Your family has lived there for generations. You want to remain in your homeland, raise your children and grow old among your neighbors. What should you do over the next 28 years to ensure that you and your family will be accepted?

Perhaps you should enter government service immediately.

Excellent idea. On April 7, 1933, the Nazis enacted the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, removing Jews from government employment. But Jews who had entered service before August 1, 1914, were exempted.

Perhaps you should fight for Germany in World War I.

Another excellent decision. Jewish veterans who had fought at the front were also exempted from the 1933 civil service purge. Even Jews whose fathers or sons had died fighting for Germany received protection under that law. Some 12,000 German Jews died fighting for their country during World War I. Surely that counted for something.

Moritz Daniel Oppenheim (1800-1882), Die Jahrzeit (Minjan), 1871

Perhaps you should marry a Christian German woman, convert to Christianity and raise your children as Christians.

That might offer additional protection. Conversion would not change your racial classification under Nazi law, but an existing marriage to a non-Jewish German could affect how the authorities treated your family.

Monument in Berlin, Germany for the German women who fought to save their Jewish husbands from death in the Nazi concentration camps. (photo: FirstOneThrough)

Or perhaps you should go even further. What if you supported Hitler himself?

You could embrace German nationalism, reject Jewish communal organizations, vote for the Nazi Party and seek to join its ranks. You could agree with its economic program, its hostility to communism and its promise to restore German greatness.

Would becoming a Nazi make you an acceptable Jew?

No. The Nazi Party generally excluded Jews from membership, and its racial laws did not reward Jewish ancestry with exemption because someone supported Hitler. Political loyalty could not transform a Jew into an Aryan. You might have agreed with every Nazi policy except its treatment of Jews. That disagreement would not have saved you.

And the other strategies were unraveling.

In 1935, the Nazis eliminated the civil service protections for Jewish veterans and longtime government employees. The Nuremberg Laws stripped Jews of full citizenship rights and prohibited marriages between Jews and people classified as German or related blood.

By 1938, German Jews faced escalating economic exclusion, confiscation of property, arrests and expulsions.

Consider Victor Klemperer, a German professor, World War I veteran, Protestant convert and husband of a non-Jewish German woman. He had embraced German culture and served his country. The Nazis nevertheless classified him as Jewish and dismissed him from his professorship in 1935.

On November 9, 1938, Nazi-organized mobs burned synagogues, destroyed Jewish businesses, attacked Jewish homes and arrested tens of thousands of Jewish men. The German Jew who had spent decades demonstrating his patriotism could watch his synagogue burn alongside the synagogue of the Jew who had never sought to assimilate.

Interior of synagogue torched during Kristallnacht

Eighty-eight years later, Jews across the diaspora face a renewed surge in antisemitism and questions about what makes them acceptable. In 2021, CAIR leader Zahra Billoo warned Muslims against the “polite Zionists,” including Jewish Federations, Hillel and synagogues. Even Jews who had stood alongside Muslims against discrimination were not necessarily friends. “Know your enemies,” she said.

So what should a Jew do today? Become an anti-Zionist? Denounce Israel? Turn against Jewish organizations? Would that finally be enough?

The German Jew of 1910 could spend the next 28 years changing everything about himself and still discover that he had changed nothing in the eyes of those who hated him.

There is no winning a contest in which someone else keeps changing the rules.

Jews should decide what they believe, whom they support and how they live their lives. The moment they begin making those decisions to satisfy people who demand that they become a different kind of Jew, they have already surrendered something far more important than approval.

Tehillim for When Things Go Right

If your synagogue is like mine, every morning after Shacharit since the October 7 massacre, the congregation has collectively recited two chapters of Tehillim (Psalms). We have prayed for the hostages, the wounded, the families consumed by the war, and the soldiers still fighting the terrorist regimes surrounding Israel.

This morning, just before the recitation began, a member of the minyan offered good wishes to another congregant who was making aliyah to Israel that evening. He and his wife would be joining their son, who serves in the Israel Defense Forces, and their new daughter-in-law. Hopefully, many more smachot, joyous occasions, await them in their new home.

It was a wonderful moment. But then we proceeded with the same two chapters of Tehillim.

I think we missed an opportunity.

We have become accustomed to reciting Psalms when something is wrong. We pray for healing, protection, salvation and the return of those in danger. But there are also moments when we should gather to celebrate what is right.

Throughout Shacharit, we recite numerous chapters and verses of Tehillim. They praise God’s greatness, celebrate His creation, recount His miracles, express gratitude for His kindness and affirm His justice. Some call upon all humanity to praise God. Others speak of Jerusalem, the Jewish people and the ultimate redemption.

Yet Psalm 128, all of six verses, offers something different. It celebrates the blessings of an ordinary, happy Jewish life.

The Psalm begins with a person who fears God and walks in His ways:

“When you eat the labor of your hands, you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you.”

It continues with the blessings of marriage and family:

“Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine in the recesses of your house; your children like olive plants around your table.”

The Psalm then expands from the home to the Jewish homeland:

“May the Lord bless you from Zion, and may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life. And may you see your children’s children. Peace upon Israel.”

In six short verses, the Psalm moves from meaningful work to marriage, children, grandchildren, Jerusalem and peace upon Israel. There is no mention of wealth, fame or power. Happiness is found in building a good life, enjoying one’s family and seeing the next generation flourish in the Jewish homeland.

What better Psalm to recite for a family making aliyah, joining their children in Israel and beginning a new chapter of their lives?

And what better Psalm to recite every Shabbat?

For six days, we work to provide for our families and build our lives. On Shabbat, we stop working and enjoy the fruits of that labor. Families gather around the table. Parents enjoy their children. Grandparents celebrate another generation.

Psalm 128 describes precisely what we hope to experience on Shabbat, connecting the happiness of our homes to the prosperity of Jerusalem and the peace of Israel.

Synagogues should make Psalm 128 a regular part of Shabbat morning, just before Kiddush. Six verses to celebrate the blessings of family, meaningful work, Jewish continuity and our homeland.

We know how to come together to ask God for what we are missing. We should be just as practiced at celebrating what He has given us.

The Palestinian Authority’s Campaign to Islamify the Tomb of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs

On November 6, 2026, the Palestinian Authority’s official news agency, WAFA, condemned another alleged Israeli effort to “Judaize” the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron. The Palestinian Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs declared the site an “exclusively Islamic endowment” and called for international intervention to protect its Islamic character.

The tomb is the burial place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah. The Palestinian Authority is accusing Jews of Judaizing the burial place of their own patriarchs and matriarchs.

The declaration came on the eve of Shabbat Chayei Sarah, when Jews around the world read Genesis 23, describing Abraham’s purchase of the Cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite to bury Sarah. Abraham was subsequently buried there, followed by the other patriarchs and matriarchs. The site has been central to Jewish religious history for thousands of years, long before the emergence of Islam in the seventh century.

Muslims later culturally appropriated the site and instituted a regime of Islamic supremacy. Under centuries of Muslim rule, Jewish access to the tomb was restricted, eventually limiting Jews to praying outside the compound at the seventh step. In August 1929, Arab rioters massacred 67 Jews in Hebron, devastating the city’s ancient Jewish community. The killings and subsequent British evacuation nearly eliminated Jewish life in Hebron. Some survivors returned in 1931, only to be evacuated again in 1936. Jewish worship inside the Cave of Machpelah resumed following Israel’s capture of Hebron in 1967.

The contemporary campaign for exclusive Islamic control has been advanced by senior Palestinian officials. In August 2021, Mahmoud al-Habash, the Palestinian Authority’s Supreme Sharia Judge and religious adviser to President Mahmoud Abbas, declared “Israel and the Jews have no right – not historically and not religiously – to any centimeter of this purely Islamic mosque.“

In July 2026, al-Habash again declared that the site was a purely Islamic mosque and that non-Muslims had no rights there.

The Palestinian Ministry of Awqaf reinforced this position throughout 2026. It condemned Israeli construction work in the courtyard as an attempt to transform the compound into a synagogue, declared every courtyard and hall part of an exclusively Islamic endowment, and repeatedly characterized Jewish worship and religious administration as Judaization.

The Palestinian Authority’s campaign represents the continued Islamic appropriation of Jewish holy sites, denying Jewish religious rights while presenting Jewish prayer as an incursion. Through its religious ministry and official media, the PA promotes the Islamization of the Cave of Machpelah and the erasure of its Jewish identity, describing Jewish worship at the graves of Judaism’s founding families as an act of aggression.

The Palestinian Authority is so self-unaware that it has appealed to the “international and human rights institutions” to condemn Israel for violating Muslim rights at the Cave of the Jewish Matriarchs and Patriarchs. The world should use the opportunity to condemn this antisemitic denial of Jewish history and religious rights, rather than accept the outrageous claims of Palestinian officials.

The Cave and the Tent

Parshat Chayei Sarah

This week’s Torah portion begins with Sarah being buried in a cave and ends with Rebecca entering Sarah’s tent.

The cave is permanent, a place for the dead. The tent is temporary, a place for the living. Together, they establish two foundations of Judaism: a homeland and a people.

After the death of Sarah, Abraham purchases the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron to bury her. Despite God’s promise of the Land of Israel, Abraham’s first recorded family property is a burial place. It anchors his family permanently to a particular piece of land, where generations will return to bury and remember their ancestors.

Cave of the Jewish Matriarchs and Patriarchs

Rebecca makes the opposite journey. She leaves her birthplace, choosing to join Isaac and enter Sarah’s tent. According to the Midrash, the Shabbat light that burned from week to week, the blessing in the bread and the divine presence that had disappeared with Sarah’s death all return with Rebecca.

The cave preserves Sarah’s memory. The tent restores her way of life.

Jewish law teaches Lo’eg LaRash, that we refrain from displaying certain mitzvot before the dead because they can no longer perform them. We honor the dead by respecting what they have lost. We honor their lives by continuing what they began.

That is the paradox of the cave and the tent. The cave will remain in place for thousands of years, but no mitzvot can be performed by those buried within it. The tent can be dismantled tomorrow, yet the faith, traditions and values practiced inside can endure for generations.

We discussed the Five Israels this week: the Land of Israel, the People of Israel, the State of Israel, its government and its policies. Chayei Sarah establishes the first two, well before Jacob/Israel was born, and there was a Jewish kingdom or modern state. Judaism is rooted in a particular land, but its survival depends on a people who carry its practices and beliefs wherever they go.

Perhaps that is why a portion beginning with Sarah’s death is called Chayei Sarah, the Life of Sarah. In her passing she firmly established the Jewish family in the holy land forever, and her daughter-in-law continued her family and traditions for generations, wherever they would travel.

There is an expression in Hebrew “od avenu chai” that the Jewish patriarchs still live. It is lifted from the story of Joseph who asked his brothers whether their father Israel was still alive. We should consider that Sarah is the one whose life set the the course for the Jewish family.

Today, we refer to the “Land of Israel” and the “Children of Israel” because that was when the family became a nation. But at its core, the Jewish people have always been a family anchored in the land and traditions set out by the matriarch Sarah.

J Street Redefines “Pro-Israel,” Hurting Israel and Dividing American Jews

J Street is celebrating its greatest political victory.

The self-described “pro-Israel” organization endorsed more than 200 congressional candidates in the 2026 midterms, raised over $13 million and projects a 98% victory rate. Its president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, declared that J Street had become the center of Democratic politics on Israel.

The election results tell a larger story about how far that center has moved, and the role a progressive Jewish organization has played in legitimizing increasingly hostile positions toward Israel within the Democratic Party.

When Genocide Crossed the Line

In January 2024, J Street withdrew its endorsement of Congressman Jamaal Bowman following growing disagreements over his rhetoric, including accusations that Israel was committing genocide and his praise of controversial anti-Israel commentator Norman Finkelstein. Ben-Ami declared “When the rhetoric, the framing and the approach go too far, that’s where we are going to hold our line.”

No longer.

In November 2025, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib introduced a resolution titled Recognizing the genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, calling on the United States to officially recognize that Israel had committed “genocide.” Ten original cosponsors appeared among J Street’s successful 2026 endorsees:

  • Becca Balint — Vermont
  • André Carson — Indiana
  • Greg Casar — Texas
  • Hank Johnson — Georgia
  • Pramila Jayapal — Washington
  • Ro Khanna — California
  • Jim McGovern — Massachusetts
  • Mark Pocan — Wisconsin
  • Delia Ramirez — Illinois
  • Lateefah Simon — California

In less than three years, language that helped cost one politician J Street’s support had become acceptable among its endorsed candidates.

Beyond Genocide

The change extends beyond one accusation.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal called Israel a “racist state” in 2023. Congressman Ro Khanna and Congresswoman Delia Ramirez were among the politicians who formally sponsored the genocide resolution, while Khanna has also criticized Israeli rule in the West Bank as “apartheid.”

Their congressional votes reveal additional differences over America’s relationship with Israel.

On April 20, 2024, thirty-seven House Democrats voted to provide military assistance to Ukraine while opposing a separate assistance package for Israel. J Street-endorsed politicians André Carson, Greg Casar, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Mark Pocan and Delia Ramirez were among them.

On October 25, 2023, the House passed a resolution condemning Hamas’s October 7 massacre and affirming American support for Israel by a vote of 412–10. Carson and Ramirez voted against it, while Jayapal and Casar merely voted present. Curiously, J Street supported that resolution and subsequently endorsed politicians who declined to vote for it.

The widening range of accepted positions also includes economic boycotts. J Street officially opposes the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement but supports targeted import bans and sanctions involving Jews and Jewish businesses from Judea and Samaria. In September 2026, it welcomed such restrictions and urged similar American measures.

This has been a trend for years. Several endorsed politicians, including Carson, Jayapal and Pocan, voted against a 2019 congressional resolution opposing BDS.

J Street’s endorsements now accommodate accusations of genocide and apartheid, opposition to military assistance and a wider range of positions supporting economic pressure on Israel.

Moving the Political Center

J Street’s endorsements offer something an explicitly anti-Israel organization cannot: political cover from an organization identifying itself as progressive, Jewish and pro-Israel. That validation gives Democratic politicians room to advance positions once considered outside of liberal pro-Israel boundaries.

This unquestionably harms the State of Israel. It has also increasingly created a cleft inside the American Jewish community.

J Street may claim to be “the [new] center of the Democratic Party’s approach to Israel and Palestine,” but it has become a fringe extremist group among pro-Israel Americans.

The Apartheid Israel Actually Has

Israel is routinely accused of maintaining a privileged Jewish class over Palestinian Arabs. Yet its latest election exposes a different system of institutionalized inequality: those who fight and die for the country shoulder burdens that other citizens are largely spared.

After three years of war on multiple fronts, Israelis awarded 19 Knesset seats to Israeli Arab parties and 13 to ultra-Orthodox parties. Together, more than one-quarter of Israel’s parliament now represents communities whose members overwhelmingly do not serve in the military, as Israeli Arabs are generally exempt from conscription, while ultra-Orthodox Jewish men have historically enjoyed widespread draft deferments and exemptions.

Israeli soldiers gather at Yad Va’Shem in Jerusalem, Israel’s memorial to the Holocaust (photo: First One Through)

Other Israelis must leave their families, careers and studies to defend the country. They risk injury, trauma and death. Meanwhile, fellow citizens enjoy the protection of that same military without comparable obligations.

Israel has created two classes of citizenship when it comes to national defense: those expected to sacrifice and those largely exempt from sacrifice.

Those who serve must defend a democracy in which others can exercise political power to preserve their exemption from serving.

An Israeli soldier, cellphone and gun in hand, rides the train to Tel Aviv (photo: First One Through)

The irony is that military exemption can also be a lifelong economic disadvantage. Military service is one of Israel’s great social and economic integrators, building professional networks, leadership skills, technological expertise and lifelong relationships. Research has documented significant employment benefits from service.

The same communities spared the risks of military service often miss its economic and social rewards. Israel’s unequal service system simultaneously concentrates military sacrifice and perpetuates economic separation. Israeli Arabs and Ultra Orthodox Jew are poorer than the secular country, in general.

Universal national service, whether military or meaningful civilian service, would do more than strengthen the military. It would bring communities together, expand economic opportunity and restore the principle that citizenship carries obligations as well as rights.

Israel’s divide is not between religions or races but between those who serve and those who don’t, the secular and the religious.

The Man Who Rebranded “Zionism Is Racism” as “Israel Is Genocide”

Palestinian lawyer Raji Sourani is a celebrated figure in the international human rights community. His collection of honors spans more than three decades.

Before 2001:

  • 1991: Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award, United States
  • 1996: French Republic Human Rights Prize

Since 2001:

  • 2002: Bruno Kreisky Human Rights Prize, Austria, awarded to his organization
  • 2003: International Service Human Rights Award, United Kingdom
  • 2013: Right Livelihood Award, Sweden
  • 2026: International Hrant Dink Award, Turkey
  • 2026: Jesús Vicente Chamorro Human Rights Award, Spain
French Consul General in Jerusalem Rene Troccaz decorates Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani with his county’s National Order of Merit, at the French Institute in Gaza City, on July 7, 2021. (Photo by MOHAMMED ABED / AFP)

Sourani founded the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) in Gaza in 1995. His work challenging Israeli authorities and pursuing international legal action has made him an influential voice in human rights circles. In 2024, he joined the legal effort supporting South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.

But his organization’s embrace of the genocide accusation began more than two decades before the Gaza war.

In 1975, the United Nations declared Zionism a form of racism. The resolution was repealed in 1991, but the accusation resurfaced in a more sweeping form at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa.

The conference’s NGO Forum adopted a declaration accusing Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide. It portrayed genocide and ethnic cleansing not merely as military crimes, but as instruments for preserving an exclusively Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

The accusation was not that Israel was committing genocide but was committed to genocide – in September 2001 – just one week before jihadists attacked the United States.

Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, refused to endorse the declaration. She called its genocide language unacceptable and hurtful. PCHR demanded her resignation.

Its director was Raji Sourani.

Despite his invective that Israel is inherently an apartheid regime committed to genocide, the international recognition of Sourani and his organization continued. Austria and the United Kingdom were the first two honor this vilifier of Israel in 2002 and 2003.

Then there was a noticeable pause for a decade when Sweden awarded him the equivalent to a runner-up to the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013. Then this year, 2026, the Hrant Dink Foundation in Turkey recognized Sourani, followed by an award from Spain’s Progressive Union of Prosecutors.

Sourani’s effort to smear Israel as a genocidal operation has been 25 years in the making. What began as “Zionism is racism” at the UN has evolved into “Israel is genocide,” reaching beyond the Global South to progressive Jews in the Global North and helping inspire a new generation of anti-Israel activists.

Britain Is Not God

Every November 2, the Palestinian Authority’s official news agency, WAFA, condemns the 1917 Balfour Declaration as Britain’s “colonial promise” of a Jewish homeland in another people’s land.

Modern media offer another version of the Promised Land story, portraying Jews in Judea and Samaria as religious extremists seeking to fulfill a divine promise and establish a “Greater Israel.” In September, Al Jazeera described young Jewish women in the West Bank as pursuing the “so-called Promised Land” through territorial expansion. The Wall Street Journal similarly reported on violent Jews who regarded the territory as their divine birthright, so needn’t follow man-made laws.

Jews are cast both as messianic lunatics and colonial tools.

For the Palestinian Authority, Britain replaces God as the source of the promise. Contemporary reporting instead portrays Jews in Judea and Samaria as seeking to seize by themselves territory promised by God. One story invokes colonialism, the other religious zealotry. Both portray Jews as outsiders seeking land granted by someone other than local Arabs.

The word promised suggests a benefactor, a recipient and something yet to be delivered. That framing obscures the fundamental relationship between Jews, Judaism and the Land of Israel.

Britain could endorse a political homeland, but it could neither create nor define the Jewish people’s relationship with the land. When the League of Nations incorporated the Balfour commitment of a national home for Jews into the Palestine Mandate in 1922, it expressly recognized the Jewish people’s historical connection to Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting such national home there.

Reconstituting, not inventing.

Yet even the Mandate’s recognition of a historical connection falls short. Many peoples have ancestral homelands. The Land of Israel is not simply where Jews once lived.

As explored in our earlier article, Judaism Is an Ancient Folk Religion, Jews are not merely followers of a universal faith like Christianity or Islam. They are a people whose religion developed around a particular land. That land is embedded in Jewish law, language, calendar, prayers and identity. Exile dispersed the people without removing the land from their religion.

Jewish house from the Second Temple period in Old City of Jerusalem, Israel (photo: First One Through)

Nor does Judaism divide the land according to modern political borders. Hebron, Bethlehem and Shiloh in Judea and Samaria are as integral to Jewish sacred geography as Jerusalem, Safed and Tiberias.

The biblical promise remains central to Jewish religious tradition, but it is not the source of Jewish peoplehood. A secular Jew can reject belief in God while remaining part of a people whose civilization is inseparable from the Land of Israel.

Palestinian Arabs portray Jewish attachment to the land as a product of British colonialism, while contemporary media often portray it as a religious zealotry to acquire territory. Both falsely turn something embedded in Jewish identity into something Jews are seeking to obtain.

The Land of Israel is neither past nor future for Jews but integral, outside of time. It was never a gift of Britain nor the United Nations but an eternal promise from God to Jews. The lies promoted by the Arab world that Judaism is not connected to the Land of Israel and that Jews are interlopers is not just antisemitic but turns the Jewish God into a European Lord, a further desecration of Judaism.

When You Say Israel, Be Clear What You Mean

“Israel’s only existed since 1948,” declared political streamer Hasan Piker during a June 2026 interview on The Breakfast Club, explaining that Palestine had existed for far longer.

That’s moronic.

Piker was comparing a modern sovereign country with an ancient geographic designation. By that logic, Greece is younger than ancient Greek civilization, and Italy has existed for only 165 years.

The confusion arises because Israel is not simply a modern country. It is also a people, a land, a government with a collection of policies. These five meanings are related but profoundly different. Switching between them can erase thousands of years of Jewish history, turn criticism of a government into condemnation of a people, and make Jews appear to be foreigners in their ancestral homeland.

The Tower of David in the Old City of Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)

The Five Israels

The People of Israel, or Children of Israel (Bnei Yisrael or Am Yisrael), are the Jewish people, whose name derives from the biblical patriarch Jacob, renamed Israel. The people existed thousands of years before the modern country bearing their name.

The Land of Israel, Eretz Yisrael, is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, where ancient Israelite and Jewish kingdoms existed, Jerusalem became the center of Jewish religious and national life, and Judaism developed. It is core element of the Jewish people and Judaism.

The State of Israel, Medinat Yisrael, is the modern sovereign country established in 1948, nearly two thousand years after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.

The Government of Israel consists of the political leaders who govern the country. Governments change through elections, coalitions collapse, and prime ministers come and go.

The Policies of Israel are the decisions those governments make concerning security, diplomacy, immigration and other matters. They can be supported, opposed, modified or reversed.

These five meanings move from the enduring identity of a people and their homeland to the changing decisions of political leaders. Confusing them produces arguments that can sound reasonable at first blush while being historically and logically indefensible.

Making Jews Newcomers to Their Own Homeland

Piker’s comparison illustrates the problem.

The name “Palestine” has been used for centuries, including under Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman and British rule. But the existence of an old geographic designation does not establish the existence of a sovereign Palestinian Arab country throughout those centuries. More specifically, no such Palestine has ever existed. If it had, it would not have needed to declare itself a country in November 1988.

1660 map of “Palestina Siue Terrae Sancta Descriptio” by Jan Jansson. It is flanked by pictures of the life of the Jewish prophet Moses

The modern State of Israel was established in 1948. The People of Israel and their connection to the Land of Israel existed thousands of years earlier. Ancient Israelite kingdoms, Jewish religious institutions and Jerusalem’s central place in Jewish life preceded both Christianity and Islam.

The sleight of hand is simple. Compare the modern State of Israel with the historical land called Palestine, and Israel suddenly appears young while Palestine appears ancient. Then treat those dates as proof that Palestinian Arabs are indigenous and Jews are foreign colonizers. Jewish history disappears through a quick change in definitions. A complete lie appears logical.

Judaism Is a Religion of a Particular Land

Part of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding of Judaism itself.

Christianity and Islam, which together account for more than half the world’s population, are universal religions. They have sacred places, including Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Mecca, but their adherents are not collectively defined as one ancestral nation awaiting restoration to a particular homeland.

Judaism is both a religion and the national tradition of a people whose history, laws and identity are deeply rooted in the Land of Israel.

God’s covenant with Abraham includes the promise of that land to Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. The Exodus from Egypt is a journey toward it as are later prophets discussing Jewish return from diaspora. Many commandments in the Torah concern its agriculture, harvests and religious obligations. Jerusalem and the Temple became the center of Jewish worship.

Even after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of much of the Jewish population, the connection endured. Jews continue to pray toward Jerusalem, mourn the Temple’s destruction, celebrate holidays tied to the agricultural seasons of the Land of Israel, and conclude the Passover Seder with the hope of being in Jerusalem the following year.

Christians do not need to live in Bethlehem to fulfill their identity as Christians. Muslims do not need to live in Mecca to fulfill their identity as Muslims. Jews do not need to live in Israel to be Jews, either. But Jews have a diaspora; Christians and Muslims do not because Judaism is a particular land-based religion.

Zionism did not invent the Jewish attachment to the land in the nineteenth century. It was a modern political movement seeking to restore Jewish national sovereignty in the ancestral homeland. Similarly, Jews did not become connected to Israel because a country was established in 1948. The country was established in a land to which Jews had been connected for thousands of years.

From Criticizing Policies to Denying a People’s History

The same confusion that distorts history also distorts contemporary political debate.

Someone may criticize an Israeli military operation or decision by a prime minister. That is criticism of government policy. But the argument can morph: Israel’s government becomes “genocidal”; Israel itself is declared illegitimate; Zionism becomes inherently evil and racist. Finally, the Jewish people’s connection and rights in their ancestral homeland is rejected.

That’s a preposterous slide from natural criticism to antisemitism.

Consider someone who objects to Israeli Jews living in Judea and Samaria / the West Bank. That is a dispute over policy and territory. But when the argument becomes that Jews are foreign colonizers with no legitimate claim to any part of the land, the discussion has moved from settlements to Jewish history and Judaism itself.

One can criticize a policy without denying a people’s history, oppose a government without opposing the country, and defend Jewish national rights without endorsing every action taken in their name.

When Israel Becomes a Substitute for Jews

The most dangerous shift occurs when Israel stops referring to a government or country and becomes a substitute for the Jewish people.

A Jewish student in New York is not the Israeli government. A synagogue in London is not an Israeli military installation. A Jewish business in Paris is not responsible for decisions made in Jerusalem.

Yet Jews around the world are confronted over policies they did not create, governments they did not elect and military operations they did not authorize. Jewish institutions become targets of protests ostensibly directed at a foreign government. Jews are expected to disavow Israel to establish their own moral legitimacy.

Antisemitism can hide inside this ambiguity. A speaker claims to be criticizing government conduct while advancing accusations against Jewish collective identity. The word remains the same even as its target changes.

Israel

The People of Israel are ancient and their bond to the Land of Israel is ancient. Those are facts not subject to debate or approval.

The State of Israel is modern, and its government and policies belong to the present. They are political beings and entities like others and subject to scrutiny in the same manner of others. No more, no less.

Five meanings. One name: Israel.