This article is not merely a defense of Israel; it explores the deeper truths underpinning the Jewish state's existence, resilience, and role in historical and contemporary global dynamics.
By Dr. Tim Orr
Israel is more than a nation; it is the embodiment of an ancient hope fulfilled, a dream realized against all odds, and a symbol of resilience in a region dominated by tyranny, extremism, and chaos. Israel’s story is not just about survival—it is a complex, multi-faceted struggle for existence, identity, and moral clarity. It represents a clash of civilizations, values, and ideologies, constantly scrutinized and often misrepresented. This article is not merely a defense of Israel; it explores the deeper truths underpinning the Jewish state's existence, resilience, and role in historical and contemporary global dynamics. Understanding Israel requires a deep dive into its unique history, modern challenges, and relentless pursuit of peace amid existential threats.
The Jewish connection to Israel is deeply historical, spiritual, and cultural, spanning over 3,000 years. This connection is not merely symbolic; it has shaped the Jewish people’s identity, religious practices, and cultural aspirations. Ancient Israel, founded over three millennia ago, was not just a territorial kingdom but the center of Jewish religious and political life. Jerusalem was established as the capital by King David around 1000 BCE and became the site of the First Temple built by Solomon. This temple became the focal point of Jewish worship, law, and society until it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. Despite exile and dispersion, the Jewish people’s connection to the land persisted through rituals, festivals, and prayers that have remained unchanged for centuries (Gilbert, 2008).
The Second Temple, completed in 516 BCE, further cemented Jerusalem as the heart of Jewish spiritual life. Even after its destruction by the Romans in 70 CE, the Jewish presence in the land never completely disappeared. Jews continued to live in cities like Jerusalem, Tiberias, Safed, and Hebron through the Byzantine, Islamic, and Crusader periods despite facing periodic massacres, expulsions, and discriminatory laws. The dream of returning to the land never faded, as reflected in the prayer, "Next year in Jerusalem," recited annually during the Passover seder and the Yom Kippur service (Laqueur, 2003).
Zionism emerged in the 19th century not as an imperial conquest but as a movement of national liberation, inspired by the rise of nationalism across Europe and the growing persecution of Jews, particularly in Russia and Eastern Europe. The early Zionists viewed their mission as a return to their ancestral homeland, driven by a longing for safety and renewal rather than conquest. They sought to establish agricultural settlements, revive the Hebrew language, and rebuild Jewish culture in its birthplace. Land purchases were made legally under the Ottoman Empire, often at inflated prices, from absentee landlords (Karsh, 2000).
The portrayal of Zionism as a colonial enterprise is not only inaccurate but also a deliberate attempt to erase the historical connection of Jews to their homeland. The idea that Jews are “colonizers” disregards the fact that Jews are indigenous to the region, having lived there continuously for thousands of years. This narrative, however, has become a powerful ideological weapon used to delegitimize Israel, reducing the Zionist movement to a caricature of European imperialism and denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination (Peters, 1984).
In addition to historical ties, the Jewish claim to the land of Israel is recognized by international law. The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British government, supported the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. This commitment was later enshrined in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 1922, which explicitly recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to the land and encouraged Jewish immigration and settlement. The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, which called for the creation of both Jewish and Arab states, further reinforced the legitimacy of Jewish claims (Sachar, 2007). However, the Arab leadership’s rejection of these international decisions and subsequent wars against Israel reveal the deeper resistance to Jewish sovereignty rather than specific territorial grievances. It also reveals the deep antisemitic beliefs that represent the Islamic faith in the Arab world.
The founding of Israel in 1948 marked not only the creation of a new state but also the culmination of a millennia-long struggle for Jewish self-determination. The context leading up to Israel’s declaration of independence was complex and fraught with international intrigue, shifting alliances, and violent conflicts. The British Mandate, which began in 1920, initially supported Jewish immigration but soon shifted its policies to restrict Jewish entry into Palestine in response to Arab violence and demands. This was a devastating blow to European Jews seeking refuge from rising antisemitism, particularly during the Holocaust (Morris, 2008).
The Holocaust, which resulted in the murder of six million Jews, underscored the urgent need for a Jewish state. For many Jews, establishing a homeland was not merely a matter of historical justice but a survival imperative. Despite international opposition and a looming existential threat from Arab neighbors, the Jewish leadership declared independence on May 14, 1948. The declaration was met with immediate invasion by five Arab armies—Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq—intent on annihilating the nascent state (Benny, 2011).
The War of Independence was not just a military conflict but a test of the resilience and resourcefulness of the Jewish people. Israel’s population at the time was around 600,000, and it was outnumbered and outgunned by the combined Arab forces. Despite these odds, Israel managed to win the war and secure its borders, though at a heavy cost, with over 6,000 casualties, representing about 1% of its population. The victory established Israel’s sovereignty and set the tone for its future ethos: survival against all odds, self-reliance, and a commitment to defending Jewish life (Shulewitz, 2001).
While the Palestinian refugee crisis is well-documented, the mass expulsion of Jews from Arab countries is often overlooked. Between 1948 and the early 1970s, around 850,000 Jews were forced to flee their homes across the Arab world, where they had lived for centuries, often predating the arrival of Islam. These Jews were dispossessed, their property seized, and their synagogues desecrated. Most of these refugees found a home in Israel, where they were absorbed into society, contributing to its growth and development. This parallel narrative of Jewish displacement is critical to understanding the broader context of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as it highlights a pattern of intolerance and refusal to accept Jewish sovereignty anywhere in the Middle East (Gilbert, 2008).
From its inception, Israel has sought peace with its neighbors despite facing existential threats. This pursuit has often required significant territorial concessions and security risks. In 1979, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, returning the entire Sinai Peninsula, which had been captured in the 1967 Six-Day War. This concession, involving 91% of the territory captured during the war, was a major step toward stabilizing relations with the largest Arab state. The Camp David Accords, mediated by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, demonstrated Israel’s willingness to trade land for peace, setting a precedent for future negotiations (Quandt, 1986).
1994, Israel signed a peace treaty with Jordan, normalizing relations and establishing security cooperation. Despite these successes, attempts to make peace with the Palestinians have been far more complex. The Oslo Accords of the 1990s were designed to create a framework for peace, with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and the transfer of governance over parts of the West Bank and Gaza. However, the accords failed to resolve core issues such as borders, refugees, and Jerusalem’s status, leading to the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, which saw a wave of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians (Ross, 2004).
Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was another bold attempt to create space for Palestinian self-governance. Israel dismantled all settlements and military infrastructure in Gaza, hoping that the Palestinians would use the territory to build a functioning society. Instead, Hamas seized control of Gaza and turned it into a launchpad for thousands of rocket attacks on Israeli cities. This development reinforced Israel’s security concerns and led to periodic military confrontations as Hamas continued to use civilian infrastructure to conduct warfare, complicating Israel’s defensive measures (Bergman, 2018).
Israel’s peace efforts have often been met with rejection, driven by a refusal to accept a Jewish state in any form. The Arab League’s “Three No’s” resolution in 1967—no peace, no recognition, no negotiation—after Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War exemplifies this stance. Even after Israel’s significant peace offers, such as Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s offer of over 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza at Camp David in 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without making a counteroffer. Instead, Arafat launched the Second Intifada, demonstrating that for many Palestinian leaders, the conflict is not about borders but about Israel’s existence itself (Benny, 2011).
The Western left’s support for the Palestinian cause often stems from a broader anti-imperialist framework. This perspective, however, overlooks the historical complexities of the conflict and the antisemitic nature of many anti-Zionist movements. The equation of Zionism with racism, which was formalized in the 1975 UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, reflects a profound misunderstanding of Jewish history and aspirations. Zionism is not a colonial project; it is a national liberation movement. The Western left’s alignment with groups like Hamas and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement often involves embracing ideologies that fundamentally contradict liberal values, such as women’s rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and freedom of speech (Hirsch, 2017).
The adoption of intersectionality in progressive circles has led to a peculiar alliance with Islamist groups that promote values antithetical to Western ideals. For instance, LGBTQ+ activists who support Palestine often overlook the fact that gay rights are not only restricted but violently oppressed under Hamas rule in Gaza. This hypocrisy reveals a broader issue within the left: a willingness to compromise core principles in favor of an anti-Israel narrative (Ben-Atar, 2014).
The term “intersectionality,” coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, was initially intended to describe the overlapping forms of oppression marginalized groups face. However, in the context of Israel, it has been co-opted to create a narrative that frames Israel as the ultimate oppressor, linking the Palestinian cause to various global struggles, including Black Lives Matter, Indigenous rights, and feminist movements. This narrative often erases the Jewish experience of oppression and delegitimizes Jewish claims to self-determination, turning Israel into a scapegoat for global ills (Cohen-Almagor, 2015).
The accusation that Israel is an apartheid state is not only false but also strategically designed to delegitimize Israel in the international arena. The term “apartheid” refers to the legal and systematic racial segregation practiced in South Africa from 1948 to 1994, where a white minority ruled over a Black majority. In contrast, Israel is a multi-ethnic democracy where Arab citizens have full political rights, can vote, hold public office, and participate in all aspects of society. The Israeli Knesset, for instance, has Arab members, and Arabs serve in various governmental and judicial roles (Halper, 2011).
The use of the apartheid label ignores the complex security realities that Israel faces, particularly in the West Bank. The separation barrier, often cited as evidence of apartheid, was constructed in response to the Second Intifada’s wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis. It is not a tool of racial segregation but a security measure that has significantly reduced attacks. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority has made it clear that no Jews would be allowed to reside in a future Palestinian state, revealing a demand for ethnic purity that is largely ignored by the international community (Weitz, 2009).
International NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have been instrumental in popularizing the apartheid accusation. Their reports often rely on selective evidence, misrepresenting Israeli laws and policies while ignoring the broader context of terrorism and incitement. These reports also fail to account for the unique status of the West Bank, which remains a disputed territory under international law, pending a negotiated settlement. By focusing exclusively on Israeli actions and overlooking Palestinian incitement and violence, these organizations contribute to a skewed understanding of the conflict, fueling global antisemitism (Reinhart, 2006).
Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict often reflects a biased narrative that portrays Israel as the aggressor and Palestinians as the perpetual victims. This bias is not just a matter of journalistic oversight; it is often the result of deliberate framing that distorts the reality of the conflict. For example, headlines frequently emphasize Israeli airstrikes without mentioning the context of Hamas’s rocket attacks on civilian areas. This creates a false moral equivalence, suggesting that Israel’s defensive actions are as blameworthy as Hamas’s deliberate targeting of civilians (Friedman, 2016).
Accusations of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” against Israel mirror medieval blood libels—false accusations that have historically incited violence against Jews. These claims are not only baseless but also dangerous, as they contribute to a climate of hostility and incitement against Jewish communities worldwide. The failure of global media to challenge these narratives has reinforced a modern form of antisemitism that frames Israel as a uniquely evil state deserving of international condemnation and isolation (Cotler, 2004).
Social media platforms have amplified biases and misinformation about Israel, creating echo chambers where extreme views thrive. Algorithms favor sensational content, making it easy for false claims and antisemitic tropes to spread rapidly. Hashtags like #FreePalestine often include content that calls for violence against Jews and Israel, blurring the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and outright antisemitism. This digital environment has become a breeding ground for a new wave of antisemitism, where ancient hatreds are repackaged for a modern audience (Wistrich, 2010).
Israel is more than just a Jewish state; it is a bulwark of Western values in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes. It upholds the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in a hostile environment. Israel’s contributions to global security, particularly in intelligence sharing and counterterrorism, have helped prevent attacks in Europe, the U.S., and beyond (Black, 2017). Israel’s technological innovations, from medical breakthroughs to cybersecurity, have made it a global leader in addressing all humanity's challenges.
Supporting Israel is not merely a geopolitical necessity; it is a moral obligation for anyone who values freedom, democracy, and human rights. Israel’s existence challenges authoritarianism and theocratic rule in the Middle East, making it a crucial ally for the West. Weakening Israel would not only embolden its enemies but also compromise the security and stability of Western nations, which depend on Israel’s intelligence and military expertise in the fight against radical Islamism (Kramer, 2016).
Israel’s strategic location and military capabilities make it a key player in global stability. It shares intelligence with Western allies, conducts joint military exercises, and provides critical insights into the activities of terror groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and ISIS. Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, developed with U.S. assistance, has not only saved countless lives but also provided a model for other nations facing similar threats. Israel’s alliances with countries like the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia through the Abraham Accords further highlight its role in reshaping the regional order, promoting peace, and countering Iranian aggression (Black, 2017).
The conflict over Israel is not just about land; it is a battle of ideologies. It is about whether the Jewish people have a right to their historic homeland, whether democratic principles can endure in a hostile region, and whether the West will uphold its ideals. Supporting Israel is not just a matter of taking sides; it is a moral commitment to truth, justice, and the very foundations of Western civilization.
Israel’s struggle is survival, resilience, and hope against overwhelming odds. To support Israel is to support the core principles of Western civilization: truth over lies, freedom over tyranny, and the right of a people to live in peace in their ancestral homeland. It is a stand for what is right, not only for Israel but for the survival of free societies globally.
Tim Orr is a scholar, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, the University of Tehran, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.