There is a strange quiet that begins to settle over a house when the last child prepares to leave.

It is not only the absence of footsteps or the sound of a door closing. It is the silence between breaths, the space where noise once lived. Where life pressed in close and loud and demanding.

This is a moment many of us anticipate, yet we are never ready for it. The home becomes something different. Not empty, but changed. Not abandoned, but paused. The nest remains, but the wings we nurtured are ready to rise.

For Jewish parents, this carries a particular weight. Ours is a tradition of transmission, generation to generation, dor l’dor. We are not simply raising children. We are shaping continuity. The words we speak, the values we model, the stories we tell, they are not only for now. They are for tomorrow. They are forever.

The Torah tells us: “V’shinantam l’vanecha,” you shall teach them diligently to your children. Not casually. Not occasionally. Diligently.

And so we teach. We teach them how to light candles. How to ask questions. How to wrestle with faith and act with compassion. We teach them when to stand up and when to sit beside someone who is hurting. We teach them who we are and why that matters.

But no one tells us how to stop teaching.

No one tells us what to do with our hands when they are no longer packing lunches or signing permission slips or soothing middle-of-the-night fears. No one tells us how to live with the ache of sending them into a world we cannot shield them against. No one tells us that diligence also means knowing when to step back and let them become.

And that, too, is holy.

Jewish time is not linear. It moves in spirals and seasons, Shabbat to Shabbat, festival to festival, generation to generation. We mark the new moon, the harvest, the end of mourning, the turning of the year. We sanctify beginnings and we sanctify endings, not with fanfare but with intention.

Our tradition does not always name life’s quieter thresholds. There is no prescribed blessing for packing the last box or closing a bedroom door. But if we were to write one, perhaps it would begin like this:

Blessed are You, Source of Becoming, who gives us the strength to release what we have held with love.

This liminal moment is not only emotional. It is spiritual.

It is Havdalah in its purest form, the drawing of a line between what was and what will be. We hold up the flame and see the shadows dance. We breathe in the sweetness of what is left. We feel the sting of smoke in our eyes. And then, we cross over.

In this way, letting go becomes a sacred act.

Not a resignation. Not an absence. A blessing in motion. A recognition that love does not cling, it builds wings. That teaching them diligently also means trusting them deeply.

And so they go, into dorm rooms and distant cities, into friendships we will never fully know and decisions we will never get to witness. They go with a suitcase and a phone charger and perhaps a small box of homemade cookies, but they also go with more than they can name.

They carry the sound of our voices in their minds, even the ones they once met with a sigh. They carry the way we looked at them when we thought they were not watching. They carry the rhythms of our homes, the words we whispered before bed, the stories told at the table, the way we said “be careful” when we meant “be brave.”

They carry a thousand invisible things: the unspoken expectations, the accidental teachings, the quiet blessings we slipped into their bags when they were not looking.

And we, those who remain, carry something as well.

We carry the echo of laughter down a hallway now still. We carry the ache of words left unsaid, the joy of things done right, the surprise of missing even the messes we once scolded. We carry the hope that everything we tried to teach, about kindness, about truth, about being proudly and joyfully Jewish, will rise in them like sunlight when they need it most.

That is the paradox: they leave home, yet if we have done it right, they carry home with them.

There is no ceremony for this. No chuppah, no yahrzeit candle, no Kiddush cup to raise. But still, it is a moment worth marking. Not only because something is ending, but because something enduring has already been planted.

And perhaps that is the truest measure of parenthood, not what we hold on to, but what we leave behind in them.

Jewish tradition calls to us: Zachor, remember. Shamor, guard. Hineni, I am here. These are not only words from scripture. They are words we have whispered for years. And now, as the moment draws near, we offer them again, from a growing distance. Quietly. Steadily. Faithfully.

Wherever you go, remember who you are.

Wherever you are, guard what matters.

And when you need us, know, we are still here.

And yes, we prepare to send them into a world that feels more uncertain than it should. We prepare to send them as Jews, to campuses and communities where Jewish identity is too often misunderstood, questioned, or maligned. We know they may be asked to explain or defend what they love.

But we do not prepare in fear.

We prepare with pride. With history. With a quiet, unshakable strength.

We ready them to carry generations forward, and we pray the world will see the light they bring, not the labels others try to place upon them.

May your steps be steady, even when the road is not.

May your voice be sure, even when it trembles.

May you walk as a Jew in the full light of day, unafraid of being seen.

And may you always find your way home.

Then we breathe. We bless. We hold the moment.

And in the sacred quiet before departure, we listen for the sound of wings.

The obvious response is to ask what Jewish institutions can do to bring them back. I think that’s the wrong question, or at least it’s several questions too late. Buried in the same study is a finding that complicates the headline: most of these young Jews haven’t stopped being Jewish. Seventy-five percent regularly do something Jewish. Forty-five percent practice Judaism informally, often with family or friends. Fifty-five percent find Jewish connection through family and 44 percent through Jewish friends. Only 19 percent say they find it through Jewish organizations.

These aren’t necessarily Jews walking away from Judaism. They’re Jews walking away from us. Before we decide how to get them back, we ought to ask why some of them came to believe they had to leave in the first place.

I spent years as a rabbi inside the institutional Jewish world. I was part of the generation doing the teaching, so I don’t get to examine this entirely from the outside. I think back to how much energy we put into making sure young Jews understood why Israel mattered. We wanted them to understand Jewish vulnerability, the necessity of a Jewish homeland and the extraordinary achievement of building a state after centuries of exile and persecution. I believed in the importance of creating that attachment. I still do.

I have a harder time remembering how often we asked them to look at the same history from the other side. How much time did we spend on what 1948 meant to a Palestinian family that lost its home, or what Israeli military rule felt like to someone growing up in the West Bank? I don’t remember anyone sitting around deciding that young Jews shouldn’t know these things. They simply weren’t central to the story we thought we were responsible for teaching.

Our intentions weren’t sinister. American Jewish institutions were terrified of losing young Jews, and we had reason to be. Jewish literacy was declining. Synagogue affiliation was weakening. Intermarriage was rising. Israel, meanwhile, could still make Jews feel something. Take a teenager to Masada at sunrise or the Kotel on Friday night. Stand at Yad Vashem and then walk through Jerusalem. The history was real and the feelings were real.

I think we made a mistake in what we imagined attachment required. We worried, consciously or not, that if we complicated Israel before young Jews loved it, they might never love it at all. So the harder parts of the story often came later, if they came at all.

That doesn’t mean an entire generation received propaganda. Many excellent Jewish educators taught Israel with seriousness and complexity, and this study doesn’t establish that inadequate Israel education is why young Jews are disengaging today. Political polarization, distrust of institutions and the war in Gaza all matter. So do the intellectual environments in which many young Jews have come of age. On some campuses and in parts of the progressive world, Israel and Palestine are increasingly interpreted through frameworks of oppression, privilege, colonialism and indigeneity. Applied too rigidly, those frameworks can flatten history just as surely as the uncomplicated Zionist story we sometimes taught. Some young Jews received excellent Jewish educations and simply reached conclusions their teachers don’t share. I do think, however, that the way many of us taught Israel left others poorly prepared to interrogate the new frameworks they encountered.

Israel really was an extraordinary historical achievement. It absorbed desperate refugees and faced enemies committed to its destruction. Palestinian terrorism killed Israeli civilians and reshaped Israeli politics. Jewish sovereignty changed the condition of the Jewish people after two thousand years of powerlessness. Young Jews should know that history.

They also need to understand the Palestinian experience of 1948, including the displacement and dispossession that came to be remembered as the Nakba, and what decades of Israeli control over Palestinians in the West Bank have meant for the people living there. Acknowledging Palestinian suffering doesn’t settle the argument about Zionism. It is simply part of the history of a country whose story we were asking them to embrace.

When someone encounters those things for the first time somewhere else, what stays with her may be a question she never expected to ask: Why didn’t I learn this from you? A person can decide that a teacher’s interpretation was wrong and still trust the teacher. That becomes harder when she suspects inconvenient facts were kept outside the classroom. The competing narrative can then acquire credibility partly because it feels like forbidden knowledge.

Of course, that narrative has omissions of its own. A young Jew who received an overly tidy Jewish account of Israel can end up embracing an equally tidy anti-Zionist one, where Jewish attachment to the land becomes a colonial invention, Arab rejectionism becomes incidental, Jewish refugees from Arab countries barely register, and terrorism disappears into the abstraction of “resistance.” If we’re asking young Jews to question the history they learned from us, they should bring the same skepticism to the history offered in its place.

That is why simply exposing young Jews to more criticism of Israel isn’t enough. They need enough history to recognize simplification wherever they encounter it. When Jewish institutions realized young Jews were struggling to answer accusations against Israel, we built programs to help. We taught students about Zionism and supplied responses to charges of apartheid and settler colonialism. Some of that was and remains necessary. There are lies about Israel that deserve answers, and there is antisemitism hiding behind political language. The trouble comes when a difficult question receives serious attention only after we need to teach someone how to rebut it.

October 7 exposed how badly we need something better. Jews watched Israelis slaughtered in their homes, young people hunted at a music festival and families taken hostage. They watched people celebrate before Israel had even begun its military response. For many Jews, old fears about vulnerability suddenly seemed terribly current.

Then came Gaza. Young Jews saw dead children, destroyed neighborhoods, displaced families and suffering they could not simply file under “Israel defending itself.” Jewish institutions were themselves traumatized by October 7 and the antisemitism that followed, and some had little patience for Jews questioning Israel in that moment. At the same time, some young Jews horrified by Gaza struggled to understand how other Jews could remain so fiercely attached to Israel. Those reactions came from very different places, but neither leaves much room for the difficult conversation we need.

Jewish institutions don’t have to become politically neutral spaces where every idea about Israel is treated as equally legitimate. Jewish organizations are allowed to stand for things. A synagogue can believe Jewish sovereignty is necessary and call itself Zionist. Antisemitism doesn’t stop being antisemitism when a Jew says it. There must nevertheless be room for a young Jew questioning Zionism to enter a Jewish institution without the question itself placing him outside the Jewish people.

That kind of room requires something from everyone in it. A young Jew who hears “Zionist” used as a synonym for racist, or who encounters an account in which every Israeli action confirms a theory already settled in advance, should be as suspicious of that certainty as he is of ours. Taking Palestinian suffering seriously doesn’t require treating Jewish history or Jewish fear as an inconvenience.

There will also be times when someone feels unwelcome in a Jewish space because the institution really has failed to make room for serious disagreement. There will be other times when what happened was simply an argument, perhaps an unpleasant one. We aren’t doing young Jews any favors if we pretend those experiences are identical.

There is also a problem beneath all of this that has less to do with Israel than we might like to admit. For decades, Israel became one of American Judaism’s most effective tools for creating Jewish identity. It was immediate in ways theology often wasn’t. You didn’t need much Hebrew or Jewish literacy to stand at the Kotel and feel connected to something older than yourself.

No country can safely bear that much weight. If Israel is doing too much of the work of making someone Jewish, a moral crisis involving Israel can become a crisis of Jewish identity as well.

Maybe we gave young Jews too little Judaism to absorb the shock.

A Jewish identity capable of surviving profound disagreement with Israel requires more than affection for Israel. It requires some understanding of Jewish history, texts, language, ritual and peoplehood. There has to be enough underneath the political argument that anger at an Israeli government doesn’t threaten one’s connection to the Jewish people. The same Judaism should be spacious enough for someone who believes deeply in the necessity of Zionism and grieves Palestinian suffering. The difficult part is what happens when those Jews have to remain in community with one another.

We already possess a tradition built around that difficulty. Open a page of Talmud and the losing arguments are still there. Decisions were made and boundaries existed, but losing the argument did not mean being erased from the page.

I sometimes wonder how we became more comfortable with Jews doubting God than with Jews doubting Zionism. Our synagogues contain people who reject the theology their prayer books assume and ignore religious obligations their rabbis consider important. They remain part of the community. Yet Israel can produce a different kind of test, one in which political conviction starts to determine whether someone feels entitled to a place in the room.

I don’t want Jewish education to produce young Jews who know less about Israel so they can feel more comfortable criticizing it. I want them to know enough that no one can easily sell them a sanitized version of Israel, including us. That means understanding why Jews desperately needed sovereignty while also learning about the Palestinian displacement and dispossession of 1948. It means learning why Israelis feared getting onto buses during the Second Intifada and what checkpoints mean to Palestinians who pass through them. It means facing October 7 without euphemism and Gaza without looking away.

Then we should ask what all of this requires of them as Jews and be prepared for answers we don’t like. We should argue when we think they’re wrong and listen when they tell us the same. Some will reach conclusions I dislike. I can live with that more easily than with a generation concluding that Jewish life offers no place where those questions can receive serious consideration.

The finding in this study that troubles me most isn’t that some young Jews disagree with Jewish institutions about Israel. Jews disagreeing is hardly a new development. What troubles me is that some apparently believe the only way to live honestly with that disagreement is to withdraw from Jewish communal life. Sometimes the institution deserves the blame. Sometimes the young person may. I suspect there are plenty of cases where neither side quite knows how the conversation went so wrong.

A Jewish community shouldn’t promise that every belief will be affirmed. It should be a place where serious questions can be asked without threatening the questioner’s membership in the family. We can argue about Israel, Zionism, Gaza, occupation, security and what Jewish power is supposed to mean. Those arguments matter.

But when the argument is over, there should still be a chair for both of us at the table.

We spent a generation teaching young Jews how to defend Israel. We should have spent more time teaching them why Israel was worth the argument.

This is the same prime minister under whom Israel shattered much of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and hunted down the men who ran Hamas. In 2026 he struck Iran’s nuclear and missile programs twice, working alongside the United States both times. Israel demonstrated that it could reach its enemies almost anywhere in the region. Yet its government could not sustain a domestic consensus around the considerably simpler proposition that Israeli citizens should share the burden of defending the country.

Netanyahu made Israel harder to defeat and easier to abandon.

Whoever governs after him inherits both sides of that sentence. An election can decide who holds the office. It cannot erase what has accumulated underneath it, and a good deal of the strategic architecture of the Netanyahu era was personal, built around Netanyahu’s relationships, instincts and willingness to take risks. It does not transfer automatically to a successor.

The case for what he accomplished is real and deserves to be stated at full strength. Hezbollah’s rocket and missile arsenal has been reduced dramatically. Much of its senior command, including the men who built its war-fighting doctrine over decades, is dead. Hamas’s leadership has been hunted down one name at a time. Iran has been struck repeatedly, its air defenses penetrated, its missile infrastructure badly damaged, and nuclear scientists killed inside the country.

Whatever else can be said about Netanyahu, the regional balance his successor inherits is different from the one that existed on October 6, 2023. Israeli intelligence and deterrence suffered a catastrophic failure the following day. What came afterward demonstrated something else: Israel retained the capacity to recover, penetrate its enemies and project force across the region, at a scale few had predicted.

But that is not the same as resolving the threats.

Iran’s regime is still standing. Large quantities of its highly enriched uranium are believed to have survived, and the IAEA still cannot fully account for the stockpile. Iran retains ballistic missiles and drones. Hamas and Hezbollah still exist as organizations. Both are badly diminished, but neither has disappeared, and both will try to rebuild wherever circumstances permit.

Netanyahu promised total victory. He delivered something less final but still considerable: the destruction of large parts of the military architecture that had surrounded Israel for decades.

There is an argument that this was the bargain Israel had to make. No Israeli prime minister could have dismantled Hezbollah’s command structure, severely degraded Hamas’s military and governing capacity, and struck Iran itself without paying an enormous political price. A long war meant terrible images from Gaza. Those images meant isolation. And among parts of the American left, support for Israel may have been headed downward regardless of who sat in the prime minister’s office.

If that is true, Netanyahu did not create the tradeoff. He chose which side of it mattered more.

That possibility should not be dismissed. Faced with a choice between preserving Israel’s standing among American Democrats and destroying military capabilities that could kill Israelis, a prime minister is supposed to choose Israeli lives.

The problem is that this does not explain all of what happened.

In March 2026, Pew found that eighty percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents held an unfavorable view of Israel. In 2022, the number was fifty-three percent. Quinnipiac has tracked a different question since 2017, asking whether the United States is too supportive of Israel. Twenty percent of Democrats said yes then. Sixty-six percent say so now.

On July 15, a Republican-authored amendment to strip $3.3 billion in Israel security assistance from the annual appropriations bill failed 104 to 314. But 103 House Democrats, nearly half the caucus, voted for it anyway, crossing party lines to cut a Republican’s amendment loose against their own leadership’s wishes. Netanyahu himself is deeply unpopular with the American public.

Not all of that belongs to him. The war belongs to the war. American politics has been changing independently of Israel. Younger voters encounter Israel differently from their parents. The Democratic coalition has changed. October 7, the Palestinian death toll, Donald Trump, social media and Netanyahu’s increasingly partisan relationship with American politics all matter.

The honest question is how much of the damage was an unavoidable cost of defending Israel, and how much was an avoidable cost of the way he chose to do it. He didn’t cause all of it. The answer will not be visible for years.

What we do know is that his successor cannot assume a change of prime minister will make the numbers snap back. A government without the far right might create more room for regional diplomacy. A new prime minister could repair relationships with Democrats that Netanyahu allowed to atrophy. But political attitudes that have moved this far will require more than a different Israeli face on American television.

That matters because Israel’s enemies do not have to defeat the IDF to benefit from time.

Hezbollah is the clearest example. It lost most of its senior leadership and thousands of fighters, yet the organization survived. Whatever direction it now takes, there is an uncomfortable possibility in that survival: an enemy that cannot defeat Israel today may decide that surviving Israel is enough. Governments change. Alliances change. Public opinion changes. Military capabilities can be rebuilt.

Israel therefore has to turn battlefield advantage into something that lasts longer than the battlefield, and here the crisis at home begins to look less like a separate story.

For years Israel has asked reservists to leave their jobs, businesses, spouses and children and return to military service, sometimes repeatedly. Some have now accumulated hundreds of days in uniform since October 7. The burden is concentrated on a relatively small share of the population. At the same time, Netanyahu’s government has depended for its survival on parties demanding that the ultra-Orthodox population remain largely exempt from that same obligation.

There is no missile-defense system for that problem.

Israel can penetrate Iranian airspace. It can find a Hezbollah commander underground in Beirut. It can strike a nuclear facility hundreds of miles away. Yet its political system struggles to tell thousands of its own citizens that defending the country is also their responsibility.

That is how you arrive at the July 14 vote.

Netanyahu did not invent this arrangement. Israel’s fight over ultra-Orthodox service predates him, and whoever replaces him will face the same coalition constraints. As of this month, Netanyahu’s coalition is polling between forty-eight and fifty-three seats depending on the survey, still short of the sixty-one required to govern, and the opposition bloc has not cleared that threshold either. Former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party has run neck and neck with Likud itself for weeks, sometimes tied, making him the clearest alternative on the ballot alongside Naftali Bennett. Either one would likely mean less leverage for Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, whose parties have been essential to keeping Netanyahu’s coalition alive since 2022, and more room for regional diplomacy. The underlying arithmetic of needing one bloc or the other to reach sixty-one would still be there.

Which is why the real inheritance is unfinished conversion.

Israel has accumulated military power it did not have on October 6, 2023. It has shown enemies who once believed they could surround it with missiles and proxies that their leaders, infrastructure and even territory are vulnerable. That changes calculations in Beirut and Tehran.

What Netanyahu has not demonstrated is that those victories can be converted into a political order durable enough that Israel does not have to keep winning them.

That is the work waiting for whoever comes next. Turning damage to Iran and its proxies into deterrence that holds without another war to prove it. Rebuilding a relationship with American Democrats so that Israel’s security does not depend on one American party staying in power. Repairing the fight over who actually serves, in which extraordinary sacrifice is demanded of some Israelis while others are permitted to opt out entirely.

Those problems are harder than destroying a missile launcher. They cannot be solved by an F-35.

Netanyahu’s successor will inherit a country capable of striking almost anyone who threatens it. He will also inherit a country still divided over who serves it, and an American alliance whose political foundation is becoming increasingly partisan.

Maybe those were unavoidable costs of the victories Netanyahu believed Israel needed. Maybe some were not. His successor will not have the luxury of treating that as a historical argument.

He will have to find out. That is the arithmetic Netanyahu leaves behind.

The election determines who sits at the desk. The numbers will already be there.

He was not being defiant. He was being accurate.

By February 2025, senior Hamas officials were describing October 7 publicly as a “historic success.” By September 2025, another Hamas official told CNN the attack had created a “golden moment” for the Palestinian cause. These were not the claims of an organization in denial about what the war had cost Gaza. They were the assessments of an organization that had run a specific calculation before the attack and was watching that calculation prove correct.

The calculation was not military. Hamas knew the IDF would respond. They knew Gaza would be devastated. They knew their own leadership would be hunted and killed. They planned the attack anyway because they were not running a military calculation. They were running an institutional one.

A document Sinwar wrote by hand in August 2022, more than a year before the attack, captures the calculation precisely. He predicted Israel would be “surprised by the attack and enter into chaos” before responding with “the means and weapons at its disposal.” He added: “It is possible that it will even use a nuclear bomb.” He proceeded with the plan. The military risk, up to and including nuclear annihilation, was a price he had already decided to pay. The bet he was making was not military. It was institutional.

They had studied Western progressive institutions, their ideological architecture, their frameworks, their reflexes, and they concluded that those institutions would convert Jewish death into Israeli guilt, that the human rights infrastructure would perform against Israel on schedule, and that the aftermath would damage Israel more than the attack damaged Hamas.

They were right about all of it. Nearly three years later that is not argument. It is record.

The framework that activated within hours of October 7 did not arrive by accident. It was installed.

In 1978, Edward Said’s Orientalism gave the project its theoretical foundation. Said’s argument had genuine force. It also had a specific intended application, one he pursued explicitly in his parallel work as a political advocate: to embed the Palestinian cause within the emerging academic language of postcolonial theory, which was gaining institutional purchase in universities across the United States and Britain. The application to Israel was not incidental to the framework. It was the purpose.

From that foundation, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, formalized in 2005, built the institutional campaign. BDS was not merely an economic boycott. It was an explicit effort to install a specific reading of Israel, as settler-colonial apartheid state, into the organizations that would matter: universities, student governments, trade unions, professional associations, NGOs. Its architects understood that winning the argument in academic departments was the prerequisite to winning it in the streets.

By 2023, the installation was largely complete. The vocabulary, settler, colonizer, apartheid, resistance, indigenous, occupied, had been normalized in exactly the institutions that activated within hours of October 7. The pathway from Said’s academic argument to the Harvard statement is not a straight line. It is a line. This is not conspiracy. It is documented history, with identifiable architects and traceable funding.

The project did not stop at universities and NGOs. It moved into electoral politics. The Democratic Socialists of America, which formally endorsed BDS in 2017, spent the years since October 7 hardening that commitment into ideological law. At its 2025 national convention in Chicago, DSA passed Resolution 22, “For a Fighting Anti-Zionist DSA,” making support for Israel’s right to self-defense a formal expellable offense within the organization. The vote was 675 to 524. The politician most responsible for DSA’s national electoral relevance, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had her endorsement withdrawn in 2024 for declining to meet the organization’s conditions on BDS. She had become a disciplinary case. DSA now counts over 120,000 dues-paying members and more than 250 elected officials across 40 states. Its endorsed candidate Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoralty in 2025 on an explicitly anti-Zionist platform. The framework Said built in the academy, BDS institutionalized in NGOs, is now running for office. It is winning.

Hamas watched this project unfold over decades. They did not build the framework. They read it the way a military planner reads terrain: as fixed infrastructure to be accounted for, planned around, and ultimately used. They needed only to know it was there.

Hamas knew Israel would respond militarily to a massacre of its civilians. They knew Palestinian civilian casualties would follow. They planned for it. The tunnels beneath hospitals, the weapons stored in schools, the command infrastructure embedded in civilian residential areas: these were not concealment failures or the improvised choices of a desperate organization. They were deliberate positioning, designed to ensure that Israeli military action, however precise, would produce images that the pre-installed framework would process as Israeli atrocity. The calculation was not that Hamas would avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. It was that Palestinian civilian casualties were the mechanism. The suffering of Palestinian civilians was not the cost of the operation. It was the operation.

Subscribe now

They also understood, because the record demonstrated across decades of previous attacks, that Jewish suffering occupies a specific position within Western progressive institutions. It is the one form of suffering for which context is always immediately and automatically available. There is always a “but.” There is always a history. There is always a framework within which the murdered can be explained as consequences rather than victims. Rockets fired at Israeli civilians became responses to occupation. Suicide bombings became products of desperation. The pattern had held after every previous Hamas attack, at progressively larger scales. Hamas concluded it would hold at the scale of October 7. The Nova festival. Kibbutz Be’eri. The families murdered in their beds. All of it would be explained within a narrative in which the murdered bore some structural responsibility for their own deaths.

What about the human rights infrastructure? It had been rehearsing for years. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Territories had already addressed a conference of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders and told them they had the right to resist occupation. She had described the United States as subjugated by the Jewish lobby. She held her position. The International Criminal Court had been building toward Israeli prosecutions years before October 7. The UN Human Rights Council had more standing agenda items on Israel than on every other country on earth combined. Hamas read the institutional record and concluded the machinery would fire on schedule.

And progressive movements with no shared values would march anyway. Hamas governs a territory where LGBTQ people are imprisoned or killed, where women have no legal equality, where political opposition is crushed, where free speech does not exist. The progressives who would march for Hamas the day after October 7 would be executed for their identities in any territory Hamas controls. Hamas understood this and found it strategically irrelevant. What mattered was immediate political cover while the bodies were still warm.

This was not a hope. It was a calculation. And every point of it was correct.

The proof arrived on schedule.

On October 7, within hours of the attack, 34 student organizations at Harvard University, including the Amnesty International affiliate, signed the statement. Israel entirely responsible. Apartheid regime. The only one to blame. No condemnation of Hamas. No acknowledgment of the hostages. No mention of the 1,200 murdered civilians. Before the bodies were counted.

On October 10, BLM Chicago celebrated the paragliders. The weapon used to murder 260 people at a music festival became a symbol of resistance on the social media account of America’s most prominent racial justice organization. Their subsequent statement was not an apology. “We stand with Palestine and the people who will do what they must to live free.” The people who will do what they must had filmed themselves raping women in a field.

Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Territories, responded to Macron’s description of October 7 as the largest antisemitic massacre of the century with a single post: “The victims of October 7 were not killed because of their Judaism, but in response to Israeli oppression.” The UN’s appointed human rights monitor decided, in a sentence, that 1,200 murdered Jews were not victims of antisemitism but consequences of Israeli policy. At a UN press conference in September 2025, she claimed the real death toll in Gaza was 680,000, including 380,000 infants under the age of five. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics records only 341,790 children under five living in the Gaza Strip in total. When this was pointed out, Albanese admitted she had used the figures deliberately, saying she mentioned them “in a provocative way” because it “had the effect I wanted.” The UN’s appointed human rights monitor fabricated statistics by her own admission. She was not fired. Not censured. Confirmed for a second term. She later compared her treatment by American sanctions to that of Osama bin Laden. The institution that appointed her, and keeps her, is the institution Hamas read as a signal.

Amnesty International took more than two years to produce its first report on Hamas’s crimes on October 7. When it arrived, in December 2025, it found that Hamas had committed crimes against humanity. It also found, after two years and 70 interviews, documented evidence of sexual violence, the same sexual violence the organization had declined to confirm in the immediate aftermath. What the report did not find was a reason to release it sooner. Former members of Amnesty’s own Israeli chapter later revealed the report had been withheld over concerns about its “perception.” The organization that condemned Israel within days suppressed its own members’ findings about Hamas for perception management reasons, while listing Israel’s actions in Gaza alongside Russia’s crimes against humanity in Ukraine as among the defining atrocities of 2025. The same organization whose Harvard affiliate signed the statement within hours of the massacre needed 795 days to say Hamas committed crimes against humanity. Hamas had read that organization correctly too.

Hamas had not hoped for this. They had planned for it. The difference matters.

The framework failed. That is what people say. It was captured, corrupted, hijacked by forces hostile to its founding values. Fix the institutions, reclaim the movement, and it will work as designed.

It was working as designed.

That is the argument nobody wants to make and the only one that explains what happened.

The decolonization framework, as it has been applied in Western progressive institutions for four decades, was never universal. It was always a sorting mechanism. It divided the world into colonizers and colonized, oppressors and oppressed, settlers and indigenous peoples, and assigned moral weight based on the category rather than the act. Within that system, Jews have a fixed position. They are not a people who can be colonized. They cannot be indigenous, despite representing the oldest continuously documented indigenous presence in the land the framework disputes. They are, within the framework’s internal logic, always already the oppressor, whatever the context, whatever the history, whatever is actually happening on the ground.

This is not a bug in the architecture. It is the architecture.

Jewish suffering cannot be absorbed without the whole structure collapsing, because Jewish suffering under Arab nationalism, under Soviet antisemitism, under European fascism, does not fit the assigned categories. The Jews expelled from Iraq and Egypt and Libya, nearly a million people, cannot be indigenous refugees within a system that assigns them permanent colonizer status. The Jews murdered at the Nova festival cannot be victims of racial hatred within a project that defines their people as the racial oppressor. So it excludes them. Jews are European when the argument requires them to be European. They are colonizers when the argument requires them to be colonizers. These conclusions are not the product of capture or corruption. They are what the categories were built to produce.

What this means for the people inside the progressive movement who believe the framework can be reclaimed for Jewish safety is this: they are misdiagnosing the problem. The question is not how to make the decolonization framework work for Jews. The question is whether a framework that structurally excludes an entire people from the category of the protectable deserves the institutional authority it has been granted.

Hamas answered that question operationally. They concluded the exclusion was structural rather than correctable, that no reclamation project would change what the framework was built to do. They were right. On October 7 the framework did not break under pressure. It sorted. It placed actors into categories, assigned moral weight by category rather than act, and produced its intended output: Jewish victims assigned to the category of the unprotectable.

The framework didn’t break under pressure. It held. That is the problem.

Nearly three years after October 7, Hamas’s calculation has been validated not just in the immediate aftermath but in the full arc of what followed.

The ceasefire took effect in October 2025. Hamas survived. They are re-emerging in parts of Gaza from which the IDF has withdrawn. And the Western institutions whose response Hamas had predicted with operational precision are now constructing the peace.

In September 2025, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, and Portugal formally recognized Palestinian statehood, joining more than 145 nations in doing so without requiring Hamas disarmament as a precondition. Israel’s government stated plainly that recognition without disarmament rewards Hamas. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said recognition “in no way” legitimizes or rewards terrorism. France’s Emmanuel Macron called it necessary to establish sustainable peace. The same framework that processed Jewish death as Israeli guilt in October 2023 is now processing Hamas’s survival as a basis for diplomatic progress. The categories did not change. The application did.

This is what Hamas understood that almost no one in the West was willing to say. The framework was not going to hold them accountable. It was going to rehabilitate them. The institutions that activated within hours to condemn Israel were the same institutions that would eventually sit across tables discussing Palestinian statehood, reconstruction funding, and governance arrangements that include or implicitly legitimize the organization that murdered 1,200 people and held 251 hostage for 738 days. Not because those institutions love Hamas. Because the framework produces this outcome. The sorting mechanism that places Jews in the category of the unprotectable places Hamas in the category of the resistance. Resistance gets rehabilitated. That is not a policy failure. It is the policy.

Haniyeh said time was on their side. Nearly three years later, the countries that condemned Israel within days of the massacre are recognizing Palestinian statehood without conditions. The framework is not receding. It is advancing.

There is a lesson in this that is older than October 7 and older than the decolonization framework and older than the State of Israel. It is the lesson that Jewish history has delivered in every century, in different languages, through different mechanisms, with different perpetrators. There is no international architecture, no human rights framework, no progressive coalition that will reliably protect Jewish lives when protecting Jewish lives conflicts with the ideological commitments of the people running those institutions.

What it demands is clarity about where protection actually comes from and what it actually requires.

The people who believe the decolonization framework can be reclaimed, that the right conversations and the right pressure and the right solidarity work can make it function for Jewish safety, are not wrong because they lack good intentions. They are wrong because they are attempting to fix something that is not broken. The framework is doing what it was built to do. It sorts. It assigns. The people it was designed to protect are being protected. The people it was designed to exclude are being excluded. Changing the people inside the institutions does not change the architecture of the institutions. And the architecture, as Hamas correctly identified, does not have a place for Jews in the category of the protectable.

The question October 7 poses to every Jewish institution, every Jewish community, every Jew who has organized their political life around the belief that progressive alliances provide meaningful protection, is not rhetorical. It is direct. If an Islamist terror organization in Gaza understood the ideological infrastructure of Western progressivism with sufficient precision to use it as a military asset, what does that tell you about the infrastructure? And what does it tell you about the cost of continuing to trust institutions that have demonstrated, with precision, exactly what they will do when Jewish lives are the ones at stake?

Hamas planned the attack. The institutions planned the response. Only one of them knew what the other was going to do.

This is Neturei Karta, and the photograph is not an aberration in their history. It is the history, repeated with a rotating cast of sponsors for two decades, and it keeps working because almost nobody watching stops to ask what they are actually looking at: a hundred people in costume, standing in for an entire people, next to whoever currently needs proof that the world’s most hated minority hates itself too.

The math alone should end most conversations before they start. Neturei Karta’s active wing, the people who actually show up to rallies and photo lines rather than simply withdrawing from Zionist institutions, numbers under a hundred by the Anti-Defamation League’s own count. Set that against a global Jewish population of 15.8 million, and against a 2025 survey in which seventy-six percent of American Jews said Israel’s existence is vital to the Jewish future, and the group presenting itself as authentic Judaism represents, by any honest accounting, a rounding error with a wardrobe. That has never once made the cameras hesitate.

The pattern has a start date. Earlier that year, spokesman Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss appeared on Iranian state television to voice support for Ahmadinejad’s call to erase Israel from the map. Then came the Holocaust denial conference itself. In 2009, a delegation traveled into Gaza to meet Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, mid-blockade, and offered him their solidarity. In 2017, they were back in Tehran, this time in the room while Ayatollah Khamenei called Israel a cancerous tumor and a dirty chapter in history, one more head of state getting his Jewish props for the day. Each of these required an invitation and a plane ticket. Nobody forced a hundred Hasidic-dressed Jews onto a stage with the regimes most explicit on earth about wanting Jews gone. They asked to be there, and they kept being asked back, because the trade worked for everyone at the table except the sixteen million people whose voice it claimed to be.

Then came the costume’s biggest catch, and it required no regime at all. In May of 2025, Humans of New York, a page with nearly thirty million followers across its platforms, more than three times the population of the city it covers, ran a photograph of Neturei Karta members alongside a quote accusing Israel of killing masses of children. No disclosure that the group speaks for something closer to a hundred people than a community. No mention of Tehran, or Gaza, or the hand that had been kissed. The quote itself came pre-armored, warning readers that anyone who objected to it would be labeled a self-hating Jew or an antisemite, deploying the accusation as a shield while the group did the exact thing the accusation describes. He also said he was speaking for “the masses of Jewish people worldwide” embarrassed by what was being done in their name. He was speaking for himself and roughly ninety-nine other people. Jewish commenters erupted immediately. Harbinger’s Daily reported one widely shared reaction calling it tokenization dressed as journalism, and outlets from the Forward to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency ran pieces within days on the backlash. It was real. It also arrived after thirty million people had already scrolled past the photograph, which is the only number that ever mattered to the men in it. No Iranian president was needed this time. An algorithm and a hundred years of nobody checking did the same job for free.

This July, in Manhattan, at a rally over a stabbing outside a synagogue, Rabbi Weiss was on camera again, explaining to a reporter that the attack was really about what Zionists are doing. Nineteen years after Tehran. Same spokesman, same sentence structure, a different city and a different sponsor, in this case not a foreign president but an American news cycle that will take whatever caveat it’s handed.

It would be easy to file all of this under Jewish dissent. That’s the mistake twenty years of this conduct has been counting on, because the tradition already contains a much larger group that shares Neturei Karta’s actual theology and has said, on the record and recently, that it wants nothing to do with this conduct. Satmar holds essentially the same position: no Jewish state before the Messiah, the modern State of Israel as a rebellion rather than a redemption. Satmar is also many times Neturei Karta’s size, and in 2023, its Rebbe, Zalman Leib Teitelbaum, condemned Neturei Karta by name after their members marched alongside Hamas supporters, calling it “a terrible desecration of God’s name to support murderers in the name of the holy Torah,” and describing them walking “in broad daylight with the shtreimel and the gown” beside people who openly cheer for killing. The belief was never the offense. Satmar proves that, on the record, in the same year Neturei Karta was doing the thing being condemned. The offense is a specific, repeated, twenty-year pattern of choosing to stand beside the most extreme available antisemite, every single time a choice presented itself.

Understanding why the arrangement keeps working matters more than cataloging that it does. The costume succeeds because almost everyone watching has no other way to verify it. A black hat and a beard read, to an audience that has met exactly zero actual Jews, as more authentic than any statistic could ever be. A photograph settles a question in the viewer’s mind before a poll number gets anywhere near the room to compete with it. An editor being careless once wouldn’t explain how consistently this works. What explains it is a mechanism firing on schedule, because visual proof of internal Jewish dissent will always outperform sociological consensus in a culture that trusts its eyes over its research.

None of this is really a story about a hundred people in Jerusalem and Brooklyn. It’s a story about every outlet with the means to make one phone call before running a photograph, and choosing not to, because the image works better unverified. Confirming a group’s actual size and whether it speaks for the community it claims to represent is not investigative journalism. It’s the baseline editorial practice any outlet is supposed to apply before running a quote: confirm who’s speaking and how many people they actually represent. That step was skipped entirely here. A newsroom that skips it doesn’t get to say its hands are clean.

The next photograph is already scheduled. It arrives on a rotation this predictable, has for twenty years, and will again before this piece is a year old. When it does, skip the outrage. This has already learned to absorb it and turn it into fuel. What matters is arithmetic, said plainly, before the picture finishes doing its work: a hundred people are not a verdict on sixteen million. Neturei Karta means guardians of the city, a name lifted from a story about rabbis who inspected a town, watched its armed guard march past, and said plainly that these were not its guardians. They were its destroyers.

On November 28, 2023, cameras caught the last seconds of her captivity. A Hamas operative walked her toward a Red Cross vehicle, taunting her the whole ride about the husband she was leaving behind in Gaza. She turned and answered him. The clip went viral within hours, Israelis watching a woman starved to the edge of collapse turn her head and speak before walking off with her arm around a fellow hostage. Nobody outside that car knew what she’d said. This month, in her first long interviews since her release, she told Ynet and Channel 12. She cursed him. In Arabic, so that everyone standing there would understand exactly what she thought of him.

The curse is the part that travels. It is not the part that matters most.

Buchshtab-Kirscht and her husband, Yagev, were dragged from their home in Kibbutz Nirim on October 7, refusing to let go of each other’s hands even as Hamas terrorists pulled them toward the border. The first terrorist who broke into their house met a kitchen knife in her hand. She used it. Weeks later, a guard came to beat Yagev. She had hidden a fork for that exact possibility, and she used that too. Neither act bought her safety. Both bought Yagev a few more minutes without a beating, which was the only currency she had left to spend.

Then they put a camera in front of her. Two other hostages, Danielle Aloni and Lena Trufanov, sat beside her. Someone handed her a script, words a starving woman was meant to read into the lens so that Hamas could show the world its hostages calm, cooperative, grateful to be alive. She looked at the page and did not read it. The men who wrote that script were the same men who would go on to murder her husband. They beat her badly enough to break her teeth.

Yagev did not come home. Hamas killed him in captivity. The IDF did not confirm it for months, and his body was recovered from a tunnel in Khan Younis in August 2024. Buchshtab-Kirscht has spent the two years since rebuilding a life around that absence. She has also described an ongoing struggle with flashbacks and panic attacks, and state support for returned hostages that thinned as the war receded from the headlines. None of that came with a camera pointed at her this time. She decided on her own when to describe it, the same way she once decided, on camera, what she would not say.

She said no with her mouth full of blood. Most of us will only ever have to say it a little louder in a room that would rather we didn’t. Say it anyway.

That this happened is not incidental. It is the product of a relationship we entered freely and have honored seriously. The love diaspora Zionists carry for Israel is not the love of obligation or performance. It is the love of people who understand, without argument, that Israel’s existence changes what it means to be a Jew in the world. It is built from Passover seders and summers at camp, from the memory of a people who spent two thousand years without a state and know precisely what that absence cost. We are not observers of this conflict. We have children in the IDF, siblings in Tel Aviv, parents who never left. The line between diaspora and Israel does not separate two peoples. It runs through the same families. We have advocated for Israel because we believe in it. Because the project matters. Because we could not look at what happened on October 7 and remain quiet. That love is the reason the silence from Jerusalem registers as something more than disappointment.

The covenant between Israel and the diaspora has always rested on mutual obligation. Diaspora communities provide political support, financial resources, and cultural legitimacy. Israel provides the demonstration that Jewish sovereignty is possible and the implicit assurance that the Jewish people have a home of last resort if the alternative becomes unlivable. That covenant has functioned, more or less, for nearly eighty years. What the past three years have exposed is that its obligations are not being honored equally. The diaspora has continued to pay. The honest accounting requires saying that the withdrawal did not begin with Netanyahu. It accelerated the moment Israel became militarily and economically powerful enough that diaspora political capital stopped being existential and became convenient. Netanyahu didn’t invent the posture. He simply stopped disguising it.

Since October 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents have surged across every Western country that tracks them. In 2025, twenty Jews were murdered in antisemitic attacks worldwide, the highest annual toll in three decades. Two of them, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, were killed outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester on Yom Kippur. Fifteen more were shot dead ten weeks later at a Hanukkah gathering at Bondi Beach in Sydney, among them a ten-year-old girl. A Campaign Against Antisemitism survey of more than four thousand British Jews found that 61 percent have considered leaving the United Kingdom in the past two years because of antisemitism, and just over half no longer believe Jews have a long-term future in the country. On American campuses, Jewish students have been harassed, threatened, and in documented cases physically assaulted. Jewish professionals have quietly calculated what they can and cannot say at work. Jewish families have made decisions about which neighborhoods feel manageable, which friendships can survive the conversation, which parts of their identity are safe to make visible. That is the daily arithmetic now, in a hostility that has moved from rhetoric to bodies.

Subscribe now

Israel did not create antisemitism. But Netanyahu’s government fought a war without developing a coherent communications strategy for Western audiences, and the vacuum did not stay empty. The images from Gaza circulated globally. The counter-narrative arrived late, was often clumsy, and was left largely to diaspora Jews to carry without coordination, resources, or support from Jerusalem. This was not a small ask. Diaspora communities had spent decades building the political relationships that sustained Israel’s standing in Western capitals. For most of its history AIPAC did not fund candidates at all. Its influence was built by ordinary American Jews who learned their congressional districts, went to the meetings, and made the case in person, year after year, on their own time. Jewish federations across North America and Europe funded the campus programs, the interfaith work, and the local advocacy that Israel’s own foreign ministry has never come close to matching from the inside. When that infrastructure was needed most urgently, Jerusalem took the network for granted and sent no one to help staff it.

The one notable exception proved the rule. Eylon Levy, a British-Israeli Oxford graduate, became Israel’s most effective English-language spokesman in the war’s first months, giving hundreds of interviews, briefings, and press conferences that diaspora Jews watched with something close to relief. He was dismissed in March 2024, five months into the war. The government cited a series of diplomatic missteps, the last a tweet in which he pushed back on British Foreign Secretary David Cameron over aid to Gaza. What the official account left out was the pressure that had been building since January of that year, when Sara Netanyahu reportedly sought his removal because he had protested the government’s judicial overhaul before October 7. Israel’s most recognizable English-language voice was gone before the war’s first anniversary, and no one of comparable reach replaced him.

The response from Israel to diaspora suffering has been, on the whole, rhetorical. There have been statements about Jewish unity. There have been expressions of concern calibrated primarily for domestic audiences. Israel does maintain a Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, and it publishes an annual report tallying the year’s incidents and naming the year’s dead. Counting is not advocacy. A government that documents our casualties and then advises us to relocate is not protecting us. What there has not been is a sustained, structural effort by the Israeli government to advocate for the security and dignity of Jewish communities in the West with anything approaching the energy those communities have spent advocating for Israel. The asymmetry is not subtle and it is not new, but it has become impossible to ignore.

And then there is aliyah. In the aftermath of Bondi Beach, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said that Jews were being hunted across the world and called on Jews in Australia, Britain, France, Canada, and Belgium to come home. The government moved to accelerate Aliyat HaTekuma, an emergency immigration plan Netanyahu had requested days before the attack, targeting thirty thousand new immigrants in 2026 drawn primarily from the United Kingdom, France, and Australia. The response to Jews being murdered in Sydney was a plan to move Jews out of Sydney. Not a plan to make Sydney safer for the Jews who live there. The sentiment behind it is understandable. As a response to diaspora suffering, it is a deflection dressed as a value. What it reveals, beneath the rhetoric of homecoming, is a replacement logic: diaspora safety is not a problem Israel needs to solve on behalf of people it claims as family. It is a problem diaspora Jews need to solve by leaving. The difference between those two positions is the difference between a partner and a landlord.

Consider what it actually asks of real people. It asks the business owner who has spent thirty years building something in his community to abandon it. It asks the parent of children in college, or just beginning their careers, to uproot lives that are in the middle of being built. It asks the adult with aging parents, who cannot or will not travel, to choose between the Jewish state and the people they are responsible for. Aliyah is a life-altering decision that takes years to prepare, carries costs that are not equal across circumstances, and cannot be responsibly made on the timeline of a political speech. To wave it at a community in distress as though it resolves the question of what Israel owes that community is not solidarity. It reveals how little this government has thought seriously about the diaspora as anything other than a demographic problem to be managed.

It is also not working. Sergio DellaPergola, the Hebrew University demographer who has spent a career counting Jews, puts Western aliyah in 2025 at roughly ten thousand people, a figure he calls historically average rather than exceptional. The Jews being told to flee are, by and large, not fleeing. They are staying, and they are staying in places where the risk is now measured in funerals.

There is a strategic dimension to this failure that rarely gets named. A Jewish people concentrated entirely in one state is not more secure. It is more exposed. Diaspora Jewry is not Israel’s burden. It is Israel’s strategic depth: the communities that argue Israel’s case in the societies where Israel itself has no standing to argue it. When those communities are exhausted, isolated, and left without institutional support, Israel loses something it cannot replace from within. The reservoir empties. The pipeline closes. Israel will feel the absence long before it acknowledges the failure that produced it. And when that reckoning comes, the aliyah rate will not save it.

There are Jews in Toronto and Chicago and London and Paris who have spent the last three years putting their names on things, showing up to things, losing friendships over things, because they could not bring themselves to be quiet about a country they love. That love did not need October 7 to exist. It was already there, passed down at tables and in sanctuaries and in the particular pride of people who know what it means to have a homeland after so long without one. It is precisely because that love is real that the silence from Jerusalem has registered as something more than a policy failure.

Israelis go to the polls on October 27. Diaspora Jews will not vote in that election, and we should not. But the government it produces will shape how safe it is to walk into a synagogue in Manchester or light candles at a beach in Sydney. We have no ballot and no exit from the consequences. The least a government can owe people in that position is to remember they exist.

You cannot claim a people as your own, extract what they offer, and then treat their safety as their problem to solve. We are not asking for gratitude. We are asking for the tools to defend you and ourselves in the court of public opinion. We are asking for a government that understands that the narrative war being fought in London and New York and Toronto is not separate from the military one. What happens to Israel’s standing in those cities happens to us first. We absorb it in our workplaces, our campuses, our streets. And what erodes there eventually erodes in Jerusalem too. We have always known which one this was supposed to be. A covenant, not a transaction. We are still holding up our end.

Read the verse slowly, because the detail matters. Saul is not lying. He has just defeated Amalek. The campaign succeeded. The enemy is broken. By every metric a king would use to measure himself, he has delivered. The commandment, though, was not victory. The commandment was total, and Saul kept the best of the flocks and spared the enemy king, and somewhere between the battlefield and Gilgal he lost the ability to perceive the difference between what God required and what Saul did. The two had merged in his mind into a single thing. He stands before the prophet genuinely believing that his judgment and the mission are identical.

Samuel’s answer has echoed for three thousand years: “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears?”

The tradition did not preserve this story because Saul was wicked. Israel’s first king was capable and chosen. The tradition preserved it because Saul had become something far more dangerous than wicked. He had become indispensable, and he knew it.

The most dangerous leader in Jewish history has never been the corrupt one. Corruption is legible. It can be named and prosecuted, and a nation survives it. The dangerous leader is the one whose survival and the nation’s survival have fused into a single question, in the public imagination and in his own mind, until no one, including the man himself, can tell where one ends and the other begins. Israel is governed by such a leader now. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. But the trap he embodies is older than him, will outlive him, and is currently holding millions of Israelis and millions of diaspora Jews in the same paralysis. The trap is the subject. He is the case study.

Understand first how the fusion happens, because it never begins with failure. It begins with achievement.

Netanyahu presided over the transformation of Israel into a technological and economic power. He delivered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations that two decades of conventional wisdom declared impossible. He spent thirty years arguing, often alone, that Iran’s nuclear program was the central strategic threat of the era, and on that question history has largely vindicated him. Saul, too, had won his wars. No fraud ever fused with a state. A fraud can be discarded without grief. The fusion requires a man with real achievements, because in time he becomes the achievements, and discarding him starts to feel like discarding what he built.

That is the second stage: achievement hardens into identity. The man becomes “Mr. Security,” the personification of the policies rather than their temporary steward. And the symptom that this stage is complete is unmistakable, because it appeared on schedule. When hundreds of thousands of Israelis filled the streets in 2023 to protest the judicial overhaul, and when reservists, including air force pilots whose training represents fifteen years of national investment, declared they would not volunteer for a government dismantling the courts, the answer from the prime minister and his government was not engagement with their argument. It was reclassification. They were branded anarchists out to topple an elected government. The chief of the army’s general staff pushed back personally against the prime minister’s use of that word for the reservists, and the word kept coming. Pilots who had spent their adult lives carrying out strikes for the state were recast, in a season, as its internal enemies. That is the tell. When criticism of the leader is answered not with counterargument but with accusations of disloyalty to the nation, the merger of man and state has finished its work. Disagreement with him had become, officially, a security threat to it.

The third stage is the one Saul could not survive, and it is the one Israel has been living through. Decisions begin to arrive where the leader’s survival and the nation’s interest diverge, and the leader can no longer perceive the divergence. Run the test yourself. Take the defining decisions of the past several years and ask one diagnostic question of each: was this answering what Israel needs, or what his survival requires?

Begin with the judicial overhaul itself. Whatever one thinks of judicial reform in principle, the manner of its pursuit was a strategic decision: maximum velocity, no consensus, in the very year Israel’s enemies were watching for fracture. It tore the society into camps, drained the trust of the reservists the military depends upon, and broadcast division to Tehran and Gaza. When his own defense minister warned publicly that the rift had become a tangible threat to Israel’s security, Netanyahu fired him. The dismissal lasted only until the streets made it untenable, but the order of operations is the record: the warning about national security was treated as the offense, and the warner was removed. Which question was that decision answering?

Continue with the coalition itself. To hold power after 2022, Netanyahu seated men in his cabinet whom no previous prime minister of any party, including Netanyahu in his own earlier governments, would have placed near a national security portfolio. The arithmetic was never secret. Their seats were the price of his majority, and his majority was the condition of everything else he needed, including the management of his own legal situation. The pattern held to the last hour: the Knesset spent its final week in session passing law after law priced to keep those same partners aboard through October. Which question was that answering?

End with the question of accountability for October 7, the worst single day for Jews since the Holocaust. The families of the murdered and the kidnapped asked for what Israeli law provides after national catastrophe: a state commission of inquiry, independent, with full powers. The army investigated itself. The Shin Bet investigated itself. The chief of military intelligence, the head of Southern Command, the chief of staff, and the director of the Shin Bet all took responsibility and left their posts. The political echelon alone resisted the independent commission, offering instead an inquiry whose composition the government itself would shape. And this February, Netanyahu released his written answers to the State Comptroller’s probe of that day, a document that assigned the failures to his political rivals. His leading challenger has pledged to establish the state commission on the first day of the next government, which means the question of who may examine the catastrophe is now itself on the ballot. Which question has the resistance been answering?

Notice what happens when you try to respond to any of the three. You cannot cleanly say. His defenders cannot say either; press them and the answers dissolve into the claim that what is good for his government is good for Israel, which is not an answer but a restatement of the fusion itself. And here is the harder truth: he cannot say. That is the whole meaning of Saul at Gilgal. The king was not lying when he announced he had fulfilled the commandment. He had lost the faculty required to know otherwise. Indispensability is not a lie the leader tells the nation. It is a blindness the leader and the nation construct together.

The Jewish tradition has an answer to this condition, and the answer is severe.

Samuel grieves for Saul. The prophet had anointed him, believed in him, loved him. And God’s response to that grief is among the most bracing lines in the Hebrew Bible: “How long will you grieve over Saul, when I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go.” The mission does not wait for the man to accept his own conclusion. The mission does not even wait for the prophet to finish mourning. There is a new king to anoint, and the horn of oil is filled while the old king still sits on the throne.

The pattern holds across the entire canon. David, the beloved, the founder of the eternal dynasty, the king whose name the Messiah will carry, is told he will not build the Temple. The work passes to his son. Even the most indispensable man in Jewish history had a boundary drawn around his indispensability by Heaven itself. Moses dies on the wrong side of the Jordan, and the nation crosses without him.

The Hebrew Bible is, among other things, a sustained argument against the indispensable man. Every founder is succeeded and every king survived. The prophets are buried, and the covenant continues without pausing to ask permission. The tradition designed itself this way because survival demanded it. A people that believed in indispensable leaders would have ended with the first one. It would not have outlasted Pharaoh, let alone Babylon, let alone Rome. The Jewish people are still here precisely because we learned, earlier and more painfully than any other nation, to separate the covenant from the men who carried it.

The mission is never the man. Forgetting that lesson carries a price, and the price is not collected only in Jerusalem.

For an entire generation of diaspora Jews, the youngest of whom have never been adults under any other Israeli prime minister, the words “Israel” and “Netanyahu” became functional synonyms. His enemies built that equation deliberately, because attacking a controversial politician is easier than attacking a nation’s right to exist. His longevity confirmed it daily. And the equation did its quiet work. When Pew surveyed American Jews in 2020, two thirds of those over 65 said they felt emotionally attached to Israel; among Jews under 30, the figure was 48 percent. By 2025, a Washington Post survey found attachment among American Jews aged 18 to 34 had fallen to 36 percent, even as overall attachment held steady. The generation that came of age knowing only one face of Israel is the generation walking away from it.

Let the claim be stated precisely, because precision is what makes it damning. Netanyahu did not cause the disengagement of young diaspora Jews from Zionism. The forces behind that disengagement are larger than any politician: assimilation and distance, and a campus culture in which a Jewish student learns to lower her voice on the word Zionist before she has learned what it means. But he became its alibi. He gave a generation looking for permission to walk away a face to point at while walking. Every year the fusion persists, the alibi grows more convincing and the road back gets longer.

And now watch the trap close from both sides, because this is the part almost no one will say aloud.

The people who insist that Israel cannot survive without Netanyahu and the people who insist that Israel cannot be defended because of Netanyahu are making the same claim. Both have fused the man with the state. Both have decided that one politician’s fate and the Jewish national project share a single answer. They believe they are enemies. They are standing in the same trap, and it is Saul’s trap, and the trap does not care how you entered it.

The Zionist answer to both is identical, and it is the oldest answer we have. Israel is not him. It never was. The state buried Ben-Gurion, the founder himself, the man without whom it supposedly could not exist, and it grew stronger for half a century afterward. It predates this prime minister, survived every previous one, and was never designed to depend on any of them. That is the difference between a covenant and a regime. A regime is mortal because its leader is. A covenant survives its kings.

On October 27, Israelis will vote in the first national election since October 7. The date itself deserves a moment of attention: the coalition chose the last day the law permits, the furthest point survival arithmetic could reach. The campaign will be sold, by every side, as a referendum on one man. Do not accept the framing, whichever ballot you favor, because the framing is itself the disease. The real question is whether Israelis, and the Jews watching from every corner of the diaspora, can still perform the most basic act of Jewish political maturity: telling the difference between a leader and a covenant. A nation that can make that distinction can disagree about everything else and endure. A nation that cannot has already handed its future to whichever man happens to be holding it.

Return, then, to Samuel, because the story refuses to stop at Gilgal. The tradition carries it forward to an instruction. God does not tell the prophet to stop grieving; the grief was real and the text honors it. God tells him that grief cannot become governance. Fill your horn with oil and go. Anoint what comes next. The Jewish people have done exactly that with every indispensable man we ever had, and we survived all of them.

Saul was a king. Israel is a covenant. The tradition never confused the two, and neither can we.

On July 18, 1994, a Hezbollah operative drove a white Renault Trafic van packed with explosives into the AMIA in Buenos Aires, the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina, the beating heart of Argentine Jewish life, and killed 85 people. It was the largest single mass murder of Jews between the Shoah and October 7. Argentina’s response was silence, corruption, and a cover-up so brazen that the first federal judge assigned to the case was impeached for paying off a witness. Ten years passed. No convictions. No accountability. No answers for the families.

In 2004 the government handed the case to a 40-year-old Jewish prosecutor named Natalio Alberto Nisman, born in Buenos Aires to a middle-class Jewish family. He was expected to preside over the same nothing. He did the opposite.

For a decade Nisman built the case no one else would build. He named Iran. In October 2006 he formally accused the government in Tehran of ordering the attack and Hezbollah of carrying it out, and within a year Interpol had issued red notices for six senior Iranian officials, including Ahmad Vahidi, the Quds Force commander at the time of the bombing. He mapped the network. In 2013 he published a 502-page indictment tracing Iranian terror infrastructure across Latin America. Then he named his own president. In January 2015, five days before he was scheduled to testify in the Argentine Congress, he filed a 289-page criminal complaint against Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Two-term president in her own right and widow of the previous one, leader of Argentina’s dominant left-populist movement, she stood accused of using a 2013 memorandum with Iran to launder immunity for the mass murderers in exchange for oil and grain.

He knew. Days earlier he had told the newspaper Clarín, “I could end up dead from this.” On the night of January 18, 2015, twelve hours before he was to walk into Congress, Nisman was found in his Puerto Madero apartment with a bullet in the right side of his head. His security detail had walked off their post. Thousands of AMIA files at the presidential offices had burned the day before. They killed him and tried to write it as a suicide. It took the courts ten years to say what the evidence made obvious: homicide, motivated by the work.

The AMIA bombing killed 85 people. Nisman was the 86th. This coming July 18, on the 32nd anniversary of the attack, for the first time in three decades of stalling, the Iranian and Hezbollah suspects he named are finally moving to trial in absentia in Argentine court. The wheels are turning because he refused to let them stop. He is dead, and the case is coming for them.

He investigated the mass murder of his own people on behalf of a country that did not want the answer. His Jewishness was not incidental to the work. It was the work. His people. His dead. His case.

Every Jew is handed a file they are told to close. Nisman would not. Neither should you.

In 2006, the historian Ilan Pappé published an article defining Israeli policy toward Gaza as an incremental genocide, a phrase he would repeat for the next seventeen years, including in a 2017 book. Academic literature carried descriptions of a slow-motion genocide years before October 2023. The framework was built, footnoted, and waiting. It required only an occasion. When the occasion came, on a Shabbat morning when Hamas murdered some twelve hundred people and dragged hundreds more into tunnels, the word was deployed within days. Not after the ground invasion. Not after the casualty counts. While families in the kibbutzim were still identifying their dead, while the scale of any Israeli response was still unknown because no response yet existed to measure, the accusation was already circulating in statements, demonstrations, and academic articles across the West. The verdict arrived before the defendant had acted.

A conclusion that predates its own evidence is not a conclusion. It is a desire wearing the costume of one.

Millions of people in the West do not believe Israel committed genocide in Gaza because they examined the war and found it so. They needed the war to be a genocide, and they have spent two and a half years arranging the evidence around a verdict they reached before the first soldier crossed the border. The distinction matters because it is provable. You cannot see inside anyone’s mind. But desire leaves fingerprints. A person who reaches a conclusion behaves one way when the facts move. A person who requires a conclusion behaves another way entirely. So set aside the accusation itself and examine the behavior of the accusers. Apply the tests you would apply to any witness whose testimony seems rehearsed.

The first test is the timeline, and it has already been entered into evidence. The accusation existed before the conduct it claims to describe. It existed in the academic literature before the war. It existed in the streets before the invasion. The intellectual infrastructure of the charge was complete while the crime it alleges had not yet occurred. In any courtroom, a witness who wrote his testimony before the events he describes would be excused. In Western discourse, he was handed a megaphone.

The second test is the vocabulary, and whether it travels. People who level the charge of genocide say the word itself creates obligation. Silence in the face of it is complicity. Very well. In October 2025, the Rapid Support Forces captured the Sudanese city of El Fasher after a siege of eighteen months and began killing on a scale that stunned the investigators documenting it. Tens of thousands of civilians executed or murdered. Yale’s researchers documented the killing from orbit, identifying 150 clusters of objects consistent with human remains in satellite imagery, some beside ground stains consistent with blood. The director of Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab estimated that more people may have died there in ten days than in two years of war in Gaza. A United Nations fact-finding mission found the hallmarks of genocide and recorded the perpetrators declaring their purpose in their own words. Fighters told survivors they wanted to eliminate anything black from Darfur. No inference was required. The intent was announced, on video, by the men holding the guns.

And the West’s response can be inventoried precisely, because there is nothing to inventory. No encampments rose on the quads. No artists withdrew from festivals. No general assemblies convened. No one interrupted a Broadway show or chained themselves to a federal building. The people who insist the word genocide compels action were handed an actual one, running concurrently, confessed by its perpetrators, and the compulsion evaporated. The crime did not change. The scale did not shrink. The only variable that moved was the identity of the accused. A principle that wakes for one defendant and sleeps for all the others has another name, and the name is targeting system.

The third test is the strangest and the most revealing, and it concerns the dead themselves. If the fury of the last two and a half years were grief for Palestinian life, then every Palestinian death would enter the ledger. They do not. The United Nations has documented hundreds of cases of executions and mutilations of Palestinians in Gaza by Hamas and its security forces during and after the war. Blindfolded men shot in public outside Shifa Hospital while crowds watched. Eight men dragged into a Gaza City square and killed. Kneecappings, beatings with metal pipes, punishments staged and filmed for the explicit purpose of terror. One Gaza family reported that twenty-eight of its members were killed by Hamas after being promised safety if they surrendered. These are Palestinians. Dead, tortured, terrorized Palestinians, killed by men who filmed themselves doing it.

Name the march held for them. Name the vigil, the hashtag, the celebrity statement, the campus occupation demanding Hamas stop executing the people it governs. There is none, and everyone knows there is none. A Palestinian killed by an Israeli bomb is a moral emergency for the entire Western world. A Palestinian executed by Hamas in a public square does not exist. Nothing separates these two dead men, not humanity, not innocence, not nationality, except what each can be used for. One converts into Israeli guilt and one converts into nothing, and that exchange rate is the only value the mourners ever assigned to either of them.

This is the place to draw a line, because the line is real. There are people, many of them, including many Jews, who grieve the dead of Gaza with a whole heart, who look at photographs of children pulled from rubble and feel what any human being should feel. That grief requires no defense, and nothing here indicts it. But grief has a signature: it mourns all the dead, without first checking who killed them. The prosecutor counts only the useful ones. Watch which dead a person counts, and you will know whether you are looking at a mourner or a witness for a prosecution that was drafted years before the trial.

The fourth test is the asymmetry, and it completes the pattern. In this war, one party announced annihilation as its purpose. Hamas’s founding charter calls for it. Its senior official Ghazi Hamad went on television weeks after October 7 and promised a second, a third, a fourth massacre until Israel is annihilated. Documents recovered from the bodies of its fighters instructed them to kill as many people as possible. The intent that the crime of genocide requires, the specific intent to destroy a people, never needed to be inferred about Hamas. Hamas published it, repeatedly, in writing and on camera, before and during and after the massacre it carried out.

That party was never the defendant. The accusation flowed instead, immediately and exclusively, toward the party whose conduct had to be interpreted to sustain the charge, and the interpretation only ever ran in one direction. Watch the sequence from the war’s first week. On October 13, 2023, Israel warned residents of northern Gaza to evacuate south ahead of its ground operation. Hamas publicly instructed them to stay, dismissing the warnings as psychological warfare, while its interior ministry told residents to ignore the evacuation messages. The men who had built their military doctrine on civilian presence ordered the civilians to remain in the combat zone, and Western institutions adopted their vocabulary. Doctors Without Borders would go on to describe Israeli evacuation orders as psychological warfare and ethnic cleansing. Jan Egeland, the Norwegian diplomat, declared the evacuation itself a forcible transfer under the Geneva Convention. The warning became the war crime. When the accused can do nothing exculpatory and the confessed party can do nothing incriminating, the word framework no longer applies. What remains is a courtroom built to convict one defendant, and the defendant was selected before the war began.

Four tests, one finding. And the finding explains something that the last two and a half years otherwise leave mysterious, which is why Hamas fights the way it fights. Hamas places its command posts under hospitals and its rocket crews beside schools, and orders civilians to ignore evacuation warnings, because its military doctrine is a wager on the Western mind. The doctrine holds that a dead Palestinian civilian, attributed to Israel, is worth more than a living one, because the attribution becomes Israeli isolation, Israeli delegitimization, Israeli guilt. That wager only pays if someone downstream performs the conversion. Someone has to take delivery of the corpses and process them into a verdict. The genocide accusation is not a response to Hamas’s strategy. It is the second half of it. Hamas manufactures the death, and the West manufactures the meaning, and the two operations together form a single machine that neither could run alone. The third test proved the machine is selective by design. It accepts only deaths attributable to Israel, because those are the only deaths it was built to process.

The tradition has a name for what this machine does. The ninth commandment is usually taught to children as a prohibition on lying, and it legislates something narrower and stranger. Lo ta’aneh v’rei’acha ed shaker: you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. The commandment names a specific act, testimony, given in a specific setting, a proceeding, by a witness who took the stand already carrying his verdict and arranged everything he saw around it. The gravest corruption of truth, in this reading, was never the invented fact. The blood libel ran on this engine for eight centuries; the dead child was usually real, and the testimony was the weapon. What the West has produced since October 2023 is false witness in this precise, technical sense. Not hatred, necessarily. Not always malice. Perjury. Testimony written before the trial, arranged around a verdict the witness carried into the room.

There remains the strongest objection, and it deserves a direct answer. Commissions have ruled. NGOs have published findings. A United Nations commission of inquiry declared genocide in 2025. Does institutional ratification not prove the accusation was earned rather than desired? Look at the institution that delivered it. The commission was established by the Human Rights Council in May 2021, more than two years before the war it would convict, with a mandate unlike any in the Council’s history: no end date, reporting in perpetuity, directed at a single country, where every prior inquiry the body had created expired within roughly a year. Its chair had publicly campaigned to sanction Israel before her appointment. Another commissioner mused on the record in 2022 about the power of the Jewish lobby, a remark condemned by twenty governments and the UN Secretary General, and he kept his seat. No tribunal examined this war and arrived at a conclusion. The tribunal was built in advance of the war, staffed with its conclusion, and waited for a case. Even the courtroom predates the crime. When the verdict precedes the trial, the trial is ceremony.

Which leaves the final question, the one the four tests force: why this word? Why did the machinery require genocide, specifically, when war crimes, atrocities, disproportion, any of the available vocabulary would have described the accusers’ stated concerns? Because no other word does the work. Genocide is the one accusation in the Western moral lexicon that can revoke a nation’s license to exist. Every other charge indicts conduct. This one indicts being. And against the Jewish state it carries a second payload. This is a claim about what the accusation accomplishes, not about what any individual accuser tells himself, and the accomplishment can be stated plainly. If the nation of the Holocaust’s survivors commits the Holocaust’s crime, then the debt is cancelled. The moral weight the West has carried for eighty years, the deference, the guilt, the unbearable memory, all of it can finally be set down. They did it too. Worse, they did it themselves. The accusation was never about Gaza. Gaza supplied the occasion. The accusation closes an account, and the eagerness with which it was filed, years before the war it describes, tells you how badly the account wanted closing.

And if any doubt remains about the accusation’s true address, watch where it travels. A charge about a state’s conduct would stay on the state. This one follows Jews. In July 2025 a man set fire to the door of a Melbourne synagogue while twenty people sat inside at Shabbat dinner, and the same night protesters stormed an Israeli restaurant blocks away. In December 2025 two gunmen murdered fifteen people at a Hanukkah celebration on Bondi Beach, among them a ten-year-old girl and an eighty-seven-year-old survivor of the Holocaust. A verdict that keeps arriving at synagogue doors was never a verdict about a war. Antisemitic incidents in Australia now run at nearly five times their level before October 7, and Australia holds no seat in the Israeli cabinet, commands no brigade in Gaza, and sets no policy that the worshippers at a Shabbat table could answer for.

They did not discover a genocide. They commissioned one. The men executed outside Shifa Hospital were not entered into evidence. The dead of El Fasher were not entered into evidence. The dead of Gaza were entered selectively, sorted by usefulness, counted only when the count could convict. That is not testimony. That is not grief.

That is false witness, and the tradition has known its name for three thousand years.

Seventy-nine years ago tomorrow, Yossi Harel stood on the bridge of a rusted Chesapeake Bay steamship and watched a Royal Air Force plane circle overhead while 4,515 Holocaust survivors boarded below him. A Royal Navy warship sat just off the French coast, waiting. Everyone knew the British were watching. Harel sailed anyway.

That decision was not defiance in the heat of the moment. It was defiance as doctrine. The Haganah had chosen this ship precisely because it could not hide. Too large, too slow, too conspicuous to evade a destroyer. The plan, documented by Israeli historian Aviva Halamish, was never to slip past the blockade but to burst through it: sail openly, beach the ship on a sandbar off Tel Aviv, and release the survivors onto the shore in full view of the press and the world. If the British stood down, 4,515 people reached home. If the British attacked, the world would see exactly what His Majesty’s government was prepared to do to Jewish refugees two years after the liberation of the camps. The Haganah handed the enemy a choice between their decency and their policy. They already knew which one would win.

Harel was 29. His captain, Ike Aronowicz, was 23, born in Łódź, raised in Danzig, a man who had first gotten to sea by stowing away on a ship at seventeen because he wanted to fight Hitler and couldn’t find a better way to start. The crew was thirty-five volunteers, most of them American Jews with no experience on a vessel this size. None of that was the point. The point was the 4,515 people in the hold, most of them concentration camp survivors, many still carrying the numbers on their arms, every one of them told by the British Empire that they had no legal right to go home. Harel said later that once you hear enough of those stories, you begin to understand what he called “the command you got.” He didn’t mean orders from the Haganah. He meant the command issued by the dead.

On July 18, with the ship still in international waters, British destroyers rammed her from both sides. A boarding party of Royal Marines came over the rails. What they met was not panic. The passengers fought back with tin cans, screwdrivers, potatoes, and wooden planks, which is what you fight with when someone has spent the last decade making sure you had access to nothing more dangerous. The British used tear gas and pistols. The battle ran more than two hours. Three people died, among them American volunteer Bill Bernstein, beaten to death in the wheelhouse. While the boarding party pushed through the decks below, someone flipped the boards covering the ship’s original name to reveal what the Haganah had renamed her: Exodus 1947. Someone raised the blue-and-white flag. The passengers sang “Hatikvah” until the ship was taken.

British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin sent the survivors not to Cyprus, where the British held most intercepted refugees, but back to Germany. To DP camps near Hamburg. To the country that had just killed six million of their people. When British officials processed the arrivals and asked each person their name and country of birth, every Jew gave a biblical name and said they were born in Palestine, then the name for the Jewish ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. Without exception. We are not who you are trying to make us. We know exactly who we are, and nothing you have fielded has changed that yet.

That answer, given without coordination in a German DP camp by people who had survived everything the twentieth century could aim at a Jew, is the part that doesn’t make it into the film or the novel. The ship mattered. The battle mattered. But 4,515 people, unrehearsed, choosing a biblical name, the same birthplace, the same refusal: that is the record this series exists to keep. The anniversary arrives tomorrow, which is Shabbat. Carry it in.

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine was in the region when the Exodus arrived in Haifa under British guard. The partition vote came in November. Israel was declared in May 1948.

The command issued by the dead has not been rescinded. Carry it.

No other major faith behaves this way. Christianity was built to grow. Its founding command is to go into all the world and make disciples of every nation. Islam carries a comparable mandate, the obligation to call humanity to submission and to extend the house of belief across the earth. These are not distortions of either faith. They are central to what each understands itself to be. A religion that seeks the whole world is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Judaism was designed to do the opposite. It does not seek you. It would, on the whole, prefer that you remain what you are and live a decent life in that condition.

Hold that fact in mind, because the world has lately decided to call the Jews something that cannot be reconciled with it.

The charge is colonialism. Israel is described as a colonial implant, Zionism as a settler movement, the Jewish return as the seizure of someone else’s land by a foreign people. The word arrives with enormous moral weight, because colonialism is one of the few sins the modern conscience treats as close to absolute. To name a people colonial is to place them outside the circle of legitimate existence. And it is being said, with growing confidence, about the one people on earth whose entire religious posture is a refusal to absorb anyone.

So the accusation deserves to be taken seriously enough to define its terms, which is more than its loudest users have done. What is colonialism, actually? Beneath the rhetoric it has always run on two engines. The first is land. A power sends its people to seize and hold territory that is not theirs, displacing those already there. The second is souls. The conqueror does not only take the country, he takes the inner life of its people, replacing their gods and their language with his own. These two engines ran together for most of recorded history. The ship that carried the soldier carried the priest. Spain did not only claim the Americas, it baptized them, and within a few generations two continents that had never heard the name of Christ were overwhelmingly Christian. The Arab conquests did the same in the opposite direction, carrying Islam from the Arabian Peninsula across all of North Africa and into Persia across the following century, until lands that had been Christian or Zoroastrian for hundreds of years prayed toward Mecca. None of this is an insult to either religion. It is simply what happened, the recorded scale of how faiths and empires grew when growth was the goal. Conversion was not incidental to conquest. Conversion was the meaning of it.

Now set Judaism against the first engine, the one made of souls. There is no Jewish mission. There is no campaign, no mandate to spread, no theology that makes the rest of humanity into a field to be harvested. The tradition’s view of the non-Jew is not that he is a soul awaiting capture but that he is already fine where he stands. The rabbinic framework holds that the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come, and that a gentile is bound only by a short list of basic moral commitments, not by the vast architecture of Jewish law. The covenant at Sinai was never understood as a universal claim on all people. It was understood as the particular obligation of one people. A Jew who keeps the law and a gentile who lives decently are both, in the tradition’s eyes, doing exactly what is required of them. There is nothing to convert anyone to, because the tradition never held salvation hostage to conversion. A religion cannot colonize souls when its own theology declares the other man’s soul already safe.

Honesty requires naming the exception, because there is one, and burying it would be the kind of omission this entire argument is built to expose. In the second and first centuries before the common era, the Hasmonean dynasty, the same Maccabean line whose earlier heroism the festival of Hanukkah commemorates, conquered neighboring territories and forced their populations to convert. John Hyrcanus subjugated the Idumeans and compelled them to accept circumcision and Jewish law, the first recorded instance of forced conversion in Jewish history. His successor Alexander Jannaeus extended the same policy to the Itureans of the Galilee. The tradition’s own historian, Josephus, is the one who records both. That phrase is worth sitting with. The first instance. It is identified as a beginning because there was nothing before it, and it is rightly remembered with discomfort rather than pride. It was the policy of a conquering dynasty wielding state power, not a commandment of the faith, and it ended when that dynasty ended. The two thousand years that followed moved decisively in the other direction, toward a people that closed the door and learned to guard it. The contrast with the others is not that Jews proved incapable of conquest. It is that Judaism encountered the expansionist impulse, recorded it as a transgression, and turned away, while the great missionary faiths encountered the same impulse and built their entire understanding of themselves around it.

One could object at this point that Judaism makes a universal claim after all, since the notion that all righteous people share in the world to come is plainly a statement about all of humanity. This is true, and it is the heart of the matter. Judaism does make a universal claim. But it is a universalism of a kind the colonial mind has never been able to recognize, because it includes the other person without requiring him to become anything. It says the stranger is already whole. The missionary universalism and the colonial universalism include by absorption, by folding the other into the self until the other disappears. Jewish universalism includes by leaving alone. It grants the gentile his full moral standing and then asks nothing further of him, claims nothing of his soul, dispatches no missionary to his threshold. The turning away has always carried this purpose. The door that does not open is not contempt. It is the institutional expression of a theology that decided, long before the word colonialism existed, that the other man’s soul was never yours to claim.

This is the shared grammar beneath both charges. Colonialism and the missionary project rest on a single buried assumption: that a people’s legitimacy is measured by its reach, that existence without outward expansion is somehow incomplete or suspect. Judaism has refused that assumption at the level of souls for two thousand years. The land argument will show that the refusal runs just as deep at the level of territory, because it is the same refusal. The accusation fails on both fronts not by coincidence but because both fronts are expressions of a single identity the tradition has always declined to inhabit.

This is the ground the accusers most want to fight on, so it is worth meeting them there directly. The modern charge does not usually rest on the old colonial model of a mother country planting a distant outpost for profit. It rests on a newer theory, the framework of settler colonialism, which was specifically constructed so that it would not require a metropole at all. The argument that Israel has no imperial sponsor, no London or Madrid extracting wealth from a colony, is therefore true but beside the point. The settler colonial framework was built to survive that objection, and it rests its weight somewhere else, on a single distinction that does all the moral work. That distinction is between the foreign settler and the native population. The settler is the one who comes from outside. The native is the one who belongs. Every charge the framework levels depends entirely on that line holding.

This is the assumption that does not survive the Jewish case, and its failure is total. The framework requires that the Jew be foreign to the land. He is not. A people called Israel is named, as a people already living in this territory, on the Merneptah Stele, a stone victory inscription carved by an Egyptian pharaoh more than three thousand years ago, twelve centuries before Islam existed and more than three millennia before anyone spoke of colonialism. The land is called Judea, the land of the Judeans, the Jews, whose name in nearly every language on earth descends from the name of that place. And for two thousand years of exile, in Poland and Yemen and Morocco, the prayers of that scattered people faced a single city in that same land, three times a day, without interruption. When the framework calls this people foreign and the later arrivals native, it is not making a contestable historical claim that happens to cut against the Jews. It is inverting the meaning of its own central terms. The settler it points to is the indigenous one. The colonizer it names is the very people who gave the country its name.

A framework can survive being wrong about a detail. It cannot survive having its central distinction reverse on contact with the very case its champions most want to judge. And this is where the two engines, souls and land, finally meet, because the failure on both axes is too complete and too symmetrical to be an accident of sloppy reasoning. A charge that describes the precise opposite of the thing it names is not a mistaken description. It is a projection. The question worth asking is no longer whether the accusation is true, since it manifestly is not, but why it is made at all, and made specifically against this people.

The door explains everything. The colonial mind, the missionary mind, the mind built on universal claims, operates on a single buried assumption, that every people is fundamentally like itself, reaching outward, seeking to absorb, wanting the world to become a version of what it already is. From inside that assumption a people that wants only to exist as itself, in one small place, asking nothing of anyone else’s soul or land, is not merely unusual. It is illegible. It cannot be read, because it does not fit the only template the framework carries. And the mind that cannot read a thing reaches for the nearest category it already owns. Unable to comprehend a people that does not seek to absorb, it concludes that this people must be the absorber, doing in secret the very thing the framework assumes everyone is always doing. The accusation is the sound of a universalizing worldview colliding with a particularity it has no language for, and resolving its confusion by assigning that particularity its own face.

This is why the charge does not weaken when the facts contradict it, and why no amount of historical correction has dislodged it. It was never built on facts. It was built on the inability of one kind of mind to accept the existence of the other. The colonial instinct did not die when the empires fell. It changed its vocabulary and kept its grammar. It now speaks the language of liberation, and in that language it performs the one act it claims to despise, demanding that a particular people surrender its particularity and dissolve into a universal story written by someone else. The least colonial people on earth has been called colonial by a movement that is itself making the oldest colonial demand in history: abandon what you are and disappear into someone else’s story.

I have spent my life inside a people that never once asked anyone to join it. That refusal to recruit and the refusal to vanish are the same refusal, and the world has always found both intolerable. The one people who never asked you to become them now stand accused of trying to erase you, by a world that cannot forgive their insistence on remaining themselves.

America turns two hundred and fifty this week, and the man who kept its army solvent long enough to survive to fifty is still owed the money.

Haym Salomon arrived in New York from Poland in the mid-1770s with nothing, and joined the Sons of Liberty, the underground colonial network organizing resistance to British rule, almost immediately. He paid for it fast. British forces arrested him twice, once as a suspected spy, once on a capital charge tied to encouraging Hessian mercenaries, the German soldiers Britain paid to fight its war, to desert. He escaped a death sentence and fled to Philadelphia, writing to the Continental Congress, the body of delegates then acting as America’s government, that his effects were “most irrecoverably lost.” He was inventing himself from zero for the second time in a decade.

He rebuilt as a broker, and Robert Morris, the Congress’s Superintendent of Finance, came to depend on him to convert foreign loans into hard currency the army could actually spend. James Madison admitted he had been living as “a pensioner on the favor of Haym Salomon, a Jew broker,” borrowed against with no real security beyond Salomon’s word.

Pennsylvania’s constitution required officeholders to swear belief in the Old and New Testaments, a clause that barred every Jew in the state, roughly 350 of them in a city of 40,000, from public life. In December 1783, Salomon put his name on a formal petition to the Pennsylvania Council of Censors alongside Rabbi Gershom Seixas and the leadership of Congregation Mikveh Israel, arguing that no man’s civil rights should hinge on his religious sentiments. He signed it as someone the state had already taken money and risk from, telling that same state in writing that gratitude was not a substitute for citizenship. It would have cost him nothing to stay quiet and collect what few favors his usefulness had bought him. He didn’t stay quiet.

Then the slander came, the oldest one there is: Philadelphia’s Jewish merchants, the press said, were profiteering off the war. Salomon answered under his own trade, “A Jew Broker,” in print, where every reader, patron, and potential creditor could see exactly who he was: “I am a Jew; it is my own nation; I do not despair that we shall obtain every other privilege that we aspire to enjoy along with our fellow-citizens.”

He died a year later at forty-four, broke. The government he’d helped keep solvent never repaid what it owed him, and his widow spent years chasing debts that vanished into paperwork. Nobody rewarded the petition or the newspaper column. Nobody was supposed to.

Somewhere in this week’s coverage there will be plenty said about who built America and who merely lived in it. Salomon settled that question in 1783 and 1784, in a petition and a newspaper column, without waiting for permission to claim the country as his own.

That’s not gratitude. That’s ownership. Go collect yours.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more