Tapestries-68 | Diaspora

How our support for Israel must evolve.

Photo by Dan Freeman

---

In the Jewish diaspora, our relationship with Israel has always been a deeply emotional one, rooted in survival, pride, and a sense of shared destiny. This is driven by the personal (family and friends live there), the national (identification with the world’s only Jewish state), and the practical (a safe haven for a people that have desperately needed one for 2,000 years). We aspire to support the people and country in many ways, and over the years we have often focused our efforts on defending Israel's right to exist in the face of existential threats.

But as the world, and Israel itself, continues to evolve, we must ask ourselves: is this survival-first approach still the most effective way to support the country? In this piece, we’ll explore what risks and challenges lie ahead for the country, consider whether the narratives that undergird our prevailing support remain fit for purpose, and offer some thoughts on how we might need to update our approach. These reflections are offered not as a blueprint, but as the beginning of a conversation that requires humility and a deep understanding of the challenges we face.

This piece is not a reflection on the horrors of October 7, the threats Israelis continue to face, or the death and destruction Gazans and the Lebanese are living through today. It’s not an assessment of the geopolitics of the region, or a discussion of the efficacy of military strategy, or justification for the wars Israel is currently fighting. And it’s not a comment on the explosion of global antisemitism. These are all important and personal topics, but in the interests of writing something useful and digestible, I’ve tried to constrain the scope, while acknowledging this is just one part of a very complex and traumatic picture.

With that in mind, this piece simply looks at what we can do if a strong Israel is actually important to us, at the end of a year that’s seen (and continues to see) so much pain for the people of the region. Let’s take a walk.

---

1. What risks and considerations have historically shaped the nature of diaspora support for Israel?

The narrative that’s underpinned diaspora support for Israel until now is one that’s generally been rooted in survival. This has created a relatively reactive and uncompromising approach designed to “defend” the country. I would therefore summarize the beliefs around which we have historically defended Israel with the following statements:

• Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, a group that has been subject to persecution for millennia.

• Israel’s enemies have sought its destruction since (and even before) its inception, and the threat of annihilation therefore looms large over the country.

• Israel is a beacon of democracy and innovation in a region roiled by war, and ruled by autocracies.

• Israel is treated unfairly by the international community. It is regularly held to a higher standard than anyone else, and will be forced to confront those who deny its right to exist or defend itself.

We could summarize further by saying the prevailing approach is rooted in (a) the desire or need to legitimize the State’s existence, and (b) framing external threats as existential. So to assess whether the prevailing survival-focused approach remains fit-for-purpose, let’s briefly look whether centering support on (a) and (b) is appropriate given the way the country and region have evolved.

2. Should support for Israel continue to be centered on these pillars?

The positions described above remain important to communicate and reinforce, as they continue to describe the world and moment in which Israel lives. But both Israel and the world have changed significantly in the last decade or two, and this should force us to interrogate whether we need to update the pillars on which we build our support.

a. The desire or need to legitimize Israel’s existence

Israel is a country in the Middle East with an established language, culture, modern history, mythology, currency, economy, and identity. It has peace treaties with two of its neighbours, and burgeoning economic relationships with many more in the region. Israel clearly exists. While there are many in the progressive movement who believe it shouldn’t, it is a modern, sovereign nation. Islamic extremists and infantilized Western college students can jointly conclude that Israel is the embodiment and source of all evil in the world. But why should Israel’s supporters allow the debate to get dragged into the abstract world of 75-year-old what ifs? To debate whether it should exist is a purely academic exercise, a sentiment that Ta-Nehisi Coates—for all the shortcomings of his analysis—echoes too. The better question for supporters of Israel to address is not should it exist, but in what form (more on this later).

b. Framing Israel’s external threats as existential

In the decades following Israel’s founding, the main threat was from the countries on its borders, specifically Egypt, Jordan and Syria. As the threat of invasion from sovereign armies decreased (partially through the creation of peace treaties between countries who realized the other wasn’t going anywhere), the threat of terrorism from within increased. Today Israel is confronting the dual threat from the Islamic Republic and its proxies, and Palestinian terrorism. A nuclear Islamic Republic represents an existential threat to Israel, as it would give the murderous and genocidal regime the tools it needs to carry out its stated intent to ensure the Jewish state no longer exists. But militarily, it appears the key lessons of the last year are that (a) Israeli complacency and disunity are bigger risks to its security, than the strength of its enemies (nuclear Iran aside), and (b) ignoring and undermining Palestinian aspirations will create a perpetual and untenable security risk (to say nothing of the moral cost).

The Middle East is a dangerous place, and external threats very clearly remain, but the contours of the region and its relationships are fundamentally different today than they’ve been in the past. It’s telling that despite a year of war and destruction in the region (first in Israel, then Gaza, and now Lebanon), (i) the Sunni Arab nations with which Israel maintains formal relationships have not broken ties, with some of them even helping to actively defend Israel from Iran’s attack in April, and (ii) Saudi Arabia theoretically remains open to normalization (subject to several key conditions). This reflects the new reality of the Middle East: the greatest threat to its security and stability is Iran’s Islamic Republic (and its proxies who have ruined their host states as all parasites do), and the chance to build a prosperous and secure future will need to leverage Israel’s strength and economic vitality.

---

Basing support for Israel on these two pillars—that it has a right to exist, and that it faces existential threats—has been entirely appropriate to this point of the country’s journey. But while the Middle East remains volatile, the existential threats that once defined Israel’s survival have evolved. Support for Israel has traditionally focused on helping it survive, but going forward, an updated and more effective style of support must seek to help Israel thrive. And today, the external threats, though still very serious (such as a nuclear Iran), must be viewed alongside internal divisions that threaten to erode the social fabric on which Israel's success depends. The new Middle East is only open to working with Israel given its strength and vitality. If it loses them, the vision of a regionally-integrated Israel crumbles too. So let’s look at this risk in more detail next.

3. Looking ahead, what are the risks that Israel’s supporters should focus on?

It’s relatively clear what a secure and prosperous future for Israel will entail: removal of the existential threat from the Islamic Republic (a weakened and unpopular regime in its own country and the broader region), an economy built on technical prowess and a uniquely powerful culture of innovation, productive relationships with allies and neighbours rooted in economic and security cooperation, a dignified future for the country’s Palestinian neighbours, and a unified and robust civil society. That’s the vision, but none of it works unless Israel is able to satisfy the final condition in that list.

Political turbulence has been a feature of Israeli society since its inception, with the protests around the Oslo accords and Rabin’s assassination perhaps the most painful of those examples. But something different broke in Israeli society in the last few years. The 2023 judicial reform protests were not merely a flashpoint; they revealed deep-rooted divides in Israeli society. On one side are secular Israelis who fear the erosion of democratic institutions and Israel’s democratic and pluralistic identity, while on the other side are what Yossi Klein Halevi calls the “coalition of the ultras: ultra-nationalists, ultra-orthodox and ultra-corrupt.” These divisions and their intense conflicts reflect a broader and potentially more dangerous trend: a society fragmenting along religious, ideological, and class lines, which, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken Israel from within. While there was an admirable sense of unity and collective effort in the months following October 7, the division and distrust remain as present and troubling as ever to regular Israelis.

Alongside a nuclear Islamic Republic, the biggest risk that Israel faces is therefore that it fails to operate as a functioning civil society, and becomes a place that its best and brightest decide to leave. Don’t take my word for it, listen to what Israelis are saying themselves. In a recent Hebrew University survey, a “whopping 62% of all Israelis polled said that they believed the greater threat to the future of the State of Israel was from internal divisions and threats, with 38% saying that external threats posed the biggest danger to the country.” In another recent survey, Kantar Insights and the Kan public broadcaster found that almost “a quarter of Israelis have weighed leaving the country during the past year amid the multifront war”. And crucially, the country’s most productive citizens—tech workers who form the backbone of Startup Nation—appear to be over-represented in those considering leaving.

The diaspora cannot assume that Israelis will remain motivated to build the country if it no longer reflects their values or feels like a place they want to live. With internal divisions now posing Israel's greatest threat (per Israelis’ own assessments), the diaspora cannot continue building its support for the country around its survival, as this approach (amongst others) has potentially allowed a level of blindness towards, or disengagement from, the growing threat of internal fracturing.

4. How should the diaspora’s support evolve to meet this growing internal threat?

Up until recently, Israel’s internal challenges were not seen as a major threat to the state’s long-term survival. However, the situation has clearly changed. The stability of Israeli society directly impacts the global Jewish community. And just as we rally against external threats, we must think about how to direct some of our effort and attention towards actions targeted at the home front. I am not here to suggest I have a solution to Israel’s internal problems. Far from it, for a million reasons. But I do want to add something to the conversation about how we can support Israel from the diaspora.

a. How can we update our approach?

As individuals, the most important thing we can do is massively deepen our understanding of modern Israel. This is a precondition to other more impactful initiatives, and thankfully, doing so isn’t that hard. This means devoting more effort and attention to learning about the country’s people, demographics, geography, economy, culture, and therefore by extension, its internal dynamics. Here are some suggestions:

• We should travel to Israel whenever we can. If we can make it to Positano or Bodrum on an annual basis, we can make it to Ben Gurion. And when we do, we must ensure that we sample more of the country, and avoid pigeon-holing our idea of “Israel” into the beaches and restaurants of Tel Aviv.

• We can re-establish and strengthen personal relationships with that Israeli friend or cousin or guide or whoever we used to know there, to humanize and personalize a place or issue that to many is simply an emotive yet abstract idea. It will mean a lot to them, and will give a lot to us too. And when we re-connect with an old friend (or visit the country), we shouldn’t be shy about talking politics. They won’t be if given the chance!

• We need to familiarize ourselves with Israel’s domestic issues, culture and demographics, as these trends—arguably more than assassinations and military campaigns—will dictate the future of the country. And thankfully, with publications like Ynet and the Times of Israel, and Israeli writers and activists on Substack or Twitter, there are easy-to-access English resources to keep us smart and informed.

• We should develop new inbound investment models, like a “Herzl Investment Strategy” in the mould of an Israeli Impact Investing strategy, or create more efficient models to invest across Israeli asset classes (i.e Israel Bonds 2.0). We need to shift our thinking from being reactive, and focused on tech/philanthropy, to proactive and broad in its scope.

Put simply, we need to find ways to translate the intense energy and effort in the digital world into real and tangible actions in the real world, and I think it starts with simple steps, designed to increase our knowledge of, and familiarity with, this place we care so much about. Becoming more conversant in Israel’s internal dynamics will also help us become better defenders in the diaspora. It will help us to more effectively address and absorb legitimate criticism of the country and its policies, and show those we’re interested in engaging with that we’re capable of nuance, instead of maintaining the prevailing reactive and defensive posture rooted in the survival-mindset.

b. How can leadership update its approach?

There are lots of incredible Jewish organizations around the world, many of whom do amazing work supporting Israel. I am not intimately familiar with these organizations, but I believe I know enough to make the following constructive observations: there are probably too many organizations, they should coordinate and speak to each other more regularly (especially those in different parts of the world), they should jointly develop strategy, and they should engage more with their younger constituents.

So going forward, I would hope leading diaspora organizations are asking themselves some of the following questions: What role can we play (if any) in supporting the resilience of Israel’s institutions? Is our model of philanthropy fit-for-purpose in the context of a changing Israel? Does our leadership, and our stance towards supporting Israel, accurately reflect the causes and concerns of younger constituents? Are we effectively harnessing the attention, donations and energy of the last year? Are we leveraging them to address Israel’s growing internal risks, or do they remain focused on traditional forms of defence and advocacy?

I am sure organizations are asking themselves a range of these questions, while also dealing with the most challenging year for the global Jewish community in most of our lifetimes. I therefore want this section to be read constructively, and as a contribution to the change we all need to see, not as a criticism. Just as Israel has adapted its foreign policy to meet new regional realities, so too must the diaspora recalibrate its support to address the growing internal divisions threatening the state's long-term stability.

Bringing it together

I want to end by highlighting the words of Israelis themselves. A week ago, the Bereaved Families Memorial Ceremony (an alternate to the official ceremony) was held in Tel Aviv. Jonathan Shamriz was one of the organizers. He is also the brother of one of the hostages accidentally killed by Israeli forces in Gaza in December (Alon Shamriz). I’ve shared the footage of the short speech here, with subtitles (I recommend watching).

I’ve shared it because it’s a powerful and moving speech, and because it contains two messages I want to end the piece with. The first is that the people of Israel are being led by a government—with Benjamin Netanyahu at its head—that a significant majority don’t trust. Whatever your view of him from afar, it’s undeniable that he and his government have led Israel to what is arguably its most precarious point in its history. To understand this, all one needs to do is to listen to Israelis, and hear them describe what this government is doing to the country, its democratic institutions, and its sense of decency. Which is a good segue into the second message I want to end with: the importance of listening to, and supporting, this incredible generation of Israelis. Jonathan ends his speech with the following (emphasis mine):

“I believe that from the ruins and destruction, from the hell we went through, a new generation is rising. A generation that believes in us, in a reformed and united Israeli society, a generation that believes in the Israeli spirit. A generation that will rebuild the ruins and create a better, more moral country — a country where truth is pursued, sanctified, and never let go. We are the generation that will rise from the ruins, from the Holocaust, from the inferno, and fulfil the new Zionist vision. When that happens, I will know that Alon’s [Jonathan’s brother] path has become reality. Rise up. עם ישראל חי.”

This is the energy. I have watched the diaspora expend an enormous amount of energy in the last year defending Israel in a range of forums. And going forward, we should direct some of it to supporting—directly and actively—people like Jonathan, and the vision they have for the country they are building. If there’s one message I hope you take from this piece, it’s that the most effective way for us to support this country is to support its people, starting with developing more tangible connections and a deeper understanding of the place. I acknowledge there are other challenges we need to face in the diaspora, chief amongst them the explosion of an ugly, violent and dangerous wave of antisemitism. But that’s a subject for another piece.

So a year on from the explosion of violence and conflict, my sincere hope is for an end to the fighting as soon as possible—in all its theatres—and a deal to return the hostages. Degrading and defeating enemies is critical, but the longer conflict drags on, the more we sacrifice individual people and their lives at the alter of grand strategy and geopolitics. While the latter is interesting and sexy, the former is all that really matters. May the Jewish New Year, and the Yom Kippur we just observed, bring the literal turning of a page that it describes, and the fresh start we all so desperately need.