The Hour of the Zionist Anti-Zionists

It’s worse than cognitive dissonance.

Joshua, Servant of the Lord.

A noticeable shift occurred in mainstream Jewish, pro-Israel spaces. After Hamas’s October 7th massacre, people began entertaining right-wing ideas about Israel more often, though they were usually expressed with some trepidation in public. The community wanted to hurt the “axis of resistance” and showed determination to support Israel’s war effort. However, brazen ideas regarding the status of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza remained controversial and best to be talked about later. That dynamic shifted on the evening of November 5th. Trump’s victory carries with it a new solution to the Israel question.

To be clear, optimism about the second Trump term (as it pertains to Israel) remains warranted. The president-elect’s warning to Hamas to release the hostages before his inauguration, with the threat of “hell to pay,” offered a breath of fresh air—something President Biden could have done on October 8th, 2023. Additionally, a Trump White House removes concerns about America restoring funding to UNRWA, lifting sanctions on Iran, or supporting terror sponsors during ceasefire and hostage-release negotiations. More normalization agreements with Arab countries may also emerge.

But there is also reason to be pessimistic about the incoming administration, given the public passion of select cabinet members for a one-state solution to the conflict. These men and their ideas have partly driven the rhetorical shift in Jewish spaces, where the snarky, anti-intellectual remark “There is no two-state solution/there was never a two-state solution” grows louder, leaving less room for valid dissent, lest someone face accusations of “wanting to establish a Nazi state” intent on committing another October 7th. Notably, these condemnations of two states rarely include a well-thought-out proposal for how life between the river and the sea should proceed, serving instead as therapeutic left-bashing and an abdication of responsibility. But beyond the talking point-ers, informed advocates for a one-state solution grow brasher and more confident—and they are the ones set to wield power in Washington come January.

David Friedman, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel during Trump’s first term, released his book One State: The Last Best Hope for Solving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict this year, in which he argues that to finally end the constant bloodshed in the region in a post-October 7th world, Israel should annex the West Bank and apply its sovereignty from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. In response to the typical criticism of “What about the Palestinians?” Friedman proposes that, while Arab-Israelis would retain their citizenship and all the rights that come with it, Palestinians in the West Bank would be granted “permanent resident” status. This status would include certain rights, such as voting in local council elections, but would deny others, such as the right to vote for parties in the Knesset. Friedman foresees that in time, once Israel engages in a vague process to filter out the Palestinians who intend to commit violence against Jews and improves the quality of life in areas like Ramallah and Nablus, the Palestinians will grow to accept Israeli and Jewish authority.

This idea, to put it bluntly, is utter lunacy.

How can those opposed to the two-state solution so accurately pinpoint the root of the conflict—that Palestinians do not want to live next to Israel but instead seek to replace it, that they will never abandon the goal of eradicating Jewish self-determination—yet, in the same breath, propose a solution that incorporates millions of non-Jews (upwards of 3 million in the West Bank) into the framework of the Jewish state? These are individuals they correctly describe as uninterested in anything less than an Arab Palestine from the river to the sea. It’s worse than cognitive dissonance.

Absorbing millions of Palestinians into the State of Israel, with the assumption that economic advancement will prevent the collapse of the Zionist project, mirrors the most ardent two-staters and their belief that ending the occupation and granting the Palestinian Authority full privileges of a modern nation-state will magically resolve the conflict. It also reflects the delusion of anti-Zionist one-staters, who envision a “binational” or purely democratic utopia in this land while ignoring the historical reality that binational states inevitably descend into civil war—or worse, genocide.

The Palestinians have rejected every opportunity to build a state of their own next to Israel because they understand this dynamic. They know, and have known for quite some time, that a one-state solution—a single Israeli regime with a population split 50% Jewish and 50% non-Jewish (or even a slight Arab majority)—cannot endure. It will not last. Leaving aside the inevitable cascade of international condemnation and sanctions such a solution would provoke, the sheer amount of terror unleashed on Israeli population centers in its aftermath would break the soul of the country within weeks.

The civic pressure for Arab participation in politics would grow too loud to ignore, representing roughly half the country. In response, Israel would face two equally catastrophic choices: either resort to increasingly illiberal measures to keep this population “in line” or allow anti-Zionist legislation to gain a foothold—saying goodbye to the Law of Return, for example. The Palestinians understand that a one-state solution is a win-win scenario for them. Either they topple Israel with the help of outside countries that isolate the “Jewish” state for its transgressions, or they succeed through a popular uprising—or, more insidiously, by winning political ground through compromises, gradually eroding the Jewish character of the country.

The Zionist project cannot survive a non-Jewish majority. Nor can it survive without adhering to the foundational tenets of its Declaration of Independence, which guarantees equal rights to all Israeli citizens regardless of race or religion. These truths should be of utmost importance to anyone who calls themselves a Zionist or pro-Israel. Yet, disturbingly, they are sidelined by the very people who claim to represent “the most pro-Israel administration in history.” Figures like David Friedman and Mike Huckabee, blinded by their religious fervor, subordinate the justness of Zionism to their fantastic fantasies.

Friedman, an Orthodox Jew, predictably weaves the Torah into his argument for a one-state solution. Anyone familiar with the Religious Zionist movement in Israel will recognize the motifs: “Judea and Samaria are God’s Land,” “Joshua was commanded to destroy the Canaanites,” and “We will not hand over the graves of our forefathers.” Mike Huckabee, the incoming Ambassador to Israel, is an Evangelical and similarly supports extending Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River. Whether this stems from Huckabee’s belief that removing Arabs from God’s Land and replacing them with Jews will hasten the second coming of Christ is up for debate (and usually argument.) Huckabee has also expressed significant discomfort with the term “West Bank,” arguing instead, “We need to use biblical language” (a sentiment that Senator Tom Cotton is looking to enshrine into law.)

At times, the biblical framework for the conflict has borne fruit, such as when Ambassador Friedman moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, justifying the move with the biblical promise to “gather all nations at Jerusalem.” Friedman was rightly praised for this move. Despite the warnings of pundits and politicians, it neither ignited World War III nor provoked significant violence in Israel.

But moving an embassy and extending sovereignty over nearly three million Arabs are not remotely the same thing. Far from it. Friedman may have been correct in his assessment that recognizing reality—that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital—would not spark mass conflict in the region. However, it is sheer arrogance and spiritual superstition to believe that annexing the West Bank would result in the same outcome. This is a prime example of religion leading policymakers disastrously astray rather than being used as a flourish to support practical decisions. Every time religion drives policy in the State of Israel, rather than supporting it, we are left weaker.

Perhaps the rightward shift in the Jewish spaces I frequent reflects reality. Perhaps, if November 5th taught us anything, there is now a mandate for the opposite of the past four years, especially in the arena of foreign policy. I try not to argue with Trump supporters but to listen to them, recognizing that a massive portion of Americans—and an even larger portion of Israelis—think differently than I do. And, as I mentioned earlier, there are reasons to feel optimistic about the new administration, provided its actions concern the laws of men, not the laws of God.

If the top priority remains the one-state solution to the conflict—i.e., annexation—every pro-Israel move the Trump administration has made or will make will be for nothing. The Americans can keep their embassy in Jerusalem, a city we may one day remember tearfully as the capital of the once Jewish state.