The Israel That Is Not Israel: When Faith Becomes an Alibi

Editorial illustration contrasting ancient sacred tradition and the institutions of a modern state — Editorial illustration for Public Perspective.

A familiar confusion has taken hold: the word Israel is spoken as if a biblical figure, a religious tradition, a diverse people, and a modern state were interchangeable. They are not. The Israel of Scripture points to Jacob, the tribes, and a spiritual covenant. The State of Israel, proclaimed on May 14, 1948, is a contemporary political entity with a government, armed forces, disputed borders, and legal responsibilities.

Making that distinction does not deny history or the Jewish people’s profound connection to the land. Nor does it minimize centuries of persecution or the horror of the Holocaust. It means something both simpler and essential: no state, precisely because it is a state, can be placed beyond moral judgment, international law, or democratic scrutiny.

The 1948 war also produced Palestinian displacement on a vast scale. The United Nations records that roughly 750,000 people fled or were expelled from British Mandate Palestine. Israel’s memory of independence and the Palestinian memory of the Nakba coexist, even where they conflict. A responsible account must acknowledge both rather than erase one to protect the other.

Faith Does Not Grant Political Immunity

I am troubled when Christians defend every action of the Israeli government with a phrase intended to end the conversation: “it is God’s people.” A religious claim cannot serve as a pass for political power. Hamas’s attack on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, was atrocious and must be condemned without ambiguity. That condemnation does not require anyone to justify every military response or ignore Palestinian civilian suffering.

International bodies and independent news organizations have documented mass destruction, displacement, and attacks affecting schools, hospitals, and other civilian sites in Gaza. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants related to alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity; Israel rejects the accusations and says its operations are intended to defeat Hamas and free the hostages. Because the allegations are grave and the positions contested, the debate requires evidence and law, not a theological exemption.

A 2024 declaration by Latin American evangelical Christians, published by INFEMIT, condemned both the attacks and abductions of Israeli civilians and the devastation suffered by Palestinians. It also rejected the use of biblical texts to justify violence or displacement. That position shows that criticism of Israeli government decisions is not hostility toward Jewish people, and that Christian faith does not lead inevitably to unconditional political allegiance.

Christian Zionism and Its Reading of the Conflict

Religious support for Israel includes different currents and cannot be reduced to a single explanation. One of the most influential is Christian Zionism, often connected to dispensationalism: an interpretation that distinguishes the destiny of Israel from that of the Church and links the Jewish return to the land with prophecy and the second coming of Christ.

Chilean scholar Luis Aránguiz Kahn studies the phenomenon as a transnational form of religious and political action that presents support for Israel as a moral duty. His work shows how an eschatological belief can become activism, partisan alliances, and influence over foreign policy. The danger arises when the people who do not fit the prophetic script become secondary.

A theology that sees Jewish people only as pieces required for the end times is not a transparent form of love for them. A theology that renders Palestinian Christians or Muslims invisible also betrays the dignity it claims to defend. The Christian question should not be which side accelerates prophecy, but which decisions protect life, justice, and the possibility of peace.

“No state, precisely because it is a state, can be placed beyond moral judgment, international law, or democratic scrutiny.”

Judaism Is Not Synonymous With Zionism

Jewish diversity itself makes it impossible to reduce Judaism to one political position. There are Zionist, non-Zionist, and anti-Zionist Jews, along with deep disagreements over borders, occupation, security, settlements, and Palestinian rights. Recognizing that plurality does not weaken the fight against antisemitism; it makes it more precise.

Neturei Karta, founded in Jerusalem in 1938, is among the most visible Haredi anti-Zionist groups. Its members hold that Jewish sovereignty should come only with the Messiah. It is a small, fringe organization even within ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and its contacts with Iranian authorities and Holocaust deniers have been repudiated by other Jewish communities, including groups that are also critical of Zionism.

Hasidic communities such as Satmar have also challenged Zionism on theological grounds, although their positions and methods are not identical to Neturei Karta’s. Large protests against military conscription for yeshiva students reveal a real divide, but they do not justify describing all ultra-Orthodox Jews as allies of the Palestinian cause. The more careful conclusion is also the stronger one: no single institution speaks for the entire Jewish people.

Political Influence: Evidence Before Conspiracy

The relationship among faith, money, and foreign policy also requires precision. In the United States, AIPAC openly states that it seeks to strengthen the U.S.–Israel relationship and support candidates from both parties who share that position. Its affiliated United Democracy Project is registered with the Federal Election Commission as an independent-expenditure super PAC. Its size, donors, and effects are legitimate subjects of study; turning that inquiry into a theory of Jewish control is not.

The distinction matters. AIPAC is a U.S. advocacy organization, not “the Jews.” Its activities should be examined under the same standards applied to labor unions, corporations, environmental organizations, religious groups, and other actors that finance campaigns or lobby public officials. Federal Election Commission records make it possible to discuss specific figures and decisions without insinuations about collective loyalty.

Latin America likewise includes religious organizations and networks that promote policies favorable to Israel, just as it includes groups that advocate solidarity with Palestinians. Their influence should be studied country by country and through verifiable records, without treating local Jewish communities as automatic extensions of a foreign government. Democratic criticism loses force when it confuses identity, religion, and institutional action.

Criticizing a State Is Not Attacking a People

Antisemitism is a historical and contemporary reality that must be opposed without qualification. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition provides examples involving Israel, but it also states that criticism comparable to that directed at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Content matters: questioning a military operation or settlement policy is not the same as assigning collective guilt to Jewish people, denying their rights, or recycling conspiratorial myths.

At the same time, opposing antisemitism should not be used to close every discussion about a government’s conduct. A mature democracy can uphold two obligations at once: protect Jewish communities from hatred and subject the State of Israel, like every state, to law and public scrutiny.

The same distinction protects Palestinians, whose identity cannot be reduced to Hamas, and Muslims, who should not bear collective suspicion. Responsible language identifies specific conduct and institutions while recognizing victims on both sides.

When God Becomes an Argument of State

Religion can inspire compassion, resistance, and service. It can also be instrumentalized to shield national projects, justify domination, or turn criticism into blasphemy. History offers too many examples of political power wrapped in sacred authority. The lesson is not to expel faith from public life, but to prevent one religious interpretation from becoming a state license to deny rights.

That returns us to the central distinction. Biblical Israel and the State of Israel belong to different categories. One inhabits theology, memory, and religious identity. The other makes public decisions, uses force, signs treaties, and is bound by international obligations. Confusing them benefits power by presenting human decisions as divine commands.

Rejecting a policy of the Israeli government is not opposition to the Jewish people. Defending Palestinian life does not require minimizing Israeli grief. Refusing to let God’s name become a political shield is not an attack on faith. It is a demand that faith keep its conscience when it meets power.

Sources and further reading

This opinion column distinguishes documented facts from the author’s interpretation. The following sources support the historical, legal, and institutional references in the text.

If this analysis adds context to the debate, share it.