H

eadlines such as “Russia’s chief rabbi meets President Putin,” “Albania’s chief rabbi visits Prime Minister Edi Rama,” “Ukraine’s chief rabbi meets President Zelensky,” or “Washington’s chief rabbi gives a blessing to Syrian leader Ahmed al-Shara” have become increasingly common in international media.

These stories are often presented as meetings held to address the concerns of local Jewish communities. Yet a closer reading frequently reveals that discussions also extend into sensitive political territory, particularly matters related to Israel. In some cases, religious leaders have reportedly urged governments to soften criticism of Israeli policies, restrict anti-Israel protests, or limit pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

This pattern has raised questions about the extent to which some diaspora religious figures engage in political advocacy related to a foreign state. While Israel holds deep historical, cultural, and religious significance for many Jews worldwide, the involvement of religious leaders in lobbying host governments on international political issues inevitably invites scrutiny.

Religion, citizenship, and political advocacy

Support for Israel among Jewish communities abroad takes many forms — cultural, emotional, financial, and political — and is a legitimate expression of identity for many individuals. However, the public political engagement of religious leaders, especially when it aligns closely with the foreign policy interests of another state, raises complex questions about the appropriate boundaries between faith, citizenship, and political activism.

In many countries, religious clergy are expected to remain outside partisan or foreign-policy advocacy. In secular states such as France, clerical involvement in politics is often restricted, and breaches of this principle have historically led to legal consequences or public backlash. These norms are designed to protect social cohesion and prevent religion from becoming a vehicle for political power.

In Israel, religion and state are closely intertwined, and rabbis play a formal role in public life, including within the military and state institutions. In that context, religious authority influencing policy is widely accepted as part of the country’s political culture.

However, this domestic reality does not automatically translate to diaspora contexts. When religious leaders abroad move beyond representing community welfare and become outspoken advocates on international political conflicts, their actions may be perceived — rightly or wrongly — as political interference rather than pastoral leadership.

Moral authority

Religious leaders are widely regarded as moral guides, expected to promote peace, justice, and human dignity. In situations involving armed conflict, civilian suffering, or alleged violations of international law, many people expect clergy of all faiths to speak in universal ethical terms rather than align uncritically with any state actor.

When religious figures are seen as endorsing or excusing violence — regardless of who commits it — their moral credibility may be questioned by broader society. This is not unique to any one faith and applies equally to religious leaders of all traditions.

One of the unintended consequences of overt political advocacy by religious leaders can be increased social tension. When faith leaders are perceived as prioritizing foreign political causes over the concerns of the societies in which they live, it can fuel mistrust and resentment — dynamics that ultimately harm minority communities themselves.

Combating antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hatred requires careful attention to how public actions are interpreted. While prejudice is never justified, community leaders also bear responsibility for fostering dialogue rather than deepening divisions.

A Call for caution, not condemnation

This article argues that diaspora Jewish religious leaders should carefully consider the implications of political advocacy that goes beyond community welfare.

Focusing on spiritual leadership, social harmony, and universal ethical principles may ultimately serve both their congregations and wider society more effectively than engaging in contentious geopolitical disputes.

History offers many lessons about the risks of blurred lines between religion and politics. Respecting those lessons may help ensure peace, trust, and security for all communities in increasingly polarized times.

Ruhama Marton, M.D., born in Jerusalem before Israel’s creation, founded Physicians for Human Rights-Israel 33 years ago As someone who has worked tirelessly her entire life for human rights and equality in historic Palestine, I wanted to hear her views about the radicalization of Jewish Israeli youth, especially in light of the most recent Israeli aggression in Gaza and the West Bank and the mobs attacking Palestinians in mixed Israeli cities.

Over the last 10 years or more, coinciding with Netanyahu’s leadership, “nationalism” has become synonymous with “patriotism.” Ruhama explains that being a Jewish, specifically Zionist patriot is at the heart of this radicalization. If you are not a Zionist, you are not a patriot; you are a traitor or antisemitic yourself and therefore not “one of us.” As in all extremist movements, when the language of “us and them” becomes the standard to speak about right and wrong, there is already a disregard for humanity and dehumanization of the ‘other.’

In recent decades, the Zionist Israeli collective has been deeply influenced by the growing power of religious Israeli Jews. Ruhama explains that being “Religious” is not about theology, but centered on slogans such as “Elohim Hiftiach lanu et Haaretz”, G-d promised us this land. This, as a concept, is enough for these radicalized Jews. The focus on G-d’s promise is a call to action, producing psychopathic behaviors in these followers, without moral limits. These religious Zionists settlers are entitled to do whatever they like. In fulfilling G-d’s promise, they may kill and burn people alive, and vandalize homes, businesses, and houses of worship. Everything is legitimized by this slogan.

Ruhama remembers the small Zionist left that understood right and wrong and behaved morally. But being both “created such a headache.” How can you be both Zionist and a leftist? Jewish state or democracy? Jewish rights or equal rights? Though some still call themselves Zionist leftists, they sadly have no idea that they are irrelevant and their sense of right and wrong and their Zionism is dead.

With G-d on their side, right-wing fascist religious Jews don’t have these problems because there is nothing to determine if something is right or wrong. These ideas don’t exist within this framework. And because the vast majority of Israeli society are Zionists, there is no one to stop the madness. From young teenagers to the elderly, they are emboldened to do what they want.

Netanyahu’s outgoing right-wing government fueled these sentiments because the settlers’ actions work for the government politically. They need the religious settlers to build power, working in tandem, in their own ways, to fulfill the ‘promise’ of Greater Israel by making life unbearable for Palestinians through intimidation and violence. For the Israeli government, this is a practical way to clear out the Palestinians and finally achieve the goal of the land without Palestinians.

Sadly, the majority of Israeli society seems content with nationalist Zionist patriotism. Younger people, who lack any contact with Palestinians, have been taught that Palestinians are the enemy, and Israel the victim. The right-wing government blames and dehumanizes Palestinians while claiming to protect Israeli Jews from internal and external enemies.

Israelis see the success of the religious extremists and don’t question the larger moral and ethical issues related to the occupation. There is no space for that consciousness to exist. Regardless, the society is still responsible for its behavior.

Ruhama mentioned the small minority of Israeli Jews who are moved by the immoral actions of the apartheid regime, who say “no, we do not agree.” However, this group lacks influence. Before our conversation, I received an important and unprecedented statement circulated by Israeli Jews calling for the decolonization of historic Palestine. It says, as Ruhama did, that nothing will penetrate Israeli hearts and minds.

The efforts of so many to do so from the inside has been a waste of time. The only course to address the future of Israel and Palestine is unapologetic international pressure, for example by following Palestinian civil society’s call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. But international pressure has not reached the tipping point required to make this apartheid regime fall like in South Africa. Australian Jews, U.S. Jews, and others are adding their names for decolonization alongside what Palestinians have demanded for decades and what some Israeli Jews are sending out as a message for help from outside.

What could the future look like? Ruhama said that if the International Criminal Court in the Hague would take Israel to task, this could be a game-changer. Both hopeful and hesitant with leadership changes in the ICC, she is going to see what will happen. She believes that international pressure on South Africa helped turn the tide, and that this is the only reality that can change Israel’s course.

It is not easy to imagine the transformative and healing process to change the Israel of today into a decolonized space, or how to address the harms that Israel has done. Ruhama agreed that South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission might not be an exact fit. She is clear that the process will be long. She believes what would work is to give Palestinians all the political, social, cultural, and economic rights that Jews enjoy, including the right of return and reparations.

And although money cannot undo injustice, it is a part of addressing wrongs. She recalls from her own past how Jews and Palestinians once lived together. She is not concerned about everyone loving one another, because there are plenty of people not to love – “where there is no big love, there is no big hatred.” Her main concern is that there be mutual respect and a sense of common humanity, to create a community that can thrive.  And this is down the road, after the harms have been addressed, and everyone has access to the same rights.

As the echoes of the global reaction to the recent human rights violations in Sheikh Jarrah and Gaza continue worldwide, Politics Today interviewed the renowned Jewish American author, physician, and human rights activist, Alice Rothchild, on how to interpret the transition from the oppressed to the oppressor and the challenges of defining, discussing and reporting the settler-colonialism in Palestine as well as the ways forward for meaningful peace advocacy and solidarity.

Q. As a Jewish American author, a human rights activist, and a physician, you have numerous works in which you critically reflect on physical realities in Israel and Palestine. Can we hear the story of who you are and how your engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian predicament has started in your own words?

My grandparents were Orthodox Jews and immigrants to the U.S. I grew up in a very traditional Jewish family, which was fairly secular. I went to a Hebrew school, I had a bat mitzvah,[1] and went to Israel when I was 14. I still have my 14-year-old diary, so I know how I felt about my trip to this magical place.

I am also a child of the sixties, so I was in college during the Vietnam war when I began to learn about colonialism, racism, and Islamophobia. Thus, I became a much more politically aware person and began to look at the world in a more political way and a less tribal, Jewish way.

This is also when I began to frame things happening in Israel and Palestine in terms of colonialism and imperialism. Over the years there were various grassroots organizations that my friends and I made and joined. I am now involved in Jewish Voice for Peace as my main organization, which I am really happy to be part of.

I saw my role as uplifting the voices that are there and not usually heard, so I listened to the Palestinian narrative and tried to explore their experience of loss and occupation. Then, I used my privilege as a white Jewish woman to make all the stories that people tell me more visible. Yes, I understand anti-Semitism and Jewish oppression in Europe and the Holocaust, and I get it. But I also think that the principles that Israel was founded on are ultimately indefensible.

Q. So, as a Jewish American, who is not only well-aware of the trauma of the Holocaust, but also as an author and a physician, who has the first-hand experience on the physical realities in Palestine, how do you evaluate the transition from the persecuted to the persecutor, or from the oppressed to the oppressor in this story?

Well, it is not an unusual transformation if we look around the world, but it is an example of that transformation. The particular concern is that people who have lived through something horrific or have experienced tremendous loss, are victims. But once people adopt victimhood as one of their main stories, this sense of victimhood permits you to do whatever is necessary to survive. And this is what has happened in the Jewish community.

The idea is that, as a victim, I can do anything to survive, even if that means victimizing other people, is morally and politically problematic.

The idea is that, as a victim, I can do anything to survive, even if that means victimizing other people, is morally and politically problematic. We cannot use victimhood to justify such behaviors. Looking at the Holocaust and saying never again for me but not saying never again for anybody, is unjustifiable. Also, that attitude does not make us safer.

So, until the Jewish community overcomes this particular way of dealing with the traumas of the Holocaust, we are never going to get out of this cultural psychopathology. We need to acknowledge that we are no longer victims.

Q. So you mean settler-colonialism is the underlying principle of the Israeli state that guides up to this day.

Yes, if you look at the settler project in the West Bank, it is just a continuation of the Nakba in 1948. And that is what settler colonialism is. It is what we did in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and it is heartbreaking for Jews to figure this out because Israel was supposed to be different. It was supposed to be the “light onto the nations”.

The state embodies the colonial principles it was founded on, and sadly, it is a very tiny percentage of the Jewish population that challenges this idea. Even most people on the left in Israel are not anti-Zionist, they still believe that there should be a state where Jews are in a privileged position over Palestinians. You cannot be a democracy and privilege one group over another.

Q. You also draw attention to the lack of questioning of Israeli policies by the mainstream Jewish community in the U.S. In light of the global reaction to what has happened in Sheikh Jarrah and Gaza recently, can you talk about a shift towards the policies of Israel in Palestine?

I think we have to be realistic in terms of positions of power. Both on the federal and the local level, there is a lot of what I would call reactionary thinking. The powerful mainstream parts of the Jewish community (and the evangelical Christian community) are still stuck where they are.  Many bills and laws on the local and federal level say that criticizing Israel is anti-Semitic and until now if you say something progressive or sympathetic to Palestinians, you get a huge amount of pushback.

But there are also a lot of powerful progressive groups challenging that, such as Jewish Voice for Peace. Also, in the U.S. Congress, there are now progressive Palestinian or Muslim congresspeople. The fact that there are some voices in Congress is in fact revolutionary because 20 years ago we could have only dreamed of such a thing. The Black Lives Matter movement has endorsed solidarity with Palestinians.  There is a much more open conversation on social media. At the local level we see changes as well. For instance the teachers’ union in California recently voted to support a boycott of Israel, which is also revolutionary.

Smaller victories like that are really important because no one gives up power voluntarily, and neither would the Israeli political machine. From their point of view, they have been very successful as a thriving little country with a massive military budget, and support from the United States. Why give that up? So, we have to see that U.S. foreign policy is part of what helps Israel do what it does and acknowledge that we are responsible as well. There are ways to pressure Congress and we need to seize it.

Q. Thanks to the new communication tools and primarily social media, suppression of marginalized communities became more and more visible, but, on the other hand, there are too many double standards, as applied for example to some Palestinians on both social and mainstream media during the recent Israeli aggression over Gaza. What’s your view on this?

I think the double standard is partly related to the fact that there is a multi-million-dollar industry devoted to following social media and attacking people with progressive views. The messaging is very clear and the punishment for deviating from the messaging is very powerful; careers have been destroyed, professors have lost their academic appointments, teachers have lost their jobs. There is a cost, and the opposition tries to make the cost as heavy as possible.

Yes, the messaging control is fierce, and it is well-funded, but the good news is that people who previously were invisible can now get their message out, and so this war in the media is challenged. But, as I said earlier, even though we see the beginnings of the wall cracking, the reins of power are not giving up. So, we need to listen to what Palestinian people are saying, we need to honor it, uplift it, and be in solidarity. I think that that is a really powerful role for us, which I try to take via the Health Advisory Council of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Q. Now that the whole world is watching what is happening in the region, do you believe that the narrative at hand has lost its legitimacy?

I think it has been certainly challenged and that you are right; it has lost some of its legitimacy, but again, I do not think we should underestimate the power of the people who are defending its legitimacy. They are internationally very well-funded. But I do think that the ship has been damaged. Yet, we still have to keep working harder because nothing is over yet.

Astudy conducted by Dr. Noa Lavi in 2016, found Israeli youth to be “the most right-wing compared to countries in Western Europe.” A 2018 Israeli Democracy Institute survey showed that “approximately 64 percent of Israeli Jews aged 18-34 identify as right-wing, compared to 47 percent of those 35 and older.” Israeli Jewish radicalization did not start in the 21st century. Its antecedents are critical to understanding this moment. For more information, see here (link to other article above).

The underlying beliefs of the Israeli right-wing are: Territorial expansion into all of Eretz Yisrael (historic Palestine), prioritizing Jewish identity over democracy, focus on security and Israel’s existential threat, distrust of Palestinians and foreigners, and centrality of Nationalism/Patriotism.

Israeli Jews have been misled by being told repeatedly there was a ‘failed peace process’ without a Palestinian partner. Neither government officials nor educational institutions say that two decades of the Oslo process was never about peace, instead, entrenching Israeli control over more of historic Palestine. Israeli youth grew up during the Second Palestinian Intifada. Suicide bombings and missiles from Gaza were the vehicles that allowed Israel to justify itself as the victim.

Israelis were trained to believe Palestinians were terrorists and wanted to wipe Israel off the map, while Israel besieged and assaulted Gaza and occupation continued. Young Jewish Israelis have no contact with Palestinians unless in a military uniform as occupier or as illegal settlers: they live in different communities while the apartheid wall separates Israeli Jews (and other Palestinians) from Palestinians.

The Netanyahu Era 

Since 2009, Israeli Jewish youth only know Netanyahu as Prime Minister, and right-wing fascist leaders including Avigdor Lieberman, Naftali Bennet, and Ayelet Shaked. They have seen Netanyahu: expand settlements; illegally annex Palestinian lands; pass the nation-state law; neglect Palestinian communities; ignore organized crime; tell Palestinians in Israel to go live in the West Bank and Gaza; say that a coalition with Arab political parties “would be an existential threat to Israel”; incite violence toward Palestinians; condone police collaboration with Israeli Jewish settlers and other extremist groups attacking Palestinians in Israel; and again pursue a policy of intensified military aggression on Gaza with disregard for killing civilians.

Netanyahu’s right-wing government also advocates for: territorial expansion; Palestinian transfer; mowing down Gaza; stripping Palestinians of citizenship; passing half of the 65 discriminatory laws in Israel. These actions give settlers and nationalists justification for violence against Palestinians. Amos, a 17-year old Israeli, was quoted in 2019 saying: “killing Arabs is a religious duty.”

Under Netanyahu, Social justice demonstrations in 2011 demanded solutions to lack of housing, the rise in cost-of-living, corruption, and government accountability for social welfare. As African asylum seekers sought refuge, the government demonized and blamed them for societal ills, detaining and forcibly deporting them because of xenophobia and anti-black racism. Add to this, recent police provocations blocking the Damascus Gate during Ramadan, escorting Israeli settlers to the Temple Mount, and decades of forced displacement of Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah and all over Palestine.

The Palestinian civil society’s call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions on Israel became a focus for the Netanyahu government after globally gaining traction. The government started funding public relations strategies, pouring resources into misinformation campaigns calling BDS antisemitic, banning its Jewish and non-Jewish supporters from Israel, and supporting the International Holocaust Remembrance definition of antisemitism to include critiques of Israel.

Settlements in Mixed Cities

In 2005, Gush Katif settlers in Gaza were removed. And the betrayed settlers founded new settlement projects in mixed cities all over Israel. In the last decade, the Israeli settler movement focused on creating a presence in mixed cities such as  Jaffa, Lyd, Ramle, and Acre, to keep land in Jewish hands and a Jewish majority,  cities ethnically cleansed of many Palestinian inhabitants in 1948. Settlers build West Bank-like settlement enclaves, where Palestinians are kept under surveillance and settlers are protected by police, showing no interest in coexistence.

Mobs/Lynchings/Incitement

Recent incidents show clearly this extremist violence. In Jerusalem, Lehava, a violent Israeli Jewish anti-miscegenation, anti-Arab organization, organized a demonstration at Damascus Gate during Ramadan chanting “Your village should be burnt down” and “Death to the Arabs.” Over 100 Palestinian were injured and others detained. Police used “stun grenades, tear gas and water cannons” against Palestinians. Besides police protection, a 2011 investigation exposed that the Israeli government had funded over half of Lehava’s budget. Lehava, Ateret Cohanim, Yad L’achim, and other extremist groups are sheltered from accountability for the violent crimes they commit and are funded from abroad.

In Bat Yam, fascism spread to the Mizrahi-majority city. Three Israeli Jews pulled Palestinian Said Musa of Ramle from his car and brutally beat him while being filmed by Israeli TV. Fascist groups also roamed Tiberius and Acre attacking Palestinians and their businesses.

Palestinian journalist Rami Younis of Lydd points to incitement by Israeli media to “shoot and kill Palestinians,” while also describing the Jewish mob attacks in Ramle and Lydd, with special unit police collaboration. Though there were curfews for residents in the mixed cities, the settlers were “escorted by Israeli police and allowed to roam free.” The groups marked Palestinian homes to attack later. The legal system also colludes with police and settler violence. Younis explains that only 2 of 162 indictments were brought against Jewish supremacists, while all others were against Palestinian protesters.

Tamr Nafar of Lydd, Palestinian rapper and activist, co-founder of DAM, speaks about Jewish settler violence against Palestinians in Lydd being “armed and protected by police”, while setting the context of structural inequality in mixed cities.

At the same time, West Bank Palestinians are detained and shot, and families are evicted from their homes. The aerial bombardment of Gaza over 11 days is evidence of the Israeli demonization of Palestinians there. Israel targeted civilians and media and health centers. Whole buildings collapsed in a matter of seconds, decimating entire families, and leaving tens of thousands of Palestinians without homes.

There are endless stories showing the web of connections between the Israeli government, police and military, settlers, and other extremist groups. To address the radicalization of youth, one must recognize that the majority of Israeli Jews accept this status quo. However, there are a minority of Israeli Jews calling for an end to apartheid and for decolonization.

The end of the Cold War in the 1990s and the emergence of religiously motivated political groups on the international scene, made us aware of the role of religion in international conflicts. The Clash of Civilizations written by Samuel Huntington around this time, became central to decipher the political role of religion. Although it has been invalidated by numerous surveys that show that actually clashes occur mostly within civilizations (which are far from operating as homogenous monoliths), the thesis nevertheless remains politically influential.

In the current international context, this simplified vision of religion on the international scene has led to the exclusive focus on Islam and terrorism. This contributes to the misleading perception, that the scope and reach of terrorism in the name of God has grown out of control, that this violence is inspired by the specifics of the Islamic tradition and resilient to usual forms of compromise or negotiation. The reality is that all religious traditions can partake into political violence and challenge democracy.

Case in point: in the 1960s, the Catholic Church was seen as a major obstacle to democratization because of its support to authoritarian and military regimes from Franco in Spain to Pinochet in Chile. The ongoing radicalization of Buddhism in Myanmar or Hinduism in India are highlighting that shift to radicalism that can affect all traditions, not to mention the rise of global Orthodoxy that pursues international projects in contradiction with the international order. Regretfully, the systematic comparison of these modes of radicalization has yet to be undertaken.

I have repeatedly shown that the relevance of religion is not in the content of the religious  tradition per se but in the interactions between religious and political actors, institutions, and ideas. From this perspective, limiting Islam or any other religious tradition to beliefs or texts proves to be a dead end as the text can lead to opposite interpretations and mobilizations.

Instead, looking at the ways religious belonging and behaving intersect with political identities and behaviors solve the puzzle of apparently very secular projects leading to political battles over Islamically correct social behaviors, which are currently happening not only in Egypt, Iraq, Sudan to name a few but also India, Myanmar or Israel.

In other words, the social and political visibility of religion is not caused by an increase in personal beliefs or religiosity. People are not more fervent believers than they used to be, but their identification to religion has certainly shifted, creating a conjunction of religious and political identities that facilitate political mobilization and sometimes radical actions.

The politicization of religion in Muslim countries can be traced back to the building of the nation-state and the active role of “secular rulers” in reshaping the Islamic tradition.

Such a perspective requires a “longue durée”, historicized analysis that drastically challenges the rational choice centered theories that still dominate the field of radicalization and security studies.

To be more specific, the radicalization of religion is related to its nationalization. To be clear, most of religions within nations operate peacefully but to understand how and when religious identities or practices become radicalized, the starting point is the establishment of the modern political community a.k.a.  the nation.

Religion and National Community

For example, the politicization of religion in Muslim countries can be traced back to the building of the nation-state and the active role of “secular rulers” in reshaping the Islamic tradition. Nation-building put an end to the political  autonomy of religious institutions  that dominated the caliphal periods. It also went hand-in-hand with the homogenization of the populations inhabiting the nation’s territory.

That is why nation-building systematically omitted and sometimes eradicated particular ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups in order to create one nation defined by one religion and one language. This homogenization led to a politicized narrative of religion, that I have called political Islam.

With the rise of the nation-state, a congruence was created between Muslims of a certain religious obedience (for example, in the Sunni groups, Maleki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, and Hanafi schools) and bounded territory. Although the westernized elites were not always pious, they understood that they could not build a nation without including the belonging to Islam. To be clear, this readjustment to the national territory happened to all religious traditions but with different outcomes.

For example, Christianity in Europe at the time of the Reformation, saw its societal influence reordered by the nation-state, but also its doctrinal content redefined to make room for the state sovereignty over mundane matters. In the case of Islam, what I have called hegemonic forms of religion appeared.

Religious hegemony is not reflected in whether a state has an official religion but in a wide range of government religion policies found in many states without official religions.

It entails three main features:

– Absorption of the institutions and personnel of the religion into the state system while the other religions at best do not benefit from the same status or at worst lack legal recognition

– Inclusion of some of religious prescriptions within the legal system (family law, blasphemy)

– Shaping of the national narrative by making the belonging to the hegemonic religion the by default civic and national identity of all citizens.

In other words, religious hegemony refers to exclusive legal and political privileges granted to a specific religious group, and the association of this religion with citizenship and national belonging, while all other religious groups are marginalized. This nationalization of religion also happened in Buddhist countries like Thailand, Myanmar or Butan. Surveys show that states with hegemonic religions tend to be less democratic, independently of the specificity of the religious tradition.

Judaism, along the same line, has become a hegemonic religion in Israel, hence fueling discrimination against other religious minorities as well as uncompromising positions vis-à-vis the Palestinian claims. That is a sharp departure from the status of Jewish minorities in Europe where they had adapted to the secular national contexts by disconnecting their religious belonging from allegiance to the European political communities. We see the same trend of hegemonic Hinduism expressed in Hinduist movements that now dominate the political scene in the originally secular Indian democracy.

Additionally, global radical groups like Al Quaida or ISIS do not represent a return to pre-national forms of Islam. Quite the contrary: They are the result of dissemination of concepts that were originally framed within nations but now have spread beyond national boundaries. In other words, the existing forms of global Jihad are the transnational versions s of the interpretations of Sayyid Qutb (initially aimed at fighting against the national unjust ruler), combined with the Wahhabi doctrine which is also a modern (albeit not a modernist) religious interpretation.

Unlike the forms of national Jihad, the transnational dimension of the global Jihad appeals to young Muslims across countries because it offers and idealized and imagined Community of Believers all united in one single goal. In other words, to understand the radical forms of Islam today, it is more relevant to look into the political and cultural socialization of the activists than into their level of piety or the content of the Islamic tradition.

This nationalization and globalization of religion is also visible in Christian majority countries. Although religious diversity and pluralism in the U.S. has increased over recent decades, Christians remain the largest religious group in the country. Seemingly paradoxically, this increase in religious diversity has also been accompanied by an increase in the view of America as a Christian country. Like in Muslim countries, such a perspective remains for most Christian citizens symbolic without becoming intolerant or radical.

December 11, 1917 is the day which changed the course of history for Palestine and its indigenous population and the day that wrote the first chapter of the land’s modern era of colonization, occupation, and dispossession. It is the day when Britain captured Jerusalem from the Ottomans and began laying the groundwork for the creation of the state of Israel in fulfilment of the Balfour Declaration.

Shortly after the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour signed a letter on November 2, 1917, declaring his government’s support for the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, British troops led by General Edmund Allenby turned towards the Holy Land.

“Jerusalem Operations” began on November 17 of the same year as part of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign against the Ottoman Empire during World War I. By December 7, the British had already reached the Holy City.

On the morning of December 9, Ottoman troops peacefully surrendered the city to British command with a letter from the city’s governor:

For the past two days, bombs have been raining on Jerusalem, holy to all communities. Therefore, the Ottoman Government, in order to safeguard the religious places from ruin and destruction, has withdrawn its forces from the city and has commissioned officials to take care of the religious places like the Holy Sepulchre and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Hoping that your treatment will also be similar…

Then British Prime Minister David Lloyd George described the capture of Jerusalem as “a Christmas present for the British people” and numerous publications in the U.K. described the event as the “Last Crusade”

Jerusalem had fallen. General Allenby entered Jerusalem on foot through the Jaffa Gate two days later marking the beginning of the British occupation of the city. Upon his entry, a proclamation declaring martial law was read aloud in English, French, Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Greek, assuring residents that no harm would come to them or to the city’s holy sites.

Then British Prime Minister David Lloyd George described the capture of Jerusalem as “a Christmas present for the British people” and numerous publications in the U.K. described the event as the “Last Crusade.”

Although this was the first time that a Christian army had taken over the Holy City since Saladin had liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, British sovereignty over Palestine was not the end goal. It rather served as a step towards the formation of the Israeli state.

Facilitating mass Jewish immigration to Palestine and Britain’s gross disregard for the indigenous Palestinian population and their national aspirations eventually led to the establishment of the state of Israel in May 1948, reshaping the entire geopolitical order of the Middle East and North Africa.

Although the Balfour Declaration and the fall of Jerusalem set the cornerstone of the creation of Israel, the process was years in the making as British politicians worked directly and indirectly with the World Zionist Organization (WZO) to lobby the U.K. government to take a leading role in furthering their cause.

In the eyes of the Palestinians, who were seeking their own independence and right of self-determination, a foreign power with no legal title to the land of Palestine was handing over their homeland to Zionist settler colonialists who would go on to oppress them and deny them their rights for decades to come.

Though not a member of the World Zionist Organization himself, the liberal politician and the first nominally practicing Jewish cabinet minister actively campaigned for a Jewish national home in Palestine.

Although often overshadowed by Balfour, it was in fact Samuel who in 1915 proposed the idea of establishing a British protectorate over Palestine after the end of the First World War for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Samuel’s words continue to ring true today as Palestinians continue to suffer under a grinding military occupation which has left millions struggling for their most basic rights.

In a report reviewing his first year as High Commissioner in Palestine, Samuel said: “Zionists sometimes forget or ignore the present inhabitants of Palestine… many of whom hold, and hold strongly, very different views.”

Samuel’s words continue to ring true today as Palestinians continue to suffer under a grinding military occupation which has left millions struggling for their most basic rights.

Britain has always revered the Balfour Declaration and its role in the establishment of the state of Israel.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May hosted her Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu in 2017 as they jointly marked the centennial since the British pledge that paved the way for Israel’s creation. “We are proud of the relationship we have built with Israel. And as we mark one hundred years since Balfour, we look forward to taking that relationship even further,” she said in a speech during the dinner in London.

Today, the U.K. sees Israel as a friend and an ally with whom they have strong diplomatic and trade ties, carry out joint military training, and enjoy a long history of intelligence and security cooperation. The two countries have already signed a contingency trade deal on preferential terms after the U.K. leaves the EU.

In 2019, Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s visit to Jerusalem, in which he placed a note between the stones of Jerusalem’s Western Wall, known amongst Muslims as the Buraq Wall, before meeting senior Israeli officials and praying at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, was the first visit by a U.K. cabinet minister in 19 years.

As far as the UK’s foreign policy stance towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is concerned, successive British governments have iterated and reiterated their commitment to a two-state solution, with a negotiated peace settlement that leads to “secure and recognised borders” for both countries and with Jerusalem as “the shared capital of both states.”

Current U.K. Prime Minister and then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson published an article in the Daily Telegraph in 2017 ahead of the centennial, professing Britain’s pride in its role in Israel’s formation while calling for the two-state solution to be implemented, saying that he sees “no contradiction in being a friend of Israel…while also being deeply moved by the suffering of those affected and dislodged by its birth.” In fact, earlier that year Johnson went as far as to admit that the alternative to a two-state solution is “apartheid.”

Britain’s official stance and its criticism of Israeli abuses and practices, such as the continued expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and the systematic ill-treatment of Palestinian children in Israeli military custody, among many others, recognize Israel’s flagrant violations and disregard for Palestinian rights enshrined in international law and their aspirations for an independent state.

However, Britain’s passive role towards the Palestinians, on the one hand, and its active support of Israel on the other, continue to facilitate Israel’s incessant illegal and immoral actions in the occupied territories and to sustain a brutal, decades-long military occupation.

In light of its historical legacy and significant role in the suffering experienced by Palestinians today, Britain has a greater obligation than any other western country to safeguard Palestinian rights, hold Israel to account, and show real commitment backed by concrete actions to bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

While we continue to watch Trump’s disregard for the U.S. democratic election process and unwillingness to concede to President-elect Biden, how Jewish Americans voted gives some indication about the significance of Biden’s win and the opportunity to roll back Trump’s policies and disregard for humanity on national and global levels.

Jewish Americans are a religious and cultural minority that most closely aligns with the social, economic, and political priorities of the Democratic party. In the Jewish Electorate survey, Jews supported Biden over Trump at a higher rate than the general population. A J Street poll showed support for Biden 77%-21%, a 56% margin. The Jewish electorate has broad ideological commitments, including to many progressive causes. Factors pulling voters to the right include assimilation, economic class, religious conservatism, and Israel policy. Because of strong voter turnout, Jewish voters, though a small minority, can be a factor in pushing a candidate over the line in a swing state or in a tight race such as the January 5th Georgia U.S. Senate runoff elections which will determine the Senate majority.

The U.S. Jewish population, the world’s largest at about 7.5 million, comprises 2% of the U.S. population but between 2-5% of the electorate. The majority of Jewish Americans are white and Ashkenazi, however, the Counting Inconsistencies study estimates that 12-15% are Jews of Color, Black, Latinx, or other. The majority of Jewish Americans who vote Democratic identify as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, secular, unaffiliated or with no religion, while orthodox Jews make up 10-12% of Jewish Americans. Ultra-orthodox Jews principally vote Republican, backing Trump on Israel and conservative religious issues. Sephardic voting patterns are less clear, since it is ambiguous whether Sephardic Jews identify in surveys as Hispanic or Middle Eastern or otherwise nonwhite, and whether they identify with a particular Jewish religious stream. In terms of influence on political campaigns, 15 of the 25 major donors to 2020 Republican and Democratic presidential and other campaigns are Jewish or have Jewish ancestry. However, it is imperative not to conflate major donors’ personal priorities with those of a broad and diverse Jewish electorate.

Most Jews felt less safe than the four years prior due to rising antisemitism, exemplified by Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and Neo-Nazi marchers in Charlottesville and the deadly shootings at the Poway and Tree of Life synagogues. The shock and horror of George Floyd’s murder also brought with it a new understanding and commitment to fighting against anti-Black state violence.

An especially problematic feature of the Trump years has been the overt conflation of Jewish Americans with Israel under the guise of support for Israel. Trump told Jewish voters “we love your country,” and that they should vote for him because he “stood with your prime minister” (referring to Israel and Netanyahu). This ultimately endangers Jewish Americans by exposing them to antisemitic accusations of dual loyalty.

In fact, Jewish Americans have become more critical of Israel and Israel is a top-two concern for only 5% of J Street poll participants. With that said, however, since both candidates expressed a commitment to Israel, Jewish voters were not faced with a difficult choice related to Israeli policies. Were a presidential candidate to express genuine support for Palestinian human rights and equality, as Bernie Sanders did, we might have seen whether Israel would have emerged as a more significant issue.

Trump moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, legitimizing Israeli settlements, and brokering normalization agreements between Israel and the U.A.E. and Bahrain, did not dramatically shift Jewish voting. Though some Jewish voters sided with Trump, even some Republicans (e.g., at the online gathering Jewish Republicans for Biden – Putting Country over Party) expressed worry over the fallout of irresponsible Middle East policies as well as Trump’s lack of moral character.

The Republican Jewish Coalition reports that Trump received 30.5% of the Jewish vote. The discrepancy between this number and J Street’s data could possibly be due to the organization’s political leaning and polling methodology which tilts toward an older and conservative population. It’s no surprise that the economy, Israel, and foreign policy weighed heavily for Trump, while support for Biden highlighted character and addressing COVID-19. Additionally, the ultra-orthodox and a quarter of modern orthodox supported Trump because of the administration giving Israel carte blanche. The U.S. administration’s diplomatic recognition of Israeli violations of international law indeed wooed some hawkish Jewish voters. Democratic voters might accept or even agree with these policies, but they do not determine their presidential choice.

While most Jewish Americans continue to find a home in the Democratic party, the makeup of the Jewish community is changing. Mainline Jewish institutions are losing their influence and relevance while movements like Black Lives Matter are capturing the ideological imagination and providing the leadership and home that radically inclusive, intersectional, young, Black, Indigenous, Jews of Color, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews (BIJOCSM) and other progressive Jews are seeking.

These movements unapologetically support justice for Palestinians and oppose harmful U.S. foreign policies. These activists will increasingly engage with the progressive wing of the Democratic party, working tirelessly to get out the vote even for a centrist Democrat such as Joe Biden because they know their lives depend on it, and in the hope of advancing a broader and more meaningful, transformational progressive agenda.