Why Israel is Losing the PR War

8/22/2025

On Wednesday night this week, hundreds of Islanders braved the pouring rain to hear from Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, at our third and final Critical Conversations event of the season.

At a time when Israel is growing increasingly unpopular, it was an incredible opportunity for our community to hear the Ambassador’s eloquent, moving, and empowering voice of clarity. It was an evening that will forever be remembered on Martha’s Vineyard.

It is no secret that when Zionism first began as a political movement, it was strongly rejected by large swaths of the Jewish community—on both sides of the religious spectrum.

Many Reform leaders at the time felt that Jewish communities had successfully integrated into their host countries and that there was no need to look elsewhere for a home.

Decades earlier, In 1818 Hamburg, when the first permanent reform congregation was established, they even changed the name of their house of prayer from “Synagogue” to “Temple” to emphasize this point. The Temple is no longer in Jerusalem; it’s in Hamburg. Zion is no longer in Israel; it’s in Germany. Similar arguments were made in the early 1900s by American reform rabbis.

Orthodox leaders were opposed to Zionism for a completely different reason. They never assimilated into their host countries in Europe and never had the luxury of thinking that Germany was the new Zion. On the contrary, they were praying three times a day for the return of all Jews to the land of Israel.

But they disagreed with Zionist ideology which professed that Judaism as a religion was no longer relevant or necessary. Many early Zionist thinkers argued that if it was traditions, Torah, and mitzvot that were the fabric of Jewish peoplehood for thousands of years in exile, now it would be nationhood, with land and language, that would take its place. There was no need for Judaism, they argued. Zionism would become the new Judaism.

Naturally, most Orthodox leaders were skeptical and often openly opposed to this early Zionist philosophy.

That all changed, of course, when the state was established in 1948. Now it was not a conversation about ideology —it was a conversation about reality.

Notwithstanding their disagreements with Zionist leaders, the rabbis understood that it was the Zionists who facilitated the great return of millions of Jews to our ancestral homeland, for which we’ve prayed for thousands of years, and it was the Zionists who would protect the lives of these millions of Jews—and indeed Jews all around the world.

Today, in the colloquial usage of the word Zionism, virtually all Orthodox groups are Zionist. Chabad is not ideologically Zionist, but it is practically Zionist, and oftentimes is more staunchly pro-Israel than many other Zionist groups.

This is because if your belief in Israel as a home for Jews is based on religious values, it will be unwavering.

If our belonging in the land of Israel is because it’s the land that G-d promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; because it’s where our holy Temple stood; because it’s the place for which we pray three times a day, every day, for thousands of years—then no modern political argument will weaken your commitment.

But if our belonging in the land of Israel is reduced to a modern political ideology arguing for self-determination like every other people, then the argument can—and will—be weakened by opposing political views. Who says it’s our land to live in? Who gives us the right to self-determination in a disputed territory?

Last week in the Parsha, we read over and over again how G-d promises the land of Israel to the Jews in reward for our commitment to His covenant and our dedication to Torah and mitzvot. The Bible is the greatest argument we have for Israel. I think it was a grave miscalculation of early Zionists to separate Judaism from Zionism.

Today, we are all faced with claims that anti-Zionism is different from antisemitism. People on the far right and the far left constantly argue that Israel is a modern secular political entity, not a religious one, and therefore one can call for the dismantlement of Israel without being antisemitic.

Is that true or not? Can one be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic?

It all depends on what Zionism means. If we separate Zionism from Judaism, then there’s an argument to be made. But if we don’t separate the two—if the land of Israel is part of our Jewish identity, if it’s how we were formed as a nation, if it’s where the story of the Jews begins in the Torah—then anti-Zionism is absolutely antisemitism.

The early Zionists deserve massive credit for creating a safe haven for Jews in Israel and allowing Jews to thrive and grow in our ancestral homeland. But they made a mistake by trying to separate Judaism from Zionism—a mistake for which we are now paying the price.

When the Ambassador spoke on Wednesday night, one thing that struck me was how he embodies and expresses so eloquently that Israel and Judaism cannot be separated.

“The story of the Jews begins with G-d commanding Abraham to journey to the land of Israel,” he said.

His talk was full of powerful moments, but if there’s one thing we should all take away, in my opinion, it’s that we should never, ever separate Judaism from Israel.

Judaism is our best argument for Israel. They might think you’re crazy. They might think you’re outdated for centering your beliefs on biblical texts. But at least your argument will be unwavering. And at least it will be something you can unquestionably believe.

If we want other people to believe that Israel is our home, we have to believe it first.

The other path has been tried. And it is failing.