A Shared Future for Israel and the Diaspora

As antisemitism rises across much of the West, some argue that the traditional relationship between Israel and Jewish communities overseas requires fundamental reassessment. Rather than viewing Israel primarily as a cause to defend or debate, they contend that both should regard themselves as partners confronting an increasingly shared security and political environment.

The resurgence of antisemitism in Europe and North America following the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 has prompted renewed debate over the relationship between Israel and Jewish communities around the world. For many commentators, the events of recent years have exposed the limits of an approach that has largely framed support for Israel as a matter of advocacy, philanthropy or political allegiance.

Instead, a growing school of thought argues that Israel and the Jewish Diaspora should regard one another as strategic partners, facing many of the same challenges despite living in different political and geographical contexts.

A Changing Relationship

For much of the twentieth century, Israel occupied a central place in the identity of many Jewish communities, particularly in the United States. Support for the Jewish state often served as a unifying cause across political and religious divisions.

Over recent decades, however, that consensus has weakened. Israel has become an increasingly contentious subject within Jewish communities, reflecting wider political polarisation in Western societies. While the aftermath of the October 7 attacks generated renewed solidarity in many quarters, disagreements over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza have once again highlighted deep divisions.

Analysts advancing the strategic partnership argument suggest this debate has often reduced Israel to either a political cause to champion or a government to criticise, rather than recognising it as an integral component of the broader security and future of the Jewish people.

A Shared Threat Environment

Supporters of this view argue that antisemitism and hostility towards Israel have become increasingly intertwined. Jewish communities across Europe and North America have reported rising incidents of harassment, violence and intimidation, while Israel continues to confront military, diplomatic and ideological challenges.

From this perspective, these developments are not isolated phenomena but different manifestations of the same underlying hostility. They contend that attacks on Jewish communities abroad and campaigns directed against Israel increasingly reinforce one another, creating what they describe as a shared threat environment.

Such arguments have gained traction as universities, cultural institutions and public spaces in several Western countries have witnessed heightened tensions surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Debate Within Jewish Communities

The evolving relationship with Israel has also fuelled debate within Jewish organisations themselves.

Some commentators have criticised groups that advocate placing conditions on military assistance to Israel or publicly oppose aspects of Israeli government policy, arguing that such positions risk weakening Israel at a time of heightened regional instability.

Among those making this case is Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, who has criticised organisations including J Street over their approach towards Israeli security policy. Critics argue that such organisations inadvertently undermine Israel’s ability to defend itself and contribute to greater vulnerability for Jewish communities overseas.

Others reject this assessment, maintaining that robust internal debate has long been a feature of Jewish communal life and that criticism of Israeli governments should not be equated with opposition to Israel’s existence or security.

The Limits of Distancing

Advocates of closer Israel-Diaspora ties also question whether public criticism of Israel provides protection against antisemitism.

They point to cases in which Jewish individuals who have openly criticised Israeli governments have nevertheless faced exclusion or hostility because of their perceived association with Israel. One example frequently cited is Israeli filmmaker Nadav Lapid, whose invitation to serve on a film festival jury in Marseille became the subject of protests despite his longstanding criticism of Israeli policy.

For those advancing this argument, such incidents illustrate that antisemitic attitudes often make little distinction between differing political viewpoints within the Jewish community.

Historical Lessons

The debate frequently draws upon historical comparisons, particularly the experience of Jewish communities in Europe during the early twentieth century.

Some commentators argue that attempts by assimilated Jews in Weimar Germany to distance themselves from Zionism or emphasise their national identity ultimately failed to shield them from persecution as antisemitism intensified.

While historians caution against drawing direct parallels between contemporary circumstances and pre-war Europe, proponents of the strategic partnership model believe history demonstrates the limitations of relying solely upon acceptance by wider society for long-term security.

From Advocacy to Partnership

Those advocating a new framework argue that Israel should no longer be viewed principally as a recipient of political support or charitable assistance. Instead, they suggest it represents a strategic asset capable of strengthening Jewish communities worldwide.

They identify several areas in which closer cooperation could develop.

First, Israel’s intelligence, diplomatic and technological capabilities could be employed more systematically to assist Jewish communities confronting security threats abroad, including through intelligence sharing and enhanced cooperation on countering antisemitic activity.

Secondly, Jewish communal institutions could incorporate greater levels of Israeli expertise in areas such as security planning, emergency preparedness and resilience.

Thirdly, advocates argue for much closer collaboration in combating online disinformation and organised anti-Israel campaigns through coordinated technological and communications strategies.

Finally, they propose stronger educational partnerships between Israeli and Diaspora institutions, aimed at fostering a shared understanding of contemporary antisemitism and reinforcing connections between younger generations of Jews across national boundaries.

A Broader Strategic Debate

Underlying these proposals is the belief that Israel and Jewish communities overseas face increasingly interconnected challenges that require a more integrated response than has traditionally existed.

Whether that assessment gains wider acceptance remains an open question. Many within the Jewish world continue to support maintaining clear distinctions between the political decisions of Israeli governments and the identities of Jewish communities elsewhere.

Nevertheless, as antisemitism continues to rise across parts of the Western world and geopolitical tensions deepen, the debate over whether advocacy alone is sufficient — or whether a more comprehensive strategic partnership is required — is likely to become an increasingly prominent feature of Jewish communal and political discourse.