As Arab World Warms to Israel, Some Embrace Rejectionism

The Arab war against Israel started long before Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948. Zionism took off in Europe in the late 19th century when pogroms and other forms of antisemitism forced a group of Jewish leaders to consider alternatives to life in Europe. At the same time, nationalism was rising as a political force in Europe.   

In response, Arab political and religious leaders began to circulate ideas rejecting the entire theme of a Jewish return to the Holy Land. This had a variety of dimensions.  

First, they labeled the Zionist movement the latest manifestation of imperialism. They framed the Zionist call for return to the Holy Land as European expansionism in Asia and Africa in a different form. They noted that Zionism was Jewish and referred to Jews as “predatory,” and many saw Jews as inferior to Muslims.

All these ideas had significant power in the Arab world for years partly because the region felt under siege from European expansionists, particularly Britain, France and Germany, seeking extensive control in Asia and Africa.

This was so even though applying the characteristics of imperialism to Zionism missed the mark on several levels. 

First, simply referring to Zionism as imperialism required burying the history of the Jewish people and their inherent connection to the land of Israel. One cannot begin to appreciate Jewish history without recognizing that at every important moment Israel was seminal to that narrative.

This was true in its formation as a nation. It was true in its apotheosis. And even after the forced expulsion of Jews from the Holy Land, a return to Israel dominated Jewish aspirations for millennia. These facts about the Jews were either deliberately ignored or were not pursued.

Second, and related, the Zionists were attacked as being Europeans. In reality, Jews were rarely treated as equals in Europe — and if they talked about Zionism, it was more about escaping from Europe than representing it. 

Thirdly, Zionists were seen as alien to the region because they were not Muslims. Here too, the history of the Jews is relevant. Not only did Judaism have its formative years in the Middle East long before the founding of Islam, but the Zionists were dreaming of returning to their small homeland, amid a sea of Muslim countries. 

All of which pointed to the weakness of the Arab claim that fairness dictated there was no place for a Jewish state in the region. 

Today, all these years later, an unexpected turnaround has started to take root. While rejectionism still remains a potent force in the region, particularly, but not solely, among Islamists, the trend is largely moving in the other direction. One hears less and less about these hostile generalizations, about the alleged illegitimacy of the Jewish state, and more about specific regional problems and challenges. 

At the same time, we see trending among Western democracies movement in the other direction. Questions about Israel’s very existence surfaced with a fury immediately after the massacre of 10/7. Phrases such as “From the River to the Sea” and “Globalize the Intifada” seemed to justify the massacre and gave credence to hope for the disappearance of the Jewish state. 

All this was a product in too many places of illiberalism, in the guise of social justice. 

The historic development of a liberal tradition benefited America, American Jews and the American-Israeli relationship.  

Its weakening, particularly on university campuses, created an unpredicted trend. We saw the fading of the traditional Arab rejection of Israel – which had led the fight against Israel for decades, coupled with the rise across America and Europe of those who in progressive and other spaces reject Israel’s legitimacy.

For those who care about the future of America, the Jewish community and the U.S.-Israel relationship, this should be the major challenge going forward.