Maintaining Israel’s Jewish Majority
In planning for Israel’s future, be it in five years, 23 years (2048,) or beyond, maintaining a strong Jewish majority must join security as one of the country’s two primary goals. The importance of the Jewish majority in explaining Israel’s 77 year success has not been sufficiently recognized. This recognition is increasingly important because the Jewish majority might be threatened in the future either by action or inaction.
In thinking about a two-state solution, especially after the horrors of October 7, 2023, security concerns readily explain why opinion polls have found that a large majority of Israeli Jews oppose such an outcome. For older Israelis, there are memories of repeated Second Intifada suicide bombings of buses, cafes and assorted other venues, attacking Jewish civilians during 2000-2004.
For many, the violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in a bloody June 2007 coup, nearly two years after Israel’s unilateral withdrawal, is a warning of what could go wrong; and, for most Israelis, the traumatic events of October 7 and the pain associated with the ongoing suffering of the remaining hostages, are sufficient reason to mistrust a two-state solution, despite the increasing support for it by a large majority of world nations. For security-minded Israelis, any change that establishes an independent Palestinian state (or “entity that is less than a state”, which Yitzhak Rabin envisioned,) given the topological military advantages of Judea and Samaria (West Bank), carries with it a strong possibility that Palestinians will prepare and launch another attack on Israel, this time closer to Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem.
Separate from those whose main concern is security, a minority of Israelis oppose a Palestinian state because they want Judea and Samaria to be legally part of Israel through annexation. Many of these want Israeli sovereignty extended to Gaza as well.
The Palestinian leadership has had a nearly 100-year history of opposing an end-of-conflict solution that involves acceptance of the legitimacy of a Jewish state. This started with the Peel Commission in 1937, continued with the U.N. partition resolution of 1947, and recurred in 2000 and 2008 when Israel, in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), proposed serious two-state solutions that were rejected by P.A. leaders Yassir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, respectively. This argument about Palestinian rejectionism is not just the view of “right-wing” Israelis; several prominent Israeli figures on the Left, such as Einat Wilf and Shlomo Avineri, recognized the dominance of irredentist views of the conflict among the Palestinians.
Despite deep concerns about security and likely continuing Palestinian rejectionism, Israeli leaders committed to maintaining a Jewish majority should prioritize advancing a solution involving political separation because that is the key to maintaining Israel’s large Jewish majority in the long run. This majority has been a primary source of the numerous impressive successes achieved by Israel over 77 years.
In 1948, Jews became sovereign again in the land of Israel after more than 1,900 years of virtually continuous foreign rule beginning with the Romans and ending with the British Mandate. In addition to restored sovereignty, this 77-year period has been characterized by an overwhelmingly large Jewish majority, which was between 85% and 90% during the 1950s, slowly declined to around 80% in 1995 and is today around 75%. Sovereign rule by a large Jewish majority has made Israel one of the most successful of the new states that were established in the 20th century. During these 77 years, Israel has been distinguished as well by its uninterrupted, if at times tumultuous, democratic character.
Israel’s Jewish majority is an amalgam of many disparate streams. The Law of Return has enabled Israel to become the most diverse mosaic in the world of Jews from different cultures and former countries of residence. While Aliyah during the pre-state period was dominated by European Ashkenazi Jews, the exodus of Jews from Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East following the establishment of the state led to a dramatic growth in the Sephardi component of the population. Most years since have seen an inflow of new immigrants from a wide range of countries, including small numbers from the United States and Canada. Immigration from the USSR became significant during the 1970s and then grew to much larger numbers during 1990-2002 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There has also been a substantial although uneven immigration of Ethiopian Jews to Israel since the 1980s. Internally, an important trend has been the very large growth in the number of Ultra-Orthodox Jews since 1948, which has become one of the most contentious features of Israel’s present population mosaic.
A major challenge for Israeli society, given this diversity, has been cultivating common social norms and values. Israel’s educational system, including Hebrew language courses for immigrants, the Jewish calendar, the social environment, and service in the IDF have been important tools promoting acculturation both of new immigrants and of each cohort of children born in Israel.
The military has been particularly instrumental in instilling important values, such as teamwork and collaboration, taking responsibility, social integration, non-abandonment of soldiers, and a major high-tech emphasis – all carried forward into civilian life. The well-known book, Start-up Nation, by Dan Senor and Saul Singer, pointed out that Israel’s military culture is directly linked to many hi-tech entrepreneurial successes.
This large, diverse Jewish majority during Israel’s 77 years of existence has led to a flourishing society with countless achievements. These include the revival of the Hebrew language, the creation of a huge corpus of Hebrew literature and music, the role of the Jewish calendar and aspects of Jewish religion in public life, multi-dimensional innovation and a commitment to a democratic political structure and democratic norms. Israel has an excellent medical system and highly regarded universities. Israel is among the group of nations with the highest longevity, Israel’s population is regularly among the group of nations with the highest average reported levels of happiness. Israel is among the highest in measures of innovation/per capita, having made strong advances in medicine as well as in computer-based hi-tech. Israel’s GDP per capita is in the top 20% of all countries. There is more.
As the Talmud famously says, Kol yisrael arevim zeh lazeh, meaning all of Israel are responsible for each other. Despite its Talmudic origin, it’s a widely known expression in Israeli culture. In the wake of early reports about what was unfolding on October 7th, many IDF reservists voluntarily went to army bases without being called up. Some retired soldiers drove directly to Gaza periphery communities to try to save relatives or others under attack.
In the early weeks of the war, the Israeli government seemed overwhelmed and paralyzed in responding to what was happening, both in the Gaza area and in the north amid steady Hezbollah missile attacks. This governmental inaction was countered by a large-scale volunteer civilian response – donations of money, donations of clothing and equipment needed by displaced families, plus donations to soldiers, mainly of food and clothing, but also personal equipment, to supplement what the IDF had provided. Some offered temporary accommodation in their homes to those displaced. The special volunteer efforts made in response to October 7th were the natural outgrowth of the high level of individual volunteerism in Israeli society.
This partial description of what Israel has achieved over 77 years stands out in contrast to the more meager economic, social, and political advances made by most other countries in the region; Israel also stands out in comparison to many countries outside the region as well.
Of course, major social, economic and political problems remain, and some might threaten Israel’s future if not wisely addressed. Nonetheless, there is a rational basis for Jewish pride in the richness of Israel’s accomplishments since its founding, and for thinking, “This is our doing.”
But what about the future for Israel’s Jewish majority? Niels Bohr, the famous 20th-century Danish physicist, has been credited with saying, humorously and seriously, “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.”
Political separation and maintaining a stable Jewish majority might come about through negotiations with the Palestinians, even though past efforts have failed. Perhaps the extensive scope of death and destruction that Palestinians have experienced during the war they started on October 7th will lead to new leadership and a shift in popular Palestinian attitudes towards accepting the legitimacy of Israel’s Jewish sovereignty, thereby facilitating agreement to an enduring two-state solution. Sounds great, but there is much justified skepticism that this might occur any time soon.
A solution that maintains a large Jewish majority might be achieved by Jordan providing citizenship to the Arab population in an area of the West Bank, in some form of confederation.
What if neither happens?
Bezalel Smotrich, a leader of the pro-annexation group, has “cleverly” proposed the annexation of only 82% of Judea and Samaria, excluding those areas with a large Arab population, leaving these non-Israeli citizens as subjects of the Palestinian Authority or of another self-governing autonomous entity. (In parallel, Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and others have suggested the “voluntary” emigration of Palestinians; even were this practical it ought be unacceptable on moral grounds, especially in light of how often Jews were themselves expelled in the past.) If neither the P.A. nor another entity accepts rule over the remaining 18%, then Israel will, by default, rule these areas as well; if citizenship is granted, the Jewish majority will probably vanish, sooner or later. If citizenship is not granted, then democracy will vanish.
Without annexation, the continuing unresolved “status quo” is one possible future. However, unless future Israeli governments reverse the trend of encouraging more and more Jewish settlement throughout the West Bank, the evolving status quo might precipitate increasing international isolation for Israel, more sanctions, and more exclusion from vital international commerce and other forms of engagement.
In both of these two scenarios of legal or de facto annexation, Israel will effectively become a bi-national state, ending the glorious era of Jewish majority rule. It might be succeeded by a different but also rich and successful outcome, one that isn’t “Jewish” but “Jewish-Arab.” More realistically, it will produce a strife-ridden society that is darker, continually contentious and often violent, and one that will be viewed by the Jewish population with a deep sense of regret for what has been lost.
A possible way of maintaining Israel as a Jewish majority state with an adequate level of security was suggested recently by Dan Perry, a well-known journalist-commentator. [“The Middle East Constant”, Jerusalem Post, August 15, 2025.] Perry doubts the Palestinians will agree to a partition under terms acceptable to Israel. He sees the ensuing one-state reality as one that would lead to the end of the Jewish state. He foresees that attempts to disenfranchise Arab voters would prompt the exodus of many Israelis, including the more productive and innovative among the population.
What to do?
Instead of withdrawing from the entire West Bank, which is impossible from a security viewpoint, Perry suggests unilateral action: “Israel must draw its own map, probably carving out a contiguous area of about two-thirds of the West Bank.” He continues, “It would then be advisable to remove the settlers from the area to be partitioned off, but keep the military presence in place, to a degree, for now.” Perry suggests, despite the huge difficulty, that approximately 100,000 Jewish settlers be withdrawn. He envisions Israel offering the P.A. recognition of statehood without demanding an end-of-conflict declaration. But, “Israel must insist that the Palestinian state be demilitarized, control the borders, and allow no weapons to go in.”
The removal of approximately 9,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza in 2005 was highly traumatic for Israeli society. How much more so would be a plan to remove and reabsorb 100,000 settlers. However, what better idea is there?
Perry sees this as choosing the least bad option. If the only real alternative is a one-state outcome, with its loss of a Jewish majority or loss of democracy, then, despite the great difficulties in implementation, Perry’s approach seems preferable, especially if having a Jewish majority is appreciated as much as it deserves.
The future of Israel’s Jewish majority is a profoundly important issue that is hardly discussed. It should be a central issue in the upcoming Israeli elections: Should Israel strive to remain a democratic country with a large Jewish majority, or should it pursue annexation or otherwise allow the country to evolve into a state with either a non-Jewish majority or a severely flawed democracy? If the former, then annexation must be rejected. If a negotiated two-state agreement with the Palestinians remains unachievable, as does a Jordanian confederation solution, then very painful steps, such as Dan Perry has suggested, might be essential to maintain Israel’s precious Jewish majority.