Reconsidering Yuval Noah Harari’s Perspective

Yuval Noah Harari suggests that Israel’s future depends heavily on U.S. election outcomes, calling on voters to choose candidates who reflect ethical values rooted in Jewish tradition. He criticizes leaders like Donald Trump for divisive rhetoric and suggests leveraging U.S. aid to pressure Israel into policy shifts. While Harari raises valid ethical concerns, his approach ignores key strategic realities. Voters must prioritize leaders whose policies safeguard Israel’s security—even if those leaders have personal flaws. History shows that pragmatic leadership, even when imperfect, has been crucial to Israel’s survival.
Jewish history and teachings offer insights into supporting leaders whose policies benefit the Jewish community, even if they do not fully embody all ethical ideals.
Jewish teachings reveal that supporting leaders whose policies benefit the community—even if they do not fully embody all ethical ideals—has long ensured survival. The Mishnah states, “Pray for the welfare of the government, for without the fear it inspires, people would swallow one another alive.” (Pirkei Avot 3:2). This emphasizes that governance, even when flawed, provides essential order. The Talmud (Berakhot 58a) further teaches that “the kingdom of earth is like the kingdom of heaven“ (Malchuta de-ar’a ke’ein malchuta dirakia), emphasizing that even flawed leaders serve a purpose under Divine Providence.
Jewish tradition teaches that while personal flaws matter, a leader’s legacy is ultimately defined by their actions—particularly those that secure the survival and prosperity of the Jewish people. Cyrus the Great, despite being a ruthless conqueror—traits the Torah does not admire (Deuteronomy 20:10-12)—played a pivotal role in Jewish history by allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Similarly, Harry Truman, who recognized the State of Israel in 1948 even though it alienated colleagues, was known for his temper, which the Ramban (Nachmanides) characterizes as the most serious character flaw (Iggeret HaRamban). Legend has it that Truman, reflecting on his decision to recognize Israel, saw himself as a modern-day Cyrus—a leader who, despite personal flaws, fulfilled a historic mission to safeguard Jewish survival. Jewish tradition consistently shows that while personal character is important, it is a leader’s deeds—especially those that safeguard Jewish survival—that leave the lasting impact.
Conditional support risks destabilizing the U.S.-Israel relationship, eroding trust between allies, and undermining the mutual security both nations rely on. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent, inviting other nations to similarly leverage U.S. policies for their own interests, ultimately weakening America’s global standing. There is profound concern that using aid as leverage to influence Israel’s policies foreshadows the pressure Israel could face to make dangerous territorial concessions, potentially damaging the U.S.-Israel alliance. It seems contradictory to advocate against supporting a leader perceived as a bully while endorsing the use of coercive tactics to influence an ally.
Historically, strong, unconditional support has been a cornerstone of regional stability and mutual interests. Using aid as leverage may erode trust and goodwill, essential components of the U.S.-Israel alliance. Allies expect mutual respect and support, especially when facing common threats. Moreover, foreign aid to Israel yields significant returns for the U.S. in terms of security cooperation, intelligence sharing, and technological innovation, benefiting both nations.
Decisions about supporting political leaders must carefully weigh their impact on the security of the Nation of Israel.
History shows that even flawed leaders can enact policies crucial to Israel’s survival, and unwavering U.S. support for Israel has consistently advanced America’s security interests—enhancing cooperation on defense, intelligence, and technological innovation. While ethical conduct is important, pragmatic choices are often necessary to ensure survival.
Jewish tradition and history consistently underscore the necessity of pragmatic decision-making for communal survival. Supporting policies that strengthen Israel’s security, even if a leader’s personal conduct is imperfect, aligns with the principle of pikuach nefesh—the preservation of life above all else. As I explored in The Haredi Enlistment Debate, the tension between religious ideals and national security remains an ongoing challenge. However, ensuring Israel’s survival must always take precedence.
Harari’s focus on personal ethics overlooks the fact that leaders like Donald Trump, despite their flaws, have enacted policies that tangibly benefit Israel’s security, a priority that must outweigh concerns over rhetoric. It is crucial to assess policies by their impact and broader implications for Israel’s future. The focus should be on the tangible outcomes of policies rather than solely on the personal attributes of political figures.
Informed voters must weigh ethical concerns against the practical realities shaping Israel’s future. History demonstrates that even flawed leaders can make decisions vital to Israel’s survival. By prioritizing policies that secure mutual interests and foster stability, we ensure a safer future for both Israel and the United States. Ultimately, Israel’s survival is not only vital for regional stability but also serves America’s strategic interests, ensuring a more secure and stable Middle East that benefits both nations.