Define Jewish State

Earlier this month, a staff writer for The Free Press, Olivia Reingold, asked the Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed from Michigan a question: “Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish state?”

El-Sayed replied with his own question: “What do you mean by a ‘Jewish state’?” When Reingold went silent, before beginning to stutter out a response, El-Sayed continued, “If you can’t define the question, I’m not going to answer your question.”

A lot of labels and terms get thrown around in arguments over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, words such as Zionist or anti-Zionist and one state or two states. These terms are not always well defined, and they mean different things to different factions—so it’s important, when discussing such matters, to know what people actually mean.

There are more or less illiberal versions of a “Jewish state.” The term could refer to a state that exists alongside a Palestinian state, where residents of both retain equal rights and democratic self-determination. Or a single state with a Jewish identity—one that prioritizes Jewish holidays and the Hebrew language, perhaps, but protects equal rights regardless of religion or ethnic background. It could mean the status quo: an Israel that maintains its occupation of the West Bank indefinitely, without extending equal rights or suffrage to the Palestinians who live there, which critics have called a form of apartheid. But maybe it means annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, without extending equal rights to the non-Jews. It could simply mean a Jewish demographic majority—which, given that roughly half the population between the river and the sea is Palestinian, raises the question of whether such a state would have the right to permanently disenfranchise or expel its non-Jewish population in order to maintain a majority Jewish polity or population in perpetuity.

[David Wolpe: I believe California has a right to exist]

In 2018, Israel passed a basic law defining itself as “the nation state of the Jewish people.” The Israel Democracy Institute, a liberal Israeli think tank, argues that this declaration “excludes minorities, omits equality, ignores democracy.” The Jewish left in Israel has long supported a two-state solution, comprising a Jewish state roughly within the 1967 borders alongside a Palestinian state, but a recent survey found that support for a two-state solution has fallen to 21 percent among Israeli Jews, while 42 percent support “annexation of the West Bank without equal rights for Palestinians.” According to the same survey, 40 percent of Palestinians support a two-state solution, and the number rises to 72 percent among Israeli Arabs.

One might argue that many other states in the region also define themselves in ethnic terms, as Arab states, and refer to Islam as their official religion. But the existence of one illiberal state does not justify the existence of another, nor does the hypocrisy of certain critics of Israel somehow render Israel’s inequalities just. Certainly, as an American, I do not want to live in a state that considers itself “white” or “Christian,” nor do I think equal rights are possible under such a regime.

Yet it’s possible to object to the actions of the current Israeli government while still thinking the existence of a Jewish state is necessary, given the historic persecution of the Jewish people. It’s also possible to accept that a Jewish state exists without embracing the idea of a Jewish state.

This is why El-Sayed’s question is so important. It is entirely fair to ask what kind of outcome one is endorsing before endorsing it: for example, the hypothetical two-state version, or the current “one-state reality,” where, as four professors write in Foreign Affairs, “the land and the people are subject to radically different legal regimes, and Palestinians are permanently treated as a lower caste.” Those who support ensuring that the character of the state remains “Jewish” by any means necessary should have to say so publicly, even if that means admitting that they would endorse the use of brutality and violence.

[Yair Rosenberg: Netanyahu’s ]very useful war

The purpose of Reingold’s original question was to put El-Sayed in an uncomfortable position. If he were to say that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, he might be accused of employing an anti-Semitic double standard. If he were to affirm that it does, he could be taken to endorse second-class citizenship or worse for those living under Israeli authority who are not Jewish.

In a subsequent post on X, Reingold left little doubt that this was her intent, emphasizing El-Sayed’s background, as though it were somehow discrediting. “Abdul El-Sayed, who is Muslim, walks a fine line on the Jewish state,” she wrote, adding that he had “rebuffed my question.”

He wasn’t the only one. In the rather large block of text she offered in her retelling of the incident, she didn’t answer his question, either.