The Betrayal of Jewish Historical Values. Netanyahu’s Extremist Government and the Desecration of Holocaust Memory
The ongoing policies of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government represent one of the most profound betrayals in Jewish history—a systematic abandonment of the ethical values, historical lessons, and moral imperatives that have sustained Jewish civilisation for millennia. This betrayal is particularly devastating because it demonstrates how victims of historical oppression can themselves become perpetrators of similar injustices against others. Netanyahu’s treatment of Palestinians mirrors, in disturbing and undeniable ways, the very persecution that Jews themselves suffered under Nazi rule, making him functionally equivalent to a concentration camp kapo—a victim who became a collaborator in oppression. How Netanyahu and his extremist far-right coalition have not only betrayed Jewish ethical traditions but have actively desecrated the memory of Holocaust victims by employing tactics remarkably similar to those used against Jews during the darkest period of human history. The transformation from victims to perpetrators represents a moral catastrophe that threatens not only Palestinian lives but the very soul of Jewish identity and values.
Jewish Ethical Traditions Systematically Violated. The Principle of Tikkun Olam (Repairing the World)
The concept of tikkun olam—literally “repairing the world”—stands as one of Judaism’s most fundamental ethical obligations. This principle demands that Jews work actively to create a more just and compassionate world, particularly for the vulnerable and oppressed. The Hebrew prophets repeatedly emphasised care for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow as measures of a society’s moral worth.
Netanyahu’s systematic oppression of Palestinians represents a complete inversion of this sacred principle. Instead of repairing the world, his policies have torn it apart. Instead of protecting the vulnerable, he has made them targets. Instead of pursuing justice, he has institutionalised injustice. The blockade of Gaza, the expansion of settlements, and the denial of basic human rights to millions of Palestinians—all of these policies directly contradict the most basic Jewish obligation to work for justice and human dignity.
The prophetic tradition in Judaism consistently emphasised that ritual observance without ethical behaviour was meaningless. The prophet Isaiah declared: “Learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (Isaiah 1:17). Netanyahu’s government has done precisely the opposite, oppressing rather than rescuing, attacking rather than defending, silencing rather than advocating for the vulnerable.
The Memory of Being Strangers
Perhaps the most frequently repeated commandment in the Hebrew Bible is the obligation to treat strangers with justice and compassion: “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). This commandment appears 36 times in the Torah, more than any other ethical teachings, because the Jewish experience of exile, displacement, and persecution was meant to create permanent empathy for all who suffer similar fates.
The Jewish experience of diaspora, pogroms, expulsions, and genocide should have made Jews the world’s most passionate advocates for refugee rights, human dignity, and the protection of displaced peoples. Instead, Netanyahu’s policies have systematically denied Palestinian refugees their right of return, confiscated their property, destroyed their homes, and treated them as unwanted intruders in their own homeland.
The bitter irony is inescapable: a people who wandered homeless for two millennia, who were expelled from country after country, who pleaded for refuge from persecution, now deny these same rights to others. The Jewish experience of being strangers should have created unlimited compassion for Palestinian refugees and displaced persons. Instead, it has been weaponised to justify their continued suffering.
The Tradition of Justice (Tzedek)
“Justice, justice you shall pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20) represents one of Judaism’s most fundamental commands. The repetition of the word “justice” (tzedek) emphasises that the pursuit of justice must be relentless and uncompromising. Jewish legal and ethical tradition developed sophisticated concepts of justice that emphasised equality before the law, protection of the weak, and the obligation to create fair and just societies.
Netanyahu’s government has created a system of legalised injustice that would be immediately recognisable to any student of Jewish persecution. Palestinian citizens of Israel face systematic discrimination in employment, education, housing, and political participation. Palestinians in the occupied territories live under a separate and inferior legal system that denies them basic civil rights while granting superior rights to Jewish settlers living on the same land.
This system of separate laws for different ethnic groups directly mirrors the Nuremberg Laws that stripped Jews of their rights in Nazi Germany. The progression from legal discrimination to physical persecution follows the same pattern that Jews experienced throughout history. The fact that Jews are now implementing such systems represents a betrayal so profound that it defies comprehension.
Holocaust Lessons Systematically Ignored and The Danger of Dehumanisation
The Holocaust began not with gas chambers but with words, systematic dehumanisation that portrayed Jews as less than human, as threats to society, as problems to be solved rather than people to be respected. Nazi propaganda consistently described Jews in dehumanising terms that made subsequent violence seem rational and necessary.
Netanyahu’s government has employed remarkably similar tactics against Palestinians. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant described Palestinians as “human animals,” while other officials have called for their complete destruction. This dehumanising language creates the psychological foundation for policies that treat Palestinian lives as expendable and Palestinian suffering as acceptable. The systematic use of dehumanising language against Palestinians mirrors Nazi propaganda techniques with chilling precision. Palestinians are portrayed as inherently violent, eternally hostile, and fundamentally incompatible with civilisation. This propaganda serves the same function as Nazi anti-Semitism: it makes violence against the targeted population seem not only acceptable but necessary for survival.
The Progression from Discrimination to Violence
The Nazi persecution of Jews followed a clear and documented progression: legal discrimination, social exclusion, ghettoisation, and finally mass violence. Each stage prepared the ground for the next, with ordinary citizens gradually accepting increasingly severe measures against a dehumanised population.
The Israeli treatment of Palestinians has followed a disturbingly similar pattern. Initial discrimination against Palestinian citizens was followed by the creation of enclosed areas like Gaza that function as open-air prisons. The systematic destruction of Palestinian civilian infrastructure, the mass killing of civilians, and the forced displacement of populations represent the logical culmination of decades of dehumanisation and legal discrimination.
Gaza, in particular, functions as a modern ghetto, a walled enclosure where an unwanted population is confined, controlled, and periodically subjected to violence. The 2.3 million Palestinians trapped in Gaza cannot leave, cannot import basic necessities without permission, and are subjected to periodic “mowing the grass” operations designed to destroy their infrastructure and demoralise their population.
The Complicity of Ordinary Citizens
The Holocaust was enabled not just by Nazi ideologues but by the passive complicity of ordinary German citizens who accepted propaganda, ignored evidence of atrocities, or actively participated in persecution. Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” describes how ordinary people can become complicit in extraordinary crimes through moral numbness and willful blindness. Israeli society today demonstrates disturbing parallels to this phenomenon. Polls consistently show majority support for policies that cause massive civilian casualties, systematic discrimination, and denial of basic human rights to Palestinians. The Israeli public has been conditioned to view Palestinian suffering as necessary for Israeli security, just as German citizens were conditioned to view Jewish persecution as necessary for German prosperity. The moral numbness that allows Israeli citizens to support policies that kill thousands of Palestinian children mirrors the moral numbness that allowed German citizens to support policies that killed Jewish children. The psychological mechanisms are identical: dehumanisation of the victims, tribal loyalty that overrides universal moral principles, and the gradual normalisation of increasingly extreme violence.
The International Community and Arab Nations’ Complicity
The international community’s failure to stop the Holocaust has been universally condemned as a moral catastrophe that must never be repeated. “Never Again” became a sacred promise that the world would not stand by while genocide occurred. Yet today, many of the same countries that memorialise Holocaust victims provide political, military, and economic support for policies that systematically oppress Palestinians.
The United States provides billions of dollars in military aid that enables Israeli war crimes while simultaneously funding Holocaust museums and education programs. European countries that were complicit in the Holocaust now provide diplomatic cover for Israeli policies that employ similar tactics of dehumanisation, ghettoisation, and mass violence. This represents a fundamental failure to apply the lessons of “Never Again” consistently. The international community has learned that genocide against Jews is unacceptable, but it continues to enable policies that may constitute genocide against Palestinians. The selective application of human rights principles based on ethnic identity represents the same moral failure that enabled the Holocaust.
The Kapò Phenomenon: Netanyahu as Collaborator and Nazist Dehumanisation Enabler
Kapos were Jewish prisoners in Nazi concentration camps who were given limited authority over other prisoners in exchange for marginally better treatment. They served as intermediaries between Nazi guards and Jewish prisoners, enforcing camp discipline and implementing policies designed to dehumanise and destroy their fellow Jews. The kapo system was particularly insidious because it used Jewish victims as instruments of their own oppression.
Kapos faced impossible choices: collaborate with the Nazi system and potentially survive, or resist and face certain death. Many historians have shown sympathy for the kapos as victims forced into impossible situations. However, some kapos exceeded their assigned roles, becoming enthusiastic collaborators who brutalised their fellow prisoners with sadistic efficiency. Netanyahu represents the ultimate evolution of the kapo phenomenon—a Jewish leader who has gained power not by resisting oppression but by implementing it against another Semitic people. Like the worst kapos, he has exceeded his assigned role, becoming an enthusiastic collaborator in policies that mirror Nazi persecution techniques.
Structural Similarities to Nazi Collaboration
Like kapos who gained temporary privilege by enforcing Nazi policies against fellow Jews, Netanyahu has gained political power by enforcing policies that serve broader imperial interests while oppressing a vulnerable population. His alliance with American imperial forces, evangelical Christian supporters, and defence contractors mirrors the kapo psychology of seeking survival and privilege through collaboration with oppressive systems. Netanyahu’s political longevity depends on his usefulness to external powers who benefit from regional instability and conflict. Just as kapos were useful to Nazis because they could control Jewish prisoners more efficiently than German guards, Netanyahu is useful to imperial powers because he can implement oppressive policies against Palestinians while providing Jewish legitimacy for these actions. The psychological dynamics are identical: a member of an oppressed group gains limited power and privilege by oppressing others on behalf of the dominant system. The kapo collaborates not out of ideological conviction but out of calculated self-interest, believing that collaboration offers the best chance for survival and advancement.
Betrayal of Solidarity Among the Oppressed
Kapos betrayed the fundamental principle of solidarity among victims of oppression, choosing personal advantage over collective resistance. This betrayal was particularly devastating because it came from within the oppressed community itself, making resistance more difficult and psychologically damaging. Netanyahu has committed an identical betrayal, abandoning solidarity between oppressed peoples in favour of an alliance with oppressors. The Jewish experience of persecution should have created automatic solidarity with Palestinians facing similar persecution. Instead, Netanyahu has used Jewish suffering as justification for inflicting similar suffering on Palestinians. This betrayal is particularly devastating because it comes from someone who should understand persecution intimately. Netanyahu’s family history includes persecution and displacement, yet he has chosen to inflict similar trauma on Palestinian families. Like the worst kapos, he has learned the wrong lessons from suffering, concluding that survival requires becoming an oppressor rather than resisting oppression.
Historians continue to debate the moral culpability of kapos, recognising that they were victims forced into impossible situations. However, there is consensus that kapos who exceeded their assigned roles, who showed enthusiasm for brutality, or who had realistic alternatives bear moral responsibility for their actions. Netanyahu cannot claim the excuse of impossible circumstances that might mitigate kapo behaviour. He is not a powerless prisoner forced to choose between collaboration and death. He is a democratically elected leader with extensive resources and multiple options who has consistently chosen policies that maximise Palestinian suffering for political advantage. As a kapos who became enthusiastic collaborators, Netanyahu has exceeded what might be considered necessary for survival. His policies go far beyond what any reasonable security analysis would justify, extending to systematic punishment of Palestinian civilians, destruction of cultural institutions, and denial of basic humanitarian needs.
The Extremist Coalition: Paradox of Jewish Antisemitism
One of the most disturbing aspects of Netanyahu’s government is how his far-right coalition partners embody forms of Jewish antisemitism that mirror classical antisemitic themes. This creates the paradox of Jews promoting ideas and policies that would traditionally be considered antisemitic if applied to Jewish communities. This Jewish antisemitism manifests in several ways: ethnic supremacism that claims Jews are inherently superior to other peoples; messianic extremism that abandons rational politics for apocalyptic thinking; authoritarianism that destroys democratic institutions; and ultranationalism that defines national identity through hatred of others.
Messianic Extremism and Religious Fanaticism
The settler movement’s messianic ideology claims divine mandate for territorial expansion and supremacy over other peoples. This ideology mirrors the dangerous fusion of religious and political extremism that has historically been used to justify the persecution of Jews. Medieval Christians claimed divine mandate for persecuting Jews; early modern Europeans claimed divine blessing for expelling Jewish communities; Nazis claimed quasi-religious justification for genocide. The messianic settler ideology employs identical logic: divine will supersedes human law, religious identity justifies political dominance, and resistance to the divine plan warrants violent suppression. This abandons rational political discourse in favour of apocalyptic thinking that dehumanises opponents and makes compromise impossible. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and his son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, developed theological justifications for territorial expansion that mirror Christian crusader ideology and Islamic jihadist thinking. These ideologies share common features: the belief that religious identity confers political rights, that divine will can be discerned through political events, and that violence in service of religious goals is sanctified.
Ethnic Supremacism and Racial Hierarchy
Many members of Netanyahu’s coalition explicitly advocate Jewish ethnic superiority over Arabs, embracing the same ethnic supremacist thinking that has been used throughout history to justify the persecution of Jews. This represents a fundamental betrayal of Jewish universalist values while adopting the ideological framework of Jewish oppressors. Bezalel Smotrich, Netanyahu’s Finance Minister, has advocated policies based on explicit Jewish ethnic supremacy, arguing that Arabs should be given three choices: accept subordinate status, leave the country, or face annihilation. This rhetoric directly mirrors Nazi rhetoric about Jews and other “undesirable” populations. The embrace of ethnic supremacism by Jewish leaders would be shocking in any context, but it is particularly devastating given Jewish historical experience with such ideologies. Jews were victims of ethnic supremacist thinking for centuries; the fact that some Jews now promote such thinking represents a complete moral inversion.
Authoritarianism and Democratic Destruction
Netanyahu’s systematic destruction of democratic institutions—independent judiciary, free press, civil society organisations- mirrors the authoritarian tactics that have historically been used against Jewish communities. Jewish survival in the modern period has depended on democratic institutions that protect minority rights and limit government power. The judicial overhaul attempted by Netanyahu’s government would have eliminated the independence of Israel’s Supreme Court, concentrating power in the hands of the political majority. This represents the same kind of institutional destruction that enabled persecution of Jews in authoritarian systems throughout history. Willingness to destroy democratic norms for political advantage represents a betrayal of the democratic values that have protected Jewish communities in the modern period. Jews have been the primary beneficiaries of democratic systems that protect minority rights, yet Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice these protections for short-term political gain.
The Moral Catastrophe: Desecration of Holocaust Memory to Justify Oppression
The most obscene aspect of Netanyahu’s betrayal is how he exploits Holocaust memory to justify policies that employ similar tactics against Palestinians. Holocaust education and commemoration, which should create empathy for all victims of persecution, are instead weaponised to justify inflicting persecution on others. Netanyahu regularly invokes Holocaust memory in defence of policies that cause massive civilian casualties, systematic discrimination, and denial of basic human rights. This represents a desecration of Holocaust memory that transforms the suffering of Jewish victims into justification for Palestinian victimisation.
Holocaust survivors and their descendants who oppose these policies have argued that their suffering is being exploited to justify inflicting similar suffering on others. Organisations like Jewish Voice for Peace and Holocaust survivors’ groups have explicitly condemned the use of Holocaust memory to justify current Israeli policies.
Loss of Moral Authority
The Jewish people’s historical experience of persecution gave them unique moral authority to speak against oppression and injustice worldwide. Jewish voices have been prominent in civil rights movements, human rights advocacy, and social justice causes precisely because Jewish historical experience provided credibility and moral standing. Netanyahu’s policies have squandered this moral authority and made it much more difficult for Jewish voices to be heard in defence of human rights and justice. When Jews become perpetrators of systematic oppression, they lose the moral authority that comes from being victims of such oppression. This loss extends beyond Israel to Jewish communities worldwide, who find their moral standing compromised by association with policies that contradict Jewish values and historical experience.
The Psychology of Victim-to-Perpetrator Transformation
The transformation from victims to perpetrators represents a form of intergenerational trauma where historical suffering is not processed and integrated but instead projected onto others. Rather than learning empathy and commitment to justice from their suffering, some Jews have learned to identify with power and to inflict suffering on others as a form of protection.This psychological dynamic is well-documented in trauma research: victims who cannot process their trauma often repeat patterns of abuse, becoming perpetrators themselves. The failure to integrate the lessons of historical suffering leads to its repetition rather than its prevention. Netanyahu’s career represents this psychological dynamic writ large: instead of learning from Jewish persecution that all people deserve dignity and rights, he learned that survival requires becoming the persecutor rather than the persecuted.
The Identification with the Aggressor
Psychological research on trauma survivors has identified “identification with the aggressor” as a common defence mechanism where victims adopt the characteristics, beliefs, or behaviours of their oppressors as a way of psychologically managing their victimisation. Netanyahu’s policies suggest this psychological dynamic: rather than rejecting the methods used against Jews, he has adopted them for use against Palestinians. The dehumanisation, ghettoisation, and systematic violence employed against Palestinians mirror tactics used against Jews, suggesting psychological identification with historical oppressors. This identification is particularly evident in Netanyahu’s admiration for authoritarian leaders and his adoption of their methods. His alliance with figures like Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, and other authoritarians suggests psychological comfort with the authoritarian mindset that historically oppressed Jewish communities.
The Corruption of Survival Instincts
Jewish survival throughout history has required careful navigation of hostile environments, strategic alliances with powerful groups, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. These survival skills enabled Jewish communities to persist through centuries of persecution. Netanyahu has corrupted these survival instincts, transforming them from tools of preservation into instruments of oppression. The strategic thinking that once protected vulnerable Jewish communities is now used to oppress vulnerable Palestinian communities. The corruption of survival instincts represents a fundamental perversion of Jewish historical experience, where the lessons learned from persecution are used to justify perpetrating similar persecution against others.
The Path of Betrayal: Netanyahu’s Systematic Abandonment of Jewish Values
Jewish historical experience should have created automatic solidarity with all oppressed peoples, based on the recognition that persecution is always wrong regardless of its targets. Instead, Netanyahu has promoted Jewish supremacy that justifies the oppression of non-Jews as necessary for Jewish survival. This transformation from solidarity to supremacy represents a fundamental betrayal of Jewish values and historical experience. Instead of using Jewish suffering as a foundation for universal human rights, Netanyahu has weaponised it as justification for ethnic privilege. Jewish legal and ethical traditions emphasise justice as a fundamental value that must be pursued regardless of its cost or inconvenience. Netanyahu has abandoned justice in favour of domination, using power to oppress rather than to protect the vulnerable. The pursuit of justice requires moral courage and a willingness to sacrifice immediate advantage for long-term ethical integrity. Netanyahu has consistently chosen short-term political advantage over moral principles, demonstrating fundamental abandonment of Jewish ethical traditions. Jewish ethical traditions emphasise special obligations to protect the vulnerable—the stranger, the orphan, the widow—as measures of moral worth. Netanyahu’s policies systematically target Palestinian civilians, including children, as legitimate military objectives. The transformation from protecting to targeting the vulnerable represents perhaps the most fundamental betrayal of Jewish values. A tradition that emphasised care for the defenceless has been perverted into justification for their destruction. The Jewish experience of persecution was meant to teach universal lessons about human dignity, the dangers of dehumanisation, and the importance of protecting minority rights. Netanyahu has learned the opposite lessons: that survival requires becoming the oppressor, that power justifies its own exercise, and that ethnic identity confers political privilege. This represents a fundamental failure to integrate historical experience into ethical learning. Instead of transcending the patterns that created Jewish suffering, Netanyahu has reproduced them with Palestinians as victims.
The Shared Semitic Heritage Betrayed, Common Linguistic and Cultural Roots, Religious and Ethical Commonalities
The analysis of Semitic languages demonstrates the profound connections between Hebrew and Arabic speakers, who share not only linguistic roots but also cultural values, religious traditions, and historical experiences. This shared heritage should have provided the foundation for cooperation and mutual respect rather than domination and conflict. Netanyahu’s policies represent a betrayal not just of Jewish values but of the shared ethical heritage that connects Hebrew and Arabic speakers across political divisions. The linguistic evidence of common origins makes the current conflict particularly tragic and unnecessary. Both Jewish and Islamic traditions emphasise justice, compassion, protection of the vulnerable, and human dignity as fundamental values. The shared Abrahamic heritage provides common ethical foundations that could support cooperation and mutual understanding. Netanyahu’s policies violate not only Jewish ethical principles but also the shared moral framework that connects Jewish and Islamic civilisations. This represents a betrayal of the broader Semitic heritage that encompasses both traditions.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s career represents the ultimate betrayal in Jewish history: the transformation of a people who suffered systematic persecution into perpetrators of similar persecution against others. This betrayal encompasses multiple dimensions: the abandonment of Jewish ethical values, the desecration of Holocaust memory, the adoption of tactics similar to those used by Nazi Germany, and the perversion of survival instincts into instruments of oppression. The comparison to concentration camp kapos is not hyperbolic but historically precise: Netanyahu has gained political power by serving as an intermediary between imperial powers and an oppressed population, using his Jewish identity to legitimise policies that would otherwise be recognised as war crimes and crimes against humanity. The extremist coalition that supports Netanyahu represents forms of Jewish antisemitism that mirror classical antisemitic themes: ethnic supremacism, religious fanaticism, authoritarianism, and ultranationalism. This creates the paradox of Jews promoting ideologies that have historically been used to justify their own persecution. The systematic destruction of Palestinian society employs tactics remarkably similar to those used in Nazi persecution of Jews: systematic dehumanisation, legal discrimination, ghettoisation, and mass violence. The progression from discrimination to violence follows the same pattern that Jews experienced under Nazi rule, making Netanyahu’s policies not just morally wrong but historically obscene. The shared Semitic heritage that connects Hebrew and Arabic speakers makes this betrayal even more profound. Languages that developed from common roots, cultures that share fundamental values, and peoples who have parallel historical experiences have been divided by political failures and moral cowardice that betray their common heritage. The tragedy of Netanyahu’s betrayal extends beyond its immediate victims to threaten the moral foundation of Jewish identity itself. When Jews become perpetrators of systematic oppression, they lose the moral authority that comes from historical victimisation and betray the ethical traditions that have sustained Jewish civilisation for millennia. The ultimate irony is that Netanyahu’s policies threaten Jewish security rather than protecting it. By abandoning Jewish values, desecrating Holocaust memory, and employing Nazi-like tactics against Palestinians, he has made Jews worldwide less safe and less respected. His policies represent not strength but weakness, not protection but endangerment, not Jewish values but their complete betrayal.
The path forward requires recognition that Netanyahu’s policies represent a fundamental betrayal of Jewish identity and values. Only by rejecting these policies and returning to the ethical foundations of Jewish civilisation can Jews reclaim their moral authority and honour the memory of those who suffered persecution. The alternative is the complete moral destruction of Jewish identity and the transformation of Jews from history’s most persecuted people into history’s most hypocritical oppressors. Choices are evident: Jews can either learn from their historical suffering to become advocates for universal human rights and dignity, or they can allow that suffering to be exploited to justify inflicting similar suffering on others. Netanyahu has chosen the path of betrayal; it remains for others to choose the path of justice and moral integrity that Jewish tradition demands.
READ MORE:
Albert Einstein (1879–1955)
Einstein, along with Hannah Arendt and others, co-signed a letter condemning the Herut Party, founded by Menachem Begin (a future Prime Minister and leader of the Likud party lineage), describing it as fascist:
“Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our time is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the ‘Freedom Party’ (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties…”
“It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world… could remain indifferent to the nature and actions of Mr. Begin’s party in Israel.”
Einstein’s opposition to a nationalist Jewish state:
“The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed… I am against it because I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain.”
Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)
Arendt, a Jewish-German philosopher and Holocaust survivor, consistently criticised political Zionism, warning against nationalism, expansionism, and the creation of a militarised Jewish state.
Criticism of a Jewish State Model (1946):
“A Jewish state… would eventually mean a Jew who is either a second-class citizen everywhere else, or else is forced to commit himself blindly to the defense of this one state.”
On the Deir Yassin massacre (1948):
“The massacre was not an isolated incident. It was the beginning of a policy aimed at the Arabs in Palestine…”
She warned that if Jewish leaders accepted such methods, “the whole moral structure of the Jewish people would be destroyed.”
Martin Buber (1878–1965)
Buber, a religious philosopher and theologian, supported binationalism and Jewish–Arab coexistence through spiritual and ethical means rather than political dominance.
On the nationalist Zionist movement:
“What is hoped for from the political-military point of view threatens to be morally and humanly calamitous.”
Buber warned:
“The great majority of Jews are not prepared to envisage a real co-existence, but wish to dominate the Arabs.”
Judah Magnes (1877–1948)
Magnes was the first chancellor of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a prominent advocate of binationalism.
On the Jewish State model:
“A Jewish state in Palestine will be a disaster for the Jewish people.”
“If we insist on a Jewish state, we will be compelled to use force… and we will thus become just another belligerent nation like the others.”
Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)
A contemporary Jewish intellectual, linguist, and political dissident.
“Israel’s policies of occupation and expansion are morally indefensible and destructive to the Jewish people.”
“By treating Palestinians as subhuman, Israel is undermining its own moral legitimacy.”
