Israel recently reiterated, in law, its identity as the nation state of the Jews. While a great deal of controversy has erupted as a result this legislation, it simply states that Israel is the fulfillment of a national dream that began over 2500 years ago.

The question, however, of why the Knesset had to write what should have been obvious into a law demands an answer. It would appear obvious to anyone versed in history that a rather unusual event has occurred; one that challenges our accepted notions of history and the sciences of man. Religious people might see in the return of a people to its land, a Divine hand; a miracle.

Perhaps some less devout may suggest that just as physics may be understood as a system of natural law, so mankind is governed by natural law. Thus, Israel, as the state created by the Jews, of the Jews and for the Jews already, in the words of Thomas Aquinas, is per se nota known through itself as a Jewish state. 

The legal and moral nature of the state is clear. What is unclear is why the legislators needed to write such a law. After 70 years as a successful nation, we would have imagined that Israel’s identity is clear.

After 70 years of Arab hostility against the “Zionist” entity, one would have concluded that by the international consensus expressed in various anti- Israel proclamations that Israel has been recognized (in a negative way) as a Jewish state. The efforts to de-legitimize Israel and make her a pariah state constitute a transparent revitalization of those Medieval and German laws that set Jews aside for special treatment. In other words, if Israel is not a legitimate country, then her citizens are not legitimate people. The Jews outside of Israel are once again rendered homeless.

Classical anti-Semitism began as a problem of ideas. Jews did not believe in the same thing that Christians or Muslims did. Democracy, of course, allows for freedom of conscience. The conundrum that many Israelis on the left have internalized is an ideological one. Their argument alleges that by adopting this nation state law Israel can no longer be democratic because, it is implied, Judaism is antithetical to democracy.

The law enacted by the Knesset affirms that that Israel chooses its Jewish roots and identity. It argues implicitly that the ideology in which Israel was conceived is not a political one. It is a spiritual one.

Among the concerns that opponents of the law raise, is that such legislation will diminish Israel’s image as a democracy. But, democracy is the will of the people and this law represents the will of Israel’s majority. Of course, various minorities may resent the will of a majority being imposed upon them. But, such is the imperfect rule of law.

To the chagrin of the philosophers or ideologues, among us, the power of the Idea has fallen to the will of the majority. They proclaim that democracy should be the god of Israel; its ultimate concern and highest value. But, Jews have witnessed all too often what Plato predicted; democracies often decompose into tyranny. Among the elites of democracies grows the fear that power is too important to be granted to the people and thus democracies become de facto oligarchies.

But, nowhere in the classics of Judaism has an idea like democracy been suggested. On the contrary, 3500 years ago Mosaic legislation set down that the Hebrew Commonwealth would be governed by a constitutional monarch. Literally each king would have a Torah at his side as well as a council of elders.

The ideas of Montesquieu, Hobbes, Locke and Burke birthed the rebellion by which America was established. But the rebirth of Israel was not in response to a political idea. Israel was created as an answer to an existential crisis. Western societies evolved as democracies as they pushed back against European monarchies. The new democracies did indeed express the will of the people. The Jewish people lost their will in an exile characterized by ghettos and deportations. Democracy did not endow Israel with the strength and courage to survive against incredible hostility. Judaism did. Thus, it is only intellectually honest to admit the source of its great power.

The creation of Israel is the will of the people transcending time and place. Thus, it cannot be construed as a mere political decision. Politics, Bismarck claimed, is the art of the possible. Perhaps he meant probable. While Israel must remain democratic in its political organization, it cannot allow itself to be defined only by what is probable.

For the Jews facing a world unwilling to grant them refuge just three years after the Holocaust, the establishment of a Jewish state seemed impossible. Nevertheless, Israel pursued the possible and pursuing possibility is an act of faith.

On the other hand, compromise, or accepting the probable, is the nature of politics. Nationalism is not antithetical to civil rights, nor is Judaism the opposite of democracy. On the contrary, at a time when no nation even conceived of rights, ancient Israel offered equality under the law and civil rights were encrypted into its Sabbath regulations.

This new law did not make Israel the nation-state of the Jews nor will it ensure its Jewish character.  Only the actions of its citizens can do that because in a democracy laws can be repealed.

All that this new law has accomplished is to make us more aware of the anxious truth that only the will of the people can assure their own identity and purpose. Without doubt the legislation was prompted by the insecurity of our new freedom. We live in paradox and uncertainty. There are times when actions speak louder than words and there are times when words lead to deeds. We live in uncertainty when all we really possess is hope.