The Blogs: Why the Future For Israel and Jews Worldwide Is Likely to Be Dismal, and  How To Change That | Richard H. Schwartz

[TAG]Rabbi Shammai Engelmayer contributed to the writing of this essay.

These are extraordinarily difficult times for Jews, for the Jewish state, and for Judaism itself. All three face growing pressures from multiple directions, and many signs suggest that matters may yet worsen. I wish we did not feel compelled to write this article, but we believe there is still time to reverse some of these trends — if we are willing to examine honestly how we arrived at this moment and what changes may still be possible. Our hope is that these reflections will encourage respectful and meaningful dialogue about a better future for all the children of Abraham: Jews in Israel and the Diaspora, and our Palestinian cousins.

Judaism teaches that we are to be a holy people (Leviticus 19:2), a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6), God’s witnesses in history (Isaiah 43:10), and “a light unto the nations” (Isaiah 49:6). Yet today the world increasingly does not see us that way and, regrettably, neither do many of us. Israel and Jews worldwide face growing hostility and isolation. Nations and institutions once broadly supportive of Israel have become increasingly critical, while accusations directed against the Jewish state have grown harsher and more sweeping.

Ever since the Gaza war began, large demonstrations against Israel have continued across Europe, North America, Latin America, and elsewhere. International organizations, church groups, labor unions, student movements, and segments of progressive political parties increasingly portray Israel not primarily as a victim of terrorism despite the atrocities of October 7, but as an oppressor. The language directed against Israel now often includes accusations of apartheid, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. According to a recent Pew survey, unfavorable views of Israel among Americans have risen significantly in recent years.

At the same time, antisemitism has surged globally. In countries long considered relatively safe for Jews — including the United States, Britain, France, and Australia — anti-Jewish incidents have increased dramatically. Online antisemitism has spread through conspiracy theories, Holocaust distortion, and extremist rhetoric from both the far right and the far left. Jewish students on many university campuses report harassment, intimidation, and social isolation. Many Jews now hesitate to display visible signs of Jewish identity in public.

Israel also faces growing cultural and economic pressures internationally. Israeli performers, academics, athletes, and businesses increasingly encounter boycotts, exclusion campaigns, and hostility abroad. While criticism of Israel has always existed and always will, the breadth and intensity of today’s hostility are difficult to ignore.

Meanwhile, Israel faces growing internal strains of its own. Increasing numbers of Israelis are leaving the country (yeridah), including many young, highly educated professionals, particularly in the high-tech and medical sectors. While aliyah from Western countries remains significant, it no longer appears sufficient to offset the broader trend. These developments raise concerns about economic vitality, social cohesion, and confidence in Israel’s future.

There is also this to consider: For decades, Israel was seen as the place Jews moved to in search of security, stability, and a shared collective future. Since October 7, many Jews in the Diaspora have felt an even stronger emotional pull toward Israel, helping sustain Aliyah. Yet the growing number of Israelis leaving because they feel increasingly insecure or uncertain about the country’s future direction could eventually reshape that equation. If the trend deepens, the longstanding assumption that Israel is the destination Jews instinctively move toward may begin to weaken.

These tensions lie at the heart of the current Israeli and Jewish moment. Several factors have contributed to this deterioration.

One has been the leadership style and political strategy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. To preserve governing coalitions, Netanyahu empowered far-right figures such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, bringing once-marginal extremist views to the center of Israeli political life and to positions of influence over security and settlement policy. Critics argue that this has damaged Israel’s democratic culture and international reputation.

Netanyahu also increasingly aligned Israel with one side of the American political divide, particularly during his opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement and his controversial 2015 speech to Congress without coordination with then-President Barack Obama. Many observers believe this helped transform support for Israel from a bipartisan consensus into a partisan issue within American politics. Ironically, Israeli political and defense officials at the time—then-President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak among them—frequently described security cooperation with the Obama administration as exceptionally strong.

At the same time, Jews must also engage in honest moral self-reflection. Jewish tradition repeatedly commands sensitivity toward the stranger “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The command appears 36 times in various forms in the Torah — more often than any other commandment. While Jews have much to be proud of in our ethical traditions and historical accomplishments, we must still ask whether we are always living up to our own highest ideals.

Another major factor shaping global opinion has been Israel’s response to the horrific Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023. It was a response Hamas anticipated and planned on in the hope of pushing the massacre out of the news and turning the world against Israel. Virtually the entire democratic world initially sympathized with Israel and recognized its right — indeed its obligation — to defend its citizens against Hamas terrorism. But as the war continued, and as images of destruction, displacement, and civilian suffering in Gaza spread worldwide, global attitudes shifted dramatically.

In the late 1960s, Americans turned against President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War because of the horrific images of wounded soldiers, burning villages, civilian casualties, and endless suffering that were being broadcast into their living rooms in what has been called the world’s first TV war.  Those images were a powerful counter to any words of defense offered by LBJ and his government.

Those images also created a playbook for how to turn the world against a nation defending itself against a vicious enemy.

Within hours of the October 7  massacre, Israel launched a massive air campaign aimed at destroying Hamas’ infrastructure—an infrastructure that was deliberately placed in schools, hospitals, apartment buildings and other civilian locations to give the impression of wanton destruction rather than targeted defense.

Those images even drowned out  an incredible admission on the part of Hamas political bureau member Ghazi Hamad just over two weeks later. Interviewed on Lebanese TV, Hamad said that Hamas intended to repeat October 7 “a second, a third, a fourth time,” to encourage even harsher Israeli responses and ever higher death tolls. “We are called a nation of martyrs,” Hamad said, “and we are proud to sacrifice martyrs.” Palestinians “are ready to pay the price” because Israel “must be annihilated.”

Hamas’ strategy worked only too well. Many longtime supporters of Israel soon came to believe that the scale and duration of the war had become excessive. Yet others strongly dispute that conclusion. John Spencer, chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute and one of America’s leading experts on urban combat, has argued repeatedly that Israel established unprecedented standards for civilian protection in densely populated warfare. “There has been no genocide in Gaza,” Spencer wrote in a January 2026 essay. “Israel has not intentionally targeted civilians.”

Notwithstanding such arguments, critics contend that Netanyahu prolonged the conflict in part because ending it threatened the survival of his governing coalition, an argument with merit. They also argue that insufficient effort was made to develop or empower alternative Palestinian leadership structures that might eventually replace Hamas.

Regardless of whether one agrees with these criticisms or with Spencer’s defense of Israel’s conduct, the images emerging from Gaza have profoundly altered international perceptions of Israel. Unfortunately, this was reinforced by statements by Israeli officials, public figures, journalists, and lay people, such as claiming that there were no innocents in Gaza, calling for “erasing” or “flattening” of towns in Gaza and Lebanon – all of which are profoundly offensive to what Judaism stands for.

Equally troubling have been acts of violence committed by Jewish extremists against Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. Palestinian homes and property have been attacked, olive groves destroyed, livestock stolen or killed, and civilians injured and sometimes murdered. Israeli security officials themselves have warned that such acts are causing severe strategic and moral harm. Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar reportedly warned that Jewish extremism in the West Bank was bringing Israel “to the brink of disaster,” while President Isaac Herzog condemned such attacks as “shocking and serious.”

Similarly disturbing are the annual extremist marches through Jerusalem’s Muslim Quarter during Yom Yerushalayim celebrations, where racist chants and acts of intimidation have too often occurred. Images of such behavior spread instantly across social media and reinforce some of the harshest perceptions of Israel throughout the Muslim world and beyond. Statements of support by and the presence of ministers such as Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have only deepened these perceptions.

If these trends continue — including further settlement expansion or attempts to annex parts of Judea and Samaria — Israel’s international isolation may deepen considerably. Prospects for normalization with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations could diminish further, while polarization within Israeli society itself may intensify.

Some Israeli thinkers fear that endless conflict, dehumanization, excessive nationalism, and religious extremism are eroding important elements of Judaism’s ethical and prophetic heritage. Whether or not one agrees entirely with that assessment, the concern deserves serious attention.

What, then, is the alternative?

We believe that the best hope for Israel’s long-term future remains a comprehensive and sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — however difficult and painful such a path may be.

Any realistic agreement, assuming a willingness to negotiate on Israel’s part and finding a trustworthy negotiating partner on the Palestinian side, would require ironclad security guarantees for Israel, no governing role for Hamas or any other terrorist entity, a demilitarized Palestinian state, territorial exchanges, and substantial international economic support. Such a resolution would not solve every problem. But it could significantly reduce regional hostility, improve Israel’s global standing, strengthen ties with moderate Arab states, reduce antisemitic pressures worldwide, and help preserve Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state.

This view is shared not only by many world leaders, but also by numerous former Israeli military, intelligence, and diplomatic officials, including members of Commanders for Israel’s Security, an organization of over 550 retired senior Israeli security and diplomatic leaders.

The Jewish people have survived not only because of military strength or political skill, but because we carried into history a moral vision larger than ourselves. As the prophetic portion, the haftarah, to be read in synagogues on June 6  (Zechariah 2.14-4.7) declares, we survive “Not by might, nor by power,” but by the responsibility imposed on us to share God’s moral and ethical teachings to the world. If Israel is to flourish in the decades ahead — secure, democratic, Jewish, and respected — it must continue drawing strength not only from power, but from the ethical ideals that helped give it birth.

Ultimately, the choice before us is stark. We can continue down a path of endless conflict, growing isolation, and deepening hatred — or we can seek a future grounded in mutual dignity, security, coexistence, and moral courage. If the Palestinians refuse to negotiate, the world will know who the obstacle to peace is.

Israel’s current government must end on October 27, and new elections may be held as early as September 1 if Netanyahu’s coalition collapses. Either way, Israeli voters will soon have to decide on the kind of nation they want Israel to be. Diaspora Jews have their own choices to make along similar lines. Hopefully, Palestinians will also choose a better government. A recent study showed that a majority of Palestinians in both Gaza and Judea and Samaria support a conflict resolution.

May we all choose wisely.