In the progressive circles that dominate much of Western discourse, including among many Jewish progressives, a persistent criticism echoes against Israel and the Zionist enterprise: it places the particular needs and security of its own community above so-called universal values.
This charge is not new. It has shadowed Zionism from its very beginnings. Critics have long insisted that Jews should dissolve their distinct national identity into the broader human family, embracing cosmopolitan ideals that transcend any parochial concerns.
Karl Marx, for one, exemplified this view, arguing that Jews should not see themselves as a unique people with a singular destiny but rather assimilate fully into the universal class struggle and global humanity, shedding what he viewed as narrow particularism.
This line of thinking continues today in sharper forms. Progressives often frame Israel’s actions through the lens of abstract human rights, international law, and global equity, demanding that Israel subordinate its survival to these higher-sounding principles. The result is a moral inversion that has become all too familiar.
Much of the commentary following rounds of conflict with Hezbollah or Hamas expressed greater discomfort with Israeli fighter jets striking terror positions than with Israeli children huddling in bomb shelters as missiles rained down from Lebanon.
The universalist impulse, in these cases, seems to prioritize the rights or image of the aggressor over the lives of Jewish innocents. It is as if the universal value of “peace” or “proportionality” demands Jewish restraint even at the cost of Jewish blood.
Zionism emerged precisely as a rejection of this kind of self-effacing universalism. After centuries of exile, where Jews were expected to be the ultimate cosmopolitans, loyal citizens of every nation yet belonging fully to none, Zionism insisted on Jewish particularity.
It affirmed that the Jewish people, like every nation, have the right to self-determination, security, and flourishing in their ancestral homeland. This was not a denial of ethical ideals but a recognition that without a secure base, those ideals remain empty slogans.
Teachers must convey this history clearly: Zionism did not arise in opposition to justice, peace, or human dignity. It arose to make their Jewish expression possible in a world that had proven hostile to Jewish existence without power.
In our educational settings, we must teach young Zionists that their sovereignty over the Land of Israel, their security, and their success as a people take priority and precedence over universal values. This is a realism forged in the fires of Jewish history.
A people without a state could champion universalism from the margins, but a sovereign nation-state in a dangerous neighborhood must first ensure its own survival.
Israel faces enemies who explicitly reject coexistence and seek its destruction. In such a reality, prioritizing the defense of Jewish children, the integrity of borders, and the strength of the IDF is the precondition for any ethical life.
Educating Zionist values
At the same time, Zionists must not abandon concern for universal values and broader human issues. True Zionism calls for balance, not blindness. We can and should address global challenges, including poverty, disease, and environmental stewardship, through Israel’s remarkable innovations in water technology, medicine, and agriculture that benefit humanity.
But these contributions flow from a position of Jewish strength, not self-negation.
Zionism is not opposed to universal values, but it does not align with them at all times and in all circumstances. It seeks to realize distinctly Jewish ethical visions within a sovereign national context. The prophets spoke of a world redeemed, but they rooted their vision in the particular land and people of Israel. Modern Zionism continues this tradition.
Israel serves as a living laboratory for Jewish ideas put into practice. Here, Torah values inform policy debates, ethical dilemmas in warfare are confronted daily, and the ancient command to pursue justice is tested against the realities of asymmetric threats.
In the Diaspora, Jews could theorize about universal brotherhood, but in Israel, we must govern, defend, and build while upholding those ideals as best we can in an imperfect world.
Universalist progressivism often demands perfect symmetry with equal concern for all parties regardless of intent, history, or power dynamics. It might equate a democratic state’s response to terror with the aggression of jihadist groups.
Zionism rejects this false equivalence. It recognizes that the Jewish people’s right to life and self-defense in their homeland holds moral weight. Teaching this to students means examining cases like the Six Day War or recent operations against Iranian proxies. Israel did not initiate conflict for expansion but responded to existential dangers.
The universal value of “peace” must mean a peace that allows Jews to live securely as Jews.
Critics will charge that this preference for Zionist priorities fosters insularity or even aggression, but history proves otherwise. The Jewish return to sovereignty has not only secured a refuge for millions but has elevated Jewish contributions to the world. From Nobel laureates to life-saving technologies, a strong Israel amplifies rather than diminishes its universal impact.
Yet without prioritizing sovereignty and security, that strength evaporates. Educators must drill into our youth that in a region where neighbors have repeatedly sought to erase Israel, universalism untethered from Jewish survival is a luxury we cannot afford. It echoes the pre-Zionist mindset that left Jews defenseless in the face of pogroms and the Holocaust.
Theodor Herzl and his contemporaries did not build a movement to dissolve Jewish identity into universal humanity but to normalize it among the nations. Leon Pinsker called for auto-emancipation precisely because reliance on others’ goodwill had failed. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik celebrated the Jewish emergence from historical obscurity into consequential agency.
Today, we must transmit this spirit. In classrooms from Jerusalem to New York, teach that Zionism offers a mature synthesis: particularist strength enabling universalist good.
Ultimately, the Jewish people’s destiny depends on this balance. We cannot allow progressive critiques to erode our will to defend ourselves. Teachers bear the responsibility to prepare the next generation not with guilt over Jewish priorities but with clarity about why those priorities must prevail.
Zionism’s success lies in its refusal to choose between survival and ethics. It insists on both, with survival as the foundation. In a hostile world, that is the only path to a future where Jewish values, particular and universal, can truly flourish.
Our students deserve no less than this honest education. The Jewish future depends on it.
The writer is a Zionist educator at institutions around the world and recently published a new book, Zionism Today.