Israel‘s Zionist Self-Destruction | Y. Rabkin, M. Ramos & J. Sachs

## Introduction What emerges from this conversation is a stark argument: Zionism, as it developed and as it is practiced today, combines political nationalism, religious messianism, and imperial backstopping in ways that make it both destructive to others and self-destructive to Israel itself. The exchange traces Zionism’s genealogy from 17th‑century Protestant millenarianism through 19th‑century European nationalism and British imperial design to contemporary American patronage and radical religious revival. The consequence is a state built on exclusionary claims to land and people, dependent on external great‑power support, and increasingly propelled by religious zeal that undermines democratic pluralism at home and fuels violence abroad. ## Defining Zionism: Political, Religious, or Imperial? 00: 16:38 Exclusionary Nationalism and Messianic Contradictions The discussion insists on a categorical distinction: Zionism is primarily a political movement, not synonymous with Judaism. Its political kernel is the project of creating and consolidating a Jewish state in a specific territory by political and military means. Yet the discourse also shows how Zionism draws on a tangle of religious narratives—principally Christian Protestant eschatology and Jewish messianic thought—so that the movement is hybrid in origin and motive. This hybridity explains much of its internal contradiction. On the one hand, the founders and early strategists of Zionism often were secular, nationalist thinkers shaped by late‑nineteenth‑century European concepts of nationhood. For them, a state was the primary remedy to Jewish vulnerability in an age of ethnicized nationalism. On the other hand, Christian millenarian currents from the 17th century onwards infused the idea of remaking the Holy Land with a salvational purpose: bringing Jews to Palestine to precipitate an apocalyptic finale. That theological strand, while not central to secular Zionists, became an influential lever when allied with political ambition. Crucially, the conversation foregrounds how once nationalism anchors itself to a specific land as an ethnically exclusive home, it becomes exclusionary by definition. Citizenship as a legal and civic category gives way to membership defined by descent, religion, or ethno‑national identity. Where other modern states manage plural identities within civic frameworks, Zionism’s territorial claim entangled with an ethnic‑national idea tends toward exclusion—producing policies and practices that disenfranchise and displace non‑Jewish inhabitants. The speakers underscore that this exclusionary tendency is not an inevitable outgrowth of Judaism but a feature of an imported European model of nationhood merged with territorial messianism. ## The Imperial Lifeline: US and British Support A persistent theme in the conversation is the indispensability of imperial patronage in Zionism’s success and survival. The British Empire’s geopolitical calculations—control of routes to India and influence in the Eastern Mediterranean—made it receptive to the idea of a Jewish foothold in Palestine. The Balfour moment was less a moral reckoning than a strategic instrument of imperial realpolitik. Later, American global power assumed the role of protector and guarantor, translating ideological affinity and geopolitical interest into sustained military, diplomatic, and financial backing. The consequence is a state whose sovereignty is, in practice, buttressed by external empires. This external lifeline allowed Zionism to outmaneuver local and regional resistance and to secure territory well beyond what demographic realities might have alone permitted. It also exported Western conceptions of state‑building—nationhood premised on a single dominant ethno‑religious identity—into a region where imperial cleavages and colonial legacies already generated deep grievances. The panel’s line of argument makes clear that without this imperial support, modern Zionism would have neither achieved nor sustained itself in its present territorial and political form. That dependency, far from being a purely strategic advantage, creates vulnerabilities: the state becomes enmeshed in the patron’s strategic imperatives and exposed to international legal and reputational pressures when its policies collide with evolving global norms about human rights and occupation. ## The Shift from Secular to Religious Zealotry Perhaps the most alarming thread to emerge is the transition within Israeli society from a largely secular, sometimes socialist state project to a powerful religious-nationalist movement. Early Zionism included prominent secular socialist elements—state builders focused on collective institutions, agriculture, and national defense. Over the late 20th century, however, a marked rise in religious fervor among settlers and political actors altered the movement’s trajectory. Religious nationalism gave the territorial claim sacred inflection: land ceased to be solely a strategic or historical possession and became a divine grant to be recovered and held as religious duty. This sacralization hardened attitudes toward compromise and peace, legitimized expansion into occupied territories, and provided a theological sanction for policies that international law and human rights advocates deem problematic. Religious zeal converted what might have been tactical political aims into immutable moral imperatives, making conflict resolution dramatically more difficult. The political impact is profound. Where pragmatic secular leaders might have moderated expansionist impulses in favor of long‑term security through negotiated settlement, the ascendancy of religiously motivated factions has pushed policy toward maximalist territorial claims and demographic engineering. According to the conversation, this shift does not simply affect foreign policy; it reshapes the domestic polity by privileging one communal identity over democratic citizenship, thereby eroding the pluralistic institutions necessary for a healthy liberal democracy. ## African Zionism and the Sacralization of State Power The exchange pushes the inquiry beyond Europe and North America to show how Zionist ideas have been reinterpreted across the global South—particularly in Africa and Latin America. “African Zionism” is presented not as a mere mimicry of Israeli ideology but as a localized phenomenon where biblical narratives and political aspirations produce distinct forms of sacralized state power. In these contexts, Zionist symbols and end‑time imaginaries can be harnessed for political mobilization and moral legitimation. This transnational spread complicates any attempt to confine Zionism to a single cultural genealogy. Evangelical movements in South America and parts of Africa adopt and adapt Zionist motifs for their own theological and political projects, sometimes supporting Israeli policies uncritically and at other times creating hybrid identities centered on spiritual solidarity and prophetic destiny. The conversation highlights the irony: anti‑colonial movements in Africa that historically resisted empire may now find themselves allied with a political theology that, in practice, reproduces colonial patterns of exclusion and domination. That twist has geopolitical consequences. Countries whose public opinion is shaped by religious solidarity with Israel can tilt foreign policy, influence international forums, and affect outcomes at bodies such as the International Court. The sacralization of state power, therefore, is not just an internal Israeli dynamic; it radiates outward, shaping how distant societies perceive and support the Israeli project irrespective of local realities on the ground. ## Anti-Semitism, Persecution, and Weaponization The panel insistently separates legitimate criticism of Zionist ideology and state policies from anti‑Semitism, while also illuminating how the rhetoric of persecution has been weaponized. The his

Israel‘s Zionist Self-Destruction Euro-American Zionism (Jewish and Christian) has killed millions in West Asia, devastated the region, and it is the motor behind the Gaza Genocide. But Israel itself is under threat of falling pray to the deadly logic that birthed the state in the first place. Today we are holding a panel discussion on what makes Zionism such a dangerous and ultimately even self-negating force. I‘m joined by 3 world class academics: Professor Yakov Rabkin of Montreal University, Professor Manuel Ramos of the University Institut of Lisbon, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Colombia University. Links: Yakov's books: Isreal in Palestine: Jewish opposition to Zionism: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/israel-in-palestine- yakov-m-rabkin/1148269128 What is Modern Israel?: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/what-is- modern-israel-yakov-m-rabkin/1122667941?ean=9780745335810 Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:48 Defining Zionism: Political, Religious, or Imperial? 00: 16:38 Exclusionary Nationalism and Messianic Contradictions 00:23:30 The Imperial Lifeline: US and British Support 00:27:40 The Shift from Secular to Religious Zealotry 00:37:41 African Zionism and the Sacralization of State Power 00:45:51 Anti-Semitism, Persecution, and Weaponization 00:56:34 Conclusion: Radicalization and Democratic Deficit #Pascal Welcome, everybody. Today we are holding a panel discussion on Zionism with three world-class academics. I've got with me Professor Yakov Rabkin of the University of Montreal, Professor Manuel Ramos of the University Institute of Lisbon, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University. Gentlemen, welcome. #Manuel Ramos Thank you very much for the invitation. #Pascal We said we’re going to do a panel on Zionism to explore this concept a bit more because, Yakov, you’ ve been working on it for many years and you’ve written wonderful books, including about the Jewish rejection of Zionism. Manuel, in an earlier podcast you linked Zionism to the Crusades, and Jeff, you’ve been working on this topic for a while too. So, let’s maybe start with the question of how we should understand Zionism. Should we see it as a Jewish project, a Christian project, a European project, or a transatlantic project? What’s the best way to capture what Zionism is about? Let’s start with Yakov. #Yakov Rabkin -- 1 of 14 -- Well, Zionism is, first of all, a political movement. The idea is to bring Jews to the Holy Land by political or military means. This idea is very different from the messianic hopes you find in Judaism and, of course, also in Christianity. The idea of doing this actually comes from Protestant theologians beginning in the 17th century, who saw it as part of redemption, the second coming of Christ, and the end of the world. For them, it was extremely important to bring Jews from all over the world to the Holy Land so they could witness the second coming of Christ and either recognize Christ as the Messiah or perish if they didn’t. So it’s a very problematic scenario, to put it mildly. And that scenario played out in the 17th, as I said, and in the 18th century. In the 19th century, it was reinforced by the geopolitical interests of Great Britain, which wanted to have a foothold in the Holy Land, not far from the Suez Canal, so it was very handy. When Jews embarked on this project, it was very late in the 19th century, and it was quite unpopular among Jews. We can talk later about why it wasn’t popular. Today, Zionism is the official ideology of the State of Israel, and many Israelis see that Zionism, whatever streams it had before, has now resulted in racism. Avram Burg, former speaker of the Knesset, Gideon Levy, the journalist from *Haaretz*, and many other people say that today, in order to be a Zionist, you have to be a racist or a fascist. So that’s the evolution of that movement. #Pascal Manuel, how would you describe it? You’re the one who, in a previous program, made the connection to the Crusades and to this strong Christian fundamentalist belief about the Holy Land. What do you think is essential to understand about Zionism? #Manuel Ramos Well, I think Zionism is an offshoot of a larger ideological movement, which is Messianism. And Messianism is Christian, but it’s also Muslim and Jewish. I think the history of Messianism is probably as old as humankind. The idea that we’ll find perfection, that there will be a final day of judgment and then everything will be okay—that kind of expectation of a perfect future—is something quite general. In the history of Messianism, which, as I said, gives rise to this offshoot of specific Zionism, I think we have to go back, as I proposed before, to the Crusades and to the various movements in Christianity that were searching for a path to the end times. And this project collided very early on with Muslim apocalypticism, because the idea of the Second Coming of Jesus is not only Christian but also Islamic. The idea of the Second Coming of Isa has been very deeply anchored in Muslim thought. So we have three Abrahamic religions that think about the end times and a final culmination, and this has created all sorts of variations. I’ve been interested—because I work in the Horn of Africa—in African Zionism, and also in South American Zionism. -- 2 of 14 -- They bear some relation, of course, to Western Zionism and Israeli Zionism, but they are quite different. I think we should also include these forms of Zionism in the discussion, because they don’t necessarily tie to the idea that Zion will be established in Jerusalem. It’s much more symbolic, and it’ s much more about the present. It doesn’t project into the future but into the now—it’s more of a today thing than a future thing. There’s another element I’d like to bring in here. Sometimes we contrast the Western idea of linear time with the so‑called Eastern idea—be it Buddhist, Hindu, or Taoist—of cyclical time. And I think sometimes this is misdirected, because there are many forms of messianism and apocalypticism in Eastern religions. And maybe—this sounds a bit crazy—but I tend to think that the installation of the Kingdom of God after the Battle of Armageddon, after Judgment Day, is a return to the initial movement, the initial condition—the pre–original sin condition. So in that way, we can also see apocalypticism as a cyclical form. There is definitely this idea of linearity, but this linearity hides a cyclical form, which is not as pronounced as in Eastern religions. But I think we should also try to think of these ideas of the final times as part of a thinking of renewal. #Pascal Thank you, Jeff. The amazing thing, though, is that as a political movement, Zionism is largely atheist. I mean, you don’t need to be a believer to be a Zionist, right? #Jeffrey Sachs Well, I think what's so interesting is all the different, and sometimes utterly contradictory, roots of this idea. But today, Zionism is the ideology that guides the state of Israel, so it's a political ideology—a movement, as Yakov said. If we look back, and just as these two great experts from whom I’ve learned—I'm merely a student of this, trying to understand the political and geopolitical implications—there’s the strain of messianism, which Manuel talks about. There’s also the strain of Christian, especially evangelical Protestantism, that sees the return of Jews to the Holy Land as a prelude to the parousia, the second coming of Christ. There is definitely, even today, an element of this being a battle between Christianity—or Judeo- Christianity, as we say in the United States and Canada—and Islam, a battle over who controls the Holy Land. That’s definitely a motivating force for many American Zionists: the idea of keeping the Holy Land in the hands of Christians or Jews, but not Muslims. This is clearly an imperial undertaking, both in the literal sense that modern Zionism was fundamentally enabled by the British Empire, through the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which placed the world’s most powerful empire at that time on the side of a Jewish homeland. And so this was an imperial undertaking. And as Yakov said, as was typical with the British, it was a very cynical imperial project led by a number of anti-Semites interested in control over the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, and soon enough, pipelines from Iraq to Haifa—basically to protect the crown jewels -- 3 of 14 -- of the British Empire. There was also the belief that announcing the Balfour Declaration would entice the United States to join World War I on the British side. So this was typical British imperial maneuvering that backed it. And now we have the American empire, which has been the great sponsor and backer of modern Zionism and the state of Israel. It's a nationalist movement rooted in the very European, late 19th-century belief that each people needs a state. This is a crude European political ideology that has led to no end of misery, but it's based on the idea that there's no such thing as multi-ethnic societies or transnational empires—each people should have its own state. The Balkans need to be “balkanized,” with each place becoming a physical, geographic state for some ethnicity, meaning some linguistic group or ethnos. And this is the sense of Herzl, the main founder of Jewish Zionism, which is actually a late form of Zionism. And as we know, Herzl was completely irreligious—ignorant of religion, uncaring or skeptical about it. He was concerned about anti-Semitism and nationalism in the sense that an ethnos should have a physical state. For him, whether it was Uganda, the Holy Land, or some other place was largely a matter of tactics. Now, today, Zionism is the ideology of an actual political state. The purpose of 20th-century Zionism was to create that state, to secure it, and to expand it. So it is now an ideology that says many things, but one is that Israel is a state of the Jewish people, and Judaism is a nation, not necessarily a religion. It is a people who have a land, who had a land. This is their land, and it's their land again, and it's going to be their land. The strains of Zionism within Israel are quite varied. They all form around a political idea that this is an ideology of a state, which is significant. But for some, this is an expression of, I would say, late 19th-century nationalism—the idea that we have a state, and it's the only way we can be secure in a world of nations at war with each other. That seems to be Netanyahu's idea. For others, it goes back to biblical redemption, so it becomes a kind of messianism—redeeming God's promise of this land, whatever that promise specifically is, maybe from the Nile to the Euphrates or something else. So it’s a mix of ideas all centered around the state. What I think is so important—and I’m delighted to be meeting Manuel Ramos, honored to be on the panel—is that I’ve been a longtime student of Yakov Rabkin, who’s taught me all of this. And for me, what Yakov helped me understand is that I had no particular attraction to any of this and was quite repelled by what Israel actually does in its behavior. The point is, Zionism is not Judaism. Some strands of Zionism have a religious base; some don’t have any religious base. They’re a kind of crude nationalism, which I generally deplore. And many strands of Judaism are in absolute opposition to Zionism and always have been since Zionism emerged as a political ideology. That’s very important and illuminating, in my mind. Zionism is not Judaism by any stretch at all—and that’s historically true, and it’s true today. #Pascal -- 4 of 14 -- Yakov and Manuel, please feel free to react freely to what the others are saying. But maybe, Yakov, why do you think that although Zionism is not just a Jewish phenomenon, it’s also a Christian one— and, as Manuel said, you even find it in other monotheistic beliefs—