Israel is in the midst of a painful reckoning like no other in its history. Conventional wisdom has focused on systemic misconceptions as the source of the October 7^th debacle and consequent fallout. But while a rigorous audit on matters like national defense policy, military strategy, enemy disposition, and threat perception is critical, it risks obscuring the forest for the trees. For there is an even deeper force that has brought the State of Israel to its current predicament and will determine its future.

It’s a force rooted in the spirit and culture of not only Israelis but Jews around the world. Its contours take on a starker shape when applied to a sovereign, policymaking entity. It imbues not only Israeli political and military leaders, but citizens too, in unspoken assumptions that establish the rules of the game and delineates “sensible” discourse.

It is a crippling neurosis known as the “diaspora mentality.”

This neurosis is characterized by a sense of obsequiousness to and dependence on gentiles for our safety and welfare, and a desperate longing to gain their approval. It’s an ingrained part of the Jewish subconscious, prominent in the calculus of decision-making, that filters attitudes and conduct with a view to “what will the gentile think?”, a craving to be “normal”, a yearning to be liked -or even just accepted- by the gentiles. It’s a lens that colors everything. Personal interactions, communal relations, national identity, and state policy.

In a nutshell, the “diaspora mentality” is the attitude of a people with collective “survival personality” – acting out of fear, on the defensive, and by the overarching imperative of avoiding further harm.

Over two plus millennia in the diaspora, this mentality manifested in the character of the “court jew” – who represented the notion that if we served the interests of the gentile monarchies in whose lands we were residents, they would grant us status and protection, and perhaps even the recognition of some rights. It was first embodied 2,400 years ago in Persia during the Jewish people’s first exile after the destruction of the First Temple. The Purim story centers around the Jews’ precarious status, with the hero Mordechai explicitly warning his niece Esther – who had risen to become queen of Persia – against any sense of security despite her lofty status: “Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will escape with your life by being in the king’s palace.” While a sensible warning, it did not deter generations of Jews who understandably sought safety through royal imprimatur, however fickle it was known to be.

In the 19^th Century, when modern Jewish self-determination was first being articulated, the notion of the diaspora mentality was seen as one of the great scourges of statelessness and one of the afflictions that statehood would cure; Zionist thinkers like Ahad Ha’am and Yosef Chaim Brenner believed that one of the main accomplishments of Jewish sovereignty would be, “shlilat ha’golah” (negation of the diaspora). David Ben Gurion stated it succinctly when he said that “Exile is one with utter dependence – in material things, in politics and culture, in ethics and intellect.”

Ze’ev Jabotinsky was one of the few prominent Jews that did not exhibit any symptoms of this neurosis. It is thus no coincidence that he formed the first Jewish fighting unit in 1,850 years and considered it a matter of course. Col. John Henry Patterson, in his book The Story of the Jewish Legion, wrote that Jabotinsky was “void of the peculiar inhibitions of a Jewish mind influenced and twisted by the abnormalities of centuries of life in dispersion” (emphasis added). This was “why his [Jabotinsky’s] political philosophy was so healthy and so simple,” but also why “he never became the recognized leader of the Jewish people.” To elaborate on that last point, the words of Count Michael Kubienski, head of the polish foreign office in Jabotinsky’s time, are instructive: “for the ghetto Jew, he [Jabotinsky] is … too simple, too direct…he will only be followed by those who have overcome the ghetto complex.”

It stood to reason that the establishment of Israel would terminate the “diaspora mentality” engendered by millennia of powerlessness and dependence, and grant the Jewish people equal status in the community of nations. Stated beautifully in the Israeli Declaration of Independence, this was a “natural right for the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate.”

Indeed, Israel has a powerful army, one that has defended its citizens consistently and mightily since its inception. And whereas in the stateless diaspora we were at the mercy of our hosts when victimized, today we respond with strength and power, with a sense that this is what independence means. However, this is the illusion. On the most fundamental level, the purpose of a sovereign and independent state is to protect the welfare of its citizens – which means formulating and implementing policy oriented and dedicated to civilian security and territorial integrity, and preventing devastating violations of sovereignty. Where such encroachments are not prevented, it is incumbent on the government to ensure, by any and all means, that such future violations – especially those by the same enemy, from the same territory, espousing clear and repeated genocidal objectives – have been neutralized and negated.

Truth be told, for all the talk about Israel’s legendary operational daring and audacity, since the act of Israel’s founding it has rarely taken the strategic initiative. Indeed, since the Six Day War, strategic initiative has essentially taken the form of some banal derivative of “land for peace”.  The only deviation took place in 1982, with Ariel Sharon’s bold plan to secure a peace treaty with Lebanon -without surrendering territory- by invading southern Lebanon, expelling Syrian and Palestinian armed forces, and installing a pro-Israel Christian government in Lebanon. Suffice it to say, the ensuing morass caused Israel’s political echelon to be ever-more squeamish and averse to bold strategic initiative – or as the saying goes, “once bitten twice shy”. It is a bitter irony that in the past twenty years, the sole proactive policy Israel implemented was Sharon’s “disengagement” from Gaza.

And so, for at least forty years, Israel’s strategic posture has been defensive and reactive, and characterized entirely by conflict management. This disposition most certainly characterized Israel’s conduct in the Gaza theater.

The twin pillars of strategy in Gaza, and perhaps in general, were deterrence for the maintenance of status quo. The concept of status quo is in itself an expression of risk aversion and loss protection, signifying that preserving the existing reality is the best we have to hope for. By definition, it spurns initiative and seeks stability, however unsatisfactory and illusory it really is, and it belies an insecurity that things are so delicate and tenuous that no real change can be made, lest it all fall apart. Indeed, the status quo has holy status in Israeli society, and as a paradigmatic societal framework, it is the natural manifestation of the diaspora mentality in the realm of statecraft and military affairs.

The problem with deterrence as the cornerstone of strategy is that its accomplishment is indeterminate and unquantifiable, precisely because it is entirely dependent on the enemy and his perceptions, and can really only be measured retrospectively, in the intervals of calm earned from the supposedly punishing military campaigns we embarked on. Such that on October 6^th, we believed that Hamas had been sufficiently deterred because of the relative quiet since our last major operation seven years prior (Operation Protective Edge). And for this reason, for fifteen plus years, a terror organization whose stated objective was the destruction of Israel and murder of Jews had been permitted to reign in Gaza and rain missiles over an ever-increasing range of Israel.

In order to enforce deterrence and maintain the status quo, our vaunted brain power, our time, and our money, was spent on the Iron Dome missile defense system and a multi-billion-dollar security fence – which didn’t as much keep the terrorists out as deepen our sense of siege, of one giant ghetto the size of state, in a neighborhood of genocidal anti-Semites. But with a proto-Nazi regime in power, one must beg the question: How could we even permit a situation where such an entity is governing Gaza?

The fact is that we in Israel and Jews around the world have considered it axiomatic that we are warranted to act only and ever in response and never with initiative. And we have been collectively resigned to the reality that a circumscribed sovereignty – which started with incessant terrorist attacks, escalated into perpetual rocket barrages, and culminated with the worst atrocity in Israel’s history – is the best the Jewish people can expect after 2,000 stateless years. This is a mentality completely unbefitting, counterproductive, and destructive for a sovereign state and its citizens. No self-respecting, self-reliant nation pursuing true self-determination would – nor does – accept these axioms.

The status quo apologists and pathological accommodationists rattle on about “legitimacy”, “isolation”, “the international community,” etc. as if when it comes to Israel alone, international legitimacy and support are more important considerations than even one of its citizens’ lives. This is a complete dereliction of the state’s duty, and a grotesque warping of national priorities. The conviction that Israel requires the US’s or Europe’s, or the international community’s approval in order to act, and exist, has left us utterly crippled in pursuing our national interest.

In the international community, we appear to grovel with gratitude for alliances, and we accept the conditional friendship of countries that are only too happy to reap the myriad benefits that the Jewish state offers but are loathe to support Israel in the diplomatic arena; implausibly, many of these “friends” denounce, condemn, and are outrightly hostile in the corridors of international organizations and in the courts of public opinion.

Of course we have allies, and of course we want allies, but not on condition that we act or refrain from acting in a way that would cause us grave harm; and in a way that they themselves would not if in a similar position.

In truth, no state has been more consumed with legitimacy considerations than Israel. It is a top priority in defining national policy and deeply influences military strategy. It is a case of the tail wagging the dog, for when Israel places an obsessive premium on legitimacy considerations, it merely invites the international community to judge it on such terms. The subtext here is that Israel is permanently indebted to the UN for its establishment; that its existence is provisional and grounded in the consent of the international community, which can be revoked at will. More than the international community then, it is the Jewish people that need to be reminded that Israel was not created by the UN, but by the desperate and determined Jews who for decades had painstakingly established proto-state institutions; and by the blood of its people – 1% of whom were killed in Israel’s War of Independence. This exaggerated emphasis on legitimacy is yet another expression of the diaspora mentality, as applied to the diplomatic dimension.

Despite the newness of sovereignty for the Jewish people, our leaders need to internalize, we as Jews need to internalize, that Israel’s paramount and definitive priority is not international recognition, acceptance, or friendship, but the safety, welfare, and prosperity of its citizens. Any state that does not operate according to this most fundamental precept cannot expect – nor deserve – to long endure.

***

It’s possible that the tragedy of October 7th was enough of a systemic shock that it began a critical reexamination of fundamental assumptions across the Jewish world; that it displayed – in the most extreme terms – the catastrophic cost of obedience to the dictates of the diaspora mentality. The farce of October 8^th – when millions in the civilized West and in the halls of its most prestigious academic institutions demonstrated their support for the “Palestinian cause” with euphoric bloodlust – seemed to further catalyze an awakening of the shameful futility of chasing international favor.

Israel’s recent actions in Lebanon are an encouraging case in point.  For while they were indeed a response to Hezbollah’s unprovoked and sustained missile barrage and the subsequent evacuation of 60,000+ of its citizens from their homes, they demonstrate an exceptional degree of agency and initiative, aimed at significantly altering the reality on Israel’s northern border as opposed to merely containing the threat to it. And, just as important as Israel’s audacious military conduct, is its unflinching and conspicuous rejection of its allies’ ominous admonitions against “escalation”.

Among Israel’s general public, there is a palpable consensus that the status quo with Hezbollah is untenable and must be dealt with proactively, knowing full well the sacrifices this may entail on the battlefield. This is mirrored by the political echelon, which seems to be emboldened with a newfound political will and a healthy disregard for the potential diplomatic fallout.

Taken together, these developments may suggest a burgeoning transformation in Israeli society; that we are beginning to internalize the existential danger of the diaspora mentality and re-envision how to assert Jewish sovereignty and how to project Jewish power. Even if these sentiments are understood implicitly but not yet fully articulated, there exists an opening for lasting change. No consolation can be taken from the monstrous tragedy of October 7^th, but perhaps some small redemption can be found in it becoming a turning point for the Jewish nation.

However, this deeply-embedded 2,000 year-old neurosis will not be immaculately excised with a surgical strike on an individual or organization. In order for such a profound, sustained transformation to take root – as opposed to an isolated response to a contemporary challenge –  the diaspora mentality must be addressed directly, through a reckoning on our national identity; by facing up to the fact that our diaspora mentality has caused us to be defined and united by external forces – that until now it is persecution that has kept us together, and even galvanized us.

In the Book of Numbers is one prophecy that has truly defined us: “It is a people that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers, 23:9). For too long, dwelling alone has brought unity to the Jewish people through a common fear of and rejection by the various gentile communities it has lived among. That is, anti-Semitism and Jew-hatred have been the Jewish people’s most powerful unifying force. It is the basest form of unity, shallow and negatively inspired, by which we are passively drawn together because they define us as irrevocably, if involuntarily, conjoined.

In order for us to shed the diaspora mentality and dwell alone by choice and in strength, we must find a deeper unifier. There is a theological basis for the distinction between the different forms of sovereignty and the transformation that we need to undergo. Rabbi Joseph Soleveitchik wrote about this in depth in his famous essay Kol Dodi Dofek. Here he distinguishes between two contrasting collective experiences: the “machaneh” (encampment) and the “edah” (congregation). A machaneh is created for self-defense and united only by fear. A congregation on the other hand is “a collection of individuals with a single past, a common future, shared aspirations.” And while Soloveitchik stated that the experience of the machaneh is “a phase in the development of the nation’s history,” the whole point of his famous essay was that the establishment of the State of Israel presents the incredible opportunity to move to the next phase of collective identity.

But what would an edah with shared aspirations look like? This is THE question at the heart of it all – answering this will begin the next phase of Jewish sovereignty and truly begin the elimination of the diaspora mentality. In secular terms this is a question for a constitutional moment. It is one that will have to be answered in a larger, deeper national conversation; an answer to the question of not only what unites us, but by extension – what is the Jewish state’s purpose? That is a topic beyond the current scope. But suffice it to say that what unites the Jewish people – whether we like it or not – is our common heritage and destiny, our Judaism. It is Judaism that establishes our connection to the Land of Israel and has sustained our transcendent and unbroken fidelity to a national reconstitution that has no precedent in history.

***

Looking back through our long history, stateless and sovereign, the quest for approval has been the quintessential exercise in futility: we have never exhibited enough forbearance, we have never been accommodating enough to make our antagonists love us, we have not let enough Jewish blood be spilled. Because it will never be enough, we will never receive the love and acceptance we have desperately sought. We can continue this doomed endeavor, only to rediscover time and again that the price is prohibitive and incompatible with true self-determination.

As painful as it is, and as difficult as it will be, we must accept that we will never be accepted and that we will never be “normal,” and we need to act accordingly. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we unapologetically embrace our national calling, the better off we will be. Only the State of Israel knows what is in its best interest. No one else can dictate this to us, and we should depend on no one else to attain our objectives. While we are no longer stateless and powerless, the time has come to not only respond and defend but to take the initiative and shape our destiny. Perhaps that means we will end up alone and isolated – though highly doubtful – but at least we will truly be the masters of our own fate.

The stakes are high, but – to paraphrase Zeev Jabotinsky – we must eliminate the diaspora mentality, or the diaspora mentality will surely eliminate us.

Photo by Dan Hadani collection / National Library of Israel / The Pritzker Family National Photography Collection, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=142372301