Israel, Jewish and the Anti-Zionist Exploitation of State!

 

The central falsehood of anti-Zionism is the separation of two identities that are historically, spiritually and nationally inseparable: Israel and the Jewish people.

Jacob is renamed Israel in Genesis 32:29. His descendants become Bnei Yisrael—the Children of Israel; their collective becomes Am Yisrael—the People of Israel; and their homeland becomes Eretz Yisrael—the Land of Israel.

After conquest and exile, this same people became widely known as the Jews. The word Yehudi originated with Judah, the surviving center of Israelite national life, but ceased to mean only a member of that tribe. Mordecai is called “a Jewish man” while the same verse identifies him as a Benjaminite. “Jew” had become the historical name of the surviving nation of Israel.

The terminology changed. The people did not.

Jacob is Israel.
His descendants are the Children of Israel.
The continuing People of Israel are the Jews.
Their homeland is the Land of Israel.
Their restored state is the Jewish State of Israel.

In national and historical terms, Israel and the Jewish people are synonymous.

If Jews are reduced to adherents of a portable religion, Zionism can be portrayed as Europeans carrying their faith into somebody else’s country. Once Jews are recognized as the continuing People of Israel, Zionism assumes its actual character: the return of a dispersed indigenous nation to the land in which its name, language, law, memory and civilization were formed.

The Stone of Israel is the people

In The Bible's Vayechi, the Zohar compounds Jacob’s matzevah, the Foundation Stone, the rejected cornerstone and the Stone of Israel into one identity.

The Foundation Stone is the central point from which the world was planted:

ובהאי נקודה קיימא קדש הקדשים
“At/on this point stands the holy of holies.”

The Zohar identifies its earthly manifestation through Jacob: “Jacob took a stone and set it up as a matzevah.” Jacob establishes it “above and below” by making there a “house of God.” The sequence culminates in the “Stone of Israel,” followed by:

אבן, דא כנסת ישראל
“Stone—this is Knesset Israel.”

The stone is the Assembly of Israel: the collective spiritual identity of the Jewish people. The patriarch, people, stone and sacred center of Israel belong to one identity. Israel did not select Zion. Israel became Israel there.

An unparalleled restoration

Conquered and dispersed, the Jewish people retained their national name, language, scriptures, law, calendar, ancient capital and expectation of return. Jews prayed toward Jerusalem; Passover concluded with “Next year in Jerusalem”; weddings remembered Jerusalem at the moment of greatest joy. This was the national memory of a displaced people.

Zionism did not transform a religion into a nation. It organized the return of a nation that exile had caused others to mistake for merely a religion.

The League of Nations Mandate recognized “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and grounds for “reconstituting their national home”—reconstituting, not creating. Israel’s Declaration of Independence similarly calls the land the birthplace of the Jewish people.

The anti-Zionist exploit of “State”

Criticism of an Israeli government, law, military action or settlement is not inherently antisemitic. Supporting Arab dignity and self-determination is not anti-Jewish. But criticism of a state is fundamentally different from denying that the Jewish nation may possess a state.

The danger was exposed by the recent NSW Supreme Court decision concerning Mohommed Farhat. Justice Desmond Fagan held that the slogan “Fuk Israel” was, in that case, a crude political curse directed at a foreign state rather than proof of antisemitic motivation. The vandalism and arson remained criminal; the Court rejected their use as evidence supporting an extended terrorism supervision order.

The ruling addressed Farhat’s evidence and intent. But treating “Israel” exclusively as the name of a foreign state is historically and practically incomplete. Israel was the name of the Jewish nation 3500  years before 1948. A curse directed simply at “Israel” is therefore capable of targeting the people as well as the polity.

Political anti-Zionism must not become a legal shelter for antisemitism. Anyone claiming to protest a government can and should identify the State of Israel, its government or the policy being opposed. Where protesters refuse that distinction, especially when their words target Jews, Jewish institutions or Jewish neighborhoods the law should not automatically presume an innocent political meaning.

Hostility directed at Israel as a nation should face the same consequences under racial-vilification law as hostility directed at any other ethnic people. Political criticism must remain protected; but denying Jews the right to exist collectively through the Jewish State of the nation of Israel is not criticism of policy. It is discrimination against the People of Israel.

Abolitionist anti-Zionism crosses that line. It separates modern Jews from ancient Israelites, treats exile as the creation of a foreign people, recasts Jewish return as colonial invasion and denies Jews a right to self-determination afforded to others.

The test is simple:

If displacement does not extinguish Muslim or Christian indigeneity, exile cannot extinguish Jewish indigeneity.
If others constitute a people, Jews constitute a people.
If Muslims or Christians possess collective national rights, Jews possess collective national rights.

The IHRA working definition therefore distinguishes ordinary criticism of Israel from denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.

Jacob became Israel.
Israel became a nation.
That nation survived exile as the Jews.
The Jews returned to Zion as Israel.

To sever Jews from Israel is not decolonization. It is the erasure of an indigenous people from its own identity.

The Foundation Stone

As Jacob approaches death in Vayechi, the Zohar introduces an extraordinary sequence. It compounds the Foundation Stone of creation, Isaiah’s tested cornerstone, the rejected stone of Hallel, Jacob’s matzevah, Zechariah’s seven-eyed stone and the Stone of Israel into a single identity.

God cast a stone into the abyss, the Zohar says, and from it the world was planted. It is the central point of creation, “and on this point stands the holy of holies.” The Zohar identifies this primordial stone with Isaiah’s “tested stone, a precious cornerstone” and “the stone rejected by the builders.”

These are not merely analogous stones. Zohar, Vayechi 43:445 declares them to be the same Foundation Stone.

Its wording must nevertheless be preserved carefully:

ובהאי נקודה קיימא קדש הקדשים

“At/on this point stands the holy of holies.”

The statement occurs within a cosmic and mystical account of creation. It does not explicitly say that Solomon’s architectural Holy of Holies stood over this stone or provide measurements for constructing a chamber around it. The Foundation Stone is the sacred center at which the holy of holies stands or is present.

The following passage identifies its earthly manifestation. The primordial stone, compounded from fire, water and air and resting above the abyss, was placed as a sign at the center of the world. The Zohar then says: “It is referred to in the words, ‘And Jacob took a stone and set it up as a matzevah.’” The citation is Genesis 31:45.

Jacob did not create the foundation of creation. He established it “above and below” by making there a “house of God,” invoking his declaration:

“This stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s house.”
—Genesis 28:22

Jacob’s physical matzevah therefore makes the cosmic Foundation Stone present within a particular house of God.

The chain continues with Zechariah’s “one stone” bearing “seven eyes.” The Zohar again calls it the Foundation Stone, places the Cherubim “in that place,” invokes Mount Zion and finally calls the mystery the “Stone of Israel”—the phrase contained in Jacob’s final blessing in Genesis 49:24.

It then states:

אבן, דא כנסת ישראל

“Stone—this is Knesset Israel.”

The Stone of Israel is therefore not simply Temple masonry. It is identified with the supernal Assembly of Israel. The Zohar discloses what Jacob’s stone became:

Jacob’s matzevah established the house of God.
The house of God established the sacred center.
The sacred center is the Foundation Stone.
At that point stands the holy of holies.
The Foundation Stone is the rejected cornerstone.
The cornerstone is the Stone of Israel.
The Stone is Knesset Israel.

From mystical identity to physical stone

The Zohar develops an older tradition. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 35 describes Jacob returning to the stones upon which he slept and finding that they had become one. He erected that stone as a matzevah. God then sank it into the depths like the keystone of an arch, making it the Even haShetiyah—the Foundation Stone and navel of the earth. From it the world unfolded, and upon it stood the House of God.

The difficulty begins when this identity is converted into architectural geography.

The Mishnah in Yoma 5:2 describes a stone inside the Second Temple’s Holy of Holies that projected three fingerbreadths above the floor and received the High Priest’s incense after the Ark disappeared. Maimonides similarly places a stone beneath the Ark in the western part of Solomon’s Holy of Holies.

That is not an obvious description of an upright matzevah. The Zohar identifies the sacred mystery but does not resolve the architectural difference through measurements.

Rashi encounters a related geographical problem. Jacob’s revelation occurs at Beit El, yet Rashi identifies “the place” with Mount Moriah. He preserves their identity through kefitzat ha’aretz: Mount Moriah moved toward Jacob.

Perhaps the archaeology now permits part of that geography to be unfolded.

Two adjacent rooms

The excavated complex stands on the eastern slope of the City of David, on the southern side of the Mount Moriah ridge and immediately above Jerusalem’s ancient spring.

Its eight interconnected rock-cut rooms contain an in-situ standing stone, installations associated with oil and wine and, in the immediately adjacent room, a preserved bedrock platform connected to a liquid channel. The excavation report concludes that the rooms formed a cultic complex originating around the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age and continuing until its organized closure in Iron Age IIB. The report was published by the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The spatial relationship is crucial. The matzevah and possible altar platform are not distant or unrelated features. They occupy neighboring bedrock rooms within one cultic arrangement.

Nor should the platform necessarily be understood as the complete surviving altar. The Torah commands that a stone altar must not be built from hewn stones (Exodus 20:22). Deuteronomy requires an altar of “whole stones” (Deuteronomy 27:5–6).

The altar proper could therefore have consisted of a removable superstructure assembled from separate, unhewn stones upon the platform. Those stones might later have been removed while the durable bedrock footing and liquid channel remained. The cautious description is not a surviving rock-cut altar, but a platform that may have supported an altar of unhewn stones.

The Torah’s command to Moses does not prove that Abraham built his altar in this form. It does explain why the absence of a surviving stone superstructure is not an objection to the platform’s proposed function.

Nearby radiocarbon evidence confirms activity on this part of the eastern slope during the sixteenth and early fifteenth centuries BCE, time of the patriarchs, although it does not directly date the standing stone or platform. The results were published in Radiocarbon.

The sanctuary was entered from the east, with the matzevah toward its western side. Maimonides records that Abraham rejected the eastward orientation of solar worship and, on Mount Moriah, “turned therefore to the West.”

Together the remains present a candidate of exceptional specificity: a Bronze Age sanctuary on Mount Moriah containing an upright matzevah and, in the adjacent room, a possible altar platform.

The altar that cannot move

The Rambam’s treatment of the altar is explicitly legal and geographical.

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:1, he rules that the altar occupies an exceptionally precise location and “may never be changed from its place.” He immediately connects that coordinate to the Akedah:

“In the Sanctuary, Isaac our father was bound.”

In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 2:2, he records the tradition that David and Solomon built their altar where Abraham erected his altar and bound Isaac. The same point is associated with Noah, Cain and Abel, Adam’s sacrifice and Adam’s creation.

The Rambam is not describing transferable sanctity. He is defining one recurring altar coordinate.

This creates an unavoidable choice. Either the platform beside the matzevah did not support Abraham’s altar, in which case it remains an unidentified cultic feature; or, if it did support the Akedah altar, the future Temple altar must return there.

A later altar erected elsewhere could not cause the Akedah coordinate to migrate.

Beneath the golden dome

The conventional reconstruction places the Holy of Holies around the exposed rock beneath the Dome of the Rock. Its surviving geographical chain, however, is associated with the Muslim conquest rather than an extant Second Temple measurement.

According to historical tradition, the Jewish convert Kaʿb al-Aḥbār accompanied Caliph Umar into Jerusalem and identified the exposed Sakhra as the Even Shetiyah. Umar cleared the site for prayer; approximately half a century later, ʿAbd al-Malik enclosed the rock beneath the Dome. An Encyclopaedia Judaica account preserves this tradition.

Kaʿb may have transmitted genuine Jewish teaching. But his identification does not constitute archaeological proof that the exposed rock occupied Solomon’s Holy of Holies.

Neither the Rambam nor the Zohar names the rock beneath the Dome. If the eastern-slope complex supplies a better candidate for Abraham’s altar or the earthly manifestation of Jacob’s Foundation Stone, the inherited geography must be reconsidered.

The distinction is fundamental:

The Rambam fixes the altar through the Akedah.
The Zohar identifies Jacob’s stone as the Foundation Stone and Stone of Israel.
The Dome preserves a later geographical interpretation.

Zion before Solomon

Biblical Zion first denotes David’s stronghold, explicitly identified as the City of David (II Samuel 5:7). Before Solomon built the Temple, David placed the Ark in a tent inside that city (II Samuel 6:17). Solomon was later anointed at Gihon with oil taken from that sacred tent (I Kings 1:38–40).

The City of David therefore possessed an Ark-centered sanctuary before Solomon’s Temple.

Ronny Reich’s identification of the spring commonly called Gihon with biblical En Shemesh adds a boundary marker. Joshua places En Shemesh between Judah and Benjamin. The Talmud similarly preserves a Temple tradition in which most of the altar stood in Benjamin, its southeast corner entered Judah, and the Sanctuary remained in Benjamin (Zevachim 53b).

The spring, tribal boundary, Zion, Ark, matzevah and possible altar platform converge upon the same eastern landscape.

The conclusion forced by the Akedah

The archaeology does not prove that the standing stone belonged to Jacob or that Abraham built an altar upon the adjacent platform. No inscription names either patriarch.

But the consequences of the proposition are precise.

If the platform carried the Akedah altar:

• It marks the unchangeable coordinate described by the Rambam.

• The altar may have been built from removable, unhewn stones.

• Removing those stones would not erase the bedrock coordinate.

• The future altar must return to that location.

If the standing stone is the stone identified by the Zohar:

• It is Jacob’s earthly establishment of the Foundation Stone.

• It is the tested, rejected and seven-eyed stone.

• It is the Stone of Israel, identified with Knesset Israel.

• It is the sacred center at which the Zohar says the holy of holies stands.

• It does not, by itself, provide the architectural measurements of a future inner chamber.

The Zohar supplies the identity of the stone. The Rambam supplies the immutable law of the altar. The archaeology supplies two adjacent rooms containing possible physical candidates for both.

The Akedah fixes the physical coordinate of the altar.

Jacob’s stone identifies the sacred center beside it.

The stone rejected by the builders may therefore be the surviving earthly expression of the Stone of Israel, standing immediately beside the platform upon which the immovable altar must be restored.restored.