HIKMA SUMMIT
OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
 

Religion has always played a controversial and debated role in Israeli society. Since the creation of Israel in 1948, Zionist leaders were divided over the role of religion in the state: some argued for its separation from politics, while others believed that society and the state should be guided by the laws of the Torah. The controversy arises from Israel's dual reliance on religious and political claims to justify its existence. In this regard, Israel's legitimacy and its claim to Palestinian territory are rooted in the religious premise that these territories represent the Promised Land, granted by God to the Jewish people. This premise, derived from the Hebrew Bible, presents the land as the historic homeland of the Jewish people. This religious justification became political when it was appropriated by the Zionist movement in the late 19th century. The Zionists promoted the idea of a Jewish return to the land of Israel as a way to escape discrimination in Europe, particularly following the pogroms in Tsarist Russia. The tension further arises from the fact that while Jewish national identity historically drew upon religious values, the Zionist ideology pursued secularization to align with modern nationalist movements. This required reinterpreting the religious aspiration in secular political terms. However, fully secularizing the movement presented its own challenges. If the Zionists justified their actions through purely secular values - such as the right to a homeland - they risked disconnecting their claim from its religious roots, potentially undermining its legitimacy. Conversely, if they grounded their claims solely in religion, they risked alienating secular Jews and non-Jewish supporters.

Zionist leaders primarily used secular values like social justice and humanitarianism to justify Jewish immigration to Palestine, yet these values were often grounded in religious principles. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, sought to separate Israeli identity from religious principles while acknowledging the “Messianic” elements of Zionism - the belief that the return of Jews to their homeland was part of a divine plan for redemption - as its ultimate purpose.  In doing so, for instance, religious symbols like the Star of David were given a secular reinterpretation as cultural or traditional emblems. Jewish holidays were kept as days of rest, preserving their cultural significance without imposing religious observance. But it is in particular the decision to revive the Hebrew language that should be observed. In this regard, behind the revival of the Hebrew language there are both secular and religious motivations. While Yiddish was widely spoken among Jews and could have served as a national language, it was Hebrew that was chosen as the national language. Reviving a language that had not been spoken for two thousand years was justified through historical reasons, claiming that it was the language of the Jewish people before their exile. Though historically inaccurate - Aramaic was actually the dominant language in ancient Palestine - Hebrew’s deep connection to the Torah and sacred Jewish texts reinforced its cultural and religious significance. Indeed, this language was deeply connected to Jewish religious and historical traditions, reinforcing the idea of reclaiming the Jewish people's historic and spiritual roots in the land of Israel. From a legal perspective, the intertwining of religion and state further complicated Israeli identity. Similarly to Islam, Judaism includes a legal code, which has influenced Israeli jurisprudence. When Israel was established, it adopted a unique blend of civil and religious law. Religious institutions are legally recognized and state-funded, reflecting the lack of a complete separation between church and state. The “Law of Return” exemplifies this fusion by granting any Jewish person the right to immigrate to Israel and obtain citizenship. This law defines Jewish identity through both ethnicity (Jewish ancestry) and religion (conversion to Judaism), illustrating the inseparability of Jewish nationality and religion in Israeli legal and social frameworks.

The post-1948 effort to construct a secular Israeli national identity faced inherent contradictions. The goal was to establish a distinct Israeli identity tied to the land rather than to Judaism as a global religion. Zionist leaders emphasized the territorial connection, asserting that the Jewish people had historically lived in the land, were exiled, and were now returning. This narrative sought to link Israelis to the Diaspora and the memory of European Jewish victimization, particularly during the Holocaust. However, grounding national identity in secular history proved challenging without relying on religious heritage. The reinterpretation of fundamental texts - like the Bible - for nationalistic purposes highlighted this tension. While the Bible provided a powerful religious justification for Jewish claims to the land, it is fundamentally just a religious text. Using it solely as a historical document denied its essence, creating a crisis of legitimacy. At the same time, historical arguments alone, such as those based on events from two thousand years ago, lacked credibility due to the long gap of the Jewish diaspora. The zionist realized that only the Bible’s religious authority could offer a strong claim to the land as it explicitly connected the Jewish people to the territory. Thus, biblical history became central to justifying Israel's existence, blending secular nationalism with religious tradition in a way that remains deeply contested. However, this approach reduces the Bible to a political tool, but more importantly leads to alienation and exclusion of those who do not share the same religious perspective. More precisely, it creates divisions on two levels: both between religious and secular Jews and between Jews and non-Jews. The focus on a religiously charged narrative over inclusive and secular principles fosters an exclusionary framework, which weakens Israel’s claim to pluralism and undermines its democratic ideals. By prioritizing a religiously charged narrative over inclusive and secular principles, this framework not only perpetuates internal divisions but also intensifies the ongoing conflict with Palestinians and other Arab communities, who feel that their historical connection to the land is disregarded. Ultimately, it also highlights the inherent paradox within the Zionist project: while striving to define itself as a modern, secular state, Israel simultaneously relies on religious symbols and narratives - such as the Bible - to legitimize its existence. This dynamic highlights the contradictions inherent in Israel’s national identity. These contradictions not only complicate its internal cohesion but also shape its external relationships, fueling tensions both within and beyond its borders.