The Corner


No, Biblical Israel Isn’t an Argument That God Ordained Nationalism 

Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, September 16, 2018. (Ammar Awad/REUTERS)

truly enjoyed the nationalism debate between Jonah and Rich at last week’s National Review Institute Ideas Summit. It will be the debate that spawns a dozen essays (I’d urge you to read Kevin Williamson’s piece posted weekend)but I’d like to make a short point based on an argument Rich made about the nation of Israel. 

In the midst of the debate, Rich channeled Israeli scholar Yoram Hazony’s book and argued that the example of ancient Israel stands not just as an enduring example of the power of nationalism but also that God essentially ordained nationalism when he chose Abraham to be his servant, shepherded Israel through captivity, and established the laws that ordered and governed Israel  

Writing in Mosaic, Andrew Koss summarizes the argument: 

Hazony’s story begins with ancient Near Eastern kings and pharaohs desirous of bringing security and prosperity not just to their own but also to surrounding lands — a vision that centuries later would be expressed in the phrase pax Romana and later still in the conduct of one empire after another. By contrast, the Hebrew Bible offers an opposing vision in which God gives His laws not to humanity as a whole but to a single nation. The Israelites are commanded to live according to these laws within their own carefully delineated borders (Numbers 34:1–15), ruled by a king “from among your brothers” (Deuteronomy 17:15). Moreover, God specifically commands them to respect the borders of the Edomites and Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:4–24), to whom He has assigned their own lands.  

I’m not sure that God’s selection of a particular, chosen people — the people who were to bring forth the Messiah from the line of David — is necessarily a precedent for a proper view of nationalism as an independent good. After all, despite Israel’s mandated respect for the Edomites and Ammonites comes after it was also directed to essentially wipe out the Canaanites. God imposed strict rules on intermarriage with people from other nations. Moreover, it was through repeated, supernatural intervention that Israel survived when competing nations and tribes are lost to the dustbin of history.  

God was preserving a people, not a form of government applicable to other peoples. Abraham isn’t a model for Bismarck. To have enduring value, nationalism always has to be trumped by something else — a higher value beyond the self-interest of its people. For the nation of Israel, that something else was God’s specific purpose and calling for the Jewish people. For the United States of America, it’s the ideals articulated in the Declaration of Independence.   

Indeed, the great meaning of the Civil War wasn’t that it was a nationalist triumph over secessionists (a competing nationalism movement), but rather that the the triumph represented a “new birth of freedom.” The nation could have survived merely by defeating Confederate armies and suppressing the rebellion. But the greater virtue was the transformed polity.  

Yes, there are moments when nationalism is vital. Wars for national survival come to mind. But the enduring unity of a people must be based on something greater, and the value of the nation is measured by factors well beyond its mere existence. Israel stands as a symbol of the power of the virtuous purpose and divine providence, not of divine preference for national governments.  

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Most Popular


The 2020 Battle Begins

The 2020 campaign begins in earnest next week in Florida, when Donald Trump officially launches his reelection bid. On June 26, 20 Democratic candidates and five moderators hold the first of two nights of debates. Where do things stand? According to the polls, President Trump starts at a disadvantage. He has ... Read More
Energy & Environment

The Climate Trap for Democrats

The more the climate debate changes, the more it stays the same. Polls show that the public is worried about climate change, but that doesn’t mean that it is any more ready to bear any burden or pay any price to combat it. If President Donald Trump claws his way to victory again in Pennsylvania and the ... Read More