Before People Debate Borders, They Decide Whose Story They Believe

The phrase The Battle Before the Battle is often associated with the biblical account of David and Goliath in I Samuel 17. Whatever one takes from that story, it reminds us that decisive conflicts are often shaped before the first blow is struck. The struggle over perception, legitimacy, and narrative frequently precedes the visible confrontation.

For years, criticism of Israel followed a familiar pattern. Israel was accused of colonialism, apartheid, ethnic supremacy, or occupation. The objective was straightforward: challenge Israel’s legitimacy directly.

Increasingly, however, I have noticed a more sophisticated rhetorical approach. Instead of attacking Israel’s historical narrative head-on, it often begins with what sounds like friendly advice:

Stop arguing about names. Stop debating competing narratives. Stop discussing identity. Focus on governance, citizenship, democracy, and human rights instead. Flip the script.

Stop arguing about names. Stop debating competing narratives. Stop discussing identity. Focus on governance, citizenship, democracy, and human rights instead. Flip the script.

Sometimes this advice is offered sincerely by people who believe it would strengthen Israel’s position. Sometimes it may be offered strategically by those who understand that changing the subject is itself part of the battle against Israel. Whatever the motivation, the effect is the same: it encourages Israel to abandon the narrative battlefield before the political discussion has even begun.

The argument usually goes something like this. Israel is already a remarkably diverse society. Roughly three-quarters of its citizens are Jewish, while about one-fifth are Arab, alongside other minorities. Many Jewish Israelis are secular rather than religious, and Israel’s Jewish population itself consists of communities whose roots span Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union, and many other parts of the world. On this view, Israel is already a civic nation rather than an ethnic one.

From there, the reasoning continues. Just as the United States has evolved demographically from a society that was once predominantly Christian while remaining American, Israel can evolve demographically while remaining Israeli. What defines a nation, according to this view, is not ancestry, historical narrative, or even religion, but shared civic values and the willingness of citizens to defend their state. If future demographic changes alter Israel’s ethnic or religious composition, it would still remain Israel so long as its citizens continue to identify as Israelis and uphold democratic institutions.

The conclusion follows naturally:........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)