At the Anti-Defamation League’s annual summit, which was held on Monday in New York City, Republican Congresswoman and Ambassador-designate Elise Stefanik declared that October 7 would not have happened under President Trump – a statement that was met with both applause and boos from some attendees, with several even walking out.
The shocking spectacle of American Jews insulting President Trump’s choice for America’s envoy to the United Nations – a steadfast supporter of Israel, who, as the Representative of a mainly rural, Upstate New York Congressional district with a relatively small Jewish population, courageously and effectively defended Jewish students and faculty against antisemitism on college campuses – reveals a troubling truth: for many American Jews who profess to be strong supporters of Israel, their support is actually conditional, subject to partisan loyalties, ideological commitments, or domestic policy preferences.
This is precisely the kind of dilution and fragmentation that one of Israel’s founding fathers, the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir (Zeev) Jabotinsky, warned against when he articulated his concept of monism, or One Flag, the idea that Zionism must be an overriding and singular political priority, above all other considerations.
Monism was a core principle in the ideology of the Revisionist Zionist youth movement, Betar, which Jabotinsky founded in 1923, implicit in the oath that its members, known as Betarim, took when they joined the movement. They pledged absolute devotion to the establishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, not as one of many political goals, but as the paramount objective.
Jabotinsky rejected attempts to blend Zionism with socialism or utopian visions of coexistence. In his view, only by maintaining a rigorous, undiluted focus on the goal of Jewish sovereignty could the Zionist movement achieve its mission.
His idea was not about blind partisanship or ideological rigidity, but about strategic clarity. He understood that the cause of Jewish self-determination was too critical to be compromised by competing political interests. When Jewish socialists in the Zionist movement sought to tie Zionism to Marxist ideals, Jabotinsky dismissed them as hindering rather than advancing the core mission.
Following Israel’s establishment in 1948, eight years after Jabotinsky’s death, his principle of monism came to mean an unwavering, uncompromising – and overriding – commitment to defending and preserving the state against its many threats.
Today, as Israel faces the gravest existential threats since its founding, American Jews who care about its survival should embrace Jabotinsky’s principle. In an era of rising anti-Israel hostility coming mainly from the left, but also from certain isolationist elements, support for Israel must no longer be subordinated to other political concerns.
This principle extends to political engagement. Leaders who stand firmly with Israel must be supported, or at the very least, not publicly undermined by those who claim to champion Israel’s cause. We cannot afford to embarrass and weaken our most committed political allies and friends through internal division or performative dissent. Just as Betar instilled discipline in its members, today’s defenders of Israel should adopt a policy of strategic unity.
Put simply, politicians who steadfastly support Israel should themselves be supported regardless of their stances on other issues.
Unfortunately, as shown by the incident at the ADL conference, too many American Jews disagree. They find themselves torn between their commitment to Israel and their allegiance to a broader ideological or partisan identity. They clearly don’t prioritize backing Israel above ideological preferences, party loyalty, or domestic policy disagreement.
Nowhere is this more evident than in their continued support for the Democrat Party. In spite of the fact that a majority of Democrats have an unfavorable view of Israel, and a growing segment are openly opposed to its very existence, a majority of American Jews still identify as Democrats, and many American Jewish organizations persist in attempting to balance support for Israel with allegiance to progressive social causes or Democrat Party orthodoxy.
The ADL attendees who booed and walked out on Ambassador-designate Stefanik for stating that October 7 would not have happened under President Trump revealed where their true priorities lie – not with Israel’s security, but with Democratic Party loyalty and opposition to President Trump. Unable to tolerate an inconvenient truth – that the policies of the Biden administration empowered Israel’s enemies and weakened its deterrence – they reacted with visceral partisanship.
Their outrage was not about defending Israel. It was about protecting their ideological comfort, even in response to the worst tragedy to befall the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
Those who booed and walked out of the ADL conference must ask themselves: What matters more, political comfort or Israel’s survival?
