J50 Declaration Leaves Key Point Out
#1340 September 22, 2026
Major Diaspora organizations from all over the world met in Jerusalem this most self-searching of Jewish calendar weeks and issued a Zionism-defending declaration. Good for them, but they left addressing the gravest threat to us out.
J50 Declaration Leaves Key Point Out
Global Jewish Leaders Sign Jerusalem Declaration Affirming Zionism as Integral to Jewish Identity and Confronting Discriminatory Anti-Zionism, The Jewish Voice headlined last week (9/14/26), proclaiming in its lede
“Jewish organizations representing communities across several continents have endorsed a sweeping declaration affirming Zionism as an integral component of Jewish identity and warning that contemporary anti-Zionism becomes antisemitic when it denies Jewish self-determination or conditions Jewish participation in public life upon repudiation of Israel and Zionism.” [emphasis added]
Here it is in full, that sweeping declaration, to which U.S. organizations including Jewish Federations of North America, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, ADL, AJC and Bnai Brith were signatories. See if you can spot the key point omitted:
“On the eve of the Jewish New Year, we, leaders and representatives of Jewish communities and organizations from every corner of the Diaspora, have come together in Jerusalem as one, united by our shared identity, common purpose, and hopes for the year ahead.
“We reaffirm the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and to define our own identity. That right, however, is increasingly challenged and denied.
“Governments, international institutions, municipalities and political parties, media and cultural institutions, universities and educational institutions, professional associations, and civil society are increasingly becoming arenas for the delegitimization and distortion of Zionism, serving to marginalize and exclude Jews.
“Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people and the expression of our right to self-determination in our ancient homeland, Israel. It is deeply rooted in Jewish history and tradition.
“Reaffirming the principles of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, we recognize that, depending on the overall context, denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, demonizing or delegitimizing the State of Israel, or applying double standards to Israel can constitute antisemitism.
“Therefore, we unequivocally declare: Anti-Zionism, as manifested today through efforts to deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination, or demand that Jews renounce Zionism as the price of acceptance in political, academic, professional, or cultural life, is antisemitic.
“We call for anti-Zionism to be recognized and confronted when it is used to marginalize, exclude, or discriminate against Jews.
“Zionism is part of Jewish identity. We will not allow others to define it for us.”
Absolutely, Zionism is part of Jewish identity, the national movement of the Jewish people and the expression of our right to self-determination in our ancient homeland, Israel, deeply rooted in Jewish history and tradition. And, yes, all these enumerated public and private entities are increasingly becoming arenas for the delegitimization and distortion of Zionism.
But having utterly accurately proclaimed all this, should not this proud and self-respecting declaration have expressly rejected the increasingly world-wide demand to destroy [there’s no other word] Zionism’s very heart and soul?
The “Two-State Solution” – “two states along the 1967 [i.e., 1949 ceasefire] lines with [ho-ho] mutually agreed swaps” – would rip from Israel historic Jerusalem [Temple Mount, Western Wall, City of David with David’s Palace, Solomon’s Wall, Pilgrimage Road from Pool of Siloam to Temple Mount and all] and Judea-Samaria biblical hill country heartland [see dvd of Route 60: The Biblical Highway, which sold more theater tickets than any other film in America the first two nights it was shown].
Ask yourself, what would “Zionism” be without historic Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria biblical hill country heartland? And, even if you don’t buy what part of Israel is the Jewishly meaningful, would not reducing our people’s Jewish national home into a nine miles wide in the lowland middle literally overlooked by Arab-sovereignty highland reduce it to a Jewish national ghetto?
My guess is this sweeping declaration affirming Zionism as an integral component of Jewish identity omitted Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria heartland because so many of our Diaspora Jews, including here in America, personally, and hence their organizations, advocate or at least acquiesce in this fatal “two-state solution.”
But having forced myself through Jacobs & Goldwasser’s saddening Betrayal: The Failure of American Jewish Leadership and compiled on my own a sad chronicle of not just indifference but hostility to Zionism in chapter 9, “Gone Astray,” in my own book, Here & Now: U.S. Jews and the Issues Confronting Us, I’ll award these august American Jewish organizations contributing to this ringing defense of Zionism this much credit on the authoritative Hogwarts grading scale: Exceeds Expectations.
Best New Year’s wishes to you all.
DAN BACINE:
I disagree with the point of your email for two reasons. First, the organizations behind the declaration in fact covered Judea and Samaria, although not by name. The declaration says that “Zionism is the national movement of the Jewish people and the expression of our right to self-determination in our ancient homeland, Israel.” The “ancient homeland” includes Judea and Samaria, doesn’t it?
Second, your political skills are wanting. Many American Jews, maybe more than a majority, have a different view from yours. If even one of the organizations had insisted on including Judea and Samaria by name, my guess is that most of the organizations that signed on to the statement would have backed away. Isn’t it better to have the statement issued without mentioning Judea and Samaria by name than having no statement?
– – – – –
ME (Jerry): Dan, thank you for this. I agree with you that likely more than a majority of American Jews disagree with me on “two-states” (though I think not Israeli Jews) and I appreciate your expressing their support of “two-states” in response to my posting.
For two millennia we’ve been praying “Next Year in Jerusalem,” and I asked “What is Zionism without Judea-Samaria and historic Jerusalem?” With grassroots chutzpah I criticized this “sweeping declaration’s” signatories for championing Zionism without expressly confronting the worldwide clammer demanding what would deprive Zionism of meaning, i.e., for in my view the signatories lacking the courage of their convictions. I think your own comment – that including Israel’s very core is implied in the declaration but that most signatories would have dropped out had the declaration declared so out loud – confirms this.
– – – – –
DAN:
You did not answer either of the questions in my email. I repeat, you have no political skills.
By the way, addressing points you make in other pieces, no American Jew would advocate that Israel give up Jerusalem to secure a “two state solution.” (Well, with the exception of folks like Bernie Sanders and Peter Beinart.)
– – – –
ME:
Re: “You didn’t answer either of my questions”
Question 1: The “ancient homeland” includes Judea and Samaria, doesn’t it?
Question 2: Isn’t it better to have the statement issued without mentioning Judea and Samaria by name than having no statement?
Yes, it’s better to have the statement as issued than have no statement at all, but it’s the signatories who didn’t directly confront what the world’s expressly loudly demands – give up historic Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria. I read yesterday an international news service calling building in “E-1” a “land grab.” Saying our declaration implies they’re part of our homeland when the world expressly says no they’re not isn’t a substitute for the declaration expressly stating “Yes, they are.”
I’m glad you believe no American Jew would give up Jerusalem for a two-state solution. I wish you were right on that, but e.g. the Reform Movement calls the 1949 ceasefire lines “Israel’s sovereign borders,” and nine big U.S. Jewish organizations called for two-states with borders “hewing precisely” to “the 1967 borders” save for agreed “territorial adjustments.”
– – – – –
DAN:
In the face of worldwide Jew hate, having an internecine fight now over whether there should be a two-state solution is counterproductive. Better to be united against a common enemy.
– – – – –
ME:
I fully agree American Jews being divided on “two-states” is damaging. But it’s no solution for us to agree among ourselves on a compromise like calling Jerusalem and J-S “disputed.” The world doesn’t call them disputed. The world calls them Arabs’ – Occupied Palestinian Territory as in eg 2334. We American Jews must agree with most Israelis in calling them Ours.
– – – – –
ME: The U,S. signatories to the Declaration were: Jewish Federations of North America, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, ADL, AJC and Bnai Brith Of these, at least the ADL, the AJC and the Jewish Federations of North America were included by Haaretz in a 6/2/19 article”Two-State Solution: U.S. Jews Won’t Budge. Will It Cost Them Their Relationship With Israel,” as being “in lockstep agreement that a two-state solution is a declared goal to securing a Jewish and democratic state.” AJC along with Reform was headlined by TOI 7/22/18 as “Bitterly Criticizing” Israel’s then new Nation State LAw. The ADL co-signed an open letter calling for two-states “hewing precisely” to the 1967 lines save for agreed “territorial adjustments,” JTA 4/12/19. Is it any wonder the Declaration they co-signed omitted express Jewish claim to historic Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria? Punch-pulling?
ALAN MOLOD:
I agree with Jerry. I love America unconditionally notwithstanding that I disagree with many actions taken by both Democrat and Republican politicians; I love my children unconditionally; fortunately none of them have ever given me reason to be ashamed of any of them, but if they did I would still love them unconditionally. I love Israel unconditionally notwithstanding my very rare disapproval of it’s conduct.