In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
Invoking the words of Jewish prophets, Ahad Ha’am, Martin Buber, Albert Einstein, and Hannah Arendt, Jeffrey Wernick delivers a blistering moral indictment of the Israeli state’s transformation from refuge to domination — and warns that silence in the face of injustice is complicity.
In one of the most emotionally charged and morally uncompromising statements yet from a Jewish public intellectual, investor and commentator Jeffrey Wernick delivers a direct rebuke to Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of Israel — not from outside Judaism, but from deep within its ethical tradition. Rejecting the idea that military expansion, domination, or “Greater Israel” can be reconciled with the teachings of the prophets, Wernick invokes voices long ignored by history: Ahad Ha’am, Martin Buber, Albert Einstein, and Hannah Arendt — all of whom warned that a state built on the degradation of another people would ultimately betray Judaism itself.
What follows is not a political speech in the conventional sense. It is a moral reckoning. Wernick argues that the current direction of the Israeli state represents a collapse of ethical restraint, where power has replaced justice and nationalism has eclipsed spiritual responsibility. In language that cuts through propaganda and tribal loyalty alike, he warns that silence in the face of injustice “done in your name” is not neutrality — it is acquiescence. At a moment when criticism of Israel is increasingly framed as taboo, Wernick’s message is both deeply personal and historically explosive: Netanyahu does not define Judaism, and many Jews refuse to let their tradition be used to sanctify occupation, domination, or endless war.
Transcript
Hi, I am Jeffrey Wernick. I am a Jew.
I say that not as a credential, but because what follows comes from that place.
Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel is becoming a regional power, a global power. He has spoken of a vision of Greater Israel, and of leveraging what he describes as the characteristics of the Jewish people as a source of that power.
I am offended — not politically, not strategically, theologically.
What he is describing has nothing to do with Judaism as I understand it. It stands in direct tension with the warnings of the prophets and the tradition they represent — a tradition that survived not by accumulating power, but by binding power to moral obligation.
The prophets were not advocates for rulers; they were their critics.
Amos did not praise expansion while the poor were crushed beneath it. Micah did not equate strength with righteousness. Isaiah did not sanctify conquest.
They said something simpler and harder:
Power without justice is an abomination.
Netanyahu may speak for a government. He may speak for a coalition. He does not speak for Judaism. He does not speak for me. And he does not speak for many Jews who take their tradition seriously and watch what is being done in its name with grief.
This is not a new warning.
The voices that saw this coming were not outsiders. They were Jews who loved their tradition deeply enough to subject it to honest scrutiny. Jews who understood that the greatest danger to any people is not its enemies — it is the corruption of its own moral center.
Ahad Ha’am understood this.
He was not a critic of Zionism from outside. He was one of its founding thinkers, a man who devoted his life to the idea of a Jewish spiritual and cultural renewal. And from within that movement, from its earliest days, he raised a warning that no one wanted to hear.
In 1891, after his first visit to Palestine, he wrote about what he saw Jewish settlers doing to the Arab population. He wrote that they were treating Arabs with hostility and cruelty, depriving them of their rights, offending them without cause, and boasting of these deeds.
And he asked the question that haunts us still:
“If it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we achieve power?”
Twenty years later, in 1913, watching the same patterns deepen, he wrote:
“Apart from the political danger, I can’t put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to men of another people.”
And unwittingly the thought comes to my mind:
“If it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if, in truth, we shall achieve at the end of time power in Eretz Israel?”
And then he said this:
“If this be the Messiah, I do not wish to see his coming.”
That was written in 1913 by a Zionist about his own movement, because he understood that a homeland built on the debasement of another people was not a fulfillment of Judaism — it was a betrayal of it.
Martin Buber understood the same thing.
He argued that a Jewish homeland built without genuine partnership with the people already living there would not only fail politically, it would betray the ethical core of the tradition it claimed to represent.
Albert Einstein understood it.
In the late 1920s — decades before the state existed — he wrote:
“Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us.”
Read that again slowly:
“We have learned nothing from 2,000 years of suffering.”
In 1948, Einstein and Hannah Arendt put their names to a public letter in The New York Times. They warned about the direction of political movements in the newly formed state. They described tendencies they believed echoed the authoritarian patterns they had seen before. They urged all concerned not to support what they called “the latest manifestation of fascism.”
They were writing about Menachem Begin and the movement he led.
And in 2014, Benjamin Netanyahu said publicly:
“Begin is a great role model for me. Israel and the Likud are inspired by the spirit of Menachem Begin.”
Einstein and Arendt warned about Begin in 1948.
Netanyahu declared Begin his role model in 2014.
The line from that warning to this moment is not circumstantial. Netanyahu drew it himself.
Ahad Ha’am in 1891.
Buber throughout his life.
Einstein and Arendt in 1948.
The warnings did not come from people who wished Israel ill. They came from people who wished it well enough to tell it the truth.
They were ignored.
And here we are.
Zionism began as a response to persecution — as a claim to safety and dignity for people long denied both.
That impulse is human and legitimate.
But political movements are not fixed. They change in character. They can move from survival to expansion, from protection to domination. And when they do, they must be judged by the standards they claim to represent.
In my view, Zionism as it is currently practiced by the State of Israel — as it is articulated by Netanyahu — has crossed that line.
It has become incompatible with Judaism as a moral and theological tradition.
That is not a statement about the right of Jews to live in safety or dignity.
It is a statement about what is being done in the name of that right.
The Torah does not promise dominance. It demands justice.
Those are not the same.
And they cannot be made the same by invoking them together.
I have spent years studying how institutions behave when power is unconstrained. The pattern is consistent:
Power expands until it is limited by principle or by consequence.
The prophets understood this. They said it to kings. They said it knowing the cost.
Ahad Ha’am understood it.
Buber understood it.
Einstein and Arendt understood it.
They were all ignored.
And here we are.
The tradition imposes the same obligation now.
So I am saying it:
Netanyahu does not define Judaism.
What is being built in its name should not be confused with the tradition that is being invoked to justify it.
The responsibility to say that does not belong to governments. It belongs to those who claim the tradition.
Silence when injustice is done in your name is not neutrality.
It is acquiescence.
Ahad Ha’am spoke.
Einstein spoke.
Arendt spoke.
Buber spoke.
The prophets spoke.
I am speaking now.
If you are a Jew who recognizes this tension, speak.
Not in anger — in clarity.
Not as a political act, but as a moral act.
The covenant was never with power.
It was with justice.
And it remains so.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.