at the house of lords

Martin Sherman at House of Lords


About this site

The overarching aim of this site is to sketch the contours and trace the outlines of a new (or rather renewed) form of Zionism; to propose a new (or renewed) rationale for the notion of Jewish nationalism—a Zionism that is:


changing the paradigm


Click to view

an Address at the international policy institute for counter-terrorism

martin Sherman addressing Counter-terrorism

addressing the divide

  • The Decisive Divide
  • The Dove-Hawk Divide
  • The Dichotomous Policy Implications

defining the decisive divide

Israel is a nation of many conflicting views and contrasting hues—radical secularism alongside religious orthodoxy; stern eastern traditionalism adjacent to indulgent western hedonism; socialist egalitarianism juxtaposed to free wheeling market enterprise; the customs of the Baltic abutting the norms of the Mughrab…

In general, these are lines of dissension that infuse a vibrancy and vitality into Israeli society and imbue it with a remarkable resilience.

There is, however, one divide that has had—and is having—a devastating effect on the country. It a divide that threatens to undermine the very fabric of its society and hopelessly distort the conduct of its national policy. This is the divide over the issues of land and of borders. It is the divide between:

  • those who believe Israel should offer territorial concessions in the quest for regional peace—and those who do not;
  • those who believe in the two-state solution—and those who do not.

It is a divide that is usually portrayed as a one between Left and Right.

This however is an unfortunate, misleadingly and detrimental characterization.

It is misleading since the divide is one that cuts across the usual barriers that differentiate between Left and Right. Indeed, on both sides of divide there  may be secular hedonists or devout ascetics; on both sides, some condone gay marriage while others condemn it. On either side, there are those who see abortion as a legitimate option and those see it as an inadmissible sin; those who favor state intervention in the market place and those who abhor it...

It is detrimental because it implies a fundamental divide over general belief and value systems when in fact this is not true. It exaggerates lines of dissension and intensifies the sense alienation between groups that, in fact, are separated by much less that might prima facie be inferred by such a characterization. It blurs the existence of commonalties and conflates differences where, in fact, none may exist. 

It would be far more accurate and appropriate to characterize the schism as a divide between Hawks, on the one hand, and Doves, on the other.