As a Zionist state, the State of Israel, contrary to other states, must regard itself as the state of a people the majority of which is not concentrated within its borders. As a Zionist state, it must bear the responsibility for the security, well-being, unity and continuous cultural identity of the Jewish people. . . .
Aliyah constitutes the essence of the dynamic contact between Diaspora Jewry and the State of Israel. It is clear, therefore, that the State of Israel as a Zionist state must prepare itself for aliyah. Israel should encourage education towards aliyah and readiness to absorb the immigrants. This should be emphasized in particular: an immigrant-absorbing state is not only a state ready to receive immigrants, but a state that is prepared to attract them and to organize its economy and patterns of social life, particularly in the field of education, in a manner which will make possible their absorption in the most effective way. . . .
Secondly, a Zionist policy must be one of fostering the Jewish identity of the state as such and of the people living in it. The Jewish identity of the state as such means on the external front that the Jewish state should not agree in any way to a solution of the Israel-Arab conflict which would entail jeopardizing its Jewish majority and undermining its sovereignty. Moreover, the State of Israel, even though it contains national minorities whose rights as citizens of a democratic state should not be affected in the slightest degree, must define itself as a Jewish state. That is to say, as a state that embodies Jewish nationalism and serves the national interest of the Jewish people.
On the internal front, this means that the State of Israel should concern itself with educating its younger generations in the cultural legacy of the Jewish people and fostering its ties with the Jewish people and its history; its Jewish character should also find expression in its legislation and ceremonies. . . .
Finally, a Zionist policy means a project-oriented policy: the State of Israel, insofar as it remains loyal to its mission, should not regard its existence and present achievements as an end in themselves but rather as a means to fulfilling its role which lies mainly in the future. This is not mere rhetoric nor a demand for general awareness. It has to do with the everyday life of Israel’s citizens, since it determines the basic orientation of Israeli society and every single member of it. . . .
Why is the abandonment of a Zionist policy tantamount to destruction for the State of Israel? First of all, if there is no moral justification for its existence, a state tends to lose its moral strength to stand up to the pressures of its surrounding. He who has not had to struggle for a very long time for his survival can take this argument as mere abstraction which does not count in real life. He who has had to stand in such a struggle knows very well that moral strength is the basis of physical strength. Israel would not have come into being, nor survived up to now, were it not for the awareness of the significance of its existence of its mission, and of its just goals. Israel will not be able to persist even for a short time without this moral conviction. . . .
The Land of Israel is . . . the land that was promised as a national homeland, the basis of the nation’s economic weal and state power, but at the same time it symbolizes the Torah’s universal moral and religious meaning. . . .
What is there about this land in particular for it to be made the homeland of the chosen people?
The Bible sings the praises of the land’s abundance and its beauty, but there is nothing religious in that. A theological dimension appears in the Book of Deuteronomy, where a point is made about the difference between Egypt, which drinks river water, and the Land of Israel, which drinks rainwater. Rainfall is a symbol of divine providence. Furthermore, according to the biblical stories, in the great riverine countries a nation’s sense of ownership of its land and mastery of its destiny is reinforced, leading to the development of tyrannical regimes and slavery.
In lands that drink rainwater, on the other hand, man constantly senses his dependence on God, and for that reason such a land will sustain a regime of justice free of subjugation. . . .
Later in Prophets we find a somewhat different variant of this theme. The land is located between the great river powers (Egypt, Babylonia) and between the desert and the sea. It is a middle land. It attracts all nations and is a pawn in the hands of the powers who fight for world dominion.
Those who live in the land are tempted to take part in the struggle between the powers as a way to aggrandize power for themselves. But the only way to live in the land peacefully and to bring a vision of peace to the world is by refraining from participation in those pagan power struggles and by living a life of justice and truth in accordance with the Torah. In a word, then, the nature and status of this land embodies the conditions of the covenant made between the nation and God as expressed in the Torah.