Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig: The State of Israel or the State of Judea?
In the midst of Hanukkah, a question arises: why isn’t the State of Israel called the “State of Judea”? Not only was the last successful Jewish war of independence led by Judah Maccabee but the nation that earlier survived and returned from the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE was called “Judea” – a name that stuck for several centuries.
Back to the question – and my answer: I wouldn’t be surprised if by the year 2050 the “State of Israel” was indeed changed to the “State of Judea”. Here’s why: three different but interrelated explanations.
First some background: why was the new nation in 1948 called “Israel”? In fact, that was a major issue on the table: what name should the new country have? The most obvious option was “Judea,” given its historical gravitas as the historical name of the area around Jerusalem. Unfortunately, in 1948 that was the geographical area least likely to become part of the new state because, in the U.N.’s partition plan, Jerusalem and most of the Judaean Mountains were designated to be outside the new state (as would be all or most of Jerusalem). Moreover, as historical Judea applied only to a relatively small territory, and the new state would contain land far beyond in the north (Galilee) and south (Negev), the parallel to historical Judea would be misleading.
Another problem was raised during the debate: if the state’s name was Judea, what would the citizenry be called: Ye’hudim? That wouldn’t be logical or acceptable to the new state’s over half a million Arab citizens.
With the pressure of time – the issue was debated just a few days before the state was formally established – Ben-Gurion put forward the name of “Israel” and it passed with lukewarm support. Why not much enthusiasm?
Yitzḥak Gruenbaum – the central leader of Polish Jewry between the two world wars, afterward chairman of the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee during the Holocaust, and ultimately Israel’s first Minister of the Interior – suggested that the main reason Ben-Gurion preferred “Israel” is that it had a secular connotation as opposed to the far more Jewish “Judea.” In other words, Ben-Gurion was after a symbolic break with Jewish history from the galut (exilic) Jewish past. With the name “Israel,” the country’s first prime minister sought to create a new national identity, using but also superseding the Jewish people’s national identity.
In a sense, this has come to pass – leading to the first reason that “Judea” in the not-so-distant future might yet win out. In one sense, Ben-Gurion was being disingenuous, for he knew Jewish history very well: 3000 years ago there were 12 tribes divided into two kingdoms: 10 tribes in the Kingdom of Israel, and 2 tribes in the Kingdom of Judea. The main difference between them was that the former were largely polytheistic, whereas the latter were mostly monotheistic. The Kingdom of Israel was “secular” but eventually disappeared in the Assyrian conquest of the north, leaving the Kingdom of Judea to be the sole carrier of future Jewish history.
Today, history seems to be “rhyming” (not exactly repeating), as the population of Israel is becoming increasingly religious. Not due to any “return to the fold” but rather a result of birth rates: the ultra-Orthodox with 6-7 children per family, the National Orthodox with around 4 per family, and the rest of Israeli Jews barely at 3 children per household. Thus, from a purely demographic-religious standpoint, “Judea” is coming up the demographic pike.
Nor is this merely a matter of population. Under political pressure by Israel’s religious communities, policymaking is increasingly taking into account religious considerations e.g., gender-separate classes in the universities; ditto for some public performances; greater civil authority for the Rabbinate; and so on.
Add to this a second factor: territory. The creeping expansion of the country is taking place (at the present) in one place: Judea & Samaria. Talk of annexing this territory (also containing a few million Palestinians) is growing stronger. Whether that comes to pass de jure, it is certainly happening de facto. Thus, the initial 1948 problem that logically precluded the name “Judea” for the nascent state, no longer exists as a practical obstacle to renaming the state.
Indeed, the first “move” in that direction was legislated in 2018: Basic Law – Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. It established (similar to a Constitutional Amendment) the Jewish primacy of the country. All that needs to be done in the future is to change the word “Israel” to “Judea” – matching the Basic Law’s last two words: “Jewish People.”
A third and final factor for “Judea” as a replacement of “Israel” takes us even further back – to the very beginning of Jewish “history.” Our third forefather’s original name was Jacob (in Hebrew: “on the heels of…”) but it was changed to Israel (“struggling with God”) after his midnight dream tussle with… take your pick: an angel, God, himself etc.
Interestingly, however, in that story “Israel” continued to shy away from fighting anyone! Not with Esau (instead, offering him massive bribes), nor with Laban (even when conned into marrying the wrong sister), and even scolding his sons for avenging the rape of his daughter Dinah.
Who did show bravery in the Book of Genesis? Judah: admitting that he (unknowingly) slept with his daughter-in-law; facing up to his unrecognized Viceroy Joseph’s brother.
Given the State of Israel’s “neighborhood,” the country has become increasingly militarized. This is not to say that the military runs the country; it does not. It is to say that “bravery” has become the highest value in Israeli society – not something that our forefather“Israel” stood for. Thus, changing the country’s name to Judea would be bringing it closer to its true, present psychological state of mind and value system.
None of this is to argue that a change from “Israel” to “Judea” is a good idea – or that the socio-political-religious-military phenomena I have enumerated above are necessarily positive. I leave that to the reader. However, it is a useful way to think about deep-rooted trends in Israeli society: past, present, and future
