The Jewish people's connection to Israel cannot be understood solely through religion, according to Jay Shapiro.
For millions of Jews, including those with little or no attachment to religious observance, Zionism has provided an enduring sense of belonging, linking them to a shared history, homeland and national future. But Shapiro believes that this connection has taken on renewed urgency amid rising hostility toward Israel, political developments in the United States and unrest in parts of Europe.
Speaking on his podcast, The Israeli Perspective, Shapiro devoted much of his commentary to the historical role of Zionism in preserving Jewish identity, before turning to what he described as the growing danger of antisemitism disguised as political criticism of Israel.
His central argument was that the establishment of the modern Jewish state represented more than the fulfillment of a political aspiration. It also provided a means of Jewish identification at a time when traditional religious attachments were weakening.
“There is only one Jewish homeland, and it is here in Eretz Israel," Shapiro said, emphasizing that the Jewish people's connection to the land had survived centuries of dispersion, cultural differences and changing religious commitments.
Throughout Jewish history, he noted, Jews lived in different countries, spoke different languages and participated in widely divergent cultures. Yet their historical and spiritual orientation remained fixed on the same homeland.
That attachment, he argued, does not necessarily depend on religious observance. Even Jews who have distanced themselves from traditional religious practice can retain a powerful connection to Israel and the Jewish people.
Shapiro traced this development to the transformation of European society during the nineteenth century, when the Enlightenment, scientific progress and the decline of traditional religious authority helped create an environment in which nationalism emerged as a dominant source of identity.
As Europeans increasingly identified themselves through nationality rather than religious affiliation, Jewish communities faced their own crisis of belonging.
The gradual emancipation of European Jews opened doors that had previously been closed. Jewish men and women entered universities, intellectual institutions and broader European society. Some maintained their religious traditions while participating in these new opportunities, but others moved away from Jewish religious life altogether.
For Shapiro, this development presented a profound historical challenge. As more Jews abandoned traditional observance, religious identity alone could no longer ensure their continuing connection to the Jewish people.
“Millions of Jews faced the threat of losing their Jewish identity and disappearing into the surrounding culture," he said.
The emergence of Zionism, in his interpretation, offered an alternative.
At a time when nationalism was reshaping European political and cultural life, Jewish nationalism provided an identity rooted in collective history, peoplehood and attachment to a homeland.
“Zionism offered Jews a way to identify with their land, with their people, and with their history," Shapiro said.
He stressed that the Zionist movement initially attracted only a minority of Jews, but its significance extended beyond its early following. It gave secular Jews a framework through which they could maintain a meaningful Jewish identity without returning to traditional religious practice.
Shapiro also offered a religious interpretation of secular Zionism, describing it as a possible expression of divine purpose.
“Secular Zionism could be considered, I think, a divine impulse," he said, suggesting that the ancient connection between Jews and their homeland had reawakened in a modern national form.
This interpretation, he explained, allows religious and secular expressions of Jewish identity to coexist rather than compete. For some Jews, belonging is expressed through religious observance and Torah study; for others, it is manifested through identification with Israel and commitment to its continued existence.
He also pointed to the revival and growth of Torah scholarship following the destruction of European Jewish communities during the Holocaust, noting that Israel had become a major center of Jewish religious study.
In his view, the survival of Jewish identity has depended on multiple pathways, rather than a single model of commitment.
The events of October 7 reinforced that conviction.
Shapiro described how the Hamas-led attacks and their aftermath demonstrated the central place Israel occupies in contemporary Jewish consciousness, including among Jews who have limited involvement in organized religious life.
He shared a personal example: distant relatives with whom he had never maintained meaningful contact reached out to him after the attacks to inquire about his safety and the well-being of his family.
“I myself have been contacted by distant members of my family who I only knew existed, but I had no contact with them, but they found me," he recalled.
The renewed family connections illustrated, for him, how developments in Israel can awaken bonds among Jews separated by geography, generations and differing personal identities.
The subsequent rise in anti-Israel sentiment, which Shapiro characterized as frequently overlapping with antisemitism, further reinforced his belief that Israel has become an indispensable element of Jewish collective identity.
He connected these concerns to recent unrest in France and Belgium, expressing anxiety about the social and political direction of European countries.
Recalling a visit to Paris approximately two decades earlier, Shapiro said he had encountered areas he regarded as unsafe and associated those experiences with tensions surrounding immigration and integration.
He suggested that worsening conditions in France could encourage more French Jews to consider immigration to Israel.
That prediction was presented as his personal assessment rather than as a conclusion based on migration figures.
The possibility of increased French aliyah led Shapiro back to one of his broader themes: Jewish connections to Israel are shaped by different circumstances.
Some Jews immigrate because of religious conviction. Others are motivated by national identity, family ties or a lifelong aspiration to live in Israel. Still others may decide to leave countries where they previously believed their future was secure.
“The roads leading to our homeland, here in Israel, are as varied as the Jewish people themselves," he said.
While Zionism occupied the first part of Shapiro's commentary, his discussion subsequently shifted toward the political use of accusations against Israel, particularly in the United States.
His immediate concern was the political activity of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, whom he described as a Democratic candidate for the US Senate.
Shapiro accused El-Sayed of contributing to anti-Israel hostility through statements alleging genocide in Gaza. He also attributed to the candidate a position suggesting that such accusations need not await the establishment of all relevant facts.
These were Shapiro's characterizations of El-Sayed's statements; the podcast did not include the complete remarks or the interview exchange from which they were drawn.
Nevertheless, Shapiro treated the controversy as an illustration of what he believes is a much wider problem: politically damaging accusations being repeated against Israel without sufficient attention to evidence or context.
He rejected the allegation that Israel had pursued a policy of genocide in Gaza, pointing to Israeli humanitarian assistance, vaccination efforts and warnings issued before military operations as evidence that, in his assessment, such an accusation is unfounded.
“People you want to annihilate you don't vaccinate and send food to," he argued.
Those examples formed part of Shapiro's defense of Israeli conduct; they do not, on their own, resolve the legal questions surrounding the Gaza war.
More broadly, Shapiro argued that the repeated use of highly charged language against Israel can shape international public opinion irrespective of the extent to which particular allegations have been substantiated.
He drew a parallel between contemporary accusations directed at the Jewish state and historical antisemitic libels that helped provoke persecution, violence and the expulsion of Jewish communities.
“Once it's repeated over and over again, disdain becomes permanent, regardless of its truthfulness," he said.
For Shapiro, the danger lies not merely in individual statements by politicians or commentators, but in the cumulative effect of accusations that become embedded in political discourse.
He also criticized several prominent American political figures, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom he associated with hostility toward Israel. He alleged that Ocasio-Cortez had been campaigning in Michigan in support of El-Sayed.
Shapiro's criticism extended beyond elected officials. He singled out conservative commentator Candace Owens, accusing her of promoting anti-Jewish narratives and benefiting from the attention they generate.
The remarks reflected his view that antagonism toward Jews and Israel is not confined to one political movement or ideological camp.
He further argued that campaigns against Israel have begun producing tangible diplomatic and cultural consequences.
Among the examples he cited were European countries declining to participate in the Eurovision Song Contest because of Israel's involvement, as well as the difficulties that Israeli officials and military personnel may face when traveling abroad amid allegations of war crimes.
He also referred to a statement attributed to the mayor of New York regarding the possible arrest of Israel's prime minister if he visited the city.
Shapiro presented these developments as evidence of a broader international effort to isolate Israel and damage its reputation.
He contrasted that criticism with Israel's achievements in science, technology and humanitarian assistance, arguing that those contributions have been overshadowed by hostile political campaigns.
His account of the international response was strongly critical of Israel's opponents, whom he accused of exploiting emotionally powerful allegations for political purposes. The podcast did not present responses from the politicians and commentators he criticized or examine the underlying legal allegations in detail.
Returning to Michigan, Shapiro expressed concern that the use of accusations against Israel had become an effective instrument in American electoral politics.
He viewed El-Sayed's candidacy as particularly significant because of the political influence of the US Senate and the possibility that similar rhetoric could gain traction in other states.
The election, he suggested, warranted close attention beyond Michigan itself.
“I'm keeping my eye on that election in Michigan because it could be a forerunner of things to come elsewhere in the United States," he said.
Shapiro acknowledged that his remarks painted a pessimistic picture, but maintained that the political consequences of antisemitism and hostility toward Israel required continued scrutiny.
His concern ultimately returned to the relationship between public opinion, the circulation of accusations and the vulnerability of Jewish communities.
“The bottom line is anti-Semitism doesn't need facts, but it can be used against the Jews," he said. “People don't spend much time checking facts, which is unfortunate."