It is important in our times to understand the history and use of terms such as Zionism, Israel and the Jews, and how or if they are connected to Judaism. Or to understand whether Judaism is a faith-based or ethnic identity. Interestingly, when we dig through history, we discover the first real wave of contemporary Zionism was promoted in the early 19th century by the Calvinist or Christian Protestants who believed the Jews needed to repent and convert, and that a return to the homeland whence they were exiled would augur the second coming of Christ — this time not as a victim on the Cross, but as a victor triumphant over all enemies.

This Protestant movement began in Germany, but crystallised in England. One can even see elements of this attitude in the United States, when President John Adams wrote a letter to a prominent Jewish leader, Noah, in or around 1816, expressing his support for the idea of Jews having an independent nation in Judaea. The President hoped they would convert to Christianity. This was not a strange or remote idea coming in the wake of the French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Haitian Revolution — all seeking freedom by establishing independent nations.

Indeed, the Jews themselves led three rebellions beginning in the year 586BC, resulting in the destruction of the first temple and again, as prophesied by Jesus, in AD66, which saw the destruction of the second Temple. At that time, Judaism was a Temple religion, but after three successive revolts were brutally put down — first by the Babylonians and then by the Romans — it ceased thereafter to be a Temple religion.

From then on, Judaism entered its rabbinical period, where they were led by rabbis and their holy books, the Talmud and oral traditions. The Talmud taught the Jews that they should never seek nationhood and that their faith was universal without borders. It is still true, as of today, that the religious Jews (Orthodox) follow the rabbinical view and oppose the idea of an Israeli state as an identity, believing instead in a religious identity.

On the other hand, in the latter part of the 19th century, ethnic Jews who were not religious but secular became fascinated by the notion of ethnic identity along with the popular tide prevailing in Europe. Theodore Herzl was the pre-eminent leader of this group, and laid the cornerstone of what we know of as Zionism today.

Zionism statehood was a secular movement in its beginnings with no regard for the Talmud, and was rejected by most rabbis. Not escaping nationalism that began in the 19th century was the undercurrent for all the conflicts of the 20th century. The logic was compelling, as the Jews needed a homeland where they could feel safe. British imperialism was at the centre of the conflict, promising territory in exchange for loyalty. At times, two or three different factions promised the same spot.

That secular politics triumphed over ethical, religious ideology did not add rationality or legitimacy to the secular philosophy of Zionism. Rather, in some ways, it proved its absurdity. To fulfil its aims, it needed to become a “settler coloniser” patterned after the Rhodesia model led by Cecil Rhodes. The difference between conventional colonisation is that colonisers exploit the wealth of a country and subjugate the native population to colonial rule, whereas settler colonisers eliminate the native population and take over their lands. The United States is a blueprint of settler colonisation. The British were proud as colonisers.

The Jewish return to Israel is a Protestant concept whose ideology is germane to Christianity, not Judaism, and will not be found in the Talmud. We cannot reconcile religious ethical values with a secular nationalist agenda. Mixing the two turns into a strange cocktail such as is equivalent to Nazism — which not only targeted Jews during the Second World War, but went after any racial or ethnic group that did not fit their desired racial profile.

However, the paradox is in the context of statism; if there is an Israeli state, it should enjoy the full right to exist. The idea of a state predominated by Jews in itself is not an unlawful idea, but forcefully evicting Palestinians is the unlawfulness. So the present-day zealots, as new reformist rabbis in an attempt to place a religious seal on today’s atrocities, reach back into prehistory to regurgitate the Amalekites (deceased nation) where there was the alleged command to destroy all the Amalek, including their animals, women, children and suckling babies. These represent the right-wing views of the Likud party.

This may seem to be an Islamist view; however, for clarity it will be useful to consult with persons such as Jeffrey D. Sacks, who is a Jew, world-renowned academic and professor at Cambridge University. He would say he is a Jew but not a Zionist, and will make the distinction between Zionism and Judaism from a Jewish perspective.

The insanity begins when we consider Abraham as the father of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and we ask the question, what was his religion? He for sure wasn’t a Christian or a Jew because these terminologies evolved much later. What we can all agree on is that he was known as an upright human.

Hence, the Abraham Accords is a practical term but should be based on human equality and respect for diversity. In short, the Abraham Accords are best considered as an ethics-based spiritual approach, respecting diverse religions, not a secularist, ethnocentric plot that hinges on the oppression of any ethnicity or religion.

The role and responsibility of modern-day Judaism is to free Israel and return it to its religious roots. I stand by Israel’s right to exist, but as a free society, respecting the rights and dignity of all.