Wiley reference book on religion and politics shows how anti-Israel bias, and even antisemitism, reaches mainstream academia ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Monday, January 19, 2026

Wiley reference book on religion and politics shows how anti-Israel bias, and even antisemitism, reaches mainstream academia

The Wiley Companion to Religion, Politics, and Nations was recently published as a supposedly impartial framework to discuss the role of religion in national politics.

One of the chapters states, flatly, that Israel is engaging in "Jewish supremacy" - which is a borderline antisemitic accusation that has no business being in an impartial academic reference.

The article, "The Two Edges of the Gordian Knot: Religion, Nationalism, and Citizenship in Israel," by Oxford University professor David Borobeck, has this abstract:

This chapter explores the intricate relationship between religion and nationalism in Israel, focusing on the institutional, legal, and societal roles of religion in the formation of Israeli society. Through historical analysis from the British Mandate era to contemporary legislation, it demonstrates how religion serves as both an external and internal gatekeeper for Jewish Israeli collective identity while marginalizing Palestinians. The chapter identifies five pivotal moments: the establishment of the Chief Rabbinate (1921), the Status Quo Letter (1947), the creation of the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interior, early legislation including the Law of Return and Absentees’ Property Law (1950), and recent laws such as the Nakba Law (2011) and Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People (2018). The chapter reveals that Judaism operates as a hegemonic religion, serving national purposes for Jewish Israelis, while Islam is reframed as a tool for depoliticizing and denationalizing Israeli Palestinian citizens. This dual epistemological formation creates a Gordian knot between religion, nationalism, and citizenship, establishing Israel as a unique case where national and colonial framings of religion merge under the same institutional framework, ultimately maintaining Jewish supremacy and Palestinian exclusion from full civic participation.

The paper chooses five events it describes as proving Jewish supremacy in Israel. But this is cherry-picking: one can easily choose the concurrent establishment of Muslim court systems, the Declaration of Independence that guarantees Arab and Muslim rights in Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court often ruling on the side of Israel's Muslim citizens, Muslims reaching high levels on the Supreme Court and politics, and Israeli Arab residents of Jerusalem having more freedom of movement than Jewish citizens of Jerusalem do, Jews being limited on the Temple Mount while Muslims have free reign.

Using identical logic, we can conclude that Israel supports Muslim supremacy.

The paper uses other language that is far from objective. for example, it refers to Israeli Arab citizens as "Palestinian," while very few of them think of themselves using that term. Saying Judaism acts as a "hegemonic religion" is similarly loaded language. Israel has official Shari'a courts as well that govern personal laws for Muslims.

No one argues that Israel is not meant to be a Jewish state, but it does everything possible to give full equality for all its citizens. Papers like this emphasize the Jewish part -which was done to make sure that Israel can always be a refuge for Jews worldwide, which no other nation can guarantee - as if this is inherently immoral.

You won't be shocked to find out that the Wiley book has no chapters on how nearly all Arab nations favor Muslims in their constitutions.

Compare how this abstract deals with Judaism in Israel with how a different chapter deals with religion in Ireland and Turkey, where their leaning on religion in their self-identification is treated as legitimate and worthy of respectful study:

This chapter explores the role of religion in nation-building processes, focusing on Ireland and Turkey. It argues that religion serves as a foundational characteristic for national identity, providing institutional networks, popular identity concepts, and antagonistic relationships with religious out-groups. Through a comparative analysis, the chapter demonstrates how early religious emphasis offers scaffolding for nation-building, particularly under conditions of high religiosity and significant religious diversity. The analysis employs a genealogical approach, examining critical junctures where nationalists negotiate between different visions of the nation, incorporating religious symbols to mobilize mass support. The chapter combines elite nationalist rhetoric with grassroots exploration of religion and politics, revealing the complexity of nation-building processes. It highlights the intersection of religious and nationalist ideas, showing how religion defines national boundaries and serves as a symbolic reservoir. The findings underscore the importance of engaging with religion as a central factor in understanding modern nations, challenging stereotypes of religious nationalism. By examining how religious scaffolding is developed, the chapter provides deeper insights into nationalist movements and their impact on national identity.

I had an AI examine the difference in tone for both abstracts:

The difference is stark. An unbiased article about Israel, written like the Ireland/Turkey chapter, would be treated in the larger academic world as rabidly Zionist.

Anti-Israel rhetoric is so mainstreamed that even the editors of a book meant to be reference material have no problem allowing extreme bias and borderline antisemitism to be published as if this is perfectly normal.

It isn't. It is hate disguised as analysis.