New Israel

Within American religious history, a JCFA account says that Puritans fleeing persecution defined themselves as the "New Israel," framing their journey and settlement in covenantal biblical terms. It argues that this identification contributed to the foundational imagery of early American national identity. John Winthrop's 1630 sermon "A Model of Christian Charity," which described the Massachusetts Bay Colony as a "city upon a hill," echoed the biblical imagery of Zion and Jerusalem.[1]

Over the course of the nineteenth century, the same article contends that American engagement with Zion shifted from a purely spiritual metaphor toward more literal forms of interest.[1] Protestant missionaries, scholars, and explorers traveled to Jerusalem, and the American Palestine Society was established in the 1870s.[1] The account traces a further development in the late nineteenth century, when Christian Zionism redefined the relationship between American religious sentiment and the actual Land of Israel, and says that by 1948 some evangelicals regarded the founding of the modern Jewish state as biblical fulfillment.[1] These readings represent one article's interpretation of a broad historical arc and are not independently corroborated by a second source.

As a formal organizational name, "New Israel" referred to a Jewish religious sect (Russian: Novy Izrail) that emerged in Odessa in the early 1880s. Its founder was a teacher at Odessa's government Jewish school whose surname appears as Jacob Priluker in the Jewish Virtual Library and Jacob Prelooker in the Jewish Encyclopedia.[2][3] At the beginning of 1882, Priluker published an article in the newspaper Odesskiy Listok setting out fifteen principles for the new sect.[2] The Jewish Encyclopedia places the movement's emergence slightly earlier, at the end of 1881.[3]

The sect's stated objective was to reform Judaism in a way that would reconcile it with Christianity.[2] Its principles recognized the Mosaic law but rejected the Talmud, which Priluker's platform described as deserving "an attitude of contempt."[2] Practically, this meant moving the weekly day of rest from Saturday to Sunday and abolishing circumcision and dietary laws; members were also expected to regard Russian as their national language and to obey state laws.[2] Prelooker stated that his aim was "a reformed synagogue, a mitigation of the cleavage between Jew and Christian, and a recognition of a common brotherhood in religion."[3] He also described a private aim of uniting a reformed synagogue with dissenters from the Greek Orthodox Church, including the Molokans, Stundists, and Dukhobortzy.[3]

The sect presented itself as a proposed response to the riots and increased antisemitism that followed the 1881 assassination of Czar Alexander II.[2] Alongside religious reform, the platform sought government recognition of civic rights for sect members, permission to spread its doctrine among Jews, and authorization to wear a distinguishing sign.[2] Even Jewish reform-minded maskilim regarded Priluker's proposals with reserve, seeing them as trading parts of Jewish heritage for civic rights; the Russian authorities, by contrast, encouraged him.[2]

In 1882, Priluker's book Reform Jews was published in St. Petersburg under the pseudonym E. Ben-Sion, with government assistance.[2] The book attacked the Talmud and traditional Judaism and supplied material for antisemitic propaganda.[2] In 1887, Priluker traveled to Western Europe at the Russian government's expense to establish contacts with missionaries.[2] Despite this official backing, his preaching among southern Russia's Jewish population found no success, and government support eventually declined.[2] The government rejected his request for assistance in publishing a Jewish newspaper to promote his ideas.[2]

Traces of the sect had disappeared before Prelooker left Russia and settled in England in 1890.[3] The Jewish Virtual Library instead dates his conversion to Protestantism and immigration to England to 1891, describing those events as marking the end of the attempt to establish the sect.[2] Joseph Rabinovich sided with Prelooker in the controversy while leading a similar movement in Kishinev and later joined the Protestant Christian Church in Germany.[3]

In 2014, congressional candidate Allan Levene put forward a plan he called "New Israel"—a proposal to create a second, non-contiguous part of the State of Israel on the eastern coast of Texas.[4] The plan called for transferring approximately 8,000 square miles of sparsely populated land bordering the Gulf of Mexico to Israel through eminent domain, on the condition that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.[4]

The plan's proposed benefits included peaceful territory and Gulf of Mexico trade access for Israel, reduced U.S. foreign aid expenditures, and construction jobs for Texas; Palestinians, under the proposal, would receive the West Bank—known by its original, indigenous Jewish name of Judea and Samaria.[4] Unresolved questions included potential opposition from Texans to federal land seizure, how construction would be funded, and whether Israelis would want to relocate to coastal Texas.[4] The plan was presented as a proposal only, not as an established territory or state.

Historical precedents cited in the report included Theodor Herzl's temporary support for a British scheme to settle Jews in Uganda and plans considered between 1938 and 1940 to resettle European Jewish refugees in Alaska.[4] The backlash to the Uganda proposal nearly destroyed the Zionist movement.[4]

A distinct and unrelated use of the name "New Israel" (Hebrew: ישראל החדשה) appeared in a 2023 Maariv interview with Nitzan Amit, founder of the "Separation Movement."[5] In that context, "New Israel" is not the name of the movement itself but one of two proposed successor states that the movement envisioned creating from the existing State of Israel, alongside a more conservative-religious entity called the "State of Judea."[5]

Under the proposed territorial division, New Israel would encompass the Golan Heights, Upper Galilee, and most coastal-plain cities, including Haifa, Netanya, Tel Aviv, and Rishon LeZion.[5] The movement's plan estimated a population of approximately 5.5 million for this proposed state, though that figure was presented from the movement's own plan rather than as an independent demographic assessment.[5] The remaining territory, including Jerusalem, Beersheba, Bnei Brak, Ashdod, Petah Tikva, and Ashkelon, would be placed under the proposed State of Judea.[5]

The report situated the proposed division among models based on cantons or a federation.[5] The movement's five-stage process would begin with an alliance of liberal cities, progress through the establishment of a governing and legislative body and Knesset recognition of its authority, develop district cantons with local parliaments, regional governments, and substantial autonomy over domestic policy, and culminate in a formal division into two states.[5] Amit envisioned open borders and a mutual-defense pact between the two successor states, with each district eventually able to decide which state to join.[5]

Amit argued that the proposal responded to what he characterized as a deeply divided Israeli society and said separation would allow each side to determine its own judicial system and economic priorities.[5] He acknowledged that the plan would require agreement from both sides and that many people would oppose it or find it emotionally difficult.[5] The plan, territorial figures, and institutional arrangements described are the advocate's own proposal as reported in the interview and are not independently verified.