A paper by Dr. Stephen Windmuller, published by the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (Israeli) on February 24, 2026, entitled "The Jewish Contract with America: Covenant, Citizenship, and the Politics of Belonging," presents a theoretical framework for what he calls the "Jewish Contract with America." This is a literary concept that does not refer to a specific legal document, but rather to a framework for interpreting the relationship. Windmuller borrows the idea of "covenant" from biblical tradition and uses it to describe the nature of the relationship between American Jews and the American state, a relationship that is reflected in the relationship between the United States and the Zionist entity.
This thesis is distinguished by the fact that it does not stem from the traditional geopolitical analysis that interprets the American-Israeli relationship as an alliance of interests between the US and "Israel"—a realistic interpretation, of course—nor from the common approach that focuses exclusively on the role of Jewish lobbying groups, which do indeed exert pressure on American policy and contribute to shaping a policy of aggression in the region to ensure Zionist supremacy. Rather, it shifts the focus to the American domestic sphere itself, that is, to the activities of Jews as individuals in their capacity as American citizens.
The paper draws on the contributions of American Jewish thinkers who have addressed the concept of "covenant" within the American political context, including Jonathan Sarna, Michael Walzer, Dan Elazar, and Will Herberg. These thinkers viewed the American experience as a model that allows for the multiplicity of religious identities within a constitutional framework, enabling groups to maintain their religious distinctiveness while simultaneously fully engaging in American political life.
In this sense, the relationship with "Israel" is not presented in this vision as an independent external file or as a circumstantial product of strategic calculations, but rather as an extension of a historical-civil structure that was formed within American society, where the position of Jews is redefined as partners in a constitutional "covenant" that links them to the American state. From within this framework, the patterns of their political participation are understood, including support for the Zionist occupation entity. The distinctiveness of this approach lies in the fact that it attempts to explain the depth and continuity of the American-Israeli relationship through a long-term internal movement, not through regional power balances alone. Thus, it reframes the discussion about the relationship between the two parties at the level of political identity and constitutional institutions, not only at the level of military alliances or strategic interests.
The Jew as an American Citizen
This paper compares the European and American experiences of Jews. In the European context, a model the author terms "conditional tolerance" prevailed, where the legal status of Jews was contingent upon the will of the ruler and a declaration of loyalty, without guaranteeing full civil equality. They were viewed as a group with a special legal status.
In the United States, however, a different framework emerged. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791, guarantees freedom of religion through two fundamental clauses: first, prohibiting Congress from enacting any law establishing an official state religion; and second, guaranteeing the freedom to practice religious rites. Thus, there is no imposed official religion, nor are there legal restrictions on religious affiliation. This constitutional framework allowed Jews to practice their rituals and maintain their identity without requiring forced assimilation or relinquishing their religious distinctiveness. In this context, a reciprocal civil-constitutional relationship is formed, based on the state's guarantee of religious freedom and civil equality, in exchange for the full integration of Jews into the American political system as citizens with equal rights and responsibilities.
Jewish American patriotism
In this approach, loyalty is presented as a constitutional political commitment, which is to comply with American law, participate in the electoral process, serve in state institutions, and engage in the economy and society. It is a loyalty directed to the Constitution and the political system, not to a religious authority or an individual ruler. In this sense, it does not differ in its legal nature from the loyalty of any other American citizen. This commitment is formulated as a fundamental pillar of the “contract,” as it affirms the integration of Jews into the American state as part of its national structure, not as a group living under special protection or exceptional privilege.
The Evolution of Jewish Political Presence
This paper presents a gradual historical trajectory of Jewish political presence in the United States, beginning with the "petitionist" phase between 1654 and 1870. During this period, Jewish political activity was primarily confined to submitting petitions and formal requests to local or federal authorities, demanding legal protection or the removal of existing restrictions. Jewish communities in the early colonies used this method to secure the right to reside, conduct business, and practice their religious rites. Petitions also emerged concerning the abolition of religious oaths that presupposed Christian affiliation in some states, which was considered a first step toward establishing legal equality. This phase was characterized by its focus on securing legal recognition and integration within the nascent state.
From 1870 to 1930, a phase emerged that could be described as one of "influential figures." Jewish individuals played influential roles in public life, relying on their economic and intellectual standing and their personal networks with decision-making circles. A prominent example is Louis Brandeis, who later became the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 saw the rise of several prominent figures, including Jacob Schiff, a reform lawyer with considerable influence in antitrust and economic transparency cases, and Jacob Schiff, a leading New York banker who cultivated close ties with financial and political circles and contributed to funding public projects and politically charged initiatives. Oscar Strauss also emerged, serving as Secretary of Commerce and Labor in 1906, becoming the first Jewish person to hold a cabinet position in the United States.
This period was characterized by the absence of a cohesive, collective institutional structure for influence. Instead, it relied on individual presence and the building of personal relationships with political and economic elites. With the increasing waves of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the accompanying social and cultural challenges, the need for more organized representative frameworks to defend the interests of these new communities began to emerge. This paved the way for the subsequent transition to a more structured, institutional approach in the following decades.
Between 1930 and 1960, political activism entered a phase of organized institutional action. This period saw the strengthening of national Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Committee, founded in 1906, which expanded its activities during the 1930s to counter anti-Semitism; the Anti-Defamation League, which focused on combating religious and racial hatred and discrimination; and the American Jewish Congress, which adopted a more proactive approach to the legal and political defense of civil rights. Other relief and advocacy organizations also played a role in addressing issues of immigration and the resettlement of Jewish refugees after World War II.
The influence of these institutions was evident in lobbying for legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment and education, and in supporting civil rights laws in the 1940s and 1950s. Jewish leaders and organizations also participated in broad coalitions that supported the African American civil rights movement, whether through legal support, on-the-ground involvement, or funding. This reinforced the image of the Jewish presence as part of a wider reform network operating within the American political system, relying on the same constitutional tools that allow interest groups to influence legislation and public policy.
From the 1960s to 2026, this paper discusses the "partnership" phase, where activism is no longer limited to defending the rights of a specific group, but has become part of a broader network of interest groups operating within state institutions. In this phase, their presence has strengthened in areas of domestic decision-making, such as education policies, anti-discrimination laws, immigration, and social welfare.
The scope of influence has also expanded to include American foreign policy, particularly concerning the Middle East and relations with Israel. This influence is exerted through communication with members of Congress, participation in hearings, and support for campaigns. Elections, and the preparation of policy papers, i.e., within the American institutional structure itself.
"Israel" within the American Civil Framework
This paper places support for the Zionist entity within this historical development of Jewish political presence, viewing it as a political practice based on rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, such as freedom of expression, the right to petition, and freedom of assembly. Forms of advocacy for "Israel" began after the Nakba of 1948, through support for the idea of a Jewish national homeland, and then evolved after the establishment of the entity into an organized network of institutions concerned with the US-Israeli relationship.
Among the most prominent of these institutions is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which was founded in the 1950s. AIPAC worked to build ongoing relationships with members of Congress from both parties and to provide information and reports related to regional security in the Middle East. It also adopted a strategy of expanding its base of support by engaging non-Jewish elites in the fields of business, education, religion, and government, so that support for "Israel" would not be presented as a matter concerning a specific group, but rather as part of a broader vision of US foreign policy.
The effectiveness of these networks is linked to their ability to operate within the existing system's rules, through political and electoral funding, organizing conferences, direct communication with decision-makers, and participation in public debates. The impact of this presence has been evident in repeated congressional stances regarding military aid to Israel or decisions supporting it in international forums, as well as in the swift passage of aid packages to the Zionist entity in response to security and military developments in the region.
According to this approach, American support for "Israel" is not understood merely as a result of a strategic alliance between them, but rather as the product of a long-standing internal dynamic within American society. Here, religious and cultural identity intersects with the mechanisms of political action, and these interactions translate into policies formulated within American institutions themselves, within the constitutional framework that regulates the activities of interest groups in the United States.
Conclusion
The paper concludes that the “Jewish contract with America” symbolizes a reciprocal constitutional civil relationship that provided Jews with unprecedented freedom and equality in their modern history, and enabled them to become influential actors within the American political system. According to this view, understanding the American-Israeli relationship requires looking at the American interior, i.e., the structure of the state and the mechanisms of political action, as much as it requires analyzing external geopolitical balances.
