In his interview with Tucker Carlson, Ted Cruz conflated several different meanings of the word “Israel.” This conflation is actually quite common and leads to various problems in communication on this topic, including both misunderstandings and deliberate deceptions. Because “Israel” is a polyvalent word that has acquired various connotations in its long history, a less-than-honest speaker or writer can switch the implied definition in the middle of a sentence without the audience noticing they have been tricked. For example: “God said that whoever blesses Israel will be blessed, and that is why I am the leading defender of Israel in the U.S Senate.” In this sentence, the keyword “Israel” has been used twice, but not in the same sense.

The problem is not impossible to solve, but the solution is somewhat cumbersome. It lies in thinking of the various usages of the word “Israel” as distinct terms. This requires knowing that a word is a unit of grammar but a term is a unit of thought; we can hear a word with our ears and we can see a word with our eyes, but a term can only be grasped through the mind. Put differently, the word “Israel” is a linguistic vehicle that can carry several different terms, but usually no more than one at a time. Whenever we see or hear the word “Israel,” we have to ask: Which one of the several different terms does the speaker or writer wants to convey? For the sake of simplicity, we can even assume that the various usages are really homonyms, i.e., they are different words with different meanings but with the same spelling and pronunciation.

Next, we need to find a way of differentiating these homonyms or terms, at least in written texts, that does not require citing the applicable definition each time the word is used—which would be impractical. If this solution catches on, it would eliminate the potential for conflation and improve the clarity (and honesty) of how we communicate our views on this topic.

The following table represents my attempt to implement the proposed solution. It lists seven different terms, all of which look and sound the same—“Israel”—but have different definitions. They are to be distinguished from each other by the following subscripted abbreviations: J, D, UM, NK, C, N, and S.

Israel: One Word, Seven Terms

I acknowledge that the table is provisional and non-exhaustive, and that it may have to modified. For example, I am not happy with my own definition of Israel_N, which is a highly contested concept because of the ambiguous criteria for membership; suffice it to say that Israel_N relies on the modern understanding of nationalism as the basis for state formation. In other words, Israel_N was not a viable concept before the the rise of nationalism in Europe after the French Revolution, and is therefore at odds with Israel_C, which is the Rabbinic understanding of Jewish identity.

Despite its tentative character, the table can give us yet another way of approaching the problem in Senator Cruz’s argument, which helps illuminate some of the dangers of conflation within Christian Zionism, as well in Zionist discourse more generally. You can try out the table for yourself by completing a short exercise. Read the following quotations from Ted Cruz’s interview and identify the implied definition(s) of the word “Israel” in each case:

Where does my support for Israel come from?
Do you not know what Israel is? That would be the country you’ve asked, like, 49 questions about.
We are commanded to support Israel . . .
[God is] talking about the nation of Israel, yes. Nations exist. And he’s discussing a nation. A nation was . . . the people of Israel is the nation. They’re the descendants of Abraham.
[The country of Israel has existed] for thousands of years. Now there was a time when it didn’t exist, and then it was recreated just over 70 years ago.

Here are my best guesses: