For many, the best place for Israel’s controversial new nation-state law would have been the shredder.

Legislation may have unintended consequences, which take time before they become apparent. But barely had the nation-state law been passed when Israeli politicians were trying to limit the damage, in particularly to assuage the aggrieved Druze community.

Since the law consists of a declaration of principles rather than a programme of action, its practical  impact will be hard to assess until it is seen to influence court decisions. But its critics’ fears, that it will shift Israel towards greater Jewish nationalism at the expense of democracy, have unleashed a continuing wave of protest.

For a document that is supposed to lay down the core principles of Zionism, it has provoked an unusual level of dissent from the diaspora. The Jewish Federations of North America called it “a step back for all minorities”. Martin Indyk, President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy, tweeted: “With this law, you are not safeguarding Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. You are enabling those who seek to tilt the balance irrevocably against Israel as a democracy.”

The diaspora criticism is ironic given that one of the explicit intentions of the law is to promote ties between Jews and the Jewish state. It says Israel will act to help Jews in trouble; to strengthen the bond between the state and the Jewish people; and to preserve the “cultural, historical and religious heritage” of the Jewish people in the diaspora.

Of course, Israel has a vested interest in supporting diaspora Jewry: the more Jews, the bigger the pool of potential aliyah. Still, the new law reflects a shift from the thinking of early Zionists who spoke of shlilat hagolah, negation of the diaspora, which they saw as a debased form of Jewish life.

Israel’s ambitious Education Minister Naftali Bennett in particular has signalled his wish to aid Jewish communities abroad. “If there is one thing that keeps me up at night, it’s not Iran, it’s the future of the Jewish people in the diaspora,” he told the American Jewish Committee earlier this summer. “If we don’t act soon, we’re going to be losing millions of Jews to assimilation.”

Israel already subsidises diaspora programmes - for example contributing to the Birthright trips for young Jews to Israel.  But should Israel be investing in the diaspora at all? From one perspective, it seems bizarre for the diaspora to donate tens of millions of pounds annually to causes in Israel, only for Israel to ship money back.

If Israel wants to reach out to the diaspora, it can hardly ignore the values that many young Jews regard as second nature - their belief in liberal democracy or religious pluralism. Their Judaism is one motivated by the ideals of “freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel” - to quote the lofty aspirations of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

Of those prophetic ideals, there is no echo in the nation-state bill.