A Time for Jewish Reckoning

We stand at a unique and solemn moment: midway between Yom HaShoah and Yom Ha’atzmaut. This convergence of memory and hope should prompt deep reflection on what we have learned and what our priorities are as a people.

Recent events have shaken the Jewish world. We’ve witnessed a resurgence of antisemitism, a rise in anti-Zionism, and a disturbing trend of some Jewish voices seemingly aligning themselves with those who seek Israel’s destruction.

The recent defense of Mahmoud Khalil by certain progressive Jewish groups is deeply troubling. While free speech is a fundamental value, at what point does it become dangerous and self-destructive? Some of us recall the 1977 travesty when David Goldberger of the ACLU defended neo-Nazis parading through Skokie, Illinois. Did abstract principles of free speech truly outweigh the very real trauma and threat to a community of jews who had survived an attempted Nazi genocide just a few decades earlier?

While freedom of speech is a foundational value, particularly in societies like the United States, it is not the only value. It must be balanced against essential considerations such as the rights of every citizen to live in safety and security. There are times when the exercise of free speech can directly threaten to undermine these and other significant values.

The Supreme Court itself has at times curtailed First Amendment rights, acknowledging limits to protected speech. In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), the court established the “clear and present danger” test. There the Court upheld the conviction of a man for distributing leaflets urging resistance to the draft during World War I, arguing that his speech created a clear and present danger to the nation’s war effort.

In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Court held that “fighting words” – words that “inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace”—are not protected by the First Amendment. Other cases, such as United States v. O’Brien (1968), Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), and Morse v. Frederick (2007), further demonstrate that certain forms of expression can be restricted.

Zioness, J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, Bend the Arc, IfNotNow, and other progressive Jewish groups have expressed concern about the legal implications of detaining and deporting a lawful U.S. resident based on protest activity, fearing this precedent could one day be applied to Jews. These groups emphasize the importance of upholding constitutional rights even for those with abhorrent views, because societies that protect free speech are ultimately safer for minority communities, including Jews.

The concern that the government might next curtail Jewish groups’ rights to speak out feels secondary. It appears that some progressive groups are using this as an opportunity to oppose a government they did not elect and do not support. Even when that government is working to protect Jews against antisemitism in the U.S. and worldwide, these groups seem unable to see past the person who occupies the Oval Office, as if that invalidates any positive action. Regardless of one’s political views, forces are aligned to destroy the Jewish people. How, then, can Jewish groups actively make this fight more confusing by supporting self-proclaimed anti-Zionists who openly support and pledge allegiance to the enemies of the Jewish state?

I believe there is a time and place for defending free speech. However, that right ceases to be defensible when it encroaches upon other important values for which the United States stands. Openly supporting and encouraging the barbaric acts of Hamas should not be tolerated in a country that rightly designates Hamas as a terrorist organization.

This isn’t about silencing dissent or demanding ideological conformity. It’s about recognizing that there are lines we cannot cross. There are alliances we cannot forge. There are priorities that must remain sacrosanct.

At this moment, standing between remembrance and renewal, we Jews worldwide must take our own pulse. We must ask ourselves:

• What truly matters most?
• Where does our loyalty lie?
• Are we, even with the best of intentions, contributing to the very forces that threaten our survival?

We must choose whether our pursuit of social justice aligns with or undermines our own people’s safety and survival. The time for self-reflection is now. The time for clear priorities is upon us. We cannot afford to be confused. We cannot afford to be self-destructive.