Freedom of Speech in Israel vs. Incitement

Yesterday, Israeli Minister of Housing and Construction Yitzchak Issachar Goldknopf was filmed dancing at a wedding alongside the groom, family, friends, and followers. The music playing contained lyrics that stated: “We do not believe in the rule of the infidels, and we do not show up (do not go to army recruitment centers) in their offices.” While Minister Goldknopf demonstrated poor taste and judgment in participating in a dance that opposes the government he serves, the fundamental question we must address is whether his participation constitutes a violation of Israel’s laws on freedom of speech.

Aharon Barak, who served as President of the Israeli Supreme Court from 1995 until 2006, famously summarized the right to freedom of speech: “Freedom of expression is a right of a type of liberty. It is the freedom of a person to voice his opinion and hear the opinions of others without being obligated to do so.” Free speech is justified on both personal and communal levels for the purposes of investigating the truth, self-expression, upholding democracy, and balancing powers.

Israel’s first major free speech case was the 1953 “Kol Ha’am” case, in which a newspaper alleged that the Israeli government was planning to send army recruits to support the United States in the Korean War. In response, the government suspended the newspaper for 15 days, citing public distress and the lack of supporting evidence. Supreme Court Justice Shimon Agranat ruled in favor of allowing the publication under the defense of free speech, emphasizing the right to express dissent against the government as a safeguard against tyranny. In this context, Goldknopf’s participation in a dance opposing military service could be considered an expression of free speech.

However, Goldknopf’s case also draws comparisons to an infamous wedding nearly a decade ago, where attendees celebrated the murder of an Arab child, Ali Dawabsheh, who had been killed in the Duma attack days earlier. Footage showed the groom and guests glorifying the murder, leading to the arrest of thirteen participants, including the groom and the band, on charges of incitement to violence. While weddings are traditionally moments of joy, the “Wedding of Hate” demonstrated that certain forms of expression—especially those inciting violence—are not protected under free speech laws. The question then arises: is there a legal or moral difference between incitement to terrorism and incitement to draft-dodging?

According to Israeli law, incitement to violence is addressed in Clause 144 of the Penal Code, which states: “One who publishes a call to do an act of violence, or praises, supports, or identifies with violence, and according to the intent of the speaker and the circumstances, there is an actual chance that it would lead to violence—five years in prison.” Similarly, Clause 109 criminalizes incitement against military service: “One who incites or solicits another obligated to serve to not serve or not show up to an army operation—five years of prison.”

There are two key differences between these clauses. First, incitement to violence includes mere praise or identification with violence, whereas incitement to draft-dodging only criminalizes direct encouragement not to serve. Second, for incitement to violence, prosecutors must prove that the speech is likely to result in violent actions, whereas incitement against military service does not require proof of impact.

Goldknopf’s dance to the lyric “We do not believe in the rule of the infidels” does not appear to violate the law, as individuals are allowed to hold and express opposition to military service. However, the subsequent lyric, “and we do not show up,” is more legally ambiguous. While it does not explicitly command others not to enlist, the collective “we” may be interpreted as a call to action, potentially violating Clause 109.

To his credit, Minister Goldknopf later issued two public apologies. However, apologies do not exempt individuals from legal consequences, nor do they excuse the insensitivity of his actions, particularly at a time when Israeli soldiers are risking their lives in wartime. Reservists, many of whom have spent long periods away from their families and jobs, return home only to see a government minister engaging in a dance that undermines their sacrifices.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, but it has its limits. Just as hate speech is restricted in various countries—whether in the form of Ku Klux Klan pamphlets, unchecked rhetoric in academic institutions, or the sale of antisemitic books in Arab bookstores—Israel must take a firmer stance against incitement. If laws against incitement are to hold any weight, enforcement must be consistent and principled. Minister Goldknopf’s case presents an opportunity for Israeli authorities to clarify and reinforce these legal boundaries, ensuring that freedom of speech remains a pillar of democracy without enabling harmful rhetoric.