How We Speak About Israel May Shape What’s Next

In a time of deep fracture, urgency alone is not enough. How we speak about Israel, and to each other, can determine whether our words divide or open the door to change.

Last Friday I wrote about the crisis that the State of Israel’s current leadership has created for diaspora Jews. That post was not a list of solutions, but a reflection rooted in genuine concern and in the belief that unity must be our starting point. When conversations about the State of Israel turn urgent, it is easy to assume the most forceful language will be the most effective. But urgency does not require polemics and clarity is especially vital.

Harsh, accusatory language may feel satisfying in the moment, but often it closes the ears of the intended listener before the ideas can land. Words delivered with care and respect for those we are addressing keep the door open for real conversation. That is why rhetoric about “genocide” and claims of “intentional starvation” or “racism” may be unhelpful; they polarize and move the conversation away from solutions.

Our conversations also must prioritize clarity and distinguish between Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), Am Yisrael (the people of Israel), Medinat Yisrael (the State of Israel), and the State of Israel’s current government. Love for the country and its people does not require endorsing the decisions of its leaders. Without these distinctions, every disagreement risks being heard as an attack on identity and existence. Admittedly, some attacks are on Jewish identity, Israeli citizenship, and the State of Israel’s right to exist. But sometimes the disagreement and challenges are not attacks at all and are based on valuing those very things.

Framing criticism around shared values such as safety, self-determination, and justice can provide common ground even when our proposed paths forward differ. In moments of deep fracture, beginning from common moral ground is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

P.S. None of this is about “tone policing” or “telling victims how to protest.” The urgency is real and anger can be justified. But if our goal is to persuade, inspire, or unite, our words must be able to reach those who most need to hear them. Speaking so that we can be heard is not politeness; it is strategy and how real change begins.