When Leaders Forget To Lead

Across America’s great cities, we are witnessing a troubling pattern emerge, one that goes beyond politics. As local leaders and candidates position themselves on matters of justice and human rights, some are choosing ambiguity when it comes to Israel and the Jewish people.

The refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, the casual tolerance of chants like “from the river to the sea” or “globalize the intifada,” and the rejection of the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism are not abstract choices. They are moral failures with real consequences for Jewish safety, identity, and belonging.

Recognition Is Not a Political Calculation

For any leader, affirming Israel’s legitimacy is not a political risk; it is a moral reflex. Some may argue that recognizing Israel is purely a geopolitical stance rather than a moral one, but this viewpoint neglects the broader ethical implications. When public figures avoid stating that Israel has a right to exist or treat that stance as negotiable, they send a chilling message: that the Jewish community’s story and safety are open to debate.

This silence is abandonment, not neutrality. In cities with large Jewish populations, such ambiguity echoes loudly. If leaders cannot clearly say Israel has the same right to exist as other nations, what message does that send to Jewish children and students facing anti-Israel protests? Moreover, this uncertainty undermines universal norms of minority protection, suggesting that the rights and safety of any minority group may be negotiable. When leaders fail to uphold these principles, the entire civic fabric is at risk, threatening the very foundations of a diverse and inclusive society.

Understanding Why Israel’s Right to Exist Is Not in Question

For many younger Jews, the legitimacy of Israel’s existence has become blurred amid misinformation, activism, and historical amnesia. But the facts are clear, Israel’s right to exist is supported by multiple, universally recognized pathways through which modern states gain legitimacy: historical connection, international recognition, negotiation, and defensive sovereignty.

• Historical Connection – The Jewish people have an ancient and continuous connection to the Land of Israel, dating back thousands of years. Jerusalem, Hebron, and other cities central to Jewish identity are not modern political creations; they are the foundations of our faith and civilization.
• International Legitimacy – In 1947, the United Nations voted to establish a Jewish state in part of the British Mandate of Palestine, providing legal international recognition under the post-war decolonization framework. Israel’s establishment was not a unilateral act, it was sanctioned by the same global body that granted independence to dozens of other nations.
• Defensive Sovereignty – Since declaring independence in 1948, Israel has had to defend its existence in multiple wars, in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, and, most recently, in the aftermath of October 7, 2023. Each of these conflicts reaffirmed Israel’s sovereignty and its right, under international law, to defend itself and its citizens.

These facts are not opinions. They are the foundations upon which Israel’s right to exist rests, historically, legally, and practically. For leaders and educators alike, it is vital to ensure that young people understand this context, because when history is forgotten, legitimacy is lost, and with it, truth itself.

Words That Cross a Line

Free speech is foundational to democracy. But leaders, free speech is essential to democracy. Leaders must distinguish legitimate criticism from hate. Slogans like “from the river to the sea” are not calls for peace; they are calls for Israel’s eradication. With the oppressed, it means the exportation of violence against Jews worldwide. Historically, chants of annihilation, as seen in 1930s Europe, have preceded acts of violence against Jewish communities. When public officials excuse or ignore these messages, they normalize the language of destruction. And once normalized, it quickly becomes weaponized, in classrooms, on campuses, and on city streets.

Why the Definition of Antisemitism Matters

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism provides a vital compass. It states clearly that denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example, by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor, is a form of antisemitism.

Rejecting that definition is not a gesture of intellectual independence; it is moral confusion. Without a shared understanding of antisemitism, combating it is impossible. Leaders who refuse the IHRA definition leave their cities without tools to distinguish hate from discourse, enabling the hostility they claim to oppose to spread far beyond its borders. When local leaders flirt with denial of Israel’s legitimacy, they embolden extremists elsewhere. When city councils fail to adopt the IHRA definition, university boards follow suit. And when political movements legitimize antisemitic chants as “expression,” they license others to do the same.

For the Jewish community, this is not an abstract debate about terminology or geopolitics. It is about whether our children will feel safe wearing a Magen David necklace or speaking Hebrew on the subway. It is about whether our civic leaders will treat us as full participants in the social contract, or as political pawns to be placated only when convenient.

A Call to Courage and Clarity

This moment demands that our leaders choose moral courage over political expediency. Every candidate should be asked: Will you affirm Israel’s right to exist, reject slogans calling for destruction, and adopt accepted definitions of antisemitism? Clarity on these questions is a basic test of leadership.

If the answer to these questions is anything less than yes, do not stay silent. We can hold leaders accountable together: speak out, contact your representatives, vote with intention, and encourage others to do the same. Silence is a choice that endangers the principles of tolerance and coexistence that democracy requires.

Our Responsibility

As Jews, we know indifference is never neutral. History teaches that silence on antisemitism is complicity. We must demand that leaders choose clarity over cowardice. Recognizing Israel’s right to exist is not partisan; it is a test of integrity and courage to stand for truth, even when unpopular. Because the moment a society decides that Israel’s existence is optional, it also decides, whether it admits it or not, that Jewish existence is negotiable. And that is something no free society can ever afford to tolerate.