In recent months, I have found myself deeply troubled by certain public episodes in Israeli political life. For example, Itamar Ben Gvir publicly celebrated the detention and humiliation of people on a flotilla, using triumphalist messaging and media appearances that presented their capture as a political victory. Equally troubling has been imagery that crosses into mockery and degradation, such as a birthday cake he received featuring a golden noose. Also disturbing was the widely circulated image of an IDF soldier using a sledgehammer to destroy a statue of Jesus on the cross, along with photographs of soldiers posing with humiliating Christian symbols.

Even when such acts emerge from anger, frustration, or the brutal context of war, they risk eroding moral sensitivity and projecting not dignity or restraint, but triumphalism and humiliation. And even when those detained were aligned with hostile political actors, there remains something deeply unsettling about the tone of celebration and public spectacle. This is not the Torah way.

I worry that this dynamic will intensify. With elections approaching in Israel, politicians have incentives to distinguish themselves through increasingly extreme gestures. Provocative acts, media stunts, and inflammatory behavior can become political currency, even if they alienate moderates, because they energize committed constituencies.

At the same time, we need intellectual honesty about politics. Politics is not morality. Coalition politics, especially in Israel, forces alliances among people who do not fully share values. Voters may support a party for security, economic, religious, or judicial reasons while strongly disagreeing with other positions or figures within the same coalition. The same is true in the United States across immigration, taxation, and foreign policy debates.

But there is a difference between political disagreement and moral violation. Some actions are not “policy positions” but public moral failures, especially when carried out by people wearing a yarmulka and speaking in the name of Torah, creating a potential chillul Hashem.

How should we approach public discourse in this environment?

I would not engage with what I see as clearly antisemitic attacks on Israel, such as the recent New York Times opinion piece by Nicholas Kristof. I am not going to evaluate each of its claims one by one. In my view, the article takes a complex reality and........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)