“IDF soldiers dancing and singing is not a war crime, regardless of the lyrics.” That argument, often heard in response to troubling wartime footage, reflects a broader claim: that isolated rhetoric or behavior from IDF soldiers does not amount to policy. If individual soldiers violate the laws of war, the claim goes, Israel’s judicial system will address it. Similarly, not every statement by a politician—especially one made in anger—should be interpreted as official Israeli government policy.

That distinction has been central to Israel’s legal defense at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Representing Israel, Professor Malcolm Shaw emphasized that the inflammatory remarks cited by the prosecution – from politicians, soldiers, and even entertainers – do not reflect the official state’s intent. Among the examples were statements such as Minister Avi Dichter’s reference to a “2023 Nakba in Gaza” and comments by public figures calling for the destruction of Gaza. Shaw’s argument was clear: these are fringe or emotional expressions, not state policy.

But that line of defense becomes harder to sustain when the state itself appears to embrace similar rhetoric, as well as honor those who express it.

Israel’s Minister of Transportation, Miri Regev, raises this concern by selecting Rabbi Avraham Zarviv as a torchbearer in the country’s official Independence Day ceremony. For foreign readers, it’s worth noting that lighting a torch at this ceremony is one of Israel’s highest symbolic honors, akin to being chosen to deliver a keynote at a major national commemoration.

Zarviv is a rabbinical court judge and a reservist soldier. He gained public attention during the Gaza war by posting videos of destruction in Gaza, where he served as a bulldozer operator. In these videos and in interviews, he repeatedly called for “flattening Gaza” and advocated for the re-establishment of Israeli settlements there. “To Zarviv” has been popularly adopted into a verb, “to flatten.”

Beyond rhetoric, Zarviv documented Israeli military actions in Gaza that raise serious ethical and legal questions: vandalizing Palestinian property, spray-painting slogans on residential buildings, and openly discussing a “combat doctrine” that involved large-scale destruction. Israel’s own judicial oversight body later found that he had violated ethical standards expected of a judge by publicly expressing such abhorrent views.

Despite all these actions, he was chosen to represent the nation in a highly symbolic role. Regev praised him as someone who “combines spiritual and combat leadership” and embodies the values of religious Zionism – connecting faith, action, and national service.

This decision has consequences beyond domestic politics. It risks making it difficult to tell the difference between fringe rhetoric and official endorsement. When the state honors an individual whose words and actions mirror those cited as evidence of possible criminal intent, it is both morally abhorrent and undermines Israel’s legal argument that such expressions are not state policy. In effect, what Israel’s legal team sought to distance itself from in The Hague is now being symbolically embraced at home.

This has broader implications for us. It strengthens the narrative of those who argue that Israel’s conduct in Gaza reflects not just isolated excesses but a pattern of intent. It may also embolden those who promote international arms embargos against Israel. 

At a time when Israel faces intense legal and moral scrutiny, symbolic decisions matter. Honoring figures like Zarviv sends a message about what the government stands for and what it is willing to defend.

For the sake of Israel’s international standing and its own moral compass, one can only hope that there are still those within Israeli legal and diplomatic institutions who understand the stakes. Because when a country elevates such figures to positions of honor, it risks more than just a political or moral error – it risks a legal one too.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)