A Guideline for Speaking Up About Israel
I just returned from Israel, where I spent a week visiting cities, attending meetings, and reconnecting with friends and family. What hit me hardest weren’t the headlines or the policies, but the raw conversations I had with a variety of friends and family – many of them deeply religious, many of them furious. The most surprising part? Hearing devout Jews cursing American donors and supporters who believed they had the right to weigh in on Israel’s military and political strategies.
Their message to me was blunt: If you don’t live here, don’t serve in the army, and don’t go to bed worrying if your child will make it home tomorrow, then you don’t get to decide how we defend ourselves. And if you think this war is just about Hamas and the hostages, think again. Israel is fighting a “ring of fire” on 7 fronts against multiple enemies committed to its annihilation. The war is definitely not just about Gaza and Hamas.
This raises a difficult question: When is it morally (or halachically) appropriate for an outsider to speak up about Israel’s military actions? And when is silence the higher calling?
The Real Question We Need to Ask
Public criticism of Israel’s defense efforts is nothing new, but in this moment – as Israel fights an unprecedented defensive war against multiple terrorist factions – our guidelines may be due for a re-evaluation. Beyond politics, media narratives, or social pressure, Jewish tradition and halacha might offer unexpected guidance: When might we be obligated to stay silent?
What We’re Actually Seeing on the Ground
Israel is conducting its military campaign with what John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, calls the most advanced civilian protection measures in the history of warfare. According to Spencer, Israel has gone beyond what international law requires – and far beyond what the U.S. did in Iraq or Afghanistan.[1] The data supports this. During the Battle of Mosul (2016 – 2017), approximately 10,000 civilians died versus 4,000 ISIS combatants.[2] In Gaza, Israel’s civilian-to-combatant ratios are historically low. Peer-reviewed studies confirm that Israel’s performance in civilian protection is virtually unmatched in modern urban warfare.[3]
Israel issues advanced warnings, opens humanitarian corridors, and adheres to international legal standards – all while fighting on seven fronts, including threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis.
And yet, the calls persist: “Do better.”
Imagine telling a student who scored 100% to retake the test just in case they can get 110%. Or scolding a lifeguard with a perfect rescue record for not saving people “gently enough” while fending off sharks. That’s the level of criticism Israel faces and beyond the double standard, it’s not how the real world works. If Israel is setting the moral benchmark in military restraint, is it reasonable publicly to demand even more?
Three Areas Where Moral Criticisms Miss the Mark
- History In Time Often Reveals the Moral Path
Wartime decisions often appear brutal in the moment. Churchill was vilified. Truman was called a monster. Abolitionists were hated. But history, in time, justified their moral clarity. Israel may be living through its own version of this pattern – condemned now, but validated later.
- Moral Responsibility Includes Self-Defense
This is not just about Israel’s right to defend itself; it’s about its obligation. When a nation is attacked by enemies committed to genocide, it must act decisively – even when it pushes up against public outcry. The Talmudic principle of Chayecha Kodmin (Bava Metzia 62a) teaches that one must prioritize their own survival. Israel is doing just that with one hand tied behind its back as it risks the lives of its soldiers to pursue a morally superior strategy of restraint unmatched in modern warfare – a strategy that unfortunately gets no public validations or commendations.
- Misinformation Fuels Misjudgment
Much of the criticism levied against Israel is built on a shaky foundation of disinformation. Hamas and its health ministry lies – about death tolls, conditions, and war images. Major news outlets pursue these false narratives. When caught publishing the lies they get pressured to issue corrections (buried in tweets). Misinformation persists, pressuring people to form opinions based on emotionally charged headlines rather than verified facts.
Critics often go further, but not out of ignorance. Many rabbis and public figures know full well that their words will be seized upon and manipulated by Hamas and the media. Still, they speak, telling themselves that public criticism might improve Israel’s public relations or soften policies that play poorly in American headlines. With antisemitism rising sharply in the U.S. – itself stoked by media narratives that paint Israel as the aggressor – they feel compelled to respond. Fear pushes them to believe that speaking out could ease pressure on their communities or win moral approval, even if it comes at Israel’s or American Jews’ expense.
But every public Jewish rebuke of Israel becomes a propaganda weapon, cited as proof that Israel’s moral position is weak. Far from reducing antisemitism, the criticisms of Israel embolden enemies. The answer to rising antisemitism isn’t criticizing Israel’s fight for survival; it’s strengthening education, unity, and advocacy, while refusing to amplify the falsehoods.
At a deeper level, and especially given Israel’s record-setting low civilian casualty rates, calls for “moral sensitivity” have an appearance of easing the discomfort of distance – the unease of watching from afar while others bear the burden of war, coupled with the need to be seen as having a voice in the debate. To Israelis living under fire, it looks like moral posturing rather than solidarity. In this way, critics fall into a trap of resembling blindfolded chess players, calling moves without seeing the board and convinced they understand the whole game.
The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (54b) captures the danger of words being misused. It asks: if idolatry is false, why doesn’t God simply remove the stars and constellations that people worship? The answer: because if He did, worshippers would say, “See, He destroyed them because they have power.” The lesson is timeless – truth cannot be separated from how it will be twisted by others. Critics know their words will be weaponized, yet they speak anyway. To the outside world, that doesn’t look like moral clarity. It looks like optics – optics that may soothe guilt or win applause, but at the cost of weakening Israel when it most needs strength.
Reorienting What Moral Clarity Really Means
The phrase “moral clarity” has been weaponized by critics to demand more from Israel – as if restraint, precision, and civilian protections in the war effort aren’t already abundant. But moral clarity doesn’t always mean criticizing more loudly or protesting more publicly. Sometimes, moral clarity is trusting a country that’s already proving itself with restraint unseen in any other military campaign in modern history.
Especially given the controversial casualty figures released by Hamas-controlled sources, amplified without verification by international media and public figures, the very definition of moral clarity demands a reevaluation. Amplifying false or distorted data, or even legitimate criticism based on unreliable sources, helps propagate a narrative crafted by those who wish to harm Israel. Public rebuke – especially in organized or group settings – can inadvertently support the very misinformation campaign that seeks to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.
In this context, silence isn’t apathy. It’s discernment.
Three Tests for Speaking Up
Before publicly criticizing Israel’s actions, ask these questions:
Test 1: Has Israel Clearly Crossed a Line?
Are we talking about clear war crimes, genocide, or unprovoked aggression? Or is Israel engaged in a defensive war while maintaining historically high moral standards?
Test 2: Are You Working with Enough Validated Information?
Are your conclusions based on vetted sources? Or are you reacting to the shifting waves of media soundbites and social pressure? The Talmud (Pesachim 99a) cautions that even a fool is considered wise if they remain silent. Speaking without clarity can cause real harm.
Test 3: Will Your Words Be Used to Support the Terrorist Playbook?
Are you unwittingly amplifying Hamas’ propaganda? Is your comment – even if well-intentioned – likely to be cited by those who aim to undermine Israel’s legitimacy? The ring-of-fire enemies count on international outrage to constrain Israel and distort the battlefield. Doesn’t it make sense to avoid letting your voice become a tool they can weaponize?
Maimonides codified that a judge must thoroughly examine the witnesses and disqualify himself if there is reason to believe the case, though proven on the surface, is fraudulent (din merummeh) (Yad, Sanhedrin 24:1-2). Shimon ben Shetach said, “Examine the witnesses thoroughly” (Avot 1:9). When you don’t have access to reliable evidence, stepping back isn’t cowardice. It’s moral responsibility.
When It Is Right to Speak Up
There are red lines that, if crossed, require moral outcry:
– Targeting civilians deliberately
– Initiating unprovoked wars
– Using banned weapons
– Violating international law egregiously
– Committing ethnic cleansing or genocide
Were these to happen, silence would be immoral. But these are not the facts on the ground today.
What Jewish Wisdom and History Teach
From King Saul – who spared Agag and the spoils of war and ultimately lost his throne for listening to the people instead of God – to Achashverosh, who allowed himself to be swayed by his advisors and manipulated by Haman, to David, who refused to be intimidated when others told him he could not defeat Goliath, our tradition shows the danger of leaders giving in to public pressure and the strength of those who act with principle. History honors the latter, not the former.
The Talmud in Shevuot 30b and Pirkei Avot 2:4 reminds us: Do not judge unless you’ve stood in the other’s place. Don’t rule from afar on matters you don’t fully understand.
Sometimes, Silence Is Moral Leadership
When Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, he didn’t ask for public opinion. He told the people: “Stand still and see what God will do” (Exodus 14:13). Israel today is making impossible decisions with wisdom, restraint, and resolve. The most moral act we can do, from afar, may be to stay silent and trust those bearing the burden.
The True Moral Clarity
This is not a symmetrical conflict. Hamas uses civilians as shields, steals aid, and started this war. Israel follows the law, warns civilians, and sets a new ethical standard for warfare.
There is no moral equivalence here. One side is trying to prevent genocide; the other is trying to commit it.
A Deeper Reading of Parshat Shoftim
Deuteronomy 16:18 says to appoint judges (shoftim) before officers (shotrim). But in moments of moral ambiguity, perhaps the shotrim must act first – not as enforcers, but as investigators. Like detectives, we must search for truth before passing judgment. The Torah may be telling us: investigate before you opine.
As outsiders, our role is not to add noise but to add humility. When a nation under siege conducts itself with unmatched restraint and moral clarity, our judgment must be replaced by trust.
Not every situation needs your opinion. Sometimes the highest form of moral clarity is respectful silence.
Israel is fighting a war it did not start, against enemies that seek its destruction. It is doing so while upholding legal and ethical standards unseen in similar conflicts.
And beyond all of this analysis, one brutal fact remains: there are still 48 hostages being held by Hamas. The war would end tomorrow if they were released. In law there is a principle of causation – the “but for” rule (causa sine qua non) – that the one who triggers the chain of events bears the responsibility for its consequences. In this case, “but for” the attack and the kidnappings, there would be no war, no civilian casualties, and no debate about moral clarity. That responsibility belongs to Hamas alone. Which makes much of this moral debate feel almost beside the point.
And yet, the criticism continues – as if Israel is on trial instead of the terrorists who started this war. Maybe the issue isn’t Israel at all – maybe it’s us, and our inability to accept that sometimes the loudest moral clarity is found in silence, born of humility and respect.
_________________
Sources:
[1] Spencer, John. “Israel Implemented More Measures to Prevent Civilian Casualties Than Any Other Nation in History.” Newsweek, January 31, 2024.
[2] Spencer, John. “Israel Has Created a New Standard for Urban Warfare. Why Will No One Admit It?” Newsweek, March 26, 2024.
[3] “Israel’s war against Hamas posts lower civilian-to-combatant death ratio than other urban battles.” Washington Times, April 22, 2024.
[4] “The genocide claim against Israel doesn’t add up.” The Times of Israel, June 3, 2024.
[5] “Civilian casualty ratio.” Wikipedia, accessed August 2025.
[6] “Comparative analysis and evolution of civilian versus combatant mortality ratios in Israel-Gaza conflicts, 2008–2023.” PubMed Central (PMC), 2024.