Does Israel have a responsibility to protect Jews living in the Diaspora? - opinion

As we take part in this period of community introspection, called the Ten Days of Repentance, one can logically ask: Is there anything the State of Israel has to confess and, therefore, ask forgiveness for, having transgressed vis-à-vis its responsibility to the worldwide Jewish community?

Some would certainly deny any such responsibility.

After all, we are a sovereign country, a democratic society with a freely elected government whose job it is to provide a secure place to live for those of us who have cast our lot with the half of world Jewry that has chosen to live here.

But is that all? Do we not also have a similar obligation to the other half of our people who choose to live in the Diaspora?

Some would answer no: the people who choose to live abroad should be able to rely on their respective local governments to keep them safe. Fair enough and very logical.

However, what if by our actions here we create a situation there that makes Jews abroad less safe? Should we suffer any sense of guilt for doing so?

For example, there is a debate continuing over whether National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is making American Jews less safe. Critics argue that his far-right ideology fuels antisemitism globally, while defenders contend that targeting him is a form of unfair political scapegoating.

Many mainstream and progressive American Jewish organizations argue that Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric and policies directly undermine the safety and standing of Jews in the United States.

Critics argue that his highly controversial actions – such as promoting the deportation of “disloyal” Arab citizens, making derogatory comments about non-Orthodox movements, and blocking humanitarian ceasefire deals – are weaponized by anti-Israel actors.

During confrontations on his US visits, protesters have explicitly told him, “As a Jew, you are creating antisemitism.”

As an example, his official state visits to the US have caused deep internal rifts in that community.

According to a report in the Associated Press, when he spoke before a Jewish society near Yale University, it triggered the immediate resignation of several board members who compared hosting him to “a white society hosting the Ku Klux Klan.”

One could argue that this infighting leaves local communities vulnerable and divided.

Prominent US-based groups like the Union for Reform Judaism and T’ruah have sounded alarms that Ben-Gvir’s agenda alienates liberal American Jews and the general public in America as well.

They claim that by eroding the bipartisan consensus for Israel, he helps to weaken the political alliances that help protect Jewish institutions in the West.

Conversely, of course, right-wing defenders and certain nationalist factions argue that blaming Ben-Gvir for a rise in antisemitism is a fallacy in logic, as it is a case of selective outrage and hypocrisy.

They assert that antisemitism exists independently of Israeli government policies and that blaming an Israeli politician for attacks on American Jews mimics the classic antisemitic trope of holding all Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state.

To be fair, the complaints are not limited to Ben-Gvir, although he seems to be a veritable lightning rod in this scenario.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s strong urging of US President Donald Trump to move militarily against Iran, along with his presence in the White House during the arguments to do so, made the Iran war, in the minds of our enemies, the US-Israel war, with every negative result being another arrow in antisemitism’s quiver.

To our enemies, it mattered not that acting against Iran was in the free world’s best interests, but rather that anything that went wrong, from American casualties to the increased price of fuel at the pump, was all because of “the Jews.”

In effect, then, intentionally or not, oftentimes the actions of the State of Israel, even if they are in the best interests of the country, can make our brethren abroad less safe.

So where does that leave us? Should we refrain from doing something that is prima facie in the best interests of Israel because we are concerned that doing so will make a Jew in Los Angeles less safe?

The obvious answer is no – if we need to act to protect Israel, then we should do so. Nevertheless, these two examples clearly are not the same.

Racist statements from Ben-Gvir are neither good for Israel nor neutral in their effect on Diaspora communities. As such, they would be better left unsaid.

However, decisions made by the elected government of Israel – while thought should be given to their potential negative effects – may sometimes have to be acknowledged by the Diaspora as the legitimate function of our government here.

The principle of “first do no harm” (primum non nocere) is a medical maxim from the Hippocratic tradition that applies equally to so many other areas of our lives.

This is something all who choose to pursue elected office should remember and apply in practice as well.