August 20, 2025|כ"ו אב ה' אלפים תשפ"ה Why I Chose Not to Sign the Rabbinic Letter Criticizing the Netanyahu Government By Rabbi Jonathan Muskat

Recently, a letter circulated on social media signed by eighty Orthodox rabbis, criticizing aspects of the Netanyahu government’s conduct of the war on moral and ethical grounds. The letter was initiated by Rabbi Yosef Blau, and most of its signatories come from the Open Orthodox community. I was invited to sign this letter, but I chose not to – even though I, too, have questions and concerns about some of Israel’s policies during the war.

This raises a larger issue: when, if ever, should rabbis involve themselves in political critique? The letter was framed as halachic and ethical, yet it was also deeply political. This tension is not new; it echoes the same debate many of us faced during the last U.S. presidential election – should rabbis weigh in on political questions, or should they refrain?

At the time, I wrote that the answer depends on how rabbis understand their role. Using the kohen–navi distinction: the kohen emphasizes unity and harmony, often avoiding divisive stances, while the navi feels compelled to speak out on urgent moral issues, even at the risk of creating division. In today’s polarized climate, both roles have their place. At times, rabbis must raise their voices against antisemitism or in support of Israel, though even those statements can be misinterpreted as partisan. At other times, restraint may be the wiser path, since endorsing specific policies or candidates can compromise a rabbi’s ability to serve as a unifying leader.

Applying that framework to this letter, the critique of the Netanyahu government focused on two main areas:

1. Starvation in Gaza
2. The conduct of extremist coalition partners, including:
   a. Irresponsible statements about Gazans,
   b. Excessive settler violence, and
   c. Extremist rhetoric about a post-war vision without offering a concrete alternative.

On the first point: For months, Israel was accused of deliberately starving Gazans – accusations that were outright false, feeding into biased international narratives. It does appear that Israel initially miscalculated the severity of the hunger crisis, dismissing complaints as more of the same “boy who cried wolf.” But once the problem became clear, the government increased humanitarian aid significantly. At this point, continued accusations of intentional starvation seem unnecessary, and in fact, risk reinforcing unfair international criticism of Israel.

On the second point: managing coalition partners is an unavoidable reality of Israeli politics. Previous governments, like Bennett’s, faced similar challenges when partnering with an Arab party. Prime Minister Netanyahu today must balance the competing demands of a fractured society, half of which supports him passionately while the other half deeply opposes him. His refusal to articulate a more detailed post-war plan is not necessarily a moral failure – it may be a political calculation to hold together a fragile coalition and maintain focus on the war’s immediate objectives: freeing hostages, defeating Hamas, and laying the groundwork for non-Hamas, non-PA governance in Gaza. While some of his partners’ statements may be deeply troubling, coalition politics in Israel have always been messy, and that reality complicates easy moral judgments.

To be clear: I am not saying I support every decision made by the Netanyahu government. Mistakes have certainly been made, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza was mishandled before it improved. If presented with a statement that acknowledged these missteps, praised the government for responding by increasing humanitarian aid, condemned unlawful violence, and expressed disapproval of extremist rhetoric – while also recognizing the complexity of Israeli coalition politics – I could sign that, provided I were confident that such a statement could not reasonably be weaponized to unfairly vilify Israel. The problem with the letter as written is that, in both its tone and its timing, it not only amounted to a partisan condemnation rather than a nuanced moral critique, but also created the real risk of being seized upon by Israel’s enemies to further their unfair accusations against the Jewish state.

As a rabbi, and especially as one living in America, I felt that signing such a letter would cross the line from moral leadership into partisan politics. That is not a line I am comfortable crossing.