Synagogues Applauding War Are A Shanda

A farewell to my childhood synagogue after their email about Iran.

A protest in Tel Aviv on Tuesday, June 24th. Credit: Itai Ron, Haaretz

On the evening of June 12th, after what Israel calls its “preemptive strike on Iran,” the synagogue where I was bat mitzvahed sent out a statement, referring to the strikes as “necessary.”

“[The] Congregation affirms our unwavering support for the State of Israel and her right — and responsibility — to defend her citizens and visitors from existential threats,” it read.

The statement continued:

We are guided by the words of King David in Tehillim (Psalms 34:15):

"Sur me-ra va’aseh tov, bakesh shalom v’radfehu" —
“Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.”

Seeking peace is not passive. It requires vision, clarity, and the courage to act — especially in the face of danger. As Iran continues to incite violence across the region and threatens Israel directly, we recognize the painful but necessary choices Israel must make to protect life.

I was immediately filled with deep sadness and rage. To me, the statement was shameful, and in what is the biggest insult one can hurl at a Jewish institution, anti-intellectual. To frame bombings as a choice to “protect life” is profoundly ignorant of both history and the modus operandi of this Israeli government, a government my family in Israel has been in the streets protesting for years. Netanyahu and his coalition of extremists prioritize its own self-preservation above the preservation of life, both Jewish and non-Jewish, and for a synagogue to accept this government’s words at face value is a betrayal of the everyday Israelis it claims to support—not to mention the innocent people in Iran who have already been hurt. To view this attack as “necessary” was callous, as it immediately put the entire Israeli population at risk of Iranian retaliation, putting them in more danger had Israel’s strike never happened at all. A government that seeks to “protect life” would have not dealt in certain death. A government that seeks to “protect life” would have listened to the families of the hostages and accepted a hostage deal years ago.

I expected that the learned individuals who make up the congregation’s Spiritual Leadership Team, the group that sent out the statement, would know why the Cold War remained cold—Mutually Assured Destruction. The Americans and Soviets knew that direct strikes meant certain death, and they went through great lengths to keep the violence to proxy wars in Asia and Afghanistan.

A week and a half—and some United States escalation and deescalation later— 28 people were killed and 3,000 were wounded in Israel, and 639 people, including 263 civilians, were killed in Iran, and 1,329 people were wounded. That is not “protecting life”—that is the opposite.

When the synagogue sent out the statement on the night of the 12th, residential buildings in Iran were already in flames, in addition to the main nuclear enrichment facility. Israelis had been woken up at three AM with the news, and my uncle sped from Jerusalem to Jaffa to pick up my cousin because her building doesn’t have a shelter. That is not what safety looks like. Bodies crushed under rubble in Ramat Gan and Tehran is not what “seeking peace” looks like.

Since 1992, Netanyahu has said that Iran was “weeks away” from a nuclear bomb. To break the seal on actual, empirical death because of hypothetical, future death is not “protecting life.” It is protecting power, specifically, his.

Now, after what Donald Trump brands “The Twelve-Day War,” US Intelligence reports US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities did not obliterate the program and only set them back a few months. Experts warn that the America and Israel’s strikes only further incentivize Iran to go nuclear. “The risks of Iran acquiring a small nuclear arsenal are now higher than they were before the events of last week,” arms control expert Robert J. Einhorn, who negotiated with Iran during the Obama administration, told The New York Times. The Trump and Netanyahu administrations, on the other hand, are claiming victory, with Trump declaring the program “obliterated.” The surest way to guarantee that would be a diplomatic agreement, such as the one negotiated by the Obama Administration in 2015 and torn up by Trump in 2018. Trump’s actions helped Iranian nuclear proliferation—does he get accountability or just applause?

In any context, it is inappropriate for a religious institution to pledge “unwavering support” for a political institution like the Israeli government. It is also irresponsible, because in doing so, it makes the synagogue a target for protests against Israel. It wouldn’t be an antisemitic conflation of Jews and Israel when the synagogue declares its definitive position itself. By pledging its “unwavering support” for a military campaign, the synagogue put a target on its back and the backs of its congregants. We’ve already seen how Israel’s actions endangers Jews abroad, and people who care about Jewish safety should dedicate themselves to de-escalation, not the opening of a new front.

Unwavering support for a government that has turned down hostage deals and killed over 50,000 Palestinians, 15,000 of them children, is shameful.

If war brought safety, it would have worked by now, but instead, we’re seeing death at home and abroad. A synagogue’s purpose is to help us mourn, not to endorse the circumstances that lead to mourning.