By Rabbi Yair Hoffman, Originally Published in VINnews
The reality is that Jews almost everywhere are being confronted with “Free Palestine!” declarations—wherever they are. At college campuses, in workplaces, at protests, and even in casual social settings. Another common refrain is “From the River to the Sea—Palestine will soon be free.” And, it does not look like it is ending soon.
Some will respond with encouraging Aliyah. But not all will do so. Visibly Jewish individuals—those wearing a yarmulke, a sheitel, or Shabbos clothing—are being targeted simply for who they are.
Enjoy what you're reading? Subscribe for more!
Just this past Thursday, Rabbi Yaakov Menken, executive vice president of the Coalition for Jewish Values, was confronted by a pro-Palestinian activist in a Capitol hallway. The activist, affiliated with CodePink, approached him and began chanting accusations. Rabbi Menken later noted that he was singled out based on his appearance rather than any political stance.
“I’m not a political Zionist at all. I am a Jew, and that is why I was targeted, nothing more,” Rabbi Menken posted on X. He added that groups like CodePink use anti-Zionism as “a new pretense for Jew-haters.”
This incident captures something essential: the hatred being directed at us has little to do with policy debates. It is about who we are. What, then, should be the typical response? And when should we respond – if at all?
When Not to Engage
Sometimes the wisest response is no response at all.
Walking away is appropriate when the setting is physically unsafe or potentially volatile. It is also the right choice when the person is clearly not interested in dialogue but in provocation, or when you are emotionally overwhelmed and unlikely to respond calmly. If the encounter is with a large group where mob mentality may prevail, disengagement may be the most prudent course of action. And if engaging would create a chillul Hashem rather than prevent one, silence is the better path.
There is no mitzvah to argue with someone who has no interest in emes. Shlomo HaMelech tells us, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly” (Mishlei 26:4). Sometimes silence preserves kavod—both yours and that of yidden.
We must also remember that our ultimate protection comes not from clever arguments but from the Ribono Shel Olam. Tefillah and bitachon remain our primary responses to the hatred of Eisav and Yishmael.
When Engagement Is Worthwhile
There are times, however, when engagement makes sense. If the situation demands a response or if the person seems genuinely curious or uninformed rather than hostile (which admittedly is rare) – a thoughtful response may be valuable. When there are bystanders who might benefit from hearing another perspective, speaking up serves a purpose beyond the immediate conversation.
The next pasuk in Mishlei states, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (26:5). The apparent contradiction teaches us that wisdom lies in reading the situation correctly.
The Power of Reframing
When engagement is appropriate, one effective approach is to possibly redirect its meaning. One might be – “Yes—free Palestinians from Hamas,” or “Agreed—free Palestinians from terrorist rule,” or “Absolutely—free Palestinians from leaders who use them as human shields.”
These responses show a concern for those Palestinians suffering from their own leaders and point to the actual source of Palestinian suffering—the terrorist leadership that has brought destruction upon its own people.
Challenging the Narrative
Other responses address common misconceptions directly. One might say, “If you truly cared about Palestinians, you’d oppose Hamas.” Another effective response is, “Israel left Gaza in 2005. Hamas chose war.”
This last point is historically significant and often unknown to those repeating slogans. Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza—removing every soldier and every settler—was met not with peace-building but with rocket fire, kidnappings, murders, and tunnel construction.
Some responses reframe the conversation entirely by asserting the deep historical and Torah-based connection of Klal Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. Simple statements like “Long live the Bible” or “Bring back historic Israel” carry profound meaning.
These responses remind listeners—and perhaps more importantly, remind ourselves—that Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael is not a modern political invention. It is the heritage promised to Avraham Avinu and documented in the Torah – the very book that forms the foundation of Western civilization.
Avraham Avinu walked the land. Dovid HaMelech ruled from Yerushalayim. The Beis HaMikdash stood on Har HaBayis. Our connection to this land predates every other claim by millennia—not because of political movements, but because of a Divine promise.
Addressing the Genocide Claim
Perhaps no accusation is more inflammatory—or more historically painful for Yidden—than the charge of genocide. Here, facts matter. One might respond simply, “Genocide claims collapse when the population quadruples.” Gaza’s population has grown from approximately 500,000 in 1967 to over two million today. Whatever one calls the current conflict, this demographic reality is incompatible with the definition of genocide.
Final Thoughts
The confrontation experienced by Rabbi Menken—and by countless other Yidden in recent months—reminds us that this hatred is not really about borders or politics. As Rabbi Menken observed, anti-Zionism has become a new pretense for an ancient hatred.
Our responses—whether through engagement or dignified silence—should reflect the dignity of a Torah Jew. Sometimes the right response is a well-placed fact. Sometimes it is walking away with emunah that Hashem is in control.
Photo: William Spotts, used with permission.