The press contact person for the group Jews for Racial Equality and Justice released a position statement on Feb. 9 that included the joint agreement of the American Council for Judaism, the Jewish Voice for Peace-New York City and IfNotNow NYC. Sophie Ellman-Golan, “a committed activist working on issues of racial and gender justice, queer liberation and police violence” and “is a proud member of the #JewishResistance,” informed the media that they are urging New York’s City Council to reject “anti-democratic buffer zone bills” that place restrictions on protests in the vicinity of houses of worship.”

Presenting themselves as “Jewish New Yorkers,” they further warn that the “proposed legislation threatens to erode free-speech protections.” They fear for the First Amendment. They specifically referred to Intros 0001 and 0175 proposed by Julie Menin, speaker of the City Council, and council member Eric Dinowitz.

Employing their chutzpah, they explain that it is a “strong, pluralistic democracy” that “creates the best conditions for the safety of all marginalized groups, including Jews.”

To their thinking, protests outside New York City synagogues were hosting “highly controversial and non-religious political events, at least one of which encouraged the illegal sale of Palestinian land, in violation of international law.” Therefore, in hosting “non-religious political events,” they become legitimate targets for demonstrations.

Three things irk me about their presentation.

The first is quite basic. The First Amendment states that: “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech.” The freedom these groups is not an unlimited and unrestricted one. As the U.S. courts have made clear, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite imminent lawless action (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 [1969]). In the past two years, multiple demonstrations have occurred at synagogues, and all of them have been threatening, verbally and physically.  Imminent injury or worse is a staple of these actions and, thereby, are lawless.

Secondly, the regulations deal with buffer zones. The protests are not banned. They are required to be held at a distance from the institution. I personally do not think that 25 yards should be the line of prohibition; it isn’t enough. At the very least, across the street and 50 yards away should be the “line in the sand.” Bullhorns make enough noise to be heard even from a distance of 100 yards. Signs and banners are visible at that distance. What is at stake is preventing the rushing of people attending such events and harm being caused by providing the police with the needed buffer space.

My third point is that attempting to portray the selling of property in Israel as not bound up with religious obligations of Jews to live in their national homeland is promoting a travesty of Judaism. The Torah and the other books of Tanach make it very clear that these anti-Zionist groups are making a false presentation. Rabbinical writings over the past two millennia also consider dwelling in the Land of Israel a commandment. The Jewishness of these groups rings hollow.

What they are doing is substituting their liberal progressivism for genuine Jewish values. Essentially, it is they who are making religious events fodder for their own politics. Moreover, the results of their shared activities with pro-Palestine Arabs groups and other radical cadres are simply to increase the danger to Jews and the need for those buffer laws.

What should be obvious is that they are consciously and purposefully seeking situations in which what is endangered is not anyone’s freedom of speech, but the right to life and liberty, and the right that property be protected. I am further unhappy with the buffer laws, if only because they can be seen as returning Jews to some sort of a “ghetto”—mentally, psychologically and physically.

The coalition of these antagonistic groups is downtrodden Jews. They prefer that some vague “freedom,” as they seek to define it, would take preference over the very expected danger that Jews will suffer. They don’t aim to protect an exalted liberty of “freedom of speech,” but, rather, to continue generating a hate-filled and false anti-Jewish narrative that must be done through “‘resistance,” which in leftist circles is a euphemism for violence of some sort.

Yet there is one more point in their opposition to the buffer laws that does not irk me. Eventually, as happened throughout Jewish history, those Jews in the forefront of anti-Jewish policies through their choice of political errors will fall victim to the hate and violence they motivate by lending their support to antisemitism. Ultimately, they, too, will feel the pain and forever be shamed.

The post Jews endangering Jews appeared first on JNS.org.