If the reaction to Israel Security Agency chief David Zini’s cancellation of “Pride Month” events in his organization is any indication, progressives in the Jewish state still haven’t grasped the lessons of Oct. 7.

The outcry was immediate and furious.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid called Zini’s conduct toward gay employees “a disgrace,” insisting that “there will be no place for such dark views in Israel’s public sphere.”

Democrats Party chairman Yair Golan declared that “LGBTQ people are not a threat to Israel’s security,” adding that “discrimination, extremism and messianism are the threat.”

The Aguda, Israel’s leading LGBTQ advocacy organization, said it was “shocked” by the move and demanded that Zini reverse course immediately. The organization stressed that Zini should focus on the “unprecedented security threats” that Israel is currently facing, instead of “silencing and excluding his LGBTQ employees.”

There’s a hoot. It’s precisely because of those threats that the Shin Bet—the Israel Security Agency—should not be distracted. Certainly not by arguments over rainbow flags.

Naturally, however, the criticism of Zini—whose very appointment as head of the ISA was treated by the left as an affront—has been framed as a battle between enlightenment and bigotry, inclusion and exclusion, tolerance and homophobia.

Talk about nonsense cloaked in empty slogans.

The real issue has nothing to do with whether homosexual employees are valued members of the Shin Bet. Of course they are. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

Gay men and women serve throughout Israeli society, including in the military, intelligence community, judiciary, academia, media and politics. Israel hosts some of the largest Pride events in the world. Tel Aviv’s annual parade draws enormous crowds, as does the Pride march in the holy city of Jerusalem.

Israel even has a Knesset speaker, Amir Ohana, who is not only openly gay but whose partner and children regularly attend official events. And prior to his entry into politics, Ohana served for a decade in Israel’s defense establishment, six years of which were in the Shin Bet.

In other words, the notion that the agency needs to mark “Pride Month”—and that ceasing the practice constitutes discrimination—is utterly absurd.

The question is not whether LGBTQ Israelis deserve equal treatment. It’s whether the Shin Bet exists to advance social causes. The answer should be obvious.

The Shin Bet’s mandate is to thwart terrorism, uncover espionage networks, protect state institutions and prevent attacks against Israeli citizens. The agency isn’t a university campus. It’s not a human-resources laboratory. Nor is it an advocacy organization.

In the wake of Oct. 7, one would think that this point was clear, rather than a bone of contention. A silly one, to boot.

After all, the Hamas massacre exposed catastrophic failures throughout Israel’s security establishment. Thousands of terrorists crossed the border. Communities were overrun. Soldiers and civilians were slaughtered, tortured, raped and kidnapped.

In the aftermath, we Israelis have been demanding soul-searching and accountability. We’ve been fighting over which figures at the top deserve the lion’s share of the blame.

The last thing that is, or should be, on our minds is identity/gender politics. Being busy figuring out how to stay alive has taken precedence.

That’s why Zini deserves accolades. It’s not merely that he nixed a planned Pride event, but that he redirected the LGBTQ forum’s earmarked funds back into the agency’s general budget.

Supporters of the move rightly believe that such resources should be devoted solely to security missions. Indeed, every shekel allocated by the Shin Bet should be scrutinized through one lens alone: Does it improve the agency’s ability to protect Israelis?

If the answer is no, then taxpayers have every right to be miffed.

This principle applies equally to causes across the political spectrum. A security service should not sponsor Pride events, religious-outreach programs, environmental campaigns, climate-awareness initiatives or any other ideological or social agenda.

The moment a security agency begins embracing fashionable causes, it risks undermining the public trust that is essential to its mandate. The Shin Bet serves all Israelis: secular and religious, left and right, Jewish and Arab, gay and straight.

To do so effectively, it must remain institutionally neutral.

ISA employees are free to hold whatever views they wish. They’re at liberty to participate in any lawful activities they choose on their own time. But the organization itself should not be in the business of bending to trends.

Ironically, those accusing Zini of politicizing the Shin Bet are demanding that the agency continue engaging in precisely the sort of institutional activism that blurs the line between professional responsibilities and social advocacy. And the louder their outrage resounds, the more revealing it becomes.

Why should a decision to eliminate Pride-themed screensavers, flags, stickers and internal programming inside a counter-terrorism agency be treated by woke Israelis as some kind of a scandal? Why is such activity viewed as an essential function of the organization in the first place?

Let’s not forget that Iran remains committed to Israel’s destruction. Hamas is battered but not eradicated; ditto for Hezbollah. The Houthis are still lurking. Antisemitism is surging worldwide. And then there are the Palestinians illegally residing in or repeatedly entering Israel for nefarious purposes who have to be monitored at all times.

Against this backdrop, a national debate over whether the Shin Bet should host “Pride Month” activities seems detached from reality. Thankfully, despite attempts to portray Zini as a villain, most of the country realizes that his directive doesn’t reflect his views on homosexuality. It’s all about priorities.