By: Fern Sidman

A recent New York Times op-ed by Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Thomas Friedman, provocatively titled “This Israeli Government Is a Danger to Jews Everywhere,” has ignited a firestorm of criticism across Jewish and pro-Israel communities worldwide. As reported by VIN News, the article—published Wednesday—has drawn widespread backlash on social media and from prominent political, journalistic, and communal leaders, many of whom denounced the piece as “reckless,” “divisive,” and “dangerously misleading.”

Friedman’s central thesis—that Israel’s current government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has become a liability to global Jewry—was immediately met with intense pushback. Critics across the ideological spectrum have condemned the suggestion that the democratically elected leadership of the Jewish state could endanger Jews abroad, particularly at a time when antisemitism is surging globally, including in the United States, Europe, and South America.

Within hours of publication, the op-ed sparked an avalanche of responses on X (formerly Twitter) and other platforms. VIN News reported that commentators and public officials from across the Jewish world expressed shock at Friedman’s framing. Many argued that the timing of the piece—coming amid record levels of antisemitic violence and intimidation—was not only inappropriate but potentially dangerous.

“Calling Israel’s government a danger to Jews everywhere is total nonsense,” one communal leader told VIN News. “It emboldens Israel’s enemies and hands a moral talking point to those who are actively threatening Jewish safety from college campuses to capital cities.”

Others emphasized the double standard implicit in Friedman’s logic. “No other diaspora community is told that its safety is conditional upon the policies of a foreign government,” a Jewish academic wrote on social media. “Why should Jews be?”

As the VIN News report pointed out, Friedman is no stranger to controversy surrounding Israel. A veteran columnist who once had close ties to Israeli leadership, he has become an increasingly vocal critic of Netanyahu over the past decade, particularly concerning issues of judicial reform, settlements in Judea and Samaria and treatment of Palestinians. However, this week’s op-ed marked a dramatic rhetorical escalation, framing the Israeli government as a global liability.

In the piece, Friedman argues that Israel’s domestic policies—particularly those shaped by its right-wing and religious coalition partners—are alienating Jews worldwide and exacerbating antisemitic narratives. He points to increasing tensions between Israel and progressive Jewish communities in the diaspora and accuses the Netanyahu government of undermining the shared values that once united Jews across national lines.

Yet even among some liberal Jewish voices, the op-ed has raised concerns about its sweeping generalizations. One prominent Jewish educator told VIN News that while constructive criticism of Israeli policy is essential in a democratic society, framing the entire government as a threat to world Jewry “crosses a dangerous line.”

“This is not journalism—it’s polemic,” she said. “At a time when Jewish students are being physically assaulted on U.S. campuses, and synagogues are being targeted across Europe, to suggest that Israel’s government is the real problem is both irresponsible and inflammatory.”

Several politicians echoed these sentiments. A member of the Knesset’s opposition bloc, while also critical of the Netanyahu government, told VIN News that Friedman’s article plays into the hands of those who conflate anti-Zionism with legitimate criticism, further eroding solidarity during a time of existential threats.

“Disagreements over Israeli policies must never devolve into suggesting that Israel’s mere existence, or its elected leadership, is a threat to Jewish life elsewhere,” the Knesset member said.

Some analysts see Friedman’s op-ed as emblematic of a broader ideological rift between segments of American Jewry—especially liberal elites—and the current political direction of the Israeli state. As the VIN News report noted, the article may appeal to parts of the progressive Jewish community that have grown increasingly uncomfortable with Israel’s religious and nationalist policies. However, the tone and tenor of the piece have left many worried about the unintended consequences of such rhetoric.

“What Thomas Friedman has done is amplify a very real concern—that there’s a disconnect between Israel and many diaspora Jews—but in a way that plays into antisemitic tropes, whether intentionally or not,” a columnist told VIN News. “When the Jewish state is portrayed as the reason Jews are unsafe, it gives cover to those who wish to justify anti-Jewish hostility.”

As of Wednesday afternoon, Friedman has not issued a public response to the backlash. Neither the New York Times editorial board nor Friedman’s representatives have commented on the criticisms, despite mounting calls for clarification or retraction.

In the meantime, VIN News reported that Jewish organizations across North America and Israel are urging restraint and unity in the face of rising hate crimes, escalating political polarization, and what many see as an erosion of civil discourse around the Jewish state.

The debate sparked by Friedman’s op-ed reveals deep tensions—not only between Israel and the diaspora but within Jewish communities themselves over how to engage with criticism of the Jewish state. Yet, as many told VIN News, now is a time for clarity, solidarity, and nuance—not sweeping indictments that may further fracture an already vulnerable global community.

“The real danger,” one community advocate warned, “is in turning on each other when the threats outside our community have never been greater.”