By: Tzirel Rosenblatt

In recent weeks, a number of rabbis across the globe have stepped into the political fray, issuing public letters condemning Israel’s conduct in Gaza. They have couched their language in the language of “moral clarity” and “religious responsibility,” asserting that Jewish tradition obligates them to speak out against what they portray as a humanitarian disaster caused by Israel’s policies. Their message has been amplified by segments of the American Jewish community, particularly from liberal and progressive denominations, and it has been treated by sympathetic media outlets as evidence of a profound moral shift within Jewish religious leadership.

But a closer examination, as The New York Times reported on Tuesday, reveals a far more complex reality—one in which the signatories’ criticisms elide the central truth about the Gaza conflict: that Hamas, and Hamas alone, bears primary responsibility for the suffering of civilians. To place the weight of moral culpability on Israel is not simply misplaced; it is profoundly dangerous, both for the Jewish people and for the moral integrity of religious leadership.

The letters themselves are not insignificant. More than 80 Orthodox rabbis, joined by associations of Reform and Conservative clergy, signed onto statements criticizing Israel’s wartime conduct. They invoked the Jewish obligation to feed the hungry, to preserve life, and to extend compassion to all human beings, even in the midst of war. The rhetoric was carefully chosen: not outright denunciations of Israel’s legitimacy, but a steady drumbeat of disapproval suggesting that Israel is complicit in Gaza’s deteriorating humanitarian situation.

One letter declared: “Hamas’s sins and crimes do not relieve the government of Israel of its obligations to make whatever efforts are necessary to prevent mass starvation.” Another insisted that “Judaism’s vision of justice and compassion extends to all human beings,” framing Israel’s military response as somehow failing that test.

According to the information provided in The New York Times report, among the signatories were prominent Orthodox figures, including the chief rabbis of Poland and Norway and the former chief rabbi of Ireland. Perhaps most notably, Rabbi Yosef Blau, formerly of Yeshiva University, emerged as a primary organizer, alongside activist David Nyer.

Yet, while their intentions may have been clothed in moral language, the effect of these interventions has been to distort the truth of the conflict and to provide moral cover for Hamas, whose brutal tactics created the very nightmare now unfolding in Gaza.

It is essential to recall how this war began. On October 7, 2023, Hamas unleashed one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in Israel’s history, murdering over 1,200 people in cold blood, abducting more than 250 hostages—including women, children, and the elderly—and reveling in acts of sadistic violence. It was not simply an act of war; it was a deliberate attempt to destroy the Jewish state through barbarism and fear.

Since then, Hamas has pursued a strategy that relies on the suffering of its own civilians as a weapon of war. They have embedded military infrastructure in hospitals, schools, and mosques. They have used civilian homes as rocket-launch sites. They have hoarded humanitarian aid, diverting food, medicine, and fuel to their fighters while allowing ordinary Gazans to starve.

As The New York Times has noted in multiple reports, Hamas’s deliberate use of human shields complicates every aspect of Israel’s military campaign. To suggest that Israel alone bears responsibility for Gaza’s misery is to ignore this reality. The dystopian conditions now reported in Gaza—famine, displacement, shattered infrastructure—are the inevitable consequence of Hamas’s cynical calculus: that civilian suffering can be weaponized to turn world opinion against Israel.

And yet, the rabbis’ letters rarely mention Hamas in any serious way. By focusing almost exclusively on Israel, they risk perpetuating Hamas’s narrative and erasing the very culpability that defines this conflict.

The rabbis call for “moral clarity,” but the clarity they propose is clouded by selective vision. In their worldview, Israel’s obligation to minimize harm to civilians becomes the overriding moral consideration, eclipsing the state’s fundamental obligation to protect its own citizens from annihilation.

This is not moral clarity. It is moral confusion.

Jewish law and tradition indeed command compassion, but they also demand justice and self-defense. The Torah teaches that when one rises up to kill you, you must rise first to kill him. To demand that Israel restrain itself to the point of self-destruction, or to insist that its efforts to eliminate Hamas are inherently immoral, is to deny Israel the right that every nation possesses: the right to survive.

As The New York Times report observed, even within Israel itself, debates about the war are fraught and painful. Politicians, academics, and retired military leaders argue over the balance between humanitarian considerations and security imperatives. But few serious voices suggest that Israel can or should simply stop fighting Hamas. That would mean not just abandoning hostages but inviting future massacres.

The rabbis’ call for “moral clarity” collapses under the weight of this reality. True clarity would mean acknowledging that the horror in Gaza stems from Hamas’s decision to wage war from among civilians, not from Israel’s decision to defend itself.

Thankfully, not all Jewish leaders have succumbed to this misguided narrative. Many rabbis and community leaders, particularly from the Orthodox Union and other mainstream organizations, have resisted the temptation to join the chorus of condemnation. They understand that the complexity of war cannot be reduced to facile slogans or moralistic posturing.

These leaders deserve praise. They have stood firm in defending Israel’s right to wage war against Hamas while still acknowledging the tragedy of civilian suffering. They have recognized that compassion does not mean naiveté, and that genuine moral leadership requires naming Hamas as the architect of Gaza’s destruction.

As The New York Times has reported, older and more religiously observant Jews remain among Israel’s staunchest defenders, precisely because they grasp what is at stake. For them, the war is not an abstraction; it is a matter of survival. They remember too vividly the lessons of history: what happens when Jews are left defenseless, when the world shrinks from confronting evil, when misplaced compassion blinds societies to existential threats.

These leaders also understand that the global surge in antisemitism since October 7 is inseparable from the demonization of Israel. To echo Hamas’s talking points in the name of Jewish values is not only incoherent—it emboldens those who seek to delegitimize Israel altogether.

One of the most troubling aspects of the rabbis’ letters is that they lend religious legitimacy to criticisms that otherwise would come only from Israel’s adversaries. When prominent Jewish leaders declare that Israel is culpable for famine in Gaza, their words are quickly weaponized by activists and politicians who already view Israel as a pariah state.

As The New York Times report noted, even mainstream institutions such as the American Jewish Committee have expressed sorrow for civilian suffering. But sorrow is not the same as condemnation. The rabbis who sign letters of denunciation go further, suggesting moral equivalence between Hamas’s atrocities and Israel’s response. This not only undermines Israel diplomatically; it corrodes the moral standing of the Jewish people in defending their homeland.

The irony is that these rabbis, in their quest for moral clarity, may unwittingly contribute to greater moral darkness. By softening the focus on Hamas’s crimes, they obscure the reality that every civilian death in Gaza is the result of Hamas’s decision to wage war in this manner.

The New York Times has reported extensively on the deteriorating conditions in Gaza: hunger, displacement, the collapse of medical care. These are undeniable tragedies. But they cannot be understood outside the context of Hamas’s war strategy.

Israel’s war is not optional; it is a war for survival. To halt now, to ease pressure on Hamas in the name of humanitarian relief, would mean leaving a genocidal enemy intact, free to rearm, regroup, and strike again. For Israel, this is not an abstract moral dilemma. It is an existential imperative.

The rabbis who criticize Israel fail to grapple with this reality. They speak as though Israel’s choices exist in a vacuum, as though the country could magically deliver aid to civilians without Hamas intercepting it, or dismantle Hamas’s network of tunnels without harming surrounding neighborhoods. This is not how war works, and certainly not how war works against a group as ruthless as Hamas.

The New York Times has highlighted the divisions within the Jewish community over the war. Younger, more secular Jews recoil from images of destruction in Gaza and direct their anger at Israel. Older, more observant Jews insist that Israel’s survival must come first. Rabbis, caught between these constituencies, often struggle to articulate a coherent message.

But clarity emerges from one fundamental truth: Hamas chose this war, and Hamas continues it. Every rocket fired at Israel, every tunnel dug under Gaza, every hostage still held captive is proof of Hamas’s determination to sacrifice its own people for its cause.

Those who oppose the rabbis’ condemnations grasp this truth. They understand that to weaken Israel in the name of compassion is to abandon not only Israel but also the Jewish people worldwide, who face rising antisemitism fueled by the demonization of Israel.

The rabbis who signed these letters may believe they are offering moral clarity, but in truth they are muddying the waters. Their failure to hold Hamas fully accountable, their eagerness to ascribe moral blame to Israel, and their willingness to echo the narratives of Israel’s enemies all represent a profound abdication of responsibility.

Real moral clarity would affirm Israel’s right to defend itself against annihilation. It would acknowledge that Hamas, not Israel, is the source of Gaza’s suffering. It would praise the courage of those who stand against the tide of facile condemnation, defending Israel even as they grieve the inevitable tragedies of war.

As The New York Times has shown, the debate within the Jewish world is fierce and painful. But in the end, history will not judge Israel for defending itself. It will judge those who, in the face of barbarism, chose to equivocate.

The rabbis who have resisted the temptation to join the chorus of condemnation deserve our gratitude. They have not confused compassion with weakness, nor have they surrendered to the distortions of Hamas’s propaganda war. In their steadfastness, they embody the true moral clarity that this moment demands.