The Zionist Rabbinic Coalition, an independent network of more than 2,000 North American rabbis spanning all denominational movements, is deeply concerned about T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights.
T’ruah calls itself a Zionist organization. Yet its institutional choices increasingly legitimize individuals, organizations and ideas that reject Zionism and deny the legitimacy of Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state. These are not isolated lapses in judgment. They reflect a broader pattern that is becoming impossible to reconcile with T’ruah’s stated identity.
Political disagreement within the Jewish community is both legitimate and necessary. Criticizing an Israeli government, opposing particular policies and advocating for Palestinian rights do not make a person or organization anti-Zionist. But a rabbinic organization that claims a place within the Zionist community has a responsibility to distinguish such criticism from efforts to discredit Jewish national self-determination itself.
T’ruah says that it is “committed to the State of Israel’s, Medinat Yisrael’s, future as a Jewish and democratic state side by side with Palestine.” We welcome that declaration. But an institution’s commitments are ultimately defined by its choices, not its mission statement, and T’ruah’s choices tell a very different story.
In recent months, T’ruah and its leadership have repeatedly elevated anti-Zionist figures and rhetoric:
- T’ruah CEO Rabbi Jill Jacobs supported the effort to prevent Israeli President Isaac Herzog from addressing the Jewish Theological Seminary’s commencement, calling him “not an appropriate speaker” for the institution. Her position treated the presence of Israel’s largely ceremonial president at a flagship American Jewish seminary as beyond acceptable communal bounds.
- T’ruah gave Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the country’s most prominent elected opponent of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, a featured speaking role at its annual gala, then publicized his participation without acknowledging his longstanding hostility toward Jewish self-determination.
- T’ruah presented its Raphael Lemkin Human Rights Award to Gili Getz, who has publicly accused Israel of genocide and apartheid. Giving an award named for the jurist who coined the term “genocide” to someone who directs that accusation against the Jewish state represents a particularly disturbing degradation of moral and historical standards.
- T’ruah hired a national rabbinic organizer who describes self-describes as committed to “doikayt,” a favored term of Jewish anti-Zionists, and who as recently as June was the face of a Jewish Voice for Peace social media campaign.
As Rabbis David-Seth Kirshner, Erez Sherman and Neil Zuckerman observed: “There is something profoundly revealing about a moral framework that seeks to deny a platform to the president of the Jewish state while enthusiastically offering one to a politician openly hostile to its existence.”
This pattern did not begin this year. While Israel’s war against Hamas was still underway, T’ruah hired Noa Kattler Kupetz as its rabbinical student organizer. While working for IfNotNow, Kattler Kupetz helped organize a “stop the genocide” rally less than two weeks after the October 7 attacks. She has described her own position unequivocally: “Integral to my Jewishness is the activism I do with Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and my stance as anti-Zionist.”
T’ruah also operates a joint project with JFREJ, an organization that says it works most closely on Israel-Palestine with JVP and IfNotNow, describes itself as “proudly anti-nationalist” and grounds its work in Diasporism “as an alternative to Zionism.” This ongoing institutional partnership provides further reason to question how T’ruah defines its own Zionist commitments.
Taken together, these decisions reveal a consistent institutional pattern. T’ruah opposes platforms for representatives of the Jewish state while providing platforms, honors, employment and partnerships to people and organizations that oppose Zionism itself.
Engagement is not the same as endorsement. Jewish organizations should speak with political leaders and activists with whom they disagree. But featuring someone on an organization’s most celebratory stage, honoring that person, hiring activists to shape the next generation of rabbis or maintaining formal partnerships confers legitimacy. When those choices recur, a platform is no longer neutral. It becomes an expression of institutional values.
This is not a demand for ideological conformity. Zionism encompasses profound disagreement over governments, borders, war, occupation, religion and Palestinian rights. The question is whether Jewish national self-determination and Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state remains a boundary T’ruah is prepared to defend.
We call on T’ruah to answer that question plainly and to bring its actions into line with its professed commitments: reaffirm unequivocally the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination; stop elevating activists and political leaders who seek to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state; and restore a meaningful distinction between criticism of Israel and repudiation of Zionism.
Human-rights advocacy and Zionism are not opposing commitments. A Zionist rabbinic organization should be capable of defending both. Increasingly, T’ruah’s actions suggest that it is unwilling to do so.
T’ruah: Are you still a Zionist organization?
www.zionistrabbis.org
Recommended for you:
Letter presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by North American Unity Mission
Rabbinic Letter In Support of Israel during the Gaza War
ZRC Statement and Letter to Govt of Israel about Disruption at the Kotel on Tisha B’Av
ZRC Letter Calling Upon Rabbinical Schools to Include Ahavat Yisrael as a Criteria for Admission