JNS
Today’s target may be Betar. Tomorrow’s could be a campus Hillel, pro-Israel nonprofit or Jewish defense group that refuses to be polite.
New York State’s decision to dismantle Betar USA’s New York operations has been greeted with cheers by some and alarm by others. Both reactions are understandable. Neither, on its own, is sufficient.
Let’s start with what this case is not. It is not a ruling against Zionism. It is not a ban on Jewish advocacy. And it’s not a prosecution of unpopular political views.
According to the attorney general’s own findings, Betar engaged in repeated, coordinated conduct that crossed clear legal lines: targeted harassment of individuals, threats, stalking, physical intimidation, encouragement of weapons at protests and the public celebration of violence.
No organization, Jewish or otherwise, has a right to behave that way and expect immunity. Acknowledging that reality is not capitulation. Rather, it is seriousness.
But that is not the end of the story, and pretending it is would be irresponsible.
The troubling aspect of this case is not that New York acted against intimidation and violence. It is the broader enforcement atmosphere in which ideology, activism, and nonprofit regulation are beginning to blur into one another, often selectively and often politically.
In her announcement, Attorney General Letitia James leaned heavily on ideological labels supplied by advocacy groups and amplified on social media. Terms like “extremist” now function not merely as descriptors, but as implicit justifications for regulatory action. That should concern anyone who understands how easily such labels migrate.
Context matters. For more than two years now, New York’s Jewish community has endured a surge of antisemitic harassment, vandalism and physical assault. In many cases, enforcement has been slow, hesitant or nonexistent. Synagogues were firebombed. Jewish students were threatened. Protesters openly celebrated Oct. 7. Yet accountability was uneven at best.
Against that backdrop, the speed and decisiveness with which the state moved here invites scrutiny—not because Betar deserved protection, but because equal protection under the law demands consistency.
This is where some defenders of Betar go too far and where many of its critics stop too short.
Betar’s behavior was not “rough speech” or mere provocation. Neither was it simply aggressive Zionism. The documented conduct involved intimidation of private individuals, physical confrontation and the encouragement of vigilantism. That matters. Those facts defeat any serious claim that this was a free-speech case.
At the same time, critics who portray this as a model for “cleaning up” Jewish activism are playing a dangerous game. If enforcement standards are untethered from conduct and instead hinge on ideological framing—who is labeled “Islamophobic,” “racist” or “extreme”—then no advocacy community is safe. Today’s target may be Betar. Tomorrow’s could be a campus Hillel, a pro-Israel nonprofit or a Jewish defense group that refuses to be polite.
The line must be unmistakable.
Advocate fiercely. Protest loudly. Defend Israel unapologetically.
But do not harass individuals, threaten violence, or act as a private enforcement arm. When those lines are crossed, the state has both the authority and the obligation to intervene.
What it must not do is normalize the idea that ideological labels substitute for evidence or that advocacy groups get to define which political movements deserve regulatory scrutiny. History offers Jews ample reason to be skeptical when the state begins deciding which forms of Jewish activism are acceptable.
The correct response to this case is neither reflexive defense nor opportunistic celebration. It is insistence—insistence on conduct-based enforcement, viewpoint neutrality and equal application of the law.
Condemn Betar’s tactics without condemning Zionist activism. Enforce harassment laws without outsourcing judgment to political advocacy groups. And apply the same urgency here to every case of antisemitic intimidation, regardless of who commits it or whom they claim to represent.
If New York can hold that line, it will have acted justly. If it cannot, then today’s justified action risks becoming tomorrow’s precedent—and that should concern Jews across the political spectrum.
