When ‘Jewish Safety’ Means Leaving Jews Unprotected

On Monday, a coalition of left-wing Jewish organizations released a joint statement opposing New York City legislation that would create a 100-foot buffer zone around houses of worship. The bills had been introduced by the city council speaker, Julie Menin, after two pro-Palestinian demonstrations outside synagogues hosting events connected to Israeli migration and real estate. Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed a narrower statewide version. The left-wing coalition’s argument, that synagogues hosting “non-religious political events” are “making a choice” to be protested, is morally reckless and intellectually evasive. This says that synagogues forfeit protection when they engage in activity that activists label political.If a democracy cannot guarantee safe passage to a house of worship, the entire framework of religious liberty is in jeopardy — not just for Jews, but for every faith community in the city. The coalition’s position inverts that principle: it holds that the content of a synagogue’s programming, as judged by outside activists, determines whether congregants deserve protection at all.Who decides what is political, though? At a Queens synagogue, protesters chanted, “We support Hamas.” At Park East Synagogue, they shouted “Death to the IDF” and hurled antisemitic abuse at passersby. These were not policy disagreements. They were campaigns of intimidation directed at Jewish spaces.The coalition warns against giving “an authoritarian government still more tools” to criminalize protest. Prosecutorial overreach is a legitimate concern, but it is not an argument against narrowly tailored protections for houses of worship.Buffer zones have existed in American law for decades, most prominently around abortion clinics. The Supreme Court and lower courts have held that limited restrictions can be constitutional when designed to balance protest rights with public safety. The question is not whether protest may occur. It is whether intimidation may occur at point-blank range.The statement also claims it takes “no reassurance” from NYPD enforcement. This proves too much. If no agency can be trusted to protect houses of worship, the coalition is not arguing against buffer zones. It is arguing against any protective measure; leaving congregants with no recourse when crowds gather at the doors. These organizations are not neutral observers. They are participants in the very protest culture this legislation responds to. Opposing the buffer zone is not a principled stand for free speech. It is a factional maneuver to protect the protest tactics their movement depends on. Groups like Jews For Racial & Economic Justice, Jewish Voice for Peace, and IfNotNow all endorsed Mayor Mamdani’s candidacy, and Jews For Racial & Economic Justice says explicitly that it “does not support legislation designed to curtail protest.” That is not a conditional position. It is a blanket refusal to accept any spatial limit on demonstrations at synagogues. A buffer zone would not end anyone’s advocacy. Yet it would remove the tactic that generates the most fear: massing at the doors of a shul while families walk in for services or community gatherings.The statement’s most telling line may be its quietest: “Strong, pluralistic democracy creates the best conditions for the safety of all marginalized groups, including Jews.” That passive construction gestures toward Jewish safety without proposing to defend it. Meanwhile, the actual impact on Jewish life in New York is concrete and measurable. A UJA-Federation survey found that nearly half of Jewish adults in the New York area fear for their safety when attending Jewish events; of those, 44 percent said that fear keeps them from attending. Large synagogues now devote seven-figure annual budgets to protection. Smaller congregations that cannot absorb those costs face a grimmer calculus: some have quietly curtailed Israel-related programming altogether because they cannot afford the security or the anxiety. Buffer zones do not ban protest. They do not silence criticism of Israel. They create a small perimeter of safety around buildings where people pray, mourn, and gather — as Americans always have.Religious liberty does not mean worshipping only under conditions approved by activists. It means the state treats the synagogue door the way it treats any other threshold of civil life: as a place where citizens must be able to enter without fear.A democracy that cannot protect worship at the synagogue door will not long protect protest in the street. Buffer zones exist precisely to maintain that balance. The coalition had an opportunity to help shape a law that protects free expression while securing communal space. The coalition chose intimidation — and called it safety.

When ‘Jewish Safety’ Means Leaving Jews Unprotected

More from the New York Sun

American, Japanese Forces Play Hyped-up ‘Iron Fist’ War Games Against Constant Threat of Communist Chinese Invasion of Taiwan

Trump Border Tsar Says Minnesota ICE Surge Will Wind Down in Coming Days

FTC Chairman Raises Concerns That Apple News Is Censoring Conservative News Outlets and Promoting Left-Wing Articles

More from the New York Sun

American, Japanese Forces Play Hyped-up ‘Iron Fist’ War Games Against Constant Threat of Communist Chinese Invasion of Taiwan

Trump Border Tsar Says Minnesota ICE Surge Will Wind Down in Coming Days

FTC Chairman Raises Concerns That Apple News Is Censoring Conservative News Outlets and Promoting Left-Wing Articles

‘Death to Herzog’ Graffiti Appears at Melbourne University Amid Protests Over Israeli President’s Visit

Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty for Former NFL Linebacker in Girlfriend’s Killing

Can Trump Hope for a Useful Agreement With Iran?

House Votes To Kill Trump’s Canada Tariffs, With Six Republicans Breaking With the President

Democrats Demand Investigation Into Bondi’s Apparent Monitoring of Lawmakers Who Review Unredacted Epstein Files