Findings

The Politicization of American Jewish Sermons Before and After October 7

The Role of Political Discourse in American Jewish Sermons

The following two graphs provide a look into the role of political discourse in American Jewish sermons and how it evolved before and after October 7.

The first graph shows that before October 7, during the judicial reform controversy in Israel, political themes were already a significant component of sermons across denominations. Political discourse was frequently present, with at least 48% of sermons in Modern Orthodox synagogues and up to 55% in Reform congregations incorporating political content. However, the outbreak of war following the October 7 Hamas attacks led to a dramatic shift in sermon content. The prevalence of political discourse surged across denominations, with political content in Reform congregations rising to 75%. At the same time, Conservative and Modern Orthodox sermons saw an even greater increase, reaching 82% and 84% respectively.

This remarkable shift highlights the deeply political nature of American Jewish sermons, demonstrating the extent to which religious leaders engage with contemporary political events. The data underscores that synagogues, far from being solely spaces of spiritual reflection, serve as platforms for political discourse, shaping congregational perspectives on key issues. The sharp increase in political engagement after October 7 suggests that Jewish clergy play a crucial role in interpreting and responding to crises, reinforcing the intersection of religious leadership and political activism. This finding has important implications, as it points to the synagogue as not only a religious but also a civic arena where political narratives are constructed and disseminated, influencing communal attitudes toward both American and Israeli political realities.

The Centrality of Israel in American Jewish Sermons

The second graph sharpens the focus further, revealing how discussions of Israel’s political situation changed in response to the war.

Before October 7, only 36% to 39% of all sermons explicitly addressed political content connected to Israel. But after the attacks, these figures more than doubled, reaching 69% in Reform, 78% in Conservative, and 80% in Modern Orthodox congregations. This dramatic increase indicates that Israel became a dominant political topic in American Jewish sermons following the war’s onset.

The contrast with the earlier judicial reform debates in Israel is particularly striking. While that issue did lead to some level of political engagement in sermons, it did not trigger nearly the same degree of response as the war. The data suggests that existential threats to Israel fundamentally shape the way American Jewish clergy engage with political issues from the pulpit, making security crises a catalyst for intensified religious-political discourse.

Ultimately, these findings paint a vivid picture of how deeply intertwined politics and religion are in American Jewish communities. Even before October 7, political discourse about Israel was a defining feature of sermons, but the war amplified this trend to an unprecedented level. The pulpit is not just a space for spiritual guidance – it is also a platform for processing and responding to contemporary geopolitical realities, particularly when Israel is at the center of global attention.

Volume of Political Content & Sermon Structure

To truly grasp the extent of politicization in American Jewish sermons, it is essential to examine not just the presence of political themes but also the depth of their integration into the discourse. This analysis focuses on two key dimensions. First, it considers, on average, the proportion of each sermon devoted to political content in cases where politics was addressed. This provides insight into whether political discussions were brief mentions or substantial portions of the sermon.

Equally important is the structure of these sermons – whether they opened with a political theme or if political topics emerged gradually, following an initial focus on religious themes. How politics is woven into sermons reveals much about its role in synagogue discourse. A sermon that begins with politics suggests a deliberate prioritization of the topic, while one that transitions from religious discussion into politics may indicate a more integrative or cautious approach by clergy.

Together, these elements offer a clearer picture of not only how frequently political issues appear in sermons, but also how central they are to the overall message. They shed light on the willingness of clergy to place politics at the forefront of religious teaching and the extent to which synagogues are arenas for political engagement as well as spiritual reflection.

Political Content Volume in Sermons

The first analysis examined the proportion of political content within sermons classified as political.

Rather than passing references or brief asides, politics occupied a substantial portion of these sermons across denominations. On average, Reform sermons dedicated 42% of their content to political discussion, Conservative sermons allocated 37%, and Modern Orthodox sermons 39%.

The fact that over a third, and in some cases nearly half, of the sermon is explicitly political reveals that political discourse is not incidental but rather a dominant and integral feature of that particular sermon. Moreover, the relatively small variation between denominations suggests that political engagement is a fundamental aspect of religious communication across the spectrum of American Judaism, rather than a characteristic unique to any one denomination.

The Structure of Political Homiletics

The structure of a sermon – whether it begins with political discourse or with religious themes – offers a deeper understanding of how political engagement is embedded in synagogue life. It is not just a question of whether politics is discussed, but how central it is to a sermon’s overall message. If political themes are introduced from the outset, it signals that political issues are not merely secondary concerns but central pillars of religious discourse.

The following graph depict the structural sequencing of sermons for each of the denominations examined in this study:

The analysis of sermon structures across denominations reveals a striking trend. Among Reform sermons, 64% transitioned from political themes into religious content, while 36% took the reverse approach, and began with religious themes before moving to politics. The numbers were even higher for Conservative and Modern Orthodox sermons, where approximately 71% began with politics before incorporating religious themes. This pattern underscores that in the vast majority of politically engaged sermons, political messaging is not subtly woven into religious discussion but is often dominant from the outset.

These findings have profound implications for understanding the role of synagogues as spaces for political engagement. The significant presence of politics at the beginning of sermons suggests that synagogues are not only places of worship but also platforms for political discourse. Rabbis across denominations feel comfortable addressing political issues directly, without necessarily softening them with religious framing. This shift points to a synagogue culture where the boundaries between political and religious discourse are blurred. Political themes are not occasional or supplementary aspects of sermons – they are the central focus. Moreover, the near-uniformity across denominations in the prominence of politics-first sermon structures highlights that the politicization of sermons is not confined to any single ideological or theological stream.

One of the most striking revelations is the depth of political engagement within Modern Orthodox communities. As one might assume that Modern Orthodox sermons would emphasize traditional religious content and focus more heavily on religious teachings, grounding the sermon in Torah or halachic discussion before introducing contemporary political issues, the high volume of political content and the predominance of politics-first structures are particularly noteworthy. This suggests that political discourse is deeply embedded in Modern Orthodox religious life in the United States, with rabbis in these communities feeling comfortable using their sermons as a platform for political messaging. The findings ultimately point to a synagogue culture in which political discussions are not only accepted but are often placed at the very heart of religious teaching.

Analysis of the Tone Toward Israel and Criticism in Sermons Across Time Periods

The next phase of this research focused on examining the general tone toward Israel in sermons that contained political content concerning Israel and analyzed shifts across three distinct timeframes. Additionally, the study explored the extent to which political sermons about Israel included critical perspectives within the three major Jewish denominations – Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox.

The findings present a nuanced picture. Across all three denominations, the overall tone toward Israel remained overwhelmingly positive, with negative sentiment consistently representing only a small fraction of the discourse. This trend persisted throughout the periods under observation, reinforcing the idea that American Jewish sermons tend to frame discussions about Israel in a supportive light.

At the same time, the data reveals fluctuations in the presence of negative tonalities vis-à-vis Israel, which varied across different periods. Yet, while negativity peaked at certain moments, particularly at the time of the government’s attempted judicial overhaul in Israel, it never became the dominant narrative. Even when sermons engaged in negative criticism of Israeli policies or government actions, the overarching sentiment remained largely positive. This suggests that critique does not equate to opposition but rather reflects an engaged and deliberative discourse within American Jewish communities. The following graphs illustrate these patterns:

As the graphs show, during the Bennett/Lapid-led Unity Government (June 2021-December 2022), the positive tone toward Israel was at its highest across denominations, reaching 88% in Reform, 88% in Conservative, and 90% in Modern Orthodox sermons, while the negative tone remained very low, at 4%, 4%, and 3%, respectively. However, during the judicial reform government, there was a small decline in positive tone in Reform sermons, dropping to 71%, while Conservative remained relatively high at 84%, and Modern Orthodox continued to show strong support at 91%. Negative sentiment, meanwhile, rose most noticeably in Reform sermons, reaching 20%, while Conservative saw a smaller increase to 12%, and Modern Orthodox remained the least negative at 3%. This shift coincided with the judicial reform controversy in Israel, suggesting a slightly more divided discourse in non-Modern Orthodox communities. By contrast, Modern Orthodox sermons maintained a consistently high level of positive tonality, perhaps indicating less engagement with internal Israeli political controversies on this matter. Still, it is important to underscore that most of the sermons across denominations continued to evince a positive tone toward Israel.

Following the October 7 attacks and the ensuing war, the tone across denominations shifted once again, showing a resurgence of positive sentiment toward Israel across denominations. This shift was most pronounced in Conservative and Modern Orthodox sermons, where positive sentiment rose to 94% and 98%, respectively, nearly eliminating negative discourse, which dropped to just 3% in Conservative and 0.7% in Modern Orthodox sermons. Even in Reform communities, which featured the highest levels of negativity, positive sentiment rebounded substantially to 81%, while negative sentiment nearly halved, dropping from 20% to 11%. These figures demonstrate a clear trend of communal solidarity in response to crisis.

Criticism of Israel in Sermons

The next graph offers a detailed perspective on how American Jewish sermons have engaged in critical discourse about Israel across different time periods and denominations while still maintaining an overall positive tone, as demonstrated in the previous graph. By examining the percentage of sermons that include criticism of Israel, a clear pattern emerges, illustrating how different Jewish denominations respond to Israeli policies and geopolitical events.

During the period of the Bennett/Lapid-led unity government (2021-2022), criticism within sermons remained relatively low across denominations. Reform sermons included criticism at a rate of 7%, Conservative at 14%, and Modern Orthodox at just 7%.

A significant shift occurred during the judicial reform debates (2022-2023), which sparked concern and discussion within American Jewish communities. Criticism surged dramatically, particularly in Reform congregations, where 43% of political sermons contained political criticism of Israel. Conservative sermons also saw a notable rise in criticism, reaching 26%, while Modern Orthodox sermons, although less critical, still ticked upward to 15%. This period reflects heightened engagement with Israeli domestic affairs, as the judicial overhaul prompted broader discussions about democracy, governance, and Israel-Diaspora relations. Reform communities, in particular, evinced the most vocal engagement, indicating a strong inclination to address internal Israeli political matters from the pulpit.

Following the October 7 attacks and the outbreak of war in Gaza, a notable decrease in critical discourse emerged across denominations. While Reform sermons continued to exhibit the highest levels of critique at 29%, this represented a significant decline from the previous year’s peak. Conservative sermons saw a similar trend, with criticism dropping to 16%, while Modern Orthodox sermons reflected the least amount of critique at just 12%. This downward shift suggests that in moments of external crisis, the discourse within American Jewish communities tends to pivot toward unity and support for Israel. Even among the most engaged and critical denominations, such as Reform, the overall trend indicates a prioritization of solidarity over political critique.

These findings highlight several key dynamics within American Jewish discourse regarding Israel. First, while critique is present, it does not define the overall tone of sermons, which remain largely supportive of Israel. Even at the height of critical engagement during the judicial reform period, a majority of sermons still conveyed an overwhelmingly positive stance toward Israel, as shown in the first graph. This reinforces the notion that expressing critique does not equate to condemnation but rather reflects an ongoing, invested engagement with Israeli affairs.

These findings highlight the relationship between American Jewish communities and Israel. The high levels of engagement, both critical and supportive, suggest that American Jews increasingly see themselves as active participants in shaping Israeli discourse rather than passive supporters. As Israel continues to evolve politically, especially regarding issues that directly impact the Diaspora – such as religious pluralism, democratic governance, and minority rights – American Jewish communities are likely to continue navigating their relationship with Israel based on both emotional ties and political considerations. The willingness to criticize Israel, particularly among Reform and Conservative congregations, underscores a growing expectation that Diaspora voices have a role to play in shaping the country’s future. Israel is not just a distant state for American Jews – it is a political, cultural, and moral concern they actively engage with.

Denominational differences in critical discourse are revealing. Modern Orthodox communities consistently demonstrated the least amount of Israel critique, even during politically contentious periods, indicating a strong emphasis on unwavering support for Israel. Conservative communities engaged in a more moderate level of critique, while Reform congregations showed the highest willingness to criticize Israeli policies. However, across denominations, the post-October 7 shift underscores a broader communal instinct to rally behind Israel in times of existential threat, prioritizing solidarity over debate.

These patterns provide a broader understanding of how American Jewish communities navigate their relationship with Israel. While there is a space for critique – particularly during periods of internal Israeli political strife – such engagement is deeply shaped by external events. Moments of security crisis, such as the aftermath of October 7, see a return to more unified and supportive discourse, demonstrating that American Jews (as represented in pulpit sermons) balance their political engagement with a fundamental sense of solidarity with Israel.

Analysis of Criticism of Israel in Sermons: Breakdown by Specific Issues

The analysis now turns to an examination of the specific areas of criticism expressed in political sermons critical of Israel following the October 7 attacks. The data highlights how different Jewish denominations have engaged with key issues that emerged during the war, including humanitarian aid to Gaza, concerns over civilian casualties, and Israel’s strategic planning for the future. These topics have been at the center of global discourse, and their presence – or absence – in sermons reflects broader ideological divides within American Jewish communities.

Criticism Related to Humanitarian Aid to Gaza

Humanitarian aid to Gaza: Reform sermons had the highest level of engagement with this issue, with 13% of critical sermons addressing concerns about the humanitarian situation. Conservative sermons engaged with this topic at a much lower rate (3%), while Modern Orthodox sermons did not include any reference to humanitarian aid at all. This suggests that Reform communities are the most attuned to humanitarian concerns in the context of the war, aligning with their broader emphasis on progressive values and human rights. The minimal engagement in Conservative sermons and complete absence in Modern Orthodox sermons indicate that these communities are either less inclined to frame the war in humanitarian terms or are more aligned with the Israeli government’s stance on aid restrictions.

Criticism Related to Gaza Casualties

Civilian casualties in Gaza: A similar pattern holds here, with Reform sermons exhibiting the highest level of concern – 31% of critical sermons addressed the issue. By contrast, only 8% Conservative sermons engaged with this topic, and just 6% Modern Orthodox sermons did so. This disparity suggests that Reform communities are far more likely to grapple with the ethical implications of Israeli military actions than are their Conservative and Modern Orthodox counterparts, whose sermons tend to focus on other dimensions of the conflict. The lower engagement in these latter groups may indicate a greater prioritization of Israeli security concerns over the humanitarian impact of the war.

Criticism Related to Israel’s Lack of a Post-War Strategy (“The Day After” Strategy)

Israel’s lack of a clear long-term strategy for the post-war period: Reform and Conservative sermons were similarly engaged with this issue, at 16% and 14% respectively. Modern Orthodox sermons, once again, did not address this concern at all. The engagement of both Reform and Conservative communities with strategic critique suggests that these denominations are not only focused on ethical considerations but also on practical political and military outcomes. The lack of engagement in Modern Orthodox sermons underscores the less critical tone of this denomination toward Israeli policy.

These findings provide a deeper understanding of how different Jewish denominations engage with the complexities of Israeli wartime policies. Reform sermons are the most critically engaged, particularly on humanitarian and ethical matters, reflecting their broader ideological emphasis on human rights and moral responsibility. Modern Orthodox sermons, by contrast, show almost no engagement with these topics, reinforcing their role as spaces for solidarity with and support for Israeli policy. Conservative sermons occupy a middle ground, engaging with strategic critiques and Gaza casualties while largely avoiding humanitarian discourse.

The broader implications of these findings are significant for understanding Israel-Diaspora relations. The Reform movement’s strong focus on humanitarian concerns suggests potential tensions with Israeli government policies, particularly regarding military ethics. The Modern Orthodox movement’s lack of criticism aligns it more closely with right-wing Israeli political positions, emphasizing alignment over critique. Conservative Judaism, while positioned between these two poles, aligns more closely with the Modern Orthodox approach, maintaining strong support for Israel while allowing for some measured criticism.

Criticism on Long-Term Issues

While some critiques in sermons emerged in direct response to the events following October 7, others reflect deeper, long-standing debates that have shaped discourse on Israel for years. These discussions go beyond the immediate wartime context, addressing broader political and societal issues that continue to resonate within some American Jewish communities.

The following analysis delves into how different American Jewish denominations engage with criticism of Israel’s political leadership and social issues. In examining these patterns, we gain insight into how the sermons of different denominations portray Israel’s political landscape, the social concerns most frequently raised, and how these themes have evolved in response to recent events and allows a better understanding of how major geopolitical shifts influence religious engagement with Israeli politics and society.

Criticism of the Israeli Government Before and After October 7

The evolution of criticism toward the Israeli government in American Jewish sermons reflects a dynamic shift in political engagement across denominations. The intensity and focus of this discourse have fluctuated significantly over the past two years, shaped by key political developments such as the judicial reform crisis and the outbreak of war following the October 7 Hamas attacks. The results are shown in the following graphs:

During the 2022-2023 period of controversial judicial reform initiatives, criticism of the Israeli government was a significant theme in American Jewish sermons. Reform sermons showed the highest level of critique, with 86% of political sermons addressing concerns over governance. Conservative sermons also engaged with this issue extensively, with 59% raising criticisms of the government. Even in Modern Orthodox communities, where direct criticism of Israeli leadership is typically rare, there was a notable 14% level of engagement in critique. These findings suggest that the judicial reform efforts, which many viewed as a threat to Israel’s democratic foundations, deeply resonated within Jewish communities in the U.S., and led to substantial political engagement in sermons.

However, the discourse shifted following the October 7 attacks and the subsequent war. While criticism of the government remained significant within Reform sermons, it dropped to an incidence of 55%, signaling a recalibration of priorities. Conservative sermons exhibited an even steeper decline, with only 19% continuing to express concerns over government policies. By contrast, Modern Orthodox sermons saw a sharp increase in government critique, rising to 38%. This marks a significant shift, as Modern Orthodox communities, which had previously maintained strong support for Israeli leadership, began to express frustration with the government’s handling of the war.

Broader Implications: The Impact of Crisis on Political Discourse

The peak in government criticism during the judicial reform crisis underscores the deep concerns among Reform and Conservative communities regarding Israel’s democratic trajectory and the increasing influence of religious parties in governance. However, the subsequent decline in critique following the onset of war suggests that in moments of existential crisis, national security and unity often take precedence over internal political disputes.

The rise in Modern Orthodox criticism, on the other hand, presents an intriguing development. Historically, Modern Orthodox communities have been among the most steadfast in their support for Israeli leadership. The fact that nearly 40% of politically engaged Modern Orthodox sermons now contain some level of government critique suggests that frustrations have surfaced even within this traditionally supportive base. This shift may reflect dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the war, military preparedness, or broader strategic decisions during the conflict.

The Recalibration of Priorities in American Jewish Discourse

These shifts in homiletic discourse highlight the fluidity of American Jewish engagement with Israeli politics. While periods of political controversy, such as the judicial reform crisis, can trigger intense critique, moments of external crisis often redirect discourse toward themes of Jewish solidarity. At the same time, the emergence of Modern Orthodox post-October 7 criticism raises important questions about the durability of this trend. Will this newfound engagement with government critique persist, or will it subside once the immediate wartime concerns abate? Ultimately, these findings underscore how political discourse in American Jewish communities is shaped by both ideological commitments and external events.

Criticism of Israeli Leadership: Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir

The discourse surrounding Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and far-right politician Itamar Ben-Gvir, has undergone notable shifts before and after the October 7 attacks. While criticism of both leaders was present in American Jewish sermons before the war, the patterns of engagement changed significantly in its wake, reflecting evolving priorities within different Jewish denominations.

Criticism of Netanyahu:

Criticism of Ben-Gvir:

Contrasting Approaches to Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir

During the pre-war judicial reform period, criticism of Netanyahu was largely confined to Reform and Conservative sermons. Reform clergy were the most vocal, with 33% of politically engaged sermons containing criticism of him, while Conservative sermons evinced disapproval of him at a lower rate of 14%. Notably, Modern Orthodox sermons entirely avoided any direct criticism of Netanyahu, reflecting a broader tendency within these communities to maintain strong support for his leadership.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, on the other hand, drew criticism more evenly across denominations. Again, Reform sermons led the way with 32% addressing concerns about his policies and rhetoric, followed by Conservative sermons at 21%. Unlike their consideration of Netanyahu, Modern Orthodox sermons did engage in some level of critique of Ben-Gvir, with 14% raising concerns about him, signaling that even within more right-leaning religious circles, his controversial political style was not condoned.

The political discourse changed significantly after October 7, with distinct patterns emerging in how different denominations regarded Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir. Netanyahu remained a relevant and contested figure, but the nature of critique evolved. Reform sermons continued to voice the highest level of criticism, though slightly reduced (28%), while Conservative sermons saw a sharp drop to just 3%, suggesting a shift in focus away from political concerns toward national unity. The most notable change occurred in Modern Orthodox sermons, where criticism of Netanyahu, previously absent, rose significantly to 19%. This shift is in line we what we have seen in the previous graphs about the Modern Orthodox criticism toward the Israeli government after October 7 and suggests growing dissatisfaction within Modern Orthodox communities, likely related to frustrations over Netanyahu’s handling of the war and its consequences.

By contrast, criticism of Ben-Gvir declined dramatically across denominations. Reform sermons, which had previously engaged with Ben-Gvir’s role at a rate similar to Netanyahu’s, saw their critique plummet to just5%. Conservative sermons dropped to 3%, and Modern Orthodox sermons, which had previously contained a notable level of criticism, also saw a decline to 6%. The near-disappearance of criticism leveled against Ben-Gvir suggests that the war reshaped communal priorities, diverting focus away from internal Israeli political disputes and toward broader security concerns. It may also indicate a rallying effect around right-wing leadership in times of crisis, where figures like Ben-Gvir, often associated with hardline security policies, became less controversial within religious discourse.

Broader Implications: The Recalibration of Political Discourse in American Jewish Sermons

These findings reveal several important trends in how different Jewish denominations engage with Israeli politics. The persistence of Netanyahu as a subject of critique – even as the focus of criticism shifted – indicates that his leadership remains a divisive topic across Jewish movements. However, the newfound presence of criticism in Modern Orthodox sermons suggests that the war created fissures even in Netanyahu’s traditional support base.

The dramatic decline in criticism of Ben-Gvir, on the other hand, points to a reevaluation of priorities within Jewish communities. His controversial role in Israeli politics, which had previously been a significant topic of discussion, seemed to fade in prominence after October 7.

Ultimately, the changing discourse surrounding Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir illustrates how external crises can reshape political engagement within American Jewish communities. The war not only redirected communal concerns toward security and unity but also altered the dynamics of political critique, particularly within Modern Orthodox and Conservative movements. As the situation in Israel continues to evolve, it will be important to monitor whether these shifts persist or whether critiques of Israeli leadership reemerge in new forms as the conflict stabilizes.

Criticism of Haredi (ultra- Orthodox) Enlistment Policies

The graph below presents data on the proportion of sermons that included criticism of Israel in relation to Haredi enlistment across Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox Jewish movements. Importantly, this analysis reflects a long-term critique of the issue, rather than a reaction to any specific event, such as October 7. The data spans from October 7, 2021, to October 7, 2024, offering insight into how frequently this topic appears in synagogue discourse over time.

The issue of Haredi IDF conscription, a long-standing political and social controversy in Israel, appears to have only a marginal presence in the discourse of American Jewish communities. Although one might expect such a contentious subject to feature prominently in sermons that engage critically with Israeli policies, the reality is quite different. References to the debate over Haredi military exemption remain rare in Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox sermons in the United States.

This absence speaks volumes. It suggests that while American Jews may engage with Israel’s broader political and ethical challenges, the question of Haredi military service is not a primary concern. Perhaps, for these communities, especially the two non-Modern Orthodox ones, issues of religious pluralism, democracy, and broader social justice questions trump this particular internal Israeli dispute. The conscription controversy, though deeply consequential within Israel itself, remains somewhat removed from the priorities shaping Jewish thought and discussion abroad.

Criticism of LGBTQ+ Rights in Israel

The graphs below illustrate shifts in the frequency of sermons criticizing Israel’s stance on LGBTQ+ rights over three distinct time periods: the Bennett/Lapid-led Government (2021-2022), the judicial reform period (2022-2023), and after October 7 (2023-2024). These visualizations provide insight into how American Jewish communities across different denominations engaged with this issue and how their focus shifted in response to broader political and security events.

The data reveals a clear pattern. Before the judicial reform debate gained traction, criticism of LGBTQ+ rights in Israel was present but relatively moderate, particularly within Reform and Conservative communities. The issue gained significant momentum during the judicial reform protests, reflecting growing anxieties over the direction of Israeli democracy and concerns about increasing religious influence in Israeli society and politics. In this period, Reform sermons more than doubled their engagement with the topic, and Conservative sermons also saw a notable rise. Yet, within Modern Orthodox communities, the issue remained entirely absent from homiletic discourse.

However, this trend did not last. In the aftermath of October 7, discussions about LGBTQ+ rights in Israel largely disappeared from synagogue sermons. Both Reform and Conservative engagement with the issue dropped dramatically, suggesting that the focus of Jewish communities shifted away from Israeli social issues toward broader concerns about Israel’s security and survival. Modern Orthodox communities, which had never engaged in the debate to begin with, remained silent.

This trajectory highlights a revealing dynamic. Liberal Jewish communities appear to criticize Israel’s policies on LGBTQ+ rights primarily in moments when the broader state of democracy is under discussion. In times of peace, the LGBTQ+ issue emerges as a particularly central concern for Reform communities, much more so than the Haredi conscription. This emphasis reflects the broader priorities of American progressive societies, where human rights issues carry significant weight. The question of whether Israel remains a democratic and human rights-oriented state seems to be of greater interest to these communities than internal political debates over Haredi military service. However, when faced with national security crises, critiques of LGBTQ+ policies recede, as communal priorities shift toward more existential concerns. The absence of LGBTQ+ discourse in Modern Orthodox sermons further reinforces the idea that the issue does resonate for this community as it does for its more progressive counterparts.

Criticism of Settler Violence Over Time

The following graphs depict the shifting focus on settler violence within liberal Jewish discourse across three distinct periods: the Bennett/Lapid-led government (2021-2022), the judicial reform protests (2022-2023), and post-October 7 (2023-2024). These visualizations highlight the extent to which American Reform, Conservative, and Modern Orthodox communities engaged critically with this issue over time.

Settler violence emerged as a more prominent concern, particularly within liberal Jewish communities, during the judicial reform protests and remained a topic of criticism post-October 7. Before the judicial reform period, criticism of settler violence was limited primarily to Reform communities, where 20% of critical sermons addressed the issue. Conservative and Modern Orthodox communities, on the other hand, did not engage with it at all.

A dramatic shift occurred during the judicial reform protests. In Reform sermons, criticism of settler violence surged to 46%, reflecting a growing concern over Israel’s broader political trajectory and its impact on democratic values. Conservative sermons also saw a rise, albeit a more modest one, reaching 17%. Modern Orthodox communities, however, remained silent on the issue.

Following October 7 and the outbreak of war in Gaza, the discourse shifted once again. While criticism of settler violence declined in Reform communities (dropping to 27%) and Conservative communities (dropping slightly to 14%), the issue did not disappear. Instead, it seemed to be overshadowed by immediate security concerns and broader war-related discussions. Interestingly, for the first time, Modern Orthodox communities engaged with the issue, with 6% of critical sermons addressing settler violence. This suggests a rare moment of debate within Modern Orthodox circles, possibly reflecting concerns about the role of settlers in exacerbating tensions or complicating Israel’s military strategy.

Overall, the data suggests that settler violence is viewed through the lens of democratic values by liberal Jewish communities, peaking in moments of political upheaval such as the judicial reform protests. However, during times of national security crisis, discourse around the issue declines but does not disappear entirely. The introduction of settler violence into Modern Orthodox sermons for the first time marks a potentially significant shift, indicating that even traditionally non-critical circles may be beginning to grapple with the implications of settlement policies and their broader impact on Israel’s stability.

Below is a summary of all the criticism topics analyzed