What was intended as a festive New Year’s Eve gathering at a Miami synagogue became, for many observers, a moment of discomfort and reflection.
The highly secured and publicized welcome extended to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife at a Chabad synagogue raised important questions not only about politics but also about the relationship between Jewish communities in the Diaspora and the realities of Israelis today.
The images from the event were striking.
Streets were closed, helicopters hovered overhead, and extensive security surrounded a synagogue long associated with openness and community. For some, this level of disruption seemed excessive.
Glorification of a political figure
For others, it suggested something deeper: the transformation of a religious and communal space into a stage for the unreserved glorification of a political figure whom, according to recent opinion polls in Israel, nearly three-quarters of the public believe should take responsibility for the events of October 7 and step down.
To be clear, hosting Israeli leaders in Diaspora communities is neither new nor inherently problematic. Strong ties between Israel and world Jewry are vital and meaningful. But context matters.
Netanyahu is not simply another visiting official. He is a deeply polarizing leader in Israel, currently under criminal indictment, and the subject of sustained, mass public protest. Large segments of Israeli society view his leadership as having intensified social divisions and weakened democratic norms during an already painful and uncertain period.
Seen through that lens, the Miami event felt less like a neutral celebration and more like a political endorsement – whether intended or not. This perception is worth examining, not to assign blame, but to better understand how actions taken abroad can resonate very differently in Israel itself.
This is where the Diaspora–Israel relationship becomes especially sensitive. Many Diaspora Jews are understandably not immersed in the day-to-day complexities of Israeli politics. Media coverage abroad often lacks the immediacy and emotional weight felt by those living in Israel, where political decisions have direct consequences for security, democracy, and daily life. As a result, gestures meant to express solidarity with a highly controversial prime minister can be viewed by Israelis as disconnected or even dismissive of their concerns.
For Israelis who have spent months protesting in the streets – often at personal and professional cost, risking careers, safety, and social standing to defend democratic values in Israel – the sight of lavish receptions abroad can feel alienating. It can create the impression that their voices, struggles, and fears are being overshadowed by displays of power and access far from home.
A broader dimension
There is also a broader communal dimension to consider.
When Jewish religious or communal institutions prominently feature a single, highly controversial political leader, they risk closely associating themselves with that individual and, in doing so, may inadvertently deepen existing divisions within Israel and between Israel and the Diaspora.
Importantly, criticism of Netanyahu does not equate to a lack of support for Israel. On the contrary, many Israelis who oppose him do so out of deep concern for the country’s future, its democratic character, and its moral foundations. Their voices are an essential part of Israel’s ongoing conversation – and they deserve recognition and respect within Jewish communities worldwide.
It is also telling that an event of this scale and extravagance would be difficult, if not impossible, to hold in Israel itself.
Public reaction there would likely be far more contentious. Distance allows for a different kind of reception, one shaped by security, select audiences, and a certain emotional distance from the consequences of Israeli politics.
None of this means that Diaspora Jews should disengage from Israel or avoid hosting Israeli leaders. It does suggest, however, that Jewish institutions have an opportunity, and perhaps a responsibility, to approach such moments with greater sensitivity and awareness. Asking hard questions is not an act of disloyalty. It is an expression of care.
Places of learning
At their best, Jewish communal spaces are places of learning, moral reflection, and connection across differences. When hosting political figures, especially divisive ones, institutions should consider the full complexity of Jewish and Israeli realities, rather than presenting a controversial figure through a purely celebratory narrative.
For many Israelis, the Miami event touched on deeper feelings about solidarity and unity. Listening to those reactions can only strengthen the bond between Israel and the Diaspora.
Jewish Miami, like Jewish communities everywhere, has the capacity to be a bridge rather than a point of tension. Moments like this invite reflection, dialogue, and, ultimately, a more thoughtful and informed relationship with Israel.
The writer is an Israeli-Canadian lay leader, active in the Jewish communities of Toronto and Miami.