The death of 14-year-old Yosef Eisenthal at Monday night’s anti-conscription protest in Jerusalem is a horrific tragedy.
Eisenthal was killed after a bus driver, surrounded by angry protesters who spat at and banged on the bus, drove into the crowd, later saying he was trying to escape what he perceived as a life-threatening situation.
The driver, an Arab Israeli, reportedly called the police seeking assistance in getting out of the mob.
Tragically, Eisenthal was caught beneath the bus.
In Israel, protesters should be able to attend demonstrations – especially those authorized by the police, as this one was – without fearing a risk to their lives. That a teenager lost his life at a protest is a failure on multiple levels and demands a serious, sober reckoning.
The police must thoroughly investigate all aspects of the incident – both the driver’s actions and the behavior of those who surrounded the bus. Demonstrators have the right to protest. They do not have the right to physically endanger others who happen to cross their path.
The authorities should also act decisively against those who reportedly stopped taxis and buses after the incident to search for Arab drivers to assault. That behavior is both criminal and morally indefensible, and it compounds an already horrific situation.
Toxic rhetoric: Real cost of Haredi draft debate
Beyond the immediate investigation, there is a broader and deeply troubling context that cannot be ignored. The atmosphere surrounding the already explosive issue of haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription has grown increasingly toxic, and that toxicity has real consequences.
United Torah Judaism MK Yisrael Eichler, a perennial rhetorical flamethrower, responded by declaring: “Let no one feign surprise – the brutal murder tonight, dragging a haredi teenager under a bus in Jerusalem... is a direct result of wild and antisemitic incitement against the haredim in the media, the judicial system, and the Knesset.”
This claim does not withstand scrutiny.
There is no “wild and antisemitic” incitement against haredim coursing through all levels of society. What does exist, however, is genuine and growing anger over the refusal of large segments of the haredi community to share in the physical burden of defending the Jewish state.
That anger is further inflamed when protest rhetoric crosses into the realm of historical distortion.
At Monday’s demonstration, a rabbi identified as Yechiel Huna compared IDF conscription to the Holocaust, invoking imagery of Jews who ignored warnings and were later murdered. In other words, haredim must elude the pernicious claws of the IDF to save themselves.
These words are nothing short of grotesque. The use of Holocaust imagery to argue against conscription – a perverse inversion of historical reality, given that the absence of a Jewish army was precisely what left Jews defenseless during the Holocaust – has become disturbingly common in this debate.
UTJ chairman Yitzhak Goldknopf employed the same imagery last week in the Knesset, likening sanctions against haredi draft dodgers to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear the yellow star.
Yair Lapid’s response cut to the heart of the matter. “How dare you?” he said. “My father wore a yellow badge in the Budapest Ghetto simply because there was no Jewish army to protect his life. My grandfather wore a yellow badge when he was murdered in a concentration camp.
“What you said today in the committee is the dream of every antisemite – a debasement of the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and a show of contempt for the IDF and its soldiers.”
Monday’s fatal protest came just a day after a record 537 haredi men enlisted in IDF frameworks designed for the haredi community during the December-January recruitment period. It remains a small number relative to the overall need, but it is a significant increase over the previous year. In 2024, 428 haredim enlisted.
As enlistment numbers rise, pressure from haredi rabbis and politicians to prevent it will intensify – and with it, the protests. That makes it all the more urgent to lower the temperature of this debate, not inflame it further with incendiary language and historical desecration.
A 14-year-old boy is dead. Nothing about this moment should be exploited for political gain or rhetorical escalation. The priority now must be accountability, restraint, and a renewed commitment – from all sides – to ensure that no family has to bury a child because a national argument spiraled out of control.