Eyal Golan is a very popular Israeli singer with more than a few cracks in his public image. His way with young female fans doesn鈥檛 make him an exemplary citizen, his way with words and gestures doesn鈥檛 make him an educational role model. And yet, more than a few eyebrows were raised amid a report that the state attorney鈥檚 office ponders the possibility of charging him. His alleged crime: calling to wipe out Gaza.听

He is guilty as charged. That is to say, he surely used harsh words. Whether saying what he said ought to be considered a crime in Israel is another matter, on which there is some debate. First, because Golan is hardly alone in expressing such earthy desire to see Gaza 鈥渆radicated鈥� or 鈥渄ecimated鈥� or some other form of annihilative language. So, it wasn鈥檛 quite clear why him and not dozens, possibly hundreds of others, some well-known, most not as well-known. Second, because such an expression, while crude, is what many Israelis felt when the Oct. 7 horrors were made public. It was not a policy or a plan, it was an expression of a basic instinct.

Should saying such a thing out loud be considered a crime? Many Israelis, trigger-happy with their computer keyboards, began to tweet similar sentiments accompanied by a teasing message: come, prosecute us, arrest us, here鈥檚 what we think. Social media is where juvenile behavior flourishes, and yet, provocations aside, the demand to have a license for brutal expression was hardly a marginal phenomenon. Can our enemies say that their goal is to eradicate us 鈥� while we prosecute those saying they want to eradicate them?

Of course, the question is who is 鈥渢hem鈥�? Had Golan said all Hamas terrorists must be killed or captured, there would be no debate. Had he said Gaza must be demilitarized by all means, a question mark might have been attached to his exact intention. But Golan called to 鈥渨ipe out Gaza鈥� and 鈥渘ot leave a single person there.鈥� That鈥檚 different. That鈥檚 not the right language to use when talking about an area with two million people, many of whom have little to do with the attack on Israel, many of whom are children, or elderly women, or just miserable residents wanting to live their lives.

Then again, Golan said what he said just a few days after the attack, and maybe there鈥檚 reason to cut him some slack for speaking his mind without restraint while the blood was still boiling. Also, Golan is a singer, not a policy maker, nor a general, nor a politician. True, you could say that he is an influencer and thus must watch his mouth. But the exact boundary of what a person like him can or can鈥檛 say a few days after a brutal attack, when Israel is at war, and when his words are directed at 鈥� well 鈥� Gaza is enemy territory 鈥� this boundary is quite vague (that鈥檚 why ultimately, the chance of him being actually charged seems small).听

A day after the Golan question made headlines, the State Attorney advised the Attorney General not to open criminal investigations against senior leaders who called, in the past, to harm civilians in Gaza. Some of these statements were mentioned during proceedings at the International Criminal Courts and The Hague Court of Justice. Some of these statements were plain dumb 鈥� an Israeli minister should not expose the country to false allegations of genocidal intentions. Some of these statements were merely not nuanced 鈥� tactical advice that should not have been presented in such a rash way.听

So within two days, Israelis were presented with seemingly two contradictory messages on what they can and can鈥檛 say about Gaza. They were presented with something that was quite confusing 鈥� the attorneys ponder a charge agains a singer while getting the ministers off the hook 鈥� the attorneys looking harshly at an outburst of someone who has no reponsibility for Israel鈥檚 policies, while deciding to forgive and forget those in charge who made an error.听

Let me tell you this: It is confusing and dificult for the legal advisers as it is for the citizens. On the one hand, free speech compounded by hard feelings is a recipe for the type of language that a society ought to not tolerate. The language of eradication and annihilation. On the other hand, demanding that all Israelis be more polite, or considerate, or to better moderate their language because of hostile international courts, or the sensitivities of Hamas sympathizers in American campuses, would get us nowhere. In the current atmosphere, this would not be an enforcable request.

What should the policy be? I鈥檇 say, leave the singers alone, and be clear with the politicians. They are the ones who ought to get the message of restraint.

What should the policy be? I鈥檇 say, leave the singers alone, and be clear with the politicians. They are the ones who ought to get the message of restraint. And the message should not come from the attorneys, it should come from the top 鈥� it should be a message of warning from the PM鈥檚 office. You know what? Maybe that鈥檚 why everything seems confused. Because the PM鈥檚 office is the one that neglects to do its job.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

Did the events of Oct. 7 and the war affect secular Israelis鈥� level of closeness to Judaism?

The answer is yes and no, or both. Depends on which group you refer to. The more totally secular Israelis moved away from Judaism more than they got closer, the somewhat traditional secular Israelis got closer to Judaism more than they moved away from it. Of course, in both groups there is a majority that reported no change. But among those who reported that there was a change, the direction of the change was the opposite. The effect of the war is polarizing not only from a “political” point of view but also from a “51视频” point of view. Close to a quarter of the somewhat traditional seculars say they got closer to Judaism, close to a fifth of the totally secular say they moved away from Judaism.

A week鈥檚 numbers

For obvious reasons, a change common to both Israeli secular subgroups was detected in views that attribute 鈥�51视频 value鈥� to certain issues of a national character 鈥� such as IDF service.

A reader鈥檚 response:

Doreen Levy asks: 鈥淚f the government doesn鈥檛 fall under public pressure, when will be Israel鈥檚 next election?鈥� Answer: October 2026.

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner鈥檚 Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.