Ben Shapiro is a Friend—But Not a Zionist: Here is Why he should not be included in, the Torch-Lighting Ceremony

Let me begin with a clear and heartfelt statement: I admire Ben Shapiro. I agree with 95% of what he says, I deeply respect his intellect, and I consider him a tremendous source of pride for American Jewry. Shapiro is a rare combination of brilliance, eloquence, courage, and unwavering commitment to both Jewish values and the State of Israel.

And precisely because I hold him in such high esteem, I feel compelled to say the following—out of love, but also out of Zionist responsibility.

To illustrate my point, let me begin with a short historical anecdote: In the 1970s a major conference was held in New York under the banner “The Central Conference of American Zionists.”

Ezer Weizman, who would later serve as President of Israel, was invited as a guest of honor.

Yet he refused to enter the hall until the sign was changed to read “Conference of American Supporters of Zionism.”

Why?

Because, he explained, a Zionist is someone who lives in the Land of Israel. One may support Zionism passionately, advocate for Israel, and fight antisemitism from afar—but if one chooses to live in the Diaspora, one is not, strictly speaking, a Zionist.

This is not nitpicking over semantics—it is a fundamental distinction. Zionism is not just about support for Israel; it is about return to Israel. It is about action, not merely intention.

Against this background, the decision to invite Ben Shapiro to light a torch at Israel’s official Independence Day ceremony is, in my view, deeply misguided. Not because he is unworthy—on the contrary. He deserves immense recognition for his advocacy, for his fearless confrontation of antisemitism, and for defending Israel in countless hostile arenas. But this specific honor—this ceremonial act embedded in the core of Israeli national identity—should be reserved for Israelis, or at the very least, for olim, those who have made the personal choice to live in the Jewish homeland.

Blurring the line between “pro-Zionist” and “Zionist” may seem harmless, but it subtly erodes the essence of Zionism for those of us living here in Israel. It sends a dangerous message: that choosing to remain in exile is fully compatible with being a Zionist, when in truth, it is the very opposite of the Zionist ideal.

Even more troubling, perhaps, is what this signals about the evolving identity of the Israeli state itself. A government that is already drifting away from the founding principles of aliyah, settlement, and pioneering spirit now seems prepared to sever yet another vital root: the centrality of ingathering the exiles. When a state elevates symbolic acts of Diaspora Judaism into its own national ceremonies, it weakens the message that Jewish destiny lies in Zion—not abroad.

None of this is to diminish the importance of the relationship between Israeli and American Jewry. That bond is strategic, historic, and precious. But within that relationship, distinctions must still be drawn. Just as the State of Israel does not interfere in the internal matters of American Jewish communities, so too must we preserve the symbolic boundaries of Israeli civic identity—for the sake of clarity, solidarity, and continuity.

I believe Ben Shapiro himself, with his sharp intellect and moral clarity, would understand this argument. Perhaps—just perhaps—this moment of honor might inspire him to take the next step: not only to advocate for Israel, but to live her reality. Not only to defend her, but to become part of her. May this torch-lighting become a call to aliyah.

Amen. May it be so.