Ben Shapiro disgraces his yarmulke by defending the murder of George Floyd

Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator with a significant platform, has long positioned himself as a defender of Jewish values. His stance on the murder of George Floyd, however, calls into question whether he truly upholds the ethical principles of Judaism. By arguing that Floyd’s death at the hands of Derek Chauvin should have no consequences, Shapiro has aligned himself with a reactionary movement that dismisses basic justice, undermines racial solidarity, and tarnishes the reputation of Jewish advocacy. His rhetoric serves to inflame tensions between Black and Jewish communities, betraying the deep historical bonds between these two groups.

Judaism is built upon principles of justice, fairness, and the inherent value of human life. The Torah commands, “Justice, justice shall you pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20), a directive that demands unwavering commitment to righteousness. The Talmud further elaborates that saving a single life is akin to saving the entire world (Sanhedrin 37a). Given these moral imperatives, Shapiro’s dismissal of the injustice in Floyd’s murder is indefensible.

The video of George Floyd’s death, in which he repeatedly pleaded for air while Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes, was a moment that shook the conscience of the world. Floyd’s murder was not a matter of ambiguous legality or political spin — it was an egregious violation of human rights. A society that claims to value justice cannot turn a blind eye to such brutality. Yet Shapiro has actively sought to rationalize the unjustifiable, treating the murder as an overblown incident that should not have resulted in legal accountability.

Shapiro’s argument — that Chauvin should not face consequences — contradicts Jewish ethical traditions that prioritize justice for the oppressed. The very idea that one could witness Floyd’s suffering and remain unmoved is anathema to Jewish teachings on empathy and social responsibility. What if the victim had been Jewish? What if a Jewish man were publicly suffocated to death by a police officer, and a prominent Black activist argued that the murderer should be set free? The Jewish community would rightly view such a stance as callous and dangerous. Yet Shapiro fails to apply this same reasoning when the victim is Black, demonstrating a profound moral inconsistency.

The relationship between Black and Jewish communities in America has been marked by both solidarity and struggle. Jewish activists played crucial roles in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, marching alongside Martin Luther King Jr. and advocating for racial justice. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel famously walked arm in arm with King during the Selma march, declaring that he felt his “legs were praying.” Jewish lawyers helped argue cases that dismantled segregation, and Jewish organizations consistently supported voting rights legislation.

This history of solidarity makes Shapiro’s stance even more disgraceful. By defending the indefensible, he weakens the bonds that have historically united Black and Jewish communities in the fight for justice. His rhetoric does not represent mainstream Jewish thought but rather a fringe conservative ideology that prioritizes partisanship over moral responsibility.

Furthermore, Shapiro’s commentary plays directly into the hands of those who seek to divide these two communities. The false narrative that support for Israel is synonymous with anti-Black racism is a growing issue, and Shapiro’s actions only add fuel to this fire. By positioning himself as a leading Jewish voice while making arguments that dismiss Black suffering, he reinforces harmful stereotypes that Jewish advocacy is insincere or opportunistic. This is not only incorrect but deeply damaging to Jewish interests.

Shapiro, who often claims to be a defender of “facts over feelings,” bases much of his argument on legal technicalities. He suggests that Chauvin’s conviction was a result of mob pressure rather than due process. However, this position is both legally weak and morally indefensible. Chauvin received a fair trial, was convicted based on overwhelming evidence, and has the right to appeal like any other defendant. The idea that his conviction was a political move disregards the undeniable reality of the video evidence.

Moreover, Shapiro’s sudden concern for due process is inconsistent. He frequently dismisses the grievances of marginalized groups when it is politically convenient but insists on a hyper-technical legal approach when it comes to police accountability. This selective application of legal principles reveals a fundamental dishonesty in his argument. Justice should not be contingent on political ideology; it should be a universal principle.

Shapiro’s increasingly inflammatory rhetoric comes at a time when his media company, The Daily Wire, is facing significant turmoil. The departure of its CEO, Jeremy Boreing, amid accusations of antisemitism, has left the company in crisis. Boreing publicly refers to rabbis as “whores,” exposing a culture of disrespect within the organization that Shapiro himself helped build, especially with the millions of dollars he allegedly made off Candace Owens long after her virulent antisemitism had been publicly exposed. Rather than addressing these issues within his own ranks, Shapiro has chosen to manufacture outrage, using controversial statements to maintain relevance.

His decision to defend Chauvin seems less like a principled stance and more like a desperate attempt to salvage his crumbling media empire. By catering to a reactionary audience that thrives on racial resentment, Shapiro is making a cynical calculation: controversy sells, even at the cost of moral credibility. However, this strategy not only damages his reputation but also harms the broader Jewish community by associating Jewish advocacy with injustice and racial insensitivity.

It is imperative that both Black and Jewish communities reject Shapiro’s divisive rhetoric. His views do not reflect Jewish values, nor do they serve Jewish interests. Instead, they serve a political agenda that is at odds with the principles of justice, dignity, and human rights that both communities have long championed.

Jews must speak out against those who misuse Jewish identity to justify oppression. Wearing a yarmulke does not grant moral authority; actions do. Shapiro’s disgraceful stance on George Floyd’s murder is a betrayal of Jewish ethics, and his attempts to undermine Black-Jewish solidarity must be called out.

Likewise, Black activists should recognize that Shapiro is not representative of the Jewish community as a whole. Many Jewish organizations, leaders, and everyday individuals stood in solidarity after Floyd’s murder, advocating for justice and police reform. The actions of one reactionary commentator should not be used to define an entire community.

Ben Shapiro’s defense of George Floyd’s murder is a stain on his credibility and a betrayal of Jewish values. By prioritizing reactionary politics over justice, he has positioned himself as an obstacle to Black-Jewish solidarity rather than a bridge between communities. His rhetoric not only dishonors the memory of George Floyd but also disrespects the long history of Jewish advocacy for civil rights.

The response to injustice should not be shaped by political convenience. If Shapiro truly believes in the principles he claims to defend, he must recognize that justice for George Floyd is not a left-wing agenda — it is a human imperative. Until then, both Black and Jewish communities must unite in rejecting his corrosive influence and reaffirming their shared commitment to justice.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach of Englewood is the author of 30 books. Follow him on Instagram and Twitter
@RabbiShmuley.

Opinion

comments