OPINION:
On Wednesday, Moshe Glick will stand before a judge at the Veterans Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey, to be re-arraigned — not for inciting violence, not for any act of hatred, but for intervening when a Jewish man was attacked outside a synagogue.
That fact alone should trouble every American who believes the right to worship freely still exists in this country.
In November 2024, an Israeli real estate informational event was held at a synagogue in West Orange, New Jersey. Outside, an aggressive protest formed, part of a pattern that has become disturbingly familiar since Hamas’ attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023: mobs gathering outside Jewish institutions, shouting slurs, intimidating attendees, daring someone to respond.
The chants were not political criticism. They were explicitly antisemitic. Witnesses heard “The Jew is here,” along with taunts about murdered Israeli children and open glorification of Nazi violence.
As tensions escalated, protester Altaf Sharif allegedly charged at 64-year-old event attendee David Silberberg, who attempted to defend himself with pepper spray. Mr. Sharif reportedly slammed Mr. Silberberg to the ground and placed him in a chokehold.
That was when 53-year-old husband, father and grandfather Dr. Glick acted. Seeing Mr. Silberberg’s legs buckle and believing the man’s life to be threatened, Dr. Glick rushed forward. In the chaos, while holding a small flashlight, he struck Mr. Sharif, who released Mr. Silberberg. Mr. Sharif sustained minor cuts. He initially refused medical treatment and told police he was fine.
What followed was not accountability for the aggressor but a narrative reversal.
Instead of focusing on the mob, the threats, the pepper spray or the physical takedown, attention shifted to the man who had intervened. Dr. Glick was charged and now faces five to 10 years in prison if convicted. Neither Mr. Sharif nor Mr. Silberberg was charged.
Meanwhile, the protest itself was treated with striking leniency. Demonstrators, many wearing kaffiyehs, crowded synagogue grounds, blew air horns inches from attendees’ ears and hurled abuse at Jews entering a house of worship. One such instrument, a vuvuzela, was later acknowledged by the Justice Department as capable of causing permanent hearing damage.
This was not a peaceful protest. It was intimidation, and the federal government noticed.
In September, the Justice Department filed civil actions against six demonstrators, including Mr. Sharif, as well as two pro-Palestinian groups, alleging violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a statute historically used to protect access to abortion clinics.
It marked the first time the law has been applied to protect a house of worship.
Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, made clear that criminal charges were not off the table. The message was unmistakable: Coordinated intimidation of synagogues is a civil rights violation.
Yet despite that federal recognition, Dr. Glick is still the one being prosecuted at the state level. He was offered a plea deal: no jail time, likely expungement. He refused. Accepting it, he said, would be “contrary to the facts, the law, fundamental justice, and the obligation to stand up for what is right.” This fight, he said, is not “my fight alone,” but is rather a defense of the right of Jews and ultimately all Americans to worship without fear.
The implications extend far beyond one synagogue in New Jersey.
Similar tactics have spread nationwide. Protesters have descended on synagogues in New York and Los Angeles, openly admitting their goal is to scare worshippers. Community security forums have been disrupted. The strategy is clear: Create fear, provoke a response and then criminalize that response.
Last month in New York City, Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani responded to protests outside a synagogue not by condemning intimidation but by declaring that “sacred spaces should not be used for violations of international law,” referring to Israel-related events held inside synagogues.
The message is clear: Jewish houses of worship are acceptable only as long as they conform to approved political narratives, while mobs stand ready to enforce those boundaries.
Dr. Glick’s prosecution is not an outlier. It is the predictable result of a culture increasingly comfortable policing Jewish self-defense while rationalizing antisemitic coercion.
Today, it is a synagogue. Tomorrow, it will be churches accused of theological noncompliance. “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people” is no longer a warning; it’s a road map.
If stepping in to stop a man from being choked outside a synagogue is grounds for felony prosecution, then freedom of worship exists only on paper.
The Moshe Glick case will determine whether the law protects Americans who defend life or punishes them for refusing to stand down in the face of hate.
• Juda Engelmayer is a crisis communications strategist, writer and public advocate on Israel and Jewish affairs. He is president of HeraldPR and a partner at Converge Public Strategies.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.