Let's try a hypothetical. Guy parading around in a Muslim neighborhood, carrying a sign that says "Ben-Gvir is great. Kill everyone in Gaza". That would be inflammatory. No-one should be surprised if someone took exception to the sentiment he was expressing, perhaps violently, regardless of what the law is regarding freedom of speech and religion. On the other hand, I noticed a guy at the baseball game at Greenfield Village last Sunday, that had the tassels of his prayer shawl hanging out of the bottom of his shirt. Not overtly inflammatory to the vast majority of people.

At the outset, we don't tell people, "Hey, if people are breaking the law and violently attacking you for exercising your basic rights, maybe you should try not exercising your basic rights." You wouldn't tell the guy at the baseball game that maybe he shouldn't wear his prayer shawl anymore, because someone might take offense to it. Right? That would be terrible. You'd be telling the person who was the victim of discrimination that it's they, and not the bigots, that needed to change their ways.

And while we might not be "surprised" that someone carrying a sign calling for the extermination of millions of people in Gaza might get a violent reaction, we would - and should - be very surprised if someone was met with violence merely for wearing a prayer shawl. And we would - and should - be very surprised if someone was met with violence merely for "being invested in Israel." Not for overtly and explicitly calling for the killing of millions of people, but just for being "invested" in what happens there?

It's just wrong. You don't tell the people who might be wrongfully exposed to violence that it's incumbent on them to give in to the heckler's veto, that they have to give up their rights on matters of faith in order to keep the violent people from committing crimes against them.