Is It Possible to be Both 'Pro-Israel' and 'Pro-Palestinian'?
The sad truth is that, in a zero-sum conflict, it's become exceedingly difficult to present as sympathetic to both sides.
I’ve mostly been reading and writing about non-Gaza related topics in recent weeks. Part of this is by design. I’m finding it genuinely difficult to write on the topic, or at least to think of anything original or interesting to say. At this point, attitudes are likely entrenched among people who follow the war closely. If you’re not identified with a side, it probably means you’re not engaging on the topic enough to become so “identified.”
This time, actually, is different, or so I think. It was once possible to say you were both “pro-Israel” and “pro-Palestinian” without inviting too much cognitive dissonance. J Street, established as a sort of counterpoint to AIPAC, is an organization that sometimes seems to aspire to this (although even they don’t explicitly say they are “pro-Palestinian.” Rather they say they are “pro-peace”). But Israelis themselves by and large are firmly behind Israel’s punishing military campaign in Gaza, or one might say against Gaza.
Yes, Benjamin Netanyahu is deeply unpopular, but that doesn’t translate into support for a more limited or “humane” military operation. Some of this is zero-sum: there is no such thing as a humanitarian-friendly bombardment, particularly not if you think, as most Israelis understandably do, that this is an existential struggle and not at all a war of choice. In other words, there is no way to realize Israel’s aspirations and objectives—as most Israelis understand them—without undermining Palestinians’ interests and objectives, which include an also comprehensible desire to not be killed.
We are loathe to think that such tradeoffs can be measured in human lives. It is part of the American disposition to hope, even against all hope, that we all somehow have shared interests, if only we could spend the time and do the work to figure out what they are. But this is obviously not the case when it comes to the dueling nationalisms of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. Not all problems have solutions, or at least there are no solutions that would be mutually intelligible to “both sides.” I’m reminded of my former Brookings colleague Natan Sachs’ caution that “anti-solutionism” is its own disposition and one that tends to be more popular in the Middle East.
I was (and still am) someone who was criticized—or attacked in rather personal terms—by comrades on the pro-Palestinian side for being insufficiently committed to Palestinian liberation, to use the language of the movement.
I often found myself somewhere in the in-between, still pro-Palestinian but seen as suspect for not endorsing a one-state or binational solution. Moreover, I had my criticisms of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), since I didn’t think it made much moral sense to penalize Israelis for being Israeli, which presumably wasn’t their fault. I even, God forbid, traveled to Israel on a research trip sponsored by a Christian Zionist organization, whose president, Robert Nicholson, is both a friend and a friend of the pod (He was on recently for a quite emotionally intense conversation, which you should definitely check out if you haven’t already). And, yes, I went to settlements and spoke at length with settlers, similar to how I would speak at length with just about anyone, provided they aren’t members of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization so as to avoid any legal complications.
These things won’t be controversial to many of you, but it is worth noting that they are extremely controversial among activists and advocates for the Palestinian cause. I wish they weren’t, but activists, understandably, have a different set of priorities than researchers, journalists, or academics, particularly those of us who preoccupy ourselves with a mission like Wisdom of Crowds’—which is to understand why people, even bad people, come to believe the things they believe in.
I “even” believe in Jewish self-determination. As a matter of consistency and principle, I think this is the right position to take. This, in turn, means that I believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.
This might make me “balanced” or fair-minded in a way that others who advocate for Palestinian rights aren’t, but that doesn’t make me, in any intelligible sense, “pro-Israel.” Especially now. Do I want the “best” for Israelis in some kind of ultimate sense? As a human, sure. But my consideration of what’s best for Israelis is very different than their own consideration of what’s best for them. How could it not be?
At a more fundamental level, however, it doesn’t make sense for me to be pro-Israel any more than it would make sense for me to come out as “pro-French” or “pro-Swede.” It might make more sense for me to be “pro-Ukraine” or “pro-Taiwan,” but that’s only because both peoples and nations have, today, a clear adversary against which to define themselves. Which is also, as it happens, why I’m “pro-Palestinian.” There is a both sides. But it’s not possible to support both sides equally, at least not if one wishes to maintain any semblance of political, moral, or intellectual coherence.
Wisdom of Crowds is a platform challenging premises and understanding first principles on politics and culture. Join us!
It's an admirable piece, Shadi, expressive of basic decency: both sides have rights but it's possible that some of those rights conflict, so people on both sides may have to renounce some of their rights, which is a painful prospect.
I think it's important, though, while sympathizing with the actual humans (as opposed to the fanatics) on both sides, to acknowledge how asymmetrical the conflict is, morally speaking. In 1948, 750,000 Palestinians fled their homes, mostly forced out by Israelis, and in flagrant violation of international law, were not allowed to return. This was not because of Israeli security concerns, but because Israel had always hoped, and now was determined to take the opportunity, to evacuate the Palestinians and annex their land, which they did. In 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank, another 150,000 Palestinians fled, whom Israel has once again, illegally, never allowed to return. Since 1967, Israel has settled 700,000 Jews in the West Bank and confiscated much of the area's water and arable land. Sporadic Palestinian terrorism -- unjustifiable, of course -- has been met with overwhelming Israeli reprisals -- mostly against civilians -- in proportions varying from 20 to 1 to 50 to 1. Israel's security has never been at risk: it has always been the most powerful state in the region by a large margin, as well as the region's only nuclear power. On top of this, it enjoys the unreserved support of the world's richest and most powerful country and of a rich and politically articulate diaspora.
Both sides deserve our sympathy, certainly, but one side deserves much more of the blame.
The activism around me reminds me of reading about Americans and terrorism in Ireland: that the peace movements there were undermined by Americans who had strong ideas of what justice looked like, and were willing to stand behind (and fund) violence and terrorism of the ugliest sort while most human beings actually in the region, whatever they thought "justice" looked like, mostly wanted to find a way out of violence.
To me Netanyahu and Hamas clearly had the same step #1 in their policies: they both want to control the whole region, and so step #1 is to fight it out. As outsiders, none of us really plan to go to the front lines. Hamas and Netanyahu don't diverge until after the shooting starts. I witness a lot of people around me, safe on lands stolen in a genocide, lands which we certainly won't return, on the same team with Netanyahu and Hamas, on team "fight it out." Maybe the activists don't like how 1948 turned out and want a re-do, and are willing to have Palestinians as well as Israelis continue to suffer until they find time machines.
Meanwhile we have been undermining the peace advocates in the region. When people in the region want to get the hostages back without a war — the West undermined them, the Westerners flying Palestinian flags made it clear that a return of hostages or trials/ even mere repudiation and a promise not to repeat/ of rape was going to require a war, flew the colors of terrorists and rapists instead of peace-builders. Around me it shocks me how many people have such strong opinions but can't tell Hebron from Deir Yassin, or tell the grandkids of refugees from Yemin to go back to Europe and have no idea which demographics voted for Netanyahu.
In the region, parents who lost their kids work together across divides, groups like "Standing Together" work together across divides, they talk to each other — out here we seem to want the refugees from antisemitism to have been slaughtered in 1948 since they were from Europe, to be racists who can't see Jews of color from the region even if they are Netanyahu's base and the group you have to influence more than others if you want to change Israel's current right-wing tack, and Westerners around me don't really care what happens to Palestinians enough to think through and look for ways for people to stop killing each other. We're not really, yet, on the side of peace, we are in the gladiator stands cheering on one side in the continued fighting but the real effect of that is that we cheer the fighting — Hamas gains fame and fortune with rape and terrorism, fifteen year old boys there saw videos of Westerners waving the Hamas flag on October 7 and did not see Westerners saying that rape degrades their cause; people whose friends were raped on October 7 trying to decide if there is a path that besides war saw a West that is silent when their people are raped — how do you think that influences their decision to join the military or protest? Our cheers from the gladiator stands don't really *help* the people we cheer for, we're not going to the front lines ourselves, and the people we claim to cheer for most wish the fighting would stop. There needs to be a side for peace; for truth and reconciliation not unending war — and the left in the West is not yet on that side.