I’m always curious about what motivates people to support Palestine, especially as someone who supports the state of Israel. My response here is driven by genuine curiosity. I want to understand perspectives different from my own, so I’m setting aside any personal biases to focus on facts. Ultimately, I’m interested in gathering truths t…
I’m always curious about what motivates people to support Palestine, especially as someone who supports the state of Israel. My response here is driven by genuine curiosity. I want to understand perspectives different from my own, so I’m setting aside any personal biases to focus on facts. Ultimately, I’m interested in gathering truths that I might not yet have considered because I believe it’s the only way to have a meaningful dialogue.
From what I’ve observed, a lot of the division on this issue seems to stem from differing interpretations of historical events—particularly around who initiated the conflict during the Nakba. That moment seems to be a focal point for many when determining who holds more responsibility for the current situation.
You also mentioned framing Zionism as an identity politics ideology, which I find thought-provoking. Personally, I’ve always seen Israel as a nation rooted in Western values, somewhat like a smaller United States. Its governance, in my view, reflects principles like democracy, individual freedoms, and a commitment to progress. These values generally align more closely with global norms and create a foundation for collaboration with the broader international community.
But this leads to a critical question: If we were to flip the script and replace Israel with a Palestinian state, or even reach a peace agreement, would the result be respected by all parties involved? Would nations like Iran, which actively oppose the West, cease their hostilities? Would extremist groups committed to human rights violations suddenly change their approach? I can’t help but wonder if these deeper geopolitical and ideological conflicts make lasting peace impossible without a profound cultural shift.
For me, this conflict goes beyond being a simple matter of Jews versus Islamists. It feels more like a clash between irreconcilable cultural values—between systems that prioritize freedom, diversity, and individual rights and those that might not share those same principles. The question I wrestle with is whether such a fundamental difference in worldviews can ever truly be bridged.
On a broader note, I also share your concerns about the way dialogue has become so polarized. I agree that the anti-woke movement, in trying to combat certain ideologies, has often become its own echo chamber. The tribalism and culture of cancellations on both sides have made meaningful conversations almost impossible. It’s disheartening because we’ve lost the ability to coexist on a spectrum of beliefs. Instead, it feels like everyone is just vying for power and influence, doubling down on their side rather than listening and learning from others.
In the end, I wish there were more room for nuance and honest exploration of ideas without fear of judgment or retribution. Whether it’s about Israel and Palestine, identity politics, or broader cultural issues, the inability to have open conversations seems like one of the biggest barriers to progress.
Hi Emma! I agree with you that a lot of division comes from differing understandings of history (often propagandized tellings of history on both sides, unfortunately). And there are indeed many similarities between how the U.S. and Israel govern themselves; but there's also one key difference: Zionism. Our nations are both Constitutional Republics in the Western tradition, but only one was founded on explicitly ethnonationalist grounds. America, of course, had major problems with brutal racism for most of its history, but the identity-neutral founding ideology of our nation established in our Constitution eventually enabled us to overcome that racism. So long as Israel maintains Zionism as its state ideology, it will be forced to continue denying civil and property rights to the Palestinians in order to maintain its status as a "Jewish state." An Israel without Zionism is conceivable, but anti-Zionism is an enormously fringe view among Israeli-Jews. If Israel wants to be treated like any other Western nation, then it should start acting like one and drop its ethnonationalism (and also begin complying with international law and cease committing war crimes).
Iran and geopolitics are beyond the scope of the essay, but what I will say is that it's absolutely clear from studying history that Zionism is the leading contributor to Israel's problems in the region, and that America's continued relationship with Israel makes our own problems in the region far-worse, not better. On that subject, I'd encourage you to read John Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby.
I'd also really encourage you to stop looking at the Israel-Palestinian conflict through a clash of civilizations lens. There are Israeli hasbarists (propagandists) who want you to see the conflict that way because it leads Westerners to align with the Israeli side, but Palestinians and Arabs overwhelmingly see the conflict as a property dispute. Rather than narrowly align yourself with any side though, you should align yourself with values. For me, as a classical liberal, one of my most important values is the protection of property rights. Israel has brutally violated Palestinians' property rights, and anyone aligned with Western classical liberal values must demand they right that wrong. You cannot protect Western values by excusing their violation when it's a geopolitical ally doing it. You can demand that of Israel while also demanding that Arab society treat women, LGBT people, atheists, etc., more in line with classical liberal values as well.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with my questions. You made some great points that have given me food for thought.
I see you mentioned being a classical liberal with a strong focus on property rights, and I am as well. (Something in common—yay!)
I agree that Palestinians, like everyone else, should have the right to property and should use legal avenues to address those injustices. However, I don’t think resorting to terrorism is the right path, as it just complicates the situation and undermines their legitimacy in the fight for self-determination.
That said, I realize I may be heavily influenced by Israeli propaganda, so I’ll definitely check out John Mearsheimer’s book. Thanks for the recommendation!
I would note that there are no LEGAL avenues for Palestinians to pursue their rights (property or otherwise) since they don’t live under Israeli civil authority but under an Israeli military rule. Moreover, the nature of the Zionist project (which requires the maintenance of ethno-religious majority of Jews) means that their inclusion in the civil political system of Israel will never be on the table. So the question becomes what are the choices available to them.
Live under a system that strips you of your basic rights and is guaranteed to continue in this vein for all future generations (because Zionism can’t allow the ethno-religious balance of the state to change) or try to get rid of that system? Given that the gate keeper barring the door for the acquisition of their basic rights is a powerful military, what mechanisms are available to them? Do you think most normal people would look their children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them that their futures are forfeit and they should simply accept that? Even if, as the overwhelming number of Palestinians do, choose to live in this hopeless indignity, would you not expect some small fraction of these millions to pursue violence.
A lot people would like to pretend that there is something exceptional in the feelings of most Palestinians and the choices being made by some. It seems to me, knowing all the Americans that I know, that there is nothing exceptional going on here. If you take a couple of million Americans and trap them in the state that Palestinians are in, do you think most would shrug their shoulders and say this is fine? Would you be surprised if some of them resort to whatever violence they can unleash on the state that denies them their rights by virtue of them not being Jewish?
The problem isn’t any individual or group. The problem is a political arrangement that guarantees a single outcome - violence. The choice is to support this ethnic-religious exclusionary arrangement (and all its unavoidable violent consequences) or you reject it. You can’t say you support slavery but be distraught that the slaves hate their masters.
You make it sound as though Israel left Palestinians with no other choice, but that’s not entirely accurate. Decades of diplomacy, including efforts like the Oslo Accords, have failed to achieve lasting progress on core issues such as borders, settlements, and the status of Jerusalem.
I also know that some Palestinian families have obtained Israeli citizenship and enjoy the same legal rights as Israeli citizens, such as owning property, pursuing education, practicing their religion, and building careers. Though it’s worth noting it’s not a perfect system and that many Palestinian citizens of Israel report facing social and institutional discrimination. And the West Bank and Gaza do not have these rights unless they are granted Israeli citizenship, which is extremely rare.
Wouldn’t a more effective solution be a process like Ireland’s eventual separation from the UK—gradually building trust and working toward independence over time? Of course, the challenges here are far more complex, but building trust seems like an essential step toward a sustainable resolution.
Many Palestinians already want to coexist peacefully. The primary challenge lies with those who have been radicalized and raised to view Israel with hatred and a desire for its destruction on a fundamental level. Since Israel is a permanent reality in the region, the only viable path forward is for both sides to accept that coexistence is necessary and work toward finding a way to live together.
Individual humans have a choice. Societies, within a political and economic context, have incentives and tendencies.
My question to you was essentially: what is the most reasonable expectation you have of a population of millions of people living under the conditions that the Palestinians are living under. It’s usually hard to do this because we’ve been trained to think in reductive tribal terms, this is why I asked you to imagine a bunch of Americans living under those conditions. Please try and do that, imagine millions of random Americans in those conditions for 60 years. If you tell me that you would expect that all those people would accept that they will be forever under the rule of a state that will never give them rights; that most of them won’t feel animosity towards that state; that none of them would be radicalized; that none of them would turn to revolt and violence… then this conversation would be settled.
I’m not trying to adjudicate “who” is to blame. I’m trying to determine “what” conditions cause conflict.
I’m always curious about what motivates people to support Palestine, especially as someone who supports the state of Israel. My response here is driven by genuine curiosity. I want to understand perspectives different from my own, so I’m setting aside any personal biases to focus on facts. Ultimately, I’m interested in gathering truths that I might not yet have considered because I believe it’s the only way to have a meaningful dialogue.
From what I’ve observed, a lot of the division on this issue seems to stem from differing interpretations of historical events—particularly around who initiated the conflict during the Nakba. That moment seems to be a focal point for many when determining who holds more responsibility for the current situation.
You also mentioned framing Zionism as an identity politics ideology, which I find thought-provoking. Personally, I’ve always seen Israel as a nation rooted in Western values, somewhat like a smaller United States. Its governance, in my view, reflects principles like democracy, individual freedoms, and a commitment to progress. These values generally align more closely with global norms and create a foundation for collaboration with the broader international community.
But this leads to a critical question: If we were to flip the script and replace Israel with a Palestinian state, or even reach a peace agreement, would the result be respected by all parties involved? Would nations like Iran, which actively oppose the West, cease their hostilities? Would extremist groups committed to human rights violations suddenly change their approach? I can’t help but wonder if these deeper geopolitical and ideological conflicts make lasting peace impossible without a profound cultural shift.
For me, this conflict goes beyond being a simple matter of Jews versus Islamists. It feels more like a clash between irreconcilable cultural values—between systems that prioritize freedom, diversity, and individual rights and those that might not share those same principles. The question I wrestle with is whether such a fundamental difference in worldviews can ever truly be bridged.
On a broader note, I also share your concerns about the way dialogue has become so polarized. I agree that the anti-woke movement, in trying to combat certain ideologies, has often become its own echo chamber. The tribalism and culture of cancellations on both sides have made meaningful conversations almost impossible. It’s disheartening because we’ve lost the ability to coexist on a spectrum of beliefs. Instead, it feels like everyone is just vying for power and influence, doubling down on their side rather than listening and learning from others.
In the end, I wish there were more room for nuance and honest exploration of ideas without fear of judgment or retribution. Whether it’s about Israel and Palestine, identity politics, or broader cultural issues, the inability to have open conversations seems like one of the biggest barriers to progress.
Hi Emma! I agree with you that a lot of division comes from differing understandings of history (often propagandized tellings of history on both sides, unfortunately). And there are indeed many similarities between how the U.S. and Israel govern themselves; but there's also one key difference: Zionism. Our nations are both Constitutional Republics in the Western tradition, but only one was founded on explicitly ethnonationalist grounds. America, of course, had major problems with brutal racism for most of its history, but the identity-neutral founding ideology of our nation established in our Constitution eventually enabled us to overcome that racism. So long as Israel maintains Zionism as its state ideology, it will be forced to continue denying civil and property rights to the Palestinians in order to maintain its status as a "Jewish state." An Israel without Zionism is conceivable, but anti-Zionism is an enormously fringe view among Israeli-Jews. If Israel wants to be treated like any other Western nation, then it should start acting like one and drop its ethnonationalism (and also begin complying with international law and cease committing war crimes).
Iran and geopolitics are beyond the scope of the essay, but what I will say is that it's absolutely clear from studying history that Zionism is the leading contributor to Israel's problems in the region, and that America's continued relationship with Israel makes our own problems in the region far-worse, not better. On that subject, I'd encourage you to read John Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby.
I'd also really encourage you to stop looking at the Israel-Palestinian conflict through a clash of civilizations lens. There are Israeli hasbarists (propagandists) who want you to see the conflict that way because it leads Westerners to align with the Israeli side, but Palestinians and Arabs overwhelmingly see the conflict as a property dispute. Rather than narrowly align yourself with any side though, you should align yourself with values. For me, as a classical liberal, one of my most important values is the protection of property rights. Israel has brutally violated Palestinians' property rights, and anyone aligned with Western classical liberal values must demand they right that wrong. You cannot protect Western values by excusing their violation when it's a geopolitical ally doing it. You can demand that of Israel while also demanding that Arab society treat women, LGBT people, atheists, etc., more in line with classical liberal values as well.
For why property rights specifically are so fundamental to classical liberalism, read this short essay from economist and libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard: https://fee.org/articles/human-rights-are-property-rights/
Thanks for the thoughtful response! I really appreciate you taking the time to engage with my questions. You made some great points that have given me food for thought.
I see you mentioned being a classical liberal with a strong focus on property rights, and I am as well. (Something in common—yay!)
I agree that Palestinians, like everyone else, should have the right to property and should use legal avenues to address those injustices. However, I don’t think resorting to terrorism is the right path, as it just complicates the situation and undermines their legitimacy in the fight for self-determination.
That said, I realize I may be heavily influenced by Israeli propaganda, so I’ll definitely check out John Mearsheimer’s book. Thanks for the recommendation!
I would note that there are no LEGAL avenues for Palestinians to pursue their rights (property or otherwise) since they don’t live under Israeli civil authority but under an Israeli military rule. Moreover, the nature of the Zionist project (which requires the maintenance of ethno-religious majority of Jews) means that their inclusion in the civil political system of Israel will never be on the table. So the question becomes what are the choices available to them.
Live under a system that strips you of your basic rights and is guaranteed to continue in this vein for all future generations (because Zionism can’t allow the ethno-religious balance of the state to change) or try to get rid of that system? Given that the gate keeper barring the door for the acquisition of their basic rights is a powerful military, what mechanisms are available to them? Do you think most normal people would look their children and grandchildren in the eye and tell them that their futures are forfeit and they should simply accept that? Even if, as the overwhelming number of Palestinians do, choose to live in this hopeless indignity, would you not expect some small fraction of these millions to pursue violence.
A lot people would like to pretend that there is something exceptional in the feelings of most Palestinians and the choices being made by some. It seems to me, knowing all the Americans that I know, that there is nothing exceptional going on here. If you take a couple of million Americans and trap them in the state that Palestinians are in, do you think most would shrug their shoulders and say this is fine? Would you be surprised if some of them resort to whatever violence they can unleash on the state that denies them their rights by virtue of them not being Jewish?
The problem isn’t any individual or group. The problem is a political arrangement that guarantees a single outcome - violence. The choice is to support this ethnic-religious exclusionary arrangement (and all its unavoidable violent consequences) or you reject it. You can’t say you support slavery but be distraught that the slaves hate their masters.
You make it sound as though Israel left Palestinians with no other choice, but that’s not entirely accurate. Decades of diplomacy, including efforts like the Oslo Accords, have failed to achieve lasting progress on core issues such as borders, settlements, and the status of Jerusalem.
I also know that some Palestinian families have obtained Israeli citizenship and enjoy the same legal rights as Israeli citizens, such as owning property, pursuing education, practicing their religion, and building careers. Though it’s worth noting it’s not a perfect system and that many Palestinian citizens of Israel report facing social and institutional discrimination. And the West Bank and Gaza do not have these rights unless they are granted Israeli citizenship, which is extremely rare.
Wouldn’t a more effective solution be a process like Ireland’s eventual separation from the UK—gradually building trust and working toward independence over time? Of course, the challenges here are far more complex, but building trust seems like an essential step toward a sustainable resolution.
Many Palestinians already want to coexist peacefully. The primary challenge lies with those who have been radicalized and raised to view Israel with hatred and a desire for its destruction on a fundamental level. Since Israel is a permanent reality in the region, the only viable path forward is for both sides to accept that coexistence is necessary and work toward finding a way to live together.
Individual humans have a choice. Societies, within a political and economic context, have incentives and tendencies.
My question to you was essentially: what is the most reasonable expectation you have of a population of millions of people living under the conditions that the Palestinians are living under. It’s usually hard to do this because we’ve been trained to think in reductive tribal terms, this is why I asked you to imagine a bunch of Americans living under those conditions. Please try and do that, imagine millions of random Americans in those conditions for 60 years. If you tell me that you would expect that all those people would accept that they will be forever under the rule of a state that will never give them rights; that most of them won’t feel animosity towards that state; that none of them would be radicalized; that none of them would turn to revolt and violence… then this conversation would be settled.
I’m not trying to adjudicate “who” is to blame. I’m trying to determine “what” conditions cause conflict.