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.
Great essay Jake! I’m a fan of several of the people you mentioned but haven’t followed them closely enough to have noticed their hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. (It is outrageous that Bari Weiss almost cost you your job.😡)
I admire you for always remaining truly consistent with your principles.
I find your piece refreshing. You’ve distilled onto paper thoughts I’ve had swirling around in my head for a while now. Ultimately it takes a lot of work to put your money where your theoretical mouth is…I hope some of the people named can reflect and regroup.
I’m no expert in any of this. Other than I’m not good at riding other people’s “buses” for very long. I always have to get off.
Thank you Esther! Glad you got a chance to read this one and found it clarifying. You've probably been having the same thoughts swirling in your head that I have. I deeply relate to your bus analogy! Such a good way to phrase it. That's exactly why the black sheep motif resonates with me: my allegiance to a group is rarely my highest value, above truth or growth.
Oh, trust me, I could never support this one ENOUGH! It's "The Emperor's New Clothes" moment of the year! Ironically, the undeniable utter hypocrisy reveals just how STUPID and destructive "identity politics" and group think truly ARE!
Music to my ears haha, I couldn't say it better myself. Yeah, seeing the about-face that supposed anti-identity politic advocates did when it came to Zionism is probably the best modern case study for how tribalistic these ideologies can turn us.
Once you see it, you can't "unsee" it. I have always said that the constant example of herd beliefs, servility, individual abnegation, and brainwashing on display with the Zionists is the best argument against it and identity politics there ever could be.
The rejection of identity politics and herd thinking/behavior begins AT HOME.
Well...here goes nothing! It took me a few days to work up the courage to write a response to this article as I feared alienating the Black Sheep community and with all the recent turmoil surrounding the ceasefire deal, I had a sort of crisis of faith surrounding whether an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Accords and the two-state solution can ever be possible. Now that the first hostages have come home and that I feel better about peace in the region, I'm ready to write my response. Putting aside whether I agree or not, I wanted to say that this is a tremendous article, and I think Jake makes a compelling argument. Okay so for the first part of my response will be my areas of disagreement with Jake. Then in the second part I'll talk about areas of agreement I have with Jake. To start off, I would disagree with Jake's central thesis that (most of) his former colleagues and anti-identity politics activists are hypocrites. However, I can definitely understand why he feels that way given the indoctrination and lies he was told during his upbringing and his internal questioning of them. I would disagree with Jake's assertion that Zionism's selection of Palestine was motivated purely due to religious attachment. The Jewish people are the indigenous people of the land of Israel and have had a consistent presence in the land of Eretz-Israel for over three millennia. Furthermore, no other solution for Jewish liberation would've been realistic nor would've garnered enough support from within the movement to ever be implemented. Also, Palestine was the Jewish people's home until an economic recession and Roman repression caused the vast majority of the population to flee and immigrate to the more tolerate Sassanid Empire. Long before the state of Israel existed and the first Arab stepped foot in the holy land, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea had long been established. As to the phrase "A land without a people, for a people without a land." We need to remember that many Jews had never actually been to the Middle East and were surprised when they arrived to find there was already another people living there. I would also point out prior to the arrival of the Zionist settlers there were indeed Arabs living there and it is not my intention to deny their indigeneity or right to live there too. But the land was sparsely populated and an undeveloped backwater. This is because the Ottomans considered the land unimportant and not worth doing anything with. As for the Arab peasantry and poor, they were oppressed and had no control over what was done with the land as it was owned by the Ottoman and Arab upper classes. Israel Zangwill was wrong, what he said was not the case. In the beginning according to historian Benny Morris, the Jews intended for the Arab population to stay and be equal citizens in the newborn Jewish state. But the Arabs from the jump were not willing to share even a speck of the land with the Jews and didn't recognize that this had once been their country and they had a rightful claim to it just as they did. The Zionist Movement only started to consider transfer after the bloody First and Second Arab Revolts. But even then, it was only privately discussed among the Zionist Movement but was never official Zionist policy and never came to pass. Furthermore, the Jews agreed to numerous partition plans to live in peace with the Arabs, but the Arabs refused every time. This is NOT to say everyone in the Zionist Movement accepted all the partitions, but mainstream Zionist leadership agreed because they were pragmatists who'd accept a state no matter how small. Also, the idea of transfer created moral qualms within the movement, and it was preferably to be done peacefully through persuasion and the local Arabs being paid compensation. I for one am glad it never came to that. Also, it was the Arab countries who caused the Nakba by invading Israel. Had the Palestinian leadership and the surrounding Arab nations simply accepted the existence of Israel, there would be a Palestinian state, the Nakba never would've happened and none of those people ever would've had to flee their homes. The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was neither binding nor was it sincere. The British may have promised the Palestinian Arabs a state on the land, but they didn't mean it and had no intention of following through on it and they ultimately reneged on it. It was a promise made during wartime they made to get the Arabs on their side and was driven purely by national self-interest. I also think it's important to remember that past partition plans included population exchanges not ethnic cleansing, because of Arab violence against Jewish communities. Also, in any future Jewish state the founding fathers of Zionism including even Vladimir Jabotinsky, intended for the Arabs who remained behind in the Jewish state would have full equal rights. Upon Israel's founding, Israeli Arabs received citizenship, voting rights and representation in the Knesset. But Jake is indeed correct Israeli Arabs were at least at first, second-class citizens. They lived in their own segregated area under martial law and were subject to travel permits, curfews and administrative detentions. But this would all change in 1966 (just a slight correction) when the Israeli government gave their Arab citizens full equality with Jews and lifted martial law. As to the Nakba, it had multiple causes. To be sure one of them was due to the Haganah forcibly expelling the inhabitants or due to fear created by the Irgun and Lehi's atrocities at Dier Yassin. But it was also caused by Palestinian Arabs fleeing to get out of the crossfire and protect their families and because of a media campaign by Arab leaders and being told to do so by Arab commanders. Furthermore, expelling Arabs was never the official policy of the Jewish Agency, it was the decision of individual Haganah commanders, and it was done because the local inhabitants had given aid to the Arab armies, and they didn't want the Arab armies gaining a foothold in these communities which they could use as a launching pad from which to attack surrounding Jewish communities. The UN resolution passed demanding the return of the refugees was unrealistic and wrong. Israel did not allow the 700,000 Palestinians who'd fled to return for demographic and national security reasons. On the first point, in order to have a state where Jews would not be persecuted that state would have to have a Jewish majority. If those refugees had returned the Jewish population definitely would've been oppressed and been in danger. On the second point, the newborn state would've had a massive hostile populace within its borders. None of this is to say I don't have sympathy for the Palestinian refugees and I'm sorry the situation with the war came to that, but that was simply the way it had to be. The Arab countries should've absorbed and integrated those refugees. But they abandoned them and said they were the UN's problem. To this day, these folks are stuck in dirty, overcrowded and poverty-stricken refugee camps and are treated as second-class citizens by Arab countries. As to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel offered citizenship to the folks who lived there but most generally turned it down. Also, life greatly improved in Gaza (not to say it was perfect) under Israeli rule. Gazans could work in Israel, make higher wages and had better living standards and could travel. The West Bank occupation to be sure has many flaws but overall is done as humanely as possible from what research I've done on the topic. Also, it is incorrect to call the occupied West Bank an apartheid state. Palestinians can work in Israel for four times the wages they could earn at home, are protected from harm during wartime (not to say this always works), can receive free medical treatment from the IDF, can become Israeli citizens, can marry Israelis if they so choose, and have a degree of self-government. People of color never had such rights under white minority rule in South Africa.
Okay onto part two! This is where I will discuss my areas of agreement with Jake. I have some respect for the work that Bari Weiss does. But her treatment of Jake and attempting to get him cancelled and fired was uncalled for, inexcusable and shameful! I also believe that FAIR totally mishandled the situation! Jake had to have a 90 minute phone call with his boss where he was essentially chastised for speaking his mind as is his right under the first amendment, where he had to defend himself and then take down the tweet. I will always love and support FAIR, but shame on them! They need to welcome all points of view within their ranks including anti-Zionism! I’m appalled that they would censor Jake like that! That is unbecoming an organization dedicated to freedom of speech and civil liberties! Richard Hanania is definitely a hypocrite given that he out of one side of his mouth denounces identity politics and in the next breath calls for the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza and denying the Palestinian refugees any degree of right of return. As a liberal Zionist let me make this perfectly clear, I am totally opposed to the annexation of the West Bank or Gaza or the ethnic cleansing or resettlement of Gaza! I also wholeheartedly support a limited right of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees and that they be given Israeli citizenship and full equal rights! I strongly condemn in no uncertain terms, Richard Hanania’s statement calling for mass deportations of Gazans! Gaza belongs ONLY to the Palestinian people and no one else! I also would like to make it crystal clear that I oppose any censorship of Pro-Palestinian students or academics and that I believe Pro-Palestine and even Pro-Hamas protests, demonstrations and events should be allowed provided they don’t directly incite violence. I strongly condemn Bari Weiss’s cancellations of Arab academics for their criticism of Israel and her possible role in the tragic assassination of Refaat Alareer! RIP Refaat Alareer! May his memory he a blessing! 🇵🇸❤️🌸🌺💐🕯️🕊️ My heart goes out to his family and friends! He should still be with us today. I hope one day in the afterlife, Bari Weiss will face the justice she deserves for her actions and role in his murder! I am totally opposed to the censorship or cancellation of Pro-Palestinian activists or anti-Zionist Jews. Who are and always will be, authentic members of the Jewish community. I know a number of honorable and upstanding anti-Zionists myself. I would also agree that Mrs. Weiss’s characterization of anti-Zionists in her book was wrong and lacking nuance. I know for a fact many anti-Zionists don’t want the genocide of the Jews of the holy land. Nor would one binational state necessarily lead to genocide under the right circumstances. I don’t see it as a realistic solution to the conflict and it probably won’t happen, but as Benny Morris points out Jews and Arabs can live together in peace. It’s possible as it is already done in Israel. Anti-Zionist Jews are also not the race traitors she makes them out to be. As to the occupation of the West Bank, while it’s essential to Israel’s national security and I think the way it’s done is humane, I do have criticisms of it. The requirements imposed on Palestinians to work in Israel are too stringent, the process by which Palestinians can travel needs to be streamlined and simplified, settlement expansion in the West Bank needs to be permanently halted before the Palestinians are virtually pushed into the sea, and the Israeli government needs to do more to prosecute and punish misconduct by IDF soldiers and terrorist attacks by Jewish extremists. I also believe Israel needs to speed up the processing of applications for Israeli citizenship by Palestinians in East Jerusalem. If possible someday, I would support liberalizing the occupation to make it as non-intrusive to Palestinian life as possible. I will feel great joy on the day it comes to end altogether. I’m saddened to hear Jake and Salome’s career prospects have been negatively affected by their anti-Zionist beliefs. That is absolutely terrible and unacceptable! But I applaud Jake for writing this article and them both for taking that risk and making their voices heard on this issue. A couple days ago I was extremely moved by something I saw on Jake and Salome’s video debunking Zionist myths that I hadn’t seen before and don’t know how I missed, Jake nearly breaking down crying when talking about Palestinian children in Gaza being orphaned. How can one see that regardless of viewpoint on this conflict and not feel the same? I don’t care if a child is Israeli or Palestinian, they DON’T deserve that! I also would agree with Jake and Salome that the way the IDF waged the war in Gaza was overly-broad and maximally destructive. Jake is right, they should’ve done more targeted and precise ground operations. The IAF’s bombing campaign was prone to mistakes that unnecessarily killed innocent people such as a group of aid workers just trying to help the sick and the wounded. I wanted to address something that has been bothering me, I worry sometimes that to the Black Sheep community that I come off as an inhuman, uncaring monster who doesn’t care about the Palestinian people at all. I want to assure everyone here today that is not at all the case. I’m just as pro-Palestine as I am pro-Israel and value the lives of people in both countries. Palestinian liberation is just as deeply held a value for me as Zionism is. I watched a documentary on PBS about the war in Gaza from the point of view of civilians on both sides. I’ll never forget seeing a Palestinian man who just found out his brother died running to the hospital to look for his son hoping he hadn’t lost him too. He was luckily alive but badly injured, or watching a group of Palestinian men take the bodies of their family members to a local cemetery and bury them altogether. I was absolutely left speechless and had trouble processing what I was seeing. I will never forget it! The suffering in Gaza is beyond belief and absolutely heartbreaking! I’ve seen the bodies of dead Palestinian children and adults piled on top of each other like cordwood. I’ve seen Palestinian mothers wailing and screaming and tears pouring out of their eyes over the body of their dead teenage son or daughter. These images will stay with me forever and motivate me even more so to do my very small part in helping bringing this monstrous conflict to a close and being about peace and love between the two peoples for whom I have much affection and respect. I hope with the dialogue we’ve opened up at the Black Sheep we can move the needle. Much respect Jake for this article!
None of this is to say the occupation is perfect or I don't have criticisms of it which I will get into in part two. As to the Jewish settlers who are there. They have every right to live there as that area was once Judea and Samaria where Jews lived two thousand years ago and before the 1948 War of Independence during which their communities were destroyed. They had every right to go back there! Also, the illegality of the settlements under international law is far from universally agreed upon and is hotly debated. I'll talk more about this in part two as well. The 2019 Nation State Law is wrong and should be repealed but it is purely symbolic and doesn't diminish the rights of non-Jewish minorities in Israel. Jewish nationalism is just as inclusive as Arab nationalism is and does not preclude non-Jews from living in Israel. I would strongly but respectfully, disagree with you about the individuals discussed in the Washington Post article. I have read this article, and those individuals were rightly fired not purely because of their views but because of their unprofessional behavior and celebration of October 7th and support for Hamas. They are free to believe these things if they wish, but why would any respectable company want to employ someone who acts that way and openly supports terrorism and mass murder? That really has nothing to do with free speech. Nor did universities or state governors bringing in the local police and national guard. They did so because these student encampments were illegally occupying public land, blocking students from going to class or to the library to study, targeting Jewish and Zionist students for discrimination and violence, setting fires, doing genocidal chants, and vandalizing property. I also am not opposed to all ethno-nationalism as long as it is not discriminatory. For example, German ethno-nationalism or Italian ethno-nationalism allows for minority groups to live within the borders of these countries.
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.
Great essay Jake! I’m a fan of several of the people you mentioned but haven’t followed them closely enough to have noticed their hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. (It is outrageous that Bari Weiss almost cost you your job.😡)
I admire you for always remaining truly consistent with your principles.
That story is so crazy lol. Really unethical stuff. Thank you so much for reading Pear!! Appreciated ❤️
Thanks Pear!
I find your piece refreshing. You’ve distilled onto paper thoughts I’ve had swirling around in my head for a while now. Ultimately it takes a lot of work to put your money where your theoretical mouth is…I hope some of the people named can reflect and regroup.
I’m no expert in any of this. Other than I’m not good at riding other people’s “buses” for very long. I always have to get off.
Thank you Esther! Glad you got a chance to read this one and found it clarifying. You've probably been having the same thoughts swirling in your head that I have. I deeply relate to your bus analogy! Such a good way to phrase it. That's exactly why the black sheep motif resonates with me: my allegiance to a group is rarely my highest value, above truth or growth.
Glorious TRUTH!
Thank you Keith!!!
We are in your debt and you are standing - tall, squarely, upright - in the prophetic tradition.
Thank you for the support Keith! 🙏
Oh, trust me, I could never support this one ENOUGH! It's "The Emperor's New Clothes" moment of the year! Ironically, the undeniable utter hypocrisy reveals just how STUPID and destructive "identity politics" and group think truly ARE!
Music to my ears haha, I couldn't say it better myself. Yeah, seeing the about-face that supposed anti-identity politic advocates did when it came to Zionism is probably the best modern case study for how tribalistic these ideologies can turn us.
Once you see it, you can't "unsee" it. I have always said that the constant example of herd beliefs, servility, individual abnegation, and brainwashing on display with the Zionists is the best argument against it and identity politics there ever could be.
The rejection of identity politics and herd thinking/behavior begins AT HOME.
Well...here goes nothing! It took me a few days to work up the courage to write a response to this article as I feared alienating the Black Sheep community and with all the recent turmoil surrounding the ceasefire deal, I had a sort of crisis of faith surrounding whether an Israeli-Palestinian Peace Accords and the two-state solution can ever be possible. Now that the first hostages have come home and that I feel better about peace in the region, I'm ready to write my response. Putting aside whether I agree or not, I wanted to say that this is a tremendous article, and I think Jake makes a compelling argument. Okay so for the first part of my response will be my areas of disagreement with Jake. Then in the second part I'll talk about areas of agreement I have with Jake. To start off, I would disagree with Jake's central thesis that (most of) his former colleagues and anti-identity politics activists are hypocrites. However, I can definitely understand why he feels that way given the indoctrination and lies he was told during his upbringing and his internal questioning of them. I would disagree with Jake's assertion that Zionism's selection of Palestine was motivated purely due to religious attachment. The Jewish people are the indigenous people of the land of Israel and have had a consistent presence in the land of Eretz-Israel for over three millennia. Furthermore, no other solution for Jewish liberation would've been realistic nor would've garnered enough support from within the movement to ever be implemented. Also, Palestine was the Jewish people's home until an economic recession and Roman repression caused the vast majority of the population to flee and immigrate to the more tolerate Sassanid Empire. Long before the state of Israel existed and the first Arab stepped foot in the holy land, the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea had long been established. As to the phrase "A land without a people, for a people without a land." We need to remember that many Jews had never actually been to the Middle East and were surprised when they arrived to find there was already another people living there. I would also point out prior to the arrival of the Zionist settlers there were indeed Arabs living there and it is not my intention to deny their indigeneity or right to live there too. But the land was sparsely populated and an undeveloped backwater. This is because the Ottomans considered the land unimportant and not worth doing anything with. As for the Arab peasantry and poor, they were oppressed and had no control over what was done with the land as it was owned by the Ottoman and Arab upper classes. Israel Zangwill was wrong, what he said was not the case. In the beginning according to historian Benny Morris, the Jews intended for the Arab population to stay and be equal citizens in the newborn Jewish state. But the Arabs from the jump were not willing to share even a speck of the land with the Jews and didn't recognize that this had once been their country and they had a rightful claim to it just as they did. The Zionist Movement only started to consider transfer after the bloody First and Second Arab Revolts. But even then, it was only privately discussed among the Zionist Movement but was never official Zionist policy and never came to pass. Furthermore, the Jews agreed to numerous partition plans to live in peace with the Arabs, but the Arabs refused every time. This is NOT to say everyone in the Zionist Movement accepted all the partitions, but mainstream Zionist leadership agreed because they were pragmatists who'd accept a state no matter how small. Also, the idea of transfer created moral qualms within the movement, and it was preferably to be done peacefully through persuasion and the local Arabs being paid compensation. I for one am glad it never came to that. Also, it was the Arab countries who caused the Nakba by invading Israel. Had the Palestinian leadership and the surrounding Arab nations simply accepted the existence of Israel, there would be a Palestinian state, the Nakba never would've happened and none of those people ever would've had to flee their homes. The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was neither binding nor was it sincere. The British may have promised the Palestinian Arabs a state on the land, but they didn't mean it and had no intention of following through on it and they ultimately reneged on it. It was a promise made during wartime they made to get the Arabs on their side and was driven purely by national self-interest. I also think it's important to remember that past partition plans included population exchanges not ethnic cleansing, because of Arab violence against Jewish communities. Also, in any future Jewish state the founding fathers of Zionism including even Vladimir Jabotinsky, intended for the Arabs who remained behind in the Jewish state would have full equal rights. Upon Israel's founding, Israeli Arabs received citizenship, voting rights and representation in the Knesset. But Jake is indeed correct Israeli Arabs were at least at first, second-class citizens. They lived in their own segregated area under martial law and were subject to travel permits, curfews and administrative detentions. But this would all change in 1966 (just a slight correction) when the Israeli government gave their Arab citizens full equality with Jews and lifted martial law. As to the Nakba, it had multiple causes. To be sure one of them was due to the Haganah forcibly expelling the inhabitants or due to fear created by the Irgun and Lehi's atrocities at Dier Yassin. But it was also caused by Palestinian Arabs fleeing to get out of the crossfire and protect their families and because of a media campaign by Arab leaders and being told to do so by Arab commanders. Furthermore, expelling Arabs was never the official policy of the Jewish Agency, it was the decision of individual Haganah commanders, and it was done because the local inhabitants had given aid to the Arab armies, and they didn't want the Arab armies gaining a foothold in these communities which they could use as a launching pad from which to attack surrounding Jewish communities. The UN resolution passed demanding the return of the refugees was unrealistic and wrong. Israel did not allow the 700,000 Palestinians who'd fled to return for demographic and national security reasons. On the first point, in order to have a state where Jews would not be persecuted that state would have to have a Jewish majority. If those refugees had returned the Jewish population definitely would've been oppressed and been in danger. On the second point, the newborn state would've had a massive hostile populace within its borders. None of this is to say I don't have sympathy for the Palestinian refugees and I'm sorry the situation with the war came to that, but that was simply the way it had to be. The Arab countries should've absorbed and integrated those refugees. But they abandoned them and said they were the UN's problem. To this day, these folks are stuck in dirty, overcrowded and poverty-stricken refugee camps and are treated as second-class citizens by Arab countries. As to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel offered citizenship to the folks who lived there but most generally turned it down. Also, life greatly improved in Gaza (not to say it was perfect) under Israeli rule. Gazans could work in Israel, make higher wages and had better living standards and could travel. The West Bank occupation to be sure has many flaws but overall is done as humanely as possible from what research I've done on the topic. Also, it is incorrect to call the occupied West Bank an apartheid state. Palestinians can work in Israel for four times the wages they could earn at home, are protected from harm during wartime (not to say this always works), can receive free medical treatment from the IDF, can become Israeli citizens, can marry Israelis if they so choose, and have a degree of self-government. People of color never had such rights under white minority rule in South Africa.
Okay onto part two! This is where I will discuss my areas of agreement with Jake. I have some respect for the work that Bari Weiss does. But her treatment of Jake and attempting to get him cancelled and fired was uncalled for, inexcusable and shameful! I also believe that FAIR totally mishandled the situation! Jake had to have a 90 minute phone call with his boss where he was essentially chastised for speaking his mind as is his right under the first amendment, where he had to defend himself and then take down the tweet. I will always love and support FAIR, but shame on them! They need to welcome all points of view within their ranks including anti-Zionism! I’m appalled that they would censor Jake like that! That is unbecoming an organization dedicated to freedom of speech and civil liberties! Richard Hanania is definitely a hypocrite given that he out of one side of his mouth denounces identity politics and in the next breath calls for the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza and denying the Palestinian refugees any degree of right of return. As a liberal Zionist let me make this perfectly clear, I am totally opposed to the annexation of the West Bank or Gaza or the ethnic cleansing or resettlement of Gaza! I also wholeheartedly support a limited right of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees and that they be given Israeli citizenship and full equal rights! I strongly condemn in no uncertain terms, Richard Hanania’s statement calling for mass deportations of Gazans! Gaza belongs ONLY to the Palestinian people and no one else! I also would like to make it crystal clear that I oppose any censorship of Pro-Palestinian students or academics and that I believe Pro-Palestine and even Pro-Hamas protests, demonstrations and events should be allowed provided they don’t directly incite violence. I strongly condemn Bari Weiss’s cancellations of Arab academics for their criticism of Israel and her possible role in the tragic assassination of Refaat Alareer! RIP Refaat Alareer! May his memory he a blessing! 🇵🇸❤️🌸🌺💐🕯️🕊️ My heart goes out to his family and friends! He should still be with us today. I hope one day in the afterlife, Bari Weiss will face the justice she deserves for her actions and role in his murder! I am totally opposed to the censorship or cancellation of Pro-Palestinian activists or anti-Zionist Jews. Who are and always will be, authentic members of the Jewish community. I know a number of honorable and upstanding anti-Zionists myself. I would also agree that Mrs. Weiss’s characterization of anti-Zionists in her book was wrong and lacking nuance. I know for a fact many anti-Zionists don’t want the genocide of the Jews of the holy land. Nor would one binational state necessarily lead to genocide under the right circumstances. I don’t see it as a realistic solution to the conflict and it probably won’t happen, but as Benny Morris points out Jews and Arabs can live together in peace. It’s possible as it is already done in Israel. Anti-Zionist Jews are also not the race traitors she makes them out to be. As to the occupation of the West Bank, while it’s essential to Israel’s national security and I think the way it’s done is humane, I do have criticisms of it. The requirements imposed on Palestinians to work in Israel are too stringent, the process by which Palestinians can travel needs to be streamlined and simplified, settlement expansion in the West Bank needs to be permanently halted before the Palestinians are virtually pushed into the sea, and the Israeli government needs to do more to prosecute and punish misconduct by IDF soldiers and terrorist attacks by Jewish extremists. I also believe Israel needs to speed up the processing of applications for Israeli citizenship by Palestinians in East Jerusalem. If possible someday, I would support liberalizing the occupation to make it as non-intrusive to Palestinian life as possible. I will feel great joy on the day it comes to end altogether. I’m saddened to hear Jake and Salome’s career prospects have been negatively affected by their anti-Zionist beliefs. That is absolutely terrible and unacceptable! But I applaud Jake for writing this article and them both for taking that risk and making their voices heard on this issue. A couple days ago I was extremely moved by something I saw on Jake and Salome’s video debunking Zionist myths that I hadn’t seen before and don’t know how I missed, Jake nearly breaking down crying when talking about Palestinian children in Gaza being orphaned. How can one see that regardless of viewpoint on this conflict and not feel the same? I don’t care if a child is Israeli or Palestinian, they DON’T deserve that! I also would agree with Jake and Salome that the way the IDF waged the war in Gaza was overly-broad and maximally destructive. Jake is right, they should’ve done more targeted and precise ground operations. The IAF’s bombing campaign was prone to mistakes that unnecessarily killed innocent people such as a group of aid workers just trying to help the sick and the wounded. I wanted to address something that has been bothering me, I worry sometimes that to the Black Sheep community that I come off as an inhuman, uncaring monster who doesn’t care about the Palestinian people at all. I want to assure everyone here today that is not at all the case. I’m just as pro-Palestine as I am pro-Israel and value the lives of people in both countries. Palestinian liberation is just as deeply held a value for me as Zionism is. I watched a documentary on PBS about the war in Gaza from the point of view of civilians on both sides. I’ll never forget seeing a Palestinian man who just found out his brother died running to the hospital to look for his son hoping he hadn’t lost him too. He was luckily alive but badly injured, or watching a group of Palestinian men take the bodies of their family members to a local cemetery and bury them altogether. I was absolutely left speechless and had trouble processing what I was seeing. I will never forget it! The suffering in Gaza is beyond belief and absolutely heartbreaking! I’ve seen the bodies of dead Palestinian children and adults piled on top of each other like cordwood. I’ve seen Palestinian mothers wailing and screaming and tears pouring out of their eyes over the body of their dead teenage son or daughter. These images will stay with me forever and motivate me even more so to do my very small part in helping bringing this monstrous conflict to a close and being about peace and love between the two peoples for whom I have much affection and respect. I hope with the dialogue we’ve opened up at the Black Sheep we can move the needle. Much respect Jake for this article!
None of this is to say the occupation is perfect or I don't have criticisms of it which I will get into in part two. As to the Jewish settlers who are there. They have every right to live there as that area was once Judea and Samaria where Jews lived two thousand years ago and before the 1948 War of Independence during which their communities were destroyed. They had every right to go back there! Also, the illegality of the settlements under international law is far from universally agreed upon and is hotly debated. I'll talk more about this in part two as well. The 2019 Nation State Law is wrong and should be repealed but it is purely symbolic and doesn't diminish the rights of non-Jewish minorities in Israel. Jewish nationalism is just as inclusive as Arab nationalism is and does not preclude non-Jews from living in Israel. I would strongly but respectfully, disagree with you about the individuals discussed in the Washington Post article. I have read this article, and those individuals were rightly fired not purely because of their views but because of their unprofessional behavior and celebration of October 7th and support for Hamas. They are free to believe these things if they wish, but why would any respectable company want to employ someone who acts that way and openly supports terrorism and mass murder? That really has nothing to do with free speech. Nor did universities or state governors bringing in the local police and national guard. They did so because these student encampments were illegally occupying public land, blocking students from going to class or to the library to study, targeting Jewish and Zionist students for discrimination and violence, setting fires, doing genocidal chants, and vandalizing property. I also am not opposed to all ethno-nationalism as long as it is not discriminatory. For example, German ethno-nationalism or Italian ethno-nationalism allows for minority groups to live within the borders of these countries.