I will be anti-Palestinian as long as you are anti-Israel.
In a world where “anti-Zionists” try to obnoxiously recruit more folks to their so-called cause, they are also creating a group just as, if not more, powerful: “anti-Palestinians.”
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
I was traveling in the U.S. a few weeks ago and went to a well-known gym to exercise one day.
When I approached the lobby counter to buy a day-pass, a young man offered to help me. As he bent forward to put my information into the computer, I suddenly noticed that he was wearing a gold necklace with a pendant on it — in the exact shape of geographic Israel.
“Are you … Israeli?” I immediately asked him in an unsure tone, because most Israelis would never wear a necklace like that.
“No,” he said. “I am Palestinian.”
“But your necklace has Israel on it,” I responded.
“No, it is Palestine,” he said.
This was just another annoying reminder about what I and many other Israelis have long known: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a “two paths for two peoples” compromise.
On the Israeli side, a healthy majority of us would be happy to help set up a Palestinian state if it meant genuine, sustainable peace and quiet for us and the region; hence why Israel has engaged in two-state solution negotiations on 10 separate occasions since the 1930s.
But from the Palestinian side, there is little interest in a “two-state solution.” They predominantly want Israel wiped off the face of the earth and “Palestine” completely in its place.
Yet, so-called “anti-Zionists” (including Palestinians and their ignorant sympathizers) propagate a fable of innocence. When people say they are “anti-Zionists,” they often cloak this in the rhetoric of opposition to Israel’s state policies, perceived injustices, or simply support for Palestinian rights.
But, to those of us who do not have the privilege of being so naïve, “anti-Zionist” does not just mean “pro-Palestinian.” It typically means a wholesale rejection of Israel’s right to exist at all — if not in intention then in outcome — thus erasing any acknowledgment of Jewish self-determination or the complex, multigenerational roots of this issue. It is as though opposing one aspect of Israel justifies opposing all of it, including the 10 million people living here.
Being “anti-Zionist” is not about justice; it is a game of rhetorical one-upmanship that distances us from the human beings in this story. “Anti-Zionists” get so caught up in proving whose suffering is worse or whose cause is more justified that they begin to deny Israelis’ human rights. Such stances ignore the nuances of history, the complexities of current affairs, and the genuine human suffering on both sides.
What these “anti-Zionist” imbeciles do not realize, though, is that every action has a reaction. You see, in a world where they try to obnoxiously recruit more folks to their “anti-Zionist” cause, they are also creating a group just as, if not more, powerful: “anti-Palestinians.”
This means reducing Palestinians to mere symbols of a “side” in a never-ending conflict — denying them their stories, aspirations, and humanity. Ironically, this is precisely what those who are virulently “anti-Zionist” do to Israelis: They overlook individuals who have spent generations in this land, shaped by a complex history that stretches back further than most of us can comprehend. (I just met an Israeli woman whose family is the eighth generation in what is now Israel, dating back to before 1850.)
We cannot have meaningful discourse if our starting point is “anti-” anything. Labeling oneself as “anti-Zionist” or “anti-Israel” cuts off the possibility of understanding, empathy, or constructive debate. A narrative that negates one side in favor of the other is not just intellectually dishonest; it is a failure of moral imagination.
But here is the crux of the problem: People love the simplicity of taking sides. “Anti-Israel” and “anti-Zionist” slogans roll off the tongue, offering easy (even if false) moral clarity. “Anti-Zionists” simplify a conflict that is anything but simple. They provide an illusory righteousness — a sense of fighting for “the oppressed” — without grappling with the messy realities of history, geopolitics, or psychology.
What most of these fervent critics fail to understand is that this is not a conflict of monolithic identities. There is no singular group called “the Palestinians.” As Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of one of Hamas’ founders, put it:
“There is no ‘Palestinians.’ There are tribes — the tribe of Hamas, the tribe of Islamic Jihad, the tribe of Khalil, the tribe of Nablus — and each one has different interests. And all of them are conflicted. If they did not have Israel as the common enemy, they would kill each other. This is the reality of what is so-called ‘Palestine.’”1
Plus, when you say you are “anti-Zionist,” you are not just condemning policies you disagree with; you are dismissing an entire people’s right to self-determination.
In doing so, it is easy to ignore the fact that most Israelis just want to live in peace. We do not want endless war, conflict, or violence. We want normal lives, not to be pawns in a global ideological battle. Israelis do not wake up every morning thinking about how to oppress Palestinians; most Israelis are simply trying to raise their families, deal with day-to-day socioeconomic challenges, navigate a turbulent political landscape, and survive in an unpredictable world.
And yet, the louder voices — the “anti-Zionists” — drown out the voices of those who seek compromise, who believe in coexistence. Their absolutism makes it harder for people on either side to imagine a shared future. What we are left with is a war of narratives, where to be “pro-Israel” must mean being “anti-Palestinian” and vice versa. But this binary is a false one. It is a product of ideological laziness — an unwillingness to engage with the full complexity of this and related situations.
Truth be told, the conflict cannot be resolved by erasing either side. You cannot wish or protest or hashtag or boycott or lobby away us Israelis. We are not going anywhere, whether you like it or not. And the moment you declare yourself “anti-Zionist,” you have locked yourself into a stance that is fundamentally antagonistic, leaving no room for empathy or compromise.
What’s more, the “anti-Zionists” who proclaim themselves to be the valiant defenders of Palestinian rights often achieve the exact opposite of their lofty intentions. In their eagerness to paint Israel as the irredeemable villain in this geopolitical saga, they inadvertently make peace less likely. Why? Because when you vilify an entire nation with sweeping, absolute rhetoric, you do not inspire introspection or change; you trigger defensiveness. And in Israel’s case, that defensiveness translates into entrenchment.
Let’s be real: Israelis are not exactly new to being demonized on the world stage. After decades of diplomatic isolation, barbaric terrorism, and more United Nations condemnations than anyone cares to count, Israelis have developed a pretty thick skin. We have learned to live with the idea that, no matter what we do, much of the world will see us as pariahs.
Thus, when “anti-Zionists” come along with their morally pure hashtags and protests, the average Israeli is not exactly quaking in their boots or rethinking their stance. If anything, they roll their eyes and tighten their grip on the very policies and security measures these activists say they abhor.
Here’s the kicker: This hardening of positions does not just affect the Far-Right or the Far-Left. It pushes even the moderates — the ones who might very well be open to compromise — into the “anti-Palestinian” corner. When you insist that Israel is the source of all evil in the region, you leave little room for nuanced discourse. And when people feel cornered, they stop listening. That is not a threat, just human nature.
The result? More skepticism toward peace initiatives, more mistrust of international diplomacy, and, ultimately, more fuel for the naïve pipe dream because the world will never accept a Jewish state, no matter its policies or intentions.
And it gets worse.
By shouting for Palestinian rights while painting Israel as a monolithic oppressor, these “anti-Zionists” give a convenient boost to the Israeli hardliners — the very people they claim to despise. Every inflammatory speech, every overblown comparison to apartheid or Nazism, every boycott that targets Israel as a whole becomes more proof for those in Israel who argue that the international community is hopelessly biased, irredeemably antisemitic, and fundamentally opposed to the Jewish People’s right to self-determination.
“Anti-Zionism,” far from being a catalyst for so-called “Palestinian liberation,” becomes the unwitting accomplice to Israeli intransigence.
Palestinian leaders, after all, are the poster children for intransigence, openly proclaiming their goal of destroying Israel (if not in words then in deeds). Even before this war, it became clear that the Palestinians were going nowhere under the belligerent intransigence of Hamas in Gaza, as well as the quieter but equal intransigence of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
Lacking a peaceful resolution to their conflict with Israel, the Palestinians’ economy suffers very low rates of progress and expansion. Only political stability and the rule of law — neither of which have ever existed in the supposedly illustrious history of the Palestinians — can provide the basis for serious economic growth that supports effective state-building.
As Edward Rettig, a member of the Israeli human rights organization Shomrei Mishpat (Rabbis for Human Rights), put it:
“The general lack of any ability to recognize the tragic nature of the conflict, that there is some justice on the Israeli/Jewish side, justice equal in importance to the justice of their cause, renders most Palestinians incapable of genuine compromise. The best they could do was to make tactical compromises, as long as these brought them some success. … In other words, left to their own devices, the Palestinians probably cannot deliver a genuine peace agreement.”2
The key strategic factor to bear in mind is that Palestinian intransigence has never been self-supporting. As Rettig accurately indicates, “Palestine” is a political fantasy made possible by funding from outsiders such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Qatar, and UN agencies like UNRWA, the only refugee organization dedicated to a specific group (the Palestinians).
UNRWA is particularly problematic because, beginning in 1982, it deliberately expanded the right to be defined as a Palestinian refugee to include every generation of descendants. In other words, even the great-grandchild of a refugee is also considered a refugee.
Of course, UNRWA did this with a nefarious agenda: to legitimize the preposterous Palestinian claim of the so-called “right of return” — the principle that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to the homes and lands in what is now Israel, from which they or their ancestors were displaced during the establishment of the State of Israel and the subsequent Arab-Israeli War in 1948 that the Arabs started, encouraging the Palestinians to evacuate their homes so that they could wipe out the Jews.
By upholding this absurd “right of return” for the 5.6 million Palestinians who currently claim refugee status via UNRWA, Palestinian leadership and their “anti-Zionist” supporters cement their overarching objective: to dismantle the Jewish state, not by military power (which has already been tried and failed several times), but by an invented “right” exclusively afforded to the Palestinians. After all, if 5.6 million Palestinians could “return” to their “homes and lands” in what is now Israel, then Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish-majority state and thus a Jewish state at all.
And that is precisely the point of this “right of return.”
Mind you, no other refugee group’s status includes every generation of descendants, nor is there is such a thing as the “right of return” for any other refugee group. And, even if Israel accepted this “right of return” as part of a negotiated settlement, there are only 30,000 Palestinians still alive who became refugees as part of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Yet, corruptly, Palestinian leadership and their “anti-Zionist” supporters want the world to think that there are 5.6 million Palestinian refugees — while ignoring the minor detail that they rigged the system so every Palestinian on planet earth (including those not yet born) can claim refugee status via UNRWA.
Interestingly, many of these 5.6 million have full citizenship in other countries (such as Jordan), which means they should no longer be considered refugees because true refugees do not hold citizenship from other countries. (Hence why UNRWA is actually an Islamist sociopolitical movement pretending to be a humanitarian organization under the UN’s guise.)
But don’t try explaining any of this to the campus activists and social justice warriors who think that shouting “Free Palestine!” and waving a flag is the same thing as nuanced advocacy. For them, it is all a matter of righteous indignation and moral posturing.
And so, the vicious cycle continues: “Anti-Zionists” scream for more “justice” while their actions help pave the way for more suffering, mainly in the Palestinian camp. Cynical? Absolutely. Yet it is also the absurd reality we are stuck in, where the loudest voices often drown out the more constructive, if quieter, ones calling for compromise, mutual recognition, and — dare I say it — an actual chance at peace.
In the end, the greatest irony is that the “anti-Zionists” have become part of the problem they profess to want to solve. By turning Israel into a one-dimensional villain, they reinforce the very attitudes that make a peaceful resolution harder to achieve. They push Israelis into a defensive crouch, embolden the hardliners, and ultimately make the idea of peace seem more distant and unattainable.
Meanwhile, the people who suffer most from this ideological rigidity are the very Palestinians whose rights and futures these activists claim to champion. But hey, at least the hashtags are catchy.
Genuinely, I do not want to be “anti-Palestinian.” I want to be anti-simplistic narratives, anti-rhetorical tribalism, and anti-reductive slogans. I want to stand against anyone who refuses to see the humanity of both Israelis and Palestinians.
But now that I and so many others are effectively being forced into a choice between being “anti-Israel” (i.e. pro-Palestinian) or being “anti-Palestinian” (i.e. pro-Israel), of course I am going to opt for “anti-Palestinian” (i.e. pro-Israel). And it is not just because I am Jewish. It is because, given a hefty sample size, Israel on the whole does far more good for our world than do the Palestinians.
Perhaps more than anything, I am pro-progress, pro-democracy, and pro-human rights — all of which are far more common and celebrated in Israeli society than in that of the Palestinians.
“If only the Palestinians had their own state, they could do more good for the world,” the devil’s advocate might say.
What utter nonsense.
There are already 22 Arab states. None of them do much for the world in terms of human rights, democracy, pluralism, and innovation. And it is not for a lack of money. The Arabs hold one-sixth of the world’s wealth!
And, while there are many Arabs and Muslims who immigrate to Western countries and do well with various degrees of assimilation, there are also many who do not. Those in the latter group arrive in Western countries and, instead of trying to adapt to Western values and norms, they bring their animosities toward the West with them.
I just saw a crazy statistic: Muslims are only one percent of the U.S. population, but they are responsible for 26 percent of domestic terror attacks. This means that a Muslim is 26 times more likely to commit an act of domestic terrorism than a non-Muslim. And Jews have not committed any terror attacks at all.
So, I and many others can easily play this “anti-Palestinian” game with “anti-Zionists.” And it is a very easy game for us to play, for one simple reason: The State of Israel already exists, while a Palestinian one does not. Israel’s economy is one of the strongest in the world, while the Palestinian one barely functions. And do not get me started about our security and defense establishments compared to theirs.
But being “anti” anything in this conflict is not a position of strength or moral clarity; it is a position of weakness, one that avoids the real work of finding solutions. If you really cared about humanity, you would advocate for all peoples — Israelis and Jews included, no if’s, and’s, or but’s.
Otherwise, you are probably just a closet antisemite (if not in intention, then in outcome), in which case I will defend myself and my fellow Jews against the very same bigotry that you find appalling in so many other people.
“Dr. Phil Primetime.” Merit Street Media.
“Further Thoughts on Grounds for Cautious Optimism.” Anan Sahadei.
I need to be able to carry you around in my pocket and put you on my shoulder to whisper in my ear all your insights when I'm 'discussing' these topics with the usual antisemites..
Excellent.