The “Free Palestine” movement is not about Palestinians.

Leftists think they are fighting oppression, but they are likely creating something far worse.

photo: Leonardo Basso/Unsplash

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.

---

This is a guest essay by Chico Muya, a writer, political communicator, and YouTuber.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Why has a war taking place in the Middle East seemingly become the most important conflict in human history?

Protest after protest. Our politicians speak about it constantly. NGOs have made it one of their most prominent causes. Students increasingly judge political candidates by how “pro-Palestine” they are, as we’ve seen in New York with Zohran Mamdani and others. And accompanying all of this is a growing wave of people who seem convinced that America, and the West more broadly, represent the true evil in this world.

But it doesn’t stop there.

Why is it that you can draw a line between those who justify violence during the French riots, those who want to bring an end to capitalism and dismantle Western civilisation as we know it, and those who champion the Palestinian cause? Why do so many of these people also believe they are victims of an oppressive system, or insist that mass migration poses no serious danger to our societies?

The list goes on, but the so-called “pro-Palestine” movement has been particularly successful at making its way into positions of influence and power.

They call themselves “anti-Zionists,” although for some this means opposing the existence of the world’s only Jewish state. Many are also anti-capitalists, Marxists, and open-border activists who regard Western institutions as inherently oppressive. There is even a horseshoe Right that reaches similar conclusions, although it arrives there through an entirely different ideological route.

What explains this convergence?

I believe there is something deeper at work here, something that goes beyond the familiar divisions of Left and Right. It is a conflict of visions, and understanding it helps explain one of the most consequential ideological divisions in our societies today.

---

The “pro-Palestine” movement needs to be recognised for what I believe it ultimately represents: a subversive, anti-Western ideological movement, with a powerful Islamist component, that threatens to demoralise and destabilise our societies.

It has become increasingly apparent to me that much of this movement wears the Palestinian cause like a garment. Performative kindness conceals something far more sinister. Beneath the garment lie hatred, resentment and a desire to destroy.

I would like nothing more than to never have to write about this movement again. But the true horror of this cult-like “Free Palestine” phenomenon is that it refuses to remain within the realm of geopolitics. It has spread into our institutions, our politics and increasingly our everyday lives. And like many people, I’m sick of it.

Geopolitics can be complicated, fraught with grey areas and difficult choices. But reality must remain our guiding principle. There are cold calculations that sometimes have to be made, or at the very least acknowledged, however uncomfortable they may be.

The problem with this movement is that it not only ignores reality, but extends its sticky, chameleon-like tongues into almost every issue in society. It is a twisted, repulsive thing to behold, especially when you get a glimpse beneath the facade and discover the grotesque ideology lurking underneath.

Some time ago, I watched a fantastic horror series on Netflix. I don’t scare easily. In fact, I rather enjoy the thrill. But there was one particular scene that genuinely disgusted me. Even now, thinking about it makes me shiver.

I watched it ages ago, so forgive me if some of the details are embellished. This is simply how I remember it.

A little girl discovers a handful of kittens on her family’s property. They appear to have been abandoned by their mother. Out of the goodness of her heart, she places them in a box, brings them home and excitedly shows them to her parents, enthusiastically declaring that she will take care of them. She will be their new mother.

Unfortunately, over the following days, the kittens begin dying, one after another, from what appears to be some flu-like illness. Devastated, the little girl and her father prepare to bury the last kitten in a makeshift coffin. It is her first encounter with death, and her father is understandably concerned about how she will cope.

Then, miraculously, the kitten begins to move. There is hope. This innocent little creature has somehow managed to fight off death. The girl’s face lights up. Her father is relieved. They lean closer, watching the kitten’s mouth move, expecting to hear its faint little cry. But no sound comes. Instead, a massive insect begins crawling out of the kitten’s mouth. The little girl screams and runs away.

I remember recoiling in disgust. The contrast between what I expected and what I witnessed was so grotesque that the scene left a lasting impression on me.

And that is precisely how I see the “pro-Palestine” movement.

At first glance, you might imagine that it is nothing more than a humanitarian endeavour. Many well-meaning people are like that little girl. They genuinely care. They see images of suffering in Gaza, and their compassion moves them to act. They may know very little about the facts on the ground, but their concern for human life is sincere.

And that is precisely what makes this movement so effective. It uses people’s kindness to justify and advance all kinds of destructive worldviews.

---

The tip of the spear is opposition to Israel.

It is why activists determined to portray Israel as uniquely evil have made such extensive use of terms like “genocide” to describe the war, and why Israel’s fight against Islamist terror is so often portrayed as nothing more than a barbaric and unjustified campaign of violence.

The objective is simple: to establish Israel as the chief villain in the story.

Never mind that Hamas filmed itself committing acts of unimaginable horror against innocent Israelis on October 7th. Never mind that Hamas has consistently articulated its genocidal intentions toward Israel and Jews more broadly, or that its leaders have openly declared their intention to repeat October 7th-style attacks again and again.

Hamas has resisted demands that it abandon its objective of destroying Israel. Its terrorists have fought in civilian clothing and operated among civilians, using them as human shields. These tactics complicate the battlefield and muddy the international perception of the war. Civilian deaths and destruction then become ammunition for the myriad voices determined to condemn the world’s only Jewish state.

What you will notice is that many of Israel’s most vocal detractors barely acknowledge Hamas when discussing the war. In fact, Hamas all but disappears from their analysis.

You would think Israel was fighting civilians for the sheer pleasure of doing so.

Imagine watching an MMA fighter battling an invisible opponent. To the spectators, the visible fighter would appear completely deranged, rolling across the floor, throwing punches and kicks, growling and swearing as he attacks something nobody else can see.

That is what happens when Hamas is removed from the picture. Israel is left looking like a country attacking for no apparent reason, and every military action becomes evidence of its supposed barbarity. It’s absurd.

This is how so many falsehoods and distortions about the war have acquired an appearance of legitimacy. Add to that the blight of circular citations, in which shaky and sometimes outright false information is repeated across NGOs, international institutions, newspapers, and political commentary until it begins to resemble an established consensus.

photo: Tristan Sosteric/Unsplash

---

Why do so many of Israel’s fiercest detractors also share similar anti-Western views? Why do some of the people who champion the Palestinian cause also defend or excuse the violence witnessed during the student riots in France? Why does the Palestinian flag appear at demonstrations ostensibly concerned with entirely different domestic issues?

Why are socialist and leftist leaders like Pedro Sánchez in Spain and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil so consistently hostile toward Israel? Why have figures like Mamdani and influential sections of the Democratic Party adopted such hostile positions?

Mamdani himself threatened to have Benjamin Netanyahu arrested, calling him a “war criminal,” while also drawing attention for visiting a criminal in hospital rather than the victim — the police officer who was attacked.

This is a pattern I see among sections of the Left. They rush to show compassion toward criminals, while those who have suffered at their hands become an afterthought.

When hardworking people see their businesses looted and destroyed during riots in France, their livelihoods receive little attention from those eager to explain the supposed grievances of the rioters. Yet police action against those committing the destruction becomes a matter of urgent moral outrage.

When foreigners commit crimes, elements of the media rush to explain their circumstances, even as failures of integration become increasingly difficult to ignore.

There is a particular ideological instinct that would rather point an accusing finger at the countries generous enough to accept people than acknowledge the responsibility of those who refuse to integrate. It is the same instinct that refuses to confront the dangers posed by Islamic ideology, even when the consequences are visible for everyone to see.

These might appear to be entirely separate issues: Israel, capitalism, immigration, criminal justice, social unrest and Islam.

But I don’t believe their ideological overlap is accidental. There is a framework that helps explain why these seemingly unrelated positions so often converge. And it comes from Thomas Sowell.

In his book “The Conflict of Visions,” Sowell describes two different ways of understanding human nature and the organisation of society: the constrained and unconstrained visions.

The constrained vision begins with a recognition that human beings are flawed. We are not naturally perfect creatures waiting to be liberated from oppressive systems. We have competing interests, weaknesses, ambitions, prejudices and limitations.

Because of this, people need incentives to act, institutions to organise their behaviour and guardrails to restrain their worst impulses.

Take capitalism.

In a free market, if you create something people want, you can become extraordinarily wealthy. Consider the iPhone, or mobile phones more generally. These devices have transformed the world and saved countless lives. Yet their development was not primarily the result of some grand humanitarian project. They emerged from a system in which people and businesses were incentivised to innovate, compete and create products that others would willingly pay for.

The result is that society benefits from the ambitions of individuals, even when those individuals are motivated by their own interests.

Competition drives businesses to develop better products, medicines and technologies. People are rewarded for producing something of value, while those who fail to meet the needs of consumers risk losing out to their competitors.

At the same time, laws establish boundaries. If you break the law, there are consequences. Culture and tradition also play important roles in organising society and shaping human behaviour.

Those who instinctively lean toward the constrained vision understand that no arrangement of human affairs will ever be perfect. But they also recognise that, in the aggregate, institutions built around incentives, accountability and limitations on power can produce extraordinary results.

Consider the American Constitution. Why does it establish a separation of powers? Why are there checks and balances?

Because the American Founders understood that human beings are flawed. They knew that power could corrupt, that ambitions would collide and that no individual or institution could be trusted with unlimited authority. The answer was not to find perfect rulers, but to construct a system capable of restraining imperfect ones.

This understanding also extends to war and international relations.

The constrained vision recognises that as long as human beings exist, conflict will remain a possibility. One way to make war less likely, therefore, is through deterrence: ensuring that potential aggressors understand that attacking you will come at an unbearable cost.

There are always trade-offs. Every decision carries consequences, and every attempt to solve one problem risks creating another.

This brings us to the unconstrained vision. It begins with a very different understanding of human nature. It regards human beings as fundamentally good, with society and its institutions responsible for corrupting them. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau is often paraphrased: “Nature made man happy and good, but society corrupts him and makes him miserable.”

Within this framework, the problem is not primarily the imperfections of human nature, but the systems that prevent people from realising their supposedly better selves. Remove those systems of oppression, and a better society becomes possible.

Traditions and cultural expectations are regarded as forms of bondage, preventing people from being their authentic selves. Historical figures are judged according to contemporary moral standards rather than the circumstances in which they lived, and condemned as evil or backward for failing to live up to modern expectations.

War itself can be treated as an evil that humanity ought to be capable of abolishing through understanding, even when force is being used for a righteous cause.

Underlying this worldview is the belief that sufficiently enlightened individuals can guide humanity toward a better, perhaps even perfected, condition. Society can be redesigned from the ground up by those who believe they possess the knowledge and moral clarity necessary to do so.

Of course, these conflicting visions are not always black and white. They can overlap, and sometimes combine in strange and contradictory ways. Most people carry elements of both, even if they instinctively lean more strongly toward one than the other.

There are also extremes within each vision. And in some cases, adherents of the unconstrained vision come to regard violence as entirely appropriate, particularly when it is directed against those they believe are obstructing the arrival of their ideal society.

photo: Michael Muthee/Unsplash

Which brings us back to the Palestinian cause.

This conflict of visions helps explain why so many seemingly unrelated ideologies have gathered around the same cause.

The “pro-Palestine” movement naturally attracts people who lean toward the unconstrained vision: those who believe that the existing system is fundamentally unjust and must be torn down and rebuilt into something supposedly better.

This is why support for “Palestine” so frequently extends far beyond the geopolitical realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is why Marxists, radical leftists and movements opposed to Western capitalism have made “Palestine” such a central part of their political identity.

For these activists, the Palestinian cause has become a flag under which they can unite. Because, to them, Israel represents far more than a country. It has become the embodiment of Western oppression, racism, capitalism and the Judeo-Christian civilisation they regard with such hostility.

But this brings us to one of the strangest aspects of the movement: the alliance between the radical Left and Islam.

People often find it strange that Islamist movements can find common ground with the Left. After all, the liberal values the Left claims to champion are practically nonexistent in societies governed by strict interpretations of Islamic law. Homosexuality is condemned and punished. Women are reduced to second-class citizens. Even leaving Islam can carry severe consequences, including persecution and death.

It’s not that the Left is entirely unaware of these realities. It’s that many within these movements regard their areas of agreement as far more important than their differences.

Opposition to Israel and the Western political order sits at the heart of much of the radical Left’s unconstrained vision of the world. Many believe that the problems plaguing the Middle East are fundamentally the consequence of Western imperialism and interference. The people living under these systems are, according to this worldview, victims of the very same oppressive forces that must be dismantled at home.

It is a marriage of convenience.

The Islamists, however, approach this alliance from a different perspective. Cooperation with those seeking to dismantle the existing Western order offers them a foot in the door. In the West, they can adopt the language of liberation, resistance to oppression and opposition to Israel. This messaging suits their purposes, even if their ultimate vision for society bears little resemblance to that of their leftist allies.

And this would hardly be the first time such an alliance has emerged.

One need only look back to Iran’s 1979 revolution.

Ruhollah Khomeini and his Islamist followers found common ground with the radical Left and communist movements through their opposition to the Shah and Western influence. Khomeini spoke of justice, liberation and the struggle against imperialism, employing language that appealed to those who believed the existing political order needed to be overthrown. Even prominent Western intellectuals viewed the revolution with enthusiasm, believing that the removal of the Western-aligned Shah might usher in a better society.

Islamists and leftists helped bring down the same government, despite having fundamentally different ideas about what should replace it. But the utopia never arrived.

Instead, Iran became an authoritarian Islamic Republic that reversed important social freedoms, imposed religious rule and made hostility toward Israel and the West central to its revolutionary identity. Many of the very leftists who had helped overthrow the Shah were subsequently imprisoned, executed or driven into exile.

They had helped destroy what they regarded as an oppressive system, only to replace it with one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Millions of Iranians would eventually flee their country, while those who remained would live under a system whose consequences continue to haunt Iran and threaten the wider world.

This is why I regard the Islamist element of the “pro-Palestine” movement as so dangerous, even when its most visible face appears leftist and humanitarian.

The danger exists on multiple levels.

The most immediate is the unconstrained vision itself: an ideology determined to remake society, dismantle the institutions and traditions that have sustained Western civilisation, and pursue a utopia that always seems to demand the destruction of something that already exists.

But beneath this lies another danger. Islam, understood not merely as a private religious belief but as a system of law, political authority and social organisation, has its own vision of the world. And it is not the liberal utopia its leftist allies imagine.

Those who embrace the unconstrained vision may find themselves dismantling the very guardrails that protect them from the authoritarian applications of that ideology. Culture, tradition, religion, national identity and established institutions are cast aside in pursuit of a supposedly better world, with little consideration for what might take their place.

That brings me back to the little kitten.

The “pro-Palestine” movement presents itself as something innocent, something deserving of our sympathy. It invites us to set aside our critical faculties, overlook uncomfortable realities and allow compassion alone to guide our judgment. But doing so would be a grave mistake — because sooner or later, the kitten’s mouth will begin to move. No sound will escape.

And as society leans closer, expecting to hear the faint cry of something innocent, a great, grotesque insect will burst from its mouth and consume everything in its path.

---