The Most Annoying 'Pro-Israel' People
Reducing Israel to a binary stance is not just reductive; it is the intellectual equivalent of a fast-food meal: satisfying in the moment, but devoid of any real substance.
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.
Ah, the perennial allure of conditional love: the kind that arrives with a carefully annotated terms-and-conditions page.
It seems that we have collectively stumbled into an era where support for Israel is not so much a stance as it is a Rubik’s Cube of political expediency. Leftists and Right-wingers have each taken turns making proclamations of allegiance — some ardent, others tepid — all while ensuring their support comfortably aligns with their own ideological predispositions.
Spoiler alert: That is not actual support.
Being “pro-Israel only when it aligns with my politics” is akin to loving someone for their potential rather than their reality. It is disingenuous, performative, and reeks of a need to appear virtuous without grappling with the messy complexities of reality.
One must also reckon with the broader double standards at play. Why is Israel, a tiny state roughly 22,145 square kilometers (8,630 square miles), held to a level of scrutiny that far surpasses that of its neighbors? Where are the op-eds calling for boycotts of countries that systematically oppress their populations, imprison dissidents, and outlaw basic freedoms?
The answer is as uncomfortable as it is obvious: Israel’s very existence challenges people’s narratives in ways that make them deeply uncomfortable. It is easier to demand nothing short of perfection from Israel than to confront the moral shortcomings of one’s own politics.
If you find yourself “pro-Israel” only when it is convenient, then you are not “pro-Israel.” You are pro-virtue signaling. You are pro-political expediency. And worse, you are undermining not only Israel but the very idea of principled support.
By all means, criticize Israel. Debate its policies. Philosophize about the ethical dilemmas it faces. But do not act like your approval is a gift to be doled out when Israel behaves like the idealized nation in your imagination. It is condescending and insulting.
And let’s be clear: Israel is nothing if not a masterclass in complexity. A nation born from 2,000 years of relentless persecution, perched precariously in a geopolitical tinderbox, and wrestling with its own identity as both a Jewish and democratic state.
There is enough fodder here to satisfy political theorists, moral philosophers, and armchair critics for centuries. But therein lies the problem: Too many people approach the subject of Israel as a projection screen for their own political fantasies and/or personal frustrations, rather than as a real place inhabited by real people.
Take the so-called “progressive” contingent, for instance. There is an almost endearing naivety (and I am electing to be kind) about their belief that loving Israel is contingent upon it meeting some utopian standard of behavior. Support often materializes in murmurs of approval when Israeli policies align with their (hypocritical far-Left) values — only to vanish when the topic shifts to nuanced security measures or necessary military actions.
Suddenly, the same nation once lauded as a “beacon of democracy” is recast as a dystopian villain. The hypocrisy is galling, particularly when one considers the lack of similar scrutiny applied to regimes that have far less concern for human rights. But moral consistency has never been a strength of the selectively outraged.
And then there are some liberals, perpetually trying to have their hummus and eat it too. They hem and haw about being “pro-Israel but also critical.” Fair enough, constructive criticism is a hallmark of healthy relationships. But often, their critiques descend into what can largely be described as tone-deaf sanctimony. It is as if they believe their gentle admonishments will somehow steer Israel toward moral enlightenment, all while ignoring the existential threats it faces daily.
Israel, like every other country, has flaws — but it is not an abstraction that must conform to your ideological mold. It is a nation that has to make impossible decisions in impossible circumstances. It is a place where the stakes are not theoretical but existential. Criticism is fair, even necessary, but when that criticism becomes a precondition for support, it ceases to be constructive and instead morphs into self-serving.
And here is the ultimate truth: Being “pro-Israel” (or “anti-Israel”) has become a strange linguistic obsession, as though the very essence of this small nation-state is to serve as a binary Rorschach test for global ideologues. This phenomenon is, frankly, absurd. No one prefaces their stance on, say, France with “pro-” or “anti-” (unless they are discussing wine tariffs or the perplexing allure of baguettes).
Reducing Israel to a binary stance is not just reductive; it is the intellectual equivalent of a fast-food meal: satisfying in the moment, but devoid of any real substance. And yet, Israel — this scrappy, complicated, imperfect slice of the Middle East — is perpetually framed as a moral referendum.
The insistence on tagging “pro-” or “anti-” in front of Israel betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to engage with a sovereign state. No one is “pro-Japan” if you admire their efficient trains, nor is someone “anti-Brazil” if samba leaves you cold.
Why, then, does Israel occupy this unique space in global discourse, where its existence and actions must always be assessed through a cosmic balance sheet of loyalty or condemnation? The answer, of course, has little to do with Israel itself and everything to do with the pathological need of the global commentariat to project their own insecurities and agendas onto our tiny country.
Consider the absurdity: Do we ask people if they are “pro-China”? Unlikely. The conversation usually centers on specific policies — Uyghur persecution, economic practices, or foreign entanglements — not some existential allegiance to the state itself.
When it comes to Russia, the discourse is similarly granular: critiques of authoritarianism, election meddling, or war crimes. But Israel? Oh no, she is in a different league entirely.
What’s particularly galling is how this framing reduces Israel — a country of nearly 10 million people, bursting with political factions, cultural diversity, and contradictions — to a two-dimensional abstraction. The complexity of its challenges and achievements is flattened into a narrative that demands you choose sides, as though this were a football match and not the life-and-death realities of a nation navigating existential threats, internal complexities, and a perpetually hostile international gaze.
The “pro-” and “anti-” framing also encourages intellectual laziness. It absolves people of the responsibility to engage with nuance. You are either cheering from the stands or booing from the sidelines; there is no room for the messiness of acknowledging Israel’s right to exist while questioning some of its policies, or supporting its democracy while challenging how it handles certain issues.
Imagine if we applied this dichotomy to other nations. Are you “pro-India” or “anti-India”? Well, that depends; are we talking about its booming tech industry, its government systems, or its treatment of minorities? For most countries, the answer is: “It’s complicated.” Why should Israel be any different?
The fixation on being “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel” also reveals a certain arrogance. It implies that one’s stance — whether expressed on Twitter or in a hastily written op-ed — somehow holds cosmic significance for the fate of the Jewish state.
Newsflash: It does not.
Israel’s survival and evolution are not contingent on the approval of armchair philosophers in San Francisco or policy wonks in Brussels. It is a robust, self-determining nation with a thriving economy, a powerful military, and a political scene so chaotic it makes Italian politics look tame. Sorry to break it to you, but your approval is not required for its continued existence.
I can only imagine Israelis saying to themselves, “Well, X percent of the world is ‘anti-Israel’ so maybe we should consider packing up our stuff and finding somewhere else to live.”
Ha!
Here is a radical idea: Let’s retire the “pro-” and “anti-” labels altogether. Instead, let’s discuss Israel as we would any other country — with an appreciation for its history, an understanding of its context, and a willingness to engage with its complexities. Let’s talk about its innovations, its challenges, its culture, and yes, its flaws, without framing every conversation as a loyalty test.
Or, brace yourself for this outrageous suggestion: You do not need to have an opinion about Israel. I know, heresy in the age of constant takes, where every dinner convo, social media post, and poorly-lit podcast demands you plant a flag on every geopolitical hill. But here’s the thing: Israel does not need to live rent-free in your mind — or your mouth. Sometimes, silence is not complicity; it is just good sense.
This obsession with taking a position — pro, anti, or somewhere in the tortured middle — has turned Israel into the world’s most over-discussed, under-understood subject. It is as though people believe their hot take on a nation most have never visited or studied is somehow indispensable to its future. Truth be told: It is not.
Now, here is a thought experiment: Imagine a world where people stopped using Israel as their rhetorical chew toy. Instead of shouting into the void about a nation they have only encountered through headlines and hashtags, they might redirect that energy into, say, learning something new. Read a book. Watch a documentary. Or (and this is truly revolutionary), focus on the issues closer to home that they actually understand and can impact.
The beauty of opting out of the Israel discourse is that it liberates you from the endless treadmill of oversimplification. You are no longer shackled to the exhausting task of deciding whether Israel is the moral paragon or the irredeemable villain of the Middle East. Instead, you can acknowledge what should be an obvious fact of life: Israel, like every other country, is a mixed bag — a place of breathtaking innovation, troubling contradictions, profound cultural richness, and vexing political realities.
But — and this is key — none of that requires your commentary. Israel will continue to exist, thrive, and grapple with its challenges whether or not you weigh in. Your approval, critique, or indifference will not sway its fate. The only people who truly need to have an opinion about Israel are those directly affected by its policies: Israelis, their neighbors, and, perhaps, a few diplomats whose job descriptions include “solving unsolvable conflicts.” The rest of you? You are free to sit this one out.
And let’s be honest: Most of the people loudly declaring themselves “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel” are not engaging with the country itself; they are engaging with a caricature of it. They are using Israel as a stand-in for their broader ideological battles, their need to prove moral superiority, or their desperate desire to belong to a particular group.
In short, Israel is not a mascot for your ideological purity. It is a country with nearly 10 million people — Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others. It is a messy, vibrant, infuriating, and inspiring country that, like every other nation on Earth, deserves to be treated not as a caricature defined by prefixes, but with the respect of reality.
While you're correct that the terms "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel" are reductionist and binary, none of this conversation would even be necessary if there was not a worldwide, somewhat coordinated, effort to delegitimize, demonize and apply double standards to Israel (yes, I'm quite deliberately invoking Sharansky's "3D" definition of antisemitism). Those who oppose, for example, the homophobic, misogynistic and tyrannical rule of the mullahs in Tehran aren't concluding "therefore, the Persian people have forfeited their right to national self-determination". Same with China, Turkey, Russia, and so on. Only in the case of Israel does "anti" far too often mean that. (Standard disclaimer: you do need to ask what someone means when they say they're "anti-Israel"; maybe they just oppose the way Israel is conducting the war, and so on, without descending into antisemitism.) And regardless of whether they are engaging with the complexity of the country and the society or a caricature of it, anyone advocating for the elimination of Jewish self-determination needs to be called out. At the same time, we can and should help those calling it out to understand the incredibly messy nature of Israeli society and its government!
So the existence of "anti-Israel" people requires those of us who support the existence of the Jewish state to oppose them. We can say we're "pro-Israel", we can say we are "Zionist," but regardless of how we say it we are indicating our opposition to the antisemitic viewpoint. Now "pro-Israel" can also have a wide spectrum; one can absolutely support the right of the people of Israel to determine their own future without agreeing with every decision their government takes. I don't think anyone would question that ZOA is supportive of Israel, but they have strongly criticized the ceasefire with Lebanon that the elected government of Israel just agreed to. There are also those who claim to be "pro-Israel" and support an arms embargo against it, which strikes me as a fundamentally inconsistent position. But things like that do muddy the waters of discourse considerably. Nonetheless, as long as the antisemitic viewpoint exists, we are obligated to oppose it. What term you'd want to use to describe that can certainly be discussed.
Very well said, Joshua!!! Excellent writing. I honestly had to look up a few simple words that I should have know the meaning of years ago!
I agree with your point entirely.
I honestly love Israel with her complexities and as you say flaws of which I know very little. The reason I admire Israel is because I have been there and served during the time of the bombing of the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon and was there when we rescued Yasser Arafat when Israel had him and his troops pushed against the sea. Something I thought at the time, and still do, was a mistake. We should have let Israel finish this terrorist off. I am aware of the enemy, Hezbollah from the time of the terrorist bombing conducted by Hezbollah. Because if this experience is recognized the complexities that you described. Only, that is the limit of my knowledge of those complexities. Yet my limited awareness of those complexities causes me to find clarity in the reality that Israel must defend herself from a determined host of enemies that surround her like a pack of ravaging wolves that makes conditional love of county an extremely stupid and dangerous luxury that only friended from a huge distance can afford to entertain. Israelis must love their country without conditions. Yes, when the can. They must be critical of themselves while staying armed and read to defend their right to exist as country even when their country may need, for its own sake to correct errors or flaws. When I was growing in America it was our country, right or wrong it is our country.. We will challenge and correct ourselves but we will fight anyone else in the world seeking to correct us against our will!
I see that spirit in the face of the IDF forces and all Israelis who justifiably love their country, right or wrong, unconditionally.
In the interest of full disclosure at this point I will also confess that my respect for Israel is greatly influenced by my Christian faith that from my childhood taught me the virtues and vices of the Old Testament characters of Moses, the prophets, the kings and the Ten Commandments and the wisdom of Solomon etc. this would explain my idealistic respect underpinning a bias toward Israel. But it does not influence my unconditional love for the nation and people of Israel. That comes from my experience with them when I spent time integration and in the city of Haifa during the Lebanese civil war.
I understand your point and it is do true. The leftist are using any conflict in the world to push for their global agenda. They do not care why Israel must fight for survival. They are using Israel to achieve their aim. That is why they actually join hands with the, “river to the sea” crowd.
Many on the right do similar things to further their anti leftists cause.
I support Israel without conditions in solidarity with their righteous cause to exist in the world as a self governed people determining their own destinies based upon their needs, requirements and rights to live as human beings in this world.
Those who want Israel to pack up and leave cannot tell them where they should go other than where they are now. So the choice for them is to accept extinction or resist tyranny. I support the resistance of the tyrannical idea of the destruction of Israel as a people and a nation. I support it unconditionally. It is my view that Israel should accept nothing short of unconditional surrender from their enemies or the utter destruction of them.