Since October 7th, rhetoric on Israel-Palestine has increasingly been pushed into boxes that either exclusively prioritize Palestinians or exclusively prioritize Israelis. While I believe that each side gets a lot right, I also believe that each side has retreated into echo chambers that each lack important nuances. My goal with this essay is to illuminate what I believe some of the biggest blindspots of each camp are, and to articulate the possibility of having very nuanced opinions without abandoning your core values.
Several disclaimers are that I’m A) only speaking from my own experiences with self-identified Zionists and anti-Zionists which does not encompass everybody and B) Zionists and anti-Zionists are far from being homogenous groups. People have many different definitions of what these terms mean, and there are many different ways to relate to each definition. In writing this essay, I had to generalize out of necessity, and, as such, I am in no way implying that all Zionists and anti-Zionists have the blindspots I’ve identified.
Anti-Zionists: Providing no viable alternative solution for Jewish safety to Zionism
When trying to evaluate the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise, the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and possible solutions for today, a necessary analytical component is the question of Jewish safety. Whatever your thoughts on Zionism, one of its great successes has been creating a space that has consistently welcomed Jews with nowhere else to turn to, contributing in part to overall Jewish safety. This is something Jews throughout history have desperately needed, and an issue that must be accounted for in anti-Zionist alternative visions.
Most anti-Zionists believe the Zionist enterprise has always been illegitimate, and in order to justify that belief they need to answer tough questions about whatever alternative they advocate. What alternative solution could have provided refuge for Jews fleeing pogroms in Eastern Europe after the US implemented a strict quota on immigration? During the Holocaust Jewish refugees were once again not welcomed; with the exception of the Dominican Republic, not a single country in the world was willing to take in additional Jewish refugee quotas fleeing the Holocaust, and even the Yishuv was prevented from accepting more Jews due the British issued 1939 White Paper. After the Holocaust, still no country except Israel was there to take in the 250,000 displaced Holocaust survivors without homes to return to, or the 900,000 Mizrahi Jews who fled/were expelled from the Arab world. Given the world’s abysmal record on acting to save Jews in need, anti-Zionists need to articulate how exactly their proposed solution could mitigate the danger of another Holocaust level threat.
The same logic applies to how the history of Zionism and Israel must be understood. At every important juncture, the question of “what would have happened to the Jews if X had played out” must be asked and critically examined. That is a lens of analysis that is missing from most anti-Zionist discourse, and is a big part of why anti-Zionism can be so alienating to so many people. How can one discuss the 1948 War and the 6 Day War without understanding that if Israel had lost, the best case scenario for the Israeli Jews would have been ethnic cleansing and the worst utter annihilation? How can one understand the PLO without recognizing that its initial vision of a free Palestine involved the expulsion of all Jews who had immigrated since 1917, coldly throwing them back to Europe where they had recently experienced genocide? This, of course, is not the only perspective that should be considered; for example it is also important to know that the 1948 War resulted in the ethnic cleansing of approximately 700,000 Palestinians during the Nakba and that the 6 Day War resulted in the military occupation and the expulsion of a further 300,000 Palestinians. The fact is that any observer needs to account for both of these truths in their understanding.
Anti-Zionists often maintain this blindspot when discussing what an ideal solution is today. Now, most anti-Zionists, at least that I have encountered, advocate for secular binationalism. This idea makes a lot of intuitive sense as a paradigm; everyone would have equal national rights, and Jews and Palestinians would be able to live throughout the entire land that they consider sacred. I’m not inherently opposed to this idea, but I do think that for this plan to be workable, it would need to take the issue of Jewish and Palestinian safety into account. If a complete democracy were to be established, should either side ever become a minority, laws may be passed restricting that group’s immigration or their rights. The question of how to deal with this must be discussed, as simply “letting democracy decide” poses real risks to both Israelis and Palestinians.
Zionists: Defending the actions of the Israeli government even when they’re undeniably wrong
Zionists have a deeply felt sense that the moral basis for Israel’s existence is constantly under attack (which it is), but the mistake that they often make with this is believing that they must defend the actions Israel has taken in order to defend its existence. This leads to many people defending Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza, justifying Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and de facto occupation of Gaza, undermining the role Israel played in the Nakba, etc. I empathize with the urge to be defensive here. Many people claim that the reason Israel did all these things was because the Zionist fabric upon which the country was built necessitated it, and this assertion is something any Zionist would want to rebuff. But, instead of acknowledging Israel’s wrongs and trying to articulate why they aren’t inherent to Zionism, they feel an instinct to deny any wrongdoing altogether. All this denial does is blind them from understanding Israel’s history in its full complexity, and lowers their credibility as objective observers such that any well-founded claims they make are assumed to be exaggerated or false. They should be able to acknowledge Israel’s shortcomings without feeling like they’re compromising on their value that Israel has a right to exist. More supporters of Israel must seriously revisit Israel’s history and come to terms with the many ways it has fallen short of its goal of being a democratic homeland and safe haven for the Jewish people, and the countless harms it has inflicted upon Palestinians.
So if justifying Israel’s actions even when they’re clearly wrong isn’t the way to defend Israel’s existence, what is? What Zionists should challenge is the line of logic that because Israeli policy and action has caused significant harm, the State of Israel itself must be illegitimate. If any idea that causes harm or has caused harm should be eliminated from statehood and purged as an ideology, could the same not be said for Palestinian Nationalism? Or even events like the French Revolution? The double standard that Israel is held to isn’t (usually) how its actions are assessed, but the implications that are drawn from those assessments.
A microcosm of Zionist failure to accept reasonable scrutiny towards Israel is in their conceptualization of the Nakba. One point Zionists often make about the Nakba is that many of the 700,000 Palestinians refugees from Israel’s War of Independence were in fact fleeing the war or told to leave en masse by Arab leaders, and not explicitly expelled by Israel. This argument not only denies specific recorded instances of expulsion, but also does not acknowledge the fact that it was irrefutably deliberate Israeli policy to immediately deny any Palestinian who left the right to return to their homes. Many Zionists are all too willing to take a page directly out of the far right’s playbook and retroactively justify the ethnic cleansing of well over half of the Palestinians living in the territories that became Israel. Nobody should go full Andrew Jackson to defend Israel’s right to exist.
Anti-Zionists: Supporting Hamas for any reason
This is much less of a broad critique, but I included it because it is one of the single most alienating aspects of many peoples’ anti-Zionism to me. Now I know that most anti-Zionists recognize the flaws and prejudices in Hamas’ ideology, but all too many are willing to look past this because they are fighting against Israel. Closer to home, Brown’s SJP chapter posted in the wake of October 7th that the resistance lives, and SJP’s leaked minutes from their October make no mistake in calling October 7th a “victory”, claiming that it would be inappropriate to have a “tone of mourning” in the statement they were drafting. In Brown SJP’s Instagram post a year later on the anniversary of October 7th, they referred to the largest massacre against Jews since the Holocaust as “Al-Aqsa Flood,” saying they would “honor resistance against occupation by any means necessary,” evidently even if that included the murder of 815 non-combatants, the taking of 251 hostages, and large scale rape. I’m gonna respond to a couple claims I’ve heard made about why Hamas should be supported in some respect, and why I think they are all incorrect.
Claim: “Hamas is a means to an end, and though they use violence, it’s what must be done to have a free Palestine.”
For starters, what Hamas actually advocates for must be taken into account. This is because when you’re arguing that the ends (Palestine) justify the means (Hamas), you actually need to consider what the ends are. Hamas’ goal is to establish an Islamic state in the whole land of Palestine, envisioning an almost holy war against the Jews in order to do so. In their 1988 founding charter, they include the following quote: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees.” Even Rashid Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian anti-Zionist academic describes Hamas as having an “uncompromising and anti-Semitic program and commitment to violence” (210). While Hamas “updated” their charter in 2017, the update does little other than shift their officially stated enemy from Jews to Zionists, though taking 29 years to make this change likely indicates that the anti-Semitism expressed in their initial charter is far from gone. The violence of October 7th also clearly indicated that they are not committed to peace in any tangible sense. Many anti-Zionists advocate for a secular binational state in all of Palestine, and if that’s their goal, then there is no justifying support of Hamas, who have actively worked to undermine this goal.
Secondly, violence is not an effective means to achieve an end to the occupation. A large part of the Israeli psyche is the idea that the world isn’t safe for Jews, and that’s why Israel is necessary. Violence against Israelis only reaffirms this belief, and pushes them to be more militant.
The Second Intifada (2000-2005) is the clearest example of violence against Israelis being counterproductive. Hamas, the PLO and Palestinian Jihad conducted terror attacks in Israel, blowing up buses and cafes, killing many innocent people and terrorizing everyone. All this did was shatter the Israeli peace camp, which has yet to recover.
On the other hand the First Intifada (1987-1993) was a primarily non-violent, grassroots uprising against Israeli occupation. Israel’s violent suppression, including the adoption of a brutal “iron fist” policy, was covered extensively by Western media, and created an international backlash against Israeli occupation, as well as creating a massive Israeli peace camp. This sparked the ensuing peace process.
Claim: “It’s not our place to criticize the chosen representative of the Palestinian people, even if we disagree with many elements of their ideology.”
Hamas has never in its history represented the majority of Palestinians. They famously won a plurality of legislative seats in the 2006 Palestinian Authority election not on the basis of their ideology, but because they ran as the only plausible alternative to a corrupt and stagnant Fatah. Since then there haven’t been elections in Gaza, which is fortunate for Hamas since only 7% of Gazans want them to continue to govern the Gaza Strip. Gazans are recognizing that Hamas will not provide a solution to this conflict the same way they recognized that Fatah was getting them nowhere, but they don’t have the democratic means to change their situation. Yet because Hamas is still formally in charge, anti-Zionists often feel as though they must support them. They need to justify October 7th because that is what they believe Palestinian resistance looks like, nevermind the fact that today only about 23% of Gazans support the violence of 10/7. To accept them as the de facto leaders of Palestinian resistance is to shove to the side the vast majority of Palestinians who don’t subscribe to Hamas’ violence, or Hamas’ vision of a day after.
Zionists: Being unwilling to listen to broad critiques of ethno-nationalist nation-states such as Israel
Yes, I used a buzzword, so I think I should briefly clarify what I mean when I say ethno-nationalist nation-states. I am referring to states that have the expressed goal of representing and advancing the interests of one national group, and where said nation is defined in terms of ethnicity. This includes many states such as South Korea, Greece, Hungary, and yes, Israel. Now back to the discussion.
Most current criticism of Israel is rightfully directed towards its military occupation, but in focusing on ethnonationalism, I wish to also highlight the problematic dynamics that exist within Israel proper. While critiques of Israel on the basis of its ethnonationalism are largely disproportionate given that many states are also built on ethnonationalism, that doesn’t mean that Israel’s ethnonationalism shouldn’t be criticized, only that other countries’ should be as well. To truly understand the nature of Palestinian Israelis’ marginalization, it is essential to examine the effects of this state model on them.
Of course, Palestinian Israeli citizens have many of the same legal rights that Jewish Israelis do; they are represented in the Knesset, on Israel’s supreme court, and hold many other prominent positions. However there are also plenty of instances of overt legal inequality within Israel such as the banning of certain Palestinian political parties, discriminatory housing laws, legalized segregation in certain small towns, etc. This discrimination is in large part attributable to Israel’s ethnonationalism. A less frequently acknowledged result of ethnonationalism is the lack of national rights and national belonging to those who fall outside the officially recognized nation.
There exists in Israel almost two separate societies that run in parallel with each other; one Jewish, the other Palestinian. For Jewish Israelis, they learn about Jewish history and the Torah in their schools, serve proudly in the IDF, and feel that Israel represents them. Palestinian Israelis go to separate schools where they learn about their own history (though receiving school funding is based on telling a version of history that Israel approves of), are not required to serve in the IDF, speak Arabic as a first language (only 53% rate their Hebrew speaking as good), and have a much more complex relationship with the Jewish state. The issue is not the existence of two cultures living side by side, it’s that the state of Israel cannot fairly represent both groups and litigate between them given that it is the Jewish state.
Since Israeli culture has been so defined as Jewish, little room is left for Palestinians to contribute to it. Consider the discourse last year about Elyanna, the Palestinian-Israeli singer who was invited to sing at Spring Weekend. The people who got mad about this were Zionists, who thought inviting an ethnic Palestinian to Spring Weekend was politically motivated against them. The reason for this is that despite Elyanna being a legal Israeli citizen, her ethnicity puts her outside of the Jewish nation that Israel represents. If Israel didn’t have such a rigid Jewish national boundary, Palestinian Israelis like Elyanna would be free to adopt a hybrid identity, connecting to both Israel and Palestine. However, this isn’t the case. Elyanna’s self-image is Palestinian and not Israeli, she sees herself as contributing to Palestinian and not Israeli art, and is seen as a spokesperson for the Palestinian cause, not the Israeli one. Does this not strike anyone as wrong? That a woman who was raised in Nazareth who has never lived in the West Bank or Gaza is not socially considered to be Israeli? This is a product of Israel being an ethno-nationalist nation state.
Today, the effects of ethnonationalism in Israel are dire. In a 2016 Pew Research survey that polled Jewish Israelis, 79% of those surveyed said that Jews in Israel deserve preferential treatment. If that wasn’t bad enough, 48% of Jewish Israelis responded that Palestinian Israelis should be “expelled or transferred from Israel.” Why do you suppose that is? Is it maybe because Israel has so aggressively proclaimed itself to be the homeland of Jews and no one else that non-Jews are seen as not really being Israeli? These hateful attitudes do not just appear out of thin air, they’re a product of living in an environment committed to ethnonationalism.
Conclusion
I don’t expect anyone reading this to dramatically change their point of view. However I hope that I’ve shed some light on a perspective that’s new to you, whether or not you agree with it. I hope you don’t immediately dismiss it, and that you conduct some of your own research to see what you find. Finally, I hope that I’ve implied that among these two political camps that are pitted against each other, neither is evil. Most certainly there are fringe individuals, but the vast majority of people are committed to the safety and wellbeing of both Israelis and Palestinians. We just take different paths and trust different people’s ideas on how to get there.