October 7: The Fight for Israel Has Come to America

Since October 7, 2023, Americans have responded to Israel and the war in Gaza in dramatically different ways. I believe six distinct groups help explain this divide. These groups include both Jews and non-Jews.

1. Well-informed Zionists who have the knowledge and confidence to defend Israel when challenged.
2. Committed Zionists who strongly support Israel but lack the knowledge to respond confidently and spontaneously to accusations against it.
3. Americans who have traditionally supported Israel and are comfortable with America’s partnership with the Jewish state, but who can be persuaded to question or abandon that support.
4. Anti-Zionists and jihadists who oppose Israel’s existence, including extremists whose ultimate objective is to impose their interpretation of Sharia law on America.
5. People who have absorbed jihadist-influenced anti-Israel messaging without realizing its origins or understanding the broader objectives of the extremist movements promoting it.
6. A small group of Jewish anti-Zionists whose views, in my opinion, have also been influenced by jihadist anti-Israel messaging. I am working on a separate article examining this group in greater detail.

   

These six groups do not represent every American, and some overlap. But understanding their differences helps explain how the narrative surrounding Israel has changed, why people who once agreed now find themselves divided, and what we can do to bridge that divide.

One of my good friends, who also happens to be named Mitch, and I have known each other since seventh grade. We grew up a couple of blocks apart in Parsippany, New Jersey, graduated from high school together in 1974, and have shared remarkably similar political values for nearly six decades.

Both of us are liberal Democrats. Both have supported Israel. Both believe in the democratic and progressive principles that have guided us throughout our adult lives.

Yet since October 7, 2023, we have found ourselves looking at some of the same events and information through very different lenses.

Our experience raises a larger question: How did so many Americans who once felt comfortable supporting Israel become divided, uncertain, or even hostile toward a country they previously regarded as an American ally?

I believe part of the answer lies in the enormous acceleration of Jihadist revisionist history information campaign that followed October 7, particularly the success of anti-Israel movements in shaping the language through which Americans understand the conflict.

This article examines six groups of Americans, the differences in their knowledge and attitudes toward Israel, and why those differences matter. These groups do not include everyone, but they help explain some of the very different responses I have observed. I also examine what I believe is the growing influence of jihadist propaganda within American political discourse, particularly on the left.

Most importantly, I want to explore what those of us who believe in Israel’s right to exist can do about it.

The Two Mitches a metaphor

My lifelong friend Mitch has never visited Israel. Nevertheless, he has supported Israel for most of his life, and I have never questioned the sincerity of that support.

My experience has been different.

I first traveled to Israel in 1978. Over five trips, I spent approximately twenty months there. I lived and worked in Israel, studied Hebrew on a kibbutz, attended the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) Institute in Arad, and helped lead an American Jewish youth program  (BBYO)in Israel.

I graduated from Rutgers University in 1979, while my friend Mitch graduated from Hofstra University in 1978.

I also served as a delegate to the World Zionist Congress in 1987 and 1992 and was on the national board of ARZA, the Association of Reform Zionists of America.

Israel has been an important part of my life for nearly half a century.

That background gives me a different perspective on Israel from my friend Mitch’s. It’s not right or wrong, Group 1 is just more informed than Group 2.

After October 7, the two of us were exposed to many of the same headlines, accusations, images, demonstrations, and social media narratives.

I was evaluating those claims against decades of accumulated knowledge about Israeli history, its people, its politics, and the wider Middle East.

My friend was approaching much of that information without the same depth of firsthand experience and historical background.

What changed between us was not necessarily our fundamental values. What changed was the information environment surrounding Israel and our different abilities to evaluate what we were seeing.

That distinction is more important than many Americans recognize.

“I Need Talking Points”

I started Facebook group, We Are Progressive, Liberal, Woke and Pro Israel, which I started with approximately 35 friends a few weeks after October 7. Today, it has grown to more than 13,000 members.  It has a mix of both 1 & 2.

One recurring concern among members is simple: They all strongly support Israel but some do not always know how to respond when confronted with accusations of genocide, apartheid, colonialism, ethnic cleansing, or other emotionally powerful claims.

Fortunately, many members have developed extensive knowledge of Israel and the Middle East. They share articles, historical information, personal experiences, and research with those who are looking for answers.

Over time, I have watched members who initially lacked confidence become far better informed and more comfortable defending their positions.  .  This is an example of 2 becoming 1.

Our Facebook group is certainly not the only place where this can happen. Reading publications such as The Times of Israel, studying history, and following different perspectives can provide that same foundation.

But many people who support Israel have never taken the time, or even considered the need, to develop that knowledge.

I was reminded of this on 10/7/2026, when I attended a local Jewish Federation memorial commemorating the third anniversary of the Hamas massacre.

After prayers for those who had been murdered and a meaningful commemorative program, the gathering was opened for questions.

One woman asked the panel for talking points she could use when defending Israel.

The panel did not have a direct answer for her.

After several other questions, I was recognized and said, “I may have some talking points.”  Jews don’t fly planes into buildings. Nor shoot up Mosques. Jews don’t riot for Israel. Jews have peaceful parades for Israel.

That exchange reinforced something I had been thinking about for quite some time. In fact, I am developing a separate article devoted specifically to useful talking points and the historical context behind them.

The woman’s request stayed with me because it illustrated a problem larger than any single political argument.

She did not need to be convinced to care about Israel. She already cared.

What she needed was information, context, and the confidence to answer difficult questions.

And she is hardly alone.

For decades, many Americans supported Israel without having to explain that support in detail. They regarded Israel as a democratic ally, a country with a complicated history and serious security challenges, but also as a natural partner of the United States.

Then October 7 happened.

Within a remarkably short period, the public conversation shifted.

But the speed and intensity with which the public narrative changed also deserve examination.

How the Narrative Changed

The battle over Israel’s image did not begin on October 7.

For years, anti-Zionist arguments had circulated through university campuses, activist organizations, political movements, and social media.

Israel was increasingly portrayed through concepts such as colonialism, apartheid, and oppression, often with little acknowledgment of Jewish history or the circumstances surrounding Israel’s establishment.

October 7 and the war that followed gave these narratives a new intensity.

In my view, organizations and ideological movements hostile to Israel recognized an opportunity to transform a complex regional conflict into a much simpler political story: Israel as the oppressor and Palestinians exclusively as the oppressed.

That framing can leave little room for Hamas’s responsibility, Iran’s regional ambitions, the history of repeated wars, or the longstanding conflicts within Palestinian politics.

I have written extensively about what I believe is the influence of jihadist propaganda within Western political movements. See my earlier article, “I Call the DSA Corrupted by the Worldwide Jihadist Movement.”

By jihadist propaganda, I mean messaging that advances or excuses the objectives of violent Islamist organizations, rather than ordinary Muslim religious belief or legitimate advocacy for Palestinian rights.

That distinction is essential.

Muslims are not synonymous with jihadists, and criticism of violent extremism should never become a justification for hostility toward Muslims.

Nevertheless, Hamas and other Islamist militant organizations have their own political objectives. Their messaging, and the narratives circulated by their sympathizers, deserve scrutiny.

I am particularly concerned when American political movements adopt arguments that minimize the objectives or actions of these organizations while portraying Israel as uniquely responsible for the conflict.

The Counter Argument to Democratic Socialists of America, for example, has taken positions sharply critical of Zionism and Israel. I believe parts of its political messaging have contributed to an information environment in which support for Israel is increasingly portrayed as incompatible with progressive values.

I strongly reject the anti-Israel positions the DSA has adopted, and I have written extensively about what I see as the distinction between traditional progressive Democratic values and the direction the DSA has taken.

Here are four articles I have written on that subject:

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/progressivism-belongs-to-democrats-not-the-dsa/

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-counterargument-to-the-dsas-position-on-israel/

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-call-the-dsa-corrupted-by-the-worldwide-jihadist-movement/

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/free-the-palestinians-the-questions-we-avoid-that-could-lead-to-regional-peace/

That is a political argument I strongly reject.

The progressive agenda that has long included healthcare, organized labor, economic opportunity, women’s rights, and social justice does not require hostility toward Israel.

Those ideas were not invented by the DSA. Many have been part of the American Democratic tradition for generations.

I do not believe Americans should have to abandon those principles to defend Israel.

The Difference Between Criticizing Israel and Delegitimizing It

Israel is a democracy with serious political disagreements, imperfect institutions, and policies that deserve scrutiny.

Criticism of Israeli governments is not inherently antisemitic.

I have been critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly regarding his government’s handling of extremist settler violence in the West Bank.

I oppose vigilante attacks against Palestinians. I believe those responsible should be held accountable and that Israeli leaders have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

But criticizing Israeli policies is fundamentally different from arguing that Israel has no right to exist.

That distinction was particularly apparent to me when I listened to Netanyahu’s recent address to the United Nations.

I thought his presentation of Israel’s security concerns and the threats posed by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran was brilliant.

In my view, his address rose above Israeli domestic politics. I felt he was speaking not merely as the leader of his political coalition, but as a Pri minister of Israel and an advocate for Jews and Jewish security throughout the world.

That judgment does not make me a supporter of Netanyahu’s domestic political agenda.

It means I can evaluate a speech on its merits without allowing my opinion of the speaker to determine my response to every argument he makes.

This should not be an unusual position.

Americans regularly agree with political leaders on some issues while disagreeing with them on others.

Why should Israel be different?

Yet the polarized political environment has made that distinction increasingly difficult.

Some people assume that defending Israel means supporting Netanyahu. Others assume that criticizing Netanyahu means weakening Israel.

Both assumptions are wrong.

Progressive Zionism Is Not a Contradiction

My progressive values have not changed.

I continue to believe in democratic institutions, civil liberties, social justice, women’s rights, reproductive freedom, a livable wage, organized labor, and an economic system that combines entrepreneurship with appropriate regulation and protections.

I also believe in Israel’s right to exist as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

Israel itself is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society with democratic institutions, an active political opposition, civil society organizations, and a long tradition of vigorous public debate.

Like other democracies, it has shortcomings, inequalities, and unresolved political conflicts.

But its democratic character, social achievements, scientific contributions, medical innovation, agricultural technology, and experience integrating diverse populations deserve recognition.

In many respects, I believe Israel offers an important example of a progressive, democratic society operating within a capitalist economy.

That is something the American left should be willing to recognize and learn from.

Supporting Israel should not require abandoning progressive principles, and being progressive should not require abandoning Israel.

The Role of Education and Personal Engagement

That brings us back to the woman who needed talking points.

Her question should be understood as an opportunity.

When committed supporters of Israel say they do not know how to respond to an accusation.  We who are near by need to speak up and defend Israel and the Jewish People.

The answer is to help them become better informed.

This is something I have watched happen in our Facebook group.  We all can do this in our own social settings.  Do not let accusation go without being challenged.

Members bring articles, historical documents, interviews, videos, firsthand accounts, and research into discussions.

People question what they read. They compare sources. They sometimes disagree strongly.

Through that exchange, many develop a deeper understanding of issues that initially seemed overwhelming.

I learn from those conversations myself.

Knowledge does not eliminate disagreement, nor should it. But it can make disagreement more productive.

The same principle should guide our engagement with people who have rejected Zionism.

I do not believe the answer is automatically to exclude them from every conversation.

Invite them to discuss their views. Ask how they reached their conclusions. Listen carefully and challenge historical inaccuracies when they arise.

Be prepared to answer difficult questions about Israel honestly, including questions about Israeli government actions.

The objective is not to force agreement.

It is to create opportunities for people to reconsider their assumptions through evidence and dialogue.

That is more likely to happen in a thoughtful personal conversation than in a shouting match on social media.

Your true friends will respect you.  You may make new friends.  Collectively the Jewish people will be stronger and safer.

What the Two Mitches Teach Us

When I think about what has happened since October 7, I keep returning to my lifelong friend.

We have known each other since we were children. We did not suddenly become different people after October 7, and our underlying values did not disappear.

But we brought different experiences and different levels of historical knowledge to an extraordinary wave of political messaging.

That affected how we understood what we were seeing.

Our experience reflects a much larger phenomenon across America.

People who once shared broad assumptions about Israel are now examining the country through sharply different narratives.

Some possess the historical background to challenge those narratives. Others struggle to understand competing claims. Still others have accepted political conclusions that would once have seemed incompatible with their own beliefs.

And some have become convinced that Zionism itself is illegitimate.

The answer is not to pretend these Americans are all the same, nor to treat every disagreement as evidence of bad faith.

We need to understand why their differences developed.

We need to recognize the roles of propaganda, selective information, political identity, and the repetition of emotionally powerful claims.

We must also acknowledge that legitimate criticism of Israel exists and deserves honest evaluation.

Above all, we need to help people acquire the knowledge necessary to think and respond independently.

The two Mitches are still two liberal Democrats who care about Israel. I hope our friendship continues for many.

I also believe it is essential that Israel continue to enjoy support from both Democrats and Republicans. Israel’s security and its relationship with the United States should not become the exclusive concern of either political party.

The same approach should guide our conversations with friends, neighbors, political candidates, and elected officials.

Do not automatically walk away from someone speaking critically of Israel.

Ask questions. Listen to their answers. Share what you know. Be willing to learn something yourself.

If your commitment to Israel is already in your gut, put the knowledge behind it.

That is how conviction becomes understanding, and understanding becomes the confidence to engage others, one conversation at a time.

Collectively, we can make a difference.  Be Proud!    ‏‏עם ישראל חי