Single-Track Strategy Risks Palestinians

Amid the prospect of escalating violence and atrocities in Gaza, it might seem petty to focus on the hostility many Israelis and Jews feel from international human rights groups. When this issue is addressed—such as in Michael Powell’s recent article in The Atlantic —it is often framed solely as an injustice toward Jews and Israelis, and can be perceived as a form of privileged victimhood. But these groups’ one-sided framing and narratives can also harm Palestinians, though this is frequently overlooked.

When I served as Deputy Director of Amnesty International Israel, I attended a meeting with international colleagues to discuss Israel’s serious violations of Palestinian rights. This was after the October 7 attack, with Gaza already in a state of deep humanitarian crisis. During the meeting, I suggested we consider additional strategies—such as building stronger engagement with liberal Israelis and global Jewish audiences, which entails rethinking our framing. The goal was to broaden our coalition in the fight against atrocities in Gaza.

People in the Zoom call nodded politely and said, “Thank you for your input.” In Israel, rejection tends to be more direct—but I got the message.

This issue extends beyond Amnesty. Several international human rights organizations have adopted, often implicitly, what might be called a monolithic strategy on two fronts:  (a) viewing international pressure as the only meaningful tool to push Israel toward compliance with human rights standards, and (b) relying on a strictly binary narrative—Palestinians as victims, Israel as the oppressor—as the exclusive means of generating that pressure.

As a result, any mention of suffering by Israelis (even while acknowledging Palestinians to be, overall the oppressed side) is often seen as a threat to a narrative that frames Palestinians as the sole or primary victims. Victimhood becomes a zero-sum game. In practice, this binary approach places all bets on a single path to end Palestinian oppression—while alienating important potential allies.

Beyond its moral distortions, this strategy has significant practical flaws. First, meaningful international pressure is not very likely in the near future. Second, this binary narrative may not be the most effective way to mobilize the broad coalition required to generate that pressure.

To be clear: international pressure is a legitimate—and often essential—tool in response to gross human rights violations. But it should be just one part of a broader strategic toolkit. Moreover, nuanced and inclusive narratives of oppression—ones that reflect a wider range of perspectives—can often serve the cause more effectively than dramatized, binary framing.

In the current geopolitical climate, relying solely on this approach looks increasingly shaky. The Trump era and the rise of right-wing populism have weakened global commitments to human rights and to the Palestinian cause. Europe is preoccupied with the war in Ukraine and international attention is also diverting to growing tensions in East Asia. As the U.S. pulls back from NATO leadership, some European states are turning to Israel as a potential arms supplier—further complicating diplomatic leverage.

In addition, the strategic tools available to us are interconnected. For example, engaging the Israeli public could reduce domestic resistance to international pressure. Sanctions rarely produce immediate results—but when paired with internal dissent, their impact is greater.

Let’s be honest: calling for sanctions against Israel while ignoring its legitimate security concerns—such as preventing another October 7-style attack, openly threatened by Hamas—will appear tone-deaf not only to many Israelis, but also to key potential allies, including liberal global Jewish audiences. Centrist forces in Western politics may also be more inclined to support pressure on Israel if it is voiced by those who acknowledge the country’s real security threats. These are people who also live under the threat of terrorism and are cautious of rhetoric that downplays its dangers or oversimplifies the complexities of counterterrorism.

In this light, acknowledging Israeli suffering and risks may temper the oppressor–oppressed framework—but it can expand our reach. It can better mobilize Israelis, global Jewish audiences, and influential political actors in the U.S. and Europe.

Which brings us back to the core point: a one-sided narrative is not only offensive toward Israelis and Jews, but it is ultimately less effective—and even irresponsible—toward the very Palestinians it seeks to protect. We have yet to mobilize the full range of allies who could help prevent atrocities and end or at least alleviate oppression and suffering.

It’s not too late to shift course. As one of the leaders of the Pro-Human Campaign, I believe we must actively promote recognition of the pain and dangers faced by both peoples—not only because it is morally right, but because it is strategically essential.