When ‘Pro-Palestinian’ Becomes a Cover for Anti-Israel Hostility
The use of terminology in describing the Middle East conflict is highly significant in transmitting messages to observers about what is going on. One of the most egregious distortions is the way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is presented when many activities are described merely as pro-Palestinian.
Let’s be clear: There is nothing inherently wrong with describing something as pro-Palestinian, as long as it accurately represents what it is. Pro-Palestinian activism could reflect the need to improve Palestinian existence and life, which could include a range of issues: greater security, improved economic opportunity, greater freedom to speak, greater opportunity to develop autonomy with the possibility of creating an independent state, and greater protection from Jewish extremists.
These are all legitimate concerns that warrant the title of pro-Palestinian. Who is responsible for these challenges, and who is in the best position to make things better, is a complicated subject with many potential players. These should be topics for serious conversation.
Unfortunately, far too often in post-10/7 demonstrations around the world, what is characterized as pro-Palestinian is more accurately described as anti-Israeli, with a clear purpose of delegitimizing the Jewish state and, many times, encouraging or justifying violence toward Israelis and Jews.
Placards carrying words like “From the river to the sea” or “by any means necessary” reflect an effort to justify support for the destruction of the Jewish state or to justify the violence of 10/7.
These are not merely words; they have implications with a long history behind them.
Palestinians often refer to the period of 1947–1949 as the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” when many left or were forced out of their homes during Israel’s founding. The Nakba is seen as classic pro-Palestinian language, but those who use the term often fail to understand why the Palestinian situation remains unresolved.
Palestinian leadership, then and still now, was far more interested in casting blame on the Jewish state than in looking honestly at its own failed leadership.
When the UN in 1947 partitioned British Mandate Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Palestinian Arab, neither side was particularly happy with what it got. But the Jewish leadership, particularly so soon after the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust, basically said this was no time to quibble, and did not reject the partition plan even though it didn’t give Israel control over Jerusalem, the holiest city of the Jewish people, or easily defensible borders. This was a time to begin to rebuild the Jewish nation on the historic Jewish land, even with its vast deficiencies.
Meanwhile, the Arabs living in Mandate Palestine, goaded on by the vast sea of Arab countries, refused to accept any solution that provided something for the Jews, resulting in Israel being invaded by the surrounding Arab states immediately upon declaring independence in May 1948. Had there been no rejection and no invasion, there would be a Palestinian state today side by side with the Jewish state, and life could have gone on peacefully.
Instead, war broke out as Israel defended itself against the Arab armies. In the process, the Palestinian Arabs were defeated, Jordan took over the West Bank, part of the land intended for the Palestinians, and many Palestinians fled the war zone.
It is fascinating that many of those Palestinians who did not flee are today part and parcel of the Jewish state, represented by several political parties and scheduled to win as many as thirteen or fourteen seats in the upcoming election. While there is still much work to do to bring that population up to full equality in Israeli society, their lives as Israeli citizens are far, far better than those of Palestinians who continue their rejection of the Jewish state to this day.
Therein lies the difference between authentic pro-Palestinian expressions and those that are fixated on denying the legitimacy of the Jewish state. One leads to possibilities for improving the lives of thousands of people, and the other leads to conflict and suffering brought on by hate, rejectionism, and a refusal to find solutions that involve any recognition of the legitimacy of the Jewish state.
One important step toward a more peaceful region involves supporting steps that truly are motivated by improving the lives of Palestinians and are not primarily interested in demonizing the Jewish state in the guise of working for the well-being of the Palestinians.
That day needs to come sooner rather than later.
