You Can Be Liberal, Pro-Palestinian, and Pro-Israel

There’s a strain of anger I keep running into these days — righteous, raw, exhausted — and it’s mine. I’m a proud Jew and a liberal. I believe in human dignity, in international law, in asylum and self-determination. I also believe the slogan “From the river to the sea” has crossed a line for too many people: it’s become shorthand in some corners for a political project that erases the existence, rights, and safety of Jews living in Israel.

That matters. Words matter. Context matters. Reality matters. 

Let me be clear up front: you can support Palestinian national rights (I DO) — an end to occupation, dignity and equal rights for Palestinians (I DO), and a viable sovereign state — and also insist that rhetoric which reads as a call to eliminate Israel is unacceptable. These positions are not contradictory; they are logically and morally consistent. Liberalism’s core is equal human concern: opposing oppression wherever it appears, and refusing to celebrate or excuse the deliberate killing or expulsion of civilians. A humane left must reject both collective punishment and calls that implicitly or explicitly deny another people’s existence. Some activists insist the slogan is aspirational for freedom and equality; that reading exists, but in our contemporary political moment that nuance is being drowned by the most violent, literal interpretations. 

Why does this matter politically? Because movements that aim to win broad democratic support must cultivate credibility. If the pro-Palestinian movement uses language and tactics that many hear as existential threats, it drives away potential allies who want justice but also want safety for Jews. That’s not weakness — it’s realism. If your goal is a sustainable, negotiated settlement that protects minorities, you need to make your demands in ways that make compromise possible, not impossible. Demands framed as the erasure of a people do not build peace; they harden fear.

We also have to reckon honestly with the present moment… A fragile ceasefire has led to the release of the remaining living hostages and, painfully, the return of remains — wrenching proof that real civilians on both sides have been devastated. Over the last two days there have been multiple transfers of bodies and a full transfer of the remaining living hostages under the terms of the ceasefire; families who have waited in trauma are being reunited or mourning anew. These are not abstractions. They are human beings. Any movement that treats one side’s suffering as a rhetorical device while ignoring the other’s moral claims is committing selective empathy. 

I don’t want to minimize the horror experienced by Palestinians under siege and bombardment. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is real and must be addressed immediately — food, water, medicine, reconstruction, and long-term political solutions are desperately needed. Nor should we shrink from holding Hamas accountable for terrorism and for abusing civilians… Reports state they have already murdered 35 Gazans in the last day or so. This is the moral balance liberalism requires: meaningful condemnation of terror, coupled with unflinching demands for humanitarian relief and a political horizon that delivers rights and dignity. The exchange of roughly 20 living hostages in recent days and the transfer of remains show how messy, brutal, and human this bargaining has been. 

So what does humane, effective advocacy look like?

First: reject genocidal or eliminatory language outright. If you truly want Palestinian freedom, reframe the chant. Say “Palestinian freedom and self-determination” instead of slogans that read as calls to erase Jews. If you want solidarity, center concrete demands: end collective punishment, permit immediate and safe humanitarian corridors, insist on prisoner exchanges that respect human dignity, and push for international guarantees for minorities in any post-conflict settlement.

Second: name terror for what it is. Calling out Hamas’s October 7 attacks and the deliberate targeting and kidnapping of civilians is not a betrayal of Palestinian suffering — it’s a necessary part of moral clarity. Liberalism does not mean neutralizing moral judgment; it means applying it consistently. Protecting civilians is not partisan. It’s human.

Third: insist on a political architecture that preserves rights for all. A durable two-state solution — one that guarantees security for Israelis and sovereignty for Palestinians — remains the most plausible way to reconcile competing nationalisms and to anchor minority protections in law. To get there requires political muscle, electoral engagement, and rhetorical discipline. It requires saying loudly that Jewish self-determination and Palestinian self-determination are not mutually exclusive goals.

Finally: call out performative solidarity. Too often, grief and outrage become social-media moral signaling rather than policy demands. If you’re marching for Gaza, demand concrete policy changes from your representatives. If you’re grieving Israeli victims, demand immediate protections and accountability. The left’s credibility depends on moving beyond slogans to durable policy wins.

I say this not to lecture but because I’m exhausted by the false choice: either you love Israel or you love Palestinians. That binary is a trap. Real solidarity means insisting on the dignity and safety of both peoples, refusing genocidal rhetoric, and committing to the long, hard work of building institutions and agreements that protect minorities, deliver justice, and prevent future horror.

We can be furious at the status quo. We can be relentless for Palestinian rights. We can also be immovable in defense of Jewish life and safety. Anything less is cowardice — toward victims, toward truth, and toward the hard possibility of peace. If you call yourself liberal, make your moral compass consistent: demand humanitarian relief, accountability for terror, and political solutions that respect the existence and rights of both peoples. That is the only path that stands a chance of ending cycles of violence and building something better from the rubble.