Injustice fuels absolutist thinking, dividing the world into right and wrong. When Israel commits atrocities, is it fair to question whether its very existence is illegitimate? The truth is, no nation is defined solely by its worst actions and many Israelis and Palestinians reject this binary anti/pro-Zionism and work toward a more just, shared future.
Intellectualizing injustice leads to more injustice, as humans are prone to bias without balancing their views with humility.
I mostly agree with this, but what I’d point is that being anti-Zionist is—for most (but not all) people—exactly about having a more just, shared future.
Zionism is the belief there there should be a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Being an ethnostate doesn’t mean that it’s exclusively Jewish, but it means that it’s a state specifically built and run for the benefit of its majority ethnic group. This is a particular problem in a land where a different ethnic group has had to be expelled and denied the right to return in order to maintain Israel’s Jewish character.
Being anti-Zionist doesn’t necessarily mean that Jews shouldn’t be able to live in Israel/Palestine, it just requires that Israel/Palestine not have policies designed to privilege Jews over other groups. Again for most, but not all, anti-Zionists, this means Jews can stay, but Palestinian refugees must also be allowed to return and property that was confiscated from Palestinians and given to Jews in the early days of Israel (many property deeds and houses) must be restored to Palestinians who can show proper ownership rights. This is exactly what seeking a more just, shared future looks like.
I appreciate the clarification, especially the emphasis on justice that includes both Palestinians and Jews. I think what’s often difficult is how the term “anti-Zionism” means very different things to different people. For some, it does cross into denying Israel’s right to exist at all which can trigger fear or defensiveness. I agree that seeking a shared future means confronting injustice without dehumanizing the other side. That’s where I hope more conversations like this can lead.
I also think it’s important to remember that true justice isn’t about enforcing a particular outcome for either side. What that looks like in practice should ultimately be determined by the people who live with the consequences every day. For those of us far removed from the realities on the ground, our role is to support dialogue, not dictate terms, especially when speaking into a pain that isn’t ours to carry firsthand.
Unfortunately we’re not that far removed, as we personally know people who have family and have experienced or supported the injustice that Israel carries out in service of creating a Jewish-majority state.
Additionally, the intense influence Zionism has on American politics—to the point of leading to the ongoing detainment of a student for writing an article criticizing Israel—makes this issue very much of direct relevance to Americans. This is why both Jake and I advocate for complete separation of American and Israeli interests—at least this would make your vision that we should merely support dialogue more possible.
I get that this feels personal and US involvement definitely makes it relevant. But I still think reconciliation has to come before any political outcome. When we split the story based on moral certainty, it turns into a power struggle instead of a path toward healing. That kind of framing cuts off dialogue and keeps people stuck.
True justice lifts everyone—Palestinians and Jews, and we’re all capable of rising above the pain we’ve inherited. Cutting ties doesn’t create justice, it just deepens the divide. Real dialogue is how we stay accountable and grounded in something bigger than winning and moving toward lasting peace.
You seem to have quite the “moral certainty” for someone opposed to others having it.
Plenty of things turn out better when people have “moral certainty.” In fact without moral *confidence* people are sometimes just paralyzed. The problem isn’t simply “moral certainty”, it’s what people are morally certain *about*. Were abolitionists in pre civil war America in violation of your “path toward healing” for their moral certainty that the institution of slavery was an abomination?
“Healing paths” sometimes contain power struggles. “True” justice will never be realized without power struggles. To disparage power struggles is simply advocating for the status quo; it is cheerleading for whoever has the most power. And today, the most powerful are truly not the most just.
“True” justice begins for Palestine when the apartheid and the genocide by Israel ends. It doesn’t require being a firsthand victim of either to understand that. Empathy and sympathy is sufficient. Nor does “true” justice require “lifting everyone”, such as Likud or Hamas. “True” justice will require some to be lowered. It will require Zionists to lose most of their political power.
American citizens are not too “far removed” from what’s happening in Palestine, at least politically, as our resources are being plundered to support the apartheid and genocide. Thus it’s important that enough citizens in the U.S. in some sense “dictate terms” about ending the U.S. government’s role in them and thus helping them come to an end. “Our role” can include many things such as raising awareness, disputing propaganda, maintaining pressure, funding political campaigns or even running for office.
I’m sure “anti-Communism” means different things to different people, but if a communist thinks it means wanting to kill all the people of China, it doesn’t mean people are obliged to avoid using the term. Anti Zionism only means “killing all Jews in Israel” to some Zionists primarily because that is what many are propagandized to believe by other Zionists. Which is just another reason to be anti Zionism.
And for some valuable historical precedence for what should happen to Israel, I think we can look to how Germany and Japan were treated after World War 2, and how South Africa was treated during the end of its apartheid. What do you think about that? Do you think Germans, Japanese, and white South Africans were “dehumanized” or had terms unjustifiably dictated to by third parties?
Do you think sometimes “cutting ties” with Nazis didn’t help create justice? “Reconciliation” occurred simultaneously with political action during the end of the South African apartheid. Lots of people weren’t particularly happy about it either. Lots of Jewish and Muslim supremacists in Palestine won’t be happy with a political reconciliation process either.
And unfortunately, sometimes “real dialogue” with some people is pointless and a waste of time. At the dawn of the American revolution, the revolutionaries decided that “dialogue” with the crown was no longer fruitful. Good for them. When dialogue is pointless is deeply contextual though.
The government of Israel has no inherent right to exist, which includes its name, anymore than the United States government has any inherent right to exist. When governments carry out certain atrocities, people who are victims of those atrocities have the right to reform or abolish those governments, with force if necessary. That is even the sentiment of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. There is nothing essentially sacred about the government of Israel or any other government. That idea shouldn’t frighten anyone, unless they are a fascist.
You raise some strong points about justice and power, but true justice doesn’t come from flipping the power dynamic, it comes from breaking the cycle entirely.
When we fight oppression by becoming like our oppressors, we just carry the harm forward. Real justice requires truth and accountability, yes, but also humility, compassion, and a willingness to see the humanity even in those we oppose.
Power struggles alone can’t bring peace, only transformation can.
I agree with what you’re describing in principle, but I don’t see how it applies in the specific instance where a powerful government has been denying basic rights to a population based on their identity and inflicting mass suffering and death on them.
For any kind of reconciliation to occur, the Israeli government would have to stop indiscriminately killing Palestinians and subjecting them to life as second-class citizens, as in the West Bank.
The current Israeli government simply has no interest in that, as has been repeatedly demonstrated and stated by different officials. And much of the Zionist rhetoric that conflates all Palestinians with terrorists and views Jews as having uniquely more rights to that land simply because they’re Jewish creates further conflict.
It’s a conflict that perfectly illustrates why America’s classical liberalism that doesn’t tie rights to race or ethnic identity leads to more peace instead of perpetual tribal conflict. This is also why both Jake and I advocate for liberal principles and against all identity politics, including Zionism, as these ideologies ultimately take us further from peace and justice.
I certainly hope to see the kind of forward movement you’re describing though!
I hear what you’re saying and I agree that injustice must be absolutely be addressed. But when justice is framed only through a political lens, it can become like Animal Farm. That moral certainty can blind us to how easily the oppressed can become the new oppressor.
The trap of power cloaked in righteousness doesn’t lead to true justice. It becomes an eye for an eye and the suffering never ends. Without reconciliation, the ends start justifying the means. We stop seeking healing and start seeking victory at any cost.
Look at any prolonged conflict in history, and you’ll see this as the root cause. Breaking the cycle requires deep spiritual literacy, like that shown by great leaders such as MLK Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Despite profound injustices against them, they chose reconciliation over self-righteousness and changed the world for the better.
Injustice fuels absolutist thinking, dividing the world into right and wrong. When Israel commits atrocities, is it fair to question whether its very existence is illegitimate? The truth is, no nation is defined solely by its worst actions and many Israelis and Palestinians reject this binary anti/pro-Zionism and work toward a more just, shared future.
Intellectualizing injustice leads to more injustice, as humans are prone to bias without balancing their views with humility.
I mostly agree with this, but what I’d point is that being anti-Zionist is—for most (but not all) people—exactly about having a more just, shared future.
Zionism is the belief there there should be a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine. Being an ethnostate doesn’t mean that it’s exclusively Jewish, but it means that it’s a state specifically built and run for the benefit of its majority ethnic group. This is a particular problem in a land where a different ethnic group has had to be expelled and denied the right to return in order to maintain Israel’s Jewish character.
Being anti-Zionist doesn’t necessarily mean that Jews shouldn’t be able to live in Israel/Palestine, it just requires that Israel/Palestine not have policies designed to privilege Jews over other groups. Again for most, but not all, anti-Zionists, this means Jews can stay, but Palestinian refugees must also be allowed to return and property that was confiscated from Palestinians and given to Jews in the early days of Israel (many property deeds and houses) must be restored to Palestinians who can show proper ownership rights. This is exactly what seeking a more just, shared future looks like.
I appreciate the clarification, especially the emphasis on justice that includes both Palestinians and Jews. I think what’s often difficult is how the term “anti-Zionism” means very different things to different people. For some, it does cross into denying Israel’s right to exist at all which can trigger fear or defensiveness. I agree that seeking a shared future means confronting injustice without dehumanizing the other side. That’s where I hope more conversations like this can lead.
I also think it’s important to remember that true justice isn’t about enforcing a particular outcome for either side. What that looks like in practice should ultimately be determined by the people who live with the consequences every day. For those of us far removed from the realities on the ground, our role is to support dialogue, not dictate terms, especially when speaking into a pain that isn’t ours to carry firsthand.
Unfortunately we’re not that far removed, as we personally know people who have family and have experienced or supported the injustice that Israel carries out in service of creating a Jewish-majority state.
Additionally, the intense influence Zionism has on American politics—to the point of leading to the ongoing detainment of a student for writing an article criticizing Israel—makes this issue very much of direct relevance to Americans. This is why both Jake and I advocate for complete separation of American and Israeli interests—at least this would make your vision that we should merely support dialogue more possible.
I get that this feels personal and US involvement definitely makes it relevant. But I still think reconciliation has to come before any political outcome. When we split the story based on moral certainty, it turns into a power struggle instead of a path toward healing. That kind of framing cuts off dialogue and keeps people stuck.
True justice lifts everyone—Palestinians and Jews, and we’re all capable of rising above the pain we’ve inherited. Cutting ties doesn’t create justice, it just deepens the divide. Real dialogue is how we stay accountable and grounded in something bigger than winning and moving toward lasting peace.
You seem to have quite the “moral certainty” for someone opposed to others having it.
Plenty of things turn out better when people have “moral certainty.” In fact without moral *confidence* people are sometimes just paralyzed. The problem isn’t simply “moral certainty”, it’s what people are morally certain *about*. Were abolitionists in pre civil war America in violation of your “path toward healing” for their moral certainty that the institution of slavery was an abomination?
“Healing paths” sometimes contain power struggles. “True” justice will never be realized without power struggles. To disparage power struggles is simply advocating for the status quo; it is cheerleading for whoever has the most power. And today, the most powerful are truly not the most just.
“True” justice begins for Palestine when the apartheid and the genocide by Israel ends. It doesn’t require being a firsthand victim of either to understand that. Empathy and sympathy is sufficient. Nor does “true” justice require “lifting everyone”, such as Likud or Hamas. “True” justice will require some to be lowered. It will require Zionists to lose most of their political power.
American citizens are not too “far removed” from what’s happening in Palestine, at least politically, as our resources are being plundered to support the apartheid and genocide. Thus it’s important that enough citizens in the U.S. in some sense “dictate terms” about ending the U.S. government’s role in them and thus helping them come to an end. “Our role” can include many things such as raising awareness, disputing propaganda, maintaining pressure, funding political campaigns or even running for office.
I’m sure “anti-Communism” means different things to different people, but if a communist thinks it means wanting to kill all the people of China, it doesn’t mean people are obliged to avoid using the term. Anti Zionism only means “killing all Jews in Israel” to some Zionists primarily because that is what many are propagandized to believe by other Zionists. Which is just another reason to be anti Zionism.
And for some valuable historical precedence for what should happen to Israel, I think we can look to how Germany and Japan were treated after World War 2, and how South Africa was treated during the end of its apartheid. What do you think about that? Do you think Germans, Japanese, and white South Africans were “dehumanized” or had terms unjustifiably dictated to by third parties?
Do you think sometimes “cutting ties” with Nazis didn’t help create justice? “Reconciliation” occurred simultaneously with political action during the end of the South African apartheid. Lots of people weren’t particularly happy about it either. Lots of Jewish and Muslim supremacists in Palestine won’t be happy with a political reconciliation process either.
And unfortunately, sometimes “real dialogue” with some people is pointless and a waste of time. At the dawn of the American revolution, the revolutionaries decided that “dialogue” with the crown was no longer fruitful. Good for them. When dialogue is pointless is deeply contextual though.
The government of Israel has no inherent right to exist, which includes its name, anymore than the United States government has any inherent right to exist. When governments carry out certain atrocities, people who are victims of those atrocities have the right to reform or abolish those governments, with force if necessary. That is even the sentiment of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. There is nothing essentially sacred about the government of Israel or any other government. That idea shouldn’t frighten anyone, unless they are a fascist.
You raise some strong points about justice and power, but true justice doesn’t come from flipping the power dynamic, it comes from breaking the cycle entirely.
When we fight oppression by becoming like our oppressors, we just carry the harm forward. Real justice requires truth and accountability, yes, but also humility, compassion, and a willingness to see the humanity even in those we oppose.
Power struggles alone can’t bring peace, only transformation can.
I agree with what you’re describing in principle, but I don’t see how it applies in the specific instance where a powerful government has been denying basic rights to a population based on their identity and inflicting mass suffering and death on them.
For any kind of reconciliation to occur, the Israeli government would have to stop indiscriminately killing Palestinians and subjecting them to life as second-class citizens, as in the West Bank.
The current Israeli government simply has no interest in that, as has been repeatedly demonstrated and stated by different officials. And much of the Zionist rhetoric that conflates all Palestinians with terrorists and views Jews as having uniquely more rights to that land simply because they’re Jewish creates further conflict.
It’s a conflict that perfectly illustrates why America’s classical liberalism that doesn’t tie rights to race or ethnic identity leads to more peace instead of perpetual tribal conflict. This is also why both Jake and I advocate for liberal principles and against all identity politics, including Zionism, as these ideologies ultimately take us further from peace and justice.
I certainly hope to see the kind of forward movement you’re describing though!
I hear what you’re saying and I agree that injustice must be absolutely be addressed. But when justice is framed only through a political lens, it can become like Animal Farm. That moral certainty can blind us to how easily the oppressed can become the new oppressor.
The trap of power cloaked in righteousness doesn’t lead to true justice. It becomes an eye for an eye and the suffering never ends. Without reconciliation, the ends start justifying the means. We stop seeking healing and start seeking victory at any cost.
Look at any prolonged conflict in history, and you’ll see this as the root cause. Breaking the cycle requires deep spiritual literacy, like that shown by great leaders such as MLK Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Despite profound injustices against them, they chose reconciliation over self-righteousness and changed the world for the better.
Well said, weird logic!