A Helpful Guide to (some) Jewish Opinion about Israel & Palestine
As you may have noticed, there are some differences of opinion in the Jewish community when it comes to Israel and Palestine. In this article I’m mostly interested in the difference among American Jewish liberals, progressives, and the left, as they speak out following the Hamas attack of October 7 and Israel’s response. I’ve picked several where I think the differences are both significant and interesting. Keep in mind, I’m generalizing here; there are exceptions in every category.
NOTE: If you aren’t sure what I mean by liberal, progressive, and left Jews… let’s say the Reform movement is liberal, Americans for Peace Now is progressive, and Jewish Voice for Peace is left. Or to put it another way, mainstream Democrats, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Squad. Or in comedy terms… Amy Schumer, Sarah Silverman, Ilana Glazer. Or maybe Jewish media… The Forward, Fragments, Jewish Currents. You get it.
Ceasefire vs no ceasefire?
The left is united in this demand. Liberals reject it. Progressives are split.
Why? Those who reject a ceasefire believe it ties Israel’s hands from engaging in any military response, and given the severity of the attack and the large number of hostages, they don’t want to take the military option off the table for Israel. They believe Hamas must be destroyed, and that can only happen with at least some military action. Those who support a ceasefire are more focused on the number of innocent people currently dying in Gaza and (for some) the possibility hostages will be killed by a bomb or during an invasion.
How do I feel? I support a ceasefire. I don’t trust Bibi’s government to go about this in an even remotely ethical, or even legal, manner. I think even if Israel destroys Hamas’s leadership with military force, all of the death and destruction would just be planting the seeds for the next version of Hamas. Plus… I’m against death and destruction generally. I’d also prioritize saving hostages via negotiations rather than force.
Is killing Israeli civilians legitimate resistance?
Liberals and progressives agree that it is illegitimate. The (broader) left is divided, with a majority believing that it is illegitimate and a vocal minority disagreeing.
Why? Human rights law is pretty clear that it is a war crime to target civilians, even civilians who are living on disputed land. Most people agree with this. In some corners of the left, some people believe that no Israeli is a civilian, because all of Israel is in occupied Palestine, and thus all Israelis are legitimate targets. Others don’t think it’s their place to tell Palestinians living under occupation how to resist, and so they refuse to condemn the Hamas attack.
How do I feel? This is easy. Don’t kill civilians. The pro-Hamas left is amoral and dumb.
Should we use the word “genocide” to describe Israel’s blockade and bombing of Gaza?
Liberals say no. Progressives are split. The left says yes.
Why? The people against using the word “genocide” usually believe one or both of the following. First, they believe genocide requires an “intent to destroy” another people, and they don’t believe that is Israel’s intent. Second, given that Jews were the victims of a massive genocide, and helped come up with the concept of genocide (during the Holocaust), the bar for accusing Jews of committing a genocide should be particularly high. On the other side, many people believe Israel, via its bombs and blockade, is encouraging a population transfer, is engaging in collective punishment, and is killing large numbers of civilians. They believe this meets the legal definition of genocide. Also, a number of Israelis have used genocidal language, calling for Gazans to be wiped out, so at a minimum it’s fair to speak out against a potential genocide.
How do I feel? Mixed. I understand why many people feel it’s important to use the word, and I’m also not convinced that, on balance, it’s that essential. I’m opposed to killing civilians and destroying infrastructure and cutting of essential food, water, and medicine, whether or not there is an “intent to destroy” or not. Either way, its use or non-use is not a red line for me.
What about the hostages?
Liberals have made these a top priority. Progressives agree that saving them is important. The left is split.
Why? It’s worth saying that I think basically everyone believes the hostages should be freed, and that taking hostages is really bad. That said, there is also real disagreement. Liberals are focused on the return of hostages both because they believe in it, and also because it is a good way to support Israel without (necessarily) supporting the attacks on Gaza. It also helps position Israel as the victim, even while it is killing Palestinians and overseeing a 50 year occupation (among many other things). Progressives are more or less with liberals on this one, with some concerns about the ways hostages are politicized by the Right (even while many of the hostages happen to be on the liberal/left). The left has increasingly embraced including hostages among its demands and in its statements. But it is not centering them. Among those on the left who believe anything goes when you’re resisting oppression… that likely includes hostage taking. At a minimum, they see a rough equivalency between Palestinians held by Israel and the hostages held by Hamas.
What do I think? I’m in favor of moral consistency when it comes to human rights, so I think we should be aggressively pushing to prioritize the return of the hostages, even as we are seeking to end the attacks on and blockade of Gaza.
Who is at fault? Who are the good guys?
Liberals place the blame on Hamas and largely see Israel as the good guys. Progressives blame Hamas for this round of violence and blame Israel for the occupation that prolongs it; they don’t see many good guys. The left mostly blames Israel (and the US), with some acknowledging that Hamas is terrible. According to the left, the Palestinian resistance and its allies are the good guys.
Why? Well, this gets at some pretty foundational beliefs about the conflict as a whole, which shape how people understand individual incidents like this one. It’s VERY complicated, but in a nutshell, liberals see Zionism as a movement for Jewish liberation, and see much of the opposition to it as a form of antisemitism. In theory they support the Palestinian liberation movement, but only if it comes at very little cost to Israel. Progressives are invested in anti-occupation work and are very unhappy about where Israel has gone under the leadership of many right-wing governments, each worse than the last. But they don’t trust the world to protect Jews and so they aren’t ready to get rid of the protections a Jewish state (in theory) provides to Jews. The left sees itself as anti-nationalist, but more importantly anti-colonialist and anti-apartheid… and so is opposed to Zionism on all three grounds. The left also doesn’t know how to think about Jews and where they fit into their oppression matrix, so they are in a position of claiming a vast majority of Jews are pro-apartheid colonialists (aka: Zionists), while also claiming to oppose antisemitism and care about the lives of Jews (even, one assumes, the pro-apartheid colonialists among them).
What do I think? As you can probably tell from my answer to the last question… I’m a bit skeptical that the left is very interested in Jews and Jewish lives, but I also think it could and should be. At the same time, American Jews have spent far more energy defending the indefensible when it comes to Israel, and doing little to nothing to end an immoral occupation (among other things) carried out in the name of (if not with the consent of) all Jews. Liberals are all theory when it comes to Palestinian rights and all practice when it comes to Israel’s safety. I have no patience for that BS.
