Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Time to drop the terms pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel

Opinion

Israel and Palesitian conflict
Jelina Preethi/Getty Image

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

The Palestinian situation concerns Israel and Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and a range of Arab countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Hamas, which the United States designates a terrorist organization, is obviously part of the equation, as is Fatah and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. It is therefore very difficult to make sense of terms like “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-Israel” when one is talking about either the current war or one's position on the future of the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.

What does it even mean to be pro-Palestinian? Which Palestinians and Palestinian platforms does one support if one is pro-Palestinian?


Someone who is pro-Palestinian might be supportive of Palestinian civilians in the current war but also in favor of a two-state solution or confederation solution to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinians. On the other hand, someone who is pro-Palestinian might be supportive of Palestinian civilians in the current war as well as supportive of Hamas and the effort to destroy Israel and Jews in Israel because he or she denies that Israel has a right to exist. Many people who are pro-Palestinian, in either sense of the term, like to say they are Pro-Palestinian and many are very passionate about saying it. The problem is that saying you are pro-Palestinian is not informative and can be very misleading.

The same holds for people who say they are pro-Israel. Someone who uses that term could be supportive of Israel in the current war and also supportive of a two-state solution or a confederation solution. On the other hand, someone who uses these words could be supportive of Israel in the current war but against the idea of a two-state solution or a confederation solution or indeed any solution to the Palestinian situation.

What would truly eliminate confusion is if people would first identify their overall position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The key is to know if someone thinks there is a way to create a map of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza that enables Jews and Palestinians to live in peace. This can be called the "Peaceful Coexistence Model." Thus someone can either stand for peaceful coexistence or not. Hamas, for one, is against the idea of peaceful coexistence. Iran is also opposed to the idea. The Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, have appeared for years to be for peaceful coexistence, although they have sharply criticized Israel for building up too many settlements in what they regard as Palestinian land given to them by the 1993 Oslo Accords.

Regarding the war itself, it is best to spell out specifically where you stand. There are not two clear camps. For example, you can be for peaceful coexistence, argue that Israel has a right to defend itself, oppose the precise way Israel has been trying to dismantle Hamas, and support the humanitarian pauses and hostage/prisoner exchanges as they have proceeded so far. This is the position of the Biden administration and many other countries. Alternatively, you can be for peaceful coexistence, support the hostage/prisoner exchanges, but essentially favor a cease-fire and an end to the war. If that is your position, then you must explain how there is a path to peaceful coexistence if Hamas has not been dismantled, recognizing that Hamas has threatened to attack Israel over and over again.

If you are not in favor of peaceful coexistence, then you should say so. At that point, you can make it clear that you support Israel against the Palestinians in every sense or that you support the Palestinians against Israel in every sense. Theoretically, you could say you are pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian, but this will be very confusing because others might be using these terms even though they favor peaceful coexistence. Best therefore to express your total commitment to one side rather than the other in some other way.

Overall, if the media, nonprofit organizations and citizens themselves, especially in their families, dropped the terms pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel. there would be less confusion. Even more, there would be less unnecessary polarization and strife where people may favor a form of peaceful coexistence but the language they use to identify their positions may suggest just the opposite.


Read More

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivers a keynote speech at the 62nd Munich Security Conference on Saturday, Feb. 14, 2026, in Munich, Germany.

(Johannes Simon/Getty Images/TNS)

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room

Finally free from the demands of being chief archivist of the United States, secretary of state, national security adviser and unofficial viceroy of Venezuela, Marco Rubio made his way to the Munich Security Conference last weekend to deliver a major address.

I shouldn’t make fun. Rubio, unlike so many major figures in this administration, is a bona fide serious person. Indeed, that’s why President Trump keeps piling responsibilities on him. Rubio knows what he’s talking about and cares about policy. He is hardly a free agent; Trump is still president after all. But in an administration full of people willing to act like social media trolls, Rubio stands out for being serious. And I welcome that.

Keep ReadingShow less
Autocracy for Dummies

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 13, 2026 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

(Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

Autocracy for Dummies

Everything Donald Trump has said and done in his second term as president was lifted from the Autocracy for Dummies handbook he should have committed to memory after trying and failing on January 6, 2021, to overthrow the government he had pledged to protect and serve.

This time around, putting his name and face to everything he fancies and diverting our attention from anything he touches as soon as it begins to smell or look bad are telltale signs that he is losing the fight to control the hearts and minds of a nation he would rather rule than help lead.

Keep ReadingShow less
Jesse Jackson: A Life of Activism, Faith, and Unwavering Pursuit of Justice

Rev. Jesse Jackson announces his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential nomination, 11/3/83.

Getty Images

Jesse Jackson: A Life of Activism, Faith, and Unwavering Pursuit of Justice

The death of Rev.Jesse Jackson is more than the passing of a civil rights leader; it is the closing of a chapter in America’s long, unfinished struggle for justice. For more than six decades, he was a towering figure in the struggle for racial equality, economic justice, and global human rights. His voice—firm, resonant, and morally urgent—became synonymous with the ongoing fight for dignity for marginalized people worldwide.

"Our father was a servant leader — not only to our family, but to the oppressed, the voiceless, and the overlooked around the world,” the Jackson family said in a statement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

An op-ed challenging claims of American moral decline and arguing that everyday citizens still uphold shared values of justice and compassion.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Americans Haven’t Lost Their Moral Compass — Their Leaders Have

When thinking about the American people, columnist David Brooks is a glass-half-full kind of guy, but I, on the contrary, see the glass overflowing with goodness.

In his farewell column to The New York Times readers, Brooks wrote, “The most grievous cultural wound has been the loss of a shared moral order. We told multiple generations to come up with their own individual values. This privatization of morality burdened people with a task they could not possibly do, leaving them morally inarticulate and unformed. It created a naked public square where there was no broad agreement about what was true, beautiful and good. Without shared standards of right and wrong, it’s impossible to settle disputes; it’s impossible to maintain social cohesion and trust. Every healthy society rests on some shared conception of the sacred — sacred heroes, sacred texts, sacred ideals — and when that goes away, anxiety, atomization and a slow descent toward barbarism are the natural results.”

Keep ReadingShow less