Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics

by Marc Lamont Hill

If we are to adopt a progressive political outlook—one rooted in anti-racist, anti-imperialist, humanistic, and intersectional values—we must begin to prioritize the freedom, dignity, and self-determination of Palestinians.

The highly controversial “Nation-State Bill” that Israel passed into law in July 2018 epitomized this attack. The law states plainly that only Jews can exercise national self-determination in Israel, downgrades Arabic from an official language to one of “special status,” and explicitly states that Jewish settlement of the “Land of Israel” (a phrase that includes the West Bank) is to be encouraged.

Against the backdrop of these realities, the American political left has normalized a world in which it is acceptable, through words and policies, to embrace the ethical and political contradiction of being “progressive except for Palestine.”

we also stress that a commitment to Palestinian freedom does not, cannot, and must not reflect hatred or harm toward Jewish people. On the contrary, the realization of Palestinian rights cannot be fully attained without the realization of Jewish rights, and vice versa.

Today, however, the “right to exist” discourse serves a vastly different and significantly more powerful function. It is cynically used to justify the rejection of a Palestinian state. It is strategically used to distract from criticism about the deprivation of Palestinian rights. And it is disingenuously used to frame the case for Palestinian rights as the denial of Jewish self-determination or, even worse, as a call for anti-Semitic violence.

Fundamentally, Zionism is the nationalist ideology of the Jewish people, which constructs Judaism as not only a religion but a nationality. Zionism advances the idea that Jews of all sorts—irrespective of race, ethnicity, cultural identity, or geographic location; regardless of whether they are secular, religious, or atheist—constitute a singular modern nation.

Had Jews merely wanted to live in Palestine, this would not have been a problem. In fact, Jews, Muslims and Christians had coexisted for centuries throughout the Middle East. But Zionists sought sovereignty over a land where other people lived. Their ambitions required not only the dispossession and removal of Palestinians in 1948 but also their forced exile, juridical erasure and denial that they ever existed. So, during Israel’s establishment, some 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes to make way for a Jewish majority state…. This is why Palestinians have been resisting for more than seven decades: They are fighting to remain on their lands with dignity. They have valiantly resisted their colonial erasure…. This resistance is not about returning to the 1947 borders or some notion of the past, but about laying claim to a better future in which Palestinians and their children can live in freedom and equality, rather than being subjugated as second-class citizens or worse.5

Those who defend Israel’s “right to exist” often suggest that disagreement with this position implies a similar physical threat to Jews the world over.

Thus, the question “Does Israel have a right to exist?” is not a question about the physical safety of Jewish citizens. The relevant political question is: Is the dispossession and ongoing denial of rights at various levels to Palestinians justified?

When someone asks if one supports “Israel’s right to exist,” they are tacitly asking if one agrees that Israel’s elevation of Jewish rights above those of Palestinians in the land they all inhabit is acceptable.

While Jews’ right to decide the definition of their own collective existence is axiomatic, their right to displace another people to lay claim to an historic homeland from many centuries past is not.

Can you imagine asking indigenous Americans and indigenous rights activists—fighting for the rights of a population whose languages, societies, culture and possessions were categorically decimated in the process of erecting the United States—whether the United States has a “right to exist”? … It is intellectually dishonest and intended, almost always, to silence critics and criticism of Israeli policies…. [And] anyone who doesn’t answer the question about Israel’s right to exist with an unequivocal “yes” risks being portrayed as an eliminationist radical worthy of labels like “anti-Semite” and otherwise marginalized. In other words, it’s a set-up.61

“Fifty-seven years after the state of Israel was built mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners, most Palestinians are refugees, most of whom are stateless. Moreover, Israel’s entrenched system of racial discrimination against its own Arab-Palestinian citizens remains intact.”

When the rights of Palestinians are defined only in terms of how they affect Israel, the implicit corollary is that Israeli rights are always of superior importance.

While Israel should never be unfairly isolated or targeted, it also cannot be shielded from principled and organized political pressure through boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. These tactics have always been critical tools for producing peace, freedom, and justice for the vulnerable. Palestine cannot be an exception.

“Gaza may force us to glimpse into the heart of darkness, but it equally reveals the heart of humanity that never gives up. Gaza is not a footnote, it is the larger than life shadow of the colonizer’s fear: a people that cannot be quelled…. Gaza is larger than life: captivating, awesome, mythical, mesmerizing, extraordinary, impressive, monumental, unreal, burdensome, miraculous, and most of all, durable. Gaza is our obligation.”4