( Al-Shabaka ) – During campaigns of genocide and ethnic cleansing, disinformation is a potent weapon—a tool to dehumanize victims, justify mass violence, and most importantly, sow seeds of doubt designed to muzzle calls for intervention. When information is weaponized, confusion and doubt no longer emerge from the “fog of war” as a symptom, but are purposefully cultivated with the explicit intention of creating it. 

At the time of writing, Israeli forces have killed over 30,000 Palestinians across Gaza and the West Bank since October 2023. They have targeted hospitals, schools, and civilians fleeing their homes. Israel’s assault is marked not only by the historic scale of violence being inflicted upon Palestinians, but by the unprecedented flood of disinformation being deployed to justify it. 

Propaganda and disinformation produced at industrial scale by official Israeli government and military sources are being legitimized and boosted by a wide network of journalists and open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysts, who have discarded all vestiges of objectivity and analytical rigor in their coverage. Instead of bearing witness to Israeli war crimes and questioning the narratives put forth by a regime engaging in genocide, they have become complicit in them. As a result, Israeli information operations are benefiting from a media network acting not as unbiased reporters, but as enablers of Israeli mass atrocities. 

This policy brief explores the information warfare tactics Israel has used to influence public perception of its ongoing genocide in Gaza, how these efforts have contributed to the decay of truth, and how they hamper efforts to organize a global response. It also explains how journalists and open-source intelligence analysts have become active enablers of Israeli war crimes by acting as uncritical conduits of Israeli propaganda. Finally, it offers recommendations for reporters, analysts, and the wider public to leverage open-source tools to refute dominant Israeli propaganda and disinformation.  

Hasbara: A Long-Running Strategy 

Israel has long recognized the information environment as a critical battle front to justify the perpetual oppressive structures of occupation and apartheid. “Hasbara,” which translates to “explaining” in Hebrew, has long embodied this recognition. Rooted in pre-existing concepts of state-sponsored propaganda, agitprop, and information warfare, hasbara aims to shape the very parameters of acceptable discourse. This involves a coordinated effort by both state institutions and NGOs to bolster Israeli domestic unity, secure support of allies, and influence how media, intellectuals, and influencers discuss Israel. 

Israel has long recognized the information environment as a critical battle front to justify the perpetual oppressive structures of occupation and apartheid Click To Tweet

For years, Israel’s hasbara efforts were coordinated by government bodies, such as the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. After the ministry’s closure in 2021, the Israeli cabinet approved a NIS 100 million ($30 million) project aimed at adapting Israeli hasbara for an evolving global audience. The initiative, led by then-Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, funneled funds indirectly to foreign entities, ranging from social media influencers to media-watch organizations, that would disseminate pro-Israel propaganda while concealing direct ties to the Israeli government. These concerted efforts seek to establish cognitive filters that validate Israeli interests while discrediting opposing narratives on Israeli settler colonialism and its systemic violence. 

In adapting to an information-rich environment, hasbarists do not solely seek to block access to information but rather guide audiences towards selective interpretation. For over 75 years, they have cast Israel as the perpetual victim, despite its military dominance and role as occupier, and are now deploying the same tactics to justify genocide in Gaza. By accusing Hamas of using Palestinians in Gaza as “human shields,” painting Palestinian resistance groups as existential threats akin to the Nazis and ISIS, or smearing victims of Israeli air strikes as “crisis actors,” hasbara aims to justify the unjustifiable. 

Sowing Seeds of Doubt

Before the digital age, it was easier for Israel to discredit Palestinian claims by denying them outright. But the advent of the 24/7 news cycle and social media allowed images of Israeli atrocities to traverse the world at the speed of information, forcing Israeli hasbarists to change tactics. 

On September 30, 2000, 12-year-old Muhammad al-Durrah was shot and killed by Israeli forces during a gun battle between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian security forces. The moment of Muhammad’s death, which was caught on camera, marked the birth of the hasbara term “Pallywood,” a racist smear that accuses Palestinians of acting out fake atrocities to blame on Israelis.

AJ+: “How Israel And Its Allies Weaponize Antisemitism” – Video added by IC

Unable to deny Muhammed’s killing outright, Israeli propagandists resorted to delegitimizing the source altogether. After footage of Muhammad’s death went viral, Israelis insisted that he was a crisis actor and that his death was a hoax. It did not matter that Muhammad’s father buried his son with his own hands, nor did it matter that the murder was caught on video and confirmed by eyewitnesses. What mattered was that all Palestinian claims henceforth would be tainted by doubt, subjected to heightened scrutiny, or written off outright.

The primary targets of Israeli disinformation are the two constituencies that matter most to Israel’s leaders: the Israeli public and Western audiences Click To Tweet

During the years that followed, the practice of portraying Palestinian victims of Israeli war crimes as crisis actors evolved from a conspiratorial fringe tactic to an official Israeli government strategy. On October 13, 2023, the official X account of the State of Israel posted a video of a dead Palestinian child, wrapped in a white burial shroud, claiming it was a doll planted by Hamas. Only after the original uploader of the video was tracked down, the child identified, and additional evidence shared, was the libelous post deleted without official explanation or retraction. By then, the fake news had already garnered millions of views and the damage was done. Henceforth, all images of dead Palestinian children would be written off by an audience primed to doubt their authenticity. 

The next month, a spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was called out for attempting to pass off footage from a Lebanese film as evidence that Palestinians were faking injuries from Israeli attacks. The post remained up for days, despite an X community note and a BBC debunk. “Pallywood” smears have also been leveled at popular influencers in an attempt to discredit them. For example, viral posts from official Israeli social media accounts claimed that Saleh Aljafarawi, a popular influencer who has been covering Israel’s assault on Gaza, staged fake injuries at a hospital. This was likewise later debunked, as the footage was proven to instead be of Mohammed Zendiq, a young man injured during an Israeli incursion in the West Bank.

Of course, Israeli claims of “Pallywood” propaganda were never designed to withstand even rudimentary fact-checking and scrutiny. But in an age in which over 50% of US adults get their news from social media and an even higher number do not read past headlines, Israeli disinformation can become engrained long before it is debunked. One study found that 86 percent of people do not fact-check news they see on social media. Another study found that the volume of social media posts citing Pallywood “increased steadily in the days after October 7”, and that the term was mentioned over 146,000 times between October 7th and October 27th. 

The primary targets of Israeli disinformation are the two constituencies that matter most to Israel’s leaders: the Israeli public and Western audiences. In a battle for sympathy, the truth is rarely a requisite. Sometimes all it takes is a headline that captures attention and confirms preexisting biases. 

Justifying War Crimes 

With an international audience primed to treat Palestinian claims with skepticism from the outset, Israeli state-sponsored disinformation campaigns have become a critical tool in justifying war crimes. This strategy is centered on convincing foreign governments and the wider public that Palestinian resistance groups use civilians as human shields and civilian infrastructure for military purposes, rendering them legitimate targets. Nowhere has this been more pronounced than in Israel’s systematic assault on Gaza’s hospitals and health infrastructure since October 7th, 2023.

(Israel’s) strategy is centered on convincing foreign governments and the wider public that Palestinian resistance groups use civilians as human shields and civilian infrastructure for military purposes, rendering them legitimate targets Click To Tweet

On October 27th, the Israeli military’s official X account posted a 3D rendition of an elaborate labyrinth of tunnels and bunkers underneath Al-Shifa Hospital, alleging Hamas was using it as a command center. Their claims were specific: Al-Shifa was the “beating heart” of Hamas’s command infrastructure, and several hospital buildings sat directly atop tunnels that could be accessed from hospital wards. Israel provided no evidence to back up their claims, but that did not stop the Biden Administration from unequivocally repeating the Israeli narrative. Speaking to reporters a day before Israeli forces stormed the hospital, John Kirby, a US National Security Council spokesperson, insisted that not only did “Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) members operate a command-and-control node from Al-Shifa,” but that they were using the hospital to “hold hostages” and were “prepared to respond to an Israeli military operation.” Like the Israeli military, Kirby presented no evidence to back up his statement. 

On November 15th, Israeli forces stormed Al-Shifa hospital, hours after the Biden Administration had effectively given them the green light. What they found fell far short of their far-reaching claims. While Israeli forces did uncover a tunnel that ran under a corner of the hospital compound, none of the hospital buildings were connected to the tunnel network—which showed no signs of military use—and there was no evidence of access from hospital wards. Hamas fighters never mobilized en masse to defend the facility from within, as US intelligence predicted. There were no signs of hostages and, most importantly, no command center. 

While Al-Shifa represents the cornerstone of Israel’s disinformation campaign against Palestinian health infrastructure, it is far from the only target. Israeli forces have carried out over 500 attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure across Gaza and the West Bank since October 7th, averaging about 7 attacks per day. These numbers include attacks on hospitals and clinics, healthcare personnel, ambulances, patients, and medical aid stations. By planting the idea, regardless of its veracity, that Hamas and other resistance groups might be using hospitals for military purposes, Israel casts a shadow of doubt over whether Gaza’s entire health system enjoys the protections afforded by international humanitarian law. In doing so, Israel transforms the perception of attacks on hospitals from a brazen violation of international law to a norm.

Journalists and OSINT Analysts as Enablers

While the last three months reveal how uniquely callous and crude Israel’s information manipulation tactics are, they are not new. In fact, many of the Israeli talking points we have become so familiar with today are eerily reminiscent of the rhetoric the US employed to justify civilian massacres in Vietnam. But while much of the political establishment in the West has come to widely condemn the indiscriminate bombing campaigns, the use of internationally prohibited munitions, and the collective punishment of civilians by US forces in Vietnam, they now justify Israel’s use of the same tactics in Gaza. 

When it comes to public opinion, much of the proclivity to exceptionalize Israeli war crimes is due to the failure of journalists to critically analyze Israeli narratives against the backdrop of Israel’s history of disinformation, even when open-source investigative tools readily contradict their claims. Indeed, Israel’s disinformation tactics would not be as successful as they are without the complicity of journalists and OSINT analysts. Rather than challenging and debunking false claims, many have abandoned objectivity and journalistic rigor and instead act as mouthpieces for the Israeli military.

When it comes to public opinion, much of the proclivity to exceptionalize Israeli war crimes is due to the failure of journalists to critically analyze Israeli narratives against the backdrop of Israel’s history of disinformation Click To Tweet

Journalists today enjoy two key advantages that those covering the Vietnam war did not have: the benefits of hindsight and the verification tools provided by OSINT analysis. Instead of treating Israeli claims with inherent skepticism, seasoned journalists are acquiescing to Israeli censorship and narrative control. In November, CNN’s White House correspondent Jeremy Diamond joined a small number of journalists, including ABC’s Ian Pannell and Fox News’s Trey Yingst, in announcing that they would be covering the “Israel-Hamas war” from inside Gaza—but under serious limitations: “As a condition to enter Gaza under IDF escort, outlets have to submit all materials and footage to the Israeli military for review prior to publication,” said Becky Anderson, who introduced Diamond’s report. While there is nothing new about journalists embedding with armed forces, Israel’s required screening and censorship of reporting stand out when compared to other militaries. Indeed, even the US military did not explicitly mandate that journalists embedded with its forces in Iraq submit all of their reporting for approval prior to publishing, except in select cases involving classified information. 

Effective journalism requires constant verification and fact-checking, informed by an instinct for skepticism. By accepting Israel’s uniquely onerous censorship terms in Gaza, journalists are doing more harm than good. The information Israel allows to be published is carefully selected to justify the targeting and killing of Palestinian civilians, and by only reporting the approved narrative of a military currently engaged in genocide, journalists are effectively giving a platform to war crimes justifications. Uncritically regurgitating unverified claims made by a military with a history of information manipulation in the midst of a genocide is not journalism; it is stenography.

Unobjective OSINT Analysts 

As traditional journalism fails the tests of objectivity, OSINT once again finds itself in the spotlight. Over recent years, OSINT has emerged as a trusted source of news and objective analysis amid waning confidence in state institutions and traditional media. Much of this is due to the traceable, transparent nature of open-source investigations, which has made OSINT analysts popular sources of news and situational analysis for journalists, lawmakers, and the public alike. 

Open-source investigations have been pivotal in countering Israeli state-sponsored disinformation. In one instance, a New York Times investigation refuted Israeli claims that a misfired Palestinian rocket hit Al-Shifa Hospital courtyard on November 10th, revealing that the projectile was, in fact, an Israeli artillery shell. This exposed not only Israeli responsibility for the strike but also their deceptive tactics, which went as far as providing a false mockup of radar data to deceive the media. 

While OSINT has once again proven to be an integral tool in war crimes investigations by circumventing Israeli access denial and debunking disinformation, some popular OSINT accounts have discarded their facades of objectivity. While this is indicative of wider trends in the deteriorating information environment on social media, a growing number of popular OSINT accounts are using their far-reaching platforms to peddle Israeli disinformation and even cover up Israeli war crimes. 

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is an X account by the name of OSINT Defender. A self-described “Open Source Intelligence Monitor focused on Europe and Conflicts across the World,” OSINT Defender gained prominence covering the war in Ukraine. Recent investigations have revealed OSINT Defender’s identity as Simon Anderson, a member of the US military and resident of the state of Georgia. Since October 7th, the account has developed a reputation for sharing Israeli disinformation, dehumanizing Palestinians, and justifying Israeli war crimes.  

OSINT Defender has shared debunked Israeli claims of the alleged Hamas command center under Al-Shifa and described hundreds of Palestinian civilians rounded up and tortured by Israeli forces as “Hamas terrorists.” The Israeli military itself later admitted that those rounded up were indeed civilians, but OSINT Defender never retracted the original posts. He has also fueled racist “Pallywood” tropes and routinely describes peaceful protesters calling for a ceasefire as violent “Hamas supporters.” If that wasn’t enough, Anderson also claimed that the group of journalists killed by an Israeli tank shell in southern Lebanon were filming “current exchanges of fire,” when in reality, no active combat was ongoing at the time they were targeted. In none of these cases has OSINT Defender publicly retracted or corrected the false claims, even when debunked.

While experienced analysts and journalists may be able to identify the disinformation and engagement farming that accounts like OSINT Defender are known for, the same cannot be said for the general public. Their understanding of Israel’s assault on Gaza continues to be shaped by analysts assumed to be objective who, in reality, act as an extended arm of the Israeli propaganda machine. For example, accounts such as Aleph א and Israel Radar provide more technical analysis of developments throughout the region, but never question Israeli military narratives or correct Israeli disinformation, even when it is publicly debunked. They routinely fact check other accounts for sharing disinformation, but give the Israeli military a pass from the same verification process. For example, while pro-Israel accounts were quick to share Israel’s fabricated radar data mockup that claimed misfired Palestinian rockets struck Al-Shifa on November 10th, they were nowhere to be seen when subsequent investigations debunked it.  

Conclusion

Israel’s strategy in Gaza is not limited to dehumanizing Palestinians and justifying war crimes under the guise of self-defense. In addition to saturating the information environment with an unprecedented deluge of state-sponsored disinformation, Israel has further isolated Gaza by deliberately targeting and destroying communications infrastructure. The resulting communications blackouts have thrust Gaza further into the dark, making it increasingly difficult for Palestinians to share evidence of Israeli war crimes with the outside world. As a result, efforts to push back against Israeli disinformation are severely hindered and Israeli propaganda can run amok. 

Israel’s near-total control of the information environment is further compounded by the global network of journalists and OSINT analysts who, wittingly or unwittingly, act as uncritical conduits for pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian narratives. This phenomenon underscores a dangerous precedent, where the rapid dissemination of information—or disinformation—can shape international perceptions in real time before thorough verification or counter-narratives can take hold.

Moreover, Israel’s information warfare tactics, deeply ingrained in the nation’s military and political ethos, serve as a stark reminder of the power of narrative control in facilitating mass atrocities. The case of Gaza presents a microcosm of a broader, global challenge: how to navigate and counter state-sponsored disinformation in a hyper-connected world. 

Recommendations: 

• Civil society and NGOs should collaborate to enhance media literacy and offer training opportunities designed to educate the general public on how to identify disinformation and propaganda. While this applies to all forms of media, training in basic OSINT collection methods would arm audiences with the tools they need to verify information as it comes out in real time. This could include training on conducting reverse image searches, geolocating footage shared online, and cross-checking information across multiple trustworthy sources. They should also advocate for increased funding of independent fact-checking organizations, such as Al-Haq and Forensic Architecture. 
• Media organizations and journalists should adhere to widely recognized journalistic and editorial standards when it comes to fact-checking and source verification, especially during conflicts characterized by rampant human rights abuses and war crimes. Claims made by militaries or armed groups should be treated with heightened scrutiny. In light of access limitations imposed by Israel, it is imperative for media organizations to prioritize sourcing news content and situational updates from Palestinian sources and hiring Palestinian reporters wherever feasible. 
• International law is woefully unprepared to address the evolving nature of state-sponsored disinformation in the digital age. In addition to developing wider legal frameworks to address the issue, the UN and other international bodies should establish a task force to monitor and document instances of Israeli state-sponsored disinformation designed to dehumanize Palestinians and justify mass killing. This information can be included as evidence of Israel’s genocidal intent in ongoing and future investigations. 
• Social media companies must take action to address their role in facilitating the spread of disinformation and propaganda that dehumanize Palestinians and justify war crimes. This includes implementing robust fact-checking mechanisms, enhancing transparency in content moderation efforts, collaborating with independent fact-checkers, strengthening community standards, and amplifying Palestinian voices, rather than censoring them. 

Via Al-Shabaka .

Tariq Kenney-Shawa

Tariq Kenney-Shawa is Al-Shabaka’s US Policy Fellow and co-host of Al-Shabaka’s Policy Lab series. He holds a Masters degree in International Affairs from Columbia University. Tariq’s research and writing have covered a range of topics, from the role of open-source intelligence in exposing Israel’s war crimes to analysis of Palestinian liberation tactics. His writing has appeared in The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, and The Nation, among others. Follow Tariq on Twitter @tksshawa and visit his website at https://www.tkshawa.com/ for more of his writing and photography.

(Al-Shabaka.org ) – The Israeli regime is currently committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, not only indiscriminately bombing Palestinians but actively targeting critical civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, universities, refugee camps, and residential buildings.Those who survive the bombings are far from safe, with severely limited access to clean water, food, electricity, and critical medical supplies.¹

Alongside efforts to starve and slaughter Palestinians, the Israeli regime is likewise working to expel Palestinians from their land altogether. This has been made clear by the many statements made from Israeli officials and politicians, as well as through leaked documents that demonstrate intentions to “transfer” (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt or beyond—almost three-quarters of whom are already refugees from previous wars Israel waged on the Palestinians. This initiative is part of Israel’s continuing collective punishment of a people who dare to resist their colonization and express their Indigenous sovereignty with the land.

This commentary anchors the Israeli regime’s genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza as a continuation of the Zionist settler colonial project. Importantly, it insists that while the Israeli regime’s present slaughter and expulsion of Palestinians is certainly abhorrent, it is not an aberration in the context of over 75 years of Zionist colonization. It does so by outlining three key features of Zionist settler colonialism: 1) its nature as an ongoing structure; 2) its aims to eliminate the Palestinian people; 3) its use of fragmentation—both of land and of people—as a key strategy through which it pursues this elimination. It is through these tactics, the commentary asserts, that the Zionist project seeks to ultimately extinguish Palestinian Indigenous sovereignty.

Zionist Settler Colonialism

Zionism has always been a settler-colonial ideology—a fact that was declared explicitly by the architects of Zionism. For example, Russian Zionist leader Ze’ev (then Vladimir) Jabotinsky, who played a key role in the colonization of Palestine, wrote in 1923:

Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of ‘Palestine’ into the ‘Land of Israel.’

[…] Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population.

The settler-colonial ideology of Zionism is steeped in European racism, holding many similarities with the white settler fantasy of “manifest destiny.” In discussing whether Argentina or Palestine ought to be the location of Zionist colonization, the founder of the Zionist Organization, Theodor Herzl, claimed the Jewish state in Palestine would be “a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.” Such white supremacist discourse is deployed to justify the colonization of Palestinian land and the untold violence that it entails.

Middle East Eye Video: “Avi Shlaim: ‘I have a moral duty to denounce Zionist settler colonialism and American imperialism’

Zionist settler colonialism must be understood as an ongoing structure aiming to eliminate the Palestinians through the fragmentation of the people and land Click To Tweet

Palestinians have long understood the settler colonial nature of Zionism. In his 1965 book Zionist Colonialism in Palestine, Fayez Sayegh deftly dissects Zionist colonialism as an ideology and political project. Later, in 1976, Jamil Hilal concisely articulated the logic of settler colonialism as distinct from extractive colonialism: “Zionists strove not to exploit the indigenous Palestinian population but to displace it.” Building on such Palestinian theorizing, Zionist settler colonialism must be understood as an ongoing structure aiming to eliminate the Palestinians through the fragmentation of the people and land, as indicated by three key characteristics. 

First, Zionist settler colonialism, like all other settler colonial projects, must be understood as an ongoing structure, rather than a singular event. In other words, the fundamental goal of settler colonialism is to entrench the settler community on the colonized land permanently. While this idea has been articulated in some detail in the academic discipline of settler colonial studies, the sentiment has long been understood through the everyday Palestinian notion of the Nakba as ongoing. On the one hand, this everyday theorizing stresses that the effects of the 1948 Nakba—whereby over 780,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from their land—continue to be felt today. At a fundamental level, all Palestinians forcibly expelled by Zionist militias during the 1948 Nakba continue to be denied their right to return to their homes in Palestine. On the other hand, and interrelated, the notion of the ongoing Nakba signals that the Zionist project of ethnically cleansing Palestinians from Palestine is a process that continues today: Since 1948, some two-thirds (9.17 million) of the fourteen million Palestinians worldwide are now forcibly displaced persons, all denied their right to return home.

Second, the central aim of Zionist settler colonialism is to eliminate the Palestinian people from the land of Palestine. This elimination takes a wide range of forms, including but not limited to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Perhaps most egregiously, Zionist settler colonial elimination often takes the form of physically annihilating Palestinians. This is evident, for example, in the massacres of Palestinians by Zionist militias during the 1948 Nakba, the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, the current and four preceding major Israeli assaults on Gaza, as well as in the frequent executions of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers and paramilitary police (which occur most often in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem). 

Zionist settler colonial elimination also takes countless more insidious forms. As just one example, the Israeli regime has attempted to erase the very identity of Palestinians living in 1948 territories—those who live as third-class citizens of Israel on Palestinian land occupied in 1948. Israel seeks to de-Palestinianize this community through a wide range of policies, including criminalizing expressions of Palestinian identity, such as displaying the Palestinian flag or commemorating the Nakba. These policies function alongside decades of attempted Zionist indoctrination in school and university curriculums, as well as countless other ways of obscuring and rewriting the history of Palestine. Such policies are comparable to those of other settler colonies, including the residential school systems in so-called Canada and the US as well as the Stolen Generations in the colony of Australia. 

Third, a key colonial strategy through which Israel pursues this elimination is fragmenting Palestine and Palestinians. This fragmentation ultimately drives towards elimination—working to fracture Palestinians to then pry them from the land. Like elimination, fragmentation takes a wide range of different forms. It functions, for example, to splinter Palestinian land, fracture bodies, destroy families, dismantle institutions, rupture Palestinian space, time, and memory, shatter selves, and break the will to resist. These are not distinct forms of fragmentation but are all intimately connected, with cracks and tears extending through Palestinian lives.

The 1948 Nakba was a founding moment in the fragmentation of Palestine. Israel’s colonization of 78% of Palestinian land served to sever this land from the remaining area of Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza, which are geographically isolated from one another. During the Naksa (Setback) of 1967, Israel then militarily occupied the West Bank and Gaza (alongside territories in Syria and Egypt)—colonial occupations that continue until today. In turn, the Palestinian people have been fragmented across these three distinct territories and in exile, with each fragment of Palestinians living vastly different realities, facing diverse forms of Israeli colonial violence.

Bringing together the described three key features of Zionist settler colonialism, through its ongoing elimination and fragmentation, the Zionist settler colonial project ultimately aims to extinguish Palestinian Indigenous sovereignty. This sovereignty is an embodied claim to land that was never ceded and is grounded in ongoing Indigenous Palestinian presence that both precedes and endures the Israeli settler state. Indigenous sovereignty inevitably takes distinct forms for different Indigenous peoples. But what these forms of Indigenous sovereignty share is that they all index an enduring Indigenous claim to the land, refusing the state sovereignty of the settler colony.² Meanwhile, Palestinian indigeneity does not rely on “proving” the continuation of particular cultural practices or a certain measure of “Indigenous blood.” Contrary to the way it is defined under international law, indigeneity is not a set of criteria to fulfill, but rather a political relationship to the structure of settler colonialism. Insofar as the settler state of Israel seeks to eliminate Palestinians from their land, Palestinians are an Indigenous people resisting such elimination.

The Settler Colonial Present

Indeed, we hear echoes of the racist discourse of early Zionists in the genocidal language of Israeli leaders today. As the Israeli regime began its current genocide in Gaza, Benjamin Netanyahu posted from the official Prime Minister of Israel account on X (before later deleting the post): “This is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness, between humanity and the law of the jungle.” Israeli President Issac Herzog likewise warned that the war on Gaza was “intended to save Western civilization” and that if it weren’t for Israel, “Europe would be next.” Such rhetoric is a regurgitation of colonial ideology, seeking to justify genocide as a battle of “Good versus Evil.” In announcing Israel’s plan to collectively punish Palestinians in Gaza by completely cutting off all resources necessary for life, Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant declared, “There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.” Such racist, dehumanizing language paves the way for Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

The reality of the Nakba as an ongoing process has never been clearer than it is now. Click To Tweet

The reality of the Nakba as an ongoing process has never been clearer than it is now. Since the Israeli military began its current onslaught on Gaza, it has killed over 26,000 Palestinians and expelled 1.9 million people (over 80% of Gaza’s population) from their homes. The images coming out of Gaza are appalling – a father clutching his child burned alive by white phosphorus, a child digging through the rubble of her home in the hope of finding one single surviving relative. The human impact of the genocide is incomprehensible. Footage of streams of Palestinians fleeing their homes under Israeli gunfire calls up images of the 1948 Nakba, as well as other major expulsions of Palestinians. Many of those currently fleeing Zionist violence are descendants of Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their land in 1948.

This is Zionist settler colonial elimination in its most brutal form. Just as Israel’s massacres of Palestinians in 1948 worked in tandem with its ethnic cleansing, so today Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing are tandem strategies in the Zionist project of eliminating the Palestinian people. Having expelled the majority of Palestinians from their homes within Gaza, Israel is now actively attempting to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza entirely. In a document leaked on October 28, the Israeli Ministry of Intelligence recommended ethnically cleansing all 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza from their homes, expelling them permanently to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. Despite the Egyptian government’s repeated refusals to accept such a plan, the actions taken by the IOF in Gaza so far mirror the steps laid out in the document. The IOF has expelled Palestinians from northern Gaza to the south, their bombing and shooting of Palestinians along the way making a mockery of their claim that they are evacuating civilians for humanitarian purposes. They have now begun to expel Palestinians from their homes in southern Gaza, raising grave and credible concerns that they will be forced to amass at the Rafah border putting further pressure on Egypt. This ethnic cleansing is advocated not only by government ministries, but by prominent politicians, academics, and everyday Israeli citizens alike. This is, after all, the fundamental goal of Zionism and the Israeli state: expel the Palestinian people and take their land.

It is important to note that Israel is also currently escalating its decades-long ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. Emboldened by Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza and international impunity to Israeli war crimes during this assault, we are seeing a sharp increase in the violence of Israeli colonial settlers in the West Bank, who function with the full backing of the Israeli military to terrorize Palestinians and expel them from their homes. A key way that Israel pursues this ethnic cleansing in the West Bank is through the aforementioned colonial strategy of fragmentation. Israel has effectively divided the West Bank into 227 separate enclaves, while entirely isolating East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. This is achieved in part via the 730 km-long Apartheid Wall, which snakes through the West Bank well beyond the 1967 Green Line, cutting Palestinian cities and villages in two, separating farmers from their land and Palestinian communities from one another. Functioning alongside countless other Israeli technologies of fragmentation, these colonial tools ultimately aim to make life unliveable for Palestinians in the West Bank, to drive them out of their homes so Israeli settlers can appropriate them.

In Gaza, we see an even more extreme form of settler colonial fragmentation, where Israel has sought to isolate Palestinians from the rest of Palestine systematically. This geographic, social, and political isolation was intensified with the Israeli blockade imposed on Gaza following Hamas’s 2006 election victory. Alongside raining death on Palestinians in Gaza through intermittent bombing campaigns, as well as heavily restricting the movement of people in and out of Gaza, this blockade entails severely restricting countless everyday items needed by Palestinians, from baby wipes to plant seeds. Following Hamas’s operation on October 7 and the bombardment on Gaza that ensued, the Israeli regime largely cut off water, food, electricity, fuel, and other bare necessities for life in Gaza—something described by various experts as a genocidal act. In short, Israel laid the groundwork for the current genocide in Gaza with 17 years of brutal blockade, on top of 56 years of military occupation, which have together served to severely isolate Gaza from the rest of Palestine. 

Advocacy for Palestine that is limited to ending Israeli occupation and/or apartheid fails to acknowledge the root cause of the violence—Zionist settler colonialism Click To Tweet

By politically, socially, and geographically isolating Gaza from the rest of Palestine, Israel seeks to carve out further Palestinian land that it can ethnically cleanse and appropriate into the settler state. This is not a new strategy, but rather one entirely consistent with the Zionist project and with settler colonial projects more broadly, which work to divide and conquer Indigenous peoples, to seize the land, and eliminate the native community.

Conclusion

For Palestinians to live in freedom and dignity, we must understand Israel’s current assault on Gaza as a continuation of the Zionist settler colonial project. This means doing away with the still-dominant framework of a “conflict” involving “two sides.” Propagated through the so-called “peace” process and its various afterlives, this framing not only conceals but actively upholds the colonial power relations between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people. Perhaps most obviously, Israel has consistently used peace negotiations as a veil behind which it can escalate its theft of Palestinian land. For example, between 1993 and 2000—the height of the “peace” process—Israel doubled the population of Israeli settlers on the very land that was purportedly to become a Palestinian state. At its core, the Zionist project is expansionist, and Israel does not even make great efforts to hide this fact.

Since the onset of Israel’s current genocidal assault on Gaza, the global Palestine solidarity movement has grown exponentially, with record numbers turning out to protest for Palestine in cities around the world. While it is inspiring to see people across the globe waking up to the brutal reality faced by Palestinians, solidarity organizers at times reproduce the problematic framing described above that ultimately serves to uphold Israel’s colonization. More specifically, advocacy for Palestine that is limited to ending Israeli occupation and/or apartheid fails to acknowledge the root cause of the violence—Zionist settler colonialism. In settler colonies such as the US, Canada, and Australia, as well as in colonial metropoles such as the UK, the failure to recognize this fact likely stems from activists’ own complicity in related forms of colonization. To achieve justice and liberation for Palestinians, it is imperative to dismantle the Zionist settler colonial project, which, as has been demonstrated, is fundamentally concerned with eliminating the Palestinian people and extinguishing their Indigenous sovereignty with the land of Palestine.

In the face of this devastating colonization, we can take inspiration from those effectively demonstrating what it means to stand in solidarity. South Africa has brought Israel to the International Court of Justice, charging them with the crime of genocide. Yemen’s Houthis have seized Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea, refusing to back down in the face of US-led aggression against them. Palestine solidarity activists have blocked Israeli ships from entering ports around the world, from San Francisco to Sydney. The Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement is stronger than ever before. These are but a few of the examples we may draw on that advocate for Palestinian liberation and recognize the root cause of its hindrance: Zionist settler colonialism. We must continue to stand in such solidarity until Palestinians, alongside all colonized and Indigenous peoples, are truly free.

1. To read this piece in French, please click here. Al-Shabaka is grateful for the efforts by human rights advocates to translate its pieces, but is not responsible for any change in meaning.
2. My understanding of Indigenous sovereignty owes the most to the intellectual leadership of Munanjahli and South Sea Islander Professor Chelsea Watego, as well as her published writing. I also draw here significantly on the work of Goenpul Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson.

( Al-Shabaka ) – Israel’s 2023 genocide of Palestinians in Gaza has horrified many around the world and drawn widespread public outcry, with unprecedented levels of solidarity organizing taking place across the globe. Millions have gathered in the streets, issued public statements, and mobilized to block corporate and state-led support not only for the Israeli regime’s recent onslaught but for its decades-long colonial occupation of Palestine. But as this unparalleled solidarity has emerged, so too has extraordinary repression at every level. 

Al-Shabaka spoke with Layla Kattermann of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and Diala Shamas of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) for further insight on this suppression of mobilization. Together, they detail some of the intimidation tactics and punitive actions taken by governments across North America and Europe and offer concrete advice for how to resist such efforts to stifle Palestine solidarity. 

This interview is a lightly edited version of a conversation featured on Al-Shabaka’s podcast series, Rethinking Palestine, hosted by Senior Analyst Yara Hawari, in October of 2023. The full discussion may be listened to here.¹

Since the start of the assault on Gaza, what has the repression of solidarity with Palestine looked like in Europe?

Layla Kattermann

The repression we are currently witnessing in Europe is the culmination of a decades-long attempt to connect the Palestinian identity and experience with terrorism and antisemitism. This false connection has been particularly exploited to suppress protests and demonstrations. Although the right to protest is considered fundamental in Europe—and demonstrations are an indicator of a healthy democratic system—several countries, such as Germany, France, and Austria, are violating that right by banning demonstrations in solidarity with the Palestinian people. 

The language used by European media, politicians, and police orders to justify Palestine solidarity repression is aimed at thwarting any divergence from the colonial mainstream narratives Click To Tweet

In Germany, for example, not only are protests being banned, but we are also witnessing police violence, arrests, and harassment for any displays of Palestine solidarity. In Berlin alone, there were roughly 600 police detentions between October 11th and October 20th, 2023, for this reason. This crackdown has also extended to schools: The Berlin Senate Department for Education, Youth and Family, for example, sent a letter to all Berlin school authorities and supervisors asking them to ban students from wearing keffiyehs and other Palestinian symbols or slogans, such as “Free Palestine.” School authorities were likewise asked to notify the police of any violations of this ban, and in at least one instance a school director has been suspended for refusing to comply.

Work suspensions and terminations of employment such as these are also on the rise for expressions of solidarity with Palestine. Other forms of repression that we are seeing at increasing rates include smear campaigns of individuals and groups, online de-platforming, withdrawal of use of venues, cancellations of events, and disinvitations. Many of these punitive measures are justified through racist arguments and bolstered by the rise of far-right parties across Europe, which have consistently dehumanized migrants, refugees, and particularly those of Muslim backgrounds.

What about in the US?

Diala Shamas

In the US, there has been a range of incidents of both institutional and private repression. On the institutional side, law enforcement officers, including the FBI, have summoned Palestinians for questioning through “voluntary interviews,” often leveraging immigration concerns or status to coerce individuals into speaking. Additionally, local police departments have circulated notices indicating plans for special monitoring or surveillance of Palestine solidarity protests. This has come as a directive from the highest levels of government—indeed, President Biden himself mentioned that he was instructing law enforcement to monitor the situation closely. In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams went further to essentially equate protesters marching and speaking out in support of Palestinian rights with support for terrorism. Such discourse has been widespread, from elected officials across city, state, and federal levels. It is really concerning to witness the exploitation of this tremendous power imbalance, especially when these officials start publicly naming different activist groups, and sometimes even specific individuals.

Private repression is also taking place at a frightening level. For example, a conference by the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights was cancelled because the venue—a Hilton hotel—received threats and ultimately pulled out from hosting the event. There has also been a surge in hate crimes, from the violent murder of 6-year-old Palestinian-American, Wadea Al Fayoume, in Chicago, to the attempted murder of three Palestinian university students in Vermont.

Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

There is an infrastructure behind the repression of Palestine solidarity that includes both legislation and a discourse that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In moments like this, the switch can be flipped and all tactics may be… Click To Tweet

Similarly, the professional repercussions of voicing support for the Palestinian people at this time have been at an all-time high. At academic institutions, for example, professors have come under pressure for statements made about October 7th and the unfolding genocide in Gaza. And across various professional fields we are learning of reports of individuals demanding that staff face severe consequences or be terminated from their positions for statements made in their personal capacities. This is happening all over the US, and we are yet to understand the full scale of it.

Doxxing is likewise on the rise, with the posting of private and identifying information of people speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. On the Harvard University campus, for instance, pro-Israeli groups sponsored digital billboard trucks to drive around with pictures of student activist leaders under the headline “antisemite.” The students featured had signed statements condemning Israeli atrocities in Gaza. Acts such as these are clearly intended to intimidate those in support of Palestinian rights and to inflict both mental health and professional consequences. It is worth noting that many of the people subjected to doxxing are Palestinian, Arab, or from other communities of color. 

Is this level of repression unprecedented?

Layla Kattermann

Not necessarily. Rather, it should be understood as a continuation and acceleration of a worrying trend. The repression of the Palestine solidarity movement or Palestinian rights advocacy did not start with the latest bombardment of Gaza. While the ELSC has monitored Europe’s crackdown on Palestine solidarity since 2019, it of course existed long before. It is a repression that has long been justified through racist depictions of Palestinians that depict them as either terrorist threats and/or inherently antisemitic. 

In Europe, there is the Orwellian strategy used to portray the Other as a barbaric threat and the Self as a barometer of moral security. Within this strategy we see new words being invented and undesirable ones stripped of their meaning. Thus, the language used by European media, politicians, and police orders to justify Palestine solidarity repression is aimed at thwarting any divergence from the colonial mainstream narratives. As part of this strategy, we see a huge effort by European politicians and mainstream media that echoes the “us versus them” and “civilized versus uncivilized” dichotomy of 9/11.

While the tactics used to silence criticism of the Israeli regime today are not as visible or obvious as imprisonments or assassinations of dissidents, what we see instead is the attempt to damage activists’ psychological and organizational strength. Indeed, the censoring of civil society organizations and the demonization of solidarity groups are efforts to reduce the political capabilities of the Palestine solidarity movement. Likewise, the attempts to criminalize certain slogans, such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” are obvious efforts to frighten activists. This repression is the continuation of a trend that started several years ago, with implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in many institutions and the passing of anti-BDS legislation. 

Diala Shamas

The repression itself is not unprecedented, but the level and scale feel like nothing we have had to face before. Those particularly working in the legal response to this crackdown have noted that the numbers of reported instances of repression are at an all-time high. But I do think it is helpful to think of all of this as part of the architecture of repression that has been built over the last decade. Indeed, there is an infrastructure behind the repression of Palestine solidarity that includes both legislation and a discourse that equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. In moments like this, the switch can be flipped and all tactics may be activated at once. These are mechanisms of repression that have become very well oiled in many ways over a long period of time.

It is important that both individuals and the movement as a whole are not intimidated into silence or inaction Click To Tweet

On the other hand, because this has been happening over a period of years, we also now have institutions and professionals well prepared to challenge these oppressive strategies. In a moment such as this, they are able to provide support and a line of defense. For example, Palestine Legal has a network of attorneys that they’ve built up to support people facing attacks for their advocacy in favor of Palestinian rights. Meanwhile, CCR is also doing similar work but on a broader range of civil and human rights issues. Nonetheless, there is a dire need to expand our movement defense capabilities to be able to handle the unprecedented caseload.

How have the ELSC and CCR responded to this repression?

Layla Kattermann

The ELSC comprises movement lawyers who consider themselves accountable to Palestinian civil society. In that sense, we view the law in a pragmatic way and are very aware of the fact that it can be used as an exploitative and even oppressive tool. But we also see law as a tool to both push back against repression and one that can mobilize people. The ELSC has three pillars that define our work: defense, monitoring, and empowerment. The defense pillar works as a filter between clients and lawyers, where we offer co-counseling and expertise to defend those facing repression. The monitoring pillar involves keeping a record of the mechanisms used to silence advocates and the criminalization of Palestine solidarity work, not only for archival purposes but also to track trends of repression. The empowerment pillar involves working on campaigns of strategic litigation, such as holding companies accountable for human rights violations, and strengthening the Palestine solidarity movement.

Diala Shamas

Since the outset of the assault on Gaza, we have been in rapid response mode. It’s very hard to strike the right balance of focusing on repression and making sure that people are protected as they speak out and also not losing the focus on what’s happening in Gaza and throughout Palestine. In that regard, we have been really attentive to trying to offer language and legal analysis about what the Israeli regime is doing to the Palestinian people in Gaza. Not only have we reaffirmed that the Israeli regime’s current assault constitutes genocide, but we have also laid out US complicity in that genocide.

Simultaneously, we have increased our work to support those who are doing important advocacy in the US. For example, we have represented individuals who have been contacted by the FBI for questioning, and we have fielded calls from people across the country who are dealing with consequences in their workplaces for speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. Relatedly, Palestine Legal has been building a network of attorneys, largely with a focus on experts in employment law, to help respond to these calls. We have also been increasing our capacity to advise individuals facing doxxing attacks, both in terms of personal safety as well as online reputation.

What has been really great to see is so many people within the legal community reach out and ask how they can support.

What advice would you give organizers at the moment—particularly those who might be feeling apprehensive or fearful in light of this repression?

Layla Kattermann

It is important that both individuals and the movement as a whole are not intimidated into silence or inaction. The allegations and accusations that politicians and the mainstream media use against the Palestine solidarity movement are nothing new. I think we should therefore be confident enough in countering and challenging them. It’s also important to remember that we are stronger in numbers, as demonstrated in Berlin, where the masses defied the police prohibition on protests. Of course, the authorities can still resort to violence, but it’s important in these moments that people stick together.

Now more than ever is the time to speak up and out against what is happening. Not only is there a moral imperative in doing so, but it will also enable you to connect with other like-minded people and organize together. Smear and doxing campaigns usually aim to isolate a person from support networks and wider society. Indeed, it is always easier to attack one person rather than a group. Therefore, strength in numbers when it comes to defying the current repression cannot be underestimated.

Diala Shamas

We must remind ourselves that, while we’re seeing an unprecedented scale in repression, we’re also witnessing an unprecedented amount of solidarity and people speaking out against what’s happening to Palestinians in Gaza. The rise in repression is, in fact, in direct correlation with the growing Palestine solidarity movement. In this moment, we cannot stop speaking out and opposing genocide. 

With this in mind, it’s also important to be cautious. We are all really angry and outraged at what we are seeing and experiencing. We have seen some of the most horrific images and videos coming out of Gaza, and the sense of abandonment coupled with feelings of both rage and sadness is overwhelming. In this climate, it is really difficult to remain clear-headed and rational. This is when we see lapses in judgment that are sometimes exploited by the other side. Yet as Palestinians and as advocates for Palestinian rights, we cannot afford the luxury of a lapse in judgment because it results in our energies and attention being diverted.

If one finds themselves in a situation where they are facing repression, it is imperative to know your rights. In the US, if you are approached by any authorities for an interview, you are entitled to decline and refer them to your lawyer. Alternatively, you can take their number and have your lawyer reach out to them. For legal representation, you can contact Palestine Legal, the Center for Constitutional Rights, your local National Lawyers Guild chapter, your local CAIR chapter, or your local ACLU affiliate.

We must remind ourselves that, while we’re seeing an unprecedented scale in repression, we’re also witnessing an unprecedented amount of solidarity Click To Tweet

If you are called into a meeting with your employer or your university administration, try to get a legal consult before going into that meeting, or don’t go in alone. It is also important to document everything. This can be in the form of notes or self-written emails, with timestamps of events as they occur. It might also make sense to try to be preemptive and reach out to your employer or your university administration to let them know what is happening and make sure that they are hearing from you first and not from those who are trying to smear you. Importantly, remember you’re not alone—if you can and are confident, speak out about the repression so that you can find solidarity with others and vice versa.

Over the years, we’ve gone back and forth on the question of whether we want to talk openly about how difficult it is to speak about Palestinian rights, because we don’t want to discourage folks from doing it. However, we are well past this point—everybody knows that this kind of repression is happening—so we now feel that speaking out actually draws support and solidarity and can also build on political organizing. We’ve seen really inspirational instances of activists coming together to support each other, as well as professionals offering support to colleagues to find alternative employment when someone’s employment has been terminated. This kind of solidarity is a really important way to build resilience in these moments of heightened repression.

Which legal resources would you suggest for people navigating this repression?

Layla Kattermann

We have several resources available on the ELSC website that are also country-specific and are aimed at educating people on their rights, because much of the current repression is unconstitutional and unlawful. Certainly, in many countries across Europe, the police are exercising unlawful conduct. In those situations, it’s always useful to record the police, to register the officer and unit number, and to make the abuse or conduct publicly known. As Diala said, one shouldn’t deal with such repression alone. From our experience, once publicized, people usually reach out and offer support. Indeed, at the moment, we are seeing people really helping each other and standing in solidarity with one another against this pushback.

If you are in Europe, you can report to the ELSC. There are also a lot of collectives of lawyers at the moment that are actively helping the Palestine solidarity movement.

Diala Shamas

People in the solidarity movement across the US should familiarize themselves with Palestine Legal’s website. It has a range of resources, including on how to navigate doxxing and hostile environments on university campuses. If someone is struggling with something specifically regarding state repression, whether it’s federal or local law enforcement, there are a range of organizations that can support you. The organizations I mentioned previously may be able to also refer you.

I’d also be remiss to not mention the importance of taking care of yourself—to breathe and remember that you have a community, because these small things allow us to continue our work. These are really, really difficult times. We are all feeling it. But we don’t have a choice other than to continue speaking out. Indeed, the consequences might be difficult for us here in the US or Europe, but the conditions are far worse for the people in Gaza, as well as for those in the rest of colonized Palestine.

1. This interview is not a substitute for legal advice. Please pursue guidance from legal counsel should you have questions pertaining to a specific case or incident.

( Al Shabaka ) – In recent years, much has been written about the rise of white supremacist movements in the US, their support for alt-right politics, and former President Donald Trump as their political champion. Similarly, since 2016 much has been written about the overwhelming support Trump has received from white evangelical Christians, particularly Christian Zionists. Less examined is the relationship between white supremacy and Christian Zionism, namely their overlapping ideologies and political clout. 

While the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is often cited as the preeminent Zionist lobby in the US, Christian Zionists comprise a considerably larger political bloc with unwavering support for Israel and its continued displacement of Palestinians through both the expansion of settlements and apartheid rule. Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a major US Christian Zionist organization, claims over 10 million members, and the actual number of evangelicals who espouse Christian Zionist beliefs is likely much larger. Among white evangelical Christians, who comprise 14% of the US population and who supported Trump’s 2016 and 2020 elections by a wide margin, 80% believe that the establishment of the state of Israel and the “regathering of millions of Jewish people to Israel” are fulfilments of biblical prophecy. 

Political organizing against white supremacy, Israeli apartheid, and antisemitism would do well to join forces and focus on the close relationship between white supremacy and Christian Zionism among evangelicals. In this policy brief, the authors explain the nature and history of these political bedfellows and recommend ways for civil society to counter their influence. Israel’s current far right-wing government provides a particularly opportune moment to inform both progressive as well as mainstream US evangelicals, as the government has emboldened Israel’s Jewish fundamentalists, whose anti-Palestinian agenda is both stridently anti-Muslim and anti-Christian.

Tenets of Christian Zionism

Christian Zionism can be defined by the unquestioning support for the Zionist colonial project, from the violent establishment of the Israeli regime in 1948 to continued Jewish settlement in Palestine, as part of one’s faith as a Christian. The basis for this theology dates back to 16th-century Protestant Christian interpretations of Biblical eschatology, or signs and precursors of Jesus’ return at the end of time.¹ Evangelical Christian Zionists believe that among precursors to Jesus’ return is Jewish settlement in and control of Palestine, treating modern Jews as the biblical nation of Israel whom Christians are commanded to “bless” to facilitate the Messiah’s return. Thus, Christian Zionists see support for Israel as a way to take part in biblical prophecy. Adherents to the “Prosperity Gospel”—now 17% of US Christians—also believe in personal financial gain and prosperity if one blesses Israel. 

Christian Zionists’ support for Jewish settlement in Palestine is a precursor to their own (the Church’s) salvation, not that of Jewish people; they actively seek an end of times in which Jews and other non-Christians will be destroyed while they ascend to heaven.² Their support for Jews and Israel is a superficial pretense for Christian salvation at the expense of Jews. Still, this ideological commitment aligns Christian Zionists with Israeli governments and their colonial and belligerent policies toward Palestinians, Iran, and other adversaries of the Israeli regime. Ironically, the right-wing ethnoreligious nationalists who support the present Netanyahu government have also increased their belligerence toward Christians, Palestinian and otherwise, making this alignment even more perplexing.  

Moreover, Christian Zionist views of Jewish people are characteristically antisemitic. For example, they rely on belief in a singular, internationally-connected, and powerful population of Jews, and the modern Israeli regime as the embodiment of the biblical nation that represents Jews everywhere. Such beliefs mimic the conspiratorial elements of antisemitism in Europe and blend support for Jewish settlement in Palestine with antisemitic notions of international Jewry. In so doing, Christian Zionists cynically enmesh themselves with white supremacists, who fear being “replaced” by Jews or people of color—and who feel threatened by antisemitic notions of Jewish people’s power and influence. 

Some forms of Christian Zionism, especially those that historically took root in Britain, were predicated on both Jewish conversion and Jewish settlement in and control of Palestine. These notions considered Jews in the diaspora as both a problematic and biblically crucial population to influence on the path toward the Church’s destiny of salvation. These ideas developed further in the 20th century among various denominations of Christian evangelicals, and Jewish conversion was seen as unnecessary. The Christian Zionist consensus that took hold in the US and elsewhere, especially after the 1967 war and in the 1980s, sees the modern-day Zionist colonial project as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, preceding the ascendance of Christians to heaven and the destruction of all others on earth. Even among those Christians who believe in these precursors to Armageddon but who gloss over the end-of-times scenario, the ultimate focus is on Christian salvation that requires Jewish settlement in Palestine. 

 Though many Jewish Zionist leaders acknowledge the cynical nature of an alliance with Christian Zionists, their support is ultimately welcomed as it advances the Israeli regime’s political goals and shields it from critique. One of the ways Christian Zionists accomplish this is by contributing to narratives of the regime’s vulnerability in the midst of hostile Arab and Muslim neighbors who are also depicted as characteristically inferior. These narratives invoke racist ideas of Palestinians and Muslims as backwards, violent, technologically underdeveloped, and expendable—narratives similar to those used among white supremacists. In fact, Christian evangelicals have been among the most virulent propagators of anti-Muslim racism in the US. Likewise, Christian Zionists shore up the mythology of Jewish colonization and development of Palestine in continuity with an ancient past, contributing to questionable archaeology that helps to stymie Palestinian self-determination, including Christian Palestinians’ access to cherished sites of religious significance.

Christian Zionism and US Policy Toward the Israeli Regime 

Evangelical Christian Zionists fervently supported the Trump administration—with some in top positions, such as Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo–implementing what was essentially the Christian Zionist playbook during the administration’s four-year term. Yet this was not the first US administration or other political leadership that took direction from the “Armageddon Lobby.” 

Christian Zionism’s political influence in the US became pronounced in the 1980s, when the annual Zionist conference of the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem first began. Major figures included the late Jerry Falwell, a conservative Baptist pastor and televangelist, and the late Pat Robertson, also a religious broadcaster and Southern Baptist minister as well as one-time Republican presidential candidate and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN).³ Under President Ronald Reagan, Falwell’s and Robertson’s influences were clear: Not only did Reagan advocate for military strength in the US to prepare for the battle of Armageddon, but both he and Attorney General Edwin Meese reportedly prayed for Armageddon to come.⁴ 

Though many Jewish Zionist leaders acknowledge the cynical nature of an alliance with Christian Zionists, their support is ultimately welcomed as it advances the Israeli regime’s political goals and shields it from critique Click To Tweet

Falwell established a group known as the Moral Majority in 1979, a political organizing body for evangelicalism that mobilized thousands of churches and millions of registered voters as “the Christian Right.” By 2003, the Moral Majority represented the largest voting bloc within the Republican Party and was a major social movement with direct ties to the Israeli government, Falwell having been honored by Menachem Begin himself in 1979.

An affiliate of the Moral Majority, the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel (NCLCI), led a successful campaign to repeal UN Resolution 3379, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism while also declaring opposition to all forms of racism. Pro-Israel lobbies in the US, including the likes of the World Jewish Congress and AIPAC, pressed US officials to oppose the resolution immediately following its passage in 1975. However, it is arguably only when the Christian Zionist lobby began its concerted campaign from 1985 to 1990 that US elected officials responded. In 1990, the House of Representatives passed HR 457, calling on the UN to repeal the resolution; it was syndicated and passed thereafter in the Senate with unanimous support and signed by President George H. W. Bush. The UN overturned the resolution the following year in a rare redaction.

During the later George W. Bush administration, Christian Zionist figures like Falwell continued to hold sway on issues of US foreign policy in the Middle East, supporting Israeli settlement expansion and opposing overtures toward peace or Palestinian statehood. For example, in June 2003, Bush backpedaled on pressure to move forward with the Middle East Quartet-sponsored “roadmap for peace” that purportedly aimed to establish a Palestinian state. When the US was meant to act as a third-party mediator at a meeting between Israeli PM Ariel Sharon and newly-appointed Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas, a Christian Zionist organization known as the Apostolic Congress sent more than 50,000 postcards to the White House opposing the roadmap, and the administration subsequently delayed action until after the 2004 elections.⁵  

Today, the largest pro-Israel advocacy group in the US is CUFI. Other notable organizations that either represent or are financially supported by Christian Zionists include the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. University campus-based affiliates include Passages, a Christian Zionist tour group, and the Campus Maccabees or Maccabee Task Force, a multi-million dollar effort opposing the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement with direct financial support from CUFI and right-wing Zionists.

The culmination of decades of growing Christian Zionist political influence was a 2016 White House whose alignment with the far right among both Zionists and white supremacists was seamless. In addition to Pence and Pompeo, Trump appointed Steve Bannon as chief strategist. Bannon, who declared himself a Christian Zionist, also called his news site, Breitbart, “the platform for the alt-right” and was celebrated by white nationalists. David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel under Trump and a known funder and supporter of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, also enjoyed ties to Christian Zionist leadership. 

The result was an administration that opposed international consensus on illegal settlements in the West Bank; moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem, declaring it Israel’s “eternal capital”; made an unprecedented diplomatic visit to a settlement funded by Christian Zionists; reneged on the Iran nuclear deal in favor of a more aggressive and pro-Israel stance against Iran; signed enormous military arms deals with Saudi Arabia and advanced normalization between Israel and the Gulf; withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council citing “anti-Israel bias;” and did away with any regard for Palestinian demands and self-determination in the so-called “Deal of the Century.” Trump left office having solidified US support for right-wing religious ethnonationalism in Israel and for the illegal settlement enterprise; unsurprisingly, annexation of Palestinian land also increased during his term. 

The administration also supported US federal agencies’ aggression toward Palestinian activism at home: The Department of Education under Betsy DeVos sought to punish Palestinian student activists for critique of Israel,⁶ and the State Department similarly accepted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, stifling criticism of Israel. The Biden administration has not reversed these actions, and this continued indifference or tacit endorsement of Trump’s legacy dangerously ignores the links between the Christian Zionist agenda and white supremacy, flying in the face of what the administration declares to be its policy of anti-racism.

White Supremacy and Christian Zionism 

The ties between Christian Zionism and white supremacy date back to the early European Christian Zionists.⁷ Though British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour’s 1917 declaration that his government would support the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine might on the surface appear to have been benevolent toward Jews, it was, in fact, steeped in white supremacy and antisemitism. Indeed, Balfour’s support of Zionism originated in a desire to stem Jewish immigration to Britain. He wrote, for instance, in his 1919 introduction to Nahum Sokolow’s History of Zionism that the Zionist movement would “mitigate the age-long miseries created for Western civilization by the presence in its midst of a Body which it too long regarded as alien and even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or to absorb.” 

It should therefore come as no surprise that while contemporary white supremacists declare a desire for Jews to leave “white societies” for Israel, they also proclaim admiration for Zionism and its manifestation in the Israeli state. Richard Spencer, a leader of the “alt-right” movement in the US, which espouses a white ethnostate, has called himself a “white Zionist.” Relatedly, those who display Confederate flags may pair them with Israeli flags, and Israeli flags are often on display at right-wing rallies, including on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the Washington, DC, capitol. 

It should come as no surprise that while contemporary white supremacists declare a desire for Jews to leave ‘white societies’ for Israel, they also proclaim admiration for Zionism and its manifestation in the Israeli state Click To Tweet

Though Spencer is not a religious person, his and other white supremacists’ desire for a white ethnostate is steeped in Christianity through a call for their fellow whites to be conscious not only of their white identity but also of their shared Christian heritage—a heritage that itself has white supremacist roots. To be sure, analysts and activists such as Mae Elise Cannon and Graylan Hagler have pointed out that Christian nationalism, white supremacy, Zionism, and Christian Zionism make cozy bedfellows. This was as true in Balfour’s time as it is today. The scholar Robert O. Smith has found, for instance, through an analysis of US polling data since the mid-1980s that support for Israel is “predicated…by a combination of religious traditionalism, belief in American exceptionalism, and whiteness.” 

It is perhaps the notion of exceptionalism that best articulates and links these dangerous ideologies. Cannon notes that “Both Christian nationalism and Christian Zionists espouse an ideology of exceptionalism…Exceptionalists inhabit binary, exclusionary worlds,” and Hagler writes in an essay on white supremacy and Christian Zionism that “[a]ll forms of supremacy are exceptionalist.” The idea that one group is superior to another and deserves certain rights at the expense of “outsider” groups—whether white and Christian versus Jewish, Black, Muslim, and otherwise in the case of the Richard Spencers in the US, or white and Jewish versus Palestinian in the case of Christian Zionism, Zionism, and Israel—is one that begets violence and oppression. 

Evangelical Opportunities 

It is important to emphasize the diversity among evangelicals: Not all evangelicals are Christian Zionists. In fact, there are a number of individuals and institutions that work against the ideology in the interest of Palestinian rights, such as Cannon of the DC-based Churches for Middle East Peace, the Christ at the Checkpoint initiative at Bethlehem Bible College, and Sojourners magazine, which emerged from an evangelical divinity school in Illinois in the 1970s. Further, non-white evangelicals tend to be less biased in their views toward Israel and the Palestinian struggle. That said, as noted above, the majority of evangelicals express Christian Zionist beliefs. 

However, recent polling suggests that support for Israel among younger evangelicals is decreasing. A 2021 survey reports that support among this group dropped from 75 percent to 34 percent between 2018 and 2021, in contrast to more steady support among older evangelicals. Professor Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland has also conducted polling on this issue since 2015; his research demonstrates a similar trend and that the gap between the age groups had already widened appreciably by 2018. 

Further, white evangelicals–particularly young white evangelicals–have been turning away from evangelicalism, or are reluctant to be labeled as such. This is in part a rejection of Trump’s policies and rhetoric so bolstered by the bloc. While this inclination has resulted in some young white people leaving organized religion more broadly, others are desirous of a different type of experience, one that fosters community and social transformation. 

Gary Burge, Professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, recently spoke with author Kirk about this burgeoning group and the churches they are flocking to: “Young people don’t feel the church is addressing what is most heartfelt to them, which are issues like racial equality, poverty alleviation, and the environment.” 

The task for activists for Palestinian rights will be to educate and bring alienated social justice-oriented evangelicals together to work against Israeli settler colonialism, theocracy, and apartheid Click To Tweet

New churches that brand themselves as “not your parents’ church” are attracting these youth Burge describes one such establishment in Grand Rapids that was founded in 2017 and started with 30 or 40 people. Today, around 900 people are members. “The minister has a PhD in sociology, a fantastic beard, a motorcycle with a sidecar, keen insight into how churches grow, and an infectious passion that shows up in every sermon,” Burge says. “And he has limited interest in evangelical culture. His audience is what he calls post-church.” According to Burge, non-traditional churches like this one are expanding nationwide, and he sees evangelicalism reinventing itself in this mold in the coming century. 

While support for Israel is not common in the new churches Burge describes, neither is support for Palestinians, as the parishioners are more concerned with domestic issues such as gun control and racism. In a recent interview Jonathan Brenneman, a Palestinian-American activist told Kirk that he agrees that former evangelicals or current evangelicals interested in social justice may not have Palestine “at the top of their list,” but notes they are willing to challenge Christian Zionist ideas. Such a position presents an important opportunity to counter Christian Zionist influence.

Policy Recommendations 

With younger evangelicals moving away from robust support for Israel, there is an opportunity for both short and long-term change. This could take the form of diverse groups working together against the Israeli right, including in regard to Palestinian liberation. The task for activists for Palestinian rights will be to educate and bring alienated social justice-oriented evangelicals together to work against Israeli settler colonialism, theocracy, and apartheid. 

• Civil society organizations that support Palestinian rights should conduct outreach among young evangelicals and evangelicals of color to make connections between them and progressive groups, such as those advocating for Black Lives Matter, Indigenous rights, and police accountability. This outreach must necessarily stress the ties between Christian Zionism, white supremacy, ethnonationalism, and antisemitism, creating understanding and subsequent opportunity for these groups to work together for Palestinian rights as well as other progressive, anti-racist causes. 
• Once this larger network is in place, civil society groups should make contact with their national and local governments–such as the Biden administration’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships–among other outreach, to influence mainstream churches and organizations with messaging that calls attention to problematic ties between Christian Zionism and ethnonationalism.
• Civil society organizations should educate progressive and mainstream Christians about the growing Israeli right-wing religious fascist animosity toward Christians and its relationship to ethnonationalism and apartheid more broadly. 
• Alternative pilgrimage and ethical tourism to Palestine for Christians—such as Friends of Sabeel Witness Trips or Eyewitness Palestine delegations—must be encouraged. They can play an important role in opposing Christian Zionist narratives and re-orienting young evangelicals who may identify with anti-racist movements and who wish to avoid complicity in Palestinian displacement. 

1. Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2021).
2. Sizer, Christian Zionism.
3. Sizer, Christian Zionism.
4. Dugger, Ronnie. “Does Reagan Expect a Nuclear Armageddon?” Washington Post. April 18 1984.
5. See also Perlstein’s account of Apostolic Congress lobbying and influence.
6. However, the Department of Education under the Biden Administration has rejected the IHRA definition of antisemitism
7. Sizer. Christian Zionism.

( Al-Shabaka ) – Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from a worsening energy crisis due to the Israeli regime’s ongoing siege. As a result, they have adopted different coping strategies, including solar energy technology to offset electricity shortages. Al-Shabaka policy analyst and 2022 Visiting Gaza Fellow Asmaa Abu Mezied examines this reality, and offers recommendations for Palestinian leadership and stakeholders to promote Palestinian economic self-determination in Gaza.

( Al-Shabaka.org ) – Since 2021, Israeli leaders have proposed a new series of economic policies under the approach of “shrinking the conflict.” This strategy aims to afford Palestinians more economic opportunities and so-called freedoms as a way to sustain the Israeli occupation. In this policy brief, Al-Shabaka policy analyst Walid Habbas debunks the framework and explains why Palestinians will not be pacified with economic incentives.

( Al-Shabakah) – The Israeli regime’s defenders across the US are ramping up efforts to criminalize the constitutionally protected right to boycott. Beyond violating the rights of Palestine solidarity activists, this threatens to undermine the tenets of a healthy democracy. Al-Shabaka’s US Policy Fellow, Tariq Kenney-Shawa, examines this development and suggests what lawmakers, civil society organizations, and concerned citizens should do to challenge it. 

Across the US, lawmakers and interest groups are stepping up efforts to shield Israel from accountability for war crimes, occupation, and apartheid. They are doing so by restricting Palestine solidarity advocates’ First Amendment rights to free speech and political boycotts. In June 2022, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to uphold an Arkansas law punishing state contractors who boycott Israel. Since 2014, dozens of states have adopted similar laws designed to punish individuals and companies that refuse to do business with those who profit from the Israeli regime’s occupation. They are also actively silencing calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions that pressure Israel to comply with international law.  

The message to US citizens is clear: Take action to hold Israel accountable for its crimes and you will pay. The implications are far-reaching: Not only are anti-boycott laws limiting spaces for Palestine solidarity, they represent the first step in a wider assault on the constitutional protections designed to safeguard US citizens’ rights to advocate for justice. Following the Eighth Circuit decision in Arkansas, the issue is now expected to move to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a ruling that will have significant long-term implications for the rights of all US citizens to engage in any kind of politically motivated boycott and advocate for change.

It also explains how, by targeting the right to boycott, reactionary forces are eroding US citizens’ ability to leverage their long-standing, constitutionally protected rights to demand justice and political change both at home and abroad. With their right to boycott being threatened by an increasingly conservative and partisan judicial system, US citizens must take matters into their own hands to defend their constitutional rights. This policy brief recommends several steps that should be taken in order to do so. 

Anti-Boycott Legislation: The US National Context 

As of October 2022, bills and executive orders designed to penalize those participating in boycotts of Israel have been introduced in 34 states and apply to over 250 million US citizens. The laws are as absurd as they are troubling. In 2017, officials in Texas blocked access to hurricane disaster relief funds from those who refused to renounce their right to engage in BDS, only conceding the rule as a misapplication of the law after facing public pressure. In 2018, Bahia Amawi, a child speech pathologist in Texas, sued the state after losing her job for refusing to pledge that she “will not boycott Israel” or illegal Israeli settlements. 

That same year, The Arkansas Times, a local newspaper based in Little Rock, sued the state of Arkansas after an advertising contract with a public university was withdrawn as punishment for refusing to relinquish their right to boycott Israel. In July 2022, the Eighth Circuit Court became the highest-level court to consider the issue when it ruled against the newspaper, stripping it of its right to boycott. This ruling, which is binding to Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, is a sign of what may be to come.

Whether by prohibiting state contracts who support BDS or threatening to cut ties with investment agencies, the Israeli regime’s defenders are forcing US citizens to choose between their First Amendment rights and their livelihoods Click To Tweet

Federal district courts in Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and Texas have blocked the enforcement of their states’ anti-boycott laws, considering them unconstitutional compelled speech and violations of the First Amendment. However, instead of discarding them on the grounds that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain political expressions, these laws are being amended and reintroduced. Several states have amended their anti-boycott laws to exclude individuals and sole proprietors; however, larger companies that conduct more than $100,000 worth of business with the state continue to face anti-boycott certification requirements. 

State legislators have also placed financial burdens on companies accused of boycotting Israel through blacklists and pension fund divestments. Efforts to shield Israel from the human rights standards applied across the globe are likewise extending into sustainable investing and corporate governance. In September 2022, South Carolina’s treasurer joined a growing list of officials threatening to cut ties with the multibillion-dollar investment firm Morningstar over claims that their Sustainalytics program’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating is biased against Israel. ESG ratings, which assess ethical corporate practices ranging from environmental standards to labor practices, have proven integral in holding companies accountable regardless of where they operate. Indeed, Sustainalytics drew attention to Israel’s documented human rights violations in the assessments it provided to investors. 

In the face of mounting pressure, Morningstar hired an independent review commission to carry out an exhaustive investigation into any potential bias. The investigation found “neither pervasive nor systemic bias against Israel in Sustainalytics products and services;” however, this has failed to bring an end to the smears against the rating system. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt decried Morningstar practices as “woke ESG investing,” and Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee suggested that the very idea of reviewing Israeli companies for the same standards to which all other companies are held was anti-Semitic. This, despite the fact that Morningstar’s chief executive officer, Kunal Kapoor, repeatedly insisted that his company does not support the BDS movement and that the Sustainalytics assessment merely provided a warning for investors, rather than a call to boycott. 

Since then, Morningstar has caved to pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, adopting a host of anti-Palestinian measures that include refraining from both references to the West Bank as “occupied” as well as reliance on reports issued by the UN Human Rights Council. Clearly, to the pro-Israel lobby, Israeli companies should not be held to the same human rights, labor, and environmental standards as other companies. As a result, whether by prohibiting state contracts who support BDS or threatening to cut ties with investment agencies, the Israeli regime’s defenders are forcing US citizens to choose between their First Amendment rights and their livelihoods.

Who is Behind These Bills? 

The ongoing proliferation of anti-boycott bills, recently described by Human Rights Watch as “part of an increasingly global campaign” against Palestine rights advocates, has been spearheaded by the Israeli regime itself. Over recent years, Israel has successfully bypassed US foreign interference laws by establishing non-governmental organizations through which it funnels millions of dollars to US groups who then advocate for anti-BDS legislation. But the Israeli regime is not alone. The war on boycotts of Israel is being led by the same reactionary lawmakers and interest groups actively engaged in undermining the tenets of a healthy democracy. 

Some of the most vociferous proponents of anti-BDS efforts in the US are conservative interest groups and evangelical Christian organizations that are engaged in a nationwide campaign to roll back hard-fought liberties. For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an ultra-conservative venture backed by the Koch brothers, drafts legislation for state and federal governments on behalf of corporate interests. In addition to unconditionally shielding Israel from accountability and drafting anti-BDS bills for conservative lawmakers, groups like ALEC have also targeted public education, climate activism, and LGBTQ+ rights, while defending the “Stand Your Ground” laws, bans on Critical Race Theory and the Supreme Court’s June 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI) smear BDS activists through advocacy campaigns on university campuses, as well as in churches and across social media. These alliances prove that being pro-Israel in America also means being complicit in conservative efforts to sustain white supremacy, roll back reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights, and weaken democracy. 

Being pro-Israel in America also means being complicit in conservative efforts to sustain white supremacy, roll back reproductive and LGBTQ+ rights, and weaken democracy Click To Tweet

What is more, efforts to roll back the right to boycott have also represented a bipartisan affair. In 2016, New York’s former governor, Andrew Cuomo, signed an executive order blacklisting businesses that refused to do business with Israel. He put it bluntly: “if you boycott against Israel, New York will boycott you.” Three years later, Senator Joe Manchin (D – WV) co-authored the Combating BDS Act alongside Senator Marco Rubio (R – FL), which aimed to give legal cover to various state anti-BDS laws before it was blocked on the Senate floor. In August 2022, New York State Assemblyman Dan Rosenthal joined 18 Republicans in their campaign against Morningstar for warning investors of Israel’s human rights record. While the bipartisan tradition of providing unconditional support to Israel is waning, democratic establishment holdouts continue to side with conservatives against progressive voices, both in the electorate and in the halls of Congress.  

Constitutionally Protected Rights Under Threat  

US citizens have long leveraged their right to boycott as a means of making their voices heard. From the pre-Civil War boycott of goods produced with slave labor, to the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott that called for an end to racial segregation, boycotts have proven a vital tactic in challenging human rights abuses and fighting for political change in the US. The tactic has also been wielded against injustice abroad; indeed, economic, cultural, and even academic boycotts proved instrumental in bringing an end to the apartheid regime in South Africa. However, many exhibit a disturbing selective intolerance for the right to boycott when it comes to holding Israel accountable. 

Political boycotts are widely viewed as a cornerstone of the First Amendment, both by the US public and as a matter of legal precedent. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the most regularly cited precedent on the issue, the Supreme Court ruled that a state’s right to regulate economic activity “could not justify a complete prohibition against a nonviolent, politically motivated boycott.” That case began in 1966, when the local NAACP chapter in Claiborne County, Mississippi, coordinated a boycott of white-owned businesses, calling for local government and business leaders to meet their demands for racial justice. White business owners affected by the boycott sued the NAACP and the action organizers for economic damages. 

After the case made its way through the lower courts, the Supreme Court ruled that the NAACP’s boycott was protected by the constitution because it was composed of elements protected by the First Amendment — namely, speech, assembly, and petition. Justice John Stevens emphasized the boycott’s end goal in the ruling, noting: “the purpose of petitioners’ campaign was not to destroy legitimate competition,” but rather, to “vindicate rights of equality and of freedom.” In part, the court found it persuasive that the boycott was wielded for an expressive purpose: a list of racial justice demands. 

In the NAACP v. Claiborne case, the Supreme Court found that through constitutionally protected acts of speech, assembly, and petition, “petitioners sought to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens.” By this logic, the right to boycott Israeli goods produced in the West Bank — an act that inherently involves the aforementioned constitutionally protected activity — falls squarely within US citizens’ constitutionally protected rights. While courts in Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, and Texas confirmed this logic, the Eighth Circuit Court ruling in Arkansas serves as a reminder of how easily precedent can be overturned. 

Understanding the Eighth Circuit Court Ruling 

In 2018, The Arkansas Times sued the state after being asked to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel in order to maintain an advertising contract with the University of Arkansas. After the suit was initially dismissed, the newspaper appealed, and a three-judge panel from the Eighth Circuit overturned the ruling, finding that the statute “imposes a condition on government contractors that implicates their First Amendment rights.” The state then requested that the full Eight Circuit – known to be one of the most conservative circuit courts in the country – rehear the case, resulting in the June 2022 ruling against The Arkansas Times. 

While affirming that requiring someone to “give up a constitutional right” in order to receive a government contract does “impose an unconstitutional condition,” the Eighth Circuit Court went on to reinterpret precedent – namely, the protections set in NAACP v. Claiborne. The ruling argued that constitutional First Amendment protections apply only to the expressive actions that accompany a boycott. In other words, the speeches, petitions, and marches that promote a boycott are protected by the First Amendment, while the actual act of economically boycotting an entity is not. Along this line of reasoning, the Eighth Circuit decided that the act of economic boycott itself was considered an example of “non-expressive” conduct.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision has attracted widespread criticism from those who claim that the judges misrepresented the precedent entirely. NAACP v. Claiborne clearly establishes that the right to boycott is protected by the First Amendment, and when Supreme Court judges analyzed each of the associated elements of the boycott in that case, they did not differentiate between accompanying speech and the act of boycott itself. Justice Jane Kelly, who authored the Eighth Circuit’s dissenting opinion, took this logic further. According to Kelly, by instructing the State to consider a company or individual’s prior speech and actions to determine whether they are participating in a boycott of Israel, the Arkansas statute might deter entities from engaging in constitutionally protected acts of speech and protest unrelated to boycotts. In other words, companies and individuals might feel pressured to avoid protests and petitions that criticize Israeli policy out of concern that they may fall under the state’s definition of a boycott of Israel, “thereby limiting what a company may say or do.”  

Wider Implications 

While the judiciary can prove instrumental in countering attempts to curb constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to participate in the BDS movement, US citizens should not depend upon it alone to safeguard civil liberties. That is, while only 59 of the 261 anti-boycott bills introduced have so far been passed at the state and local levels, the pro-Israel lobby continues to adapt. As long as BDS remains under assault, so too is the right to use boycotts as a tool for advocacy on a range of issues. In other words, the ongoing crackdown on freedom to boycott has wider implications, even for US citizens who do not support the BDS movement.

The willingness to trample upon the rights of Palestinians and their allies is opening the door to a larger assault on civil society and the core tenets of a healthy democracy Click To Tweet

In fact, several states have already used anti-BDS legislation as a template for “copycat laws” that would criminalize other boycotts and forms of protest, such as preventing businesses from boycotting fossil fuels and firearms industries. For example, Kentucky’s SB 205 prohibits the state from entering into contracts with companies unless they submit written certification that they will not engage in a boycott of energy companies. Similarly, Indiana’s HB 1409, if passed, will prevent the state from entering into a contract with companies without written certification that they will not discriminate against a firearm entity or firearm trade association in their business dealings.

Efforts to curtail the right to boycott represent one tactic amid an overall strategy by reactionary elements on both sides of the partisan divide to undermine democratic values in the US. If they are successful, these forces will undoubtedly direct their efforts at other forms of protest and free speech that are being leveraged in calls for justice. Since 2017, 38 states have enacted anti-protest bills, mostly in reaction to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and environmental protesters. Heightened voting restrictions in key swing states are making it increasingly difficult for US citizens to carry out their civic duty. As a result, black activists and other disadvantaged communities are disproportionately targeted. The willingness to trample upon the rights of Palestinians and their allies is opening the door to a larger assault on civil society and the core tenets of a healthy democracy. 

Taking Action 

The Eighth Circuit decision in Arkansas, which came two days before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade’s guarantee of the right to abortion on June 24, 2022, serves as another reminder that US citizens should not count on the judiciary alone to defend their civil liberties. With this in mind, it is critical to raise awareness, mobilize grassroots activism aimed at pressuring lawmakers, and develop stronger checks to a flawed system. More specifically: 

• Members of Congress should fulfill their constitutional duty to defend the rights of US citizens, including the First Amendment right to participate in political boycotts. This  means voting against pending federal anti-boycott legislation like the ones introduced by Congressman Lee Zeldin (R) in March 2022 and Senator Tom Cotton (R) in July 2022, both of which are aimed at elevating state anti-boycott legislation to the national level. 
• Activists, civil rights defenders, and concerned citizens should contact their representatives to express opposition to laws that restrict their right to boycott. They should highlight the intersectional nature of this assault on social and political expression, and organize alongside other groups being affected by copycat legislation. More information about how to get involved can be found at Palestine Legal, the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 
• As workers across the country unionize at the highest rates in decades, civil society organizations should prepare union leaders and members to collectively mobilize against attempts by employers to revoke constitutionally protected rights. Trainings and briefings should prepare union leaders to explicitly incorporate the right to boycott into their labor demands and provide support to Palestinian or pro-Palestine workers who are targeted for their engagement in boycotts or other forms of political protest. 
• Activists, academics, and NGOs should coordinate efforts to produce informational material for public campaigns aimed at raising general awareness and providing US citizens with tools to advocate for their constitutionally-protected rights. The recent documentary film Boycott (2021) serves as an example of how to mobilize free speech activists, as well as the general public, who may still be unaware of the wider consequences of these coordinated anti-BDS campaigns when it comes to the assault on constitutionally protected rights. 



Tariq Kenney-Shawa

 

Tariq Kenney-Shawa is Al-Shabaka’s US Policy Fellow. He holds a Masters degree in International Affairs from Columbia University and a Bachelors degree in Political Science and Middle East Studies from Rutgers University. Tariq’s research has focused on a range of topics, from the role of narrative in both perpetuating and resisting occupation to analysis of Palestinian liberation strategies. His work has appeared in +972 Magazine, Newlines Magazine, the Carnegie Council, and the New Politics Journal, among others. Follow Tariq on Twitter @tksshawa and visit his website at https://www.tkshawa.com/ for more of his writing and photography. 

Exiled Palestinians’ right to Palestinian nationality is protected under international law, irrespective of racist Israeli apartheid policies. How can Palestinians and their leadership in the diaspora activate this right through different legal and political channels? Al-Shabaka’s Commissioning Editor Nadim Bawalsa offers recommendations for how to secure exiled Palestinians their rights to and in Palestine, from wherever they may be.

( Al-Shabaka) – Nationality and citizenship are different concepts under international law. While citizenship is a formal arrangement into which individuals enter with a state government, nationality is considered innate to individuals, and is protected outside of the purview of the state. However, since its inception in 1948, the Israeli apartheid regime has been strategically manipulating the two in order to deny exiled Palestinians—as well as other oppressed Palestinian communities—their rights to Palestine from wherever they may be.¹

Today, over seven million exiled Palestinians have the legal right to be considered nationals of Palestine by birth and/or bloodline, irrespective of Israel’s racist nationality and citizenship laws. This includes five million refugees registered with UNRWA, as well as several million other Palestinian nationals with secondary citizenship or residency statuses in other countries. That is, if exiled Palestinians and their political representatives activate this internationally protected right through effective legal avenues, they would secure the legal status of being considered Palestinian nationals from exile, thus challenging Israel’s apartheid policies and laying the groundwork for future Palestinian nationality and citizenship legislation.²

This policy brief situates the ongoing political and legal crisis of exiled Palestinians’ nationality in the context of international law. It stresses the fundamental differences between citizenship and nationality, and shows how the two have been used interchangeably by British and then Israeli colonial and settler-colonial authorities to continue denying nationality and citizenship to Palestinians across the world. To this end, it does not focus on Palestinians within colonized Palestine whose rights to citizenship and nationality are dictated by the Israeli regime in 1948 territories, and by the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israeli regime in the West Bank and Gaza. The brief thus offers recommendations for what Palestinians in the diaspora and their representatives in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) should do to challenge Israel’s settler-colonial apartheid policies and secure exiled Palestinians their right to be considered as Palestinian nationals with rights to and in Palestine.³

Nationality, Citizenship, and International Law

While the right of return of Palestinian refugees is enshrined in UN resolutions, the right of all exiled Palestinians, including refugees and those naturalized as citizens of other states, to be considered nationals of colonized Palestine from across their diaspora—and thus, to demand legal representation and rights as Palestinians from abroad—must be activated. To understand why, we must grasp the core differences between nationality and citizenship, two concepts the British mandate and Zionist regimes have consistently and strategically used interchangeably to obscure nationality rights and bar exiled Palestinians from any claims to Palestine. Delineating the difference is thus crucial and must form the basis of the Palestinian response to these Israeli apartheid policies.

Citizenship, which is conferred on individuals based on place of birth, the nationality of their parents, or naturalization through residency, is determined by governments in order to grant rights and responsibilities as members of the nation-state. In this way, individuals applying for state citizenship must undergo a rigorous vetting process and must meet that state’s eligibility requirements. States may also contest the rights of individuals to citizenship, thereby stripping them of citizenship under certain stipulations.

Via Pixabay.

States, however, cannot denationalize a national. Under international law, nationality is broadly defined as the link between an individual and a territory. That link, referred to as the “genuine link” by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) since 1955, is determinable by bloodline (jus sanguinis), location of birth (jus soli), or long-term residency (jus domicile). Nationality is innate, unchangeable, and protected: article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Indeed, this right is so universal, several states even extend the option to apply for citizenship through jus sanguinis to non-citizen nationals residing anywhere in the world.

Palestinians’ Historical Right to Palestinian Nationality

The right of Palestinians to belong as nationals to Palestine from anywhere in the world has been recognized since the ratification of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne on August 6, 1924. While the treaty is the first legal document to promulgate Palestinian nationality globally, the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law was the first to legally confer nationality on residents of Palestine jus sanguinis, jus soli, and jus domicile. Therefore, when British authorities laid siege to Jerusalem in December 1917, residents of Palestine were considered Ottoman Palestinian nationals, and they remained as such pending the Allied forces’ decision on what to do with the dismembered empire.

This status also applied to tens of thousands of Ottoman Palestinian nationals who had been emigrating from Palestine to the Americas for economic and political reasons since the 19th century. But on July 24, 1923, the Allied forces and the government of the newly formed Turkish republic signed the Treaty of Lausanne, officially delineating the borders of the republic. In exchange for the Allies’ recognition of Turkish sovereignty, Turkey relinquished all its imperial claims to its former territories, including the Arab provinces, now under European colonial mandates.

Consequently, former Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire ceased to be Ottoman nationals, including those residing abroad. While article 34 of the Treaty of Lausanne made provisions for this, enabling individuals to declare the nationality “of the territory of which they are natives,” Britain contravened the treaty, as it had promised the Zionist Federation to establish a Jewish “national home” in Palestine in the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

As a result, it needed to ensure the steady flow of Jews to Palestine and their naturalization through residence as Palestinian subjects of the British Mandate for Palestine. British authorities thus legislated the first ever Palestinian citizenship ordinance in order to issue Palestinian citizenship documents to Jewish settlers. To be sure, this was in accordance with ​​article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine, which stated that the Government of Palestine shall enact a nationality law with “provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

In July 1925, Britain promulgated the Palestinian Citizenship Order-in-Council, which regulated Palestinian citizenship during the mandate. While the ordinance required British authorities to extend Palestinian citizenship to all qualifying applicants, they instead prioritized conferring the status on tens of thousands of incoming Jewish settlers (through jus domicile) at the expense of tens of thousands of Palestinian migrants (who had jus sanguinis and jus soli rights to citizenship). To justify this practice, British authorities regularly cited Palestine’s limited economic “absorptive capacity,” as well as the migrants’ inadequate proof of an intention to reside permanently in Palestine, absence from Palestine since before 1920, or, simply, their “patent undesirability.”

On March 8, 1937, two decades into Britain’s occupation of Palestine, the Government of Palestine reported that more than 28,000 Jews had been issued Palestinian citizenship documents between 1931 and 1936, and that out of a total of 4,941 citizenship documents granted in 1936, 4,847 were for Jews. By contrast, about 9,000 applications for citizenship had been submitted from Palestinians in Latin America alone by 1937; of those, not more than 100 were accepted. Palestinian migrants across the Americas, who amounted to roughly 40,000 by 1936, effectively became stateless Palestinian nationals carrying obsolete Ottoman documents.

Over the course of its 30-year occupation of Palestine, Britain persistently manipulated nationality by denying it through citizenship. And although Britain violated the Treaty of Lausanne in doing so, the League of Nations left the administration of Palestine entirely to the discretion of the British Crown. The governance of Palestine effectively fell outside of international law.

Palestinian Nationality Under the Israeli Regime

The Israeli regime’s ongoing contravention of international law since 1948 in denying millions of Palestinians throughout the world their rights to Palestinian nationality has its roots in a similar practice predating it by three decades. To wit, upon its creation, the new regime swiftly denied the 750,000 Palestinians who were exiled in 1948 their rights to Palestinian nationality; it did this again following its expulsion of 300,000 Palestinians from Palestine in 1967.

The right of Palestinians to belong as nationals to Palestine from anywhere in the world has been recognized since the ratification of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne Click To Tweet

Like its predecessor, the Zionist regime has deliberately manipulated citizenship and nationality in order to fulfill its demographic goal of securing a Jewish state. That is, like British mandate authorities, the Israeli regime has continually presented itself as the only authority with the right to confer both citizenship and nationality on all subjects with legal claims to belong to colonized Palestine.

These illegal acts are strategically obscured by a series of laws, the most significant of which are the 1950 Law of Return, the 1952 Nationality Law, and the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law. In 1950, the new Israeli regime promulgated the Law of Return, which offered every Jew across the world the right to immigrate to the new Jewish state. This law was followed by the 1952 Nationality Law, which confirmed nationality for Jews worldwide under the Law of Return. As such, in 1952, the Israeli regime effectively promulgated Jewish nationality globally.

In this way, while Israel may have a citizenship regime in place for non-Jews to acquire Israeli citizenship through birth in 1948 territories, it remains a state for Jewish nationals above all. This was reaffirmed in the 2018 Jewish Nation-State Basic Law, which stated that the right to national self-determination is “unique to the Jewish people.” Consequently, the Israeli apartheid regime has ensured that Palestinians who have acquired Israeli citizenship can never become incorporated as nationals of the state, making it easier to denaturalize them.

Moreover, to forestall any exiled Palestinians seeking citizenship rights as former subjects of the British mandate, which had issued British Palestinian passports, the 1952 law retroactively repealed any citizenship conferral prior to the establishment of the Israeli state in May 1948. Thus, the Israeli regime effectively reset citizenship laws upon its establishment, rendering obsolete all existing documents related to Palestinian nationality and citizenship. This is illegal under international law, which requires that any “successor state” confer the nationality of a given territory on the peoples connected to it.

The Israeli regime also ensured that no Palestinian expelled in 1948 can qualify for Palestinian nationality or Israeli citizenship, since they are neither Jewish nor can be naturalized from afar. Under the 1952 law, to qualify for Israeli citizenship through residence, Palestinians have to have been inhabitants of 1948 territories by March 1, 1952, and they have to have remained inhabitants from the day the state was established until the day the nationality law was passed. None of the Palestinians expelled in 1948 qualify under this provision.

In Defense of the Right to Palestinian Nationality

The global population of Palestinian nationals who, since the Treaty of Lausanne, have had a legally recognized “genuine link” to the territory of colonized Palestine and, therefore, to belong to it as nationals, can stake claims to these rights from across the diaspora through different legal and political channels. That is, their birth and blood rights to Palestinian nationality remain intact, and a legal and political avenue to challenge the Israeli regime is still viable. Indeed, their predecessors who were denied Palestinian nationality through citizenship during Britain’s occupation of Palestine were aware of this.

As the political and legal representative of the fragmented Palestinian people, the PLO must act as the guarantor of exiled Palestinians’ rights to Palestinian nationality Click To Tweet

Throughout the British mandate, Palestinians in Palestine and abroad repeatedly protested British policies through petitions submitted to the Government of Palestine and to the League of Nations. On February 23, 1927, for example, a group of Palestinians in Monterrey, Mexico, authored a six-page petition addressed to the high commissioner for Palestine, Herbert Plumer. In the document, which was drafted by members of the Centro Social Palestino and signed by over 300 Palestinians residing in Mexico, the petitioners demanded Britain recognize their rights to Palestinian nationality. They threatened to resort to the League of Nations, the arbiter of international law:

We were born in that territory; have always wished to be Palestinians; and we are sure, if as a last resort, it shall become necessary to carry our petition before the League of Nations, that august body will grant us the right to consider ourselves nationals of Palestine.

When it came to Palestinian nationality, Palestinian petitioners regularly referenced article 34 of the Treaty of Lausanne, reminding British authorities of their obligation to abide by international law—or, in the least, the treaties to which they were signatories. In June 1927, for example, a delegation of Palestinian nationalists from Bethlehem and Beit Jala that formed the Committee for the Defense of the Rights of Palestinians Residing in Foreign Countries, presented a petition to the Government of Palestine in Jerusalem. They situated Palestinian migrants’ rights to Palestinian nationality within article 34 of the treaty:

The logical conclusion to be deduced from the stipulations of the article is that the emigrants of this land who belong to the majority, enjoy the right to Palestinian nationality. We do not for a moment consider that the British Government would want to deprive them of this right.

Palestinian petitioners in Palestine and abroad set a precedent for demanding justice based on international legal treaties, and the British mandate regime continually disregarded them with impunity for the duration of its occupation of Palestine.

Seizing on Statehood and the Treaty of Lausanne

Until 2012, when the UN recognized Palestine as a de jure sovereign state, Palestinians in exile had limited resources to claim Palestinian nationality. But with statehood, the PLO finally drafted a citizenship law in 2012 recognizing the conferral of Palestinian nationality based on the Treaty of Lausanne, including for Palestinians in exile: “Palestinian citizens are those persons who acquired or had the right to acquire Palestinian nationality as of 6 August 1924.” However, the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) never considered the law due to the legal complexities involved; namely, identifying how Palestinian citizenship would be conferred on a fragmented population of refugees across the world, and of occupied nationals in the West Bank and Gaza who have varying residency statuses and rights to movement and access. Moreover, as per the Oslo Accords, the PA regulates the statuses of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and all residency conferrals must be approved by the Israeli regime.

As the political and legal representative of the fragmented Palestinian people, and as an entity that has recognized the importance of nationality, the PLO must act as the guarantor of exiled Palestinians’ rights to Palestinian nationality. But before it can pursue Palestinian nationality through legal avenues, the PLO must work with the Palestinian people to create a population registry, starting with Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA. In fact, Karma Nabulsi’s 2006 project marked a significant step toward establishing this type of connection between exiled Palestinians and the PLO. This work must be continued.

While international law has repeatedly failed to protect the rights of Palestinians—indeed, the rights of countless colonized and marginalized populations across the world—Palestinians throughout the diaspora should nonetheless push for the recognition of their rights to Palestinian nationality. As a first step to safeguarding their rights, Palestinians should demand that their leaders in the PLO diplomatic corps—members of which are tasked with representing Palestinian refugees and exiles across the diaspora—stake claims to their constituents’ rights to belong to Palestine, materially and otherwise, by:

• Creating forums for Palestinians across the world to gather and set the criteria to determine who qualifies to register for Palestinian nationality. While the Treaty of Lausanne makes provisions for this (jus sanguinis, jus soli, and jus domicile), it is incumbent on Palestinians to articulate these rights in their own terms, much like indigenous communities in North America have been discussing for decades. That is, assigning indigeneity through blood reifies a colonial practice, and so, oppressed communities must come together in dialogue, as Christina A. Li puts it, to “better acknowledge the roles lived experience, cultural connection, pre-colonial forms of knowledge production, and blood-based classifications all play in shaping indigeneity.”
• Issuing a population registry of exiled Palestinians. An official registry is the only way to ascertain the number of Palestinians in the diaspora who qualify for Palestinian nationality.
• Drafting a comprehensive nationality law that is based on the rights of Palestinians to their nationality, as determined by international law and by consensus. This would lay the groundwork for Palestinian citizenship conferral.
• Supporting Palestinians residing in foreign countries and holding secondary citizenship who demand to be recognized as Palestinian nationals by their host states.
• Demanding Israel be held accountable for contravening international law in denying millions of Palestinians it expelled from Palestine in 1948 and 1967 their rights to Palestinian nationality. This must be done regionally and internationally, in every state where Palestinians reside.

1. To read this piece in French, please click here. Al-Shabaka is grateful for the efforts by human rights advocates to translate its pieces, but is not responsible for any change in meaning.
2. Legal and political analysis in this policy brief is in part based on an interview conducted with human and refugee rights expert Susan Akram, which the author transcribed and edited. The author would like to thank Susan Akram and Kate Rouhana for their assistance in this research.
3. The historical sections of this policy brief reflect research the author included in his book, Transnational Palestine: Migration and the Right of Return before 1948, (Stanford University Press, 2022).

Nadim Bawalsa is Al-Shabaka’s Commissioning Editor. He is a historian of modern Palestine, and author of Transnational Palestine: Migration and the Right of Return before 1948 (Stanford University Press, 2022). His other work has appeared in the Jerusalem Quarterly, the Journal of Palestine Studies, NACLA Report on the Americas, and as well as in edited volumes. He earned a joint doctorate in History and Middle Eastern & Islamic Studies from New York University in 2017, and a Master’s in Arab Studies from Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies in 2010. In 2019-2020, he was awarded a PARC-NEH fellowship in Palestine.

Via Al-Shabaka