Counter-intuitive arguments for and against US support of Israel
The best conservative case for halting support for Israel, and the best progressive one for continuing support
When it comes to the issue of Israel/Palestine, so much has been said by so many people, that very few arguments can cut through the chatter. Even worse, a lot of what gets said is too unknowledgeable or un-nuanced to address the complex realities on the ground. It’s hard to know what a single blog post can add to the conversation.
Because of those reasons (and others), for the past few years I haven’t written much on Israel/Palestine.
It’s not that I have nothing to say. As someone who lived and blogged in East Jerusalem for five months and who wrote a prize-winning senior thesis on antisemitism, I’ve already written quite extensively on questions surrounding Jews, Palestinians, the Middle East, and more. Some of my writings are a decade and half old and have aged poorly, but others hold up quite well: there’s two moving pieces I wrote after a classmate was killed in a terrorist bus bombing (here and here). There’s an essay on nationalism and Zionism that earned me high praise from my professor, who was also a rabbi. There are reflections on the raw geography and topography of the land, which is far more compact and narrower than most Americans can comprehend. Not to mention, I wrote numerous accountings of vivid spiritual experiences that are too incredible to have just been mere chance.
All of my past words are out there for anyone to read. I invite the reader to find my best, and worst, takes in the Archive (scroll back to posts from 2011-2013).
But as I thought about what I wanted to write at this moment, I wanted to specifically consider what arguments I could share that might actually persuade someone to rethink their positions.
After all, anyone can write a post saying: “Terrorism is bad. Starvation is bad. Antisemitism is bad. Oppression is bad. Genocide is bad. etc.” Doing so would alienate folks on one side or another, while persuading absolutely no one. That feels like a waste of time.
So instead, in this piece, I want to attempt something different.
I have always loved counter-intuitive arguments, arguments that flip people’s usual assumptions on their head. Maybe I did too much debate team in high school and college, but there’s just something about them that appeals to my brain.
For example, did you know that the US abortion rate decreased under “pro-choice” President Obama, but increased under “pro-life” President Trump? Counter-intuitively, this would suggest that pro-lifers should vote Democrat!1 Or did you know that giving someone the death penalty is more expensive than just putting them in prison for life? That means “fiscal hawks” are better off just ending the death penalty rather than trying to put more folks on Death Row.
But for me, counter-intuitive arguments are not about pointing about hypocrisy.2 At the end of the day, we’re all hypocrites in one way or another. For me, counter-intuitive arguments are about encouraging someone to rethink their stance on an issue by using their own moral logic. After all, no conservative would be convinced by an argument framed from a progressive set of values, and vice versa. Only by looking at the topic from a person’s unique lens is there any hope in cutting through the chatter.
So, in that vein, I want to put forth both what I consider to be the best progressive argument for the US to continue to support the state of Israel, and the best conservative argument for ending that support. Obviously, these are unexpected angles on a well-trodden issue. So why introduce them? My hope is that these counter-intuitive arguments will help to add nuance to the reflexive positions on each side. I hope it causes some level of introspection. And perhaps, there might even be someone who starts to think a little more deeply and closely on this issue beyond what their tribe tells them to think.
That said, I want to lay down a marker for how I will define success in this piece.
Success here is not about if I can totally recap the situation in Israel/Palestine with perfect nuance and perfect moral clarity (a Sisyphean task). Success is not about if I gain or lose subscribers–in all likelihood I’ll lose a bunch just for talking about this topic. This article’s success is not even about if I convince anyone to change their views.
Instead, I’m defining success by whether or not I have put forward the best progressive argument that is pro US support for Israel, and the best conservative argument that is anti support for Israel. I think I have the best ones from those perspectives. (If, however, you think you have stronger ones, please share in the comments.)
So without further ado, here’s what I’ve got.
The Best Conservative Argument for the US to End Support for Israel, in one phrase: Moral Harm
You’re walking down a street, and you see a homeless man sitting on the corner. This is a person you’ve seen blackout drunk or high in public on at least a few occasions. As you walk closer, he asks you for ten bucks to buy food. Do you give him any money?
The instinctual progressive response in this situation is often: regardless of how this man is going to use the money, there exists some obligation to give him money. I’ve seen countless memes like this one:
But the instinctual conservative response is likely a deep hesitancy to give this man any cash. If he goes and gets drunk or high off the money you give him, aren’t you morally culpable? If you know how he might use the money you give him, aren’t you thus expressing support for his choices? In fact, aren’t you possibly complicit in his ongoing addiction? Similarly, if a government program is set up to end homelessness, a conservative would want to make sure there are some safeguards to make sure people like this aren’t being enabled in their bad behavior.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think this example is instructive. At the heart of conservatism is a deep skepticism of government funding being used to help others who might misuse the money. This skepticism can sometimes be expressed in ugly and racist ways, such as the trope of the “welfare queen” popularized in the 1980s. Conservatives say: why should folks get financial or material support if they’re going to use it, at least in part, for bad things? Conservatives believe there should be, at minimum, things like work requirements or accountability to ensure that anyone who gets government money uses it the right way.
If that’s the case when it comes to giving homeless people money, how much more so is that the case when it comes to giving a country guns, bombs, and missiles?
Indeed, there are some far-right conservatives who have started to question America’s generosity to Israel. Many of these conservatives’ motives are questionable at best: Kanye West, Candace Owens, and Tucker Carlson have been accused anti-Semitism (validly, in my opinion). But I think even the most pro-Israel conservatives should take some time to consider if Israel is taking advantage of America’s generosity. Does Israel, the most prosperous and militarily advanced nation in the Middle East, really need such generous American support, no strings attached?
That, to me, is the best conservative argument for pausing American support for Israel. It’s clear that Israel has made some mistakes in the war in Gaza, to say nothing of the West Bank. From a conservative perspective, we are complicit in grave moral harm if we continue to enable Israel. At the very least, a conservative would expect some requirements and restrictions for how this aid is used, if not a complete and total halt until we see some forward progress towards a peace process. President Trump did exactly that with Ukraine earlier this year, so it seems fair for him to do something similar with Israel.
That, to me, is the best argument from the conservative perspective against US support for Israel. You may or may not think it’s convincing, but I struggle to think of a better conservative argument against funding Israel.
I will now proceed to the corollary on the progressive side:
The Best Progressive Argument for the US to Support Israel in one words: Reparations
Ever been to the Colosseum? It’s absolutely massive. Stripped of much of its ornamentation during the Middle Ages, you can still see the markings where gold and silver decorations used to hang. The Colosseum had trap doors to release wild animals to fight gladiators (or persecuted Christians), as well as specially engineered floors to allow for the entire arena to be flooded and form a miniature lake for mock sea battles. This engineering marvel would have cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in contemporary money.
I learned something two years ago: The Colosseum was entirely funded by the Roman pillaging of the ornate, beautiful Jewish Temple in 70 C.E.. Construction was done by tens of thousands of Jews who were forced into slavery. The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. was the tragic, if eminently foreseeable, result of a dogged Jewish refusal to submit to Roman imperial oppression. Men, women, and children were killed, and the survivors sold into slavery and scattered to the winds, creating the Jewish Diaspora, ultimately leading to distinct Jewish subcultures, practices, and even physical appearances.
When the Romans put down another Jewish rebellion in 137 C.E., it would be the last meaningful example of armed Jewish resistance for centuries. The Roman Emperor Hadrian decided to try to erase the story of the Jews from global history, requiring the provinces formerly known as Judea and Samaria to be renamed as “Syria Palestina.”3 4
If the near-elimination of the Jews from the Middle East wasn’t enough, the Western European inheritors of the Roman Empire would continue cyclical patterns of persecution and pogroms every couple of generations. During the Middle Ages, while Jews in Muslim lands often experienced a decent amount of religious tolerance (relatively speaking), Jews in Christian lands could expect repression, forced conversions, confiscation of land and property, and outbreaks of killing.
All of this, of course, culminated in the Holocaust, when the white, Christian, Western world silently watched as Jews were killed en masse, while simultaneously refusing to accept Jewish refugees. The harm was as drastic as it was effective: the total global Jewish population has yet to recover to pre-Holocaust levels, 80 years after the fact.
Two millennia. One hundred generations of oppression. Almost entirely at the hands of white, Western, Christian Europeans.
While other ethnic groups have also suffered gravely under Western Christian domination, and some smaller ones have even been utterly wiped out (e.g. some Native American tribes), I cannot think of an ethnic group that has endured as much, for as long, as the Jews.
There are a lot of arguments for America to support Israel on the conservative side. But the best progressive argument is the argument of reparations. The logic of reparations, according to progressive ideology, is roughly: “We must make payments to the descendants of groups that our ancestors harmed, commensurate with how significant that harm has been.”
In the domestic context, reparations are often brought up in the context of slavery or genocide against the Native Americans. And I agree, 400 years of oppression by European Christians certainly demands some sort of restitution. Some Native tribes receive land, federal funding, and special permission to do things that are forbidden for other groups, i.e. running gambling casinos.
While some conservatives question the idea of giving reparations if they might be misused, the progressive counterargument is this: even if these funds are unnecessary, or might be used for purposes we don’t agree with, reparations are still obligated. How dare we criticize a group that our forefathers oppressed for centuries?
Reparations even require turning a blind eye to some negative side effects. For example, if making reparations requires a negative impact to an innocent third party (e.g., taxing people whose ancestors didn’t own slaves, to make reparations to Black people), that is unfortunate but ultimately irrelevant to the progressive moral calculus.
And if this is true for harms that were ongoing for 400 years, how much more so for harms that were ongoing for 2000 years?
It’s notable that Germany has been one of the foremost supporters of Israel’s military, second only to the United States. That’s because Germany feels the logic of reparations most intimately–they feel they owe Israel, big time! And how dare Germany criticize Israel for how they use those reparations?5
But America, the inheritor of the descendants of the Roman Empire and European Christendom, is complicit in the harms done to Jews too. Our ancestors persecuted the Jews both in Europe and during the Holocaust, and some reparations must be made. If those reparations feel morally gray, or even cause some harm to third-party groups, that is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant to the question of reparations. According to progressive logic, the West owes ongoing reparations (of some kind) to the descendants of the Jews for the harm that has been done.
If a progressive feels that this is an unjust application of the principle of reparations, then I would question why they feel that way. Because I struggle to think of an ethnic group more deserving of Western reparations than Jewish people. If reparations are not required in this situation, then they are probably never required for any situation.
This, as best as I can tell, is the best progressive argument for the US to continue support for Israel.
Conclusion: Maybe we all need to think our reflexive ideological positions?
I have tried to put forth the best counter-intuitive arguments for each side: A conservative argument for ending aid to Israel, and a progressive one for continuing it. I’m sure that most conservatives and progressives reading this will be unpersuaded. If so, I understand, but I hope you can start to feel some dissonance:
For conservatives: if moral harm is a valid reason to deny a drunk homeless man money, why isn’t it a valid reason to turn off the aid to Israel when it does something wrong?
For progressives: If reparations should be given for the atrocities done in the past, then why shouldn’t that logic be applied for Jews, who have also endured historic oppression?
Ultimately, I find both the conservative and progressive ideologies break down at some points. This is especially true when it comes to Jews, who never fit cleanly in anyone’s paradigm.
For me, to lay my cards on the table: I ultimately turn to Jesus. He has some commands that fit in a progressive paradigm, some that fit in a conservative one, but many others that make no earthly sense at all:
Love your enemies.
Bless those who persecute you.
If someone demands your coat, give them your shirt also.
Forgive those who’ve harmed you; if you don’t, neither will God forgive you.
These teachings (and others) are, humanly speaking, incomprehensible. But I believe that if everyone in the Middle East began to obey them today, there would be peace tomorrow. I’ve written about enemy-love in foreign affairs before. It’s not as crazy as some may think:
But my peace plan for the Middle East is a different topic for a different day.
For now, I just hope that I have accomplished my goal, which I’ll restate from above: I’m defining success in this piece by whether or not I have put forward the best progressive argument that is pro US support for Israel, and the best conservative argument that is anti support for Israel.
If you think I’ve achieved that, I’d love to hear from you. If you think you have a better one, please share in the comments.
All other comments that are not kind or constructive…you can take them straight to Gehenna (let the reader understand :) ).
Even in this post, where I analyze some of the Christian left’s hypocrisy, it’s not to create shame but to make people think deeper:
One interesting implication of this is that it is anachronistic for Christians to call this region “Palestine” when we’re describing it during the life of Jesus—that wasn’t its name until a century later. “Judea and Samaria” is the more accurate term for that time period.
Adding a second footnote here to say it’s not clear exactly if it was Hadrian who required the renaming. Apparently the history of the name change is a bit convoluted. You can follow this rabbit trail for more info.
Indeed, that’s what made it so significant when Germany began to wonder if they should pause weapons shipments to Israel due to what’s happening in Gaza.
That's a challenging and helpful exercise in rhetoric for the sake of moral clarity. I'd like to see it similarly applied to the abortion debate.