Disclaimers as Shields: How Binary Thinking Prohibits Discussion for Supporters of Israel
- 3 hours ago
- 4 min read
Please note: The current war situation in the Middle East is an important and unavoidable focus for the world. I recommend these credible and timely updates on the ongoing war with Iran, (More sources listed after the post below): Institute for the Study of war
ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization that advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative
For now, this series of posts, beginning with "Confession to Complicity" will continue to explore how the historical antisemitism faced by Jews within Christian contexts has evolved, transformed, and reemerged as a new form of Christian antisemitism, masked as acceptable new narratives about Jews and Israel. Hopefully, this exploration will provoke serious reflection among mainline Christians about our success and failures in honoring our connection to a living Judaism and our Christian identity.
"How do I talk about Israel without a Disclaimer?"
At a recent public discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a Christian woman felt she had to start with a disclaimer before defending Israel. “I want to make it clear that I oppose the killing of civilians. In fact, I don’t support violence against anyone—especially children,” she said nervously.
Immediately, someone in the audience shot back, “We sure hope not.” The mostly Christian audience laughed, but they understood her reason for starting this way. They were confident that they could dismantle any pro-Israeli perspective she might offer because they occupied the increasingly popular pro-Palestinian position.
In today’s “woke” culture, a pro-Israeli speaker must announce a moral disclaimer that aligns with anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian audiences to begin a discussion. In this case, it seems patently ridiculous that a nonviolent Christian woman should feel compelled to declare the obvious: the killing of innocent civilians or children in war and denying human rights to another people are morally wrong and against international law.
Nonetheless, without a substantive disclaimer, speakers sympathetic to Israel are systematically shut down before they can articulate their points. Often, their invitations to public forums are revoked. They risk being labeled complicit in alleged Israeli crimes. At the same time, they find themselves required to defend Israel against those accusations.
The trend of "woke" binary thinking is a destructive initiative. Why should disclaimers be necessary to gain a hearing with those who see Israel as despicable and unworthy of discussion? Numerous documented situations illustrate this, where invited speakers, such as Alan Dershowitz, face protests that disrupt their engagements, as noted by the American Jewish Committee (https://www.ajc.org/news/academic-freedom-and-free-speech).
When we discuss Israel in a political world that simplifies the conflict into stark binaries, Israel becomes an oppressor without virtue; Palestinians are the oppressed. Because of this, they become morally superior in the eyes of our “woke” culture—a position historically rooted in Liberation Theology. (please see:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology#cite_note-Dault_46-3)
Social media amplifies this unfortunate polarity. On platforms like X, hashtags such as #FreePalestine dominate discussions, reduce narratives to good-versus-evil portrayals. Viral tweets frequently dismiss any defense of Israel, reinforcing perceptions of complicity among supporters and making dialogue impossible. This connects to narratives of suffering as well.
When discussions about Israel’s rights and their pleas for security are dismissed, arguments may end up conflating latent antisemitic undercurrents with perceptions that Jewish/Israeli lives are unworthy of saving. This slippery slope has the potential to turn into an avalanche sweeping well-intentioned Christians into a new era reminiscent of 1930’s Germany. No matter how quickly we Christians object by saying, “That will never happen again,” the dangerous rise in antisemitism says otherwise. Why else would the burning of synagogues be a newly popular trend?
On a solidarity visit to Israel during the recent war, I saw repeated signs in Israel—on banners, clothing, cups, caps, and jewelry—proclaiming “Am Israel chai,” meaning, “The people of Israel live!” It is a brave claim to counter regional efforts at erasure. One needs only examine a map to see the position of Israel in the Mideast as a small country surrounded by large, mostly hostile Arab countries.
The neighboring countries Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq are not technically “Palestinian,” but rather independent Arab countries which often host terrorist groups eager to destroy the internationally recognized state of Israel.
The narrative surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has transformed significantly over time. Where Israel was once celebrated as the recovered homeland of the Jewish people, it is now accused of colonialism—an outdated term that relates to the dismantled British Empire.
The Palestinian cause has been reframed to portray Israel not as the legitimate state that it is, but as an occupier, a colonial entity occupying “Palestinian” land—a tough argument given there has never been an officially recognized State of Palestine. Turning the struggle into a contest for Palestinian rights casts Israel as a villain in a universal fight against oppression.
No conflict on the world stage is successful without successful propaganda campaigns. Pro-Palestinian propaganda has played a crucial role in shaping public perceptions in the West. Thus, Israel’s right to self-defense is viewed as aggression aimed at ethnically cleansing Palestinians. Such a shift underscores the challenges faced by those attempting to present a nuanced and factual historical perspective.
As mentioned above, the pro-Israeli woman’s disclaimer illuminates a troubling reality in any discussions about Israel and the Palestinians. Binary thinking creates a web of demonization, dehumanization, and complicates the landscape for anyone trying to navigate this topic.
Disclaimers are shields against accusations of complicity in alleged Israeli atrocities; sometimes, these serve as the only means for supporters of Israel to voice their opinions.
Additional Reputable News Sources:
Comments