Commentary: The phrase ‘Free Palestine' is freeing no one, but it is killing some of us
Twice in a recent two-week period, two men were arrested for terrorist attacks while invoking 'Free Palestine.' For them, the phrase served as a rallying cry sanctioning violence.
Their targets were, in the deadly Washington, D.C., attack outside the Jewish Museum, a young couple, and in Boulder, Colorado, people attending a vigil for the 58 hostages held by Hamas.
For the two suspects — neither of whom is Palestinian — the phrase 'Free Palestine' was a license to kill.
They are not the only ones who understand it that way. It was just two months ago when the official residence of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro was set ablaze after a Passover Seder event. The perpetrator, who has confessed, cited the governor's views on Palestine. Another 'Free Palestine' chanter struck and killed an elderly California Jewish man with a bullhorn in November 2023.
Not all 'Free Palestine' chanters understand it as a call to violence.
Yet the phrase's intentional lack of specificity is a big part of its utility: What the user means is left to the audience's interpretation. There are several prevalent understandings, ranging from noble to murderous.
'Free Palestine' can mean the justified yearning for Palestinians to enjoy the full freedoms, prosperity and security to which all people are entitled.
It can be a desperate plea for new, elected leaders. Hamas has governed Gaza with an iron fist — and no elections — since 2007, and the West Bank hasn't voted since 2006. This indifference to basic democracy does not portend well for what freedom would look like in a free Palestine.
For others invoking it, the phrase's imprecision is precisely the point. 'Free Palestine' can be exploited for misleading purposes. The lack of specificity avoids answering the most revealing question: Would a free Palestine be alongside Israel or instead of Israel?
Of course, Hamas and many of its global advocates shamelessly reject the 'alongside' option. In Gaza and elsewhere, they threaten anyone willing to accept such a peaceful compromise.
Other 'Free Palestine' supporters are unwilling to pay the negative public relations cost of acknowledging that 'instead of' is their nonnegotiable option. Why? Because their 'instead of' option can only be realized with the annihilation of a sovereign United Nations member country populated by 10 million Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Druze and others.
The 'instead of' option glorifies killing Jews, be it on Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel; in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in Boulder; and God knows where next. While we don't know where the next 'Free Palestine'-inspired attack will happen, we do know, tragically, it isn't a matter of whether it will happen. It is simply a matter of when.
In most instances, 'Free Palestine' is protected free speech in the United States.
But after this most recent series of 'Free Palestine'-motivated attacks and with an accompanying deafening silence of condemnation from most pro-Palestinian groups, is it so unreasonable to ask that those promulgating it own up to what it does and doesn't mean to them? And for us Jews.
The murderers do not indulge the lie of most pro-Palestinian advocates that there is a distinction between Jews and Zionists. Neither the California, Washington, Harrisburg or Boulder offenders bothered to inquire about their victims' identities or ideologies before attacking. Whether the victims were even Jewish or Zionist, or how they understood 'Free Palestine,' was irrelevant.
Politicalized catchphrases are proliferating. While many may seem innocuous, they can be dog whistles that are understood differently by different audiences. Our business, civic, educational, faith, media and political leaders have learned how to navigate these linguistic minefields. They now need to tune their antennas to the violent impact that 'Free Palestine' and the demonization of Zionists are having on American Jews.
Those of us yearning for both Israeli-Palestinian peace and Jewish safety worldwide understandably want to know what 'Free Palestine' means to those in our midst.
The Boulder attacker planned his violence for a year, authorities say. There are undoubtedly others right now planning their own attacks to 'Free Palestine.'
Such would-be assailants should know whether their attacks are endorsed or opposed by the 'Free Palestine' campaign they have adopted. We already know how two people over the last three weeks understood the phrase's imprecision. And we have seen and heard all too many applauding this resistance.
Attempting to define the meaning of another group's self-understanding is likely to evoke accusations of mansplaining. But in the absence of a widely embraced peaceful definition of 'Free Palestine,' being accused of insensitivity is easy to bear. We Jews are just trying to freely celebrate a Seder, visit a museum and rally for hostages. That yearning involves no duplicity or threats to others.
_____
Jay Tcath is executive vice president of the Jewish United Fund.
_____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel Considering Military Attack On Iran Amid Stalled Nuclear Bomb Talks: Reports
Israel is reportedly planning to take potential military action against Iran amid unsuccessful efforts by the U.S. to strike a deal with Iran to halt its nuclear weapons-making capabilities. An Israeli strike, independent of the U.S., could happen within the next few days, NBC News,CBS News and The New York Times reported Thursday, citing sources close to the situation. A senior Iranian official told Reuters on Thursday that the country will not abandon its right to uranium enrichment. Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami also told state media on Thursday that any aggression by Israel will be 'more forceful and destructive' than those seen in the past. Both countries engaged in a series of exchanges of fire last year. Out of precaution, the U.S. withdrew diplomats from Iraq on Wednesday and authorized the voluntary departure of U.S. military families from the Middle East should such an attack occur and prompt retaliation by Iran, the Times and CBS News reported. 'They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, we'll see what happens,' President Donald Trump told reporters Wednesday night. '[Iran] can't have a nuclear weapon. We're not going to allow it.' Israel had reportedly proposed attacking Iranian nuclear sites back in April, but was dissuaded by Trump over his insistence on trying to negotiate a deal with Tehran instead that would limit its nuclear program. Weeks later, a United Nations nuclear watchdog determined that Iran has been carrying out secret nuclear activities at three locations where traces of uranium were found. Iran is not complying with its nuclear obligations, the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors concluded. Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei has called the proposed negotiations by the U.S. regarding its nuclear program 'not acceptable to us.' 'We will present our own proposal to the other side via [Omani mediators] after it is finalized,' Baghaei said following talks Monday between both sides. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also publicly criticized America's proposals last week, saying: 'Our response to the U.S.' nonsense is clear: They cannot do a damn thing in this matter.' A new round of talks has been planned for Sunday between Tehran and Washington. Israeli Forces Accused Of Threatening And Abusing Detained Flotilla Activists More Than 55,000 Palestinians Have Been Killed In The Israel-Hamas War, Gaza Health Officials Say At Least 5 Countries Sanction Far-Right Israeli Officials For Inciting West Bank Violence Trump Threatens Sanctions On Iranian Oil Buyers After Nuclear Talks Delayed Iran And U.S. Envoys Hold 1st Negotiation Over Tehran's Nuclear Program, Talk Face-To-Face
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump job approval at 38 percent in new survey
President Trump's approval rating dipped to 38 percent, the lowest of his second term, according to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University. In the June poll, 38 percent of registered voters approved of the way Trump is doing his job, while 54 percent disapproved. The results mark the first time Trump's numbers dipped below 40-percent threshold since returning to office in January — when he enjoyed an all-time high job approval rating of 46 percent. In February, that number slumped to 45 percent; in March, to 42 percent; and in April, to 41 percent. Quinnipiac University did not release polling data in May. Immigration remains the president's best issue, with 43 percent approval and 54 percent disapproval ratings. But the numbers have declined slightly from April, when 45 percent approved and 50 percent disapproved of his handling of immigration. On the issue of deportations, 40 percent approved and 56 percent disapproved — a slightly downward turn from April, when 42 percent approved and 53 percent disapproved. Trump's approval is 40 percent on the economy, 38 percent on trade, 37 percent on universities, 35 percent on the Israel-Hamas conflict and 34 percent on the Russia-Ukraine war. 'As the Russia – Ukraine war grinds through its third year, Americans make it clear they have little appetite for the way the Trump administration is handling the situation,' Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement. Polling averages maintained by Decision Desk HQ show Trump's job approval rating at 47 percent approval and 49.9 percent disapproval. A poll this week from YouGov/The Economist has Trump's approval among registered voters at 45 percent and his disapproval at 53 percent. The latest poll was conducted June 5-9, with 1,265 self-identified registered voters. The margin of error is 2.8 percentage points.
.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Do Americans sympathize with Israelis or Palestinians? Poll results break record
American public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has shifted dramatically since the war began in Gaza, with voter sympathies more evenly divided than ever before, according to new polling. In the latest Quinnipiac University poll, respondents were asked whether they sympathized more with Israelis or Palestinians. A plurality, 37%, said Israelis, while 32% said Palestinians. Meanwhile, nearly a third, 31%, expressed no opinion. These figures mark a record-high share of support for Palestinians, and a record-low level of support for Israelis since the polling organization started asking voters this question in 2001. By comparison, in a November 2023 Quinnipiac poll, 54% of respondents empathized more with Israelis, while 24% sided with Palestinians. And, in October 2023, this divide was even more pronounced: 61% vs. 13%. The latest poll — which sampled 1,265 voters June 5-9 — comes as Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza continues raging despite attempts from President Donald Trump's administration to broker a peace deal. The conflict began after Hamas militants invaded Israeli on Oct. 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people — including hundreds of young people at a music festival — and taking about 250 more hostage, Israeli officials said. In response, Israel began a yearslong attack on Gaza, resulting in the deaths of about 55,000 Palestinians, many of whom are women and children, according to Gaza health officials. The U.N. has warned that a blockade on the Palestinian enclave, which is home to some 2.1 million people, is putting many on the brink of starvation. 'With no end to the Israel-Gaza conflict in sight, Israel's standing with voters slips significantly,' Tim Malloy, a Quinnipiac polling analyst, said in the poll. Partisan breakdown Opinions on the Middle Eastern conflict are heavily divided based on partisanship, found the poll, which has a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points. The vast majority of Republicans, 64%, said they sided more with Israelis, while just 7% sided with Palestinians. Meanwhile, the reverse was true for Democrats, with 60% expressing more sympathy for Palestinians, and 12% showing more sympathy for Israelis. Twenty-nine percent of both groups offered no opinion. Independents were more split, with 38% siding with Israelis and 30% siding with Palestinians. Thirty-one percent had no opinion. Confidence in a cease-fire Voters were also asked about the possibility of the war being drawn to a close in the short term. Just 17% said they were either very or somewhat confident that 'Israel and Hamas will agree to a permanent cease fire in the near future.' Meanwhile, the vast majority, 77%, said they are not so confident or not confident at all. More than twice as many Republicans (24%) expressed confidence that a ceasefire can be reached than Democrats (11%). Independents fell somewhere in the middle (18%). A temporary cease-fire was reached in January, but it ended in March, after spanning 42 days. In early June, Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to bring the war to a close, an unnamed source told CNN.
