For decades, the Palestinian cause has found its most receptive audience on the political left. Progressive movements, human rights organizations, and anti-colonial traditions have provided language, unity, and moral clarity. The adjustment made sense. That’s still the case today. However, in today’s political climate, we cannot make policy changes on our own.
If policy is to be formed in areas dominated by security ideology and conservative forces, advocacy needs to reach those areas as well.
In many parts of the Western world, decisions about military aid, diplomatic positions, and protest laws are shaped by security-oriented political calculations rather than activist pressure. The language that dominates these fields is not primarily moral or historical. It is strategic, legal and institutional. In that context, strategies that limit engagement to primarily empathic spaces may maintain solidarity, but are unlikely to shift the focus of decision-making.
The Palestinian movement has received unprecedented attention, especially since the start of the recent genocidal war in which Israel has killed tens of thousands of civilians in the Gaza Strip and reduced much of it to rubble. Public awareness has also increased. Legal oversight is increasing. International organizations are also being drawn into this debate. But visibility doesn’t equal leverage. The arms continue to flow. The diplomatic cover-up continues. Restrictions on pro-Palestinian protests have expanded in several Western states. Moral clarity alone is not enough.
Recent developments in Western capitals highlight the gap between visibility and influence.
In Germany, local authorities have completely banned or severely restricted pro-Palestinian demonstrations for security reasons. In some parts of the United States, police have cleared student camps and state legislatures have punished educational institutions seen as condoning boycott movements. In the UK, large-scale demonstrations have largely been framed using the terms of extremism and security. In both cases, the debate centers not on international law or occupation, but on domestic security and counter-extremism, the areas in which the governments are most confident.
Part of the challenge lies in how engagement is structured. The Palestinian cause is neither fringe nor extremist nor morally ambiguous. It is rooted in international law, the principle of self-determination, and the right of civilians to live free from occupation and collective punishment. These principles are not inherently left-wing. They speak to the limits of law, sovereignty, and state power, concepts that resonate across political traditions.
Nevertheless, advocacy for Palestinian rights in Western capitals is often framed primarily through the language of anti-colonialism and human rights, which resonates strongly on the left but less so within conservative political cultures. As a result, causes are often perceived as ideologically aligned rather than based on universal grounds. That perception narrows the scope.
When Palestinian claims are not clearly articulated within the security and legal language that underpins much of the right-leaning political discourse, others define them instead. The dominant framework will be either terrorism, instability, or intercivilizational conflict. Occupation is recast as Security Management. Collective punishment has been rebranded as deterrence. In such an environment, silence and limited engagement do not uphold principles. That leaves this area uncontroversial.
Engaging with rights does not mean weakening or softening demands regarding occupation, apartheid, and harm to civilians. That doesn’t mean justifying racism or Islamophobia. It carries the risk of misrepresentation, hostility, or malicious engagement, but disengagement carries the greater risk of irrelevance. It means recognizing that political persuasion requires not only persuasion but also translation. Discussions must be conducted from perspectives that intersect with the priorities of those in power.
That might mean briefing conservative MPs, publishing in right-leaning policy forums, and structuring debates in parliamentary and security committees as well as activist spaces.
This could mean arguing that an indefinite occupation would entrench permanent instability and undermine Israel’s own long-term security. That could mean demonstrating that selective enforcement of international law undermines the credibility of Western governments in places like Ukraine and Taiwan. That could mean demonstrating impunity for one ally would undermine deterrence across the world. These are not left-wing talking points. They are matters of coherence, order and national interest.
History shows that political change often requires involvement beyond one’s natural allies. The African National Congress did not limit its activities to a sympathetic audience. It engaged with governments that had long labeled it radical or subversive. Irish Republican leaders ultimately negotiated with a conservative government that was largely opposed to their objectives. In both cases, engagement did not indicate support. This reflects an understanding that political change requires dialogue beyond the country’s natural allies.
There is also a generational aspect. Modern rights are not monolithic. These include nationalists concerned about sovereignty, libertarians skeptical of ties with foreign countries, and conservatives wary of unchecked executive power. None of these constituencies automatically become partners. But nothing is inherently unattainable. Some people may be unfazed, especially if their ideological or religious commitments are deeply rooted. Treating them as permanently adversarial ensures that the most extreme narratives dominate their internal discussions.
The discomfort surrounding such involvement is understandable. Many Palestinian rights supporters worry that speaking out in conservative forums risks normalizing hostile frames and undermining moral clarity. But politics is not a test of moral insulation. This is a contest to see the results. If policy is to be shaped within security agencies and conservative-led governments, the discussion must extend to those areas as well.
The alternative is a form of self-containment, in which policies remain the same but the movement’s voice grows louder within its own echo chamber. The experience of the past year has made this risk clear. The devastation in Gaza has sparked global outrage and unprecedented mobilization of protests. However, major Western governments did not fundamentally change their positions. Sympathy without access turns out to be limited.
None of this diminishes the importance of left-wing unity. That unity remains essential. But that shouldn’t be the outer boundary of engagement. If the Palestinian cause is based on universal principles of law and justice, then it should be asserted as such wherever those principles are discussed, including in politically macabre rooms.
The Palestinian struggle does not suffer from a lack of moral grounding. They suffer from limited political influence. Expanding its reach requires no concessions. It requires confidence that a cause can withstand scrutiny in any ideological environment, and that justice need not be confined to one side of the political spectrum.
After all, refusing to engage in difficult conversations is not upholding principles. It protects existing power structures. If Palestinian rights are to move from protest slogans to policy considerations, the movement needs to speak out not only where it is welcomed, but also where it is resisted.
Justice should not depend on ideological comfort. It must depend on a willingness to argue clearly, consistently and fearlessly where power is exercised.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
