Is this sincere idealism — or is it a kind of political theater, a performance of moral superiority?

How is it possible that in a small country like Israel — with fragile borders and surrounded on all sides by radical Islamist groups that openly dream of eliminating the only homeland of the Jewish people — there are still Israelis who believe we should give back territories to the Palestinians, trusting that this would bring peace rather than destruction?

Thirty years ago, many Israelis hoped that peace could be achieved through a land‑for‑peace agreement. But history has shown us that every time Israel was ready to compromise for a better future, the Palestinians interpreted those compromises as weakness. The result was waves of terror attacks that cost countless lives and made daily life unbearable.

In any country with normal living standards, people would never accept terror as part of their daily routine — suicide bombings in restaurants, on buses, in the streets.

The world may not speak enough about the concessions Israel has made for peace, but Israelis have lived through the consequences of Palestinian refusals. Even Bill and Hillary Clinton, two prominent American leaders, have publicly acknowledged this.

So how is it that some Israelis — especially among academics, writers, and artists who call themselves peace activists — still demonstrate against Israel’s defensive wars against Hamas or Hizbullah, terrorist groups that deliberately plan cross‑border invasions and massacres like the one we experienced on October 7th?

The Israeli Defense Forces have uncovered numerous tunnels crossing into Israeli territory from both the West Bank and Lebanon.

I can understand foreigners who support the Palestinians — those who do not know the full history, those influenced by propaganda, or those who are simply antisemitic. But I cannot understand Israelis who live here, who know what has been happening for decades, and who still insist that peace depends solely on Israeli concessions.

These elites, these academics — do they truly believe that peace will come if Israel tries again? Or do they have other motives for supporting the Palestinians more than their own nation’s security and well‑being?

Do they genuinely believe in peaceful coexistence with people who openly declare that not only the 1967 borders, but Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all of Israel, are part of their future Palestine?

Do they trust these declarations more than they trust their own compatriots — the very people they seem to despise because of political differences, cultural backgrounds, or religious identity? How can those who call themselves liberals refuse to accept different political views within their own society?

For decades, the Ashkenazi elites and the left‑wing establishment dominated Israeli society, shaping its institutions and its future. Academia and the Supreme Court became exclusive clubs, often closed to right‑wingers and Mizrahi Jews. And yet these same people present themselves as enlightened intellectuals who want peace at any cost — even if that cost is Israel’s security.

They want to give back land for what? To compromise with those who show no real intention of living in peace with us?

Is this sincere idealism — or is it a kind of political theater, a performance of moral superiority?

These so‑called progressives want to prove to the world that they belong to the Western intellectual movement. In doing so, they cooperate with forces that ultimately strengthen radical Islam, which would gladly replace Israeli democracy with Islamist rule.

For now, these intellectuals enjoy the comfort of their ideals, claiming they are “enlightening” the supposed darkness created by ordinary people — the very people who simply want to protect their children’s future. Ordinary Israelis whose sons and daughters serve in the army. Soldiers who fight so that children can play safely in the playgrounds near their homes.

Batya Ruso Galanti