1. Most Palestinian leaders, most Palestinian people and the state sponsors of the Palestinian cause refuse to accept Jewish sovereignty over any land in the Middle East.  Their openly stated goal is the erasure of the Jewish State. A holocaust of Israelis. 

Given that unequivocal position - and the thousands of attacks launched in furtherance of that goal - why should Israel stop fighting them? 

Wouldn't every country fight uncompromisingly against neighbors who seek their annihilation?  

2. The Pro-Palestine movement is justifiably outspoken about Israeli terrorist settlers in the West Bank and demand they be held to account by the Israeli Government. On the other side of the coin, the Palestinian Authority has never held a single terrorist accountable for carrying out acts of terrorism against Israelis. In fact the PA employ an objectively more heinous approach in which they operate an infamous 'pay for slay' scheme that incentivizes acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians. The more Jews you kill, the more money your family receives for your crime. October 7th terrorists are among the many beneficiaries of these payments. 

Why do you and your movement not demand accountability from the Palestinian Authority - like you demand of the Israeli Government?

3. For 78 years, Israelis have lived with the threat of annihilation by their neighbors and tens of thousands of attacks on Israeli civilians. To this day, Israel's eradication remains the clearly stated goal of Palestinian leadership, the IRGC in Iran and the Iranian military proxies in the region; Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.        

Why do you advocate for a “free Palestine” but not for a “free Israel”?

Do you not believe that Israelis deserve to live in peace, free from terrorism and free of calls for their country’s destruction?

Should every Palestinian leader renounce the goal of erasing Israel?

Should the Islamist backers of the Palestinian cause and the Iranian proxies renounce their goal of erasing Israel?

Should the 'Pro-Palestine' movement denounce the goal of erasing Israel?

4. From 1948 - 1967,  no Israelis lived in the West Bank or Gaza. During those 19 years, the two territories were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Those two countries controlled the borders and could have declared Palestinian statehood at any time, but chose not to. The 'occupation' that began in 1967 - as a result of the Palestinians and other Arab armies ammassing on Israel's borders threatening to wipe Israel from the map - is often cited as the justification for the Palestinians' armed resistance and ideological opposition to Israel. 

How can this characterization hold water, given the Palestinians' and their Arab backers had been trying to enact Israel's annihilation for 19 years before the occupation began?   

5. Many Palestinians admit that achieving a Palestinian state on 1967 borders is merely the first step toward their real goal; total elimination of Israel. This is not the view of every Palestinian, but it is a widely held viewpoint by the small proportion of Palestinians who ostensibly support the two-state-solution. Even if this subversive intent were held by only 5-10% of Palestinians, it would constitute hundreds of thousands of people wanting to commit a holocaust of their neighbors.

Given that prevailing sentiment, why should Israelis be open to a two-state-solution?

Do you believe a two-state solution would produce peace?  On what do you base your answer? 

6. Beyond demanding changes from Israel, what obligations do Palestinians have in achieving peace? Should they accept Israel's existence? Should they prevent Islamist attacks on Israelis? Should they stop incitement to violence? Should they build accountable institutions and embrace compromise?  If so - then why does the Pro-Palestine movement not campaign more vocally for such reform? Why is Palestinian agency so often absent from this discussion?

7. 240 million women are oppressed in the gender apartheid in the Middle East. Intolerance and subjugation of non-Muslims is pervasive, minorities are not tolerated, LGBTQ people are persecuted. While the rest of the world has become more diverse, tolerant and cosmopolitan, the Middle East has become less so. All this oppression affects 470 million people in the Middle East, including the Palestinians. 

Why does the 'Pro-Palestine' movement have barely a word to say about this gross oppression and human rights violations?

If Israel were defeated and 7 million Palestinians were “freed” from living alongside a Jewish state, would the region’s wider oppression, hunger and suffering disappear? Or would Israel’s destruction strengthen Islamist movements and make the oppression worse?

8. When Hamas operates among civilians, booby-traps thousands of residential dwellings, stores weapons in civilian infrastructure, mobilizes militants and weapons using civilian ambulances or uses tunnels beneath civilians, does it also bear moral and legal responsibility for the consequences of that strategy? 

If Hamas employ strategies to maximize rather than minimize Palestinian civilian deaths, does it bear moral and legal responsibility for those deaths? 

9. Pro-Palestine activists often allege that Zionism is a racist, apartheid, ethno-supremacy driven ideology. Two million Arab Muslims living in Israel enjoy the best quality of life and the best human rights protections of the 470 million Arabs living in the Middle East. The Zionist State, Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where people of all religions co-exist in relative harmony, where minorities thrive, where women have equal rights, and where LGBTQ people are not persecuted.  

Does this reality ever give you pause to think that maybe Zionism isn't the problem? Or at least that there are other more pervasive problems that are causing a lot more suffering than Zionism is? 

10.  Is there anything that the Palestinians could do that would, in your opinion, disqualify them from being entitled to sovereign statehood?