Over the past two years, millions have voiced their solidarity with Palestine, many of whom had never done so before. This support has helped Palestinians, especially those going through genocide in Gaza, feel that they are not alone. However, it has not stopped the genocide, nor does it seem capable of standing up to the U.S. administration’s so-called “peace plan.” There are a number of reasons for this, one of the key ones being the shortcomings of the concept of solidarity with Palestine itself.

Solidarity as sympathy

Oxford Languages defines “solidarity” as “unity or agreement of feeling or action.” However, there is a fundamental difference between unity of feeling and unity of action. In most cases, solidarity seems to have been reduced to feelings of sympathy. Even when expressed through actions, such as tweets or protests, these are usually undertaken locally with little to no coordination with Palestinians in Gaza. The global solidarity scene is more accurately described as “agreement of feeling, fragmentation of action.”

Although well-intentioned, this sentimental aspect has sometimes been detrimental to the cause. It has become susceptible to social media trends determined by algorithms and media owners. This gives empire a measure of control over those in solidarity, as demonstrated by the United States’ ban on TikTok and its subsequent deal with the company. It also erodes solidarity movements because we can only feel compassion for victims of genocide for so long before we burn out.

Focusing on the suffering of those we support, although well-intentioned, may shift the focus away from the political program causing that suffering. This traps us in a cycle of reacting to Zionism instead of taking the initiative to dismantle it, a problem that could be exacerbated by social media’s encouragement of performative solidarity.

Focusing on the suffering of those we support, although well-intentioned, may shift the focus away from the political program causing that suffering. This traps us in a cycle of reacting to Zionism instead of taking the initiative to dismantle it, a problem that could be exacerbated by social media’s encouragement of performative solidarity.

The “All Eyes on Rafah” campaign—which essentially calls on those in solidarity to merely observe what is happening—is an example of this.

READ: Only 29% compliance with Rafah crossing reopening amid Israeli restrictions

Another downside of sympathy is that it is naturally displayed toward the less fortunate or more vulnerable. This means that solidarity is often one-sided: “We stand in solidarity with Gaza,” as opposed to “We are all in solidarity together” in favor of a certain program, as determined by political analysis. While this may seem appropriate when others are going through genocide, it is a flawed framework for at least two reasons.

First, it places an undue burden on Palestinians to prove that they are worthy of solidarity. This is precisely what the colony did when it focused on the actions of the Palestinian resistance on October 7, essentially asking: Are the people who did this worthy of your solidarity? Yet Palestine should not be colonized, regardless of what Palestinians did or do. To take this argument further, imagine that the colony’s debunked accusations of rape and child burning were true. Clearly, we would not support rapists and child murderers. Nevertheless, we would still oppose the existence of the settler state. This demonstrates that the issue is fundamentally a political stance for or against a political project rather than a stance of solidarity with people. The colony is the question mark, not the Palestinians.

Second, solidarity with Palestinians undermines common interests by treating the issue as, essentially, someone else’s problem. But the reality is that all societies worldwide face a single capitalist, identitarian and colonial structure. A recent example would be the 2022 UK elections. Although most members of the country’s two main parties and most citizens supported stopping the flow of weapons to the colonies, the main presidential candidates did not. Zionists and their allies effectively stole democratic representation of society. Another example is the 2020 poll showing that nearly half US voters though it was time to split the country in two based on pro-life/pro-choice identities—a U.S. version of the two-state non-solution. Zionism’s “one state per identity” logic threatens societies worldwide.

READ: International aid groups petition Israeli Supreme Court over ban on Gaza and West Bank operations

The need for political analysis

Having sympathy for victims is human, but it does not lend itself well to reasoning. It naturally focuses on visible injustices rather than the invisible political programs that caused them…

Having sympathy for victims is human, but it does not lend itself well to reasoning. It naturally focuses on visible injustices rather than the invisible political programs that caused them…

which ties in with the above point about its reactivity. However, political analysis is necessary for reaching an agreement on action. For example, those in solidarity were confronted with questions such as, “Should we view J Street as a friend or a foe?” Is divesting from the West Bank to the ’48 territories a victory or a defeat? Should we boycott “No Other Land” as normalization or welcome it as co-resistance? The answers to these questions depend on the end goal: one democratic Palestinian state, an end to apartheid within the settler state, a binational or confederal state, peace between two states, or something else. However, sentimental solidarity has little appetite for such discussions, particularly in the face of genocide. This has often eclipsed the need for a political program—sometimes even standing in its way.

Another level of political analysis is also needed. The political scene is shaped by the balance of power between political actors, such as states, international institutions, the media, megacorporations, and others. Actual change does not come from expressions of solidarity. The call to “keep talking about Palestine” disregards the actual balance of power by basing its premise on the idea that merely talking about it will affect the situation on the ground. The aforementioned “All Eyes on Rafah” post was one of the most viral posts in history, yet it did nothing to save Rafah.

This does not mean that efforts for Palestine are useless; rather, efforts that fall outside the balance of power are ineffective. A crucial step that was skipped was analyzing and understanding this balance. For example, rather than calling for immediate aid, allies should seek to identify the specific mechanisms that allow the occupying power to prevent aid from entering, and focus their efforts on critical junctures where power differentials can be changed. This would lead to more thorough analyses of the effectiveness of methods such as Twitter storms, writing letters to politicians, protests, boycott efforts, and electoral campaigns. It could also lead to a greater emphasis on other methods, particularly direct action and narrative warfare.

Of course, sympathy is a positive emotion meant to inspire action. Those in solidarity around the world must channel such feelings into political work based on a program to dismantle the colonial structure that oppresses society in Palestine as well as in the imperial core. This political framework will reflect the kind of solidarity necessary for a peaceful and just world.

OPINION: One Palestinian state on all of Palestine is not the best solution, it is the only one

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor