Why the Ceasefire Movement Failed
And how it can still succeed
As the world recently marked the anniversary of the horrific October 7th attack, when Hamas invaded Israel’s southern border, murdering, pillaging, and taking hostages in nearby towns, we are also reminded of Israel’s ongoing response. October 13th marked the start of the ground invasion, and the conflict has since expanded, showing no signs of slowing down.
While there was once hope that a ceasefire could be achieved, most onlookers, from supporters of the invasion to those protesting against it in the streets, are aware that this goal is further away than ever. Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, its targeting Iran, along with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar’s and increasing refusal to consider a ceasefire deal has made it clear that far from the conflict ending, it is getting more entrenched and widespread. Netanyahu’s poll numbers are rising after he spent a year being Israel’s most hated politician. And meanwhile, his most right wing faction still has the power to ensure that even if Netanyahu wanted a ceasefire, he could not achieve it without the government dissolving.
As much as this anniversary has been a moment to grieve the enormous loss of life and the tragedy of a never-ending, ever-expanding war, it has also caused a sharp pain in peace movements in America. Despite enormous protests, star power, and growing youth participation, the pressure put on the Biden administration to step in and do more than simply say they want a ceasefire and actually pressure the Netanyahu government to stop torpedoing ceasefire deal after ceasefire deal, has amounted to nothing. No change in blind American support, very little change in American attitudes over the conflict after the initial spike and fall in sympathy for Israel, and two fewer progressives in office.
What I have seen among many who have actively participated in this movement is a feeling of failure and despair. Not everyone feels this way; the movements have achieved notable successes when it comes to the energy they employed, the amounts of people they’ve drawn to protests, and the impact of student encampments. And the leaders of many of these movements deserve praise for the amazing work they’ve done to end one of the worst human rights disasters in human history.
Despite these efforts, the disaster continues, and the goal remains out of reach.
So what happened? And what can be done to change things?
Broken Solidarity
In many ways, there are some incredible acts of solidarity occurring among multiple peace movements. The popularity of the demonstrations and encampments have a lot to do with their diversity and the inclusion of multiple groups working together. Previously separate groups began collaborating, though mostly among left-wing and far-left movements, rather than bridging broader divides. Either way, it was these groups working together that led to the “largest pro-Palestinian mobilization in US history,” according to researchers.
But this also highlights deeper issues within the movement. Of course, much of this has to do with the complete power imbalance in the United States, where while protest numbers can be enormous, state power and moneyed interests have the ability to shut them down, portray them all as terror supporters, and take up more space on the airwaves.
But there was a way to address this. One that could have given these movements a voice in ways they would not have had otherwise and which would have had a chance to tip the scales of both power and public opinion.
There has been another peace movement brewing in the United States, but it has largely not drawn even close to the same attention as the pro-Palestinian movements: Israelis and those who are marching in solidarity with them.
I am not referring to the Israel solidarity marches that are de facto war rallies. What I mean is that in New York, Los Angeles, and beyond there are large and growing movements calling for an end to the war among both peace activists as well as those specifically hoping for a ceasefire deal in order to release the hostages. In effect and certainly in the short term, the goals of these groups are the same as anyone calling for a ceasefire, albeit with some nuances. But even once-controversial red lines have shifted: some hostage families, for example, have called for Biden to threaten an arms embargo if Netanyahu continued torpedoing ceasefire deals, something that was once unimaginable.
These groups, however, have largely been cut off from pro-Palestinian peace movements in the United States. Since the majority of them identify as Zionists, they are unwelcome in these spaces, and treated as pariahs. In fact, in many spaces, simply being Israeli may be enough to cast suspicion and lead to doors being shut before they’ve ever even been opened.
While it may be easy to write off the ceasefire and pro-Palestinian movement as a whole when it comes to this, the truth is that a lot of this has to do with the dynamics of these movements than of the feelings of all or even the vast majority of those who participate in these causes.
While this solidarity has driven the movement’s success, it has also marginalized Israelis, hostage families, and Zionist-identifying American Jews. They have been sensitive to not cutting out more militant voices, with the hope of keeping the cause as broad as possible. But these militant voices, despite being the minority, are by definition maximalists: they are the ones who are determined to enforce purity tests and who will shame those who care to work across party lines.
This has led to large pro-Palestinian marches, but with diminished power. While the Israeli side of the equation is far smaller, it is also the group best positioned to actually succeed in putting pressure on the Biden administration and public opinion.
When I tried to connect a hostage family organization to progressive organizations, I was deeply disappointed to see that many largely didn’t see the potential of their cause on even a purely practical level. Some were clearly concerned with how their causes would be perceived if they aligned with Israelis and Zionists by the maximalists. On top of that, the combination of pro-war legacy Jewish institutions coopting the hostage cause and hostage posters being taken down by maximalists has made the hostage cause appear to be pro-war when it is the exact opposite.
Had they believed that working with hostage families and pro-peace Israelis could lead to a ceasefire, they might have acted differently. But the echo chamber within large demonstrations, fueled by maximalist voices, made them unaware of that possibility. When I and other partners went to some of these groups, the message we received was that they simply didn’t need hostage families in order to achieve their goals: they felt they were on the verge of a breakthrough because of even bigger marches and demonstrations that were being planned.
Of course, nothing changed, and now Gazans and hostages suffer more as the war spreads to Lebanon and Iran.
The Other Side of the Equation
This issue goes both ways, though. Bridging pro-Israel peace movements with progressive groups sympathetic to hostages has been just as difficult.
There are movements that are open to working with Israelis. Some are Jewish, and thus are more aware of the potentials of these dynamics, and some are simply peace movements that have been able to not be as controlled by maximalists.
The issue is that many of these movements count anti-Zionists among their members. And/or some are perceived as focusing in a lopsided way on Israel.
On top of that, many of those who are hoping for a ceasefire specifically because of the hostages may not even be on the same page on things that have nothing to do with anti-Zionism: the use of the word “genocide,” for example. Many have seen the way hostage posters were torn down and horrified, convinced that this made up the entire pro-peace and ceasefire movement in America. Similarly, they may see news items about how the large marches can at times have wings of maximalists which praise Hamas and associate the entire ceasefire movement with these people.
Much of this has to do with media consumption: many who are more connected to Israeli pain and less aware of the dynamics among progressive movements may be consuming content similar to the pro-war groups they are critical of. This is particularly true for those who are not part of Israeli peace movements, and who are new to this kind of activism.
Many peace-committed Israelis may be unaware of the divisions within U.S. progressive movements and how these dynamics play out. who they can work with, and who they should avoid. This can play out in other ways, for example, they may be unaware of the complicated ways in which words like “Zionism” and “anti-Zionism” have become convoluted and weaponized.
These are, of course, legitimate obstacles that require care to navigate, but ultimately if one really is determined to achieve a ceasefire and hostage deal, they require being overcome.
Because the pro-peace and hostage deal groups need the pro-Palestinian camps as much as the pro-Palestinian peace movement needs them.
During Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in Washington DC, hostage family members and other pro-ceasefire movements on the Jewish and Israeli side showed up to protest, speak out, and make Americans aware that in Israel, Netanyahu is more reviled than even in America. And, most importantly, that a majority of Israelis wanted a ceasefire deal.
And while they showed up, they spoke out, and they protested, their voices were largely unheard. The pro-war, pro-Israel camps in America, which include the most powerful Jewish organizations in the country, may as well have worked alongside the Netanyahu government in pretending these hostage families and Israelis simply didn’t exist. This has been their policy since the war began: to them, hostage families exist as props, not as actual people who need actual policies and advocacy to help achieve the freedom of their families.
Normally, these organizations are the way that Jews in America, despite only being 2% of the population, can be heard in ways that we wouldn’t be otherwise. It is in many ways the reason they exist. But that power has made it so that if you are a pro-ceasefire Israeli, American Jew aligned with Israelis, or even a hostage family member, you are likely not going to be uplifted by them (and in some cases will be punished and ostracized).
This is a big reason the powerful and moving protests of these groups went unheard: the media didn’t have their eyes on them, and even when they did, there were no pro-Israel influencers to back them up (they are on the same page as the large Jewish organizations), organic social media following, or any other method to be heard on the viral level that was required to speak over Netanyahu.
So these groups, in other words, need to be heard. They need an audience, they need attention, they need a voice. Because when they are, it will be impossible for the Biden administration to pretend that they are pro-Israel. It will be clear they are pro-Netanyahu and pro-power building in the Middle East. But in terms of pro-Israeli, not at all. This would change the widespread American narrative which is in complete opposition to the narrative in Israel: that supporting the hostage families means supporting the war. And the only ones who can change that narrative are Israelis and hostage family members.
But that narrative can’t be changed without a large megaphone.
It just so happens that there is a group of people who have a large megaphone but who lack access to power: the pro-Palestinian ceasefire movement.
Unfortunately, the dynamics I listed above have made this partnership just as hard to achieve from the pro-Israel, pro-ceasefire side.
Similar to the pro-Palestinian side, the pro-Israel side doesn’t seem to be aware that they need anyone else. They have largely pinned their hopes on moving people in power, convinced that if they move the very Jewish organizations who are silencing them to change, they will be heard. And that if they meet with politicians, those politicians will realize that Israelis want a different thing than Jewish organizations have claimed.
Similar to the pro-Palestinian group, they have also hinged their hopes on appeasing maximalists: they believe they need pro-Israel groups and influencers to side with them, even the ones who would never work with any progressive.
The result has been they haven’t felt as motivated to push together with pro-Palestinian groups, despite their shared goals. As a year has passed, the pro-war Jewish organizations largely haven’t changed their tunes even if they paid lip service to a “deal”. Influencers are still pushing the war. And people care less about hostages now than before.
What this should clarify is that they need the pro-Palestinian camp more than ever. There needs to be a loud megaphone that declares: “Palestinians and Israelis, especially hostages, need a ceasefire. They want a ceasefire. They largely agree on a ceasefire, even if their reasons differ.”
More to the point, the message needs to be Americans because as long as Biden and Harris don’t feel the pressure of Israeli and Jewish voices, they will not put true pressure on Netanyahu to stop killing deals. They will continue to pay lip service to peace while being partners to war. So the other message needs to be:
“The Biden administration is beholden to Netanyahu, not to Israelis and not to Palestinians. They are siding with power and not with people.”
But until both camps push for this narrative, the violence will continue and America will keep backing it and may even join in. And Palestinians and hostages will continue to suffer unimaginable horrors.
The Solution
So how do we actually get past these obstacles? How can we get people to see that their best chance of peace is through a different form of partnership, coalition, and solidarity?
First, we need to confront the danger that maximalists pose to our movements. Any group that demands ideological purity and demonizes an entire population—whether Israelis, Zionists, anti-Zionists, Palestinians, or others—is not part of a peace or justice movement; they are part of an authoritarian one. By definition, authoritarian movements cannot build or participate in broad-based coalitions, whether those coalitions are unions or initiatives that require wide participation, like a ceasefire movement.
There are people who are rightfully aware that there are interests who are hoping that they turn against their own, hurting the unity of their movements. This has happened to the left repeatedly as false accusations of antisemitism, for example, have been weaponized to cause infighting. The goal shouldn’t be to create internal conflict, but for those focused on a ceasefire to form coalitions, even if it means facing opposition from maximalists. Infighting is caused by those who target these efforts.
Second, people who are aware of the dynamics in both groups should work overtime to educate their own groups about the nuances of the “other side” they are hoping to build bridges with. Helping people understand that a movement is not defined by its most extreme elements is essential, and that can only happen if they are also taught who isn’t a maximalist.
Third, those who are new to activism need to be taught about coalition building. They need to see why coalitions are not just nice ideas but practical solutions to intracticible problems. Unfortunately, the media ecosystem has taught people that getting a large group of people who agree with them together means more than getting a diverse group of groups together to make change.
Perhaps most important, however, is that a new narrative and movement emerges from all these adjustments and education. The story needs to change. Right now, these movements are telling two different stories as if they are separate. They are talking only about Palestinians or only about hostages and Israelis.
These narratives, of course, matter in and of themselves. But in terms of actually achieving goals, there needs to be a larger narrative that includes both. When a Palestinian activist hears a pro-Israel peace group only talk about hostages, they can be the most sympathetic person to the cause on earth, but they will still see a movement that does not care that there are 400,000 Palestinians in northern Gaza who are in danger of being treated as combatants and systematically starved. And when pro-Palestinian groups do not mention hostages when they talk about a ceasefire, even if they know that’s implied, those who would otherwise partner with them are worried that pushing for a ceasefire in this way may mean abandoning the hostages.
Now, one can weigh these points of view and see fault in them. That doesn’t change the reality: the narrative is that hostages, Palestinians, and Israelis will never be safe as long as war rules their lives. The only way to safety for all is a ceasefire. If that’s not the narrative, then a coalition is impossible. And not only that: the audiences each group is trying to reach won’t be moved. The only ones on their side will be those who already agree.
A changed narrative can only be truly transformational, however, if at least part of this is a newly-formed movement which lives it out. Not everyone needs to be on board for a deeper partnership for these groups that imagines a bigger unified dream, but unless there is a beating core that truly believes in this narrative, and unless it is willing to deal with the fallout of such a dream and living it out, all the ingredients above will fall flat.
The good news is that from what I have seen, such movements are being built, are growing, and more and more doors are opening as people start to understand both the failures and successes of the past year.
Can It Happen?
It is one thing to envision and describe all this. It is another for it to be lived out. And, more importantly be lived out in time to achieve a ceasefire that will actually save lives before the decision is actually reached by the powerful when it is convenient for them.
To be honest, I don’t know if that’s possible. I hope it is, but it’s hard to envision in the timeframe we’re hoping for. I hope I’m wrong, and if anything that should motivate us all the moreso to build up our coalitions quickly and address the failures of the past year. Any success here, no matter how late, means saving countless lives.
But a lesson of this moment is also that many movements simply weren’t ready to meet the moment because this dream and these kinds of coalitions hadn’t been built ahead of time.
That is less true in Israel-Palestine where groups like Standing Together have been able to achieve a lot largely because they existed well before October 7th.
What America really needs, then, is its own version of Standing Together. One that is not just about Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Muslims and Christians, but one that reflects our unique tapestry.
And those coalitions are being built. Black-led movements in particular are the guidepost for such a dream. But as maximalists in America gain traction, there needs to be a reconstituting and envisioning that meets the moment and adjusts to the way extremism and authoritarianism have made new inroads into just about every aspect of our culture and every population in our country.
This is not as depressing as it sounds. The urgency of this moment and the infection of maximalists and authoritarians is pushing us to sharpen our commitment to justice and peace in a way that will push us to be even more committed, to dream even bigger, to create even more diverse and beautiful coalitions.
Such coalitions, such a dream, could have been ready for this moment. It could have mobilized earlier and needed to adjust less.
As our world hurtles towards climate catastrophes, spreading authoritarianism, further inequality, and more, a coalition that envisions a unity and diversity that is wider and more global than ever will be necessary to meet those moments. There will never not be a need for such a movement, one truly based in peace and justice and which has no place for authoritarianism.