Occasionally my disparate worlds of journalism and psychotherapy collide. This is one of those times. I am going to try to explain why it is almost impossible to reason with anti-Israel demonstrators. Wish me luck.
I am often criticized for calling anti-Israel protesters demented, which I do because many of them are. Yet, what about all the sincere ones who, for whatever reason, are staunchly anti-Israel beyond reason, but are not demented?
To understand these people’s irrationality, we must dive into psychology, questions of identity, and the deep undercurrents that drive social species such as ours. Once someone’s worldview wraps itself around group identity, status, sexual selection, or quasi-religious fervor, reason stands little chance.
For many of these agitators, being anti-Israel is not a political opinion but an identity. It offers them a community they see as “righteous" (often cast in absolutist terms as the oppressed versus the oppressor) and a sense of belonging.
Extensive psychological research shows that people will routinely conform to group opinions even when they contradict obvious reality. There are sound evolutionary reasons for this. Humans are a social species; we cannot survive alone. In our ancestral environment, staying in the group’s good graces was a matter of life or death, so denying reality seemed a decent trade.
This instinct can misfire in modern contexts. The desire for group acceptance today often manifests not as a matter of survival but as social pressure. This is one origin of peer pressure. If everyone in your group is chanting anti-Israel slogans, it can be very hard to stay quiet, break away, or voice doubt.
Group belonging is also about more than survival; it often fills a psychological need for a moral narrative (Israel = evil, Palestinian Arabs = virtuous victims) that satisfies cravings for meaning and camaraderie.
For such people, these rallies are more than political expression; they are also social gatherings where people find friendship, purpose, even fun (if calling for genocide excites you more than stamp collecting.) If a person-especially a youth-has been searching for identity, and plenty are, joining the “Free Palestine" chorus instantly turns them into freedom fighters in their own minds and in their peers’ eyes.
This identity can be strongly self-reinforcing, meaning that anything that threatens their narrative endangers not just their views but their core sense of self. With such high personal stakes, it is unsurprising that they block out alternative views or rationalize them away through some form of mental yoga.
Changing their minds would mean exile from the group they call “home," whereas accepting a factual rebuttal offers them nothing. Put simply, tribal loyalty runs so deep that truth becomes secondary to tribal standing.
Group dynamics are about more than belonging, though. Status is also a factor. Humans are apes, and status is tremendously important among all ape species-indeed, all primates.
What confers status varies among groups, but within anti-Israel circles, moral purity is the currency. Counterintuitively, the more extreme one’s views, the higher one’s status. The technical psychological term for this is a “purity spiral," which is a positive feedback loop in which extreme views are rewarded and moderation is punished.
Everyone competes to display the greatest zealotry. If the group’s mantra is “Israel is a colonial genocidal entity," anyone who dissents risks immediate demotion or expulsion as a heretic. The result is a moral outbidding contest in which each person tries to outshine the others in righteous rage. This dynamic, using currencies other than status, can play out in any group, from stockbroking firms to motorcycle gangs, and - believe me - even newsrooms.
It drives people to espouse harsher, less reasonable positions. Being the loudest Israel-basher grants social clout, and humans, being social creatures, instinctively crave the group’s esteem.
While religions postulate that morality is divinely sourced, many evolutionary theories argue that people want to appear good because it wins them friends and status, and that this dynamic even contributed to the evolution of our moral sense.
The source of morality is beyond this essay - and beyond this mere hack’s mind - but it is true that anti-Israel protesters gain group status by denouncing Israel, and the more ostentatiously, the better.
Their beliefs’ factual accuracy matters less than the social rewards they earn. Put simply, rationality loses to social incentives. This is why reasoning with someone mid-purity-spiral is futile: the incentive structure rewards doubling down, not moderation.
Sexual selection likely plays a role, too. In neo-Darwinian theory, organisms must survive long enough to find a mate, reproduce, and pass on their genes. Thus, they face two challenges: survival and mating.
Being a committed activist can be an attractive trait in a group’s mating market. It signals qualities such as compassion, courage, loyalty, and dedication. Research has found that women, for example, are more attracted to men who display altruism and heroism, especially as long-term partners. Altruistic people of both sexes enjoy greater mating success than selfish ones. In evolutionary terms, wearing one’s “goodness" on one’s sleeve can function as a mating signal.
Joining a humanitarian cause - or what pretends to be one in this case - signals to potential friends and partners: “I am a caring, ethical person." By marching in rallies or posting slogans, a young person may (consciously or not) gain admiration and romantic interest from like-minded peers. Shouting the “correct" slogans marks you as an attractive comrade or partner. Under this incentive structure, reasoned debate offers little. All that’s missing is David Attenborough’s narration.
In other words, these pro-Palestinian Arab protesters’ beliefs are intertwined not just with identity and status, but with courtship and social life, making them highly resistant to change.
In any movement, however, there is a spectrum of commitment. Some anti-Israel demonstrators may privately think that things have gone too far, yet few will dissent, because conformity pressure can be intense.
Spiral of silence
This leads to another phenomenon - technically called a “spiral of silence" - in which a group’s collective view grows ever more extreme because internal dissent stays silent so goes unexpressed.
The in-group consensus soon hardens into dogma. Jewish students who stay quiet out of fear of ostracism or attack contribute to this self-censorship. Moderate voices either leave or self-censor, leaving a chorus of true believers amplifying one another.
Once someone has publicly committed to the cause, other psychological phenomena take over, particularly “cognitive dissonance" and “effort justification". Cognitive dissonance involves holding contradictory beliefs at once. This allows people to reconcile genocidal chants such as “Gas the Jews" or “Globalize the Intifada" with a self-righteous self-image.
To justify the personal and reputational costs they incur, they convince themselves their sacrifices and efforts are worthwhile. Thus, to reduce psychological discomfort, they double down on their positions.
In sum, peer pressure, fear of ostracism, and self-justification form a triple lock on their mindset that is nigh impregnable to logic.
Woke Religiosity
Another reason these people are immune to reason is that their anti-Israel zeal has acquired religious characteristics. This is not hyperbole. It is part of wokeism and wokeism possesses all the dogma, heresies, sins, and apologetics of a faith. Its holy text is Critical Theory, which posits that everything is a struggle between oppressor and oppressed. Identity markers-race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and wealth-determine one’s place in a hierarchy of oppression. Anyone who challenges this dogma is treated as a heretic and defenestrated in the public square.
Many in the West have drifted away from traditional religion (though there are signs of its return), only to invest their spiritual energies in political ideologies. Like any faith, the anti-Israel movement offers purpose and meaning. It has its martyrs and saints, its demonology (the IDF, “settlers," Zionists), and its rituals-rallies that resemble revivals in their energy and fervor.
In this moral universe, the ends justify the means, so any reality that conflicts with dogma must be denied. It is virtually impossible to reason someone out of a position into which they were never reasoned.
Reaching the unreachable
This raises the question of how we might get past these psychological bulwarks to reach these people and reason with them. Personally, I think it is futile and avoid them as though they had elephantiasis. However, if you are of a gentler disposition, here are a few psychological strategies worth considering:
-Appeal to values, not facts: Frontal factual assaults-such as citing accurate casualty figures-will fail. Instead, appeal to the values they claim to uphold. If they pride themselves on human rights or feminism, ask how those values square with endorsing groups such as Hamas. The aim is to trigger cognitive dissonance gently, without activating their defensive reflexes.
-Personal conversations: People are more open one-on-one when there is no peer pressure. If you have the opportunity to talk to someone one-on-one, ask questions rather than making accusations. For example: “I know you care about justice. What do you think justice realistically looks like for both Israelis and Palestinians?" Stories-such as an Israeli child traumatized by terrorism or a Palestinian Arab fearing Hamas-can bypass ideological armor.
-Find trusted messengers: People rarely listen to perceived opponents. Voices from within their ideological camp-such as left-wing critics of antisemitism-can be more effective. If someone they respect concedes a point, it can license them to soften their stance without feeling disloyal.
-Set boundaries and consequences: While persuasion is ideal, curbing mob behavior is essential. Universities, employers, and community leaders must enforce basic standards. If protests become harassment or calls for violence, there should be consequences. We must insist on this. While they may earn brownie points within their group, they need to experience real-world costs.
-Patience and small wins: You will not deprogram someone overnight. Fanatical beliefs often fade only when reality intrudes or the social fad passes. Celebrate small shifts. If someone moves from chanting “Intifada!" to conceding that Israel may sometimes have a right to defend itself, that is progress. The bottom line is that arguing with an anti-Israel demonstrator can feel like arguing with a brick wall made of human needs and fears.
If none of the above works, do what I do: set modest, achievable goals. For example, every day I tell myself, “I will not head-butt these morons," over and over.
Reposted from the writer'sMoral Clarity: Truths in Politics and Culture substack