An Open Letter to The Harvard Crimson

ISRAEL EXISTS. 

You don’t need to debate its right to exist or defend it. It is a sovereign state, legally created and internationally recognized, home to millions of people, who do not disappear because someone objects to them. Its existence is a reality, not a belief system. You can debate its policies or critique its government, but denying its existence is not a political stance — it’s a rejection of law, fact, and truth. The U.N. plan of 1947 proposed the creation of two states, referred to as one Jewish and one Arab.

And yet today Jews are being told that to be ethical, to be welcomed into friendship, community or campus life, they must reject that fact. Not its policies — its existence. 

This kind of demand has no precedent. Nowhere in modern history has any people been told that their moral worth depends on denouncing their own country. There is no apartheid in Israel. Yet even in cases where nations did practice oppression, such as white South Africa, no white South African was ever told that, to be accepted abroad, he or she must renounce his or her nation’s existence. Similarly, no American is asked to forsake the United States in order to be recognized internationally. Reckoning with history does not require erasing one’s country, heritage or people.

For decades, we operated on a shared moral frequency — grounded in facts, perspective and fairness. Advocating for human rights is one thing, but the “Free Palestine” movement has become a voice for endorsing and excusing deliberate attacks on civilians. Defend terrorism, and you are no longer “pro-Palestine,” you are pro‑murder.  

Which brings us to The Harvard Crimson’s piece—“Should I Let Go of My Zionist Friends?” A student’s letter to The Ethicist exposes a dangerous bias — Jews are asked to pass a moral test that no one else faces. Renounce your people’s homeland or lose your social standing.

But the real question isn’t whether you should let go of your “Zionist” friends; the real question is whether your Jewish friends should let go of you. Demanding that Israelis or Jewish people deny the legitimacy of their own country isn’t a test of morality — it’s a pressure tactic designed to strip them of history and identity to satisfy a radical crowd that uses intimidation to enforce its worldview. The same networks, organizers and funders that perfected these tactics abroad have been deploying the same blueprint here for nearly two decades. 

Some insist they oppose only Israel, not Jews. Israel is the internationally recognized homeland of the Jewish people. Denying its existence is not politics — it is denying the Jewish people’s right to exist collectively. No one applies this standard to any other group, because collective condemnation has no place in an ethical society. 

Saying “I’m anti-France,” or “I’m anti-Japan,” is simply declaring hostility toward millions of people because their country exists. That is collective punishment, not morality. Demanding, “Agree that Italy shouldn’t exist or you’re immoral,” is bullying, not ethical reasoning. Friendships and moral worth are not contingent on erasing nations. When this demand is made only to Jews, it exposes discrimination.

Ideas once relegated to ideological margins — insistence that Jewish nationhood itself does not exist — are now treated as moral wisdom because well-funded campaigns have reframed rejecting Jewish existence as a noble moral duty. 

This isn’t about friendship. It’s about declaring an entire people’s right to exist conditional on another’s approval. In enforcing this moral “test,” these groups, professors, and ideologues police belief, punish facts and teach a distorted lesson in power and exclusion. It is not ethical maturity — it is moral authoritarianism pretending to be progressivism. 

There is no such thing as “anti-Zionism,” because Israel exists. You can oppose its leaders, but you cannot oppose a fact. Treating the existence of a sovereign state as a debate topic is neither ethical nor logical — it is an attempt to make erasing truth and reality seem reasonable. Under this ideology, the only way to be seen as “good” or “progressive” is to renounce one’s own collective existence. 

Zionism is not optional. It is the recognition of a people’s reality and their internationally recognized right to a homeland. Treating it as debatable is racism not philosophy.

If you are young, passionate and acting in good faith, understand the weight of what you are demanding. Even unknowingly, your actions and words can contribute to hatred and bigotry against Jewish children, adults and families. Imagine being accused of crimes you never committed, your identity condemned, simply because others wield more cultural power.  

Be brave enough to step outside your echo chamber and seek voices beyond the extremes. Sit, listen and question. Absolute certainty at such a young age is often a gateway to profound mistakes. History is full of ideas once embraced for decades before the truth emerged. When today’s truth comes out, do you want to be remembered as someone who helped perpetuate a lie?

We forget how easily the public can be misled. Examples of trusted systems enabling wrongdoing, allowing harm to continue and silencing victims are everywhere. Survivors of abuse in the Catholic Church were ignored for decades before anyone believed them. Most major wrongs are invisible in real time, until they appear obvious in hindsight.

So when you repeat slogans that turn “Zionist” into a slur, or embrace movements that elevate one group by dehumanizing another, understand: you are participating in something very old and very dangerous. 

It’s time to recalibrate to a shared moral frequency. Think, question and choose understanding over judgment. The moral worth of others is not yours to dictate, especially when it requires denying reality itself.  

Israel exists. And because it exists, it cannot be erased. Just as the United States, Brazil or Japan are real, Israel, too, is real—and its existence is not up for debate. 

Friendship isn’t conditional on someone denying who they are. If you are being told otherwise, the problem lies not with your friends, but with the ideology demanding their erasure. You don’t need to let go of friends; you need to let go of the idea that morality requires abandoning people simply for existing.

This article originally appeared in White Rose Magazine.

Tali Gillette is an independent investigative researcher, writer, and member of the Clarity Coalition.