I have found Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a malignant, selfish narcissist since before most of Bowdoin’s current senior class was even born. I’ve despised him since 1996. He thrives on conflict.

Yet I am a Zionist.

I have been praying daily that the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, signed on October 10, would hold despite violations.

Yet I am a Zionist.

I would not welcome Itamar Ben-Gvir into my home for Shabbat dinner, to put it mildly.

Yet I am a Zionist.

Why? Because Zionist does not mean you believe in Greater Judea. It does not mean you want to annex territory or remove all Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It simply means you believe that the Jewish people deserve a secure, peaceful homeland. Given Jews’ history of being persecuted, it is a safety net.

Practically, that means compromise with us Zionists is possible. Indeed, until October 7, 2023, a two-state solution was on the table, albeit one that would have required the fall of Netanyahu’s government. Everything from the Abraham Accords to Israel’s indispensable role in the efforts of the Multifaith Alliance for Syrian Refugees—which funneled aid to internally displaced people during Syria’s brutal civil war—shows that Zionists can and do make compromises for the sake of peace.

It is precisely because I want peace and compromise that I find the actions of Bowdoin Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP), and the broader Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) movement, appalling and counterproductive. The movement’s maximalist demands, inaccurate demonization of those who disagree with them and actions that veer well into outright Jew hatred make reaching peace infinitely harder. Their covering for Hamas—which even Gazans are speaking out against despite Hamas’ willingness to brutalize them—makes Palestinian lives harder. That is why, other than threatening Jewish students, they haven’t achieved anything.

Maximalist demands? Try their chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The one thing Hamas and Israel agree on is that the slogan means the destruction of the state of Israel (the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea contains all of Israel) and, presumably, the 7.8 million Jews who live there. How can Israel compromise with people who want it eliminated?

Demonization? How can you compromise with someone who claims you’re perpetrating genocide despite the fact that, according to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the large plurality of casualties are fighting-age men, despite Hamas’ use of human shields? How do you compromise with an organization that cites the UN despite knowledge of that organization’s relentless hostility to the state of Israel? How do you compromise with those who glorify the targeted murder of thousands of your civilians? How do you compromise with people like Bowdoin Professor Nasser Abourahme, who argues that the “colonized” owe no consideration of the “limits of anticolonial violence” to the civilian victims of that violence, but “only to themselves”? To be clear, every civilian casualty is an unconscionable tragedy; that doesn’t make it genocide.

Jew hatred? SJP defends the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which it must know that a large portion of its followers will take to mean “kill Jews around the world, because self-proclaimed ‘anti-Zionists’ already have.” After all, how can you compromise with people who say and defend words that put your life in danger simply because you were born Jewish? And, despite the protests of FSJP, believing Jews around the world should be imperiled because of the actions of Israel’s government is not “anti-Zionism.” It is Jew-hating bigotry, plain and simple.

Most appallingly, national SJP has excused Hamas’s outright murder, not of Israelis, which would be horrid enough, but of Palestinians. When Hamas was rounding up and shooting suspected Palestinian collaborators and executing them without trial, national SJP posted “Death to the occupation. Death to Zionism. Death to all collaborators.” When an organization celebrates extrajudicial executions of Palestinians, it is hard to conclude they are pro-Palestinian. Thus, you can only conclude they are anti-Israel. And again, how do you compromise with someone who wants you eliminated?

I’m a Zionist; I’m pro-peace. This isn’t new. As I wrote in these pages over 20 years ago, “If you’re for Israel, you’re for Palestine.” The same cannot be said for FSJP and SJP; they only make peace harder to achieve. So do your part for the Palestinian people and for peace: Ignore attention-seekers and hatemongers. Ignore FSJP and the SJP.

Neal Urwitz is a member of the Class of 2006, CEO of Enduring Cause Strategy and served as a speechwriter to and advisor to the Secretary of the Navy from 2021–2023.