The US Campaign for Palestine Rights wrote a fundraising email on Valentine's Day:
But today, on Valentine’s Day, I’m reminded of the power of love, hope, and community.
At the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, our love for Palestine fuels our organizing and advocacy work every day. And our hope for justice and collective liberation inspires us to keep fighting, especially in moments like this, when our communities are under attack.
It seems to me that this claim, that their "love for Palestine" is what fuels their advocacy, can be empirically tested.
I asked an AI (ChatGPT) to go through a sample of their posts on their website and X feeds and determine how many of their posts show a "love of Palestine" as opposed to a hate for Israel.
My hypothesis is that they, and most "pro-Palestinian" organizations, are more fueled by hate for Israel than "love for Palestine."
Each item was classified into one of three mutually exclusive categories:
Love-of-Palestine (LP)
Affirmative depiction of Palestinian society independent of antagonists.
Examples: culture, daily life, education, art, religion, civic activity.
Mixed Humanitarian (MH)
Descriptions of hardship without explicit attribution of agency.
Oppositional-to-Israel (OI)
Messaging primarily criticizing, accusing, or mobilizing action against Israel or related actors (e.g., boycott campaigns, genocide allegations, protest calls).
I used nearly all of their X posts for the past two months and all of their website posts for the past year (according to Google searching.)
Across roughly 90 items:
About 82% of the messaging was directly about opposing Israel
About 17% described suffering without explicitly naming a perpetrator
About 1% actually presented Palestinian life on its own
In other words, almost none of the content showed Palestinians as a society — people studying, building, creating, celebrating, debating, or governing themselves, which is what one would expect if their main motivation was "love for Palestine.". Instead, the structure was overwhelmingly, "Israel acts → Palestinians experience → audience mobilizes."
Even many sympathetic posts about hardship were functioning as evidence in an accusation rather than as a description of a community.
Then I asked a second question: Who is the main actor in the sentence? Is the message about Palestinians doing things and living their lives — or about Israel doing things to them? Are they portrayed primarily as victims or as proud people in their own right?
This was categorized as:
Israel-centric (IC)
Israel is the active agent performing actions.
Reactive-Palestine (RP)
Palestinians appear primarily as recipients of actions.
Palestine-centric (PC)
Palestinians appear as independent social actors.
This method avoids subjective interpretation by analyzing syntactic structure rather than sentiment.
The results were
|
|
|---|
| Israel-centric | 61% |
| Reactive-Palestine | 37% |
| Palestine-centric | 2% |
Thus, even humanitarian content largely operates as evidence within a "blame Israel" narrative.
This matters because movements normally centered on a people tend to talk about the people — their culture, institutions, internal life, and future.
Here, the narrative center is different. Israel is usually the subject of the sentence. Palestinians are usually the object of the sentence.
I strongly suspect that analysis of other "pro-Palestinian" group messaging would show similar results. When even Palestinian
cookbooks are usually framed as "
resistance" and not as pure celebration of Palestinian cuisine, the entire "pro-Palestinian" movement appears to be centered about what they hate rather than what they love.
The control group - Razom for Ukraine
One might object - Palestinians are under siege, they are in a devastating war, USPCR is meant as a US-based advocacy group that lobbies Congress so naturally they will be more focused against Israel than for Palestinians.
So I did the same analysis for a similar pro-Ukrainian group as a control: Razom for Ukraine. Razom is a U.S. nonprofit that raises money, lobbies Congress, and organizes activism on behalf of a population under ongoing invasion. In other words, it fills the same functional niche as US Campaign for Palestinian Rights — but for Ukraine.
I analyzed roughly two months of Razom social media posts and website publications using the same categories used earlier:
Identity-centered: content about the people themselves (culture, society, civic life, history, community)
Humanitarian: suffering described without political mobilization
Adversarial: primarily about condemning or mobilizing action against the attacker
Here are the results for Razom compared to USPCR:
| Organization | Identity | Humanitarian | Adversarial |
|---|
| USCPR | 0.6% | 17% | 82% |
| Razom | 43% | 16% | 41% |
How about who the subjects are in their posts?
Adversary-centric — enemy is the acting subject
Victim-centric — people appear mainly as recipients of harm
People-centric — people appear as agents (society, culture, civic life)
| Organization | Adversary-centric | Victim-centric | People-centric |
|---|
| USCPR | 61% | 37% | 2% |
| Razom | 40% | 18% | 42% |
If messaging is motivated primarily by love of a people, that people should appear as a society, with culture, agency, memory, and future.
Razom centers Ukrainians as a people. USCPR almost completely ignores Palestinians as a people and centers Israel as an enemy.
This comparison shows that adversary-centered communication is not inevitable in wartime advocacy. It is a choice.
And that choice reveals what the messaging is really organized around
In other words, there is almost no "love of Palestine" seen in "pro-Palestinian" advocacy groups. . It is nearly all hate of Israel.
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Elder of Ziyon
Buy 
