"These People Are Not My Allies" - On Tucker, MAGA and Palestine | Simone Zimmerman | UNAPOLOGETIC

Rejecting Strange Bedfellows: Why the Left's Purity Tests Doom the Palestine Cause

In a revealing interview released just hours ago on May 17, 2026, Simone Zimmerman—co-founder of IfNotNow and the focus of the documentary Israelism—delivered a blunt message to the anti-Israel movement: figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens within the MAGA orbit "are not my allies." Speaking on Middle East Eye's UNAPOLOGETIC program, Zimmerman acknowledged tactical overlaps on cutting U.S. military aid to Israel yet insisted that ideological differences render any partnership poisonous. Her words land like a warning shot amid shifting American politics, where isolationist voices on the right increasingly question endless aid packages to Tel Aviv.

As someone writing from Beirut, where the human cost of these policies unfolds daily in refugee camps and shattered neighborhoods, I find Zimmerman's stance actively self-defeating. The Palestine solidarity movement cannot afford to police its allies with litmus tests when the machinery of occupation grinds on, fueled by bipartisan American largesse. Recent developments only underscore the urgency: congressional debates over supplemental aid packages in early 2026 have exposed fractures within both parties, with MAGA skeptics joining progressive Democrats in questioning blank-check support for Israel amid Gaza's prolonged humanitarian crisis.

Zimmerman's position reflects a familiar progressive reflex, prioritizing moral purity over pragmatic power. She argues that Carlson's foreign policy critique stems from a nationalist, sometimes xenophobic worldview incompatible with the intersectional, anti-racist framework of groups like IfNotNow. Owens, known for her sharp cultural commentary, has similarly questioned the Israel lobby's influence without embracing the full progressive agenda on domestic issues. Yet dismissing them wholesale ignores a basic reality of politics: coalitions form around shared interests, not identical worldviews. Ending the annual $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel represents a concrete win that could alter the balance of power in the region far more than another campus encampment or Twitter thread.

History offers stark lessons here. During the Vietnam era, anti-war activists forged unlikely alliances with conservative budget hawks weary of Pentagon spending. The resulting pressure helped end that quagmire. Today, with U.S. debt surpassing $36 trillion and public fatigue over foreign entanglements growing, similar opportunities exist. MAGA's "America First" skepticism toward neoconservative adventures aligns, however imperfectly, with the demand to stop subsidizing Israel's military dominance. Recent polls from early 2026 show declining support for aid among younger Republicans, a trend Carlson and Owens have amplified through their platforms. Rejecting this momentum in favor of ideological gatekeeping hands the initiative back to the pro-Israel consensus that dominates Washington.

Critics will counter that partnering with the right risks diluting the movement's message or legitimizing bigotry. Zimmerman herself highlighted concerns over antisemitic undertones in some isolationist rhetoric. These dangers are real and must be confronted directly rather than ignored. But purity spirals have already weakened pro-Palestine efforts. After October 2023, internal debates over "from the river to the sea" phrasing and accusations of insufficient radicalism fractured organizing spaces. The result? Legislative setbacks, including the passage of aid packages despite vocal opposition. By contrast, a broader tent could pressure lawmakers where it counts, in appropriations committees and primary challenges.

From Beirut, the stakes appear even clearer. Lebanese border communities continue absorbing spillover from Gaza operations, with recent escalations in 2025-2026 displacing thousands. American weapons systems, funded by taxpayers, enable much of this instability. An alliance focused narrowly on defunding the pipeline need not endorse every Carlson monologue or Owens cultural critique. Strategic cooperation on one issue does not imply endorsement of the whole. The alternative, waiting for a perfectly aligned progressive majority, condemns Palestinians to further suffering while American politics realigns around domestic grievances.

Moreover, the left's discomfort with MAGA critics reveals a deeper inconsistency. Many progressives celebrate dissent within the Democratic Party yet recoil when similar questions arise from the right. This selective outrage protects the very foreign policy establishment that has sustained occupation for decades. If the goal is Palestinian liberation, results matter more than the source of pressure. Tactical overlaps on aid cuts could accelerate negotiations, empower Palestinian civil society, and expose the true costs of unconditional support.

Of course, vigilance against co-optation remains essential. Any partnership must foreground Palestinian voices and reject attempts to redirect criticism toward other minorities. Yet Zimmerman's blanket dismissal closes doors before testing whether principled boundaries can hold. In an era of multipolar geopolitics, with China and Russia courting regional actors, American retrenchment from blank-check Middle East commitments could reshape dynamics faster than moral suasion alone.

The interview underscores a important moment. As 2026 unfolds with fresh aid debates and primary battles, the anti-occupation movement faces a choice: cling to familiar progressive circles or seize emerging fractures across the spectrum. History favors the latter. Those who built the anti-apartheid coalition in the 1980s welcomed support from unexpected quarters. Palestine deserves no less strategic flexibility today.

This is Malik Hassan for Global1.news, reporting from Beirut.

Source: Middle East Eye via YouTube — 2026-05-17T10:30:39+00:00.