Ideological Divide Unites on Palestinian Nationalism: A Paradox in US Foreign Policy

Alex Nowrasteh, a prominent analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, highlighted a perceived paradox in American foreign policy discourse on August 21, 2025, through a concise social media post. Nowrasteh's "cheat sheet" observed that "NatCon foreign policy: All nationalism is good, except Palestinian nationalism. Progressive foreign policy: All nationalism is bad, except Palestinian nationalism." This statement points to a curious convergence in how two seemingly opposing ideological camps approach the complex issue of Palestinian self-determination.

National Conservative (NatCon) foreign policy generally champions national interests, cultural identity, and sovereignty, often expressing skepticism towards international institutions and interventionism unless directly serving perceived national gains. This perspective, as described by sources like The Economist and the American Enterprise Institute, typically views strong national identity as a positive force. However, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this framework often aligns with support for Israel, leading to a stance that implicitly or explicitly excludes Palestinian nationalism from its general endorsement of national movements.

Conversely, Progressive foreign policy tends to prioritize human rights, international cooperation, and addressing global inequalities, frequently viewing nationalism critically, especially when it is seen as exclusionary, aggressive, or a driver of conflict. Research from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace indicates that progressive foreign policy seeks to build security through change and emphasizes anti-authoritarianism and solidarity. Yet, this approach often makes an exception for Palestinian nationalism, framing it as a legitimate struggle for self-determination against occupation and a pursuit of basic human rights.

Palestinian nationalism itself emerged in the early 20th century, evolving in response to historical events such as the British Mandate and the establishment of Israel. Its core goals include self-determination, statehood in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the right of return for refugees. This movement encompasses diverse factions, ranging from secular groups advocating for a two-state solution to Islamist movements like Hamas, which historically sought a single Palestinian state across all of historical Palestine.

The paradox articulated by Nowrasteh suggests that despite their fundamental ideological differences, both National Conservatives and Progressives arrive at a similar practical conclusion regarding Palestinian nationalism: it is treated as an exception to their broader foreign policy tenets. For NatCons, this exception may stem from strategic alliances and a focus on regional stability that prioritizes existing state actors. For Progressives, the exception arises from a perceived moral imperative to support what they view as a marginalized people's right to self-determination, irrespective of their general skepticism towards nationalism.

This observation underscores the intricate and often contradictory nature of foreign policy formation, where ideological consistency can be superseded by geopolitical realities, historical narratives, and perceived moral obligations. Nowrasteh's tweet prompts a deeper examination of the underlying motivations that lead to such unexpected alignments in the complex landscape of international relations.