There is plenty to criticise about the pro-Palestine movement: its ahistorical myths, its abuse of definitions, its clownish purity tests, and its myopic Western lens on a layered and difficult Middle Eastern conflict. After 1948, it was the Arab states that played on Palestinian grievance to cajole the Palestinians into violent resistance against the Zionist project. But Israel's failure to explain itself may ultimately matter far less than what a deeply unserious pro-Palestine movement has done for the argument made by Israel's hardest-line voices: that there is no reliable partner for peace, and that territorial concessions would only invite further violence. So why does the pro-Palestine movement not understand this? Why does it so rarely promote strategies that produce the political outcomes it claims to want?