Why Russian Liberals Push Strongly Pro-Israel Narratives

Published: 18 November 2025 Tuesday . The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

A growing rift is emerging within Russia’s liberal opposition, revealing a persistent and often unchallenged pattern of anti-Palestinian sentiment among its most influential voices. This trend, long embedded in segments of the Russian intellectual and dissident community, surfaced again last July when Israeli writer Dina Rubina, originally from Uzbekistan and widely celebrated in Russian-speaking literary circles, delivered an explosive interview to the opposition channel Rain TV.

During the conversation, Rubina claimed that Gaza had no peaceful civilians, argued that Israel had the right to transform the enclave into “a parking lot,” and even suggested that Palestinians should be “dissolved in hydrochloric acid.” Although her interviewer, the exiled journalist Mikhail Kozyrev, removed these comments from the final cut, he did not condemn them. Instead, he maintained a clearly pro-Israel stance throughout the interview and presented himself as sympathetic to her broader narrative.

The backlash was immediate in many Russian-speaking communities, particularly in Central Asia, where Rubina’s book events were cancelled. Yet among Russian political exiles, the responses varied. Some defended her statements, others claimed they were misunderstood or taken out of context, and many avoided condemning her at all. For observers who understand the ideological makeup of the Russian liberal diaspora, this was not an anomaly but part of a long-standing pattern.

Examples of anti-Palestinian attitudes within Russia’s émigré opposition are widespread. Yuliya Latynina, a well-known columnist, has drawn comparisons between “barbarians destroying civilisations” and Palestinians, and has described Western students protesting Israel’s assault on Gaza as “lazy and stupid.” Another prominent figure, Leonid Gozman, attributed European support for a United Nations resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza to what he called Europe’s fear of its immigrant communities. Andrei Pivovarov, previously the director of Open Russia and once imprisoned by the Kremlin, has also declared Israel’s military actions justified. Opposition politician Dmitri Gudkov, now residing in Bulgaria, has gone so far as to describe Israel as “the embodiment of civilisation,” implying that any opposition to its actions is “barbarism.”

Even respected journalists such as Kseniya Larina have repeatedly hosted Israeli intellectuals on their programmes, often framing discussions in ways that mock or dismiss Palestinian rights. One episode promoted the view that recognising Palestine is not antisemitism but “idiocy,” a framing that resonated among some Russian émigré audiences.

Across Russian oppositional media, including well-known outlets such as Novaya Gazeta, Meduza, and TV Rain, the Israeli perspective often dominates coverage. Alternative or Palestinian viewpoints rarely receive comparable space or sympathy. As a result, anti-Palestinian rhetoric propagates freely, supported by the perception that Israel represents Western modernity, democracy, and a civilisational ideal to which many Russian liberals aspire.

The roots of this stance can be traced back to the 20th century. Jewish communities in Russia endured decades of discrimination under both the Tsarist regime and the Soviet state, culminating in Stalin’s paranoid purges and the infamous “Doctors’ Plot.” During this period, many dissidents viewed Israel as a safe haven, a defender of victims of state persecution, and a symbol of liberal democratic values. This perception endured through subsequent generations of opposition figures and was reinforced by the waves of immigration to Israel that began in the late Soviet period and have continued ever since.

The dynamic changed again after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Hundreds of thousands of Russians fled abroad, and Israel became one of the most common destinations. In 2022 alone, an estimated 70,000 Russians moved there, strengthening existing networks and intensifying the community’s emotional, cultural, and political ties to the Israeli state. Today, more than 1.3 million Russian speakers live in Israel, forming a powerful diasporic bridge that shapes Russophone narratives around the conflict.

Yet this strong identification with Israel has exposed a contradiction within Russia’s liberal opposition. While its members fiercely denounce Vladimir Putin’s authoritarianism and condemn Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, many refuse to acknowledge, let alone criticise, similar abuses committed by Israel. Their silence on Palestinian suffering reveals the limits of their moral framework, which often centres on the experiences of ethnic Russians and excludes non-Russian or non-European communities.

This selective empathy is not limited to Palestine. For years, prominent opposition voices have echoed the Kremlin in blaming social problems on migrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus. The late Alexey Navalny once compared migrants to insects in a video that resurfaced in 2021, leading Amnesty International to temporarily revoke his “prisoner of conscience” status. In another example, Vladimir Kara-Murza suggested earlier this year that ethnic minority soldiers find it easier to kill Ukrainians than ethnic Russians do—an assertion widely criticised as racist.

These attitudes illustrate that racism and ethnic prejudice are not confined to the Kremlin. When minority activists inside Russia face torture, violence, or death in custody, the liberal opposition rarely responds with urgency or outrage. But when leading opposition figures fall victim to repression, the reaction is immediate and sustained.

This inconsistency reflects a deep historical tendency within Russian liberal thought: a belief in moral superiority combined with a reluctance to confront structural racism or support Indigenous, migrant, and non-Russian communities. If Putin’s regime ended tomorrow, there is little evidence that the current liberal opposition would prioritise dismantling these structures or addressing the needs of Russia’s many marginalised minorities.

The war in Ukraine has allowed Russian liberals to frame themselves as champions of democracy standing against an authoritarian aggressor. But the Palestinian issue forces them to confront uncomfortable questions about their own biases. The oppression Palestinians endure—dehumanisation, dispossession, and the systemic denial of their national identity—closely mirrors the experiences of many racialised and Indigenous communities within Russia itself. Yet the liberal opposition routinely ignores these parallels, positioning itself as the exclusive victim of authoritarian rule.

The current moment exposes these contradictions with unusual clarity. While Russian liberals insist that Putin alone is responsible for Russia’s wars and injustices, the narrative they adopt toward Palestine reflects longstanding cultural attitudes rather than political necessity. In many ways, their dismissive stance toward Palestinian rights echoes the imperial assumptions of the very state they claim to oppose.