My friends, it’s time for another Israel Open Mic episode – and I need to give you a heads up: This one is a bit unusual. Typically, these episodes are based on questions submitted by you – our brilliant, curious and interesting listeners. Seriously, you know I love hearing from you. Hit me up.
This Israel Open Mic episode is not prompted by a question, but by something that happened recently – a piece of current events from late April 2026 that touched a nerve, both in Israeli society and for many of us who feel connected to Israel, that my team and I knew we needed to devote an episode to it.
You may have heard about it or read any of the countless news articles and social posts about it. For the purposes of this episode, I’m calling it Kippa-gate.
Here’s what happened:
Dr. Alex Sinclair was working at a café near his home in Modi’in in central Israel when someone started shouting at him that his kippa was against the law.
By the way, Alex is not just some guy. He’s a writer. A lecturer. A real thinker. A professor at Hebrew University. And fun fact, he’s also a colleague, someone who took my call one evening a few years back to help me with my dissertation and who, in some ways, helped shape aspects of my philosophy as an Israel educator. He was the first person I heard speak about matching high connection to Israel with what he called “high resolution.” In other words, it’s easy to be connected to Israel, but know so little about the history… the context… things that give us an overall better understanding. On the flip side, there are those who are really knowledgeable about Israel, but aren’t connected at all. Dr. Sinclair believes both are necessary when it comes to Israel education, both a strong connection and a “high resolution” awareness.
But who Alex Sinclair is is secondary to this story – I just wanted you to know that I have impressive colleagues and to let you know that good thinkers really impact me!
Back to the story. Alex was sitting at a café, and someone started yelling about his kippa.
The kippa in question was unusual – and we’ll include a link to an image of the kippah in the description. It was a black, knit kippa. On one side was an embroidered image of the Israeli flag – you know the one – white with two blue stripes and a blue star of David in the middle. Opposite the Israeli flag was another flag. This one was black, white and green, with a red triangle. The Palestinian flag.
Alex had worn that kippa – or one just like it – for the past twenty years. The kippa was nothing new, and neither was the strong reaction that it, at times, provoked.
But Alex is a chill guy. He didn’t yell or get upset. Like a true educator, he calmly responded that no, he wasn’t breaking the law, and that if the man would sit down, he’d be happy to talk about the kippa or have a political conversation about what the kippa with two flags means.
The man didn’t accept the invitation. Instead, he continued shouting until two police officers showed up. They confiscated Alex’s kippa – along with his computer and phone – and took Alex to the police station, where he was locked in a cell.
They held him for twenty minutes – which maybe doesn’t sound like a long time – but I would imagine that it would feel pretty long when you’re sitting there, and when you don’t know how long you’ll be there. My heart is racing thinking about this! Alex wasn’t given a chance to call his wife or a lawyer or anything.
After twenty minutes, the police released him and returned his computer and phone… but not the kippa. Alex demanded they return it, after all, it was a religiously significant item and his personal property. But, as Alex tells it, they refused, threatening to lock him up again if he didn’t leave the station without the kippa. Alex persisted, and eventually the police relented. But when they returned it, it looked a little different. Someone had taken out a pair of scissors and cut out the image of the Palestinian flag. Then they let Alex take what was left of his kippa and leave.
The story was covered by major news outlets in Israel and by CNN in the US – not to mention all over social media.
Now, there’s a lot to unpack about this story.
There’s the behavior of the police in detaining Alex and destroying his personal property.
For many people, there’s a sort of shocking and troubling implication of a kippa – a Jewish item of religious significance – being targeted, confiscated and destroyed by police in Israel, of all places.
There’s the question of what it even means to have a kippa featuring both an Israeli flag and a Palestinian flag. I mean, regardless of your politics, it’s clearly pretty provocative. Maybe one day we’ll have Alex on to discuss why he chooses to adorn his kippa with that particular image.
There’s a lot to say and – if you follow this particular echo chamber of social media – a lot has already been said.
But for this episode, that’s not what I want to focus on. I want to focus on one specific part of the incident. The claim that the kippa was, for some reason, illegal.
Because the truth is, it is not illegal to display or wave the Palestinian flag in Israel. In fact, time and time again, Israeli courts have struck down attempts to make it illegal because that would violate Israel’s freedom of expression. (Of course, links for prettttty dense reading about this in the show notes.)
That guy – the one who shouted that Alex was breaking the law – he was wrong. And the police officers – the ones who detained Alex and confiscated his kippah – they were wrong, too.
There is no law against flying or displaying or wearing the Palestinian flag.
If it were as simple as that, this would not be a very interesting open mic. It would just be a case of political intolerance and police overstepping.
Naturally, it is much more complicated.
The claim that Sinclair acted illegally didn’t come out of nowhere.
There used to be laws against it. And there are loud, persistent voices in Israel who believe it should be made illegal again.
That’s the real reason I’m drawn to this topic – because the story of the Palestinian flag, with its fluctuating legal status in Israel, is a revealing window into the history and complexity of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
Plus, it touches on a topic that I personally find illuminating: who gets to decide what a symbol means, or what a flag stands for? And how do we respond to a symbol when it means different things when different people hold it in their hands… or wear it on their heads?
So, let’s Open Mic this thing. We’ll talk about the origin of the flag… the twisty history of Israel’s relationship to it… and the status it holds in Israeli society today. And by the end? Who knows… maybe we’ll get to the bottom of kippa-gate once and for all.
—
The flag we know as the Palestinian flag was first flown over a century ago – and it had nothing to do with Palestinian nationalism, or anti-Israel protests or anything like that. It pre-dated all of that stuff.
It first emerged as the symbol of the Arab Revolt in 1916.
Ugh, two seconds into the Open Mic, and we’re already at a historical tangent that threatens to derail the entire episode.
I’ll keep it brief. Here’s what you need to know about the 1916 Arab Revolt.
Before World War One, most of the Middle East was under control of the Ottoman Empire, which stretched from Turkey, all the way through modern day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia…basically that whole area was controlled by the Ottomans.
And you know who didn’t love living under the Ottomans? Arabs, who lived in all those areas we just mentioned.
When World War One broke out in 1914, these Arabs found themselves forced to take part in the Ottomans’ war. That meant higher taxes and forced military conscriptions… and the Arabs weren’t having it.
They decided it was time for Arabs to rule Arab lands. They were champions of Pan-Arabism, the belief that all Arabs had a shared history, language and culture, and that all Arabs should be a unified people. They dreamt of establishing a massive Arab state – something that would cover the regions of modern day Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
But first, they had to get rid of those mighty Ottomans. And so began the Arab Revolt of 1916.
The British didn’t like the Ottomans holding land in the region either and were only too eager to help the Arabs send them packing. They offered their full support to the Arab Revolt, providing money, supplies, military support… and even a flag, designed by a British diplomat by the name of Mark Sykes.
Nerd corner alert: If the name “Sykes” sounds familiar, and you’re wearing your Israeli history hat, you may be thinking of the consequential Sykes-Picot agreement. And if so, you hit that nail right on the head.
Mark Sykes, designer of the Arab Revolt flag, is indeed the very same Sykes who was a co-architect the Sykes-Picot agreement, the secret plan for the French and English to divvy up formerly Ottoman areas after the war. Sykes was working out this agreement behind closed doors while outwardly supporting the Arabs in their pursuit of self rule and a unified Arab state. Pretty sus, as the kids say.
The story takes on an added twist of irony when you consider that Sykes was also a big supporter of Zionism. He worked hand in hand with Zionist leaders and played a role in developing the Balfour Declaration, in which Britain declared its support for a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
That’s just a morsel of delicious knowledge to keep in your pocket next time you see someone waving the Palestinian flag while shouting that Israel shouldn’t exist. The designer of that very flag, in his way, did his part to bring the Zionist dream to fruition.
Still pretty shady, though.
In any event, the flag he designed was an apt flag for a movement about Arab unity. Each of the four featured colors represented a royal dynasty, or caliphate from Islamic history.
The black stripe was for the Abbasid caliphate.
Green was for the Fatimid caliphate.
White was for the Umayyad caliphate.
And the red triangle over all of them represented the Hashemite caliphate, which is the current caliphate.
Nerd corner alert again: The choice of those four colors was also a nod to a work of Arab poetry from all the way back in the 13th century, which reads: White are our deeds, black are our battles, green are our fields and red are our swords.
The revolt ended with World War 1 in 1918. The Ottomans were gone, but no unified Arab state appeared. Instead, the territory fell into British and French hands, as per the Sykes-Picot agreement. And the flag? It didn’t find a home – at least not right away. Although the flag’s colors and design did end up inspiring plenty of other nations in the region, like Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Iraq, even Sudan. Almost all the flags in the region are some version of those four colors in various combinations – some of which are super similar to the original design.
The original flag itself underwent a small makeover in 1922 – the green and white stripes were flipped for visibility – but it remained a generic, pan-Arab flag with no specific home for years. … until 1964, when it was claimed by the newly formed Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO.
Up until then, the Arab countries surrounding Israel were leading the political and military struggle against Israel. We’re talking Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq… they were doing the talking, the saber rattling, the fighting … The Palestinians didn’t have a voice of their own. They were refugees in other countries, and they were, for all intents and purposes, powerless.
The PLO wanted to change that. They wanted to give Palestinians a voice in their own struggle and a chance to advocate for their own destiny. And the flag they chose to represent their movement and the Palestinian people was none other than the Zionist Mark Sykes’s good ol’ Arab Revolt flag.
I started this episode by asking who gets to dictate the meaning of a flag. This is one of the moments where that question becomes really intriguing.
Remember, before 1964, the black, white, green and red flag mainly symbolized Pan-Arabism, a unified Arab people and the dream of Arab self-rule.
In 1964, that changed. It was now the flag of Palestinian identity. But it wasn’t just that – it was also the PLO flag. And that came with some significant baggage because the PLO wasn’t just interested in helping out their Palestinian brothers and sisters. They had another, very specific goal in mind: the liberation of Palestine from the Zionist enemy through violent resistance.
And I quote, from the original, 1964 PLO Charter:
The liberation of Palestine from an Arab view point, is a national duty. … specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable them to perform their roles in liberating their homeland.
In no uncertain terms, when the PLO adopted that flag, it officially became a symbol of the movement to destroy the state of Israel.
Though Israel didn’t love the idea of a flag supporting its own destruction being flown in its country, they still didn’t officially ban it…at least for a few years. But things changes in 1967, after the Six Day War. Israel had just pulled off an against-all-odds, paradigm-shifting victory against Egypt, Jordan and Syria. By the end, they were in control of vast swaths of land that had, just one week earlier, belonged to countries trying to destroy them. The Arabs who lived in those areas were hostile, to say the least, and Israel wanted to prevent an uprising. So they instituted Military Order 101. Or, to use its more formal title: the Order Regarding Prohibition on Incitement and Hostile Propaganda Actions.
Included in the order was a section that made it illegal to publicly support a hostile organization by singing their songs, sounding their slogans, distributing their written materials or… waving their flags.
The order doesn’t mention the PLO or the PLO flag explicitly, but I don’t think it’s too difficult to nail down which “hostile organization” they were referring to.
Nerd corner alert again: this is when Palestinians got creative. They couldn’t fly their flag in public, so they adopted another symbol that shared their flag’s colors… you might have seen it – green green rind, red flesh, black seeds and… I don’t know what it’s called but the white part between the red inside and the green outside. That’s right, sweet, delicious, subversive watermelons became the symbol of Palestinian resistance.
Meanwhile, the PLO went about showing the world what their version of active resistance looked like. By the late 60’s and early 70’s, the PLO had become synonymous with plane hijackings and brutal terrorist attacks, like the massacre and mutilation of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. Some of these were officially carried out by other terror groups, like the PFLP and Black September, but there was little doubt about the PLO’s involvement. They sent a clear message of Palestinian terror around the world, and did it all while waving the black, red, green and white flag.
By 1980, the PLO and its related groups had become the number one security threat for Israel and Israelis around the world. And so, members of the Knesset proposed a new law. Well, actually it was an amendment to an old law: the Terrorism Prevention Ordinance, which had been in place since 1948. And this amendment had a telling nickname. It was known as the PLO Law.
The original 1948 ordinance already made it illegal to support a terrorist organization. The 1980 amendment added a lot of specificity to what illegal support could look like, including, quote:
“any act manifesting identification or sympathy with a terrorist organisation in a public place… either by flying a flag or displaying a symbol or slogan or by causing an anthem or slogan to be heard, or any other similar overt act clearly manifesting such identification or sympathy as aforesaid”.
Gotta love that legalese.
It’s similar language to the 1967 Military Order in the West Bank and Gaza. A big difference here was that the law now applied to the rest of Israel.
Like all policy matters in Israel – especially those relating to the Palestinian conflict – passing this amendment was no simple thing. Heated arguments tore through the Knesset. On one side were those who believed that cutting off all public support and sympathy for the PLO was a necessary tool in fighting terrorism and keeping Israelis safe. Israel needed to send a message: they will not tolerate any support for a terrorist organization that hungered for Jewish and Israeli blood. Public and international opinion be damned… Israel would do what it needed to do to protect its people.
The other side argued that not all Palestinians were members of the PLO and that they should have the right to wave their flag. They claimed that any attempt to curtail those rights was a fascist law and a blatant attempt to rob Palestinians of their identity.
And I’ll note here… not much has changed since then.
I mean… the PLO has changed, laws have changed – we’ll get to those soon. But the underlying arguments around the Palestinian flag remain largely the same.
Had Alex Sinclair succeeded in getting the man who shouted at him to sit down, have a coffee and dialogue over the legality of his kippa, I imagine the conversation would probably have covered these pieces of information. Alex would have pointed out that it’s unfair to lump all Palestinians in with violent terrorists, and that the flag is an expression of their identity – which is not a crime.
The shouting man would probably have countered that unspeakable violence against Jews has been committed in the name of that flag – that protesters around the world have argued for the liquidation of Israel while waving that flag – and that there is no place for it within Israel.
So, who’s right? Who gets to claim the flag? Is it a symbol of the Palestinian pursuit of freedom and self-determination, or is it a symbol of armed resistance and terrorism against the State of Israel? Is it possible that it’s both at the same time? Some of this, some of that?
At least in 1980, the majority decided that the flag should, indeed, be banned as a matter of national security. The debates were heated, but ultimately, it wasn’t even close.
The PLO Law was adopted and the flag was barred from being waved or displayed publicly throughout Israel. And it stayed that way for years…
…through the first intifada in 1987…
…through the PLO being designated as a terrorist group in Israel, the UK and the US…
…through 1988, when the PLO officially declared Palestine as an independent state.
The PLO Law remained in effect until 1993, when Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo Accords. There is so much to talk about with Oslo, and I would be remiss if I didn’t highly recommend that you check out our episode about it – link in the show notes.
The Oslo negotiations led to some momentous breakthroughs in the conflict. Well… they seemed momentous at the time. Looking back, the legacy of Oslo is a little more complicated. (Again, see the show notes.)
Here are the important parts for our purposes:
The PLO turned over a new leaf. They disavowed terrorism and swore off on their violent past, aiming to establish themselves as genuine, good faith partners for peace. First step… they finally recognized the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.
Israel, in turn, recognized the PLO as the legitimate political and diplomatic representatives of the Palestinian people. As such, they were no longer treated as a terrorist organization, and the ban on waving their flag was repealed. This is a big point!
And that is where things remain today. There is currently no law banning the display or use of the Palestinian flag within Israel. I’ll say it again. There is currently no law banning the display or use of the Palestinian flag within Israel.
Now – as you know based on how this episode started – that doesn’t mean that Palestinian flags have been embraced by Israel society at large. And certainly not by the Israeli government.
There have been numerous attempts to pass laws that attempt to ban – or limit – the Palestinian flag in Israel. None of them have passed. Time and time again, Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that using the flag is a form of political expression, and Israel protects freedom of expression. Police are only allowed to intervene and remove the flag if waving it poses an imminent threat to public safety.
That tends to give a lot of leeway to the police in determining what constitutes a public threat. And in 2023, Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir gave them even more power when he issued a directive for the police to treat the Palestinian flag as a terrorist symbol and to remove it when they see it in public spaces. This was January 2023, by the way, 9 months before October 7th.
There was a massive amount of backlash and protests against this directive. And yeah… it’s probably not great that Ben-Gvir is issuing directives to the police that, you know, go against the law.
But like it or not, Ben Gvir’s directive reflects a reality in Israel. Even though the Palestinian flag is legal – and has been for over 30 years – there are many who see it as a symbol of terror and violence against Jews and believe there’s no place for it in Israeli society.
For many others, certainly in the international community and even many Israelis and Jews in Israel and around the world, it’s a symbol of the Palestinian people and their pursuit of freedom and dignity. And any attempt by Israel to repress that symbol is anti-democratic. As Alex Sinclair expressed it in his Facebook post after Kippa-gate “It’s hard not to say that this is the kind of thing that fascist regimes do.”
Strong language and a heavy accusation from Alex. But you can see where he’s coming from. Using the police to quash a symbol is not the kind of thing you expect from a democratic society like Israel.
So, I want to ask you: what do you think? Should the Palestinian flag be legal to display in Israel? I am not asking if you like or dislike the Palestinian flag and what it stands for. I am more interested in how you think about this, the legal question.
I know. Usually the Open Mic episodes are me answering your questions. But we’re flipping the script here. I’m asking you what you think. Because I think both sides have a leg to stand on.
On the one hand, Israel is a proud democracy, and in a true democracy, you don’t ban flags. Freedom of expression is necessary for democracy to thrive.
Also… the flag officially represents the Palestinian people and their national identity… and there is indeed a Palestinian people and a distinct Palestinian identity. It exists. Facts. Trying to ban it is trying to ignore reality. It’s silly.
On the other hand… those who see it as a threat to Israeli security are not coming out of nowhere.
Join me on a thought experiment here. Let’s say we were talking about the Hamas flag. And before you shout at me – I know we’re not. It’s a completely different flag… the Hamas flag looks different and means something very specific. The Palestinian flag represents Palestinian Nationalism and a right to self-determination. The Hamas flag represents Palestinian Islamism. So they’re two different things.
But let’s play this out for a second. Waving the Hamas flag is currently banned in Israel as a public display of support for a known terrorist organization.
I think most of us would understand that ban… even agree with it, right? Hamas wants to kill Jews and destroy Israel, so yeah, no waving that flag.
So, to me and to many, the question is… does the Palestinian flag stand for the same thing as Hamas? The PLO adopted it in the 60’s and waved it for decades as they celebrated hijackings and massacres. And yes, the PLO of today may not be the same as the PLO of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, but they’re far from being the true partners for peace promised in the Oslo accords.
For example, the Palestinian Authority – which serves under the PLO – still operates a Martyr’s Fund, sometimes referred to as “Pay to Slay,” which reimburses families of Palestinians who died while committing acts of violence against Israelis. Many see those payments as rewards – even incentives – for terrorism.
But even if you take financial support for terrorism out of the picture, consider the message that many – not all, but many – people send with this flag. The flag has been, and continues to be, waved at protests where people call for Israel’s destruction. After October 7th, that flag was waved by people celebrating that horrific day. Palestinian flags adorned the stage during hostage releases organized by Hamas.
And if the flag does symbolize armed struggle against Israel… if it celebrates the actions of Hamas and those who want to see Jews killed or kidnapped, then does freedom of expression really matter? Like, how far does freedom of expression extend?
I know, that sounds like a controversial take. We like to equate Israel’s freedom of expression with what we have in America, where those freedoms are the cornerstone of our republic. Disallowing flags or public gatherings feels like the stuff of Cold War era KGB tales.
But Israel is not America. The security situation is frankly not comparable.
Look, I’m a proud American. I cherish the freedom of expression we enjoy here. There are no federal laws against any flags in the USA, which means people are protected even when they wave incendiary flags, like those bearing Nazi or Al Qaeda symbols.
I also know that a group of people carrying those flags doesn’t constitute an existential threat to this country. And, there is a quote attributed to Otto Van Bismarck, who is said to have declared: “The Americans are a very lucky people. They’re bordered to the north and south by weak neighbors, and to the east and west by fish.” So, we, Americans, have the luxury of protecting their right to wave flags and shout unpopular opinions.
However, if millions of Nazis or Al Qaeda lived within a mile of America’s borders… I do wonder if the U.S. would be so cavalier – or this principled -about our freedom of expression. If those groups had spent the last 60 years threatening America, and repeatedly backed those threats up with attacks that indiscriminately killed American civilians… I can imagine there would be some pretty harsh laws about waving their flags.
Look, it’s not a perfect comparison to Israel’s situation. There is no perfect comparison.
The point is that for Israel, the existential threat is real. It’s on their doorstep every moment of every day. And as idealistic as they’d like to be, freedom of expression will always come second to security.
So the question comes back to… is the flag a threat to public security?
Well… it depends who’s flying it. And where.
When it’s flown alongside Hamas flags, or waved with chants of “from the river to sea…” that flag calls for the destruction of Israel.
When it’s waved alongside Israeli flags while protesting laws or policies… when it’s worn on a kippa, of all things? That’s a very different story. I don’t think anyone in their right mind could see Alex Sinclair’s kippa – a Jewish, religious item which also features an Israeli flag – as a threat.
When it comes to the Palestinian flag, history matters. Context matters.
If there’s one takeaway from this episode, I hope it’s a sense of how subjective symbols like this can be. And a call for humility before jumping to conclusions about another person – or shouting at them at a café in Modi’in. When you see the flag, take a moment to look beyond how the symbol makes you feel, and consider what it means to the other person, before we call them anti-Israel for waving it. Or fascist for wanting to ban it.
There is one more thing I want to mention here. A note on flag bans. And that is… they don’t work. Historically, flag bans, like book bans, don’t seem to do much to quash the spirit of the flag. Even after the 1980 PLO law, it’s not like Palestinian identity withered and died because the flag was banned. Look at where we are today, that flag is really having a moment.
To paraphrase an iconic line from the one and only Jeff Goldblum, who many of you may not have heard of, “nationalism finds a way.” Maybe it’s turning watermelon into a subversive symbol… maybe it’s something else, but no matter what Itamar Ben Gvir or any Israeli politicians say, I don’t think that flag is going anywhere.
Listen, it’s not a kippah I would wear. Honestly, I’m uncomfortable with any symbols on my kippa when the very purpose of wearing one, in my opinion, is to remind us that we serve God above, not a country or political party.
But for Alex, he’s not me, we’re different people. He’s using a very visible symbol of his Judaism to promote the idea of peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. Agree with him or not… like his kippa or not… he’s guided by a strong sense of moral seriousness. That’s something we can probably all use a bit more of.