{shortcode-06df8958ee4077711a504f91baf3390a565a14cd}

Editor’s Note: This is an installment of the Amateur Ethicist, a site of moral inquiry open to all Harvard Community members. Please send your submissions to this link.

I am a Jewish and anti-Zionist student. Most of the Zionist friends I grew up with either distanced themselves or stopped talking to me entirely after October 7th, when I became far more vocal about my political commitments. I am still friends with a few Zionist students, but have become increasingly unsure about how to navigate my relationships with them. My friends are good people, I want to believe, but their Zionism taints my certainty of that — especially after two years of Israel's genocide in Gaza. Should I let go of my Zionist friends in the same way that many of them have already let go of me? —Name Withheld.

Who is a friend? And why do we care about our friends’ beliefs?

Most simply, a friend is someone with whom we maintain a relationship based on shared affection. Friendship is distinct from those social configurations we are born into: Unlike familial bonds, friendship is a choice. For two individuals to become and remain friends, each must continuously choose to be and stay friends with the other.

You are friends with people who support Zionism and wonder whether you should choose not to be friends with them. Since Zionism encompasses a wide range of beliefs, it is difficult to identify a universally applicable reason for you to end these friendships. Indeed, for each one of your friends who calls themselves a Zionist, the word “Zionism” might entail different political commitments. For some, it might involve continued support for a two-state solution that enables the self-determination of both Jews and Palestinians. For others, it might imply a more stringent support for Israel alongside the belief that — despite overwhelming expert evidence — Israel’s military conduct in Gaza is justified and not genocidal.

In any case, you might find some visions of Zionism more morally objectionable than others. And perhaps because of these objections, you might feel wary of staying friends with Zionists.

If what you are asking is whether you are justified in letting go of your Zionist friends, then the matter is simple. The answer is yes. Remember: Because friendship is volitional by definition, we are never obligated to be friends with someone. Friendship depends on active choices, and we are always entitled to choose to end a friendship.

That being said, cutting ties with a friend is never a frictionless process. It can be very hurtful to end a meaningful bond, which is why letting go of someone raises multiple considerations. For instance, we might feel compelled to do everything in our power to save a friendship before we deem it irredeemable. In your case, you might feel responsible for helping your friends understand your viewpoints — and fully understanding theirs — before deciding to cut them off.

However, the fact that we owe things to our friends does not mean that we owe them friendship itself. You are justified in letting go of a friend you disagree with. But justification is not the same as duty. Are you ever obligated to let go of a friend?

Moral philosophers since antiquity have grappled with this question. In The Nichomachean Ethics, a text dating back 2,300 years, Aristotle answers that we do have an obligation to unfriend morally condemnable people. His argument is premised on the belief that friendship involves a process of assimilation: He suggests that we should not be friends with those whose views we find reprehensible because they will influence our own moral ideas.

I, too, often see myself growing similar to my friends — I might read their favorite books and start sharing their interests, or I might spend so much time with them that my mannerisms come to resemble theirs. However, I disagree with Aristotle. I believe that our moral and political beliefs can and should be strong enough to withstand disagreement, even within our closest relationships. If being friends with someone you fundamentally disagree with is all it takes for you to doubt your commitments, then perhaps your commitments weren’t all that strong to begin with.

The strength of your convictions might not concern you, though. Instead, you might be worried that — by being friends with those you disagree with — you are enabling the very beliefs you oppose. This is a very real possibility, but it need not be the case. So long as you do not suppress your own beliefs for the sake of friendship, you can continue to serve as a counter-perspective your friends would otherwise not engage with. There is nothing wrong with that.

Letting go of a friend due to political or moral reasons needlessly anticipates that reconciliation is unreachable. Making that decision is justifiable, but it is not obligatory. At the end of the day, a friendship built across disagreement does not demand that you hide or abandon your beliefs. Sustaining conversations across ideological and moral divides might require that you strengthen your convictions.

We are always entitled to dissolve our friendships. But even when we find the morals of our friends to be misguided, condemnable, and maybe even despicable, we remain entitled to have faith in their decency. We can continue to engage in dialogue to exchange ideas. We can choose to believe that reconciliation awaits.

Andrés Muedano ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Adams House. He can be reached at ethicist@thecrimson.com.