The 9 Most Absurd Arguments Against Israel
From "you cannot defeat Hamas because it is an idea" to "disproportionate" Israeli force, nothing quite matches the sheer idiocy of the arguments people trot out against the State of Israel.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
The world is full of moronic takes, but nothing quite matches the sheer idiocy of the arguments people trot out against the State of Israel.
Buckle up as we dissect the nine most absurd arguments against the Jewish state, dripping with all the sarcasm and cynicism these laughable positions deserve.
1) ‘You cannot defeat Hamas because Hamas is an idea and you cannot defeat ideas.’
This nonsense suggests that, because Hamas harbors extremist beliefs, it is somehow invincible. By this logic, we should just throw up our hands and let every terror group run wild because they have an “idea” at their core. It is a convenient excuse for inaction, wrapped up in a pseudo-intellectual veneer.
First of all, Hamas is not just an “idea.” It is a well-funded, heavily armed terrorist organization with a structured leadership, military capabilities, and a clear agenda: the destruction of Israel. They fire rockets, build terror tunnels, and use human shields. These actions are not abstract concepts; they are concrete threats that can and should be met with force. Reducing Hamas to just an “idea” is a gross oversimplification that ignores the real, tangible danger they pose.
Secondly, let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that ideas cannot be defeated. History is full of ideologies that were once considered unstoppable until they met their end. Nazism, for instance, was an “idea” that led to a world war and the Holocaust. It was defeated through military might and strategic persistence. The same goes for many extremist movements throughout history. The notion that an idea makes an organization invincible is both defeatist and delusional.
Moreover, defeating Hamas is not solely about eradicating every last extremist thought; it is about dismantling their ability to act on those thoughts. By crippling their infrastructure, cutting off their funding, and targeting their leadership, you significantly reduce their capacity to terrorize and kill. Sure, the extremist ideology might linger, but without the means to enforce it, Hamas becomes far less of a threat.
2) ‘Israel is acting with disproportionate force.’
Under International Humanitarian Law, proportionality requires that any degree of damage (up to and including death) to civilians not be “excessive” in relation to the military advantage anticipated from a strike against a military target.
Simply and unfortunately, international rules of law recognize that civilians are often killed during war; and, most of the time, these deaths are actually not indicative of a war crime. Instead, the legal test for “proportionality” requires that each individual strike be looked at with a particular balancing analysis: The strike must be intended to achieve a military objective.
Therefore, it is a war crime to strike with the intent of targeting civilians and without any military objective whatsoever. Under this definition, Palestinians in Gaza (and those who have not publicly condemned their behavior, such as the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank) are guilty of a double-war crime: the intent to target Israeli civilians without reasonable military objectives, and the use of other Palestinians as involuntary human shields.
Under the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, in both Article 51(5)(b) and Article 52(2), we know that when Palestinians use their own population and/or the hostages as human shields — either by using them to shield themselves or to shield their military infrastructure and equipment — Palestinians have, under international law, turned civilian targets into military targets.
This means that when Palestinians, for example, place weapons caches in and under schools, hospitals, and mosques, Palestinians have made each of these places legitimate military targets.
These decisions are so vital though, that the Israeli military does not permit a single soldier on the ground or in an aircraft to have their hands on the proverbial (or actual) “trigger” to make such a determination. In fact, the decision of whether a strike is proportionate is not relegated to military officers or even generals.
Instead, before any Israeli strike can take place, Israeli military guidelines provide that proportionality balancing tests must be presented to and analyzed by Israeli military lawyers who then determine whether a strike is legally permissible as “proportionate” under international law and the rules of war. These military lawyers are not easily manipulated to simply “rubber stamp” Israeli military requests.
As a matter of fact, Israeli military lawyers work in complete independence of the Israeli military. They are outside the chain of command and do not answer to anyone in the military, including generals. Plus, every military lawyer is personally accountable if they make wrong decisions based on evidence available at the time.
Furthermore, the decisions to be made while balancing the likely military advantage against the likely civilian casualties can sometimes be so difficult that the legality of the strike is first brought to the Israeli Supreme Court for instant review.
3) ‘The Palestinians are just resisting oppression.’
I know the year is 2024 and things have been growing crazier by the day, but I don’t think that the civilized world ought to accept so-called “resistance” in the form of indiscriminately launching rockets at civilian populations, celebrating suicide bombers as heroes, and teaching children to hate and kill.
As one of our guest writers, Zach Ross, put it:
“It takes a twisted kind of evil to walk up to strangers, murder them, and do it with a smile. In most parts of the world, we call these serial killers. If the victim is a Jew or the perpetrator is a Palestinian, however, it’s called ‘resistance.’”
“Supporting such brutality as ‘resistance’ reveals an appalling level of dehumanization, where victims are reduced to nothing but symbols. This is the ideology of Nazis. This is the ideology of ‘Free Palestine.’”
“For over a century, Palestinian Arabs have mastered this vile practice, killing tens of thousands simply for being Jews.”1
We should also take this opportunity to address the so-called “oppression.” Israel is not “oppressing” Palestinians for the sake of it. The security measures, the checkpoints, the barriers — these are responses to relentless acts of terrorism, not oppression. When a society faces a constant threat from bombings, stabbings, and shootings, it has to take steps to protect its citizens. To frame this as unprovoked oppression is to ignore the reality of Palestinians’ ongoing terrorist activities and Israel’s need for self-defense.
Moreover, let’s talk about the leadership that’s supposedly resisting oppression. Hamas, the de facto ruler of Gaza, has a charter calling for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews worldwide. Their idea of “resistance” includes using their own people as human shields, storing weapons in schools and hospitals, and diverting humanitarian aid to build tunnels for terrorist attacks. This is not the behavior of a movement seeking justice; it is the conduct of a barbaric, extremist organization that values jihadist ideology over human life.
The West Bank-based Palestinian Authority, considered far more moderate relative to Hamas, is not that much more civilized. They also have a “pay for slay” system of financial rewards provided to individuals who carry out terror attacks against Israelis. The more death and injury caused by these attacks, the more money the policy pays, including monthly payments and various benefits for the families of Palestinians killed or imprisoned while engaging in such terrorism.
So, let’s drop the romanticized notion of Palestinian “resistance.” What we are seeing is not a straightforward fight against oppression — but a complex, multi-faceted conflict driven by extremist ideologies and geopolitical agendas, backed by some of the world’s worst human-rights abusers in Qatar and Iran.
4) ‘I don’t want my taxpayer money going to Israel.’
This is a prime example of selective outrage and sheer ignorance wrapped in a blanket of self-righteousness. Let’s break this down: Countries allocate a fraction of their budget to foreign aid, and a portion of that goes to Israel, one of the West’s staunchest allies in a strategically crucial region.
Most countries’ foreign aid budget is a tiny sliver of the overall national budget, and the aid to Israel is even smaller. If you are losing sleep over this minuscule expenditure, you clearly have no concept of how national spending works. Maybe you should focus on the billions wasted on endless bureaucratic inefficiencies or the ludicrous defense contracts that do not make headlines. But no, it is easier to target Israel because that is the fashionable cause among the ill-informed.
Next, let’s consider what this aid actually does. Foreign aid to Israel is not just a handout; it is an investment in stability and mutual security. Israel is a democratic ally in a region plagued by authoritarian regimes and extremist groups. This aid helps ensure that Israel remains a bastion of democracy and a bulwark against the spread of radicalism.
Moreover, if we are playing the “I don’t want my money going to…” game, let’s be consistent. Taxpayer money funds countless initiatives and countries worldwide, many of which have dubious returns. How about the money that goes to regimes with questionable human rights records? Or the funds that disappear into corrupt administrations?
So, spare us the sanctimonious drivel about taxpayer money and Israel. If you really want to make a difference, educate yourself on where your money actually goes and why. Otherwise, you are just another voice in the echo chamber of uninformed dissent.
5) ‘There are too many civilian casualties for this war to continue.’
In conflict, civilian casualties are tragic and sometimes unavoidable, especially in urban warfare. However, the IDF goes to great lengths to minimize civilian harm, including issuing warnings before attacks.
And then there is this: 80 percent of casualties in Gaza are believed to be Hamas terrorists and their families who they use as human shields, according to a report this week by Israeli journalist Ohad Hemo, who cited Hamas sources. Hemo is not some hot-take talking head, but a longtime authoritative source for all things Gaza and the West Bank.
Even then, the reason that this conflict is being waged in an urban context is because Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah deliberately embed themselves within densely populated civilian areas — using homes, schools, hospitals, and mosques as shields.
This cynical strategy, a blatant violation of international law, is designed to complicate Israel’s military responses, exploit the inevitable civilian casualties for propaganda purposes, and make it as difficult as possible for Israel to strike without causing civilian casualties. As such, critics often overlook these dynamics, choosing instead to focus on consequences rather than cause.
The cynical use of civilian infrastructure by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad not only endangers innocent lives, but also undermines any efforts towards a peaceful resolution. It is a deliberate, calculated move to perpetuate the conflict and garner sympathy for their cause at the expense of their own people. Until the international community unequivocally condemns these tactics and holds these organizations accountable, the cycle of violence and blame will continue unabated.
6) ‘It is unfair to fight wars against non-state actors.’
First, let’s talk about what is truly unfair. It is unfair that these non-state actors intentionally target innocent civilians with rockets, suicide bombings, and other acts of terror. It is unfair that they exploit women and children and use them as human shields. It is unfair that they destabilize entire regions, causing untold suffering and chaos.
These groups choose to operate outside the bounds of law and morality, yet somehow, it is the state actors responding to this madness who are painted as the villains? Give me a break.
Furthermore, this argument conveniently ignores reality. Non-state actors have forced their way onto the global stage with violence and terror, and states must respond to protect their citizens.
Lastly, let’s not kid ourselves: Behind every non-state actor is, nine times out of 10, a state actor. In the case of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, this state actor is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Qatar also funds Hamas and ISIS.
By framing it as “unfair,” critics are attempting to handcuff states, making it politically and morally challenging to fight back. This rhetoric only emboldens terrorists and their state sponsors, giving them a free pass to continue their atrocities while states are vilified for defending themselves.
7) ‘Violent Israeli settlers are a hindrance to peace.’
This is a near-perfect example of grasping at straws. Let’s get real: These so-called “violent settlers” number just a few hundred out of Israel’s entire population. Their actions, while deplorable, are a drop in the ocean compared to the systematic and widespread terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian groups. Blaming the failure of the peace process on a handful of extremists is not only absurd; it is a deliberate attempt to obscure the real issues at play.
First off, Israel has demonstrated time and again a willingness to vacate settlements for the sake of peace. The 2005 Gaza disengagement is a perfect example, when Israel uprooted thousands of its own citizens in the name of peace, only to be rewarded with a barrage of indiscriminate terrorism from Hamas-controlled Gaza.
The argument that a few hundred radical settlers are the main obstacle to peace conveniently ignores these significant gestures and the continued Palestinian violence that followed. If anything, history shows that Israel’s sacrifices have been met with increased hostility rather than goodwill. And every country that has desired peace with Israel has received it in good faith, without hindrance or hiccups.
Furthermore, let’s take a trip down memory lane: 20 or 30 years ago, there was no so-called “settler violence” to speak of, yet Palestinian terrorism was rampant (much like it is today). The intifadas, the suicide bombings, the relentless attacks on civilians — these did not need the excuse of settler violence to justify their existence. The real hindrance to peace has always been the refusal of Palestinian leaders and terror groups to recognize Israel’s right to exist and their commitment to its destruction. Settler violence is a convenient scapegoat, but it is hardly the root of the problem.
In reality, this argument is a transparent attempt to shift blame for the ongoing conflict. It is easier to point fingers at a miniscule, radical fringe than to address the deep-seated issues of incitement, indoctrination, and outright refusal to make lasting, genuine peace on the Palestinian side.
If the international community is serious about peace, it needs to stop obsessing over a few hundred extremists and start holding accountable the leaders and groups that perpetuate violence and reject coexistence. Anything less is just a farcical diversion.
8) ‘According to Al Jazeera…’
Al Jazeera, often touted as a reputable news source, is, in reality, the media wing of jihad. This is not just an overstatement; it’s a cold, hard fact backed by Qatar’s unabashed sponsorship of the network. Qatar itself has admitted to sharing “deep ideological ties” with jihadist organizations like the Taliban, ISIS, and Hamas.2 This cozy relationship between Al Jazeera and extremist groups should be a glaring red flag for anyone seeking relatively unbiased news.
Quoting Al Jazeera is akin to parroting Islamist propaganda more effectively than the Islamists themselves. The network’s coverage consistently aligns with the narratives of terrorist organizations, portraying them in a sympathetic light while demonizing their enemies. By giving a platform to these extremist ideologies, Al Jazeera not only legitimizes but amplifies their messages. It is no surprise that terrorist groups often reference Al Jazeera reports to bolster their own propaganda efforts.
Using Al Jazeera as a source means buying into a carefully crafted narrative designed to further the goals of jihadist groups. It is not just about news; it’s about shaping perceptions and influencing public opinion in a way that benefits the most radical elements in the Muslim world.
9) ‘This war will radicalize more Palestinians.’
You cannot radicalize people who have already been radicalized long, long ago. Palestinian radicalization has been brewing for decades, fueled by a toxic mix of extremist ideologies, relentless indoctrination, and a leadership that thrives on perpetuating hatred and violence.
Palestinian children are taught from a young age to idolize terrorists and martyrs. Their textbooks are filled with anti-Israel and antisemitic propaganda. TV shows and public speeches glorify violence against Israelis as a noble pursuit. This is not some new phenomenon sparked by recent conflicts. It is a longstanding campaign to embed hatred deep within the psyche of Palestinian society. Radicalization is not a looming threat; it has been the obvious reality for quite some time.
Pretending that this latest round of fighting is the magical turning point where Palestinians will suddenly start hating Israel is laughable and deeply naive. Suggesting that recent events will push them over some radicalization edge is like saying the sky will get bluer. It is already as blue as it gets, folks.
Zach Ross on Instagram
“Qatar Says It Shares Strong Ideological Bonds With Taliban.” Iran International.
Thank you for this and your other posts Joshua
"Just an idea", seems to be very appealing to intellectuals and speaks to the thinking of men and women of thought but not action.