Rhetoric and fallacies in the war on Palestine

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most complex and contentious issues in contemporary geopolitics but, as widely recognised in scholarship and historical literature (including this article I wrote last year), it long predates October 7th, 2023.

Over the years, rhetorical devices and logical fallacies have been employed strategically by various actors, particularly in media and political discourse, to suppress and delegitimise the Palestinian cause for self-determination. These rhetorical strategies serve not only to simplify a complex situation but also to obscure key facts and disparage opposing viewpoints. By using misleading language, framing techniques, and logical fallacies, narratives have been constructed that shift the conversation and influence public opinion; this has constituted a rhetorical campaign to complement ongoing Israeli military action in Gaza and the West Bank – what has been widely recognised as a genocide against Palestinians. This article seeks to identify and name some of the most common rhetorical devices and logical fallacies, as the first step in dismantling their potential to manipulate and mislead.

One of the most common rhetorical strategies used to undermine the Palestinian cause is the ad hominem attack. This involves attacking the character or motives of a person rather than addressing the substance of their argument. For example, critics of Israel are often dismissed by focusing on their personal traits or affiliations rather than their arguments, and Palestinian leaders such as Yasser Arafat are labelled as ‘extremists’ in mainstream discourse.

Similarly, Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab American Institute, had her character condemned during a US congressional hearing last fall (2024), during which she criticised the recent US Congress decision to cut funding to the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA). Despite her repeated assurances that she supported neither Hamas nor Hezbollah, Republican senator John Kennedy continued to attack her character, shifting focus away from legitimate political and humanitarian concerns.

These ad hominem attacks also serve to discredit Palestinian leadership, delegitimising their calls for self-determination and Palestinian sovereignty. Instead of engaging with their political claims, these labels reduce the debate to personal attacks, reinforcing the notion that Palestinians, as a collective, are somehow unworthy of political representation or statehood.

Another prevalent tactic is the creation of a false dichotomy, where the issue is presented as a binary choice between two opposing sides with no middle ground. In this framework, Israel is often depicted as a peaceful, democratic state surrounded by violent, irrational enemies. This contrasts the questions of ‘Israeli security’ and ‘Palestinian terrorism,’ without acknowledging the deep historical, political, and social context of Palestinian resistance or the injustices of the Israeli occupation that inspired the resistance in the first place.

This rhetorical device simplifies the situation to an unrealistic extent, obscuring the broader context of dispossession, systemic inequality, and the violation of international law. The nuanced calls for a just peace, which include ending the occupation and recognising Palestinian rights, are drowned out in favour of an oversimplified portrayal of a black-and-white struggle.

This has also had an impact on members of the Jewish community and Israeli diaspora, who are struggling to balance religious and national identity with valid criticisms of state policy. A University of Michigan student put it simply when she cited a widespread attitude of “you’re [either] with us or against us.”

Another rhetorical tactic employed in discussions about Palestine is equivocation—the use of ambiguous language to muddy the waters and avoid taking a clear stance on key issues. Terms like ‘disputed territories’ are commonly used instead of ‘occupied territories’ to describe areas like the West Bank or East Jerusalem, where Israel has built settlements and maintained military control for decades. The use of the term ‘disputed’ implies that both Israel and Palestine have equal claims to the land, ignoring the fact that international law recognises these areas as occupied and that Palestinians have a right to self-determination in these territories.

This subtle manipulation of language helps protect Israel’s actions from scrutiny and undermines the Palestinian narrative, presenting a false equivalence between the occupier and the occupied. The result is a narrative that downplays Palestinian suffering and self-determination while legitimising the expansionist actions of a settler colonial state.

Straw man arguments are also used to distort and misrepresent the positions of Palestinian activists and advocates. By presenting an exaggerated or simplified version of their arguments, opponents can easily refute them without engaging with the underlying issues. A common example is when supporters of Israeli policies accuse Palestinians and their allies of wanting to ‘wipe Israel off the map.’ This misrepresentation disregards the fact that most Palestinian political groups and international advocates are calling for a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 borders, which would allow for the coexistence of both Israeli and Palestinian states.

An example of this straw man fallacy can be seen in Germany’s decision last summer (2024) to add questions to its citizenship exam requiring respondents affirm Israel’s right to exist. This was motivated in part by widespread protests within the country against the genocide of Palestinians, what German officials have misleadingly classified as “increasing antisemitism.” This wrongly equivocates criticism of the genocide with hostility against the Jewish people and calls for the dissolution of Israel itself.

This fallacy does more than twist Palestinian demands—it creates a misleading image of Palestinians as irrational and unwilling to negotiate. By focusing on fringe or extreme views, it obscures the mainstream Palestinian position of seeking a just peace and recognition of their rights.

Another rhetorical device commonly employed is whataboutism or the tu quoque fallacy, which involves deflecting criticism by pointing to the actions of others, rather than addressing the original issue. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, when Israel’s human rights abuses or military operations in Gaza are criticised, supporters of Israel counter by highlighting the actions of Hamas, or they bring up the actions of other Arab states or groups in the region. This tactic distracts from the issue of Israeli occupation and displacement, shifting the focus to unrelated or less relevant topics. In fact, statements from Israeli ministers often blame Hamas for all violence and instability in the region, reframing Israeli military actions as defensive rather than antagonistic.

Whataboutism not only serves to avoid addressing Israel’s responsibility under international law but also seeks to normalise Israel’s violations by pointing to other conflicts or human rights abuses. By doing so, it downplays the severity of Israel’s actions, redirecting the discussion to external issues.

Conversely, the bandwagon fallacy is used to bolster support for Israeli actions by pointing to the widespread international recognition and diplomatic backing that Israel receives, particularly from powerful Western nations like the United States. The argument goes that because Israel enjoys support from major global powers, its actions are justified or legitimate. However, this appeal to authority overlooks the complex dynamics that shape international alliances, including political, military, and economic interests, which often override considerations of human rights or justice. It also overlooks the unique American historical relationship with Israel, which historian Irene Gendzier (2015) has compellingly suggested is rooted in the US desire for a friendly Middle Eastern ally to enable exploitation of the region’s oil resources.

The bandwagon fallacy thus distracts from the ethical questions surrounding Israel’s policies and instead relies on the notion that international backing automatically equates to moral or legal legitimacy. This approach marginalises the voices of Palestinians, international human rights organisations, and critics of Israeli policies who frequently lack such powerful friends.

Cherry-picking refers to the selective use of facts or events to support an argument while ignoring others that may contradict it. In media portrayals of the conflict, it is common for pro-Israel narratives to focus on isolated acts of Palestinian violence while underreporting or minimising Israeli military operations in Gaza or the West Bank. By selectively highlighting incidents that fit a particular narrative, these reports paint an incomplete picture of the conflict, presenting Palestinians as aggressors and Israel as the victim.

A recent article by the American Jewish Committee provided a history and detailed outline of US aid to Israel, justifying extensive American military and financial aid by citing only attacks on Israel (e.g., the October 7 attack, missiles sent from Iran in April 2024, and periodic attacks by Hezbollah in the north) and ignoring the ways in which this aid has been used to conduct massacres in the Gaza Strip.

This strategy misrepresents Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, the systemic oppression of Palestinians, and the dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza. By cherry-picking incidents that fit a one-sided narrative, this oversimplifies and distorts the conflict. Unfortunately, this rhetoric is often welcomed by audiences who find themselves overwhelmed with the historical depth of Israeli-Palestinian relations and deliberately seek out simplified narratives that make the overarching issues easier to process and digest.

Finally, the appeal to emotion is another powerful rhetorical device used to manipulate public sentiment. Proponents of Israel often use emotional images of Israeli victims of violence—particularly children harmed by Palestinian attacks—without giving equal weight to the suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, who face daily bombardment, starvation, and economic deprivation as a result of Israel’s military actions and blockade. News, particularly in western Europe and the United States, also disproportionately focuses on the dozens of hostages held by Hamas while ignoring the thousands held by Israel (including children, doctors, journalists, and human rights activists), leveraging emotional testimony from families to bias public opinion. The use of these emotional appeals creates a one-sided narrative in which Israel is seen as the victim while Palestinians are portrayed as the aggressors.

The use of rhetorical devices and logical fallacies in the discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not accidental but a deliberate attempt to shape public opinion and suppress certain narratives. These strategies simplify a highly complex issue, creating false equivalences, deflecting accountability, and obfuscating the realities of occupation and resistance. By understanding these rhetorical tactics, we can better engage with the linguistic dimension of the violence in a way that moves beyond the distortion of facts and advocates for justice, peace, and Palestinian self-determination.