Five Recurrent Fallacies in Israel’s Hasbara Discourse

Palestinian Historiographical Research ·

Follow

Five Recurrent Fallacies in Israel’s Hasbara Discourse

Introduction

In the case of Israel, hasbara —the official and para-official Israeli communication aimed at international audiences— systematizes various logical fallacies that serve a specific political and communicative function: shifting focus, relativizing evidence, creating epistemic confusion, or diluting responsibility. This article presents five of the most frequent fallacies documented by specialists in political communication, rhetoric, and critical conflict studies (Tilley, 2012; Finkelstein, 2018; Herman & Chomsky, 2002), integrating contemporary examples related to reports by institutions such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, or United Nations special rapporteurs, which have uncovered patterns of systematic military action by the IDF in Gaza consistent with war crimes and acts aligned with the characterization of genocide (Amnesty International, 2025a; Human Rights Watch, 2025; B’Tselem, 2025; United Nations, 2025a).

The Five Fallacies

1. Whataboutism Fallacy

The whataboutism fallacy, also known as "whataboutery," is a variant of the tu quoque or ad hominem fallacy that involves responding to an accusation or complaint not by directly refuting its content, but by diverting attention to alleged hypocrisies or faults of another party irrelevant to the original argument, distracting from the central issue and avoiding responsibility (Walton, 1998; Christensen, 2019). In the context of hasbara, this tactic seeks to shift attention from facts reported by specialized institutions toward unrelated comparisons, fostering a false moral symmetry and eroding the credibility of criticism.

Example 1: After the publication of reports by Amnesty International (2025a) and Human Rights Watch (2025) on indiscriminate bombings of densely populated areas in Gaza, which caused over 70,000 recorded deaths as of November 2025, official spokespeople and allied communicators responded with variants like “but why don’t they talk about Syria?” or “why don’t they condemn Iran?” This does not refute a single fact in the technical reports: it simply changes the topic to avoid confronting documented evidence (Gresh, 2025).

Example 2: In response to accusations of genocide in the report by UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese (United Nations, 2025a), which details the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza with more than 69,000 direct deaths and estimates exceeding 100,000 including indirect deaths, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied on social media and official statements asking, “where were these voices when Assad massacred his people in Aleppo?” completely ignoring the specific data on asymmetry in civilian victims and the context of prolonged occupation (Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, 2025).

2. False Moral Equivalence

False moral equivalence, a subtype of the false equivalence fallacy, consists of presenting two phenomena or actions that differ significantly in scale, context, intention, responsibility, or moral impact as if they were identical or comparable, creating an illusion of symmetry that dilutes the severity of one side (Lee, 2020; Perugini & Gordon, 2019). This fallacy ignores qualitative and quantitative differences to create artificially balanced narratives, often used to minimize serious violations by equating them with minor or non-equivalent actions.

Example 1: In response to reports by B’Tselem (2025) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Office (2025b) documenting systematic patterns of mass destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza —with over 70,000 civilian victims reported as of November 2025, including at least 20,000 children— Israeli spokespeople claim that “both sides commit excesses.” This statement creates a non-existent symmetry according to the evidence collected by these institutions, which describes extreme asymmetry in civilian casualties (around 70% women and children), military capacity, and documented material destruction, with 72% of buildings destroyed or damaged (United Nations Satellite Centre, November 2025).

Example 2: Following requests for arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court against Israeli leaders for war crimes in Gaza (2025), hasbara defenders in Western media equated Hamas’ October 7 attack —which killed 1,200 people— with the Israeli response that has caused more than 70,000 civilian deaths as of December 2025, ignoring the disproportion in military power and the occupation context, as detailed by Human Rights Watch (2025) in its analysis of violations of international humanitarian law (Reuters, 2025).

3. Straw Man Fallacy

The straw man fallacy consists of distorting, exaggerating, or simplifying the interlocutor’s position to create a caricatured, weaker version of their original argument, which is then easily refuted as if the real idea were being attacked, avoiding confrontation with the valid point and emotionally discrediting the opponent (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Talisse & Aikin, 2006). This tactic is particularly effective in polarized discourse as it appeals to prejudices and generates outrage in audiences unfamiliar with the authentic argument.

Example 1: When various UN rapporteurs (2025a) indicated reasonable grounds of genocidal intent in public statements by members of the Israeli government —based on evidence of siege policies and systematic destruction that have left more than 70,000 dead and 72% of infrastructure destroyed— hasbara’s response was to claim that “they are saying Israel is the same as the Nazis,” which none of these institutions explicitly state. The original argument is distorted to discredit it emotionally, as seen in statements by the Israeli ambassador to the UN (Jewish Voice for Labour, 2025).

Example 2: In debates about apartheid documented by B’Tselem (2021, updated in 2025), which describes a regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean with extension to genocide in Gaza, hasbara spokespeople reformulated the criticism as “they want to destroy the Jewish state and deny Israel the right to self-defense,” an extreme version that ignores the specific call for equal rights, allowing it to be refuted with appeals to Holocaust history without addressing evidence of systematic discrimination and over 70,000 deaths in Gaza (Al-Shabaka, 2025).

4. Appeal to Existential Threat

The appeal to existential threat is a distraction and fear-based fallacy that frames any criticism or adverse action —regardless of its factual basis or proportionality— as an imminent danger to the very survival of the state or people, thereby blocking rational and objective evaluation of facts through an emotional appeal to absolute self-defense (Bar-Tal, 2013; Jonas et al., 2014). This rhetoric, rooted in narratives of perpetual victimhood, justifies disproportionate responses by prioritizing collective panic over empirical analysis.

Example 1: Following reports from Human Rights Watch (2025) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2025) on massive child mortality in Gaza —with more than 20,000 confirmed child deaths as of November 2025, plus 67 additional since the fragile October ceasefire— Israeli representatives claimed that accepting these criticisms “puts the existence of the Jewish state at risk,” equating humanitarian scrutiny with support for “existential terrorism.” This shift frames any technical evaluation as an identity attack, preventing analysis of the empirical evidence presented (UN News, 2025).

Example 2: In response to the UN report on possible genocide crimes (United Nations, 2025a), which explicitly concludes the commission of genocide with over 70,000 deaths and destruction of 72% of infrastructure, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared in his speech before the U.S. Congress that global protests against actions in Gaza represent “an existential threat to Israeli democracy,” distorting Palestinian rights demonstrations as a plot to “delegitimize Israel’s right to exist,” without addressing evidence of humanitarian blockade and indiscriminate bombings (Jewish Insider, 2025).

5. Reduction to Enemy Evil (Reverse Demonization)

Reduction to enemy evil, or reverse demonization, is an ad hominem and generalization fallacy that attributes any harm caused to civilians exclusively to the alleged inherent evil or deliberate tactics of the adversary, denying or minimizing one’s own responsibility and omitting verifiable external evidence, serving to rationalize serious violations as inevitable or deserved (Tilley, 2012; Knightley, 2000). This tactic dehumanizes the opponent, fostering a Manichean narrative of absolute good versus absolute evil.

Example 1: After UN and international medical organization reports documented that Israeli attacks hit hospitals and humanitarian convoys during periods without nearby armed activity, such as the attack on the medical convoy and journalists near Nasser Hospital on August 25, 2025, which killed 11 people, including five journalists (Amnesty International, 2025b), official spokespeople claimed that “Hamas uses all civilians as human shields,” without providing verifiable evidence in these specific cases. The accusation replaces analysis with generic imputation, omitting concrete data on avoidable collateral damage.

Example 2: In the repeated assault on the Al-Shifa Medical Complex during the operation from September 18 to October 2, 2025, although independent investigations like those of the WHO found no central Hamas command under the hospital —only collateral damage without active military use, with hundreds of bodies recovered from mass graves— hasbara insisted that “Hamas demonically hides operations in hospitals to force civilian casualties,” justifying the destruction of Gaza’s health infrastructure without proof of human shields at that specific site, contributing to over 70,000 total deaths (WHO, 2025; UN Human Rights Office, 2025).

Conclusion

The five fallacies analyzed serve clear political functions within the hasbara communication apparatus: shifting attention from rigorous reports toward emotional narratives, artificial symmetries, or rhetorical distortions. While the existence of these tactics does not automatically validate all claims, it does reveal a systematic pattern of response aimed at avoiding rigorous public evaluation through technically prepared reports with international standards. Understanding these fallacies is not an ideological act; it is simply the beginning of avoiding these deceptions, especially in the context of ongoing genocide, with over 70,000 recorded deaths and a ceasefire existing only in news headlines.

References

Al Jazeera Centre for Studies. (2025). Digital occupation: Pixelated propaganda, censored platforms and the battle for narrative in Gaza. Al Jazeera Media Network.

Al-Shabaka. (2025). Hasbara, a long-running strategy. Al-Shabaka Policy Brief.

Amnesty International. (2025a). Israel/OPT: Post-ceasefire: Israel’s genocide in the occupied Gaza strip continues.

Amnesty International. (2025b). Gaza: Evidence points to Israel’s continued use of starvation to inflict genocide against Palestinians.

Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge University Press.

B’Tselem. (2021). A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid.

B’Tselem. (2025). Genocide in Gaza. Position paper.

Christensen, C. (2019). Whataboutism as a propaganda tool. In D. Freedman & J. P. Freedman (Eds.), Propaganda and persuasion (pp. 45-62). Routledge.

Finkelstein, N. (2018). Gaza: An inquest into its martyrdom. University of California Press.

Gresh, A. (2025). Hasbara: The dark art of spinning a war. Le Monde Diplomatique.

Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (2002). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon.

Human Rights Watch. (2025). World Report 2025: Israel and Palestine.

Jewish Insider. (2025). Israel losing the hasbara battle because of a broken public relations playbook, experts say.

Jewish Voice for Labour. (2025). Hasbara, a long-running strategy.

Jonas, E., et al. (2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 49, pp. 219-289). Academic Press.

Knightley, P. (2000). The first casualty: The war correspondent as hero and myth-maker from the Crimea to Kosovo. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lee, J. (2020). Moral equivalence as a rhetorical strategy in international conflict. Journal of Political Communication, 37(2), 145–162.

United Nations. (2025a). Gaza Genocide: a collective crime (A/80/492).

United Nations. (2025b). Reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Gaza.

Perugini, N., & Gordon, N. (2019). The human right to dominate. Oxford University Press.

Reuters. (2025). Gazans, Hamas see false equivalence in ICC charges.

Talisse, R., & Aikin, S. (2006). Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation, 20(3), 345-358.

Tilley, V. (2012). Beyond occupation: Apartheid, colonialism and international law in the occupied Palestinian territories. Pluto Press.

UN News. (2025, November 18). Gaza: UN experts alarmed by child deaths and ‘existential threat’ rhetoric.

United Nations Satellite Centre (UNOSAT). (2025, November). Gaza Strip: Comprehensive Damage Assessment.

van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, D. (1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.

WHO. (2025). Health system collapse in Gaza: Al-Shifa Hospital raid September–October 2025.