What would actual anti-Israel arguments look like?
Rather than just “gEnOciDe!!”
Imagine if critics of Israel’s prosecution of the war had actual detailed arguments rather than just absurd-on-its-face virtue-signals of “gEnOciDe!!”
Here are some made-up examples within different categories to help convey what actual non-tribal criticism might look like.
(1) Operational Feasibility Critique
“The offensive in Jenin appears to have been tactically misguided. Urban terrain like that favors defenders and leads to high collateral damage. The IDF could have achieved their objectives with targeted arrests and drone surveillance rather than a full incursion.”
(2) Strategic Proportionality Critique
“Even if the military goal was legitimate, the scale and intensity of the operation in Khan Younis seemed disproportionate. A more surgical approach might have achieved similar results without alienating international allies or escalating civilian resentment.”
(3) Moral/Legal Framework Critique
“According to the Geneva Conventions, all parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians. Using artillery in densely populated areas raises serious concerns about adherence to these principles, even if unintended civilian harm is not, per se, a war crime.”
(4) Long-term Security Critique
“While the operation may have neutralized short-term threats, it’s likely to produce long-term instability. History shows that civilian trauma and infrastructure devastation in areas like Rafah often lead to future radicalization rather than pacification.”
(5) Alternatives Not Pursued
“The Israeli government had non-military options—such as economic incentives, diplomatic engagement with local leaders, or tighter coordination with Egyptian mediators—that might have neutralized the threat from tunnels in southern Gaza without a ground invasion.”
(6) Rules of Engagement Concern
“There are credible reports suggesting the rules of engagement in this operation were either too vague or too permissive. When soldiers are not clearly constrained in how force is applied, civilian casualties become nearly inevitable.”
(7) Precedent-Setting Worry
“Launching a preemptive strike in Area X without multilateral authorization risks setting a dangerous precedent—one that other states might follow to justify their own interventions under less defensible circumstances.”
(8) Intelligence Quality Critique
“The decision to strike that convoy seems to have been based on flawed intelligence. If your intel isn’t airtight, then erring on the side of non-action is the more responsible course—especially when civilian lives are at stake.”
Each of these kinds of critique assumes a serious level of engagement: the critic understands the terrain, military objectives, international law, or long-term strategy—and grounds their views accordingly. The tone is analytical rather than emotional, and it’s clear the goal is better policy, not just better vibes.
Have we seen anything like any of these critiques by “pro-Palestine” supporters?