Blood Libel #8 | “Palestinian violence is justified resistance.”
Anti-Zionist:
Palestinian violence is resistance to occupation.
Pro-Zionist:
Is murdering teenagers at a music festival resistance?
Is kidnapping babies a liberation tactic?
(At this point, they’ll likely deny the atrocities of Hamas’ attack but if they are truly interested in a dialogue)
Anti-Zionist:
It’s horrible, but what do you expect when people are oppressed for decades? Violence is inevitable when people have no other way to resist. Israel created this situation. It’s not ideal, but it’s the result of desperation.
Pro-Zionist:
Desperation doesn’t justify terror. Resistance to oppression can be legitimate — but targeting civilians, using suicide bombers, stabbing grandmothers, and teaching children to glorify martyrdom — that’s not resistance. That’s terrorism.
If you support peace, then call terrorism what it is — even when it’s wrapped in a Palestinian flag.
While Palestinian leaders glorify violence, Israel has dozens of peace NGOs, coexistence schools, shared Arab-Jewish hospitals, and grassroots efforts that work daily to build bridges — even after terror attacks. If one side teaches its children to hate and the other teaches them to heal, ask yourself: who’s really standing in the way of peace?
The desire to conflate causation and correlation is abundant here. Correlation: Palestinian violence increased in the West Bank. False Causation: Israel’s presence causes Palestinian terrorism. Reality: Palestinian terrorism predates the occupation. The PLO was founded before 1967. Arab rejection of a Jewish state existed in the 1920s — before there was any “occupation” to protest.
(At this point, they’ll likely deflect to the broader narrative — claiming that violence is a reaction to decades of “occupation” or “colonialism.”)
Pro-Zionist:
Even before 1967 — when there was no Israeli “occupation” in Gaza (when it was controlled by Egypt) or the West Bank (when it was controlled by Jordan) — Jews were being slaughtered in Hebron, Jaffa, and Jerusalem. There is a long and painful history of violent Arab attacks on Jews in the Land of Israel prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 — often omitted from anti-Zionist narratives. These attacks occurred decades before the “occupation,” before the founding of the IDF, and even before the creation of the Jewish state. Here are several of the most egregious and well-documented Arab attacks on Jews prior to 1948. These attacks occurred before Israel existed. Before any occupation of “Palestinian land.” Before the IDF. And often targeted Jews who had lived in these towns for generations — not “European settlers.”
This isn’t about borders. It’s about the rejection of Israel’s very existence.
BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS:
The myth that Palestinian violence is a justified reaction to Israeli policy — whether occupation, settlement, or defense — collapses under historical scrutiny. Far from spontaneous or reactive, Arab and Palestinian violence has followed a consistent ideological logic: to reject the legitimacy of a Jewish presence in the land, and to use terror as a tool of political warfare.
Arab violence did not begin in 1948 — it preceded the State of Israel.
Before Israel existed — before the “occupation,” before a single settlement — when there was no Israeli presence in Gaza or the West Bank — Jews were being slaughtered in Hebron, Jaffa, and Jerusalem.
This history clearly exposes the falsehood that Arab violence only emerged in reaction to 1948 or the “occupation”— and shows that Jewish vulnerability is what prompted the Zionist movement’s demand for self-defense and sovereignty.
1. 1920 – Nebi Musa Riots (Jerusalem)
Date: April 1920
Location: Old City of Jerusalem
Casualties: 5 Jews killed, over 200 injured
Details:
Arab mobs incited by false rumors of Jewish attacks launched a multi-day assault on Jewish residents of Jerusalem during a Muslim festival. The British were slow to respond, and some Arab policemen joined in the violence.
2. 1921 – Jaffa Riots
Date: May 1–7, 1921
Location: Jaffa (Tel Aviv–Jaffa area)
Casualties: 47 Jews killed, hundreds wounded
Details:
Triggered by rising tensions and anti-Jewish incitement, Arab mobs attacked Jewish residents and immigrants in Jaffa. Homes and businesses were looted and burned. The riots caused panic and led to a wave of Jewish migration inland to Tel Aviv.
3. 1929 – Hebron Massacre
Date: August 23–24, 1929
Location: Hebron
Casualties: 67 Jews murdered, including women, children, and yeshiva students
Details:
Arabs, incited by false claims that Jews were threatening the Al-Aqsa Mosque, brutally slaughtered Jewish residents of Hebron, many of whom had lived there peacefully for centuries. Survivors were rescued by British forces and forced to flee — ending the ancient Jewish presence in Hebron until 1967.
4. 1929 – Safed Massacre
Date: August 29, 1929
Location: Safed (Tzfat)
Casualties: 18 Jews killed, dozens wounded
Details:
Similar to the Hebron massacre, Arab mobs attacked Jews in Safed during a wave of coordinated riots across the country. Homes were burned, and the British again failed to protect civilians.
5. 1936–1939 – Arab Revolt
Dates: 1936–1939
Location: Throughout British Mandate Palestine
Casualties: Over 400 Jews killed
Details:
A sustained campaign of terror, assassination, and violence against Jewish civilians, including bombings of buses, markets, and neighborhoods. The revolt targeted both Jews and British authorities, and was organized by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who later collaborated with Hitler.
6. Ongoing Targeted Murders of Jewish Civilians (1920s–40s)
Jewish travelers, farmers, and schoolchildren were ambushed and murderedthroughout the 1920s and 30s, particularly on roads to settlements and religious schools.
Hadera, Petach Tikvah, Motza, and other early Jewish communities were repeatedly attacked.
There is a long and painful history of violent Arab attacks on Jews in the Land of Israel prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 — often omitted from anti-Zionist narratives. These attacks occurred decades before the “occupation,” before the founding of the IDF, and even before the creation of the Jewish state. Here are several of the most egregious and well-documented Arab attacks on Jews prior to 1948. These attacks occurred Before Israel existed. Before any occupation of “Palestinian land”. Before the IDF And often targeted Jews who had lived in these towns for generations — not “European settlers.”
This history clearly exposes the falsehood that Arab violence only emerged in reaction to 1948 or the “occupation”—and shows that Jewish vulnerability is what prompted the Zionist movement’s demand for self-defense and sovereignty.
The modern version of this strategy is not resistance. It is attritional warfare.
Consider the Ma’alot massacre of 1974 where commandos came out of Lebanon and into Israel took over a school. By the time Israeli special forces retook the building, 22 children were killed and about 60 wounded. These kinds of terrible terror attacks were coming constantly out of Lebanon, mostly from Palestinian terror groups—not from the Shia Lebanese who would later become more prominent. In response, Israel invaded Lebanon because of these attacks and established a security zone, hoping to stabilize the area and create a buffer to make Israel safer. As Gur describes it in a fantastic interview with Eli Lake:
That presence ultimately created a massive new guerrilla enemy. Eighteen years later, in 2000, Israel pulled out, and that guerrilla enemy took over every area Israel evacuated. The vacuum was filled by the bad guys. It’s remarkably similar to the American experience in Afghanistan. History doesn’t repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. Israelis pulled out of Lebanon because they no longer knew why they were still there. It wasn’t providing security. Hezbollah, through constant harassment of Israeli lines, managed to create an image of itself as indestructible. It didn’t need to win battles—just to survive and keep harassing Israel. That alone counted as victory. Guerrilla groups tend to define victory this way. As long as they persist, they win. Israel couldn’t stop them.
When Israel pulled out, Iran, Hamas, and various Palestinian terror factions saw a model. They realized they’d found a way to defeat Israel—not with tanks in the desert, but by constant harassment until Israel eventually retreats.
Within six months of Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon in May 2000, the peace talks broke down. The breakdown wasn’t a failed round to be resumed later—it just collapsed. Gur continues:
Then came a trigger: an Israeli politician visited the Temple Mount. At the same time, Arafat faced internal protests over his corrupt regime in Ramallah. He redirected that unrest toward Israel. There were many triggers—historians have written volumes—but the strategic takeaway from Lebanon was clear: you can drive out the Israelis with persistent pressure.
In the fall of 2000, a massive wave of terror began—known as the Second Intifada, over three years, there were 140 suicide bombings.
It shattered the Israeli left, which had believed that if Israel just withdrew, peace would follow. But Israel had already withdrawn—there were no Israeli soldiers in Palestinian cities. Over the previous three years, Israel had pulled out of these areas.
The same happened in Gaza: after Israel withdrew in 2005, Hamas took over and turned the Strip into a launching pad for rocket wars. Every Israeli withdrawal — from Lebanon, Gaza, and Palestinian cities in the West Bank — was followed not by peace, but by bloodshed.
Journalist Haviv Rettig Gur described this pattern as a deliberate strategy:
Every time Israel withdrew—from South Lebanon, from Gaza in 2005, or from Palestinian cities before Camp David—it was followed by massive bloodshed. South Lebanon turned into a terrible war in 2006. Gaza, evacuated in 2005, was at war by 2006 and under Hamas control by 2007. Meanwhile, in Israeli cities, bombs were exploding on buses full of schoolchildren. The pattern was clear: Israeli withdrawal led not to peace, but to bloodshed.
That violence was driven by a conscious strategy. It was rooted in the lesson of Lebanon and executed by Iranian-supported proxies like Hezbollah. Iran learned that it didn’t need conventional armies. It could win by creating proxy groups that endlessly harass Israel.
Iran embraced this long-term strategy. Its goal was to make life in Israel so unbearable that Israeli elites — especially in the tech sector — would emigrate. An Iranian official once explained:
As long as the [Israeli] entity exists and is active in our region, the crisis will remain between Iran and the regime that is occupying Jerusalem, even if a Palestinian state is established. I am referring to the proposed two-state solution. We can never recognize the plundering Zionist entity. So this confrontation will continue until the Zionist entity ceases to exist. I do not see the end of this confrontation on the horizon. The form and means of this confrontation may change, according to the circumstances of time and place.
This is not resistance. It’s a slow-motion war of national attrition.
Iran and Hamas hate each other. Each considers the other heretical. But when it comes to destroying Israel, they collaborate. Iran has spent decades trying to figure out how to destroy Israel, and it has two main strategies:
First, build and support proxy forces that constantly degrade and harass Israeli society until Israelis give up and leave.
Second, acquire nuclear weapons—not just as a deterrent, but possibly to use as leverage or even as a weapon against Israel.
There was an interview I once came across with the national security advisor to Iran’s supreme leader. He was asked: “Do you really think some rockets are going to kick out millions of Jews who’ve lived there for 100 years?” His response was telling: “We’re not idiots. We don’t expect them to leave in two weeks like the million French citizens who left Algeria in 1962. We believe that if we make life unbearable enough, the elites will leave first. The top 10%—Israel’s salaried high-tech workforce—will be hoovered up by Silicon Valley. Then the next tier will become the new elite, and we’ll make life miserable for them too. One by one, they’ll all go. Eventually, we’ll weaken Israel so much that we can crush it.”
That’s the strategy. It’s why anti-Israel activists on Twitter obsess over how many Jews have left this month. It’s a metric they track, exaggerate, or invent—because it fits into this long-game strategy.
If peace is the goal, this strategy is its antithesis. And the people who justify Palestinian terrorism under the banner of resistance aren’t standing for justice — they’re legitimizing a genocidal long game.
A "Rational" Conversation with a Palestinian
I want to discuss Isaac Saul's conversation with Palestinian-American Yousef Munayyer. Yousef is known as on of the most “rational” and “intelligent” supporters of the pro-palestine movement.
On Dec 15, 2023, Isaac Saul interviewed him for Tangle News. I’d suggest instead of reading the transcript you actually listen to the interview on Tangles podcast here.
Please don't ignore the interview. Please listen!
When you do, you'll see that on the surface, Yousef sounds like someone you could have a reasonable discussion with to understand the "other side".
But, when you stress test his arguments, you see that his soft tone and intellectual approach to the conflict while seemingly compassionate, are grounded in fallacies and a mistaken belief that Palestinians have a “right” to a state that runs from the River to the Sea. They do not. But let’s review some of his arguments:
#1 - First, he makes what seems to be a coherent and reasoned argument when he states that:
There’s no situation that justifies the mass killing of innocent civilians. And we should make no mistake, this is what we are seeing in Gaza. Thousands of people, thousands of children who had absolutely nothing to do with the events of October 7th, are being killed in what is called an act of defense. That's not justifiable in any circumstances. At the same time though, you do hear people attempting to justify this war by raising the very point that you did. What is Israel supposed to do? You have to sympathize with this impossible predicament that Israel is in. I think there's a couple responses to that. First, we know that this is not the only way that Israel can defend itself, because Israel was capable of defending itself on October 7th, but failed to do that for a number of reasons. What happened on October 7th was not because Hamas was somehow militarily superior to Israel, somehow had more resources and more guns than Israel, or had superior intelligence. It was made possible by a failure of Israeli intelligence and security apparatus. So there is clearly a way to prevent another attack like that from the Gaza Strip. What it is seeking to do now in the Gaza Strip is not defense. It's some form of accountability, in the most generous description, against the key architects behind October 7th. But it's not defense. And I think it's important to separate those two things.”
Of course, I am not condoning violence and war is horrific and people die and that’s awful.
But there are in fact legal “justifications” for war that includes the “mass killing of innocent civilians.”
So his initial premise is flawed. That said, I did pause and scratch my head at some of the interesting and true statements he makes such as:
10/7 was “a failure of Israeli intelligence and security apparatus"; and
Israel’s response is “some form of accountability, in the most generous description, against the key architects behind October 7th.”
I won’t challenge either of those statements. But that doesn’t mean Israel’s actions are unjustified. In fact, this is his rather “elegant” way of blaming Israel for what happened on 10/7. Others have said that it’s Israel’s fault because of the “open air prison” in Gaza or the lie of “Apartheid” but I find this argument to be the most insidious I’ve heard because it sounds rational!
But, for me, if anyone attempts to lay blame at Israel’s feet for the horror of 10/7 then, I believe they immediately lose the moral high ground. And as I mention above, the basis of his entire argument is premised on a lie. The lie that “his people” have a “right” to the land of Palestine. As I discussed above, they do not have a legal right to the land. Moreover, this entire interview and Yosef’s entire argument continues to foster the victimhood of the Palestinian people.
Bill Maher did a fantastic job in addressing the perpetual victimhood of the Palestinian people in this poignant segment on his show.
As did Alan Dershowitz in his talk at Yale regarding "the Case for Israel" which I included in my chapter on the "History of the State of Israel & it's Conflicts."
#2 - Second, he states:
But I think we need to ask ourselves, “How did this happen? How do you get into a place where there is a group like this [Hamas] that controls this territory and is able to develop the capabilities to launch these kinds of attacks?” And the reason we are in this place is that Israel created an exceptional status in Gaza. There is an occupation in Gaza, and in most normal circumstances where there is an occupation, the occupier — in this case Israel — has security perks that it gets in the role of being an occupier, while also having responsibilities towards the population it occupies. This is supposed to be the way that international law and the expectations of occupation internationally work. But Israel’s disengagement with Gaza in 2005 created a situation where Israel wanted to retain the right to have the security perks of occupation without the responsibilities of governance or to the people it was supposed to protect in Gaza. And so this predicament that people are being asked to sympathize with is also a creation of decisions that the Israeli government made for self-interested reasons. And we could go into all of that and the logic behind the disengagement and all of those things, but if we are being asked to appreciate this predicament, we have to also understand the conditions that brought it about. It obviously did not emerge on October 7th. There's a long history to this and including multiple episodes of wars in Gaza that predate this most recent war.
Again, sounds like a reasonable argument. But it’s not! First, when Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, there was no “occupation” and therefore the rest of his argument falls apart. When he discusses “Security perks,” he implies Israel doesn’t have the right to defend itself from Gazan’s attacking Israel. It’s an absurd notion. Finally, he seems to imply there is something inherently wrong with the Israeli government making decisions for “self-interested reasons.”
#3 - Third, in discussing the history of the “domination of Palestinians” and assessing blame going all the way back to the British Mandate and he states that
So when I talk about this moment being the result of a system that's in place, this is that system. It's a system of unending apartheid, an absence of peace and justice.
Once again, his entire argument hinges on the victimhood of the Palestinian people removing all agency from them. It ignores the numerous peace deals they rejected. It ignores their famous 3 “Nos” from Khartoum in 1967- NO Peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel and NO negotiations with Israel.
This has been their official position since. His arguments place no responsibility on the Palestinian people for their own fate. So sure, has life for Palestinian people steadily declined over the last century, I have no problem admitting it but, as I’ve said too many times, Israel’s actions may correlate to some of their suffering but it is by no means the cause of their suffering.
#4 -In discussing a recent poll that concludes that the majority of Palestinians support Hamas he says the following:
First, because the Israeli strategy, or at least the stated Israeli strategy, is that they are doing this to weaken Hamas and eliminate Hamas, and their order of operations that they put forward is to get to peace, first you have to get rid of Hamas. And the way you do that is by doing what they're doing in Gaza. This is their theory of change. But the evidence that we have shows pretty clearly that this is not doing that at all. In fact, what Israel’s doing is quite the opposite. For anyone who understands the Palestinian experience, no one is going to be surprised by this at all: I don't think anybody has ever succeeded in making their neighbors like them by force and by bombing. It usually doesn't work like that, right? So it's not surprising to see these results in Palestinian public opinion. The other reason I think it's really important is not that it tells us something about Israeli strategy in Gaza, but it really tells us something about the international community's handling of Israel-Palestine for years. And the failure to take into account what Palestinians think. From this poll, one of the things that was quite striking was that the vast majority of Palestinians want Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, to resign. I think something like 11% are saying that he should sort of stick around. 11%. And this is the man that Joe Biden says should take control of Gaza after the war.
So the problem here is that neither Israel’s nor the international community are taking into “account what Palestinians think.”
Sadly, the world is taking into account what they think. Because what they think, is that they, and not the Jews, have a right to the land!
#5 - Fifth, when asked about Hamas as a “political organization” that can lead a diplomatic effort, Yousef references that the US recognizes Israel’s sovereignty but:
We don't treat the Palestinians the same way, because we simply don't see them as a people who have self-determination and sovereignty and should be able to choose their leaders. That has to change. Obviously Hamas does not fit into the stated vision of the United States. It doesn't fit into the interests of Israel. They're there. And whether we like that or not, ignoring them doesn't make them go away. Nor does it make it any easier to get to some sort of comprehensive agreement, if that is in fact the goal.
So he argues that Hamas is a “legitimate” actor because in fact they represent the Palestinian people and he’s urging that to find a solution we must accept that reality. That’s fair. But, as I’ve said many times, how can you make peace if the organizations that lead the Palestinian people do not want peace. He then continues
On that piece, I would just say, look, I don't think Israelis or Palestinians are going anywhere. Certainly not anytime soon. We both live in this space, we both want to live in this space, and the only way you get to peaceful coexistence is through a just and agreed-upon set of rules that people abide by.
So that statement again speaks to the heart of the matter. They both “live in this space, we both want to live in this space.”
Which “space” is he referring to? It’s clear, this “space” we both want to live in is called the sovereign state of Israel. But guess what, the millions of Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank (as opposed to the 2 million living in Israel as Israeli citizens) do not want to live in peace with the jews. They have made that clear for at least the past 100 years if not more long before the UN Partition plan. They want “Palestine” to exist without the state of Israel. Moreover, what “agreed set of rules” is he suggesting that are needed to be “abided by”? The Palestinian people won’t even acknowledge that Israel has the right to exist. They believe freeing Palestine “by all means necessary” - which we now know includes murdering and raping of innocent civilians. Well… if they believe that is a set of rules we should live by, then how can they complain when Israel, in exercising it’s right to live in peace, responds against an enemy that just unleashed a terror attack on their civilians. And this latest attack is only the last in a string of suicide bombings, kidnappings, murders and tens of thousands of rocket attacks. It’s an absurd argument.
#6 - Sixth - And this a sad fact and one where I am in absolute alignment and agreement with Yousef. He RIGHTLY states that the “states in the region” who are “ethnic kin of Palestinian Arabs” don’t want to see the Palestinian people living in a free and democratic state because it “presents risks to their regimes.” If you study the history of the region you immediately see that the Arab nations are in fact a much larger “cause” of the current suffering of the Palestinian people than Israel.
#7 - Seventh - Yousef discusses the infamous “from the river to the sea” chant and states:
When we talk about the land between the river and the sea, that's just where we're from. I mean, for us to be free in our homeland, that's the goal. So it's as transparent as you can be about what it is that we seek.
So at least he admits what he seeks… which is the elimination of the state of Israel. So not so “reasonable” after all.
#8 - Eighth and final point - Yousef says
I mean, it's the height of absurdity; and we got here because trying to defend a system of apartheid in the West requires being absurd.
By using the term Apartheid when it comes to the state of Israel he can only be suggesting that there “is” a place called Palestine and within those borders citizens of Israel and the Palestinian people (excluding Arab Israelis) have no rights.
Again, he shows his lack of sincerity in seeking to find a path to lasting peace because if his aim is a single state encompassing all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, then he is being disingenuous because the means the elimination of the jewish state of Israel.