WHY I SUPPORT ISRAEL: History, War, Genocide, AIPAC, & the Palestinian Conflict

I support Israel—but not blindly.

Apparently, in 2026, even saying that requires quite a bit of explanation. Israel is imperfect (as is America). Its government makes mistakes (as does the American government). Israeli leaders can make bad decisions (as do American leaders), and Israeli soldiers can act wrongly (as do American soldiers). If Israel commits an atrocity, call it an atrocity. If Israel unjustifiably kills innocent people, condemn it. Supporting Israel does not require pretending otherwise.

After all, I apply precisely the same principle to the United States of America.

America First—Even When America Is Wrong

The American government makes mistakes under every administration, but I am always America First. When Barack Obama was president, I opposed most of his ideas and policies. When Joe Biden was president, the same was true. Nevertheless, I never stopped loving America, and I never stopped wanting America to flourish.

The important distinction is simple: I can criticize my government and still love America. I can criticize Israel's government and still support Israel. Love is not blind allegiance, and support does not require pretending that the object of one's support is perfect.

So yes, I believe the United States should support Israel, including militarily and financially. That does not make me any less “America First.” It simply means America is first and Israel is a distant second.

I pledge blind allegiance to neither.

History Matters

There's another dimension of this discussion that I find increasingly difficult to ignore: the Holocaust is not ancient history.

Hitler and the Nazis attempted to annihilate the Jewish people. And some of the very people who survived that attempted annihilation are still living in Israel today. As of 2026, Israel's National Insurance reports that 106,880 Holocaust survivors receiving benefits are living in Israel.

Think about the significance of that number. These aren't merely descendants of Holocaust survivors. More than 100,000 actual survivors of Nazi persecution are still there, and, of course, their children and grandchildren are there too.

The Jewish people Hitler sought to eradicate did not disappear when World War II ended. They survived. They had children. Their children had children. They built families and communities, and millions of Jews now live in the State of Israel.

None of that means Israel gets a moral blank check. But surely it ought to make us think.

If you increasingly find yourself moving beyond criticism of Netanyahu, criticism of Israeli military strategy, or criticism of particular Israeli policies and toward opposition to Israel's very existence, perhaps history should cause you to hit the pause button. Ask yourself exactly what you oppose and why.

Then consider an uncomfortable question:

Would the direction of my hostility toward Israel and the Jewish people have pleased Hitler?

That is to say, would your attitude toward Israel make Hitler happy?

That question does not mean everyone who criticizes Israel is a Nazi. Of course not. I have criticized Israel myself. The point is that history ought to matter when criticism moves from Israel did something wrong to Israel should not exist, or when criticism of an Israeli government becomes hostility toward Jews themselves.

They Didn't Choose Some Random Piece of Land

There's another part of the story that is too often ignored.

The Jews who established lives in Israel were not simply Europeans who woke up after World War II, selected an arbitrary piece of real estate in the Middle East, and invented a connection to it. Jewish communities scattered throughout the diaspora had traced their identity and ancestry back to the land of Israel for nearly two thousand years.

Despite centuries of dispersion across Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere, Jewish communities—almost miraculously—maintained a remarkable continuity of identity. They preserved religious traditions, holidays, customs, sacred texts, and an enduring attachment to Jerusalem and the land of their ancestors. Hebrew remained central to Jewish religious and literary life for centuries before its remarkable revival as the everyday spoken language of modern Israel.

Even modern genetics broadly corroborates an important part of this history. Population-genetic studies have found that many Jewish diaspora populations retain substantial ancestry connected to the Levant. Of course, Jewish communities also mixed genetically with surrounding populations during nearly two thousand years of diaspora—as virtually every ancient population has. Different Jewish communities show different patterns of admixture, and some lineages reflect substantial European or other local ancestry.

So I'm not making some argument about “genetic purity.” That's neither necessary nor scientifically accurate.

The more interesting point is the remarkable convergence of history, culture, religion, language, and ancestry. A people were dispersed across enormous distances for nearly two millennia. They lived among different peoples, spoke different everyday languages, and experienced varying degrees of intermarriage and genetic admixture. Yet many continued identifying themselves as part of the same people, preserved distinctive traditions, and maintained an enduring historical orientation toward the land from which their ancestors came.

Then came the Holocaust.

Here we encounter one of history's most striking examples of how an unspeakable evil can ultimately contribute to consequences its perpetrators never intended. Hitler sought to eradicate the Jewish people. Instead, the Holocaust demonstrated with horrifying clarity the vulnerability of a people who had spent centuries scattered among nations in which they could become persecuted minorities.

The Zionist movement predated Hitler, so we should not pretend that the Holocaust created the idea of a Jewish homeland. But the attempted extermination of European Jews dramatically intensified the urgency of that project and strengthened international support for Jewish statehood.

There is a profound historical irony here. Hitler attempted to erase the Jewish people from the face of the earth. Yet survivors of that attempted genocide—along with Jews from communities scattered throughout the world—were able to rebuild their lives in a Jewish state. After Israel was established in 1948, roughly 140,000 Holocaust survivors immigrated there within the next several years.

And this is not merely distant history. More than 100,000 Holocaust survivors are still living in Israel today (as of April 2026), alongside their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Taken together, the number of Israelis descended from Holocaust survivors is undoubtedly substantial and may well reach into the millions.

And they were not settling on some randomly selected piece of territory. They were returning to a region to which Jewish history, religion, culture, and ancestry had pointed for thousands of years.

I am not arguing that this historical connection answer every question about competing land claims. After all, it’s logically possible for two people groups to possess genuine historical connections to the same place. But it does mean that describing the Jews simply as foreign Europeans who suddenly “colonized” someone else's land after World War II leaves out an enormously important part of the story.

The Jews were a dispersed people returning to their ancestral homeland.

And then, almost immediately, they had to fight to keep it.

A Tiny Nation With a Long Memory

Israel is a very tiny strip of land—roughly comparable in geographic scale to New Jersey.

Yet the entire world FREAKS OUT over this very small piece of land and arguments about whether this little Jewish nation should even exist have consumed international politics for generations.

Look at what happened almost immediately after Israel declared independence in May 1948. The Jewish people had only recently barely survived Hitler’s Holocaust. Israel declared itself a state, and armies from neighboring Muslim countries entered the former British Mandate as the existing Arab-Jewish conflict became an interstate war.

This newborn nation somehow (miraculously?) survived. Indeed, Israel ended the war controlling more territory than had been allotted to the proposed Jewish state under the 1947 UN partition plan.

Then came more conflict.

In 1967, tensions reached the breaking point after Egypt moved forces into Sinai, demanded the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. Jordan subsequently joined the Arab coalition. With this impending threat looming, Israel struck first militarily in a preemptive attack and somehow (miraculously?), within only six days, defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, taking control of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza Strip, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights.

Then, on Yom Kippur in 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israeli positions.

Once again, somehow (miraculously?), Israel is victorious.

Now consider what happened to some of the territory Israel acquired through these conflicts. Israel eventually returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt pursuant to a peace agreement. Decades later, in 2005, Israel removed its settlers and permanent military forces from inside the Gaza Strip, although important disputes remained concerning Israel's control of Gaza's external access, airspace, coastline, and other aspects of Palestinian life.

I am not arguing that Israel has always acted perfectly. But perfection should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good. These facts of history should not be erased, ignored, or forgotten.

For generations, Israelis have lived with wars, terrorism, suicide bombings, rockets, hostage-taking, and threats from foreign governments and armed organizations hostile to Israel. Iran has provided weapons and other material support to Hamas and other Palestinian militant organizations. More recently, Iran directly launched missiles and drones against Israel.

And then came October 7.

Then Came October 7

Whatever else one believes about the long and complicated history of Israelis and Palestinians, October 7, 2023, is recent history. Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups invaded Israel and deliberately attacked civilians—not just adult men, but women, children, the elderly, and even babies.

Many Jewish people were viciously murdered, horribly injured, sexually assaulted (to put it lightly), tortured, brutalized, kidnapped, and taken hostage. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry subsequently concluded that civilians were intentionally targeted and that the attack was premeditated and coordinated.

Families were attacked. Young people attending a music festival were slaughtered, raped, tortured, and murdered. Men, women, children, and elderly people were abducted and taken into Gaza—to be continuously tortured, raped, and starved.

That matters when we morally evaluate what followed.

In November 2023, Israeli actress Gal Gadot, best known for portraying Wonder Woman, helped arrange private screenings of Bearing Witness to the October 7th Massacre, a 47-minute compilation of actual footage documenting the atrocities committed by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. The footage included recordings captured by the attackers themselves, as well as security-camera and other video evidence. Gadot helped bring this disturbing material before Hollywood industry professionals at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. The purpose was to confront viewers with visual evidence of what happened on October 7 rather than relying solely on competing narratives.

The footage is so barbaric and horrifying that the original film has not been made available for unrestricted public viewing. However, a separate, feature-length documentary released in 2025, October 7: Bearing Witness to the Massacre, includes survivor testimonies and some footage recorded by the attackers. Readers who wish to examine this evidence for themselves can find that documentary here.

When atrocities of this magnitude are committed against a nation's citizens, a military response is not surprising. A government has a responsibility—a moral obligation—to protect its citizens and to attempt to prevent the organization responsible from doing it again.

If the tables were turned, my principle would remain exactly the same. Suppose a terrorist organization operating from my part of Nebraska crossed into another community, deliberately murdered civilians, kidnapped families, and then returned to my neighborhood while intending to continue its attacks. Would I expect an overwhelming military response against that organization?

Of course I would.

But notice what does not follow from that conclusion. Unless some responsibility could be traced back to me voting for and/or helping/supporting this terrorist organization, I would not thereby become a legitimate military target merely because I just happened to live in the same neighborhood.

That distinction matters enormously.

Try Seeing This Through Israeli Eyes

Try, for a moment, to view this history through the eyes of an Israeli family. Walk a mile or two in their shoes.

Perhaps your grandparents survived the Holocaust. Perhaps they watched the Nazis attempt to eradicate their people. They eventually found a home in a tiny Jewish state located in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. That state was attacked almost immediately after declaring independence. It fought repeated wars during the following few decades. Your children grew up amid terrorism and rocket attacks. Iran supports armed organizations hostile to your country. Eventually, Iran itself fires missiles and drones at Israel.

Then October 7 happens.

Civilians are slaughtered. Families are attacked in their homes. Your wife and daughters are raped, tortured, and burned to death in front of your eyes. People at a music festival are murdered. Hostages are dragged into Gaza. More young women are raped multiple times before being viciously murdered and continued to have their dead bodies assaulted and spit on.

Would none of that history affect how you perceive threats against your family and country? Would none of it affect how forcefully you believe your government should respond when Israelis are murdered and the organization responsible remains capable of further attacks?

Of course it would.

Understanding that does not mean justifying everything Israel does. That distinction has been at the center of my argument from the beginning.

Israel does not get a blank moral check because Jews suffered the Holocaust. October 7 does not transform every subsequent Israeli military action into a morally justified action. If Israel commits atrocities, condemn them. If Israeli officials commit war crimes, investigate and prosecute them. If innocent Palestinians are intentionally targeted, condemn that without qualification.

But a rational moral judgment also requires historical perspective.

The Jewish people have spent centuries upon centuries experiencing persecution, expulsion, pogroms, and ultimately an attempted industrialized extermination from the Nazis. The survivors and descendants of that history now inhabit a remarkably small country that has repeatedly faced wars, terrorism, and threats to its security and existence.

Perhaps that history ought to purchase them something—not immunity from moral criticism, but a measure of grace when they fail to respond perfectly to genuine threats.

Grace does not call evil good. Grace does not excuse atrocities. Grace does not mean writing Israel a blank check. It means refusing to demand moral perfection from a nation before acknowledging anything good about it, or before believing it deserves to continue existing and protecting its citizens.

Palestinian Civilians Are Not Necessarily Hamas Supporters

None of this changes the moral status of innocent Palestinians.

An innocent Palestinian child is not Hamas. A Palestinian mother merely trying to keep her children alive is not necessarily supportive of Hamas. A Palestinian Christian is not Hamas merely because he or she lives in Gaza. Truly innocent civilian deaths are horrific irrespective of nationality.

Unfortunately, discussions about Israel too often become binary.

We are presented with a false dichotomy: either Israel is evil and Palestinians are innocent, or Israel is righteous and every Palestinian casualty can simply be dismissed as collateral damage.

I reject that way of thinking.

Several propositions can be true simultaneously: what Hamas did on October 7 was pure objective evil; Israel has a right and moral obligation to defend its citizens; innocent Palestinian civilians are not legitimate military targets merely because they are Palestinian; and Israel is not morally justified in everything it does merely because Hamas is evil and attacked first.

At the same time, we shouldn't romanticize the Palestinian civilian population or pretend that Hamas exists in complete isolation from the society in which it operates. Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. Palestinian civilians outside Hamas's formal military structure have assisted its activities, and Israeli hostages have been found held in residential settings involving Palestinians beyond the fighters who originally kidnapped them (click here). Polling has also repeatedly found disturbing levels of Palestinian support for Hamas's decision to launch the October 7 attack.

Those facts matter. But they still do not transform an entire civilian population into combatants.

The morally relevant distinction, therefore, isn't simply “Hamas versus Palestinians.” It's between people who participate in hostilities and people who do not. A Palestinian civilian who knowingly helps imprison a kidnapped Israeli is morally implicated in that crime. A Palestinian who directly assists Hamas's military operations may lose civilian protection against attack for such time as he or she directly participates in hostilities.

And this is where the situation becomes extraordinarily difficult for IDF soldiers on the ground. Hamas fighters do not typically distinguish themselves from the surrounding civilian population with recognizable uniforms or insignia. In a densely populated urban environment, a Hamas fighter can therefore be visually indistinguishable from a Palestinian civilian who poses no threat whatsoever.

Israel understands that this problem does not relieve them of their obligation to try to distinguish between military targets and civilians. But we should not pretend that making these distinctions under battlefield conditions is easy. When fighters fail to distinguish themselves from civilians, they intentionally make the already difficult task of protecting innocent civilians even more difficult.

And here we encounter one of the most morally difficult features of this war: Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have intentionally operated from within an extraordinarily dense civilian population. Fighters and military objectives have been located in or near residential areas and sites sheltering civilians. That creates a horrific situation in which Israel can face a legitimate military threat while innocent Palestinian men, women, and children remain dangerously close to the people and military assets Israel is attempting to destroy.

This is why slogans on TikTok deceptively make this conflict sound much easier than it actually is. Hamas does not acquire immunity from attack merely by operating behind civilian shields. But the presence of Hamas fighters does not transform every civilian around them into a legitimate target either.

Indeed, if an armed group intentionally uses the presence of civilians to shield military objectives, that itself violates international humanitarian law. Yet even then, those civilians do not lose their civilian protection. Israel remains obligated to try to distinguish civilians from military objectives, take feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm, and refrain from attacks in which expected civilian harm would be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage.

That is not an easy assignment.

And don't miss an important moral distinction between the objectives of the combatants. On October 7, Hamas and other armed groups deliberately targeted and attacked civilians. People were murdered and tortured, women were subjected to brutal sexual violence, and civilians—including children and the elderly—were deliberately taken hostage.

Babies were burned alive!

The abuse of civilians was not merely an unfortunate side effect of attacking military targets; civilians themselves were intentionally targeted.

Israel's declared objective in Gaza, by contrast, has been to destroy Hamas's military capabilities, recover the hostages, and protect Israeli citizens from another October 7—not to rape, torture, kidnap, or murder Palestinian civilians as the objective of the war.

That distinction matters enormously. They allow us to clearly see the “good guys” and distinguish them from the “bad guys.”

Of course, this does not establish that everything Israel has done in pursuing those objectives has been justified. An army can possess a legitimate and objectively good military goal and still employ immoral means in pursuing it. But we shouldn't erase the distinction between intentionally attacking civilians as an objective and fighting an enemy while having an obligation to protect civilians who are endangered by the fighting.

Hamas's atrocities and intentional objective evils do not excuse Israeli iniquities, if they occur. Likewise, Israeli wrongdoing does not retroactively transform Hamas's deliberate targeting of civilians into legitimate resistance.

The same moral standard applies to both.

Ultimately, fighting an enemy who intentionally embeds itself within a civilian population presents an agonizing moral problem. The more precautions a military takes to protect innocent people among whom its enemy operates, the more danger it may sometimes impose upon its own soldiers.

Some Israeli soldiers have ultimately paid for that restraint with their lives.

None of this gives Israel a blank check. But neither should every Palestinian civilian casualty be treated as proof that Israeli soldiers are indifferent to Palestinian life. The moral question is much harder: How do you fight an enemy operating among civilians without becoming indifferent to the civilians among whom that enemy operates—and how much additional danger should soldiers be expected to accept in order to protect them?

There are no morally painless answers to that question.

“But Israel Has Killed Christians”

Several people have raised Israel's treatment of Christians as an objection to my position. This deserves a serious response. Christians have been killed during Israeli military operations in Gaza, and churches have been damaged. If Israel unjustifiably attacks Christians—or anyone else for that matter—I condemn it.

But we still need to ask what conclusion follows from those facts. Does an immoral Israeli military action establish that Israel should cease to exist? Does it mean America should refuse to help Israel defend itself? Does the existence of some Jews who mistreat Christians somehow justify October 7?

Those conclusions do not follow.

I've actually spent time in Palestinian territory and spoken face-to-face with Palestinian Christians. Some of these “Christians” I personally encountered expressed profound hostility toward Jews. Those conversations affected the way I think about this conflict. But I will not commit the opposite error and generalize from those encounters to ALL Palestinian Christians.

A Palestinian Christian who is an innocent civilian is not a legitimate military target. Conversely, a Palestinian Christian who participates in terrorism does not become immune from legitimate military action merely because he identifies as Christian.

Likewise, a Jew who spits on a Christian or attacks Christian clergy doesn't get a moral pass because he is Jewish.

Not all Jews are good people. Not all Christians are good people. Not all Palestinians are terrorists. Moral evaluation should concern what people actually do—not merely which ethnic or religious group they belong to.

I also personally know Christians in Israel. I know Jewish Christians who have served and continue to serve in the IDF. Reality is considerably more complicated than social-media narratives would have us believe.

What About “Genocide”?

Perhaps no word has become more morally explosive in this discussion than genocide.

Bill Maher recently addressed precisely this issue on Real Time.

Whatever one thinks about Maher generally, he made an important distinction:

“You can't just change the definition of genocide to mean ‘counterattack in a war where people, including civilians, die.’”

That point deserves careful consideration. International law does not define genocide merely according to the number of people killed. The Genocide Convention identifies certain prohibited acts—including killing members of a protected group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately imposing conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction—and adds an indispensable requirement: intent.

Specifically, genocide requires an intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. That distinction matters enormously.

War is horrific, and civilians often die in war. Civilians can also be killed unlawfully in war. War crimes can occur without genocide occurring. Crimes against humanity can occur without genocide occurring. Soldiers can commit atrocities without thereby establishing that the objective of the state for which they fight is the destruction of a protected people.

These moral and legal categories can overlap, but they are not synonyms.

Consequently, the question relevant to the genocide accusation cannot merely be, Have huge numbers of Palestinians died? Clearly they have. The relevant question for the specific charge of genocide concerns whether the prohibited acts are accompanied by the requisite intent to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as a people.

That's a much more specific claim, and it requires evidence!

Maher also pointed to humanitarian aid entering Gaza and Palestinians leaving Gaza to receive medical treatment abroad. His argument was essentially about intent: behavior intended to preserve members of a population must at least be considered when evaluating the claim that the purpose of a military campaign is to physically destroy that population. As Maher put it, these are “not things countries usually do for their enemies during a war.”

That observation doesn't settle the genocide question by itself. It doesn't prove that every Israeli strike was justified, that Israel has committed no war crimes, or that the death of an innocent Palestinian child is somehow less tragic. But if we're investigating intent, evidence pointing in both directions has to be considered.

That's what truth-seeking requires.

Civilian Deaths and Genocide Are Not Synonyms

This becomes clearer when we consider other wars. Enormous numbers of civilians died during the Allied campaigns against Germany and Japan in World War II. Afghan civilians died during the American-led war that followed September 11. But casualty totals by themselves cannot settle the genocide question.

One cannot simply reason: Many civilians were killed; therefore genocide occurred.

If that inference were logically valid, numerous conventional wars throughout history would become "genocides" simply because one side inflicted enormous civilian casualties upon another.

That's precisely why intent matters.

The question whether a particular bombing was disproportionate, unnecessary, or otherwise immoral is one question. The question whether a state is attempting to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious people as such is another.

Those questions must not be confused, conflated, or allowed to collapse into one another.

Likewise, casualty disparities don't tell us by themselves who initiated aggression, whether resorting to war was justified, whether particular actions within the war were justified, or whether genocide occurred. Those are separate moral and legal questions requiring separate arguments and actual evidence.

The Holocaust Comparison

Maher also contrasted the war in Gaza with the Holocaust. Although he discussed the enormous difference in the number of people killed, I think the more important distinction lies elsewhere: What were the perpetrators actually trying to accomplish?

The Nazis weren't attempting to defeat a Jewish terrorist organization while trying to preserve a Jewish civilian population. Their objective was not to neutralize Jewish military capabilities while allowing the Jewish population to continue existing.

Hitler was trying to erase the Jewish race from the face of the earth.

Jewish identity was precisely why the victims were targeted for destruction.

Not only is that racism. it's straight up genocide by definition.

The crucial distinction concerns intent: were prohibited acts committed with the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part, as such? Horrific civilian casualties demand moral scrutiny, but the number of casualties alone does not answer that question.

Words matter, and the word genocide matters enormously.

That specific word ought not be used recklessly.

Why Reckless Accusations Matter

Maher made another observation that stopped me in my tracks:

“If you really think someone is committing genocide, of course you have full permission to hate them.”

He immediately followed that observation with another:

“When it comes to hating the Jews, people don't need a lot of permission.”

That's worth thinking about.

Suppose millions of people getting their news from TikTok become convinced that Israel isn't merely fighting a brutal war, isn't merely using excessive force, and isn't merely committing particular war crimes. Suppose instead they become convinced that the Jewish state is deliberately attempting to exterminate an entire people.

At that point, questions about Israel's actual conduct become especially important.

Israel possesses overwhelming military superiority over Hamas and the capacity to inflict destruction on Gaza far beyond what it has actually inflicted. Israel has one of the region's most sophisticated militaries and a highly capable air force. It is also widely understood to possess nuclear weapons—although Israel itself maintains a longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying its nuclear arsenal.

I have often said that pound for pound, Israel has the most powerful military on the face of the planet.

That fact does not, by itself, disprove genocidal intent. Obviously, Israel's failure to use every weapon at its disposal—including nuclear weapons—is not an argument that completely settles the question. But the enormous disparity between what Israel could physically do to Gaza and what it has actually done is relevant when evaluating the claim that Israel's objective is the physical destruction of the Palestinian people.

If genocide is the accusation, then we have to examine the totality of the evidence concerning intent: what Israel's leaders ordered, what its military was instructed to accomplish, which targets were selected, what precautions were taken or ignored, what happened when those rules were violated, what humanitarian measures were implemented or obstructed, and what Israel actually did despite possessing the military capacity to inflict vastly greater destruction.

If the claim is that Israel's objective is the physical destruction of Palestinians as a people, then we should examine not only what Israel could have done, but what Israel actually did, what targets it selected, what precautions it took or failed to take, what humanitarian measures it permitted, and what its political and military leaders actually intended.

Because once we accuse a nation—and especially the world's only Jewish state—of deliberately attempting to exterminate a people, the consequences of getting that accusation wrong can be enormous.

What emotional response would we expect? Hatred of the Jews would hardly be surprising.

And that hatred doesn't necessarily remain carefully confined to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli cabinet, or particular IDF commanders. It can spill over onto Israelis generally and then onto Jews who have nothing whatsoever to do with Israeli military decisions.

That's why accusations this serious require actual evidence proportional to their seriousness.

If Israel commits war crimes, demonstrate them and condemn them. If Israeli soldiers deliberately murder civilians, hold them accountable. If Israeli officials authorize unlawful actions, investigate them and hold them accountable under the appropriate law. But don't use one of the most morally explosive words in the human vocabulary merely as a synonym for a war in which an enormous number of civilians have died.

Those are not equivalent propositions.

If massive civilian casualties were sufficient to establish genocide, then America's bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan during World War II could be classified as genocidal simply because enormous numbers of civilians were killed. But that would erase the very distinction the definition of genocide was designed to capture: the specific intent to destroy a protected people, in whole or in part, as such.

Given the history of antisemitism, we ought to be especially careful about claims that can transform condemnation of particular Israeli actions into hatred of Jewish people generally.

What Would Actually Change My Mind?

Some might respond that international organizations and human-rights groups have accused Israel of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Those accusations should not simply be waved away. They should be examined.

But examination requires asking what the evidence actually establishes.

For example, if someone tells me that Israeli forces “deliberately targeted children,” I want to know what evidence establishes deliberately.

Are there orders instructing soldiers to target children? Targeting documents identifying children as intended targets? Communications between commanders? Admissions by soldiers? Or is deliberateness merely being improperly inferred from casualty patterns, the weapons used, attacks on civilian locations (which double as terrorist strongholds), Israel's knowledge that children were present, and its continuation of military operations despite foreseeable civilian deaths? If so, that would not be a rational inference. More evidence is needed to properly and logically infer that conclusion.

Even if one established that Israeli forces deliberately attacked civilians in a particular incident, that could establish evidence of an atrocious war crime without, by itself, establishing genocide. The further question remains whether the evidence establishes the specific intent required for genocide: the intent to destroy Palestinians, in whole or in part, as such.

American history provides a sobering illustration. During the Vietnam War, American soldiers massacred hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians at My Lai. It was an evil atrocity! Some American soldiers participated, some refused, and others—including helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson and his crew—intervened to protect Vietnamese civilians. The U.S. Army eventually investigated the massacre, brought charges against American personnel, and convicted Lieutenant William Calley of murdering civilians.

My Lai deserves unequivocal condemnation. But what follows from it?

It certainly follows that a few American soldiers committed horrific crimes. It does not follow that America's purpose in Vietnam was to exterminate the Vietnamese people. Nor does it follow that because some American soldiers committed atrocities, America itself should cease to exist or that Americans generally should become objects of hatred.

We must stay reasonable.

The same distinctions must be available when evaluating Israel. An atrocity is an atrocity. A war crime is a war crime. Genocide is genocide. Establishing one does not automatically establish the others. We have to follow the evidence far enough to determine not merely what happened, but who was actually responsible, whether it reflected official policy, and—when genocide is alleged—whether the requisite intent to destroy a protected people as such can actually be established.

I'm not starting with the assumption that Israel must be innocent, although accusations this serious should be established by evidence rather than presumed true ("innocent until proven guilty" is not an irrational or unjust presumption). Nor am I starting with the assumption that an international commission must be wrong. Indeed, international bodies can provide important analysis, but their conclusions are not beyond scrutiny either.

No one gets a free epistemic pass—not Israel, not Hamas, not the United Nations, and not me. I'm simply saying: Show me the evidence.

And no, conspiracy theories do not count as evidnece!

Let's determine whether these conclusion follows from the actual evidence or not.

If the evidence establishes an Israeli atrocity, I'll condemn it. If it establishes a war crime, I'll condemn it. If it establishes the specific intent required for genocide, I'll follow the evidence there too.

But intellectual honesty has to run in both directions. I've told you what could change my mind. So if you disagree with me, what would change yours?

What evidence would convince you that Israel is not committing genocide? Is there evidence that would lead you to conclude that Israel's objective is defeating Hamas—and making sure another October 7 never happens again—rather than destroying the Palestinian people as such? Would evidence of precautions taken to protect civilians count? What about humanitarian assistance? Israeli soldiers accepting additional risks to reduce civilian casualties? Evidence that particular atrocities were unauthorized rather than matters of state policy? What evidence would count against the genocide hypothesis?

And if the answer is nothing—if every Palestinian death confirms genocide, every Israeli attempt to protect civilians is dismissed as propaganda, every piece of contrary evidence is explained away, and no possible evidence could count against the accusation—then you’re no longer following the evidence wherever it leads. You’ve already decided where it must lead before the investigation begins.

That's not reasonable.

That's precisely the kind of thinking I'm trying to avoid.

I've stated what would change my mind. If you consider yourself a rational interlocutor, you should be able to answer the same question: What would change yours?

If you have an answer, then we have something to discuss. We can examine the evidence together and determine which conclusion it actually supports. But if the answer is nothing, then the disagreement is no longer merely about Israel. It's about whether our beliefs are related to evidence at all.

That's what “not blindly” means.

I Haven't Quoted a Single Bible Verse

Another interesting feature of this discussion is how quickly my support of Israel gets labeled “Christian Zionism.” But notice something about my specific argument: I haven't quoted a single Bible verse to make this case.

I haven't appealed to Genesis 12, biblical prophecy, Revelation, or an eschatological chart. One can have fascinating theological discussions about Israel, covenant, prophecy, dispensationalism, supersessionism, and Christian Zionism, but none of those debates is necessary for the specific argument I'm making here.

My argument is simply historical, moral, and geopolitical.

The Jewish people have an ancient historical and ancestral connection to the land. As Bill Maher rather provocatively put it, “They're the Indians in this scenario.” His point is not difficult to understand: the Jewish connection to this land was not invented after Hitler, the Nazis, and World War II. It reaches back thousands of years.

Israel exists. Millions of Jews live there. Many of the very people Hitler attempted to annihilate still live there, along with their children and grandchildren. Israel has repeatedly faced wars and terrorism. On October 7, civilians were intentionally targeted and deliberately raped, tortured, brutalized, murdered, and kidnapped by Hamas. Israel therefore has a legitimate interest—an obligation—in protecting its citizens and making sure that another October 7 never happens again.

None of those propositions requires a proof-text from the Bible.

What About AIPAC?

Another issue that frequently enters these discussions concerns AIPAC—the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In today’s online discourse, the word AIPAC is invoked almost as though merely mentioning its name explains why the United States supports Israel.

I don't find that particularly persuasive.

I look at AIPAC much like I look at other American organizations that attempt to influence public policy. I'm generally sympathetic to AIPAC because I generally support a strong relationship between the United States and Israel. Similarly, I've generally supported the NRA because I agree with many of the policies it advocates. Someone who disagrees with those policies will naturally have a different view of either organization.

Of course, I want any powerful organization attempting to influence our government to operate legally and transparently. Political organizations deserve scrutiny, and AIPAC should not somehow be exempt from scrutiny merely because I happen to agree with many of its goals.

But one distinction is especially important: AIPAC is not Israel, and AIPAC is not the Israeli government.

AIPAC is as an American organization funded entirely by Americans, with its policy and political decisions made by a board composed of American citizens. AIPAC is clear that it is neither funded nor directed by the Israeli government. Its stated mission is straightforward: it seeks to persuade the United States government to enact policies that strengthen the relationship between America and Israel.

AIPAC also participates aggressively in American electoral politics. It has a PAC supporting pro-Israel Democratic and Republican congressional candidates, while the AIPAC-backed United Democracy Project operates as a super PAC. AIPAC openly states that these organizations seek to help elect candidates supportive of the U.S.-Israel relationship and defeat candidates opposed to it.

I’m all for it.

With that said, if someone believes AIPAC exercises too much political influence, spends too much money in elections, advocates bad policies, or promotes policies contrary to American interests, make that argument. Let's examine it.

But then an important question arises: What exactly constitutes “too much” political influence?

There is no self-evident dollar amount at which ordinary political advocacy suddenly becomes illegitimate. So give me a principled standard. Is the problem the amount of money being spent? The number of candidates supported? The effectiveness of the lobbying? The policies being advocated? A violation of campaign-finance law? Or simply the fact that this particular organization is extraordinarily successful at advancing a cause you oppose?

Whatever standard we adopt should be applied consistently across the board. If spending millions of dollars to influence American elections is objectionable in principle, then that principle should apply to other PACs, super PACs, corporations, unions, advocacy organizations, and wealthy donors as well. If the objection is instead specifically to the policies AIPAC advocates, then let's stop talking vaguely about “influence” and debate those policies on their merits.

Tell me what the standard is, and then let's apply it consistently to all.

But the mere fact that Americans organize, raise money, lobby members of Congress, and financially support candidates who share their views doesn't establish anything nefarious. That's political advocacy, and Washington is filled with organizations representing countless industries, ideologies, foreign-policy priorities, and social causes.

So the questions I want to ask about AIPAC are essentially the same questions I want to ask about any other powerful advocacy organization: Is it operating legally? Is its activity sufficiently transparent? What specific policies is it advocating? How much political influence does it exercise? And, most importantly, are the policies it advocates actually good for the United States?

Those are legitimate questions.

But if the argument is simply, “AIPAC influences American politicians; therefore American support for Israel is illegitimate,” there's a lot more work you've got to do.

The existence of a lobbying organization doesn't tell us whether the policies it advocates are wise, foolish, moral, immoral, beneficial, or harmful. We still have to examine the arguments.

But don't miss my main point: my support for Israel does not depend upon AIPAC telling me what to think. It rests upon the historical, moral, and geopolitical considerations I've been laying out throughout this article.

If AIPAC advocates a good policy, I'll support it. If AIPAC advocates a bad policy, I'll oppose it.

Once again: blind allegiance to neither.

Thinking for Yourself Is Not Enough

One person suggested that supporters of Israel simply aren't “doing their own thinking.”

I find that accusation rather humorous. I've spilled a lot of ink on my website offering arguments, evidence, distinctions, and reasons for my position.

I've traveled not only in Israel but in Palestinian-administered territory. I visited Bethlehem, which lies in Area A of the West Bank under Palestinian Authority administration. I remember our Israeli Jewish tour guide getting off the bus before we entered. He could not simply accompany us into Bethlehem as we continued our tour. Israeli restrictions on entry into Area A exist in significant part because of the security risks faced by Jewish Israelis there—a danger Israeli military officials themselves have acknowledged.

That experience stuck with me. I could enter Bethlehem as an American Christian tourist. Our Jewish Israeli guide could not simply come with us.

None of that makes me infallible. Doing your own thinking does not mean reaching a true conclusion. It means examining the relevant evidence, considering competing arguments, exposing your conclusions to potential defeaters, and being willing to change your mind when the evidence warrants it.

That's what I'm attempting to do here.

That doesn't make me infallible, and it certainly doesn't mean everyone who has visited Israel must reach my conclusions. But it does mean my position isn't reducible to blindly repeating something I heard from a politician, pastor, lobbyist, podcaster, or cable-news host.

More importantly, “thinking for yourself” isn't enough. Everybody thinks. The question is whether we are thinking well.

Are our conclusions supported by evidence? Do our conclusions logically follow from our premises? Are we applying the same moral standards to our friends and enemies? Are we willing to condemn wrongdoing committed by “our side”? Are we willing to acknowledge inconvenient facts? Can evidence change our minds?

That's what truth-seeking requires.

Perhaps a Little Grace Is Warranted

This brings me back to where I started.

Maybe the Jewish people—many of whom are literally survivors of Hitler's attempt to erase them from the face of the earth (and their descendants)—have earned a little grace from the rest of us.

Not a blank check or immunity from international law. Not permission to kill innocent people or an exemption from moral criticism. No, I am simply asking for something small.

Grace.

Just a little grace.

The kind of grace we routinely extend to nations and people we otherwise support when they fail to live up perfectly to their ideals.

If America commits an atrocity, I condemn it. But I don't consequently conclude that America should cease to exist. I don't stop loving Americans. I don't decide that the United States no longer has a right to defend its citizens. I don't reason that because my government did something evil, every enemy of America must therefore be justified.

That’s just plain stupid.

Why should the logic suddenly change when we're talking about Israel?

The Jewish people survived centuries of persecution, expulsion, pogroms, and finally an attempted genocide from Hitler and the Nazis. They maintained their identity and connection to their ancestral homeland throughout centuries of diaspora. They established a very tiny state there. That very tiny state (miraculously?) survived repeated wars, endured terrorism and rocket attacks, and continues to face genuine enemies.

None of that makes Israel perfect.

But perfection is the wrong standard. We ought not let perfection become the enemy of the good.

We should condemn Israel when condemnation is warranted. We should mourn innocent Palestinians when they suffer. We should insist upon moral restraints even in defensive warfare. We should investigate credible allegations of atrocities and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

But we should also remember what the Jewish people have survived, Hitler’s attempt at their annihilation, what Israel has continually faced since its rebirth in 1948, and finally what happened on October 7 before casually concluding that the world's one Jewish state is uniquely undeserving of our support.

Bottom line: Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

The Standard Must Remain the Same

If Hamas commits atrocities, condemn Hamas. If Israel commits atrocities, condemn Israel. If America commits atrocities, condemn America. If Palestinians murder innocent Jews, condemn it. If Israelis murder innocent Palestinians, condemn it. If Jews mistreat Christians, condemn it. If Christians hate Jews, condemn it.

The moral standard does not change depending upon whose flag is flying over the person committing the act.

That's ultimately why my position is consistent and has not changed.

I love America despite her imperfections, and I can support Israel despite hers. I can mourn Palestinian children while affirming Israel's right to defend Israeli children. I can condemn an Israeli action without condemning the existence of Israel. And I can remember the horrors inflicted upon the Jewish people without pretending that every subsequent action taken by a Jewish state must therefore be morally justified.

None of that is contradictory. It's what logical consistency looks like.

So my position remains simple:

America First. Israel a distant second. Blind allegiance to neither. Hatred of the Jewish people—never.

And when confronted with terrorism, war, propaganda, atrocities, enormous human suffering, and powerful political organizations seeking to influence public policy and opinion, the standard remains the same:

Follow the evidence. Apply the same moral standard to everyone. Seek the truth above all else.

In other words . . .

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton