Israel/Palestine Logical Fallacy


Here we are again. The plague of anger that formally began in the early 1960’s is back to haunt us once more. Many times through the history of my family (all of our families in fact) my descendants turned on the T.V. to witness another bomb in the middle-east. How sad that this is seen as a broad statement, you could literally mention hundreds of conflicts, and thousands of bombs in that area between 1964 and 2014. I am talking about Israel and Palestine. I will not attempt to stand on one side of the fence regarding this conflict; many people do this and miss out on a fundamental opportunity to lay blame squarely on the idiocy of humanity.

I agree at the moment there is a massive attempt to show Palestine as a peaceful place and worthy movement; we have protesters in my capital city (London) urging the end of this conflict on their behalf. I find it very amusing that 364 days of the year my country men and women say things like “Have you seen how they treat their women?” and “Islam is a religion of hate and war!” Yet on that 365th day, as soon as Israel bomb the Palestinians they suddenly scream “Help Palestine!” and “won’t somebody think of the children?” (OK this last quote was actually from The Simpsons) I mean this in all honesty, I actually think there is a large majority of my country that don’t understand Palestine is a Muslim state, and if anyone told them they would probably think less of the cause.

I believe both ideologies (Jewish/Islamic) are wholly unsupported by facts and have as much gravitas as fairies and pixies and Santa Clause, the only thing I agree on is that I would not die for any of them (although as a child I probably would have sold my soul to Santa Clause ‘Father Christmas’ if he would give me a PlayStation 1 with a copy of Tomb Raider. By the way, my brother bought a PlayStation, he got Tomb Raider also, and I am now an atheist, so maybe Santa has my soul, who knows?)

I have no dog in this fight as it were, but I must implore some level of intellect into this discussion, that I find for some reason is lacking. Normally people find the word “intellectual” as a position of power or condescension; in this regard it is the opposite. It is basic common sense that I wish to infiltrate this conflict.

We have two states that believe they deserve to own a certain plot of land, although by UN standards this conflict had risen in 1964, in truth the seed had been planted within the holy books of both faiths many centuries ago. So what are we left with, other than around 22,000 deaths? We are left with politicians that swarm in, either choosing a side or asking for neutrality and peace, flying a flag for a “two-state solution” and then swarm out after their term. There are news reports and journalists that ponder and convey their interpretation of war crimes and what they believe should be done. We have countries that support this anger and hate with billions of their hard earned tax payers’ money AND YET of all this time, we have not seen any one ask the fundamental question “Can either side actually prove the God they feel sanctions ownership of this land exists?”

It is really that simple, it should be its own logical fallacy. I call it the – Jumping the gun – fallacy. For example, I see two men across the street, they are in a heated debate, they both claim they each have an invisible car, and are hurling abuse – due to their opponent saying his car is better. Instead of actually giving the pros and cons of their argument, instead of even attempting to show their invisible car truly exists (like pouring water over the car to show the tangible object is manipulating where the water should go opposed to where it lands) they have now moved straight to rage, and are currently pointing guns at each other. Now try and imagine they do kill one another, and their sons join in the fight, and then the neighbourhood follows suit, and other surrounding neighbours start to stand in favour of one certain side, and others ask for both cars and owners to be given the credit they deserve for their brilliant invisible auto-mobiles. Would one be out of line to ask “Can you even prove there is a car here?” I think not.

So to both Israel and Palestine, I will now propose a solution. I implore you to have all of your people leave the region immediately and let atheists take settlements in your stead. As soon as one of you can prove your God actually exists, then, and only then, we will sit down and investigate if said God did in fact give you authority over the land; as soon as this is proven, we will happily leave, and all will be resolved and in turn should be peaceful.  


For those who don’t understand light humour, this is a very facetious proposition. Obviously if said proposition was on the table the “two states” would probably join sides against us and war would continue, but it is something to ponder. The sheer foolishness of fighting to the death over a hypothesis you have yet to prove is sadly, very human. If intelligent life landed on earth, I would be very embarrassed trying to explain conflicts like this. (If in fact the aliens look to me for explanation.)

Recently I was lucky enough to speak to the great theoretical physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss on the recent Atheist Analysis Show. A sentiment he has uttered previously, and one that came up in conversation was his regard for the middle-east “peace process”; and he said “the universe would be a much more peaceful place if the middle-east just disappeared.” To put this comment in context he made sure there was a distinction between the people of the middle-east – which he does not want to see disappear – and that actual war fuelled ideology that is now as part of the land as the sand dunes are.

Although a very provocative statement, nonetheless no one can doubt the truth in his claim; a planet without a war-torn middle-east.




8 Replies to “Israel/Palestine Logical Fallacy”

  1. Just a slight correction. The protests in London aren’t to show the Palestinians are a peaceful people, or that Islam is a peaceful religion. It’s about stopping Israel using cruel and unusual measures and stop them bombing children. Israel have all the power, a well funded army, a hugely funded “defence dome”.


  2. Thanks for the comment, but that is not actually what I said. I separate those two issues, in the first part of the sentence I mention there is an attempt to show Palestine as peaceful (which there is in the news ect – that somehow because Palestine (Hamas) have less funds, it makes their cause of killing all the Jews in the world less Genocidal – which it doesn’t) Let us not forget, the Nazi’s had less tanks than the Russians, but we didn’t suddenly agree that the war had to end because of it and jump on the side of Hitler. Then in the second half of the sentence I talk about demonstrations by supporters to end the conflict. I don’t connect the two things as a demonstration of peace. Although I don’t have a dog in this fight, I know that Israel could wipe Palestine off the face of the earth – they have had the power to do so since the 60’s and have yet to do it, yet the new Hamas constitution specifically states they will rid the world of all Jews, and if they had the power Israel have, they would immediately. Furthermore hamas fire rockets from schools and hospitals, so that when Israel fire back and hit the school, the international community becomes outraged – countless pictures online of Hamas using children as shields. Lastly I will add I am not Pro Israel, I think anyone having a religiously mandated state is nonsensical. (If needed I will provide any evidence for my claims about Palestine) Thank you for reading my piece and thank you most of all for caring enough to comment; I appreciate it Andrew.


  3. What a profound misunderstanding of the conflict. If I may say so as well this was a load if hyperbole and mumbo jumbo delivered in the most patronising and condescending manner I’ve read on the subject. If you are going to comment on this stuff then at least do some basic research before shooting from the snippets you have.

    The conflict is between two people who are from differing religions, but if you think its religion that causing the current conflict then you’ve failed to see the factors involved. Human beings always like to belong to groups; it happens in departments in companies, in football teams and many other every day things. The Palestinians and Israeli aren’t fighting over two Gods. They’re fighting over land and water tables. The Israeli’s have a policy of continued expansion of settlements, they deny Gaza rights over its air, sea and land borders, they do not allow the creation of a viable palestinian state and finally the status quo serves only Israeli interests.

    In return the Palestinians carry out wicked acts of terrorism because they’re no match for the IDF and the modern weaponry deployed against them.

    Normal every day Palestinians and Israelis have no desire for this conflict but until their is just settlement of the borders and where the Palestinians as well as the Israelis can feel safe, then this conflict will rumble on.

    The Hamas constitution may well deny the existence of Israel but from where I’m standing the Likud policy also completely denies the existence of a Palestinian state as have three previous Israeli governments. Have you ever stopped to consider why the Israelis wont actually grant a state? Hamas is a pragmatic organisation and it’ll negotiate and cede once Israel does too, but for all of the PLOs recognition of Israel, what did they ever get in return?

    I also like the way you parrot the narrative about firing rockets from Schools and Hospitals. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world; its over 1, 360 square kilometres and home to 1.5 million people. I doubt you could find many places to fire a rocket where you weren’t within range of a civilian installation.

    If you think its justifiable for the IDF to drop 500 and 1000 pound bombs into residential areas with that level of population density then I suggest you take a seriously hard look at your “secular” values because that’s arguable justifying war crimes.

    I also suggest you get your semantics right because there are no documented cases of “Hamas using children as shields” that’s actually a common IDF technique when moving into Palestinian areas. You mean Hamas firing rockets from close proximity to civilian areas right?

    1700-1900 Gazan’s have died and 67 Israeli’s have died. Of the 1700-1900 deaths less than 30% are estimated as terrorists i.e 1200 or so civilians killed. Of the 67 Israeli deaths, 64 were soliders.

    ” I would be very embarrassed” if I were you for your failure to grasp the simple facts in a conflict rather than pretending to hold some higher moral ground by being an atheist


    1. Where to start… Your first sentence is false and opinionated, not really of any worth here. Your first paragraph joins the trolling ranks of “You need to do research” Classic! It’s always the anonymous trolls on the net, who show no proof and then pretend they are experts.

      Your second, third & fourth paragraph explains a conflict that I am fully aware of.

      You make the mistake of thinking the conflict is all political, let me explain why you are horribly wrong. The conflict only begins because one religion has mandated the state for themselves, and practically invaded a piece of land. It is not a conflict started between democracy and conservatism, it is a conflict started between two religions. (although you claim it is not, you agreed with me in your other comment stating it was between zionism ect… Well zionism is a movement only found in a certain religion.)

      You mention Hamas constitution not agreeing with an Israeli state, yet fail to mention that not only did I NOT say that, but what the constitution actually says is they will kill all Jews in Israel, and around the world. That is called genocide.

      In paragraph 6 you talk about Gaza being densely populated, therefore they have to shoot rockets from schools hahahah, oh my, that is the best and silliest response I have heard yet in favour of Hamas; Go on youtube, search for the videos that show Hamas firing rockets from a school yard, not an area with a school, not a street that a school is on, from a school yard – similarly on said video you will see them firing rockets from the roof of a hospital, not an area near a hospital, not a… (you get the point I hope)

      “If you think its justifiable for the IDF to drop 500” Let me stop the stupidity here, no I don’t and nowhere in my article will you find me say so – I only state at the start of the article that not only am I not picking a side but I think a religiously mandated state is laughable. So how you concluded this means I agree with 500 bombs being used, is either dishonest or just plain idiotic.

      “I also suggest you get…” Thanks for the suggestion, google Hamas using children as human shields, countless videos and pictures you can verify yourself, lots of proof out there – you just have to look at it and accept it.

      Not sure the point of your second to last paragraph.

      “If I were you” Sadly you are not, I feel bad about this just as much as you. You feel I don’t grasp the “facts” please, I implore you to correct any facts from my piece – funny how you have made two large comments, you finish with making fun of how I fail to grasp facts, yet you have yet to prove any of my facts wrong, in fact you have yet to attempt to disregard any of my facts – strange.

      “Pretending to hold some higher moral ground by being an atheist” By being an atheist I can have a higher ground morally – I can go into thousands of reasons why – but maybe for another day (I don’t hold a religion that says slavery and genocide is OK from a loving god)

      Lastly as a writer I can also say that “some higher moral ground” Is not proper English, to make the sentence flow you should have written “some moral higher-ground” The hyphen is very important also.


  4. BTW the origins of the Arab Israeli conflict actually has its roots in Arab nationalism and Zionism starting in the 19th century rather than religion per se. Interesting to note that a lot of other ideologies, often rooted in atheism, dont fair much better than religions in terms of avoiding bloodshed and conflict. Communism, Fascism, nationalism and a load of other ‘isms have their fair share of blame to answer for.

    Do you really think being an atheist would resolve the worlds woes?


    1. I know the origins of the regional warfare pre-date WW1, at no point of my piece do I say it does – it seems you are unhappy with/correcting something that was never said. But to say it was only regional and not religion per se, is laughable – the religion specifically states that the land will be given to the Jews, so it’s genesis is wholly about religion. Communism, Fascism and nationalism have about as much to do with atheist, as spaghetti has to do with concrete statues of elvis (very little) There is no political structure to atheism , no ideology to atheism, no dogma to atheism. You have just names a bunch of political movements that had a few atheists who joined in; I doubt you would say that Hitler’s Catholicism means all Catholics want to kill Jews and run a nationalist regime. Lastly, No I do not think being an atheist would resolve the world’s woes, but I do think most if not all of the world’s woes that have to do with religion, will suddenly disappear – as there would be no use for them. Regarding the proposition of Israel/Palestine I was being hyperbolic, I didn’t think I needed to put a wink face and a lol for people to understand it, I guess I had too much faith in you.


      1. Hello.

        Your insistence on religious cause of the conflict is too much I think. The problem with MILITANT atheism (because I am an atheist) is that it gives too much weight to religion where it should not. Of course, religion does play a role by providing motives and justification to actions, but saying it is the main “cause” of this conflict effectively ignores many things: the most important of them is that we are dealing with a settler colonialism issue. When somebody comes to your land and tries to expel you and your people from there by any means possible, saying it is religion that CAUSES you to resist (which is the core point of the conflict in the Palestinian side) is absolutely absurd. Of course, something should unite people against an aggressor. First it was secular Arab nationalism and then an Islamist movement. But the latter only came to power several decades after the start of the conflict (and with active help from Israel to undermine the secular movement). Temporal relationship between cause and effect rejects your point of causality then.
        About Zionism the same concept is true. Zionism used to be a secular movement. There was a huge debate as to where Jewish (as a race) people should go. There were several options on the table from Africa to Middle East. So saying it was all religious or mostly religious effectively ignores these points.
        Sure, religion does help to maintain the status quo. But the cause is not religion, it is a land conflict. Of course you don’t like if I kick you out from your land. You can resist either under a nationalist flag, or an atheist flag, or a religious flag. The main point of resistance does not change. You have every right to do so.

        And again reducing this conflict to a religious one misses the point. You can do so, but you fail to resolve it. Because you will fail to see the root cause.
        The same is true about the ME in general. Political Islam is only one cause of the current status of ME. For example in 1953, US overthrown Iranian only democratic government for OIL. Literally 100s of interventions by West’s support for dictators, crushing democratic movements, and supporting the most fanatical aspects of Islam changed the whole face of the ME in the past several decades. Religion is being used for right-wing political purposes and tyranny (a very good political definition for fundamentalism indeed). But saying ME should be wiped out just ignores the question of “why” rather than trying to solve it. People will group with one another under many banners. This gives them meaning. Even if there were no Bin Ladin, you still could expect attack on American soil, because people would react to decades of invasion, would react to outside intervention. Like it or not. I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with this atheist thing of trying to explain every complex issue with one word : religion. Okay feel free to do so, but after “you resolved religious issue” you would see the problem will continue. Have a look at the history of wars in 20th century. That speaks volumes. Only the lust for power, dominance, and money can explain all these conflicts. Fascism, Stalinism, Islamic Fundamentalism, Western Intervnetionism all have this aspect at their cores. And rather than paying attention to the core, you stick to the surface. Sure, forms of carrying out atrocities are different, but they are all atrocities and they are all for power.


  5. The reason the right-wing corporate/military owned government in Israel gets away with murder is because everyone is so scared of being called an anti-Semite. I’m not anti-Semite; I’m anti-murder.

    Support for Israel equals support for war crimes against Palestine. Stop Apartheid Israel. Free Gaza.

    Video of Jewish-Canadians protesting Canada’s Prime Minister Harper’s blind support of apartheid Israel: #cdnpoli



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s