Israel and the Power of Political Myth

How repeated allegations distort public debate, shape diplomatic judgments and obscure the complexities of war.

Political myths acquire their greatest influence when repetition begins to substitute for evidence. In the international debate over Israel, allegations are too often absorbed into public consciousness before their factual foundations have been adequately examined. Once established, they can shape diplomatic judgments, influence electoral contests and determine how military actions are interpreted. The result is a distorted understanding of a country whose security, conduct and international relationships deserve rigorous scrutiny rather than reflexive condemnation.

The challenge is not to insulate Israel from criticism. Governments must be held accountable, military operations must be examined, and allegations of violations of international law must be assessed impartially. The challenge is to ensure that criticism rests on verifiable evidence rather than political narratives that become accepted through repetition. When accusations are treated as established facts before the relevant evidence has been tested, public debate risks becoming an exercise in confirmation rather than inquiry.

Three issues illustrate the problem: claims that Israel dictates American foreign policy, the political consequences of international institutions embracing disputed allegations, and the persistence of accusations against Israel despite evidence and arguments that complicate the prevailing narrative.

When Repetition Becomes Evidence

The controversy surrounding Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic candidate in Michigan’s US Senate race, illustrates how assumptions about Israel can enter mainstream political debate. During a candidates’ debate, El-Sayed was repeatedly asked whether he regarded Iran or Israel as the greater threat to the United States. Rather than directly choosing between the two, he argued that Israel had lobbied Washington into a war with Iran that America did not need to fight.

His argument reflects a broader claim that Israel bears responsibility for American military decisions in the Middle East. The proposition has political appeal: it presents Washington as a reluctant participant in conflicts initiated or encouraged by an ally, while casting Israel as the power directing American policy.

But the argument risks conflating influence with control. Israel has urged successive American administrations to take Iran’s nuclear ambitions seriously, and its leaders have advocated a more confrontational approach to Tehran. That advocacy is neither secret nor unusual among allies seeking to persuade one another on matters of national security.

The decision to employ American military force, however, belongs to the American president and the US government. President Donald Trump chose whether to accept the arguments presented by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and whether to authorize military action. Israel’s preferences may have influenced the debate, but influence alone does not establish responsibility for the final decision.

A serious assessment must therefore distinguish between diplomatic lobbying, strategic alignment and sovereign decision-making. Without that distinction, a complicated question of American foreign policy becomes a simplified story in which Israel is assigned responsibility for Washington’s choices.

The psychological mechanism is familiar. Repeated claims can acquire an appearance of credibility even when the evidence supporting them remains contested. Psychologists call this the illusion-of-truth effect: familiarity can increase the perceived truthfulness of a statement. In politics, repetition can transform a disputed interpretation into an assumption that audiences no longer feel compelled to examine.

The Politics of International Legitimacy

The same dynamic can affect international institutions, whose authority depends not only on their formal standing but also on public confidence in the impartiality of their judgments.

The original commentary raises this concern in connection with South African jurist Navi Pillay and the Nobel Peace Prize. It argues that her association with allegations of genocide against Israel undermines the standing of any international recognition she receives.

The underlying issue extends beyond an individual award. International legal institutions and human-rights bodies wield considerable influence over how conflicts are understood. Their findings can shape diplomatic relations, public opinion and the reputations of states long after the immediate fighting has ended. Their credibility therefore depends on rigorous standards of evidence, consistency in applying legal principles and a willingness to distinguish established findings from allegations that remain contested.

Accusations of genocide are among the gravest that can be made against a state. They should neither be dismissed automatically nor accepted as settled merely because they are endorsed by influential figures or institutions. The legal question requires an examination of the relevant evidence, including conduct, intent and the applicable standards of international law.

The same standard must apply to Israel as to every other country. If international institutions are to retain their authority, their conclusions must withstand scrutiny from those who disagree with them, and their reasoning must be open to examination.

Political disagreements over an award or an individual’s record should not, by themselves, settle the merits of a legal allegation. But neither should institutional prestige substitute for the evidence required to sustain one.

Gaza and the Burden of Proof

The accusations directed at Israel over its military campaign in Gaza represent the most consequential example of the struggle over political narratives.

The charge of genocide carries an exceptional moral and legal weight. It concerns the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, of a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Establishing the crime requires more than demonstrating extensive civilian suffering or destructive military operations; the specific legal elements, including the requisite intent, must be examined.

The scale of suffering in Gaza demands serious scrutiny. Civilian deaths, displacement, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and restrictions affecting humanitarian conditions raise grave questions about the conduct of the war. Those questions cannot be resolved by slogans, nor can the suffering of Palestinian civilians be dismissed as a matter of political convenience.

At the same time, allegations of genocide against Israel should be assessed according to the applicable legal standards rather than treated as self-proving. The existence of a devastating war does not, by itself, establish every element of the most serious international crimes.

The Israeli government’s defenders point to measures that, they argue, complicate the accusation. These include vaccination efforts against polio, the entry of humanitarian supplies into Gaza, warnings to civilians before certain military operations, and operational procedures intended to distinguish combatants from noncombatants. Such measures are relevant to an assessment of conduct and intent, although none independently settles the legal question. Their effectiveness, implementation and consequences must be examined alongside the broader evidence.

Israel’s military operations must also be understood in the context of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack, in which Hamas-led militants killed civilians and abducted hostages. The deliberate targeting of civilians and the taking of hostages are grave violations that cannot be excused by the political objectives of an armed group.

Hamas’s founding charter of 1988 contained explicitly antisemitic language and called for violence against Jews. Its 2017 political document altered aspects of its public presentation but did not formally revoke the original charter. Statements by Hamas leaders, the conduct of its forces and the circumstances of the October 7 attack are relevant to assessments of its objectives and responsibility.

There is a compelling case for examining the atrocities committed on October 7, including whether particular acts meet the legal definition of genocide. But the existence of genocidal acts or intent on the part of Hamas would not automatically determine whether Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Each allegation must be assessed independently against the evidence and the law.

That principle cuts both ways. Defending Israel’s right to security does not require denying Palestinian suffering, just as acknowledging that suffering does not justify treating the legal case against Israel as already decided.

The Difference Between Advocacy and Evidence

The international debate over Israel is often conducted in an atmosphere in which moral conviction precedes factual examination. Once an allegation becomes a defining feature of a political identity, contrary evidence can be dismissed as propaganda, while supporting claims receive less scrutiny than they would in other circumstances.

This is not a problem confined to Israel’s critics. Governments and their supporters can also become selective in their treatment of evidence, emphasizing facts that support their position while minimizing those that complicate it. A credible defense of Israel must resist that temptation.

The strongest argument for Israel is not that every criticism is malicious or that every allegation is false. It is that Israel, like every state, must be judged on the evidence, the applicable legal standards and the circumstances of the actions under examination. That approach allows legitimate criticism to proceed without granting political narratives the status of established fact.

It also requires greater precision in public discourse. The conduct of a government should not automatically be attributed to an entire population. Jewish communities around the world should not be held collectively responsible for Israel’s policies, and criticism of Israel should not become a vehicle for antisemitism. Equally, legitimate criticism must not be dismissed as antisemitic simply because it challenges the Israeli government.

These distinctions are essential to an international debate capable of addressing difficult questions without collapsing into collective blame or political caricature.

Recovering a Common Standard of Truth

The debate over Israel is unlikely to become less contentious in the near future. The conflict in Gaza, Iran’s regional ambitions, the future of American policy in the Middle East and the wider contest over international order will continue to generate fierce disagreement.

But disagreement need not mean abandoning common standards of evidence. Political leaders should distinguish between an ally’s influence and control over foreign policy. International institutions should explain the evidentiary basis for their judgments. Journalists should scrutinize allegations regardless of their political popularity. And governments should recognize that a credible defense of national security depends on transparency and accountability as well as strategic resolve.

For Israel, the stakes are particularly high. Its international standing is shaped not only by events on the battlefield but also by the narratives through which those events are interpreted. When political claims become detached from careful examination, the resulting distortions can harden into diplomatic positions and deepen divisions that are already difficult to overcome.

The answer is not to replace one unquestioned narrative with another. It is to insist that the same standards apply to every state, every armed group and every allegation.

Truth is rarely served by repetition alone. In the case of Israel, the responsibility of policymakers, journalists and citizens is to look beyond the most familiar accusations, examine the evidence and resist the temptation to confuse political conviction with established fact. A more rigorous debate would not exempt Israel from scrutiny. It would ensure that scrutiny is fair, consistent and worthy of the gravity of the issues at stake.