One of the most jarring juxtapositions following the October 7 massacre has been the about-face of anti-Israel activists from celebration to wailing on social media.

“Gaza just broke out of prison,” journalist Mariam Barghouti wrote on X  the day of the massacre, laughing in another post that “Gazans managed to outdo the most technologically advanced and funded surveillance program in an hour with almost no resources.”
On October 23 she mourned that “Gaza has been destroyed. Save the little that remains.”
One X user going by the handle “MissFalasteena” wrote on October 7 that “my moms making knafa to celebrate, I cannot, she’s been waiting for this one,” and the next day that “October 7th became a new holiday for Palestinians.”
Her holiday spirit was cut short by Israeli military action against Hamas.

ANTISEMITISM ON display at the UK’s Free Palestine rally. (credit: CST)
ANTISEMITISM ON display at the UK’s Free Palestine rally. (credit: CST)

“We want a ceasefire. Now,” she wrote in mid-November. “My head can’t process that this is a second Nakba and nothing is being done to stop it.”
Socialist activist Nicholas Cruse wrote on X that he had “no idea what’s going on but I hope Israel gets wiped out.”
While advocating mass violence on October 7, he saw no issue with complaining later that month that “we are probably witnessing the most brutal massacre, the biggest crime against humanity in my lifetime, meanwhile all we can do is rage tweet.”
There is no shortage of examples of activists, academics, and influencers who posted in a similar pattern, and the side-by-side comparisons of these contrasting positions are referred to by Israel supporters as incidents of FAFO (F*** around, find out).
Moments of FAFO are shared because of the catharsis of seeing that those cheering for death and destruction receive their emotional comeuppance, but FAFO examples are also meant to demonstrate a degree of hypocrisy by the anti-Israel crowd.
Anti-Israel activists celebrated all manner of violent actions on October 7, only to claim that such violence was being inflicted on Gazans and decry it. They have bemoaned the Israel-Hamas war as a second “Nakba,” but a great many of them openly support the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel as a solution to the conflict. They claim that innocent civilians are being indiscriminately killed in Gaza, but supported the wanton slaughter by Hamas on the Simchat Torah holiday.

They point to dubious Hamas casualty reports that indicate that almost half the Gazan deaths were of children, but that the death of Israeli children was an unavoidable consequence of “resistance” and “decolonization.”

The charge of hypocrisy, however, doesn’t seem to lead terrorism supporters to reconsider their positions or the validity of the tactics. This is because hypocrisy requires one to hold and advocate for a principle, but then blatantly violate this principle.
Hamas supporters do not behold themselves to any principles on war conduct. When they level charges of ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate violence, infanticide or any war crime, they do not believe that these are evils – the source of the evil is not the action but the actor.
This is evident by chants of “by any means necessary,” at anti-Israel protests.   Activists warn not to question the form that Palestinian “resistance” takes, but do not believe that Israel is allowed to operate along the same ethical lines in its own operations.
The laws of warfare draw a distinction between the justness of a war, jus ad bellum, and justness of conduct during war, jus in bello. This prevents atrocities from being conducted even by defenders and those engaging in humanitarian intervention. Genocide of an entire nation is not a valid option, even against an aggressor like Nazi Germany. The anti-Israel crowd draw no such distinction – for them, all actions are defined by the legitimacy of the jus ad bellum.
Israel in their eyes is the aggressor, while Palestinian factions are defenders, rendering all actions by the former unjust and those by the latter just, regardless of their content and outcomes.
Israel supporters have been frustrated by the hypocrisy of anti-Israel activists, who support certain tactics by Hamas but attack Israel for allegedly doing the same, and have tried to point out this Janus-faced position.

Arguing with hypocrisy

However, attempts to argue against this hypocrisy will usually fail since the legitimacy of an individual action is not their concern. They are using the veneer of concern about International Humanitarian Law and war crimes as a weapon. They know that speaking of human rights and war crimes is the language of Israelis and gullible westerners, but it is meant to cause hesitancy in Israeli forces and pressure from the international community. If the roles were reversed there would be no talk of proportionality and distribution, as demonstrated when Hamas had a momentary advantage over Israel on October 7.
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles,” author Frank Herbert wrote in his novel Children of Dune, which nicely encapsulates the Hamas supporters’ approach.
Arguing about hypocrisy will only result in a waste of energy, unless directed at third party audiences who do not subscribe to revolutionary ideologies that hold the same lack of principle.
The only principle that Hamas supporters hold to is that of victory at any cost. Israel must ensure that the terrorist organization must never again have a victory to celebrate, or a situation in which they again can shed their sheep’s clothes of human rights to indulge in their ravenous lupine intent.
The writer is a Jerusalem Post reporter and an IDF infantry reservist serving on the Gaza border.