top of page

Hamas v. Israel: A Critical Theory Case Study

Critical Theory is about destruction of the current system.

CRT admits this as the goal – which is why we know it is not about white supremacy, racism or inequality. The current system is the threat – no, not to the average American, but to those in power – and to those who wish to be the oppressors.

But the system they want to tear down is made up of ideas like inherent rights, individual liberty, individual responsibility, equality of opportunity – and values things like work ethic, marriage, and education.

We now have an entire generation, a nation of students and young people submersed in the ideas of critical theory – easily buying into false “facts” that any movement can set up as their premise to prove their false facts – and then rely on these premises, built on lies, to justify their strategy to achieve the goal of destroying the system (along with its values).

I just got off social media (X) and the level of support for terrorists and against Israel’s actions is astounding to me. But it makes perfect sense. Some of these (mostly young) people – especially the college students – have had their thinking immersed in the false dialectic of critical theory their entire lives.

The universities cannot condemn the support of the terrorists because in this scenario, the terrorists are the ones being oppressed and Israel is the oppressor.

Facts do not matter. Especially when lies are paraded around as facts. Especially when people have become blind to irrefutable evidence and logic. Facts and evidence are all suspect when placed in the Critical Theory framework.

“Call a ceasefire and we will release the hostages” sounds a lot like “land for peace.” Israel gave up land – and let the Arabs govern themselves – and instead of peace in exchange, they get rockets launched at them and are accused of keeping “Palestinians” in an open air prison – when it is Hamas (the elected government) who uses its own civilians as human shields and repurposes water pipes (and other resources given in humanitarian aid) as rocket launchers.

Keep in mind that although the entire region (except for Israel) is governed by Muslim majorities, no surrounding Arab countries are willing to take the “Palestinians” as refugee migrants. But they are not called out for being part of the problem for the civilians in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip.

There may be several reasons these Muslim majority countries refuse to take in Muslim refugees, but it should be evident that these people can be used as a rallying cry against Western values in the MENA region, can be used to justify the hatred of the Israelis, and can keep the hatred alive within other MENA nations without sacrificing too much of the publicly displayed secularism that allows them inclusion and interaction in Western economics and politics.

These Arabs without a country of their own represent the oppressed side of the equation in an area where Arab Muslims are more often actually the oppressor – and often of their own people.

Israel’s existence as a nation state is in actuality the problem for Israel. Because it is an easy target. It is easy to identify the “oppressor” when it is organized into a government, and it is something that resonates with people in the West as well – making it easier to push the anti-oppressor false premises to implement a strategy toward their stated goal: Killing all the Jews, wrapped up in another stated goal: the complete elimination of the Israeli state.

Some of these young people supporting a “free Palestine” may, indeed, be “useful idiots,” but they are indeed useful. Do they actually know they are supporting the murdering of babies and the raping of women and the blowing up of civilians and the cutting off of heads? Do they understand they are supporting genocide and the stoning of women and homosexuals? I would argue at least some, if not all, do understand what they are supporting.

Yet because of their immersion in the CT way of thinking, it is justified because the babies and children and homosexuals in Israel are part of the oppressor class that must be eliminated. There are no innocent children. There are no innocent teenagers. There are no innocents in the oppressor side of the equation. That would take recognizing individuals and an objective morality when Critical Theory denies both.

Even the useful idiots who have no idea what horrors they are supporting in their chants, are simply behaving as they have been conditioned to do: supporting the “oppressed” class based on whatever false premises they have been conditioned to accept.

When in the discussion I hear: “Yes, going after Israeli civilians was wrong, but I can see the other side,” my knee-jerk reaction is: “You can? What is the other side? There are only two sides?”

This is the conditioning we have ALL been placed under. That there are TWO SIDES to every issue. This feeds and supports and holds up the CT narrative. Remember that this is a false dichotomy intended to feed the division already in place (and it also serves to encourage and reinforce any self-hate already in place).

Whatever the issue – there are as many “sides” as there are people viewing it. People are complex. Societies are complex. What is YOUR side? What is the OTHER side? If you are not on my side, then you are on THE OTHER SIDE. When, again, this is a false dichotomy.

However, those who say they "can see the other side," do so because they want to express that they DO find the deaths of innocent people abhorrent -- because that is one of those immutable truths not allowed by those immersed in CT thinking.

But we have also bought into this idea that even if we are willing to take a moral or principled position on something, our position only has legitimacy only if we apologize for what we think by offering equivalent legitimacy to ONE OTHER SIDE.

Perhaps in our distant past when we all understood there was objective “good” and objective “evil” –maybe then we could talk about sides (for example, I only know that I want to be on God’s side) – but when what is good for me is evil for you, and what is evil for me is good for you, then what kind of service are we doing when we justify and defend what would have once been identified as pure objective evil – out of our goodness?

The enemy has so thoroughly replaced our wheat with tares we don’t even see it – and our society has been eating the tares as though they are wheat – and then wondering why we are all SICK.

Even “the good guys”, even those who are "on the right side of history" are no longer sure they actually are good or right because they are listening to the constant messaging of the world instead of confidently standing firmly on immutable truths.

Such people innately know the truth, but they are so afraid of "hurting feelings" AND of people "not liking them" that they ignore the destruction of the world (and the soul) in order to make sure they are still "liked" (and maybe even in hope that it will lay a foundation for a better opportunity to avail itself in the future for the difficult conversation - when that could have been a missed opportunity right then...)

Others' feelings, our own feelings, get in the way of relying on truth and critical thinking.

Even I find myself hesitating sometimes...and I try to figure out what I am so afraid of…but this is also where I came up with the position that in difficult conversations, asking questions is much better than relying on that feeling inside me, telling me I need to share EXACTLY what I believe as though I will be able to please EVERYONE if I consider all the angles before speaking...

When that is impossible. So I do the opposite. I assume everyone will disagree with me before I start talking. But then the goal becomes NOT trying to convince anyone I am right. Just ask good questions so they have to examine their own position...and I might learn something too!

So at this point, I am going to use this blog as a marketing tool for my books. The current focus on the age-old “Arab-Israeli Conflict” is another good case study worthy of investigating through the lens of Critical Theory – so this is me saying GO BUY MY BOOK (Black and White) – and if you already own it, READ IT – again, if you’ve already read it - and think about the current conflicts from this new perspective.

And when you realize that the fabric of this country has become so unrecognizable based just on this one issue – and you start wondering what we can do about it, READ MY OTHER BOOK (The Unraveling). And then SHARE IT with others. Buy it as a Christmas gift for your pastors or family members who aren’t talking to you. Buy it for your state representative – or your U.S. House Representative – or your mayor or town council members.

For free through Amazon

This isn't about making money for me (I would have to sell tens of thousands of books to just make back the amount of money I've spent to self-publish, market my books, and publicize my ideas - and I don't expect the few readers of this blog to make even a dent in that).

This isn't about making money. It is about saving our country. Saving the soul of our country.

14 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page