In the marketplace of ideas, not all currency is created equal. Some arguments are offered in good faith, while others serve merely as tactical maneuvers designed to shut down critical examination. This distinction becomes particularly pronounced when discussing conflicts with deeply entrenched historical narratives—none more so than the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
Beyond Simplistic Labels
The contemporary habit of dismissing challenging behavior as “narcissism” or “gaslighting” has rendered these terms nearly meaningless through overuse. These psychological shorthand terms, while occasionally applicable, too often substitute for precise analysis of communication patterns. When examining international conflicts, we need greater precision.
This brings us to DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender—a pattern first identified by psychologist Jennifer Freyd to describe how perpetrators respond when held accountable. It’s a framework that offers surprising clarity when applied to certain geopolitical communications.
The Asymmetry of Violence and Discourse
Consider the fundamental asymmetry in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the disparity in casualties, military capability, freedom of movement, and access to resources is so pronounced that it should, by any objective measure, be the starting point of discourse. Yet remarkably, this imbalance is regularly obscured through a series of rhetorical maneuvers.
When confronted with casualty figures showing a dramatic imbalance—as we’ve seen particularly since October 7th—the pattern emerges:
- Deny: “Those numbers are exaggerated” or “They use their own people as shields”
- Attack: “Why are you singling out Israel?” or “You must be antisemitic”
- Reverse Victim and Offender: “We have no choice but to defend ourselves” (despite being the occupying power with vastly superior military capability)
The intellectual sleight of hand is remarkable. The very metrics that would normally define an asymmetric conflict—casualties, territorial control, military capability—are dismissed as irrelevant, while hypothetical scenarios about intentions (“they would do worse if they could”) are elevated to primary importance.
Historical Claims vs. Present Realities
Similarly, historical claims—whether religious (“God promised this land”) or political (“right of return”)—are deployed selectively. When Palestinian refugees cite international law regarding their right to return to homes they were expelled from in living memory, the response is often that too much time has passed. Yet simultaneously, religious claims dating back thousands of years are presented as legally binding.
This inconsistency isn’t merely hypocrisy—it’s tactical. The argument shifts based not on principle but on whatever framing best serves the desired conclusion.
Breaking the Pattern
Recognizing DARVO doesn’t require taking a specific position on the conflict’s resolution. Rather, it demands intellectual consistency in how we evaluate claims and counterclaims. When the same actor simultaneously argues:
- Historical claims matter (for their side) but don’t matter (for the other side)
- Violence is justified (for their side) but inexcusable (from the other side)
- International law must be respected (when it protects them) but can be ignored (when it constrains them)
…we are no longer engaging with principles but with tactics.
The path forward requires rejecting these conversational maneuvers altogether. When disproportionate violence is observed, the appropriate response isn’t denial or accusation but acknowledgment and correction. When historical claims conflict, the solution isn’t selective application but consistent principles.
As long as DARVO tactics successfully derail substantive discussion, we remain trapped in cycles of violence justified by increasingly tortured logic. The first step toward breaking this cycle is simply recognizing the pattern for what it is—not an argument made in good faith, but a tactic employed to avoid accountability.
