Defending Israel requires escalating denialism
I have a confession: around 18 ago I used to read LessWrong. Yes, bless me father for I have sinned, but I did quit once it took a reactionary turn. Still, it's not all bad and one useful post from the archives is Dark Side Epistemology. To summarise, if you are super committed in an idea that's wrong (let's say creationism), you'll need to contort yourself more and more in order to avoid defeat in an argument. For example, the overwhelming consensus of relevant scientific opinion is against you. So you are forced to either lie about the consensus (plenty of biologists believe in creationism!), or lie about science (what do the biologists know?). But then this leads to even wilder contortions, such as being forced to deny science as a whole (and of course some people do go there).
I keep thinking back to this when I look at arguments that justify Israel's actions. The creationism parallel is quite close. For example there is overwhelming consensus amongst the international experts that (say) Israel is committing war crimes, Israel is deliberately starving Gaza and preventing aid, Israel is deliberately targeting civilians and so forth.
Most hasbarists would not want to say this explicitly so they have 2 options, both of which are similar to the creationism cascade.
Option 1 is lying about the consensus of legal, NGO, international relations and human rights opinions. That is, it's not true that the consensus exists. Or admit it and call it anti-semitic. This has by now reached to QAnon levels of denial and labelling. UNRWA is Hamas, the UN is Hamas, the Security Council is Hamas, Joe Biden is Hamas and so forth. (But then Hamas is Isis so Joe Biden is Isis?) There's no need to describe how damaging this is, if we as a society allow such tactics to work.
Option 2 is to sidestep that line of argument entirely and instead lie about the contents of the so-called "international rules-based order". For example, to insist that Israel is not breaking international law you have to lie about what international law states. For example insisting that a genocide requires a certain level of success before it's labelled as such, or that there's an exception for people who have been subject to war crimes. Again, no point showcasing how much allowing such rhetoric to succeed screws the entire world over.
These 2 options aren't mutually exclusive, and I do sometimes see both of them employed. "It's not genocide and whoever claims it is is doing a blood libel" would be one such example.
But then there are those who can't be bothered anymore, who just take of the mask. I'm not sure if I'd prefer that, in this case the idea that "at least they're honest" would not be anything to give props to. Of course it doesn't help Israel's case that many of those who aren't bothering with the mask are government officials making statements on the record.