The past week has shown humanity at its worst: A horrific terrorist attack left at least 1,300 Israelis dead, among them peace activists and even innocent children. The fates of many more kidnapped civilians still lie in the balance. Meanwhile, statements from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggest retaliation against Palestinians in Gaza will be swift and merciless. More than 1,500 Gazans are already dead, and 338,000 others have been displaced. In moments of turmoil such as this, some believe it is the responsibility of a newspaper of record like The Onion to delve fully into the nuances of a complex and multifaceted conflict that stretches back not just decades but centuries. These people are wrong.

Instead, this editorial board wishes to take this opportunity to declare its full and unequivocal support for Israel because, frankly, it seems like you get in way less trouble for that.

Let us be clear: This is a fraught moment, and one that has polarized not only Americans but people all over the world. It demands incredible sensitivity and strict adherence to journalistic standards of objectivity, and simply put, that is something we aren’t willing to do. Rather, we’re just going to say The Onion expresses its steadfast solidarity with Israel and leave it at that.

Why? First, because this editorial board doesn’t like getting yelled at. Second, there are going to be way fewer people with way less power mad at us. We don’t want to go up against the entire U.S. government, which through President Biden has expressed its unwavering support for Israel. Finally, and more importantly, it’s because we don’t want to and you can’t make us. You can’t. You seriously can’t. You cannot make us do all of this hard stuff. Ever. Seriously.

Furthermore, we should remember that unpacking this conflict in an adequately thorough manner would require examining it through a diverse range of lenses such as antisemitism, Islamic fundamentalism, the Holocaust, imperialism, contact theory, and many more, all while keeping in mind valid but competing narratives of victimhood that span hundreds of years. And we sure as hell aren’t going to mention apartheid. That sounds like an enormous headache. Even worse, our reward for that would be mobs of people screaming at us online. Why would we do that?

Alternatively, we could simply say, “Israel must be fully supported in its military campaign to root out evil in all of its hiding places.” That 19-word sentence would save us the trouble of engaging with this difficult situation. So we’re going to go with that one.

Does that make sense? We think it does.

Our stance becomes increasingly compelling when one considers some alternative scenarios. For instance, The Onion could theoretically say that it stands in solidarity with the bombing victims in Gaza. What would happen then? People would get mad at us. They could threaten our careers. How about if we said we believe the loss of innocent life is wrong no matter what the nationality? That would also result in people getting mad at us. Sometimes these would be different people getting mad, but that doesn’t really change things on our end. And most significantly, it could hurt our quarterly revenue, which is the worst tragedy imaginable.

For those reasons, and many more, we are not going to be endorsing any of those perspectives. Instead, the stance of standing unwaveringly with Israel, now and forever, seems to really be the sweet spot for those looking to avoid dealing with all of this shit.

“What of the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians killed before this attack?” some may ask. Our response is simply that we aren’t going to engage with that because it would be too hard. We also won’t be addressing Palestinians living in refugee camps without access to clean water, electricity, or housing. Others may ask, “Isn’t it your responsibility to provide context, particularly on thorny issues such as this one?” To that, we merely say: No, shut up. You’re being annoying.

Perhaps some would call on us to point out the obvious moral hypocrisy of those far-left Americans who bandy about terms like “war criminal” while turning a blind eye to what amounts to an unconscionable war crime on the part of Hamas. But we are also not going to do that. Why? Because people will get angry with us—extremely irritating people, to be clear—and we just don’t want to deal with it. We have enough going on without them getting on our case. The water main broke in our office last Friday and dealing with the super has been a whole thing. He keeps avoiding our calls because obviously he’s going to have to eat the cost of the sump pump. There’s also a bunch of ad sales stuff that we’re negotiating with the business side. So why would we add defending ourselves against online criticism over one of the most incendiary topics in human history to the list of headaches we’re already dealing with? Why?

The answer is that we won’t.

Some may call us cowards for our decision. To this, we can only say the following: If a coward is a person who avoids taking a difficult stance on topics for personal expediency, then “coward” is a badge this editorial board will gladly wear, again and again and again.