What should one respond when a Zionist or Israel apologist complains that Israel is being unfairly singled out for criticism? For example, when they ask “What about the Uyghur in China and the Rohingya in Myanmar?”, also citing other examples of brutal oppression and genocide?
I have found it can be effective to respond with a simple “What about them, other than you seem to recognise the similarities with Israel? Else why mention them!” This quite often silences the false protest, and you can get on with attempting a reasoned debate or abandon it if it looks hopeless – and often it is.
Whataboutism is designed to consume time and divert the discussion away from the charges against the accused, in this case Israel. Settler colonialism, apartheid, brutal oppression, land theft, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and now genocide, these have all been levelled at Israel and compellingly argued in sections of the media, among scholars, and by legal experts. This year the debate has intensified, and the world awaits judgments on Israel from both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. One addresses the charges of genocide against Israel (ICJ); and the other the request by the UN Security Council for arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defense minister Yoav Gallant on crimes against humanity (ICC).
Pointing the finger at the crimes of others to deflect criticism often works well on unsuspecting individuals, diverting the discussion away from Israel’s crimes and onto the crimes of X,Y and Z. But the aim is much more than diversion. It is to switch roles. The person levelling accusations against Israel is challenged as to why they don’t level similar charges at X, Y, and Z. Before long, the Zionist is the one levelling accusations at the other person, of antisemitism and of singling out Jews. They have turned the tables and shifted the role of accused from themselves onto the individual trying to hold them to account.
Anyone who confronts an Israel apologist or Zionist should keep their wits about them, remaining alert for this brand of bad-faith debating in particular. When it rears its head – which inevitability it will because the crimes are indefensible, and so attention can only be deflected away from them – it is enough to calmly state that “pointing out the crimes of others simply draws attention to your own”; or that indeed, by citing the crimes of X, Y and Z they recognise the parallel with Israel. Or something similar. At which point the tables turn again.
It is also worth adding that it is no one’s business which cause one chooses to champion. One is not obliged to justify one’s stand for justice, particularly by those accused of injustice.