What about whataboutisms?

What about starving children in Africa?

What about Bob?

What about you?

These days it feels like bringing up anything within six degrees of separation to Jews, let alone Israel, is the equivalent of chumming the water. Mention anything about the growing fear, pain, and suffering Jews the world over are feeling, and any number of frenzied sharks rabidly pounce.

Fortunately, so many of those would be sharks might imagine themselves shredding you with deadly incisors when what they’re really doing is gumming you with all the ferocity of a wayward sheep. Unfortunately, even the weakest of attacks have the power to draw blood, be they from shark, human, or even petting zoo denizen, if they are not defended against properly.

So let’s take a look at one of the most common forms of logical fallacies people use to both attack and defend Jews and Israel, whataboutisms, break down why they are problematic, and explore effective responses that do the double damage of exposing the ridiculous while furthering your case.

First of all, what is a whataboutism? Just in case the name didn’t give it away, a whataboutism is a type of non-response to a statement or accusation. Instead of responding to the initial assertion, the whataboutist uses a counter-accusation to draw attention away from the main argument, thereby ignoring the point made by the original party.

Whataboutisms are often used to distract from and to cast doubts on an argument’s legitimacy, integrity, or fairness. They usually try to highlight a double standard or hypocrisy, but they are often used by people engaging in hypocritical double standards themselves. Shocking, I know.

The largest issue with whataboutisms, aside from the fact that they completely sidestep the actual issue they are supposedly responding to, is that they have been used as effective propaganda tools due to their power to implicitly frame issues according to the user’s desired world view.

We see whataboutisms used against Jews, Israelis, and Zionists every day on social media. We see them in news broadcasts when pundits demand that guests commenting on antisemitism or Israel defend against accusations regarding Palestinians. And we see them in graffiti plastered all over our streets.

One of the most common mistakes I see people making when they respond to these whataboutisms is to attempt to address the pain felt on both sides of the conflict. On the surface this seems like a solid empathetic response that highlights a sensitivity to human suffering on both sides of a bloody chasm, but it is actually a crucial mistake.

There is nothing wrong with desiring peace with Palestinians. There is nothing wrong lamenting loss of life, any life. But there is something wrong with both-siding a conflict in which one side is continually trying to murder civilians at the expense of its own people, and one side is continually tasked with responding to violent incursions into its territory while trying to keep its people alive and safe.

Yes, life is being lost on both sides, but the responsibility for that tragedy does not lie on the shoulders of both sides. One side is taking water pipes and turning them into rockets, and the other side is building bomb shelters and missile defense systems.

People are not looking at the war in Ukraine and demanding that Ukraine think about the poor Russian civilians endangered by their government’s war. People are not demanding consideration for the Chinese civilians who will be impacted by their government’s aggressive posturing towards Taiwan. People are not screaming for the pain the Muslim gangs must be experiencing as they go on murderous sprees against Hindus in Bangladesh.

We simply cannot allow the consequences of acts of murderous aggression to be equated with the cost of self-defense.

So what do we do instead? There is a three-step recipe for responding to whataboutisms that I find both delicious and effective.

Let’s practice with a common whataboutism:

What about the genocide in Gaza?

Before we get to the nitty gritty, let’s talk about the optional opening zinger. This is your chance to throw in a quick and visceral example that should grab people’s attention – the optional counter whataboutism.

This is important: do not use an actual genocide as your example. Your rebuttal whataboutism must be equivalent to the one you are responding to. The genocide slander against Israel has been debunked time and time again, so you must use an equally imaginary genocide to get your point across effectively.

My personal favorite: What about the Great Scottish Unicorn Massacre of 1653?

(**Fun “fact”: the unicorn was added to the Flag of Scotland in commemoration of their expulsion from the land in the 17^th century.)

And now for the meat:

Step 1 – Demonstrate how the whataboutism missed the mark.

If you countered with an equivalent whataboutism, take the time to point out that both have the same amount of historical evidence to back them up – none.

Step 2 – Reiterate the main point of your argument. You took your initial stand for a reason. Illustrate that reason here.

Step 3 – Highlight exactly how the whataboutism’s false equivalence seeks to skew the narrative. It might even perfectly demonstrate why your original point stands. Not only are these things really happening to Jews/Israel, but the fact that people try to sidestep or discount them like the whataboutist above further demonstrates the need for people outside of the Jewish community to hear us, pay attention, and do better.

Steps two and three are critical. Don’t make the mistake of assuming your audience agrees with you after step one or is making the same logical leaps you are. Make sure you take the time to walk them through the flawed logic of the whataboutism so they can learn to see through similar cases when they come across them.

Whataboutisms always take me right back to the playground, where disputes were about as sophisticated as finger pointing and arguments were won and lost based on who could shout the loudest insults, which makes me even more depressed when I see them used to defend Jews or Israel.

Let’s look back at my example above, where I specifically caution against using a real example of human suffering if you choose to engage in dueling whataboutisms. Using a real horror to defend against a libelous one does the opposite of what you intend. Instead of discrediting the libel, you are implicitly validating it, as you are now asking people to make a straight apples to apples comparison of evils. You cannot directly compare an imaginary horror with a concrete horror without diminishing the real one.

Even comparing real atrocities or using one to somehow justify or lessen the impact of another spits on the memory of those impacted by horrors in question. The idea that one crime against humanity somehow diminishes another is intellectually dishonest and belies a lack of humanity on the part of the person doing the ranking. Suffering is suffering, no matter the color skin or nation of origin of the sufferer. Costs are costs, no matter who pays them.

I do understand the motivation behind answering accusations of a fake genocide with examples of an actual one, but that, too, ignores the actual problem that needs addressing. Looking back at the example above, the person making the genocide accusation has either a massive misunderstanding of the facts or a blatantly hateful agenda (or, as is most likely these days, both). That is the point that needs addressing, not whether your pain outweighs their claims.

By using whataboutisms, detractors are making the claim that any pain or horrors Jews or Israelis experience should be discounted or are somehow deserved. Do not legitimize their discourse by playing on their level. Rise above, dig down, and address what they are actually saying, not what they want others to hear.

They want others to focus on their pain, real or imaginary, and they want to diminish any regard for Jewish suffering. We need others to hear that these calls are factually incorrect and deeply bigoted.

It incumbent upon us to cut through the noise and expose the rotten core of their flawed reasoning so that those who do not know better can learn.

So what about me?

When people come up to me with a “gotcha” question, I take a step back, a deep breath, and start asking questions of my own. You used [insert libel here], how are you defining it? What makes you think this is happening? How did you come by that information? What makes you think the source you are using is trustworthy? Let’s follow your logic and apply it to another situation. Does your reasoning still stand?

Drill down. Get them to strip away the emotional camouflage. Don’t stop until you hit the core – exposure. And what are you exposing? Hate, bigotry, bias, and usually a genuine lack of understanding. We win when we expose them, not when we let them rig the game.

So that’s what I do.

What about you?