Five reasons people accuse me of being an “apologist for genocide”

My recent piece, “Seven Ideas about Israel/Gaza that Can’t Survive Reality,” generated a lot of comments. The piece focused on seven assessments of the war that I consider ungrounded. Hence the phrase “can’t survive reality.”

Although I am grateful for the level of engagement, including words of dissent, I was surprised how many readers called me an “apologist” for genocide and/or war crimes. It was the most consistent pattern in the comments.

Here are direct quotes from five different people:

• “This is nothing more than glib sophistry serving as an apology for rampant slaughter.”
• “The piece is just an apology for Israel and its war crimes.”
• “Beautifully written Hasbara.” (I thought this was a compliment until I looked up the meaning of the word. “Hasbara” is Hebrew for explanation, though some who criticize Israel twist the word around to mean propaganda. I think that’s what this reader intended.)
• “There are too many false positives and positively racist claims of justified homicide.”
• “Your entire article is disingenuous. The world can see what Israel’s doing. You are simply papering over the cracks and trying to justify the unjustifiable.”

Ouch.

If you had not read the article or the two that preceded it, you would be right to assume that I’ve been advocating for, or at least defending, Israel’s massive bombings and full ground invasion.

I haven’t.

In fact, I’ve been arguing since early November (when my stance crystallized) for something very different: a counterterrorism approach involving special forces and targeted assassinations. In my assessment, these would not only save innocent lives but also serve Israel’s strategic interests in defending itself and rallying the world to support this aim.

I advocated for this approach in my November 9 essay, “How Best to Restore Israel’s Security and Save Innocent Lives?” I reinforced the point in the “Seven Ideas” essay by saying that Israel was not forced to do what it’s done, that it had choices — better choices. And I wrote very explicitly that if Israel is committing war crimes, it should stop the crimes (but not the war).

Nowhere have I defended Israel’s massive bombings and full ground invasion. Yet these readers accuse me of being an apologist for genocide.

In other words, they call me an apologist for a set of actions that I don’t support.

What’s going on here?

Five possibilities come to mind:

1. Confirmation bias. These readers came in thinking that anyone saying something even slightly favorable toward Israel is endorsing genocide. As they read my article, they looked for evidence confirming this belief and ignored evidence disconfirming it.
2. Different standards for assessing advocacy. The language I use to assess Israel’s approach to the war isn’t condemnatory or oppositional. It isn’t especially emotional. And it isn’t limited to moral dimensions; I also write in terms of Israel’s interests. Such language meets my standards for effective advocacy because I aim not to villify an enemy but instead to offer tough love to a friend. This language does not meet these readers’ standards. They want me to condemn Israel, preferably using the word “genocide” or another emotionally laden term. Thus, when I write phrases like “advocate for a different approach” or “Israel’s strategic interests,” they are deeply dissatisfied.
3. Different views about Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. Let’s face it. Many people attacking Israel’s specific actions today also question its general right to exist and therefore defend itself. They think its creation was a moral abomination, or at least unjust, and view its continued existence as a stain on the world. This view of Israel colors every assessment they make of its actions.
4. Soviet propaganda. Ironically, the very people accusing me of issuing propaganda are themselves using language that originated in Soviet propaganda during the Cold War. The charge that Israel is committing genocide (or behaving like an apartheid state or employing ethnic cleansing or racist) are not new. They have been around decades and have a very specific origin story. As Jake Wallis Simons writes in the book Israelophobia, “Between 1967 and about 1988, the KGB embarked on a massive disinformation campaign called SIG, short for Sionistskiya Gosudarstva, or ‘Zionist Governments’, which flooded the world with Israelophobic paranoia, this time moulded around the Soviet worldview and objectives.” According to Simons, nearly every anti-Israel or anti-Zionist trope originated from this campaign. Does this mean that the Israeli government has never committed sins and should not be held to account for crimes it commits? Of course not. But might explain why the phrase “apologist for genocide” is on some people’s lips more often than is warranted.
5. Clarity of my writing. When you’re falsely accused of something, it’s not a bad idea to ask, “Is there something I can learn from this?” In this instance, am I writing explicitly and frequently enough about where I stand overall on Israel’s approach to the war? If someone read through the “Seven Ideas” essay quickly, are there enough instances of this stand that they would be likely to see it? I give myself a B. My stand isn’t hard to find if you look and aren’t subject to confirmation bias. But it’s also not present in as many places as it could be. This matters in a complex piece of writing. For one thing we know about communication is that if you want to get a point across, it’s worth repeating many times. I don’t apologize for insufficient repetition nor promise to do better in the future. But in answer to the question, “What’s going on here?” this is another part of the story.

Interestingly, although the accusations sting, they would sting a whole lot more if they captured something true about my stand toward Israel and Gaza.

When people illuminate genuine moral flaws, it hurts. And it should. This is what psychologists call “healthy shame.” It’s healthy because it’s based on actual choices a person has made and can create new choices in the future. In my 53 years on the planet, I’ve certainly had this experience more than a few times.

Perhaps those who have hurled the accusations at me will feel a tinge of such healthy shame upon reading this piece and reflecting upon their own actions. I wouldn’t bet money on it, but a man can hope…

(Update: one reader who previously made this accusation wrote to apologize for it, which I appreciate very much. A second reader says he still thinks I’m an apologist for war crimes. I’ll take one out of two).

Weary of the pointless prickly polarization? Ready for more fiercely nuanced stands? I can help.

Receive my free bimonthly updates straight to your inbox. There’s no need to choose between hope and despair. You can be cheerfully real.

Listen to “How My View Grew.”

Join me in season one of How My View Grew, the show that dives deep into humanity’s challenges by looking at big thinkers who have changed their minds. We explore climate, democracy, Ukraine, the Middle East, and more.