How to Argue with an Israelophobe

When every Israeli action is evil and every Palestinian action is sacred, we've left politics and entered pathology.

When it comes to Israel, criticism is fair game. So is protest. But we've entered a new territory, one where nuance dies, facts evaporate, and Israel becomes a shorthand for everything wrong with the world.

Take a closer look, and it becomes apparent that we're not dealing with activism but obsession. And while it doesn't always wear the mask of antisemitism, it often borrows the costume.

So, how do you argue with someone who sees Israel as the root of all evil, facts be damned?

Let's begin.

What is Israelophobia, exactly?

Israeliphobia is not criticism of Israeli policy, which is normal, even healthy. No country or government should be above criticism.

But when "criticism" of Israel turns obsessive, when every Israeli action is framed as evil, and every Palestinian action as sacred, then we are stepping into the realm of Israelophobia. It's when Israel becomes the moral litmus test of your worldview, and somehow – out of 195 countries – it's always the Jewish one that gets your blood boiling.

It's when you chant "Free Palestine" but can't find it on a map. When you post infographics with dripping blood but have nothing to say about Syria, Sudan, or Xinjiang. When you think Hamas are freedom fighters, but IDF soldiers are Nazis with better optics.

It's criticism unmoored from reality and drunk on moral certainty.

Let me be clear: There are principled critics of Israel who know their history, apply consistent standards, and genuinely care about human rights for all. This isn't about them. This is about the ones who spray-painted "Kill the Jews" on a Toronto synagogue to "protest Gaza." This is about those who blocked Jewish students from entering UCLA's library unless they denounced Israel first.

But it's not antisemitic to criticise Israel, right?

Correct. But nobody said it was.

What is antisemitic is:

• Holding Israel to standards you apply to no one else.

• Blaming Jews in New York for what the Israeli government does.

• Assuming every Jewish person must "condemn" Israel before they're allowed to speak.

• Pretending a 3,000-year Jewish connection to the land is a colonial invention.

• Chanting "from the river to the sea" and pretending it's about human rights, not erasure.

If your "critique" ends up sounding like a Hamas press release, you may want to check your mirrors — and your morals.

Isn't Israel a Western colonial project?

If by "colonial" you mean the Jewish people returning to their ancestral homeland after two millennia of exile, persecution, and genocide, then yes — the most poorly organised colonialism in history.

Colonial empires extract wealth and impose rule from afar. Israel is a tiny state founded by refugees who had nowhere else to go. Jews didn't arrive in the Middle East with red coats and gunboats — they arrived with trauma and a U.N. vote.

Also: the Jews are from there. You might not like it, but Abraham wasn't Belgian.

Now, does this mean Palestinians don't have legitimate grievances? Of course not. Many were displaced. That's real. That matters. But you can acknowledge Palestinian suffering without buying into the fantasy that Jews are foreign invaders in Judea. Both peoples have valid claims. That's what makes it tragic, not simple.

But Israel kills civilians! That's wrong!

Yes. It is. War is horrific. But context matters.

If Hamas launches rockets from a hospital, and Israel strikes the rocket launcher, and civilians tragically die — that is not genocide. That is asymmetric warfare, waged by a terrorist group that uses human shields and thrives on civilian death for PR.

You can weep for Palestinian innocents without absolving the people who put them in harm's way. And you can criticise Israeli tactics without pretending Hamas is Médecins Sans Frontières with rocket-propelled grenades.

Why is Israel the target of so much outrage?

Because it's safe and visible. And because, for some, Jews with power are more offensive than Jews being slaughtered.

It's easier to march against a democracy than a dictatorship. It's trendier to rage against Israel than to mention Assad. And it flatters the ego to play freedom fighter from the safety of a London street or Harvard campus while actual Gazans die under a regime that treats them like expendables.

There's also this: Israel is held to Western standards while existing in a Middle Eastern reality. It's judged as if it's located between Belgium and Luxembourg, not between Hezbollah and Hamas. Context isn't an excuse, but pretending geography doesn't matter is its own form of delusion.

Why does the world's only Jewish state generate more campus protests than actual dictatorships? Why do students who couldn't point to Myanmar on a map suddenly become Middle East experts when Jews are involved?

Isn't this just a way to silence criticism?

No. It's a way to demand consistency. If your outrage only activates when Jews are the ones with guns, you're not fighting for justice — you're performing a vendetta.

Israelophobia is not "speaking truth to power." It's playing dress-up with revolutionary fervour. It's virtue chic in a keffiyeh. And sometimes — not always, but often enough — it's just antisemitism in disguise.

Want to criticize settlements? Go ahead — many Israelis do. Think the occupation needs to end? Join the club. Believe Netanyahu is a disaster? Take a number. But if your "criticism" involves denying Jewish history, lionizing terrorists, or holding random Jews responsible for Israeli policy, then we're not talking about politics anymore. We're talking about prejudice.

So how do I argue with an Israelophobe?

Start with facts. Offer context. Ask questions. Lots of questions.

• Do you support a two-state solution?

• What do you think Hamas wants?

• Can you name a single Arab democracy?

• Do you apply these same moral standards to China or Iran?

• Why did you discover this passion for justice only when Jews got a state?

And when the conversation turns to "decolonisation," it's worth pausing to ask a basic question: what does that even mean in this case?

The Jews didn't arrive from across the sea to impose a foreign empire. They returned to the one place they'd never stopped praying toward — not as conquerors, but as refugees, survivors, and exiles trying to rebuild a home where history had tried to erase them.

Ask them this too: If your solution involves Jews becoming a minority in a Hamas-run state, how is that different from saying Jews deserve whatever comes next? If you can't guarantee Jewish safety in your "free Palestine," you're not talking about freedom — you're talking about a different kind of oppression.

Final word

This isn't about defending every Israeli policy or denying Palestinian suffering. It's about recognising when criticism curdles into obsession — when a state becomes a symbol, and a people become a scapegoat.

You can care about justice. But if you only seem to care when it's Jews with the power, you might want to ask yourself why.

The tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that both peoples have suffered, both have legitimate claims, and both deserve security and dignity. The Israelophobe can't see this. They've replaced complexity with cartoons, history with hashtags, and justice with jihad — whether they realize it or not.

Argue with them if you must. But remember: you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Sometimes the best response to obsession isn't debate — it's walking away.

---