How to Dismantle the Israel Genocide Lie — A Guide

For those who courageously stand with Israel, here is a step-by-step strategy to shut down the false genocide narrative levied at the Jewish state and expose the dangerous double standards fueling it.

photo: Patrick Perkins/Unsplash

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

This is a guest essay by Ted Goldstein, a Jewish poet and educator.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

“So, prove to me that Israel isn’t committing a genocide — while standing on one foot.”

If you’ve ever defended Israel since October 7, 2023, you’ve heard this line, maybe not verbatim, but in spirit, and probably not just once. Probably hundreds of times.

And it is one of the most frustrating and futile conversations you can have.

It is painfully obvious that Israel is not committing a genocide. What is happening is painful and tragic, but it is not a genocide. Yet the “anti-Zionist” narrative has been so strong that it seems almost impossible to prove.

The whole situation places the defender of Israel in a hopelessly ironic position: to be both completely on the side of truth and completely incapable of convincing anyone.

Most people I know, myself included, have become exhausted by this constant question. More often than not, we just ignore it. But there are times when you simply cannot ignore it, and, more importantly, it is really not something we can ignore. Sometimes we find ourselves fighting in this futile battle anyways.

If you ever find yourself in that position, here is a strategy for how to conduct the conversation more productively.

Firstly, we have to understand the premise of the question. When someone says that Israel is committing a genocide, they are provoking you. The word genocide is extremely provocative, which is why they use it. The whole dispute hinges on the provocative nature of that one word. Their claim is essentially two-fold: Genocide is the worst thing humanly possible, and Israel is committing it.

If this were a good-faith debate, it would be settled by defining the word genocide, describing Israel’s actions, and evaluating whether or not those actions conform to our definition.

It is the same structure as the debate: “Is a hot dog a sandwich?” Well, first let’s define what a sandwich is, then let’s describe a hot dog, and then let’s evaluate if the characteristics of a hot dog match those of a sandwich.

It is a simple debate structure, one of the simplest that one could ever imagine. We have all tried to have that debate; it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because their argument is in bad faith. Their intention is not to prove that Israel is actually committing a genocide; their intention is to provoke you to anger and then change their terms to prove that, even if Israel isn’t committing an actual genocide, it is still doing horrible things.

Normally, someone making a claim must defend that claim, and, if that defense is defeated, the claim is declared false and the claimant is shamed for being wrong. But there is no shame in accusing Israel of genocide, being proven wrong, and then saying, “Well, fine, Israel maybe isn’t technically committing genocide, but they’re still killing lots of people.”

So the stakes of the argument are all wrong too. If they win, Israel is committing genocide; if you win, Israel is only committing the equivalent of third-degree genocide. Genocide Lite, as it were.

You cannot win an argument if both possible outcomes mean you lose, so you have to change one of the outcomes. You have to make losing this argument actually mean something. Because it does.

These people believe that it is morally righteous to accuse Israel of genocide, even if their accusation is a baseless calumny. “Why does it matter if I use the wrong word?” they say. “Does it matter if I say something is delicious when really I only meant that it was very good?” That is the premise underlying their blase approach to the question — that their words, even if they are wrong, are not hurting anybody.

So, before you even begin this conversation, ask your interlocutor, “How much do words matter?” This will catch them off-guard. Usually, this conversation gets very heated very quickly, so they will not be expecting a calm and collected response. You will probably have to work them around on this a little bit, but your goal is to make them establish that words do matter and using the wrong words can cause a lot of damage.

The example I usually use is AIDS. It goes something like this: “How much do words matter?” “I don’t know, a lot.” “What happens if people use the wrong words when talking about something, can people get hurt?” Here, they will say one of three things: yes, maybe, or no. It doesn’t matter how they answer because you will use the example the exact same way. “Is it wrong for me to say that gay people spread AIDS?”

Usually, they object immediately. (Note: This example has only been used on “progressives,” so you may need a different one for a different crowd.) “Of course it’s wrong to say that, gay people don’t spread AIDS. AIDS is spread by blah blah blah.”

If you are really lucky, and they are really “woke,” they very might well finish up by saying, “and it’s dangerous to say things like that because such misplaced stereotypes can lead to homophobic violence.”

If they don’t see it for themselves, you can just walk them there: “In the 1970s and 1980s, before people understood how AIDS spread, many people just thought it was a disease caused and spread by being gay. How many people do you think got attacked because of those stereotypes and rumors? Words make a huge difference and lives are at stake. Saying AIDS is spread by gay people will lead to homophobic violence while saying that AIDS is spread by unprotected sex will not.”

I like to use the AIDS example because it fits right into the “progressive” wheelhouse; it’s a narrative they know very well. Bad things start happening, gay people get blamed, homophobes attack them, the oppressive ruling class does nothing and maybe even stokes anti-gay sentiments, and gay people suffer the consequences for decades to follow.

They will accept this premise because they believe in the narrative, even if they start to sense that the conversation is shifting. So much of “progressivism” is built on the idea that “language constitutes violence” — that to reject this premise would be to reject the whole of “progressivism.”

Now, you’ve got them. They have accepted the premise that words matter and that the incorrect use of words can lead to violence. So turn the screws. “If that is the case,” you say, “then using the word genocide incorrectly is dangerous and could directly lead to violence against Jews.”

They will probably push back on this, so just ask them, has there been more antisemitic violence since the genocide narrative began, or less? Do not try to prove causation; that is a waste of time. If they push back, just name a few of the major antisemitic attacks that have happened, and ask them if there is more violence now than before. Just get correlation going.

There is a very clear correlation between how many times people accuse Israel of genocide and how many times Jews get attacked in the street. Once they start to see the argument coming together, they’ll start to get a little green around the gills because they have not experienced this before.

There is a smugness that comes from having rigged arguments too often. They get accustomed to winning without trying, and, when they realize that you’ve changed the game on them, their mood will change. But that doesn’t matter; they started this conversation, they made a claim, and it is their obligation to defend it.

Once you have their own claim wrapped around their neck, and you have made sure that the noose is good and tight (they will try to wriggle out of it), it is time to read out their sentence:

“You began this conversation by claiming that Israel is committing a genocide. You just admitted that using misleading language and making false claims can cause tremendous violence. I am about to prove to you why Israel is not committing a genocide, and, if I do, then, based on what you just said, it follows that falsely claiming Israel is committing genocide can cause tremendous violence to the Jewish community, and you and anyone else who continues to use this language will be knowingly putting Jewish people in danger.”

(Typically, this is where I ask them if they have any last words they would like to say.)

Proving the genocide is a lie is easy; getting an “anti-Zionist” to accept that proof means anything is not. You can use any particular proof that you want; it does not matter. Population statistics, historical comparisons, IDF protocols, and so forth.

They will probably continue to fight you and continue to try to prove that if you turn the definition upside down and only read every third word, then technically it is maybe not a genocide — it’s just sparkling ethnic cleansing — but you do not need to engage with that anymore.

You can just say, “Look, it is not a genocide. If you want to claim that it is a genocide, you have to prove that it is a genocide; not the other way around. If you cannot definitely prove that it is a genocide, then you cannot call it one, otherwise, you are knowingly putting Jewish people in danger. Of course, it is not antisemitic to criticize the Israeli government, but it is antisemitic to knowingly making false and misleading claims about Israel that will cause antisemitic violence.”

And remind them that the choice is theirs; no one is forcing them to use the word genocide. The beauty of this argument is that it is entirely their own. They chose the terms of the argument, they fired the first salvo, and they established the ideological premise. You merely took their terms and premises to their logical conclusion.

The “progressive” world has declared that dangerous speech and violence are functionally synonymous, and you have proven to them that genocide-baiting is dangerous speech, which is equivalent to violence. Will they see the beauty of your reason and become a Zionist? Probably not. Will they excise the word genocide from their anti-Israel vocabulary? Probably not.

But they will at least know they cannot use that word around you because you will hold them accountable. They will at least feel some shame everytime they use the word genocide because your voice will be ringing in their head. They will at least walk away without the same smug smile they always walk away from these conversations with.

And you will have won.

Winning a debate is not about convincing the other person they are wrong; it is about proving to yourself and your G-d that you are right. The entire purpose of this genocide-baiting is to sow doubt in our minds about Israel, to make us question if maybe Israel really is committing a genocide. After all, there are 500 million people saying that, 500 million at least.

Can they really all be wrong?

Well, there were well over 500 million people who thought AIDS was caused by gay people. There probably still are, and they were all wrong too.

At the end of the day, truth is truth. You either believe it is worth defending for its own sake, or you don’t. A person of truth can live in a world with falsehood, but he cannot live in a world where people pretend that falsehood is truth.

I would not expect to get most “anti-Zionists” to accept the truth, but I will not let them go on convincing others that their lies are true. So go forth and defend the truth, because, if we don’t, no one else will.

---