It seems that every time there is a critique of Western foreign policy, some individuals can’t resist bringing Israel into the conversation, no matter how irrelevant the topic may be.
Take Rob de Mezieres’ article Goodbye, Genocide Joe, for instance.
While it certainly paints a picture of distortion, perhaps the most frustrating element is the predictable, tired inclusion of Israel.
It’s almost as if criticizing an American president isn’t complete without using terms like “apartheid” and “genocide” to fit a specific agenda.
Israel’s Involvement: A Convenient and Repetitive Narrative
Why is it that Israel, a nation often caught in the crossfire of international politics, is dragged into almost every discussion? In Goodbye, Genocide Joe, de Mezieres obliges by following the tired script that paints Israel as the villain, conveniently ignoring the equally horrific actions of Hamas.
This deliberate one-sided portrayal is not an accident.
It relies on selective outrage, where only one narrative is allowed to flourish, ignoring the complexities of the situation.
De Mezieres, like many others, doesn’t bother to provide any context when hurling accusations like “apartheid” or “genocide” at Israel.
These terms are used with reckless abandon, stripped of any real meaning. But when you examine the facts, these accusations fall apart.
Israel, unlike many of its neighbors, is a democracy where Arab citizens enjoy equal rights, including representation in parliament and the judiciary.
This doesn’t align with the concept of apartheid, but it doesn’t fit the narrative either.
What De Mezieres Overlooks About Israel
One of the key omissions in de Mezieres’ piece is the fact that Israel, in contrast to most countries in the region, is a thriving democracy.
Arab citizens of Israel have equal rights under the law, and many hold positions in politics, law, and society.
Yet, accusations of apartheid persist, not because they hold weight, but because they fit the narrative of Israel as the “bad guy.”
It’s hard to argue against such a portrayal, even when basic facts, like the reality that Arab Israelis hold important positions, are ignored.
Furthermore, the complexities of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank are rarely addressed.
Gaza, for instance, is not part of Israel, yet this is often forgotten when Israel is painted as the culprit.
Before the recent conflict, many Palestinian workers crossed into Israel for jobs and were integrated into various industries.
After October 7, some of those very same workers turned against Israel, committing violent acts.
These are the realities that are too often left out of the conversation.
The Misuse of the Term “Genocide” and the Distortion of History
The term “genocide” has been used so frequently in modern discourse that it has lost its meaning.
To accuse Israel of genocide, as some do, is an insult to the actual genocides throughout history.
The situation in Gaza is not one of genocide but rather a defensive war against a terrorist organization, Hamas, which has embedded itself within civilian areas.
This intentional omission of Hamas’ war crimes serves to perpetuate a one-sided narrative, casting Israel as the aggressor while ignoring the reality of the situation.
Furthermore, the falsehood of genocide becomes even more apparent when you consider the rapid growth of the Palestinian population in the past few decades.
If Israel were truly engaging in genocide, how could the number of Palestinians have increased so significantly?
The Double Standards of the West
There’s a broader issue at play here, one that speaks to the West’s selective outrage.
While Israel’s every move is scrutinized and condemned, other human rights violations around the world seem to go unnoticed.
Where’s the outrage over Syria, where countless civilians have been slaughtered? What about China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims? These issues don’t fit the anti-Israel agenda, so they are conveniently ignored.
This selective outrage is not an accident. It’s deliberate.
If the goal were truly to improve the lives of Palestinians, activists would also be calling out Hamas for its repression of its own people, as well as the Palestinian Authority’s human rights abuses. But that’s not the goal here.
The objective is to delegitimize Israel, not to find a path to peace.
The Weaponization of Holocaust Rhetoric
In one of the most grotesque parts of de Mezieres’ article, he compares Israel’s actions to the Holocaust.
This is what’s known as “Holocaust inversion,” a disgusting and offensive practice where critics of Israel liken its defensive measures to the industrial genocide of six million Jews.
This comparison is not only historically inaccurate but also deeply offensive.
The Holocaust was a unique event in history, and to equate it with the Israel-Hamas conflict is an insult to its victims.
This type of rhetoric serves to delegitimize Israel’s right to self-defense.
It twists history, distorting the facts in order to fit a political agenda.
And by doing so, it erases the real suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust, using it as a tool for anti-Israel propaganda.
The Revisionism of Anti-Israel Activism
A key element of anti-Israel rhetoric is the deliberate distortion of history.
Israel’s founding in 1948 was an act of international legitimacy following the horrors of the Holocaust.
Yet, the narrative around Israel’s existence is often one of denial and erasure.
Calls for a “Free Palestine” are not truly about peace but about the destruction of Israel itself.
This ideological commitment to erasing Israel from the map has been evident in the rejection of peace deals by Palestinian leadership time and time again.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it left behind infrastructure that could have been used to build a thriving society.
Instead, Hamas took control and plunged the region into further conflict.
Yet, despite this reality, Israel is often portrayed as the sole aggressor.
Zionism as a Scapegoat
Another common tactic in the anti-Israel playbook is the demonization of Zionism.
The belief in the Jewish people’s right to a homeland is often treated as something shameful, yet it’s no different than any other national self-determination movement.
The problem arises when detractors of Israel substitute the word “Zionism” for Jews, allowing them to express hostility toward Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism.
This tactic is insidious and serves to perpetuate age-old antisemitic rhetoric.
Zionism, at its core, simply means that the Jewish people have a right to their homeland, just like any other nation.
Yet, it’s vilified in a way that no other national self-determination movement is.
The double standard is glaring, and it highlights the biases of those who attack it.
The Real Agenda Behind the Critique of Biden
When it comes to the critique of Joe Biden’s presidency, the constant need to insert Israel into the conversation reveals the real agenda behind the criticism.
The focus on Israel is often a smokescreen for advancing an anti-Israel narrative, one that distorts history, ignores context, and demonizes a nation for defending itself.
While there are certainly valid critiques of Biden’s leadership, framing every issue through the lens of Israel only serves to distract from the real issues at hand.
It’s time to retire this tired script. The cycle of misinformation, double standards, and weaponized outrage is crumbling, and it’s becoming harder to ignore the contradictions that underpin it.
The world is watching, and the game is up.
It’s time to have an honest conversation about the real issues, free from the ideological narratives that have clouded the discussion for far too long.