Unnecessary, Illogical Comparisons
The LinkedIn Post
A few days ago was both Yom Hashoah and Red Dress Day. I posted about both days of mourning. The former day is more personal to me than the latter, which, tbh, I only heard about a year ago. Nevertheless, Jews are taught to stand up for all people. It was a no brainer to seperately show sympathy for both groups. There was no reason to use mention of one to spring board for the other other.
Unfortunately, the world has decided you can not talk about Jewish suffering, the unhyphenated word that has nothing to do with “semites”, without making it about Muslim suffering. I’m not sure who decided this. But the US and Europe rolled with it. And the rest of the world doesn’t talk of Jewish suffering, so they don’t have to.
My LinkedIn post about the Holocaust—entirely about how I am proud to be a Jew, Zionist and Israeli—got shared by a few people. This led to a stranger seeing it. As discussed, what do Jew haters do when they hear a mention of the Holocust? Naturally, they make it about Palestine, the one example of Muslim suffering everyone has to talk about, unlike Syrian Civil War or the much bigger events.
I wrote about this what I call “Holocaust DEI” already, so I won’t do it here. I simply told the person that I screenshotted his comment and added it to that recent blog post.
That scared him off. Showing you screenshotted a Palestine Supporter’s comments tends to make them uneasy, because they’re not really sure if they stand behind their words. Checking out this man’s other comments, it was apparent it was neither the first or last time this bigot would make a completely unneccessary, illogical comparison. That inspired me to write about the other comparisons I have to hear. In a world that struggles to understand averages, basic ethics and debate, making terrible comparisons is common.
13 Million vs 11 Billion
People against H@mas have regularly pointed out their horrific embezzlement (in addition to their terrorism). We may point out individual Hamas leaders, who each have more money than Taylor Swift. Or we may point out that they live in luxurious mansions in Qatar, not in Gaza or Jordan. The often cited big number is that these leaders have a collective $11 Billion. Billion… with a B.
Like other Palestine Supporters, Gilbert White had to bring up Benjamin Netanyahu, the elected leader of Israel, as a counter argument against… calling out a totalatarian’s corruption. According to Mr. White, Bibi has $19 Million. Just as bad, right?!
I’m not sure of Bibi’s net worth, but random websites estimate it at $13 Million. As a Jew, a 6 Million difference is astronomical. So I will go with that number, not the number provided in an attempt to downplay how horrible H@mas leaders are.
Some quick math: 11 Billion divided by 13 Million is 846 and change. Meaning the reply trying to compare Bibi to Hamas leadership was pointing out an 846 times discrepancy, without even getting into where that money comes from. Imagine you have $1,183 in your bank—often what I actually have—and someone said, “You’re so rich! You are a Millionaire!”
Again, the issue is not just the faulty, illogical, insensitive comparison. It is how unnecessary it was. Especially coming from someone whose point seems to be how much they respect Gaza. Do they really? People who actually respect Gaza’s civilians are not bothered when H@mas corruption is called out. These people would want a solution to income inequality, not a bad comparison about it.
For the sake of time, I won’t dive into the massive difference in where these people’s networth come from, except to say that H@mas is financed by criminal activity, crypto schemes, and other nefarious acts. I get the knee jerk reaction from some to compare such activity to corrupt politicians, who get kickbacks. I won’t. Especially to account for Gaza, where two million are controlled by a few Billionaires.
Intention: What do you mean?
Corey Gil-Shuster is a TAU Prof. who runs one of my favorite YouTube projects, “Ask an Israeli/Palestinian Project.” It’s a must watch for understanding the diversity of Israeli thoughts, and, in my controversial opinion, the problematic lack of diversity with Palestinian thought. At the very least, it shows what each side will say in front of a camera.
Prof Gil-Shuster’s IG account @gilshsuster posted someone else discussing the distateful comparison of Palestinian suffering to the Holocaust. Again, any suffering is bad. He repeats that point. I’m repeating that point. We just don’t think any two sufferings should be compared. If you break your leg, you don’t need someone to go, “Suck it up! That person did too!”
The handsome Zionist in the video says, “Do you know how many {Arab Palestinians} lost their lives in 1948, when Israel was established in the “Nakhba?” How many? 13,000. In terms of civilian casualties in the Nakhba, we are talking in the single digits—thousands. Every human life is a world onto itself and {this} is a tragedy. In terms of 20th century conflicts, where Millions of people lost their lives, you’re making an obscene comparison.
But then they say, ‘I’m talking all 76 years. Including the current war in Gaza.’ If we look at all of the wars between Israel and Arab armies, we look at both intifadas, all the operations in Gaza, this current war, we are talking less than 60,000 {Arab} casualities. More Jews perished in the Holocaust, in a single week, at the height of the Nazi extermination of European Jews, and also North AFrican Jews, Greek Jews.... More Jews perished in a week than in 76 years of the Israeli-Palestinian or Jewish-Arab conflict.
Then you’ll say, ‘What about all the refugees? (There were also) 100s of 1000s of Palestinian refugees in 1948.’ And you’re right. There were also 100s of 1000s of Jewish refugees from Arab and Middle Eastern countries in the 1940s and 50s. There were Millions of Jewish refugees after WW2. There were over a Millions Greek refugees in 1923 in the population exchange between the modern republic of Turkey and the state of Greece. There were 100,000 Armenian refugees just last year, in 2023, in the Armenian-Azheri conflict…
It doesn’t mean it’s OK. It doesn’t mean it’s not awful. But none of these—whether in Armenia, Aizerbaijan, or Israel-Palestine—none of these are on the scale, scope or the level of what happened in Europe in the 1940s. Comparing 65,000 casualties over 76 years to 6 Million people wiped out by a regime, who’s stated attempt was to wipe them out, in 4 or 5 years, is obscene. The comparison is obscene.”
If you like math: 6 Million divided by 65,000 is 92 and change. The least credible, pro-Palestine sources claim the total Arab deaths, even including the H@mas numbers from this current war as factual, are 100,000-150,000. That’s 60-40 times less than the Holocaust. Again, these ratios do not matter, because you don’t need to make obscene comparisons like, “How many 10/7s (Putin’s birthday) were in 9/11?”
Genocide is about intent. Not numbers. The Darfur genocide had between 80,000 and 400,000 killed, and 9,300 women raped. The genocide Ilhan Omar’s father lead, the Ogaden War between Somalia and Ethiopia, had about 60,000 deaths, 15,000 of which were civilians. They were genocides because populations were wiped out. Palestine’s population has grown eight fold since Israel.
Of course, data is not trivial. It is better, on paper, when there is a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio of combatant:civilian deaths, especially compared to 1:8. People honest about this war can see that Israel has achieved one of the lowest combatant:civilian ratios in Gaza out of any war in centuries. But the 8:1 ratio cited with US wars in the Middle East don’t point to a genocidal intent. They just point to the fact that Israel takes extraordinary precuations to avoid civilian casualties, that US and other states would never take while they’re being attacked.
Written and stated intent prove genocide. Like the H@mas Covenant, which talks predominately about killing all the Jews, and not once about establishing a state. Or Putin’s speeches, which talk heavily about destroying the Ukranian identity. The fact someone fails to kill every last Jew or Ukranian does not absolve them from intending to commit a genocide. The fact that Palestine’s population has grown 8 fold, despite Israel having one of the strongest armies in the world, shows there is no intent to kill civilians. So did the ICJ case, where no evidence of plausability was found.
Words matter. They describe intent. Us Israelis know the truth: we are not violent people, but we will defend ourselves. If you watch Corey Gil-Shuster’s YouTube channel, you can see countless interviews where we profess our love for freedom and life, and you can see Palestine Supporters professing their love for Sharia law and death.
Freedom Fighters vs Fighting for Freedom
The term "freedom fighter" evokes a romantic image of a rebel with a cause, striving to liberate their people from oppression. Maybe you think of Star Wars. However, this label is misappropriated, particularly by terrorist groups claiming to fight for freedom while their actions betray the fundamental principles of liberty. True freedom entails the secular right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free from coercion—principles diametrically opposed to the operations of many so-called "freedom fighters."
Freedom, in its essence, involves the ability of individuals to live their lives as they choose, provided they do not harm others. This includes the right to follow or reject religious beliefs, participate in fair and open elections, and express oneself without fear of retribution. Contrastingly, many terrorist groups labeled as "freedom fighters" pursue agendas steeped in ideological or religious extremism, often imposing strict and punitive measures on their own people. Their actions typically involve acts of violence targeted at civilians, the suppression of dissent, and the denial of basic human rights—behaviors that are antithetical to the very concept of freedom.
Groups such as H@mas, Hezbollah, and various factions in conflicts like those in Syria and Afghanistan, claim to fight for liberation. Yet, their methods involve terror tactics that indiscriminately harm the very populations they purport to defend. Schools, hospitals, and public markets become battlegrounds, with terror overshadowing any legitimate grievances they might harbor against oppressive regimes.
Moreover, the mockery of the term "freedom" becomes apparent when these groups achieve power. Far from establishing free societies, they often set up authoritarian regimes that restrict personal freedoms and fail to provide the stability and security that are the bedrock of civil society. The rights to openly debate, to disagree, and to live without fear of religious or political persecution are frequently the first casualties under their rule.
The international community must discern those who fight for freedom from those who exploit the term freedom. Supporting true freedom means backing movements that uphold democratic values, respect human rights and seek peaceful resolutions. By promoting these principles, we can contribute to a world where freedom is preserved as a reality for all, not just a pretext for the ambitions of a few.
The abuse of the term "freedom fighter" by terrorist groups not only undermines the legitimacy of their cause but also desecrates the concept of freedom itself. True freedom champions human dignity and the peaceful coexistence of diverse communities, not the perpetration of violence and terror under the guise of liberation. Palestine has never stood for freedom.
Two Rules
I will discuss one final gross comparison we hear too often: the apartheid analogy. This offensive comparison distorts both historical and contemporary realities. The comparison was coined at the 2001 Durban Conference, where it was employed as a strategic tool by Islamist states to internationally isolate Israel. This move was always about geopolitical maneuvering, not an accurate historical analogy.
Leaving the intent analysis aside, the US and Israel walked out of the Durban Conference, with good reason. Mansour Abbas, the leader of Israel’s United Arab List (Ra’am), a Muslim political party in Israel, said, "I would not call it apartheid.” (The Times of Israel) (The Jerusalem Post). So have endless Palestinian refugees. The people most deeply aware of the situation have rejectet this term.
One fundamental flaw in the apartheid analogy: Jews have an indigenous status in the region of Israel, contrasting sharply with the Afrikaners in South Africa. This distinction is crucial as it underscores the inherent connection of Jews to the land of Israel, unlike the colonial dynamics that characterized South Africa. Jews speak modern Hebrew, a language spoken no where else. Dutch and English settlers spoke languages shared by other states.
Moreover, the unique political structures in Israel and the Arab-territories differentiate the region from the apartheid narrative. Palestinian Authority and Hamas exert governance over Palestinian populations, indicating a level of political autonomy that was not afforded to Black South Africans under apartheid. Arab Israelis enjoy equal rights under Israeli law, exemplified by George Karra, the Arab justice who sentenced former Israeli President Moshe Katsav to prison, highlighting Israel’s judicial equality. Comparing a country where Arabs lead the government to apartheid-era South Africa is dishonest.
Often forgoten, this comparison ignores the remorse expressed by key figures such as Nelson Mandela regarding overly violent tactics used during their struggle,. Mandela had nuanced reflections on violence, not the “resist by any means (… even rape)” take that we are hearing today. He said, "It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle." Palestine represents the opposite, having begun with violence and likely ending with violence. In between, the world tried over and over to encourage peaceful tactics, which were never really tried.
The apartheid label that is used never comes with an explanation. Deep down, it often insists that any Jews living in MENA is unacceptable. It’s not about specific laws, which of course do not apply to people who are not citizen and do not recognize the state. It is not about how to encourage coexistence, in a manner unlike South Africa where ANC rule brought significant economic challenges. There is a complex legacy of post-apartheid, South African governance without any mirror to an Israel-Palestine context.
Employing the apartheid label for Israel diminishes the specific historical suffering of those who lived under South African apartheid. It is a ploy to push a religious state, which would cause massive times more oppressive policies. In some cases, the faux anti-apartheid argument ends with reasons for killing Zionist Jews or banning them from the property they own and built in their homeland.
In closing, I want to stress that while comparisons have their place, they should not be used to diminish or invalidate someone's lived experience. I know firsthand that Zionism saved my grandparents' lives; no accusations of malevolence can change that truth.
When making comparisons, it's crucial to clarify the basis of these comparisons. Are we evaluating intent, the number of lives impacted, the treatment of civilians, respect for human rights, or something else? What is being said and not said? Specificity helps ensure that comparisons contribute constructively to the debate rather than muddying the waters.
Ironically, the very act of whataboutism—which has become all too common among anti-Zionists—shows an awareness that context is key to understanding any event. Yet, calling everything “whataboutism” is a tactic often employed to sidestep genuine discussion, relying instead on bad-faith arguments and a revisionist take on history. Let us strive for a higher standard, where comparisons enlighten rather than obscure, and where history's lessons are used to illuminate the truth, not distort it.
Zachary Foster insists H@mas attack killing 1200+ Jews was not antisemitic, because 21 Bedouins, 6 “Palestinians”, and 71 foreign workers were also killed. Does this argument make sense to anyone???
