WHATABOUTISM: the art of dodging the issue

Whenever I post an article on the suffering of the innocent in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and, recently, Iran, I would always receive a standard response from the pro-war lobbyists:  “But what about Hezbollah firing missiles at Israel?”  “What about Hamas using civilians as human shields?“ “What about the oppressive regime in Iran?”  Or, as the one brother posted on my social media after the murder of a Christian in Lebanon by Israeli forces: “Israel would not fire a single bullet at Lebanon if they hadn’t been provoked. Israel is not the aggressor in the middle east. They are a tiny democracy, surrounded by countries that hate them for being Jews.  What about that?”

And, even though these are legitimate points open for discussion, it has become an artful strategy of dodging the issue and deflecting criticism by shifting attention to a different matter.  Instead of addressing the original concern, the listener introduces another topic—sometimes related, sometimes not—to dilute, distract, or delegitimize the critique.  This  is the deflecting skill of what-about-ism

WHATABOUTISM: WHAT THE WORD MEANS

According to sources such as Wikipedia, Britannica, and Merriam-Webster, whataboutism is considered a form of informal – even unintentional – deception, and often functioning as a red herring—a tactic that diverts attention away from the matter at hand.

At its core, whataboutism does three things:

• Shifts the focus away from the issue at hand
• Questions the critic’s legitimacy by implying ignorance and bias
• Minimise wrongdoing by pointing to other wrongs, real or perceived

The result is that meaningful discussion becomes muddied. Instead of engaging with the substance of a claim—whether about human rights, political decisions, or moral responsibility—the conversation gets rerouted into endless comparisons.

WHATABOUTISM IN ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONVERSATIONS

Whataboutism shows up in nearly every Israel–Palestine conversation with unusual intensity because the topic is emotionally loaded, spiritually layered, and morally charged. When people feel their position is under scrutiny, whataboutism becomes a shield—redirecting attention away from present suffering or specific actions and toward alternative grievances, threats, or historical traumas.

1. Deflecting from present suffering by reframing the conversation
A common pattern is that when someone raises concerns about civilian casualties, displacement, or humanitarian conditions, the response shifts to a different topic entirely. Instead of engaging with the immediate issue, the conversation is rerouted to:

• the actions of Hamas
• The missiles of Hezbollah
• the security fears of Israeli civilians
• historical persecution of Jewish communities
• geopolitical threats from regional actors

These topics are real and significant, but they function as diversions when used to avoid acknowledging the suffering being discussed in the moment.

2. Recasting criticism as hypocrisy
Another form of whataboutism reframes any critique of Israeli policy as evidence of selective outrage. The argument becomes:

• “Why don’t you talk about Ukraine or Nigeria where worst things are happening?”
• “Why don’t you condemn Hamas for the rape and abduction on 7 October?”
• “Why single out Israel when other countries do worse?”

This tactic shifts the focus from the substance of the critique to the moral consistency of the critic. The result is that the original issue—human rights concerns, humanitarian crises, or specific military actions—gets buried under accusations of double standards.

3. Using historical trauma as a conversation stopper
In some discussions, references to the Holocaust, centuries of antisemitism, or existential threats to Israel are invoked not to provide context but to shut down present-day moral questions. The logic becomes:

• “Given what Jews have endured, you cannot criticize Israel.”
• “But what about the 47 years of genocidal threats by Iran against Israel

This is a powerful emotional appeal, but when used as a deflection, it prevents engagement with the actual topic—current policies, current suffering, current responsibilities.

4. COLLAPSING DISTINCT ISSUES INTO A SINGLE MORAL LEDGER
Whataboutism often merges unrelated events into a single moral accounting system. For example:

• “What about the hostages?”
• “What about rockets?”
• “What about the October 7 attacks?”

These are critical issues in their own right. But when raised in response to questions about humanitarian conditions in Gaza or the West Bank, they function as moral counterweights rather than genuine engagement. The conversation becomes a competition of grievances rather than an examination of specific harms.

5. Turning critique into an identity threat
In some circles, criticism of Israeli government actions is interpreted as an attack on Jewish identity or safety. This leads to whataboutism that reframes the conversation around:

• antisemitism globally
• the need for Jewish self-defence
• the legitimacy of Israel’s existence

Again, these are important topics. But when used to avoid discussing the immediate suffering of Palestinians, they become a rhetorical escape hatch.

WHATABOUTISM AND THE BIBLE

The Bible doesn’t use the word whataboutism, but it repeatedly condemns the spirit behind it — deflection, evasion, false comparison, quarrelsome argument, and refusal to face truth.

Paul warns against quarrels, deflection, and “controversies about words.”

1 Timothy 6 describes people who are “puffed up… craving controversy… quarrels about words… producing envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions.” This is a near-perfect description of whataboutism’s effect: it derails honest conversation and replaces it with suspicion and noise.

Why the Bible pushes against whataboutism

1. It avoids truth
   Biblical faith is built on truth-telling, confession, and repentance. Whataboutism is built on distraction.
2. It shifts blame
   From Genesis onward, blame-shifting is portrayed as a sign of spiritual immaturity (“The woman you gave me…”).
3. It refuses accountability
   Prophets, apostles, and Jesus himself call people to face their own actions, not someone else’s.
4. It destroys community
   Paul repeatedly warns that quarrels and evasions fracture the body of Christ.