Jewish advocacy, the Kafka trap, and Hasbara
Here's the problem:
When we speak, we're accused of propaganda.
When we mourn, we're accused of manipulation.
When we stay silent, we're called complicit.
When we ask questions, we're told we are gaslighting.
When we cite facts, we're told to stop 'doing hasbara.' .
This isn't hyperbole. This is the experience many Jews have today when we speak. Especially if we're defending ourselves. Especially if we're defending Israel's right to exist.
The structure of the trap is pretty familiar to Jews. Every word of defense becomes proof of guilt and even silence gets read as a confession.
It's a Kafka trap.
In a Kafka trap, denial of an accusation is taken as proof of the accusation.
Try to explain? That's exactly what a liar would do!
Don't respond? You must have something to hide!
It's a classic cult maneuver and a common abusive relationship tactic. And now, apparently, it's a feature of daily discourse for most Jews I know on North America.
The Kafka trap doesn't try to prove you're wrong. It starts from the assumption that you're guilty and frames your every move from that assumption.
When it comes to Jews in progressive political spaces, the trap has a favorite word: hasbara.
In Hebrew, hasbara simply means "explanation."
For decades, it referred to Israel’s public diplomacy efforts. These were mostly bureaucratic, sometimes tone-deaf, sometimes deeply flawed, but not some sinister conspiracy. Just a country making its case on the world stage, like every other country does.
The Western Left, as they have so many times, decided to make up it's own definition of our Hebrew word.
Today, the Western far Left uses "hasbara" as a smear. It's used to dismiss anything a Jew says in defense of Israel (or even in defense of themselves) as coordinated propaganda. It doesn't matter if it’s true. It doesn’t matter if it's personal. It doesn’t even matter if it's painful. If it threatens the dominant narrative, it gets rebranded as hasbara, which means it can be ignored or actively condemned as deceptive. (Those tricky, sneaky lying, Jews.)
The word doesn't describe what is being said,it just signals who is saying it...and what they are presumed to be.
It has become shorthand for:
This Jew is lying
This Jew is manipulating
This Jew is not grieving, they're performing
This Jew is not arguing, they're strategizing
This Jew is not human
It's a rhetorical equivalent of "shut up, Jew."
Anything you say is treated as propaganda.
Accurately describe the contents of the Hamas charter? You're fearmongering, you islamophobe.
Quote UN resolutions that contradict "apartheid" claims? You're cherry-picking.
Say anything after October 7? You're using Jewish trauma to justify genocide.
If you stay silent, it’s complicity.
Didn't post a ceasefire square? Complicit.
Not visibly protesting Israel on campus? Proof of indifference.
Grieving your murdered relatives quietly? Suspicious.
And if you cry out in pain or fear, it's performance.
Jewish emotion is rarely granted full humanity anymore. We're accused of centering ourselves, derailing, or manipulating.
Jewish fear? Privilege.
Jewish mourning? PR.
Jewish trauma? Hasbara again.
Mentioning Hamas's use of human shields? Justifying war crimes.
Referring to international law? Legalese in defense of apartheid.
Saying Israel is not a settler colony? Whitewashing colonial violence.
Providing context? Genocide denial.
Every possible Jewish expression, whether fact, feeling, silence, or sorrow...is preemptively framed as evidence of guilt.
This isn't just disagreement, this is dehumanization.
The redefinition of "hasbara" as "Jewish propaganda" discredits Jewish identity itself.
Once the label is applied, it doesn't matter what you say or why you say it. Your words are stripped of intent and interpreted only through suspicion. Your grief is strategic. Your arguments are scripted. Your voice is foreign.
You're not a person anymore. You're a function.
A symbol. A proxy. A problem.
This is why the the derisive, disparaging use of "hasbara" hits so hard. It doesn't critique messaging or truth, it refuses to believe you're a real person.
None of this is new.
The same tropes keep resurfacing over the centuries.
The cunning Jew
The manipulative Jew
The powerful Jew behind the curtain
The emotional Jew as threat and a deceptive performance
But there's uodated phrasing for modern libels.
Instead of saying "you control the media," it's "your narrative is hegemonic."
Instead of 'international Jewish conspiracy," it's "coordinated hasbara machine."
Instead of "your tears are fake," it’s "you’re weaponizing trauma."
Same ideas, different words.
You're not heard. You're categorically denied your humanity. You're denied debate, your complexity is flattened, you're denied participation in the discourse. All you get is accusation.
So maybe you withdraw, self-censor, or collapse into shame. Maybe you internalize the message that your speech is poison, and your pain is violence.
You are only allowed to speak if your pain is politically useful to someone else.
When Jewish speech is pre-framed as aggression, when Jewish grief is mistranslated as manipulation, and when every defense is re-coded as offense...what remains?
If everything a Jew says is dismissed as "hasbara," if our facts are propaganda, if our mourning is performative, and if our silence is complicity...what the fuck do you want from us?
What would we have to do to earn the right to speak, to grieve, to disagree, to survive?
What would it take to be believed when we say we're in pain?
And what does it say about you, that you disbelieve in advance?
In most discussions and debates I had with my former leftist friends and comrades, disagreement was in most cases unproblematic. Perhaps we disagreed on participating in elections, or our country providing military aid to Ukraine, or membership in the European Union, typical leftist infighting stuff... but these were largely debates that could go on without vile accusations or assumptions of hidden agendas on the part of our opponents.
Nobody would accuse you of being paid 7000 Euros by President von der Leyen.
At worst the opponent was wrong or misinformed, perhaps they had misunderstood something, or perhaps we just disagreed on the fundamental level of our values, and that was okay. Agree to disagree.
From the very start of my change in views on antizionism, and my attempt to discuss the history of Israel's founding and the historical context of the 1948 war, there was no room for "agree to disagree", nor any room for me having misunderstood or being misinformed, or simply wrong. Nor was it a disagreement of values.
From the onset, I was framed as a propagandist.
I must've been engaging in hasbara, repeating the party line promulgated by the nefarious Israeli government or AIPAC or the rest. Even if what I said was historically accurate and factually true, it was all interpreted as covering for war crimes and genocide, and if I said I still sincerely care about Palestinian lives and nationhood, it was called a lie.
I could not merely be argued with and convinced of my error, I had to be expelled, because any disagreement with antizionism was not a valid position that could be held by a member of the community. It felt as though I'd been marked for an enemy for life, tainted by Jewish lies.
Support for the Soviet Union (up to and including purges, ethnic cleansing, authoritarianism, and imperialism), denial of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, cheering for the supposed revolutionary heroes Assad and Khamenei, and (as should go without saying) enthusiastically sucking the dicks of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, was tolerated and considered legitimate avenues on which we could politely disagree :)
Nobody would accuse you of being paid 7000 rial by the Supreme Leader.
If you argued for Israel's continued existence, however...
