Although pointing out the straw man nature of hasbara bingo scorepoints like number 4 and 5 is valid, it often narks me that people don’t make the stronger point that these sort of lines – and whataboutism in general – are tu quoque gibberish. You do not refute an allegation or argument by claiming that the person making it does so inconsistently – that may be a problem with them but says nothing about their statement, any more than a more general ad hominem attack (of which tu quoque is a species, essentially an accusation that your opponent is a hypocrite) would.
With regards to the usual example, any inconsistency in concern about human rights (What about Sudan? What about Tibet? What about Peladon?) would be best resolved by starting to talk about these other cases, not stopping talk about Israel. But that’s not the point, of course. It’s a tu quoque argument itself (heh, turnabout is fair play) but, as Mr Shenfield points out, zios and hasbaroids only ever seem to express their concern about human rights abuses elsewhere when they’re defending their favourite ethnonational state.
I really think this needs to be hammered more than making the undeniably instinctive response in defence “I do so worry about other abuses” – or pointing out that there are any number of reasons to prioritise. “Oh, you say 2+2=4, but you never say 2+3=5, therefore your claim that 2+2=4 smacks of anti4ism and is invalid” is irrational nonsense and should be called out as such at every available opportunity.