2 ms·

There are approximately 16 million Jews worldwide, with over 7 million in Israel and 6 million in the United States. Outside of these two countries Jewish popul

There are approximately 16 million Jews worldwide, with over 7 million in Israel and 6 million in the United States. Outside of these two countries Jewish populations are relatively small and often lack significant cultural or political presence. Talking about Israel is talking about over half of the worlds Jews. Israel is the only country explicitly with a Jewish ethos in a way similar to how European nations reflect Christian traditions or Middle Eastern countries reflect Islamic ones. Its population includes large numbers of Jews who were expelled from both European and Middle Eastern countries. While criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic much of the antisemitic rhetoric of the past has shifted toward targeting the state of Israel instead of Jews as individuals (once the Jews were expelled/driven from those nations and no longer a convenient target). Israel is often held to higher political and moral standards than other nations under the guise of justified by its classification as a Western democracy. For many this uneven scrutiny mirrors historical patterns of discrimination, now aimed at the Jewish state instead of (often no longer existing/relevant) local Jewish populations. In some circles, classic antisemitic tropes have simply been reframed: accusations once directed at “the Jews” have been redirected toward “Israel” or “the Israeli lobby,” invoking ideas of secret influence or global manipulation that echo longstanding racist narratives. Source: I'm not jewish but in any racist feeling conversation I invoke that I am in order to challenge fascists and more often than not invoking that surfaces that the conversation does in fact have anti-jewish sentiment. What I find especially uncomfortable is how little historical context or nuance is expected when discussing Israel, compared to nearly any other nation or group. Conversations that would normally require sensitivity, acknowledgment of trauma, and awareness of systemic patterns suddenly become blunt and ahistorical when they involve Israel. The level of deference people extend to other populations in terms of lived experience, historical persecution, and collective memory often disappears entirely in this context.

bjornsing 2y ago
> Israel is often held to higher political and moral standards than other nations under the guise of justified by its classification as a Western democracy. If you really think it’s just a “guise” then I can understand your point of view. But it’s very hard for me to agree with that assessment. Israel is treated entirely differently than say Islamic countries in the West. We would never accept the blatant disrespect for international law that they display if they were an Islamic nation, and just keep sending them weapons. So I’d say the source of the tension is that Israel isn’t really a Western democracy, but it enjoys the privileges of being one.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Sorry for the wall of text. Yes, I do think many people see “Western democracy” as often being a rhetorical guise when it’s used around Israel. The same critics of Israel were making these arguments long before October 7th, so for many observers, the current surge in moral outrage (justified or not) feels like theater, moral framing being used to amplify preexisting criticism. Similar to how some accuse Israel of using antisemitism as rhetorical cover. Also it's kind of a jerk/manipulative move to start with 'if you truly believe'. If you don't think I'm acting in good faith just straight call me out next time. Saying you don’t think it’s a guise doesn’t really engage with the perception that it is. To me that feels like sidestepping the core concern rather than trying to understand it. And saying you don't view Israel as a Western democracy doesn't really shift the conversation, because the anti-Israel rhetoric I’m referring to is often based on the claim that “we expect more from Western democracies.” Dismissing that framing removes you from the very context that kind of speech operates within — and makes meaningful engagement with you around with it much harder/irrelevant. Israel is a Western democracy just like the U.S. was during Jim Crow, or Ukraine is now (or is aspiring to be) despite suspending elections during war. Flawed Western democracies are still Western democracies. The issue is not the label, it's how it’s used, and whether we're willing to apply a contextual lens so that we can have understanding when we evaluate them. What sets Israel apart is its situation. That's the whole point I'm making, there is much more than a bullet point checklist that anti-Israel people want to reduce the discussion to. It’s a democracy under constant existential threat, surrounded by actors who call for its destruction. Its people carry generations of trauma. From the Holocaust, from exile, from violence, some so much historical anti-jewish hate, propaganda, not even relating to the conflict. That context matters and shapes how speech is interpreted on the Israel supporting side. And it shapes the urgency with which threats rhetorical or real (or nonexistent but perceived) are received. When we critique Israel as a democracy we need to also extend the lens of historical memory, lived experience, and threat assessment that we apply to others. Otherwise that can get interpreted (rightly or not) as not about democracy but about double standards. Otherwise we are just saying 'bad is bad' which while totally true and valid, isn't productive. Understanding doesn’t mean agreement. But without context, it’s easy to lose sight of why Israel supporters see the world the way they do. As a country shaped by exile, historical isolation, and the memory of being targeted for elimination by their neighbors when they lived in previous nations, now facing neighbors and groups that continue to call for its destruction. Criticism that ignores this doesn’t create accountability it shuts down meaningful dialogue. It was hard to make America see how horrible it's Jim Crow era was, and American's weren't implementing it in part out of current and historical existential threat (unless you believe 'white replacement' racist bullshit). Without allowing for the lense your opposition are viewing the world from the other side isn't going to hear you because to them the lense is very import to understanding their position, it in fact shapes their position.

bjornsing 2y ago

> Israel is often held to higher political and moral standards than other nations under the guise of justified by its classification as a Western democracy. If you really think it’s just a “guise” then I can understand your point of view. But it’s very hard for me to agree with that assessment. Israel is treated entirely differently than say Islamic countries in the West. We would never accept the blatant disrespect for international law that they display if they were an Islamic nation, and just keep sending them weapons. So I’d say the source of the tension is that Israel isn’t really a Western democracy, but it enjoys the privileges of being one.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Sorry for the wall of text. Yes, I do think many people see “Western democracy” as often being a rhetorical guise when it’s used around Israel. The same critics of Israel were making these arguments long before October 7th, so for many observers, the current surge in moral outrage (justified or not) feels like theater, moral framing being used to amplify preexisting criticism. Similar to how some accuse Israel of using antisemitism as rhetorical cover. Also it's kind of a jerk/manipulative move to start with 'if you truly believe'. If you don't think I'm acting in good faith just straight call me out next time. Saying you don’t think it’s a guise doesn’t really engage with the perception that it is. To me that feels like sidestepping the core concern rather than trying to understand it. And saying you don't view Israel as a Western democracy doesn't really shift the conversation, because the anti-Israel rhetoric I’m referring to is often based on the claim that “we expect more from Western democracies.” Dismissing that framing removes you from the very context that kind of speech operates within — and makes meaningful engagement with you around with it much harder/irrelevant. Israel is a Western democracy just like the U.S. was during Jim Crow, or Ukraine is now (or is aspiring to be) despite suspending elections during war. Flawed Western democracies are still Western democracies. The issue is not the label, it's how it’s used, and whether we're willing to apply a contextual lens so that we can have understanding when we evaluate them. What sets Israel apart is its situation. That's the whole point I'm making, there is much more than a bullet point checklist that anti-Israel people want to reduce the discussion to. It’s a democracy under constant existential threat, surrounded by actors who call for its destruction. Its people carry generations of trauma. From the Holocaust, from exile, from violence, some so much historical anti-jewish hate, propaganda, not even relating to the conflict. That context matters and shapes how speech is interpreted on the Israel supporting side. And it shapes the urgency with which threats rhetorical or real (or nonexistent but perceived) are received. When we critique Israel as a democracy we need to also extend the lens of historical memory, lived experience, and threat assessment that we apply to others. Otherwise that can get interpreted (rightly or not) as not about democracy but about double standards. Otherwise we are just saying 'bad is bad' which while totally true and valid, isn't productive. Understanding doesn’t mean agreement. But without context, it’s easy to lose sight of why Israel supporters see the world the way they do. As a country shaped by exile, historical isolation, and the memory of being targeted for elimination by their neighbors when they lived in previous nations, now facing neighbors and groups that continue to call for its destruction. Criticism that ignores this doesn’t create accountability it shuts down meaningful dialogue. It was hard to make America see how horrible it's Jim Crow era was, and American's weren't implementing it in part out of current and historical existential threat (unless you believe 'white replacement' racist bullshit). Without allowing for the lense your opposition are viewing the world from the other side isn't going to hear you because to them the lense is very import to understanding their position, it in fact shapes their position.