I'd like to respond to a common talking point I see on your blog and others in the sphere:
Leftists focus on Israel as a uniquely evil country and disregard other countries' warcrimes/flaws/history of colonialism. (...because antisemitism)
Yes, we know that many countries in history have forcibly displaced/killed/ethnically cleansed another population to benefit their own. America, Australia, South Africa, there's too many to list. The thing is, Israel is doing that right now. We can try to stop these things as they're ongoing, but we can't do anything about the past. I can and do criticize America's history of violent colonialism, but I can't change it now.
For Americans specifically, Israel is a strong ally of ours, and therefore we can (try to) apply political pressure to stop what they're doing. (Moreso last year when we had a Democratic president and not the current shitshow). America has much less sway in, for example, Iran, Russia, or China's actions, obviously, so its much harder for us Americans to try to influence those countries.
I will never claim that the Pro-Palestine movement is devoid of antisemitism. In fact, I've seen a concerning rise in it recently, which is why I'm seeking out other perspectives, like your blog.
I am addressing this specific argument because I see its flaws and wanted to point them out. I hope you can receive my ask with the same good faith with which it is intended.
Leftists focus on Israel as a uniquely evil country and disregard other countriesâ war crimes/flaws/history of colonialism. (...because antisemitism)
This is less a talking point than a documented, quantifiable pattern.
Studies of United Nations voting behavior, NGO coverage, academic citations, protest activity, and social media discourse have shown a consistent overemphasis on Israel relative to objectively far worse or more destructive regimes.
That overemphasis correlates with deeply rooted anti-Jewish tropes about dual loyalty, blood guilt, and hidden control.
If that correlation makes you uncomfortable, you're right to interrogate it...but don't wave it away as if it's a baseless deflection.
Yes, we know that many countries... But Israel is doing that right now.
Israel's actions aren't uniquely current.
Active mass violence, displacement, and ethnic cleansing are happening in Sudan, Syria, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Iran, and China - right now, in some cases with massively higher civilian death tolls, actual genocides, and/or systematic mass rape and starvation as weapons of war. These are not historical footnotes, they're unfolding today.
If stopping atrocity is your motive, why are you silent about the ongoing, proven atrocities which are far larger in scale?
What do you think might explain this double standard?
There's also a moral sleight of hand when you mention America, Australia, and South Africa committed far worse atrocities historically...but assert that we can't do anything about them now, and therefore shouldn't focus on them.
Why then do leftists continually (and rightly, imo) decry America's founding, the legacy of slavery, or the treatment of Indigenous peoples?
But for the US and Canada, 'it was a long time ago and there's nothing we can do about it now', huh?
I know three Lakota, two Objibwe, one Hopi and an Apache who beg to differ, who feel that colonial abuse of their people in the US and Canada is ongoing, and would like a word with you about reparations they'd like paid to their people from the taxes collected by the acknowledged settler colonialist state of which you are a citizen.
I think they have a strong case. If you don't, you're either not paying atttention or were never actually sincere about your objections to colonialism because you ignore when they impact you directly and only pursue the idea when you can pin your colonialist guilt on a scapegoat.
"Israel is a U.S. ally. That makes it easier to pressure."
That's true, Israel is indeed a US ally.
So are Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, and Turkey.
All of them commit atrocities that dwarf those claimed against Israel. They receive US aid. They have US weapons...and yet the outrage is never comparable.
Why do you think that might be?
Of course, this point only explains why Americans might focus on Israel more than, say, Myanmar. It doesn't explain why only Israel is compared to apartheid, or uniquely demonized as a "settler colony" or why only Israelis are accused of genocidal intent when fighting an enemy who openly acknowledges seeking their extermination.
If temporal proximity and funding determine moral outrage, where are the rallies for Egypt's treatment of the Nubians or Copts?
Where are the campus teach-ins for Saudi Arabiaâs war in Yemen?
Where are the demands for sanctions on Nigeria over Boko Haramâs massacre of Christians and kidnapping of children?
These are also governments allied with the US, receiving US money, and using US weapons...yet they somehow do not receive the same public moral attention from the Western left.
Why do you think that might be, Anon?
"I'll never claim the Pro-Palestine movement is devoid of antisemitism. Iâve seen a concerning rise in it."
You can't meaningfully acknowledge the rise in antisemitism and in the same breath defend the justifications most commonly used to deny its existence.
If you're seeing the symptoms, you should be willing to consider the expert diagnosis.
"I am addressing this specific argument because I see its flaws..."
Great! Please address the full shape of the argument, not the straw man version of the subsection you mistakenly thought would be easiest to refute.
You've offered a partial explanation for a tiny slice of the documented disparity in scrutiny. You've left unaddressed the rhetorical inflation, the dehumanizing slogans, the recycled blood libels, and the obsessive monomania with which Israel is treated across so many activist and academic spaces.
If you recognize that antisemitism exists in this movement but all your energy goes toward refuting those who point it out, you are not a neutral observer and you are actively participating in the Judenhass you claim to oppose.
You are, wittingly or not, helping build the rhetorical architecture that makes that Judenhass respectable.
If your moral lens allows you to excuse or ignore state violence when it is committed by non-Western or non-Jewish powers, but zooms in with strikeforce intensity when the Jewish state is involved, please ask yourself:
Why do you think that might be?
