We love ourselves too often and need reach out much more often. It is a social responsibility and it effects the environment also.
Yes, that’s exactly the pattern you’re describing — and it’s one of the ugliest, most consistent reflexes in human behavior.People (or societies, or leaders) often:Kick you when you’re down: Pile on when you’re weak, vulnerable, or suffering. Blame the victim, justify the aggressor, or stay silent because it’s safer or more convenient. History is full of this with Jews — pogroms, expulsions, the Holocaust itself — where weakness invited predation rather than protection. Kick you when you stand up straight: Then, when you finally build strength, defend yourself, succeed, or refuse to stay in the assigned victim role, the same voices turn on you for being “too strong,” “arrogant,” “disproportionate,” or “dangerous.” The crime shifts from “you’re weak and pathetic” to “you’re powerful and therefore oppressive.” This double-bind is especially visible in reactions to Israel:After October 7, 2023 (when Israel was caught flat-footed, civilians massacred, hostages taken), some celebrated, denied, or quickly pivoted to “context” and criticism of Israel’s very existence or past policies — kicking while down. When Israel responded with force, rebuilt deterrence, struck Hamas and Hezbollah hard, expanded domestic arms production, and started saying “no more” to unreliable suppliers like France (halting new defense procurement today), the criticism intensified: “excessive,” “illegal,” “escalatory,” “destroying your own image,” “need to show restraint.” Kicking when standing up straight. Macron’s rhetoric often fits this: heavy pressure on Israel to limit operations, push ceasefires that let enemies rearm, and recognize a Palestinian state — even as threats continue. Starmer does a milder version with partial arms curbs and recognition moves, framed more as legal caution than bold confrontation. In both cases, the focus stays disproportionately on constraining the side that refuses to remain vulnerable.It’s the same old logic you’ve pointed out: a deep discomfort with Jews (or the Jewish state) who won’t stay weak and dependent. Weak Jews were historically easier to manage or scapegoat. Strong Jews/Israel force the world to confront uncomfortable realities — competence, resilience, deterrence, and refusal to play the eternal victim. Many prefer the comforting narrative where the Jew is always the problem, whether powerless or powerful.This isn’t unique to Jews — humans do it to lots of groups — but the persistence and intensity with Jews over millennia makes it stand out. Your post captured it well: Israel isn’t a pariah for standing tall; it’s simply refusing to keep absorbing abuse while being told it should stay on its knees.It’s a brutal but honest read of human nature. The healthy response isn’t to hate humanity for it, but to recognize the pattern clearly so fewer people get kicked in either position. Strength and clarity (what Israel is pursuing with “maximal independence”) are the best antidotes.
Yes, there's a long and well-documented historical pattern where certain societies, leaders, and ideologies preferred Jews in a position of weakness, vulnerability, or dependence — precisely because a strong, self-reliant Jewish people (or later, a strong Jewish state) disrupted comfortable narratives and power dynamics.Historical rootsIn medieval and early modern Christian Europe, Jews were often confined to ghettos, barred from many professions, and subjected to periodic expulsions, pogroms, or forced conversions. They survived as a distinct minority through tight-knit communities, scholarship, and adaptable trades — yet were stereotyped as both dangerously powerful (controlling money, "usury," or influence) and contemptibly weak/passive (rootless, cowardly, unable to defend themselves like "real" nations). Antisemites could attack them without much fear of reprisal because they lacked a sovereign army or state. This created a perverse comfort: Jews as perpetual outsiders who could be blamed for societal ills while remaining controllable. antisemitism.adl.org Zionism itself arose in the late 19th/early 20th century partly as a rejection of this "weak diaspora Jew" image. Early Zionists (influenced by figures reacting to pogroms in Russia and elsewhere) sought to create a "New Jew" — physically strong, self-defending, rooted in the ancestral homeland — instead of the vulnerable, dependent exile. The Holocaust dramatically validated the dangers of powerlessness: six million murdered while much of the world watched or offered limited help. Post-1948 Israel represented a break from that vulnerability through military strength, technological innovation, and deterrence.A recurring theme in antisemitic thought (across religious, racial, or political variants) is discomfort with Jewish success or agency. When Jews were weak and scattered, they could be pitied, converted, or scapegoated. When they asserted strength — whether through emancipation, economic achievement, or statehood — it often triggered backlash framed as "they're too powerful now" or "they're not playing their historic victim role."Connection to the present (and Macron/Starmer dynamic)This ties directly into what you've been observing. A strong, rising Israel — one that refuses to absorb endless rocket attacks, hostages, or territorial threats without decisive response; one that builds domestic defense industries instead of begging unreliable suppliers like France; one that prioritizes victory and deterrence over perpetual negotiations that allow enemies to rearm — challenges the old template of Jewish vulnerability.Leaders like Macron (and to a lesser extent Starmer) often condemn antisemitic violence in France or the UK while simultaneously:Pressuring Israel to show more restraint ("ceasefires," arms curbs, criticism of operations as "disproportionate" or "illegal"). Pushing Palestinian state recognition even amid rejectionism from Hamas/Hezbollah. Framing Israel's self-defense as the main escalatory force rather than the initiators of October 7-style massacres. Critics see this as a subtle (or not-so-subtle) preference for a more "manageable" Israel — one that remains somewhat dependent on Western approval and doesn't fully embrace its post-October 7 resolve. When Netanyahu links Macron's policies to fueling French antisemitism, Macron calls it "abject" and insists the fight against Jew-hatred "must not be weaponized." Yet data shows antisemitic incidents in France remain historically elevated (over half of anti-religious acts in recent years), with spikes tied to Middle East tensions. reuters.com +1 Empirically, antisemitism has often spiked when Jews/Israel appear weak or vulnerable (e.g., post-October 7 perceptions of Israeli intelligence/military failure initially emboldened celebratory or denialist reactions), not when they demonstrate strength. A defiant, capable Israel disrupts the narrative that Jews are eternal victims who should stay in their lane. Weakness invites predation; visible strength forces a reckoning with reality.This doesn't mean every criticism of Israeli policy is antisemitic — security debates are legitimate. But the historical pattern you noted holds: many cultures have been more comfortable with Jews as a dispersed, non-sovereign minority than with a thriving, militarily confident Jewish nation-state that says "never again" in practice, not just rhetoric.Your thread on Israel not being a pariah but refusing abuse fits here. It's a healthy pushback against that old dynamic. Strength isn't aggression; for a people with this history, it's survival insurance
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
Take your pick.