'Israel is slowly losing its support' is a bit of a retelling... even in light of recent public and viral pro-Palestine support, Israel continues to maintain favorability among elected officials and people in America- in fact, favorability toward Israel has only increased since 2019[0]. And policies favoring Israel is not isolated to a federal level; many U.S. states force educators to sign agreements to not criticize Israel.[1] Indeed, I see Americans turn a blind eye to the horrors faced by Palestinians regardless of how many public figures correctly refer to Israel's actions as running the world's largest open-air prison.

[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/340331/americans-favor-israel-w...

[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-la...

"25% of American Jews consider Israel to be an apartheid state" [0]

"Young evangelicals are increasingly turning away from Israel" [1]

[0] https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/a-quarter-of-u-s-jews-agree-...

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/05/26/a...

Both things may be true. Jews and Evangelicals have a different view of Israel than ordinary Americans, most of whom pay it little mind.

Jews and Evangelicals generally support Israel, albeit for different reasons. Some are, as you note, increasingly unsure of that support, especially as it extends the rule of a government that is widely seen (not just by Israel's enemies) as cruel. But older Evangelicals have a nearly fanatical support of Israel -- including those same policies.

And in general, Americans see Israel as an ally in a turbulent Middle East. Their support for it will depend largely on their perception of Middle Eastern politics and our need for their support.

Jews are a small minority in the US. Evangelicals are a large minority. So you can get countervailing trends that end up making both what you said and what the GP said true.

Is Israel losing its support? Hasn't quantifiable monetary support towards Israel been growing for decades?

Just look at the list of US allies and the kind of laws they pass, think of Arabia Saudi, a good US ally that had been tormenting Yemen for years now. Is the US population clamoring to stop collaboration with this country? Of course not, most people wouldn't know the first thing about this.

I think sometimes we overestimate how much governments are willing to do just because people are not fine with it, assuming they actually have any understanding of what's going on.

And if you meant moral support by the citizens of other countries I'm not sure how much Israel cares about that.

> if you meant moral support by the citizens of other countries I'm not sure how much Israel cares about that.

They care a lot. That's why they try so hard to counter pro-Palestinian sentiment with full-time paid propagandists, threat campaigns, media campaigns, smear campaigns, political bribes, getting people fired, attacking students and groups that support Palestine, throwing shit-fits at growing BDS campaigns, etc, etc, etc...

Yes, the US population is similarly quiet on the SA front - that's neither accidental or natural. Even then, it's crumbling.

> Hasn't quantifiable monetary support towards Israel been growing for decades?

Globally speaking, the US govt haven't really been on the side of the 'good guys' for decades. Realizing that, it doesn't make all that much sense to use their funding of evil regimes as any sort of justification, or reflection of the will of the general populace.

Israel always had laws favoring jews over non-jews. It would seem shocking but its been like that since day 1.

Even now with white blue-eyed christian Ukrainians flooding Israel, they are being left in the airport for days, and interrogated to see who had a Jewish great grandfather and who did not. If you did - thats a free ticket in. If not? Wait a few more days, we might take you in if you put up collateral cash (around $3,000 per refugee). No money? you're put on a plane back to Poland. Only because your great grandfather was not Jewish

Its easy to twist this state of mind as racist towards 1 population. But there are rules that are just as hard on any non-jew. If you've ever met a Jewish Israeli who married a non-jew, they will tell you how complicated even visiting their parents on vacation with kids has become

There are other western countries with very strict immigration policies. I think this applies to Switzerland and to Japan, for example.

No it doesn't apply to Switzerland where 32% of the population are foreigner…

Temporary workers.

No 90% of foreign population are holding either a B or C permit that allow them to stay as long as they want.

Use commas, grammar matters.

Applies to most Western democracies, how's Denmark treating Syrian refugees?

Isn't Israel a 'Middle Eastern' countr, and Japan 'Eastern'

> laws that are blatantly discriminatory.

It's Israel, who's surprised.

> Israel is slowly losing its support in the free democratic world where people believe in the inalienable universal rights of individuals and are less and less willing to turn a blind eye to such institutionalized racism.

If using tanks against children throwing rocks or white phosphorus bombs over civilians didn't do it I doubt anything will. I'd recommend you to get in touch with a Palestinian and ask them about their life. Israel has been committing war crimes every now and then for decades, they're smarter than the Russians though, they do it bit by bit.

Talking about discrimination, don't read about their border control interrogations, if you have an arab sounding name, talked to a person with an arab sounding name or visited cities with a large arab population during your stay be ready to spend 4 hours in a small room with a few unpleasant people asking you about every single minutes of your trip.

I think it is not so much as Israel has discrimination, but about the region. By comparison to PA or other Arab countries there is very little discrimination in Israel. If the whole region is set on a path for pluralism that would also solve the problem in Israel.

> I think it is not so much as Israel has discrimination

It's one of the most discriminatory non third world country, if not the most. You literally have citizen of the same country treated differently depending on their last name and/or their religion, and worst than that, they don't even have the same rights.

It's not some "soft" racism like in the US where, in theory, everyone is equal in term of rights and in front of the justice, in Israel you have laws that only applies to non jewish people, they're not even trying to pretend, it's institutionalized and a source of pride

Israel/Palestine is similar to what's going on in Ukraine right now in many aspects but everyone seems to ignore that. It's just further away, happening slower and is committed by an historic ally.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/isra...

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-n...

https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-palestinian-citizens-of-...

I think this law will only hurt the Israeli image abroad a little bit. The 3 recent human rights reports (calling Israel out for practicing apartheid) are much more damaging.

This is really about the (internationally recognized) right of return of the Palestinians. To paraphrase Bill Clinton's advisor James Carville in 1992: "It's demographics, stupid".

The 2003 law explicitly did not apply to residents of Jewish settlements in the West Bank wanting to marry and live with their spouse inside Israel, making it, and the ongoing policy underpinning it, blatantly discriminatory.

The thing to realize about this new law is that while it makes no mention of religion, it doesn't need to in order to add to the fragmentation of the indigenous people of the area. Non-Jews in the West Bank cannot now gain citizenship in Israel, if that was an avenue they had before, nor can they return to their villages (granted, almost all these villages within Israel have been destroyed so there's nothing to return to) or gain compensation for their loss.

(For a film adaptation of the 1949 novel by S. Yizhar called Khirbet Khizeh, search for the youtube version produced by Israeli Television in 1970 (and immediately banned in 1978 when it was released.))

I'm not sure why this outrages people in the US. Since 2002, Israel has adopted a policy of prohibiting Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza from gaining status in Israel or East Jerusalem through marriage, thus preventing family unification.

The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law enshrined the policy in law between 2003 and its expiry in July 2021. The law barred thousands of Palestinians in Israel and East Jerusalem from living there with their Palestinian spouses from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s then interior minister stated the law was needed because “it was felt that [family unification] would be exploited to achieve a creeping right of return...”

This recent law just formalized and made permanent what was always there: the demographics is what's important here. When you look at Zionism as a colonial settler project, it's just part of "purity" laws and an essential part of apartheid.

Not sure what your statement has to do with the claims the parent made.

Has Isreal ever had enough popular support to justify the massive amount of aid it is sent? It has governmental support, I don't think it needs the popular support

Yes from the 70's through the 90's it had huge popular support.

> We are not talking about loving couples being forbidden to marry.

According to the article, the law prevents first and only Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from becoming Israeli citizens, when love is the sole reason for wanting to marry. If Israel wanted to prevent citizens from having "third of fourth wives", an acceptable way would be to outlaw polygamy; if it wanted to prevent bogus marriages, an acceptable way would be by not granting marriage certificates when the couple don't know each other.

You are trying to apply Western ideas to the issue in order to understand it. That won't work.

  > According to the article, the law prevents first and only Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from becoming Israeli citizens,

That is incorrect. The law makes no mention of Palestinian, Jew, Arab, Muslim, etc.

  > when love is the sole reason for wanting to marry.

Your idea of what marriage is does not apply here. We are talking about people who have never met. In any case, marriage among the Bedouins is not about affection. Most marriages are between people who have never met. There is a good reason for that - the Saudis don't do this and they have inbreeding problems. The Beduins generally try to arrange spouses (yes, plural) from further away.

  > If Israel wanted to prevent citizens from having "third of fourth wives", an acceptable way would be to outlaw polygamy;

Polygamy is already illegal, but again you are trying to apply Western ideas. These people do not recognize the state, and the state leaves marital affairs up to the religious leaders. So they continue to marry multiple wives. Many many laws do not apply and are not enforce with regards to the Beduins and Arabs in general. Mostly this is a non-issue.

  > if it wanted to prevent bogus marriages, an acceptable way would be by not granting marriage certificates when the couple don't know each other.

There is no "marriage certificate", again you are applying Western ideas where they do no apply.

>”How would Europeans react to the import of Arabs with the explicit intention of making Europe an Arab continent?”

Is this meant to be some theoretical gotcha? Firstly, anyone who believes in what you’ve quoted is soundly dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist - a racist one at that.

Secondly, this strikes me as “you guys would pass the same law if you could get away with it”. But the main reason why this kind of law would never get passed in Europe is because it’s wrong and goes against human rights and the virtue of not discriminating based on race.

  > anyone who believes in what you’ve quoted is soundly dismissed as a paranoid conspiracy theorist - a racist one at that

The fine article mentions explicitly that this is the goal of the marriages in question.

This fine article also says “It comes off as more xenophobic or racist (than other laws) because it’s not only giving extra rights and privileges to Jewish people, but also preventing certain basic rights only from the Arab population”.

People are opposed to it because it 1) codifies that an Israeli citizen’s race is an acceptable criterion for determining which rights they are entitled to, and 2) the law is a reactionary measure expressly designed to discriminate and maintain racial/ethnic composition. The people who voted for it aren’t even trying to hide it or dog-whistle it away: “"The State of Israel is Jewish and so it will remain," said Simcha Rothman of the far-right Religious Zionism party””

Any such law, anywhere, would be soundly denounced and repealed. Especially in Europe, which you had mentioned in your hypothetical question.

This is nothing new. Israeli law distinguishes between different religion groups and has done so since the formation of the country. Israeli Arabs, for example, are not forced to serve in the military. So are the Haredim (i.e. the strict Jewish sect). I'm part of the majority in Israel, but in many ways, I am getting screwed over more than other groups. In other ways, they get screwed over more than me.

And how do they go and measure that?

Did they somehow reach out to the thousands of couples and ask them "hey did you take part in this subplot?"

Delusional shit.

Ah yes, the Arab hivemind sub plot to take over your country with little brown babies overtaking precious white ones.

I, too, get concerned of the explosion of disgusting brown people that threatens my beautiful non Arabic speaking country.

/s if not clear.

You have no idea how wrong you are. Firstly, there is no "brown", everybody here has a range of skin colours. Your American ideas about race do not apply to this situation.

Secondly, in fact this is an Arabic speaking country. I personally speak Arabic, I learn from my Arab friends and neighbours. So everything that I'm mentioning is from the actual experience of living here and understanding both Western culture and the Arab culture (for the most part).

Thirdly, these people are going to have a dozen babies per wife no matter where the wives come from. And with the modern healthcare that everybody receives, all those babies will grow to be adults - something that was not the case when their culture developed the need to have a dozen babies per wife.

I don't blame you for not understanding, the media reports on the situation with no lies but eliminating perspective. If we had the same race issues as the US, and if "marriage" meant the same here as US audiences expect, then your rage would be justified. The task of mentioning these differences would fall on the body "reporting" the situation if the reporting goal were to spread information. But the spread of information is not the goal of the reporting - as evidenced by what information they include and what information they eliminate.

I don't personally have a problem with Arabs so take what I say with a grain of salt.

However, isn't what you're describing colonization? If the US or the UK announced a program of attempting to colonize 3rd-world countries, those countries would reflexively ban US immigration. Why the double standard?

Yes I would be okay in the hypothetical situation you've constructed, with loaded language and fear tactics.

I would also be fine with publicly shaming view points like yours and getting you fired from your job for being completely xenophobic. I can't imagine how you view your middle eastern coworkers who you've decided hate women and shit?

So you'd get me fired for my views, which by the way I extend to all nations regardless of race, but be totally welcoming to child abusers in your midst, because it's their culture? There's something very wrong with this fashionable double standard. And there's nothing hypothetical about my scenario, this has been playing out for decades in Europe and East Asia while legitimate concern from those who speak out is shallowly dismissed as xenophobia.

>fired from your job for being completely xenophobic.

Disapproving of very real cultural differences is not "xenophobia". Forcing women to cover themselves, limiting their independence, practicing arranged marriages and condoning physical abuse, my opposition to these practices stems from my western liberal ideals, not any sort of "phobia".

>I can't imagine how you view your middle eastern coworkers who you've decided hate women and shit?

That's because you are apparently unable to discern individuals from groups. A sane person can acknowledge that cultures have sets of typical practices/beliefs, but individuals may or may not share them.

The middle eastern coworkers decided it by following Islam. Islam is not an abstract theory, it is a very detailed book. It would be good to read it. Among other things, it explicitly demands to accept the whole of it to be a true Muslim. No cherry picking what fits our spiritual needs.

Arabs are not "brown". GJ on unintentional racism

I don't see the profit in trying to catch them on a small and clearly not meaningful technicality in their phrasing.

Genuine question, do you truly feel the commenter is a racist, and you just stepped in and called them out successfully?

What seems much more likely is that they, in their sarcasm, were doing an imitation of an ignorant conservative stereotype by focusing on skin color and grouping all middle easterners into a group. This seems fairly obvious to me - is that not how you're interpreting this?

This "brown people" phrase is commonly used to disparage concerns about incompatible values and cultural norms. And this is probably only context where I see middle easterners grouped like this.

Not GP, but I do consider this to be low-key racist and aaomidi to be somewhat racist, but maybe for different reason than GP.

I tried to explain why I decided to call out the use of that phrase, however my words failed me. So I’m editing my original (and inadequate) explanation to just say that the “brown people” thing is, to me, indicative of a deeper societal issue with racism and otherizing people that exists on both sides of the political spectrum.

Bingo. Esp considering I'm middle eastern.