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.