See, this is another thing to watch out for. If someone implies critiquing the viewpoint of those who support a country is the same as ‘targeting’ them, then the country most likely has something to hide.
After having written my unorganized rant for like an hour now, I don’t really feel like explaining all the things wrong with the next part to not drag this out for too long, especially since you can easily check it our yourself. However, there is one part that I’d like to mention, and I’m not exaggerating when I say it’s the best example of snitching on yourself.
So, remember how earlier I said that the website literally instructs people to try and avoid the topic of “Israel”’s policies and the current situation because they know they can’t win in that area? Well, here they are admitting this in no uncertain terms:
8. Here, they literally say to steer away from talking about the shit “Israel” does (which would be the number 1 concern of people you’re trying to win over if you’re pro-“Israel”). Instead, just focus on Oct 7 (which, as I’ve stated before, had a sizable of the casualties caused by “Israel” themselves). Even if you think the event is terrible (which is a topic for a whole ‘nother discussion), that doesn’t suddenly absolve the Zionist “state” of its atrocities. However, as they’ve admitted in no uncertain terms, it’s very difficult to win an argument by defending its policies, so instead they need to resort to diverting the conversation topic. It’s like they almost realize what they’re doing but are not quite fully there yet.
Anyway, I could go on yapping about how much this sucks, but I realize I’ve typed way too much about this. Idk why, I guess I enjoyed making fun of it. But yeah, definitely check it out, it’s hilariously bad.
4. Basically asking “Israel” supporters to do something that’s ultimately meaningless to the stated goal of garnering support for the State of “Israel”. This is because it’s entirely possible to feel empathy for people living in the region while still not supporting the “state” that occupies it. Unless you want to say that said people living in the region are directly linked to the Zionist “state” in some way, which isn’t a good idea if you want to garner sympathy for them.
5. Highlighted this part for no reason other than just how ominous “it will serve us in the next operations” sounds.
6. Now obviously I can’t say for certain what they mean by “other messaging is needed for Jewish audiences”, but I have my guesses. My guesses being that it’s easier to say that “Israel” represents Jewish people to a non-Jew than to say the same thing to a Jewish person.
Also gotta mention how they specified non-Jews in “Western democracies” (i.e. majority white countries in the imperial core). I’ll let you form your own conclusions as to why they specify this.
7. Essentially doing the exact same thing as in number 4, but this time they also mention that the purposes of this is to “shape the narrative”, basically admitting that their best tactic is fighting a propaganda war instead of earnestly trying to win people over to their side.
The online “guide” I’m talking about is this: https://israelunderfire.net/best-practices/
The website itself (“Israel” Under Fire) from what I can tell is about informing people about the State of “Israel” in an incredibly slanted pro-Zionist position, and its stated goal is to “make a positive impact in how others perceive Israel”. From what I can tell, it’s a relatively popular website amongst terminally online “Israel” supporters.
As for the online guide, it’s so bad that if you showed someone who’s pro-“Israel” this while omitting the context of where it came from, they’d think it’s a pro-Palestine parody of how people who are pro-“Israel” think. You can check it out yourself, but I thought I’d go over a few reasons why this is absolutely terrible, to the point where it borders them self-admitting that they’re being disingenuous when defending their position. I like to think of this as a case study for the way Zionists think, and how when arguing, it always seems like they’re arguing in bad faith (spoiler alert: it’s because they are).
Right off the bat, we’re greeted with this. Here, I highlighted a few key parts to talk about.
1. This literally just says to not justify “Israel”’s genocidal policies or talk about the actual situation, when trying to defend the State of “Israel”, even though this would be the number 1 concern of whoever they’re speaking to. They know that they can’t argue in that area, and they even admit so later on (more on that later). They also try to pretend that their policies are against Hamas like it’s some sort of boogeyman, instead of Palestinians in general.
2. This part confuses a handful of Western government officials that stands to benefit from keeping “Israel” around with the overwhelming majority of people. The truth is, there are much more people who are pro-Palestine than pro-“Israel” (even in Western countries!). Just look at how many pro-Palestine demonstrations there are compared to pro-“Israel” ones, and based solely off this statistic, it seems like the pro-Palestine movement is gaining momentum: https://www.axios.com/local/houston/2023/12/19/pro-palestinian-israel-protests
3. Again, they quietly admit that they can’t actually justify “Israel”’s actions, and the only tool they have for diverting the conversation topic is Oct 7, some of the casualties in which were the responsibility of the “Israeli” government.
