A dangerous rupture may be opening in Jewish life. For decades, Diaspora Jews defended Israel instinctively. They did not always agree with Israeli policies, yet they understood that Israel’s strength and security mattered to Jews everywhere.
That instinct is now eroding.
Recently, thousands of Diaspora Jewish leaders signed public letters urging Israel to restrain Jewish "settlers" in Judea and Samaria from attacking Palestinian Arabs, although that is a fringe phenomenon and the accusation borders on a blood libel. Former British foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind and other prominent Jewish figures warned that Israeli actions were harming global Jewry and increasing antisemitism abroad.
There is some Jewish lawlessness in Judea and Samaria, as in every population, yet Palestinian Arab attacks on Jews there dwarf the reverse by a factor of at least 20,(ed. note: be sure to read the hyperlinked article) so it is difficult to understand how a handful of thuggish Jews are the primary driver of instability unless one has a fundamentally distorted view of the conflict.
Jews have criticized Israel before. That is neither new nor unhealthy. Yet something about this moment feels sharper, louder, and more consequential.
The argument is no longer that Israeli policies are misguided, but that Israel itself is becoming a liability.
That is a bold and dangerous claim.
Part of this shift is driven by what can only reasonably be described as Netanyahu Derangement Syndrome.
Criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has increasingly blurred into something more obsessive and emotionally charged. Netanyahu is not merely seen as wrong. He is portrayed as uniquely malevolent, dangerous, and responsible for nearly every negative development in Israeli and Jewish life.
Netanyahu is polarizing. Many on the Left oppose his judicial reforms and his coalition agreements with far-right parties. These are legitimate political disagreements for Israelis to have, though it is unclear what Diaspora Jews gain that is helpful by holding them.
Netanyahu’s place in Israeli history will perhaps be shadowed by the October 7 massacre happening on his watch. Yet any fair reading of history must also acknowledge the extraordinary strategic and military gains Israel has made under his leadership during the subsequent war.
Unfortunately, nuance has largely disappeared from the discussion. Netanyahu is not just criticized; he is pathologized.
This creates a predictable outcome. Criticism of Netanyahu gradually becomes criticism of Israel itself, and no amount of sophistry can dispute that there is a meaningful difference. If you support Israel only when a leader you like is in charge, then you do not support Israel.
Diaspora Jewish discourse increasingly treats Netanyahu not as a democratically elected Israeli leader, which he unquestionably is, but as a rogue actor. (And in some cases, this includes his Finance and National Security ministers, ed.)
This framing is both antidemocratic and psychologically convenient. It allows Diaspora Jews to oppose Israeli policy while maintaining moral superiority.
It is also pathetic and deeply patronizing.
It implies that Israelis - who live with rocket fire, terror attacks, and existential threats - cannot be trusted to govern themselves responsibly. It suggests Diaspora Jews, safely removed from those realities, somehow possess superior moral judgment.
This is not what solidarity looks like, and in the case of Diaspora Jews, it is not even what protecting their own interests looks like.
Alongside this development is the rise of the “as-a-Jew" Jew.
I hesitate to write about them not because they are insignificant, but because they are so mind-crushingly uninteresting. Every crisis produces the same ritual: moral distancing presented as bravery.
We are now accustomed to seeing Jewish critics introduced in a particular way:
“As a Jew, I oppose Israel’s actions…"
“As a Jew, I condemn Israeli policy…"
“As a Jew, I am ashamed…"
An argument either stands or falls on its merit, and its advocate being Jewish does not make the argument weaker or stronger. It just makes the person saying it more annoying.
“As a Jew" might be logical nonsense, but it is powerful as a rhetorical device for those who have placed their critical thinking skills safely out of reach. It offers moral cover to Israel’s critics. If Jews themselves condemn Israel, then criticism cannot be antisemitic - or so the argument goes.
This dynamic has become deeply problematic because it validates hostility towards Israel. Their Jewish identity becomes a shield for arguments that are nonsense, or would otherwise be recognized as distorted, unfair, or extreme.
In an era where Israel is increasingly singled out globally, Diaspora Jews’ public criticism legitimizes hostility towards Israel, signals division, and leaves Jews weaker.
For most of modern Jewish history, the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora was clear. Israel provided strength, pride, and security. Diaspora Jews provided support, advocacy, and solidarity.
That relationship is now shifting. Diaspora Jews are increasingly asking Israel to moderate its behavior not for Israel’s security, but for their own comfort.
This reverses the historical relationship. Israel was created so Jews would no longer calibrate their survival according to others’ anxieties. Now Jews abroad are asking Israel to do exactly that.
This is unusually entitled.
Diaspora Jews complain about the double standards imposed on Israel. Yet in this case, they are imposing one themselves. They are asking Israel to be responsible not only for its own citizens but for Diaspora Jews, too.
No other country faces such expectations. France does not moderate its military policy based on French expatriates’ comfort. India does not shape its security decisions around diaspora sensitivities. The US does not calibrate military responses based on Americans living overseas.
The October 7 attacks accelerated this divergence dramatically.
Israelis experienced October 7 as an existential shock - a reminder that Jewish survival cannot be taken for granted. The response in Israel emphasized deterrence, security, and the overdue elimination of threats.
Many Diaspora Jews experienced something different: protests, workplace hostility, campus activism, and rising antisemitism.
Israelis concluded threats must be eliminated. Many Diaspora Jews concluded tensions must be reduced.
These are not merely different policy preferences. They reflect fundamentally different psychological realities, and those realities produce different instincts.
Yet one of these realities is more fundamental. Israelis face existential threats. Diaspora Jews face racism, harassment, and increased insecurity. Both matter, but both are not Israel’s problem, and only one threatens national survival.
Expecting Israel to make security decisions that might soothe foreign anxieties rather than maximize its own security is the opposite of Jewish sovereignty.
There is also a deeper psychological dynamic at work.
Some Diaspora Jews believe that public criticism demonstrates moral independence, wins approval in activist circles, and reduces hostility toward Jews.
It does none of these things.
Critics interpret Jewish criticism not as moderation, but as confirmation. Jewish division does not weaken hostility. It legitimizes it. Appeasement does not reduce pressure. Rather, it encourages more of it.
Historically, adversaries have exploited Jewish division. From debates over assimilation in Europe to disagreements over Zionism before 1948, Jewish disunity rarely reduced hostility. It typically encouraged enemies to view Jews as divided and vulnerable.
That pattern appears to be repeating.
At the heart of this debate lies a deeper question about what Jewish sovereignty means. For centuries, Jews lived as minorities dependent on others’ goodwill. That reality shaped Jewish psychology - caution, diplomacy, restraint.
Israel changed that.
Modern Israelis did not grow up as minorities. They grew up in a sovereign Jewish state with a powerful military and responsibility for their own survival.
Jewish sovereignty means Jews make decisions about their security even when those decisions are unpopular.
Otherwise, sovereignty becomes conditional and constrained by foreign anxieties, which means it is not sovereignty at all.
That is precisely what Israel was created to avoid.
Worryingly, this divergence is accelerating.
Public Jewish criticism of Israel is becoming more common, more visible, and more consequential - even as antisemitism rises globally.
Jewish unity has historically strengthened Jewish security. Public division weakens it.
This does not mean Diaspora Jews must agree with every Israeli policy. Debate and disagreement are part of Jewish tradition.
Yet turning policy disagreements into public campaigns against Israel, particularly during wartime, crosses a line.
This is becoming a dangerous fault line within Jewish identity.
For the first time in decades, parts of the Diaspora are beginning to view Israel not as a source of protection and refuge, but as a problem.
That carries profound consequences, because once Israel becomes a liability in Diaspora thinking, solidarity weakens, deterrence erodes, and Jewish security - everywhere - becomes more fragile.
That is the moment when criticism stops being constructive and starts becoming a strategic liability.
Nachum Kaplan is a journalist and commentator. He has 25 years media experience and held senior international roles at Reuters and IFR. He holds a B.A. in Politics and Indonesian from Monash University. He is also a practising psychotherapist. His substack is Moral Clarity.