A neighbour becomes a representative of a country they may never have visited. A colleague is expected to explain a conflict before being allowed to express distress about it. There is something deeply intrusive in this demand: the assumption that another person’s identity gives us the right to assign them a position, then make them answer for it.
The Jerusalem Post reports that a report has found a sharp increase in antisemitism in the Czech Republic following October 7. The supplied account does not establish the scale or detail of that increase, so it cannot tell us precisely what those affected have experienced. It does, however, bring into view a question that reaches into ordinary life: when anger concerns events elsewhere, who do we permit ourselves to direct it towards here?
Holding someone responsible for being Jewish replaces the difficult work of understanding a person with a ready-made accusation. Whatever they actually think becomes secondary. Even silence can be treated as evidence against them, leaving no answer that will satisfy someone who has already decided what they represent.
There is a complication worth taking seriously. Political criticism must remain possible, including fierce criticism of governments and their actions. People may also choose to speak about politics through their religious or cultural identity. Neither point gives anyone permission to impose that role on somebody else. Chosen involvement and compulsory representation are very different conditions.
This matters well beyond public declarations. It affects what happens when a conversation at work turns accusatory, when a joke circulates among friends, when someone is asked to condemn something before their own concern can be heard. In such moments, the people present have some influence over whether an individual remains an individual or becomes a convenient target.
Intervening need not require a speech or a settled view on every aspect of a conflict. It may mean refusing an insinuation, questioning why this particular person is being asked to account for a government, or declining to pass something on.
We can spend a great deal of time discussing the responsibilities of people far away. Sometimes that discussion is necessary. It can also absorb all our attention while someone within reach is being treated unjustly. Whatever else remains disputed, we are responsible for how we treat the person in front of us.