The Trap of Progressive Virtue: Why the West Turns Against Israel

By Dr. Tim Orr

This is a special article that I felt compelled to send today. The usual schedule of one email per week will still be maintained.

Ollie Anisfeld commented on a clip from an interview featured on J-TV, which is my new favorite YouTube site, highlighting that the growing hostility toward Israel in the Western world goes beyond mere political disagreement; it stems from a deep-seated ideological belief that has gained traction, particularly among those who align with progressive values. In this J-TV interview (see link below), veteran journalist and author Melanie Phillips offers a compelling analysis of this trend in a conversation with Brendan O'Neill. Her insights provide a critical examination of the narratives that have come to shape Western discourse on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Myth of Israel's Creation: A Historical Distortion

One of the most significant points Phillips raises is the historical distortion that underpins much of the hostility towards Israel. The commonly accepted narrative suggests that Israel was born out of Western guilt over the Holocaust, with Jews forcibly inserted into the land of Palestine at the expense of an indigenous Arab population. This narrative portrays the creation of Israel as an act of Western colonialism, a grave injustice that displaced a long-established society.

However, Phillips argues that this narrative grossly misrepresents the historical realities. The establishment of Israel was not a colonial project but rather the culmination of a millennia-old connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. The notion that Jews were "parachuted" into Palestine is a myth that ignores the legal, historical, and cultural ties that Jews have had to the land for thousands of years. This land, known historically as Judea and Samaria, was the birthplace of Jewish civilization, and Jews maintained a continuous presence there even after the Roman expulsion in the 2nd century.

Moreover, the narrative overlooks the legal frameworks that facilitated Israel's establishment, including the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947. These were not acts of guilt but international recognitions of the Jewish people's right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. Yet, the myth persists because it serves a broader ideological agenda.

The Victim-Perpetrator Inversion: A Moral Misalignment

Central to Phillips' analysis is the concept of the victim-perpetrator inversion, a phenomenon that has become increasingly prevalent in Western societies. In this inversion, those perceived as victims are often granted moral immunity for their actions, while those labeled as perpetrators are condemned regardless of the circumstances.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this inversion manifests in the way Palestinian terrorism is often justified or excused as a form of "resistance" against Israeli "oppression." This perspective, Phillips notes, is deeply embedded in the victim culture that dominates Western progressive thought. In this framework, Palestinians are seen as the oppressed victims of Israeli aggression, and their acts of violence are rationalized as a desperate response to their situation.

Phillips highlights the dangerous implications of this mindset. By excusing or downplaying Palestinian terrorism, the West is not only endorsing violence but also stripping Palestinians of their moral agency. The idea that Palestinians have no choice but to resort to violence is a form of bigotry—what Phillips calls the "bigotry of low expectations." It denies Palestinians the ability to choose a peaceful path and assumes that they are incapable of anything other than violent resistance.

Conversely, Israel, as the perceived oppressor, is denied any claim to victimhood. Even in the face of horrific attacks, such as the massacres committed by Hamas, the narrative remains one-sided. Israel is viewed solely as an aggressor, and its legitimate right to defend itself is dismissed as further evidence of its supposed brutality.

The Progressive West's Ideological Entrapment

Phillips explores the deeper psychological and ideological factors that sustain this hostility toward Israel. For many in the progressive West, their identity is closely tied to their belief in moral virtue. They see themselves as defenders of justice, equality, and the oppressed. This self-image is so integral to their sense of self that any challenge is perceived as an existential threat.

This ideological entrapment is particularly evident in the reluctance of many progressives to reconsider their stance on Israel, even when confronted with clear evidence of the atrocities committed by those they support. To admit that they have been wrong about Israel would not just be an intellectual admission; it would be a devastating blow to their moral self-conception. It would force them to acknowledge that they have been complicit in supporting a cause that, at its core, harbors deeply troubling values.

Phillips argues that this is why so many progressives are unwilling or unable to confront the reality of the situation. Doing so would require them to abandon the comfortable narrative they have constructed, in which they are the righteous defenders of the oppressed. It would mean admitting that their long-held beliefs are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation—a step many are unwilling to take.

The Role of Moral Virtue in Shaping Political Allegiances

The discussion also touches on how the perception of moral virtue influences political allegiances in the West. Phillips observes that for many progressives, their political beliefs are not just a matter of policy preferences but are deeply entwined with their moral identity. They believe in creating a better world, standing up for the oppressed, and fighting against injustice. These beliefs are so central to their identity that any deviation from them is seen as a betrayal of their core values.

This is why Phillips believes that many on the left cannot bring themselves to criticize the Palestinian cause, even when it is associated with acts of extreme violence. To do so would be to align themselves with what they perceive as the "right wing," which, in their view, is synonymous with evil. The fear of being labeled as a right-winger or as someone who supports oppression is so great that it prevents them from seeing the reality of the situation.

Phillips points out that this moral rigidity leads to a dangerous black-and-white worldview, where all good is associated with the left and all evil with the right. This binary thinking not only distorts the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also hinders meaningful dialogue and understanding. It creates an environment where any criticism of the Palestinian cause is automatically dismissed as morally suspect, and any defense of Israel is seen as a betrayal of progressive values.

The Consequences of Ideological Inflexibility

Phillips' insights highlight the broader consequences of this ideological inflexibility. By clinging to a distorted narrative, the West is not only failing to support Israel in its legitimate struggle for security. Still, it is also undermining the very values it claims to uphold. The refusal to confront the truth about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict reflects a deeper moral crisis in Western societies—a crisis where ideology takes precedence over reality.

This moral crisis is evident in the silence of many Western feminists in the face of the mass rapes committed by Hamas during the October 7th attacks. Feminists who have spent years decrying male violence and the patriarchy are suddenly silent when confronted with atrocities that do not fit their ideological narrative. This silence is not just a failure of feminism but a failure of the moral integrity that underpins progressive thought.

Phillips also draws a parallel between the West's response to Palestinian terrorism and the appeasement of Nazi Germany. Just as some in the West sought to justify Hitler's actions by pointing to the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles, so too do some seek to justify Palestinian terrorism by pointing to the lack of a Palestinian state. In both cases, the refusal to recognize and confront evil leads to disastrous consequences.

The Need for a Moral Reawakening

In conclusion, Phillips argues that the hostility toward Israel in the West is not just a political issue but a moral and intellectual crisis. The progressive West's inability to see the truth about Israel and the Palestinian cause reflects a deeper failure to uphold the values of justice, truth, and moral responsibility.

To move forward, the West must undergo a moral reawakening. This means rejecting the distorted narratives that have taken hold and recognizing the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It means acknowledging the legitimate rights of Israel to defend itself and rejecting the bigotry of low expectations that excuses Palestinian terrorism.

Ultimately, Phillips' insights challenge us to reconsider our assumptions and to strive for a more truthful and just understanding of the world. In a time when ideology often clouds reality, her analysis is a powerful reminder of the importance of moral clarity and intellectual integrity. The West must wake up to the truth before it is too late, for the consequences of continued moral blindness could be catastrophic for both Israel and the world.

The ideas in this article are mine, but AI assisted in writing the article.

References