Woke Moral Virtue: The Ideological Lens Shaping Hostility Towards Israel

By Dr. Tim Orr

One of the most eye-opening insights Melanie Phillips brings to the table in her critique of Western hostility toward Israel is the idea of "progressive moral virtue." This concept isn’t just about having a certain set of beliefs or values; it's about how these beliefs shape people and how they act, especially those who identify with the progressive left. To understand why so many in the West are hostile toward Israel and why they hold onto a narrative that paints Israel as the oppressor and the Palestinians as the oppressed, we need to dig into this concept (Phillips, 2006).

The Roots of Progressive Moral Virtue

At its heart, progressive moral virtue is all about a deep commitment to justice, equality, and standing up for the oppressed. These aren’t just lofty ideals—they’re the very foundation of what it means to be progressive. Progressives see themselves as moral leaders, always fighting against past and present injustices. Whether it’s pushing for civil rights, gender equality, or protecting the environment, progressives have consistently positioned themselves as champions for those who are marginalized and downtrodden (Phillips, 2006; Browne, 2019).

But here’s the thing: this commitment to moral virtue is more than just supporting certain causes. It’s woven into the very identity of many progressives. Many people's sense of self-worth and social identity is tied to the belief that they’re on the "right side of history." This belief isn’t just something they think; they are. Their identity is built on the causes they stand for, which creates a powerful emotional and psychological connection to these causes. This connection can make it hard to rethink or remove those causes, even when faced with evidence that challenges their views (Phillips, 2006; Hunter, 1991).

This is where the idea of being morally virtuous gets tricky. Because when your identity is so closely linked to your beliefs, any challenge to those beliefs feels like an attack on who you are. It’s no wonder then that progressive hostility toward Israel is so deeply rooted—it’s not just about politics. It’s about identity (Phillips, 2006; Browne, 2019).

This strong commitment to progressive moral virtue greatly impacts how progressives approach political and social issues. For them, supporting the oppressed and opposing the oppressor isn’t just a choice—it’s a moral duty. That’s why the idea of Israel as an oppressor and Palestinians as the oppressed fits so well within progressive circles. It aligns perfectly with their broader worldview, where they see themselves as defenders of justice and equality (Phillips, 2006).

However, this moral framework also creates a black-and-white view of the world. In this view, there are clear victims and oppressors, and standing with the victims is always the right thing to do, while supporting the oppressors is inherently wrong. This kind of thinking doesn’t leave much room for the complexities of real-world issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Often, the narrative overlooks important facts like the historical and legal realities of Israel's creation, the repeated refusals of peace offered by Palestinian leaders, and the ongoing violence incited by groups like Hamas (Phillips, 2006; Dershowitz, 2003).

What happens then is that the story gets simplified: Palestinians are seen as the victims of Israeli aggression, and anything done in their name is viewed as an understandable, if unfortunate, response to their suffering. This view is reinforced by a broader cultural context where being a victim is often equated with being morally superior. To be a victim is to be on the side of right, and to be an oppressor is to be on the side of wrong (Phillips, 2006; Karsh, 2010).

The Psychological Trap of Moral Identity

One of the toughest parts of progressive moral virtue is the psychological trap it can create. Because progressives see their beliefs as not just right but morally necessary, any challenge to those beliefs isn’t just seen as a disagreement but as an attack on their moral identity. Admitting that they might be wrong about Israel, for example, isn’t just about changing an opinion; it’s about questioning who they are as morally virtuous people (Phillips, 2006).

This is why many progressives find it so hard to reconsider their stance on Israel, even when faced with undeniable evidence of atrocities committed by those they support, like the October 7th attacks by Hamas. Acknowledging these atrocities and rethinking their support for the Palestinian cause would mean admitting that they’ve been supporting a movement with some troubling aspects. It would also mean facing the possibility that their deeply held beliefs about justice and oppression might be based on a misunderstanding of the situation (Phillips, 2006; Sharansky & Dermer, 2019).

For many, this is just too much to handle. The fear of losing their moral identity—the fear of being seen as aligning with the "wrong" side, which they equate with being evil—makes it hard for them to confront the truth. Instead, they might stay silent, deny the evidence, or try to justify the actions of groups like Hamas by sticking to the victimhood narrative. This psychological trap makes it incredibly difficult for progressives to break free from the ideological constraints they’ve built around themselves, leading to a moral and intellectual dead end (Phillips, 2006; Hunter, 1991).

The Risks of Ideological Rigidity

This rigidity in progressive moral virtue has broader consequences beyond just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It creates an environment where sticking to the ideology is more important than being intellectually honest and where those who disagree are often shut down or labeled as morally suspect. This leads to a culture of conformity, where people are discouraged from questioning the dominant narrative, even when flawed (Phillips, 2006; Loury, 2021).

This ideological rigidity is especially dangerous because it shuts down critical thinking and open discussion. When it comes to Israel, it means that any defense of Israel’s right to exist and defend itself is often met with accusations of supporting oppression or being complicit in injustice. This distorts the reality of the situation and gets in the way of finding a just and lasting peace. By shutting out alternative viewpoints and reducing complex situations to simple moral binaries, the progressive approach to Israel ends up hurting both Israelis and Palestinians (Phillips, 2006; Dershowitz, 2003).

This rigidity doesn’t just apply to Israel. It’s seen in other areas of progressive thought, too, like race, gender, and environmentalism, where the same kind of moral absolutism is applied. This black-and-white thinking leads to a more divided society, where real dialogue is replaced by moral posturing, and those who disagree aren’t just seen as wrong—they’re seen as evil (Phillips, 2006; Loury, 2021).

Why We Need to Rethink Moral Virtue

To overcome this ideological rigidity, we need to rethink what it means to be morally virtuous. True moral virtue should be about committing to truth and justice and being willing to engage with the complexities of real life, even when it’s uncomfortable. It should mean having the humility to admit we’re wrong and the courage to change our beliefs when faced with new evidence (Phillips, 2006; Haidt, 2012).

When it comes to Israel, this means recognizing that the situation is complex and that the simple victim-oppressor narrative that’s so common in progressive discourse doesn’t capture the whole picture. It means acknowledging Israel’s right to exist and defend itself while also working towards a fair and peaceful resolution to the conflict that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. This requires engaging with the region's historical, legal, and political realities rather than sticking to ideological assumptions (Phillips, 2006; Dershowitz, 2003).

This kind of reassessment also needs to happen more broadly within progressive circles. We must move away from binary thinking and towards a more open-minded and nuanced approach to political and social issues. This would involve encouraging critical thinking, where different viewpoints are welcomed and debated on their own merits rather than being dismissed outright. Such a shift would help break down the ideological silos we see today and create a more constructive and inclusive dialogue (Phillips, 2006; Haidt, 2012).

Wrapping It Up: Reclaiming Moral Virtue

Melanie Phillips' take on progressive moral virtue illuminates the deep-rooted ideological and psychological factors driving hostility toward Israel in the West. By understanding how moral identity shapes political beliefs, we can start to address the underlying issues that have led to this hostility. According to Phillips, reclaiming moral virtue means embracing complexity, rejecting simplistic narratives, and engaging with the truth, even when it’s tough (Phillips, 2006).

In the end, reclaiming moral virtue is about realizing that being on the "right side of history" isn’t about sticking to a particular ideology but striving for justice, truth, and the common good. The West can only hope to overcome the moral and intellectual challenges that have fueled hostility towards Israel and work towards a more just and peaceful world (Phillips, 2006).

References

Phillips, M. (2006). Londonistan: How Britain is creating a terror state within. Encounter Books.

Browne, A. (2019). The retreat of reason: Political correctness and the corruption of public debate in modern Britain. Civitas.

Dershowitz, A. (2003). The case for Israel. Wiley.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.

Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. Basic Books.

Karsh, E. (2010). Palestine betrayed. Yale University Press.

Loury, G. C. (2021). The anatomy of racial inequality: With a new preface. Harvard University Press.

Sharansky, N., & Dermer, R. (2019). Never alone: Prison, politics, and my people. PublicAffairs.