About as mature a discussion as I've seen on the subject. I would however like to point out that talk of "Palestinians" is generally oversimplified and misleading. Without going into detail on the issue: in the present circumstance, the proper focus is on Hamas, which is an extremist terrorist organisation that terrorizes Palestinians. Missing this point fuels all manner of misunderstandings that lead to the most reprehensible conclusions.
Typically clear and 'new' in terms of my understanding of your argument that Progressivism is not so much a religion as a consequence of the Enlightenment tradition of reason. Please keep these pieces coming. They're now a significant component in my sensemaking.
So Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, to quote the 2018 Basic Law, is the archetypal ethno-state and progressives hate it, as it is successful and culturally coherent. As the antithesis of the multicultural, statist mess progressives sanctify, this makes sense to me as to why we see the progressive take on current events. Another insightful piece, thanks.
As a preamble, I condemn the horrific attacks conducted by all sides in any 'War in the Levant' and as a matter of principle I cannot support any side whose methods are deplorable. I long since, therefore, withdrew from taking sides on the conflicts of this part of the world, beyond experiencing a deep and unshakeable gloom. Ordinarily, I do not even comment. In this case, out of respect for you, I have opted to speak.
I am unconvinced by your argument here, which I think is more complicated than is needed. Once people have taken up allegiance to a side in a conflict, cognitive dissonance is sufficient to explain their inability to process the horrors of both sides, and 'progressive' preference for Palestinians is merely 'victim over oppressor', which does not then need escalating to another layer beyond for adequate explication. I remain astonished and disappointed by the terrible judgement this bankrolls in 'supporters of victims', but I don't think their behaviour is in need of a deeper explanation any more than those on the other side who have been literally calling to nuke Palestinian territories need their insane judgement explained (and if you have not seen this phenomenon yet, go weep at the comments at Bari Weiss' The Free Press when they first broke news of the terrorist attack.)
What's more, I don't share your impression of Israel demonstrating an escape from the purported need for support from the weirdly conceived 'kindly Leviathan': if the US withdrew its support for Israel, would that not instantaneously mark the end of that troubled nation...? I see the shape of this region tumbling out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the later consequences of this shift in regional power, for which the preference for a 'Judeo-Christian' conception inevitably rejected the chance to take up the more unifying 'Abrahamic' conception of 'the people of the Book', ensuring more than a century of further strife by pretending the followers of Islam did not require or deserve any degree of diplomatic consideration. Indeed, progressive opposition to Israel can frequently be understood as a surrogate for hatred of the United States, Israel's patron, and this could not reasonably be given the name 'antisemitism'.
Finally, anyone vicariously taking up any side in this wretched and unfortunate region is likely to express some kind of racism to someone's eyes. This has become one of many tools in the contemporary censorship toolkit, and in its guise as 'antisemitism' was the one that was used by the Labour Party to oust Jeremy Corbyn in the UK (and note that this is not a judgement on Corbyn in any capacity other than that he was politically unelectable and therefore 'needed removing').
Since the past cannot be undone, this endless propagation of racism to one or all sides in the Levant tragically ensures an endless insanity that we can only weep for.
Chris - Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think the operative phrase in your comment is 'once people have taken up allegiance to a side in a conflict'. I am interested in what makes people make that particular decision vis-a-vis Palestine. I am not satisfied with the argument that there is a progressive preference for the narrative of victim versus oppressor and everything flows from there; the world is full of victims, but the relationship between purported Palestinian victims and purported Israeli oppressors is absolutely central to the progressive worldview, and other like scenarios simply are not. I really do think this calls for a deeper explanation than the depressing tendency human beings have towards hypocrisy.
Thanks for your reply (I really wrote far more here than I intended). It is worth considering why so much media attention gets pushed towards this part of this region versus (for instance) Turkey's behaviour towards Kurds and other minorities, or for that matter Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Morocco, Algeria, Libya etc. My sense of this is that the US' connection to Israel, as I traced above, is a key part of the story. Support for Hamas (I'm mindful of Asa's point here) dovetails with opposition to the internationalism of the US. I agree there's a myopic focus entailed... but I suspect that the curation of the media landscape with respect to this part of the world plays an important role in the miserably sad polarities that have emerged. I also rather suspect the political dynamics of Manhattan has a role here, but in this regard, I do not feel qualified to comment.
As the mother of half-Jewish children, and with decades of experience as a non-Jew with the Jewish community here, and in other countries, another discomfort for many Jewish people is that they are traditionally left wing. Here they have mostly voted Labour and in Israel the kibbutz movement was, of course, a collectivist one originally. Many have found it bewildering in recent years that they are no longer in favour with progressives. My Jewish friends and acquaintances know that I am an (extreme right wing!) libertarian and you can see the confusion in their faces when they realise that I am supportive of Israel - surely I'm a Nazi? Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East where, despite the global hollowing out of democracy, there is actually equality for its citizens - male/female, gay/straight, muslim/jew/christian and the rule of law - in stark contrast to all its neighbours in the region.
A strange manifestation of the Jewish adherence to 'progressive' ideals is that many Jewish people (predominantly younger ones) in the diaspora are actually anti-Israel and pro-Palestine which is a source of many family arguments!
It's so sad because the conflict, in common with pretty much every conflict around the world, is nothing to do with people, but is of course the endless power struggle of elites with vested interests.
About as mature a discussion as I've seen on the subject. I would however like to point out that talk of "Palestinians" is generally oversimplified and misleading. Without going into detail on the issue: in the present circumstance, the proper focus is on Hamas, which is an extremist terrorist organisation that terrorizes Palestinians. Missing this point fuels all manner of misunderstandings that lead to the most reprehensible conclusions.
Typically clear and 'new' in terms of my understanding of your argument that Progressivism is not so much a religion as a consequence of the Enlightenment tradition of reason. Please keep these pieces coming. They're now a significant component in my sensemaking.
So Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, to quote the 2018 Basic Law, is the archetypal ethno-state and progressives hate it, as it is successful and culturally coherent. As the antithesis of the multicultural, statist mess progressives sanctify, this makes sense to me as to why we see the progressive take on current events. Another insightful piece, thanks.
David,
As a preamble, I condemn the horrific attacks conducted by all sides in any 'War in the Levant' and as a matter of principle I cannot support any side whose methods are deplorable. I long since, therefore, withdrew from taking sides on the conflicts of this part of the world, beyond experiencing a deep and unshakeable gloom. Ordinarily, I do not even comment. In this case, out of respect for you, I have opted to speak.
I am unconvinced by your argument here, which I think is more complicated than is needed. Once people have taken up allegiance to a side in a conflict, cognitive dissonance is sufficient to explain their inability to process the horrors of both sides, and 'progressive' preference for Palestinians is merely 'victim over oppressor', which does not then need escalating to another layer beyond for adequate explication. I remain astonished and disappointed by the terrible judgement this bankrolls in 'supporters of victims', but I don't think their behaviour is in need of a deeper explanation any more than those on the other side who have been literally calling to nuke Palestinian territories need their insane judgement explained (and if you have not seen this phenomenon yet, go weep at the comments at Bari Weiss' The Free Press when they first broke news of the terrorist attack.)
What's more, I don't share your impression of Israel demonstrating an escape from the purported need for support from the weirdly conceived 'kindly Leviathan': if the US withdrew its support for Israel, would that not instantaneously mark the end of that troubled nation...? I see the shape of this region tumbling out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the later consequences of this shift in regional power, for which the preference for a 'Judeo-Christian' conception inevitably rejected the chance to take up the more unifying 'Abrahamic' conception of 'the people of the Book', ensuring more than a century of further strife by pretending the followers of Islam did not require or deserve any degree of diplomatic consideration. Indeed, progressive opposition to Israel can frequently be understood as a surrogate for hatred of the United States, Israel's patron, and this could not reasonably be given the name 'antisemitism'.
Finally, anyone vicariously taking up any side in this wretched and unfortunate region is likely to express some kind of racism to someone's eyes. This has become one of many tools in the contemporary censorship toolkit, and in its guise as 'antisemitism' was the one that was used by the Labour Party to oust Jeremy Corbyn in the UK (and note that this is not a judgement on Corbyn in any capacity other than that he was politically unelectable and therefore 'needed removing').
Since the past cannot be undone, this endless propagation of racism to one or all sides in the Levant tragically ensures an endless insanity that we can only weep for.
I pray for a peace I doubt I will live to see.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Chris - Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think the operative phrase in your comment is 'once people have taken up allegiance to a side in a conflict'. I am interested in what makes people make that particular decision vis-a-vis Palestine. I am not satisfied with the argument that there is a progressive preference for the narrative of victim versus oppressor and everything flows from there; the world is full of victims, but the relationship between purported Palestinian victims and purported Israeli oppressors is absolutely central to the progressive worldview, and other like scenarios simply are not. I really do think this calls for a deeper explanation than the depressing tendency human beings have towards hypocrisy.
Hi David,
Thanks for your reply (I really wrote far more here than I intended). It is worth considering why so much media attention gets pushed towards this part of this region versus (for instance) Turkey's behaviour towards Kurds and other minorities, or for that matter Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Morocco, Algeria, Libya etc. My sense of this is that the US' connection to Israel, as I traced above, is a key part of the story. Support for Hamas (I'm mindful of Asa's point here) dovetails with opposition to the internationalism of the US. I agree there's a myopic focus entailed... but I suspect that the curation of the media landscape with respect to this part of the world plays an important role in the miserably sad polarities that have emerged. I also rather suspect the political dynamics of Manhattan has a role here, but in this regard, I do not feel qualified to comment.
As the mother of half-Jewish children, and with decades of experience as a non-Jew with the Jewish community here, and in other countries, another discomfort for many Jewish people is that they are traditionally left wing. Here they have mostly voted Labour and in Israel the kibbutz movement was, of course, a collectivist one originally. Many have found it bewildering in recent years that they are no longer in favour with progressives. My Jewish friends and acquaintances know that I am an (extreme right wing!) libertarian and you can see the confusion in their faces when they realise that I am supportive of Israel - surely I'm a Nazi? Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East where, despite the global hollowing out of democracy, there is actually equality for its citizens - male/female, gay/straight, muslim/jew/christian and the rule of law - in stark contrast to all its neighbours in the region.
A strange manifestation of the Jewish adherence to 'progressive' ideals is that many Jewish people (predominantly younger ones) in the diaspora are actually anti-Israel and pro-Palestine which is a source of many family arguments!
It's so sad because the conflict, in common with pretty much every conflict around the world, is nothing to do with people, but is of course the endless power struggle of elites with vested interests.
Clear and insightful. Thank you. I'm upgrading my subscription to 'paid'.
Thank you.