Laurence Thomas: The Middle East Conflict & the Left’s Conception of Tolerance

  • 0

In a world that is tolerant of so much, one has to ask the following question: Why is it that so many in the world have so little tolerance for the Jews of Israel. This is the question that I shall attempt to answer in this essay. The explanation cannot possibly be that the wrongs committed by Israelians far surpass the wrongs committed by others. There is simply no evidence of that. People of every stripe and persuasion commit all sorts of horrendous wrongs. Arabs do; blacks do; Latinos do; whites do; and so on. We know for a fact that in the name of Islam women have been systematically and brutally oppressed. In comparison to the Muslim Arab oppression of women, Israelis Jews look rather like saints.

So if the Middle East conflict represents some cosmic struggle between Good and Evil, what no one can plausibly hold is that Muslims of the Arab world are the personification of Good, whereas Israelians are the personification of Evil. Yet, many who would defend Muslim Arabs against Israel seem to hold that Muslims can do no wrong no matter what they do to Israeli Jews. Any harm inflicted upon a Jew is deemed justified. By contrast, an Israeli Jew need only kill one Arab Muslim out of the 10 or so who attacked him, and many supporters of the Arab Muslim world will cry out that an egregious moral wrong had been committed by the Jew. To many supporters of Muslim Arabs: Self-defense on the part of Israeli Jews would seem to have no justification whatsoever regardless of the circumstances.

So what is the explanation for an asymmetry that is as palpable and as flagrant as this one? Is antisemitism the explanation? No doubt that is part of it. However, I think that there has to be another explanation as well.

I hold that a warped conception of tolerance has been embraced by the Left. Those on the Left are the primary unapologetic supporters of the Muslim Arab world. For the Left, tolerance simply means uncritically accepting the claims and ideas of the underdog. One sees this everywhere. (The extreme Right, by the way, opposes both Muslims and Jews)

Notice that the Left uncritically accepts what gays say about being gay; and that the Left uncritically accepts what blacks say about racism. If tomorrow, gays were to claim that they experience psychological pain simply in virtue of sitting next to a straight person, the Left would see its way clear to accepting that. If blacks were to claim that white under garments are racist, the Left would somehow manage to see the justification of this claim on the part of blacks. I could go on; but you get the picture.

Needless to say, the Left’s view of tolerance is conceptually incoherent and, therefore, indefensible. From the standpoint of initial appearances, however, the Left’s view of tolerance has all the air of a form of moral excellence: a desire to be compassionate towards and helpful of someone in need.

Now, from a kind of ontological point of view, Jews simply cannot be the underdog. This is owing to the fact that by every conceivable account Jews have magnificently beaten the odds. Never have so few survived so much horrendous wrongdoing. In view of their history of oppression, it seems as if Jews should have long since disappeared off the face of the earth.

Quite simply, it is not possible to beat the odds ever so routinely and be considered an underdog. Jews and, in particular, Israeli Jews are seen has having the upper-hand on account of having beat the odds.

So what we have, then, are two conceptual views at play here. One is that by definition Jews cannot be the underdog. The other is that by definition tolerance means accepting whatever the underdog says.

Notice that Muslims could never get away with characterizing blacks in the utterly despicable way in which Muslims characterize Jews. And this is so although as a matter fact the lifestyle of many blacks in the United States, for instance is radically at odds with the values of Islam. A more forceful way of putting the point would be that many Muslims have nothing but contempt for the lifestyle pursued by many black Americans.

But you see, American blacks are also an underdog group; and one underdog group cannot be too critical of another underdog group. So fighting radical Islam is an objective that never ever falls from the lips of the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Again, while Minister Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright endlessly criticize American whites for the enslavement of black people, neither one of these figures ever say a word about the Islamic enslavement of blacks in Africa.

Underdogs do not criticize underdogs. But one can always criticize Jews. Even when Jews do what appears to be decent we all know that “surely their motivations are suspect”. For it is only natural to be suspicious of people who invariably seem to have the upper-hand.

The account of tolerance as critically accepting the claims of the underdog, which I have advanced, is distinct from antisemitism as such. Likewise, being viewed as invariably favored, as shown by history, to have the upper-hand is not an antisemitic notion. For the first of these two notions have obvious application to American blacks and Latinos? Just so, there can be no question but that it is also the case that these two notions can very much operate in tandem with antisemitism.

What the Muslims of the Arab world have done ever so brilliantly is exploit to their advantage the Left’s conceptually indefensible view of tolerance. The Muslim Arab world may be driven by antisemitism; but to this end they are using to their advantage an ideological tool handed to them by the Left. What the Muslim Arab world has masterfully grasped is that, according to the Left, the best way to commit evil with utter impunity is to present oneself ever so convincingly as the underdog.

If the above analysis is correct, then the reason why the Middle East conflict has endured is not because Israel has continued to commit one atrocity after another against Muslim Arabs, as the Muslim Arab world claims. Rather, it has endured because the Left, with its warped conception of tolerance, has unwittingly given the Arab Muslim world reason to believe that with impunity they can wipe Israel off the face of the earth only to have the Left intone that Israel is to blame for its own demise. Why, it would be rather parallel to killing a very powerful looking person in self-defense because, after all, that very powerful person looked as if he was going to attack one.

In some cases, killing such a person in self-defense is in fact justified. However, no one can be morally justified in insisting that, no matter what happens, a very powerful-looking person is aiming to kill him.

Thus, the victory which the Left has handed the Arab Muslim world can be succinctly put as follows: The Left’s warped conception of tolerance has allowed the Arab Muslim world to attribute to Israel the untenable claim that, no matter what Israel actually does, the real aim of the ever so powerful State of Israel is none other than to destroy the Muslim Arab world. From this attribution, what follows is that whatever Muslim Arabs do, as the necessary underdog, in order to undermine Israel’s real aim constitutes none other than justified self-defense.

Why settle for peace when, in the name of self-defense, Israel can be destroyed with impunity, thanks to the Left’s warped conception of tolerance. The Left’s warped conception of tolerance has enabled the Muslim Arab world in a most morally obnoxious way. This I say without supposing for a moment that the State of Israel is perfect.

There is much power in being perceived-notice I said: perceived-as the underdog. And it is this truth that the Muslim Arab world has grasped and exploited ever so masterfully.

Laurence Thomas is Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the Department of Political Science in the Maxwell School at Syracuse University, where he is also a member of Maxwell Center for European Studies and the Judaic Studies & The Religion and Society Program. He also serves as Co-Chair of SPME’s Task Force on Humanities His recent articles include “Forgiving the Unforgivable” in MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE HOLOCAUST (Ashgate Press, 2003) and “Equality and the Mantra of Diversity” THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW (2004). He has lectured before Queen Beatrix of Orange in 2000 and has given the Kovler Lectures in South Africa. His most recent book is The Family and the Political Self (Cambridge University Press, 2006). He can be reached at lthomas@maxwell.syr.edu

Laurence Thomas: The Middle East Conflict & the Left’s Conception of Tolerance

  • 0
AUTHOR

Laurence Thomas


Read all stories by Laurence Thomas