In the NY Times, Friedman bemoans an "epidemic of moral cowardice":
Three examples preoccupy me personally: The Republican Party today has a neo-Nazi problem that it refuses to confront. The progressive left today has a pro-Hamas problem that it refuses to confront. And the Jewish people and Israel have a radical Jewish settler problem that they refuse to confront.
While this may seem an odd grouping, its elements have more in common than you might think. The neo-Nazis in the Republican camp want a white Christian America from sea to shining sea — empty of as much diversity as possible. The radical settlers in the West Bank want a Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea — empty of as many Palestinian Arabs as possible. And Hamas jihadists also want an Islamic state in Palestine from the same river to the same sea — empty of as many Israeli Jews as possible.
Those three examples have other things in common. One is they just don’t care anymore about hiding their excesses or their agendas. It’s all out there online or on YouTube. They are not embarrassed. . . .
But what really makes me sick is the third thing they have in common — how much their behavior is now excused or normalized by adjacent members of their own political communities.
The root problem is, as it always has been, dividing the world into US and THEM and insisting that we are better. The only solution is Enlightenment liberal internationalism.
5 comments:
The root problem is, as it always has been, dividing the world into US and THEM and insisting that we are better. The only solution is Enlightenment liberal internationalism.
Uh, doesn't that immediately divide us into supporters of Enlightenment liberal internationalism and non-supporters? US Enlightened Liberal Internationalists are RIGHT and THEY are wrong.
Go read Karl Popper's foundational work on the so-called Paradox of Tolerance.
An open and tolerant society MUST be intolerant of those who are intolerent. A moral and ethical society MUST be opposed to those who are immoral and unethical. Anything else only serves to empower intolerance and immorality.
The key factor is that "liberal intolerance" must be based in rational valuations of individual BEHAVIOR, not in absurd traditional notions of who someone is as a PERSON. There is a vast gulf between refusing to tolerate someone because of their skin color or their personal choice of religion, and refusing to tolerate someone because they insist on engaging in destructive and harmful bigoted behavior toward others.
The basic principle is fundamentally no different than opposing murder. Society cannot function in a healthy manner if you attempt to be "tolerant" of those who go around killing other people on a whim. Despite a surface level appearance of contradiction, it is not wrong or immoral to kill someone who is attempting to kill others - it is a tragedy, and something to be avoided if possible, but it is a lesser evil than allowing said killing of others to occur.
Three examples preoccupy me personally: The Republican Party today has a neo-Nazi problem that it refuses to confront. The progressive left today has a pro-Hamas problem that it refuses to confront. And the Jewish people and Israel have a radical Jewish settler problem that they refuse to confront.
Friedman is really reaching to try to falsely present all sides as equal or even comparable.
The progressive left doesn't support Hamas. They support Palestinians, and they tolerate Hamas as a necessary evil.
But they also actively want Hamas to disband - and indeed, have openly proposed such, AND the Palestinians have agreed to the idea in principle as a step toward peace, if only they can first secure international security guarantees to prevent Israel betraying them if they disarm.
The Republican Party's behavior is in no way comparable. They don't support Neo-Nazis as a tragic and unfortunate necessity - one which they want to see the world rid of as soon as possible. At best they support Neo-Nazis because they find it politically convenient - and much more damningly, they often freely support Neo-Nazis because they actively agree with and respect them and their abhorrent views.
~~~
Republicans support Neo-Nazis because they're both bigots who glorify strength and violence in the pursuit of selfish ends.
Israel supports radical settlement because it suits their own bigotry and glorification of their own strength and violence in the pursuit of selfish ends.
And progressive liberals "support" Hamas on the grounds that they're the only thing stopping the Palestinians from being eradicated in a genocide carried out by Israel in an illegal occupation of land that international treaty recognizes belongs to the Palestinians - and they do so conditionally, with the expectation that Hamas NOT be allowed to retain power once peace is achieved.
ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS.
The progressive left doesn't support Hamas.
Absolute horse shit
An open and tolerant society MUST be intolerant of those who are intolerent.
Why then they're not an open and tolerant society. If they were, they wouldn't be intolerant. You can't fix this by slapping the "paradox" label on it.
Post a Comment