At times like the present, when violence breaks out between Israel and Palestine, it becomes common to observe that contemporary progressives have a particular problem with the Jewish state – and that this seems to be connected to the fact that it is Jewish. The situation of the Palestinian populace is appalling, and it is entirely understandable why Palestinian people, and those with friends and relatives who are connected to the territory, would feel an animus against Israel. Only a Martian who knew nothing of human behaviour would expect otherwise. But the reaction to events in Israel among progressives based in the West in general, whose connection to the events is only abstract, is something different. Why is it that the response of such people to events in Palestine is simply not the same as it is with regard to other tragedies or injustices around the world?
It is not, to be clear, that Western progressives do not seem to care about the fate of the Tibetans, the Uyghurs, the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, the population of Western Sahara, and so on. But they care about what happens in Palestine much more. And they care about it in such a way as to indicate not just compassion for the suffering Palestinians, but visceral hatred of Israel itself. There is a celebratory, almost gleeful mood that sets in among some such people when Israelis are killed. Among the rest, there is a steely lack of sympathy where in any other similar circumstance there would be an outpouring of emotion. And it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is because Israelis are usually Jews. As somebody called Dave Rich put it to Nick Cohen, writing in the Spectator yesterday:
Anti-Semites are getting excited by the sight of dead Jews… Sorry to be blunt but I am in an uncompromising mood. They’re not angry because Israeli soldiers have killed Palestinians. The sight of Hamas murdering Israeli civilians has exhilarated them instead and filled them with joy.
And the evidence for this is everywhere – across Twitter and indeed across the streets of many national capitals in previous days. Some progressives living in the West get excited, let us repeat, by the sight of dead Jews. In some respects, it is as simple as that.
However, the explanation that is usually given for this is not, I think, sufficient. In that usual explanation, the theory goes that it is simply the case that there are a number of personally antisemitic people in contemporary progressive circles (particularly within the hard left), and that when violence is perpetrated against Israel, the mask slips and the antisemitism is revealed. This may be true of a small number of people. But the reality is that most progressives are not personally antisemitic in their daily lives in the sense that they are animated by hatred of Jewish people per se or think them inferior. The truth is much deeper than that: it is that the contemporary progressive movement itself, necessarily, is imbued with profoundly antisemitic themes which at a time like this bubble to the surface like poison in a witch’s cauldron, and which cloud the judgement of otherwise fairly milquetoast, mild-mannered people.
Let’s go back to a familiar theme. Modern progressivism has to be understood as a manifestation of what I have previously referred to as ‘political reason’ – namely, that series of rationales which justify the relationship of the governing class to the governed, and hence the existence of the state itself (and the international organisations which come under the umbrella of ‘global governance’). As I put it in that earlier post:
Political reason [is] both ‘individualising and totalising’. Again, this is not difficult to understand, but worth spelling out. The state’s impulse is always to atomise the population, such that each and every individual first and foremost looks to his or her relationship to the state as the most important in his or her life. And this is at the same time necessarily a totalising impulse, as it installs the state as the very essence of society, without which the latter simply cannot survive, let alone flourish.
This is the basis of political reason, but why is it so? Regular readers will I hope forgive me for returning to Machiavelli, who made things perfectly clear: “[A] wise ruler… must think of a method by which his citizens will need the state and himself at all times and in every circumstance. Then they will always be loyal to him.”
Modern progressivism, seen through this lens, is essentially a sequence of individualising and totalising impulses, whose function is to destroy all barriers between state (and global) governance and society such that the latter becomes entirely subordinate to the former, and such that the only relationship of relevance is that between the individual and those who govern him. This is what justifies the existence of the state in modernity: its claim to know society in all its intimate detail, so that it can insert itself into every corner, and thereby render every individual entirely reliant upon it in order to maintain his or her loyalty and justify its own position.
It is no accident, then, that modern progressivism is obsessed with the figure of the victim. A victim, quintessentially vulnerable, is by definition in need of the state’s intervention to cater to his needs. Modern progressivism, indeed, can be understood as a never-ending search for new categories of victims who can be constructed as vulnerable and therefore requiring of the power of the state in order to intervene in society on its behalf. This is how the modern state, and by extension modern global governance, has come to justify itself: it is the origin of modern political thought, the pattern of modern political discourse, and the consequence of modern political doctrine when it is put into practical effect.
It is therefore deeply disturbing for contemporary progressives, who have wedded themselves so thoroughly to the doctrines of political reason, to have to confront the idea that vulnerability might be merely temporary, that it might end, and indeed that it might be transcended – not through the state or international organisations doing nice things for people, but through the exercise of will and cooperation with one’s peers and community. If it is possible to transcend vulnerability through the exercise of will and cooperation with one’s peers and community, then the entire edifice of the modern state as we have come to understand it collapses. Because then there is no need for the state to bestow its blessings, no need for it to deconstruct the social order, and no need for the members of the establishment to man the corridors of its power and subordinate society to their dreams.
And this brings us naturally to Israel and the Jews. In 1945 there was no people on Earth who more aptly merited the category of victim than the Jews, and therefore no people who better fitted the framework of political reason: a vulnerable mass in need of the benefits of political power (in this case, chiefly exercised through global governance). But 80 years later this is no longer the case. Modern Israel is the almost absolute opposite of a victim, and the Jews have repudiated victim status categorically and completely, largely if not entirely through sheer effort of their own. It is not the case that Israel has raised itself by its boot-straps, exactly, but it is true that through collective commitment to a national project it has forever cast off the status of vulnerability, and made abundantly clear that it never intends to re-embrace it. (Indeed, one might say that Israel represents another, older, alternative form of political reason, which sees the justification for the relationship between governor and governed as inhering in national (and religious) identity rather than vulnerability and benevolence.)
Israel therefore symbolises an absolutely categorical and fundamental repudiation of the vulnerablising dynamic of modern political reason and the logic of much of modern political power, and so indeed do the Jews themselves writ large as the paradigm case of a people who were once, as Arendt might have put it, ‘malheureux’, but who refused to accept that status as permanent.
This means that Israel serves as a symbol to purportedly ‘vulnerable’ people everywhere: transcendence is possible. And the progressive movement, so wedded to the individualising and totalising mission of political reason, hates and fears that symbolism as a necessary consequence of its own logic. Contemporary progressivism is therefore contemptuous of Israel and Jewish people almost by definition; antisemitism is necessary to its worldview, because that worldview produces a relationship between political power and the victim, and between state and global governance and society, which – by merely existing – Israel and the Jews repudiate.
This cannot be tolerated. And it is why so many ‘woke’ activists in particular, who are the very vanguard of political reason as I have here described it, are so invested in the subject of Palestine. It is not because they care particularly about Palestinians, but because they loathe what the Israeli state in particular symbolises. They loathe the fact that it is proud (some might even say arrogant), that it rejects the logic of victimhood, and that it emphasises its own form of political reason that is bound up in nationhood and religion in a manner that is implacably opposed to their own understanding of the proper relationship between society and state. The only thing that needs to be added is that anybody who understands anything about the human mind can then see quite easily why it is that those people then behave so deplorably when they see their enemy wrought low.
Three closing remarks. The first is that I am anxious not to be misunderstood: plenty of people who would call themselves progressives, or Leftists, genuinely abhor violence and would reject absolutely the argument I here make. I do not suggest for a moment that the schema I have laid out is what takes place within the mind of any given individual. What I am arguing is in a way even more simple; it is that progressive thought is readily beckoned towards antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment because of the predicates on which it rests. This needs to be reflected upon.
The second remark is that I do not wish to be interpreted as making a racially essentialist argument. Israel goes against the grain of contemporary progressive thought, and is hated and feared, precisely because its existence suggests that the bundle of ideas which informs that thought is, in essence, wrong – universally, not only for Jewish people. This, I think, needs emphasising. Political reason, which justifies the existence of the state, is fundamentally and essentially inhumane in all the most important respects. The human spirit is crushed by a conception of itself as vulnerable and in need therefore of the impersonal care of the benevolent state; it is raised up by casting that conception off in union with family and community and genuinely human relationships. Insofar as Israel and the story of the Jewish people after 1945 demonstrates that truth (and it does so very imperfectly), it is despised by those whose worldview rests on its denial.
The third remark – and this should probably go without saying – is that it is inexcusable that Israel and its allies, the Arab States, the United Nations and Palestinian leaders themselves have somehow contrived to reduce the Palestinian population to the status of permanent victims, and that it is the hope of all sensible people that one day this situation ends.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. This article first appeared on his Substack. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I was a little disparaging of Joanna’s last piece in DS, but this has far greater merit. I recognise myself and all my dangerous far right friends in these words. How to get this across succinctly though.?
Live and let live?
Sadly though the whole philosophy espoused in this article is now simply history. There is nothing I do not recognise but it is a longing for that which will never return. I fear that the next few years will brutalise our country and its British people. To imagine that our future is not dystopian is to close eyes to the wreckage that has been wrought and the wreckage that is to come under this WEF Labour government.
“You will own nothing and be happy.”
That is the future.
” is now simply history. ”
I know what you are saying but her words very much describe my life and where I live. I know I am lucky and privileged but the world she describes does still exist, here down the deep lanes of North Devon as depicted in the wonderful photographs of Jame Revilious. I will be out on Wednesday night at the village emergency committee, checking the list of the village’s emergency chainsaw operators. It may not last for ever and it may be under threat but at the moment it does still exist.
I’m with you on this SD and a good article yes – open gardens in our ‘village’ (fast growing into small town – thankyou central government planning overrule) bought people out in droves and umbrella’s yesterday to nosey around and call in and view the little garden my friend (82 + old frail & widowed) has made – a perfect small south facing garden, tamed by her knowledge and interest. And fortified by my rather fine (I say so myself) chocolate checkerboard cake. She and I both agree we are lucky to have the space to enjoy and the interest and the company to keep us both going. For as long as we can.
It’s the same where I live in the west country and it’s why I moved here 8 years ago.
But it’s changing fast: already a small town which was 98% white has visibly growing numbers of “ethnic minorities” who I very much doubt were able to afford to buy a property here, so they will be occupying social housing. I am not making a comment about them as individuals, they may all be perfectly lovely people, but the fact is the area is visibly changing … very quickly.
“And the creed and the colour and the name won’t matter” …. except as we see around the country and particularly in some areas the creed does matter … and it matters a great deal.
Ditto in rural Oxfordshire
Enjoy it while it lasts. Where I live was pretty much the same till bout 5 years ago. Now new packets of migrants get opened every week.
It isn’t 1955 anymore. The Vicar doesn’t cycle down the lane and my grandmother does not get her mangle out from the Anderson Shelter. There was no such thing as “diversity”. You got no money unless you worked, which is why my grandad spent 50 years down the Michael Pit. We didn’t eat micro wave junk and fill our belly with Cheesy Wotsits and Irn Bru. Young girls didn’t push their babies along in a pram and ignore them completely because they are fiddling all the time with their silly phone. ——-But then again people will say I have to move with the times. —-WHY?
Varmint yr family are very lucky to have you.
Why thankyou . I am very humbled.——–If you mean it
Agree.
I have never believed in change for changes sake.
The red thumbs down people are big Cheesy Wotsit fans obviously
How about this – conservatives care about people as individuals, the left just cares about the system.
They just care about power.
and votes
It’s an absolutely superb article. I may have been disparaging about her last piece too. I think what she’s saying here is the left (Tory, labour communist green lib dem) essentially has a complete god complex. Who here doesn’t think David Cameron would rather see Dianne Abbot as pm rather than Nigel Farage?
This!
Thomas Sowell puts it very well.
The policy arguments between liberals and conservatives, socialists and libertarians, do not arise just from differences in priorities regarding freedom, equality, and security. At root, they draw from different conceptions of the nature of man. The Left holds an unconstrained vision: Given the right political and economic arrangements, human beings can be improved, even perfected. Success is defined by what people have the potential of becoming, not by people as they are. The Right holds a constrained vision: People come to society with innate characteristics that cannot be reshaped and must instead be accommodated. Success in political and economic policy must be defined in light of those innate characteristics.
I recognise elements of this in the place I live – a county town in a fairly rural area, traditionally Tory. We now have a Labour MP. I think the problem is that a lot of the people involved in the kind of thing described in the article are simply too “nice” or too asleep.
Very well put, Joanna. I enjoyed this article a lot. I nodded a lot, too. Thank you.
Bang on… with the exception of enjoying Love Island! Nice, uplifting piece.
I do hate any article that makes a claim of something being better without saying what it is compared with.
It is as bad as claiming that change is a virtue when it is Labour change, whereas climate change is bad.
I take it from the article that we have not had a Conservative government for years, and probably decades.
PS I don’t have a deep memory of Lord Salisbury, I am not quite that old and anyway I don’t mix in those circles.
Not to mention warm beer and old maids cycling through the mist to church.
Give me a break. There is a horrible kind of demanded conformity in the vision outlined here. A kind of socialism, if you like, or subordination of the individual to the collective.
Thanks, Joanna, for reminding me that I am not, and never will be again, a Conservative. Let’s hear it for William Gladstone and not be seduced by the siren song of Disraeli.
Well, I don’t know if I am a conservative or not. Any society will have some element of “demanded conformity” won’t it? Don’t the problems start when the “demand” is with menaces – you must voice the right opinions otherwise you will lose your job, you must take this injection, you must give the state all your money?
That’s a nice village that you live in, Joanna!
You have nailed it Joanna
Sovereignty of the individual, self-responsibility, self-respect, self-discipline, self-sufficiency, property Rights, celebration of heritage, our common language, morals, values, manners, traditions and Common Law, free market capitalism/free trade.
Conservatism is adopt and conserve what gives best outcome – but experiment, evaluate, evolve – not obsession with process irrespective of outcomes.
Welfare State, NHS, State education, redistribution of wealth via taxation, State intervention in the economy, social engineering, telling us what we may/may not put into our bodies, State determination of values, morals, is not Conservatism. But that describes many ‘Conservatives’ and every ‘Conservative’ Government since the war.
Love it! Thank you Joanna.
Ah, what a lovely vision of Olde Englande, suddenly brought crashing down by… “LOVE ISLAND”????
She claims that “We Conservatives” all enjoy DISGUSTING PORNOGRAPHY and VOYEURISM????
Speak for yourself, Joanna.
And where in your Item 2 is the village pub and post office?