To most people’s surprise, some of the most influential political alliances are not formed between ideological allies, but between ideological opponents. One of the best examples of this is what scholars call the Red-Green Alliance, which is an alliance between secular progressives and Islamists. The progressive movement promotes secularism, feminism, LGBTQ rights, and individual autonomy, while Islamists want to order public life according to the Qur’an and the Sharia. Despite these profound ideological differences, the two find common ground in their hatred toward the West, nationalism, and of course, Israel.

There is an important thing that is often not asked. Given their ideological differences, it is eminent that one side will exercise greater influence over the coalition than the other. It’s true that political alliances begin with shared grievances, but over time the movement with the more comprehensive moral framework is more likely to shape the coalition’s direction.

I will begin by looking at the progressive side of the coalition by looking to Gad Saad who offers an important insight into one dimension of this phenomenon through his concept of “suicidal empathy.” His theory helps explain why some progressives are reluctant to subject what are labeled marginalized groups or ideologies to the same level of moral scrutiny that they apply to others. Groups viewed as historically marginalized therefore acquire a degree of moral immunity from criticism because disagreement itself is interpreted as hostility toward victims. According to this view, when an individual or a group is regarded as marginalized, they acquire a kind of moral immunity from criticism because disagreement is interpreted as hostility toward victims. In many Western institutions, identity and historical oppression go hand in hand.

These frameworks define the boundaries of working relationships, which helps to explain progressive activists excuse illiberal positions with Islamists, but are unwilling to do it with Christian conservatives. Within their moral framework, the decisive issue is not the content of a group’s beliefs, but where the group is located within structures of power and oppression. Islamicists are granted the baffling courtesy of being part of marginalized groups, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. At the same time,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)