The Underlying Substrate of Islamism and Progressivism
One particularly painful realization among my counterparts on the Israeli left is that the attack has been framed by the global left as an act of legitimate resistance, and even as an “exhilarating” experience, as one Cornell University professor put it. But unlike my counterparts, this was one issue that I was not at all surprised about. Not only was I not shocked, but as someone who grew up in the diaspora, I expected it.
For starters, there has long been a chasm between the Israeli left and the international left in terms of worldview. Whether one chooses to identify with Zionism or not becomes irrelevant in this context. The establishment of the State of Israel was an achievement of the Zionist left, and the harsh reality of Jewish history, the uniqueness of the Jewish people, and the often-ruthless facts of life in the Middle East ensured the Israeli left’s grounding in reality rather than the lofty concepts and moral narcissism that has come to define the international left.
In stark contrast to the ideological origins and mindset of the Zionist left, which sought to liberate the Jews from their role of relegation to the second class of global citizenry, modern western progressivism is based on grievances, as is Islamism. This is where the story begins.
The alliance between the Western liberal establishment and Islamists stands as one of the strangest contradictions of our time. Some explain this unlikely coalition as a mix of Western leftist naivete and opportunistic Islamist strategy. But this framing offers no real explanation. It overlooks a deeper and more unsettling reality: a fundamental ideological alignment between these two seemingly opposing forces.
Shaped by a postmodernist view of history, progressives interpret the West’s story as one of unrelenting oppression. In their worldview, the West was born from the original sin of power—one that demands atonement through sacrifice. This deep-rooted rejection of the West forms the ideological bridge between progressivism and Islamism, binding them through a shared animosity toward the foundations of Western civilization.
In much of the Muslim world, the history of the Middle East is framed as an ongoing struggle against Western aggression. Stories often depict the region’s past as a continuous effort to break free from European domination, with America now serving as the primary symbol of imperialist oppression. For over a century, Islamists have embraced this narrative, attributing a wide array of societal ills—feminism, moral decay, social collapse, economic instability, cultural decline, and failed states—to Western influence.
It didn’t take long for many Western academics, journalists, writers, and politicians to align with this perspective. Consider American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler’s 2006 remarks at an academic conference: “Hamas and Hezbollah are social movements and a part of the international left.”Over time, these views have become a litmus test in social justice advocacy, aligning radical groups with broader left-wing causes.
This trend becomes even more perplexing when taking into account for example, a 2016 study, which revealed that more than half of British Muslims (52%) believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and nearly half (47%) think it is not appropriate for gay people to teach in schools. And yet, in today’s climate, Islamists and LGBTQ movements are often seen marching side by side, as if these deeply held beliefs are of no consequence. How can this be?
In his article, A Field Guide to the Islamist-Left Alliance, Egyptian-American writer, Hussein Aboubakr Mansour points to French philosopher Renee Girard and the social phenomenon of scapegoating as a necessary social mechanism to maintain a needed level of group harmony in a society. “In Girard’s view, every human society is made of a set of rivalries and competing individuals. As the rivalries continue, the very center of society becomes made out of tensions due to some having what others want. As the tensions brew, violence starts to threaten the fabric of the community, at which point all communal tension and resentment are projected onto a single group or a particular individual. Rivals unite their efforts, and former enemies now become friends and community participate in punishing the scapegoat. Death or expulsion is useful as regeneration of communal peace and restoration of relationships. For this process to work, it must remain unconscious. The innocence of the victim must not be ever recognized but rather the victim mus be portrayed as monstrous.”
Jews have long been the go-to scapegoats for those looking to offload the failures of society onto a convenient target. This reflex—blaming Jews for everything—isn’t just a symptom of antisemitism; it’s the core of it. The contradictions are staggering. Jews are cast as both insiders and outsiders—an alien presence corrupting European purity, yet also European invaders colonizing their homeland in the Levant. They are accused of being the whitest of whites and simultaneously the subversive enemy of the white race. They are labeled the masterminds of capitalism, the hidden hand behind socialism, and the agents of chaos. Antisemitism doesn’t require coherence. It thrives on the very contradictions that make it impossible to refute—because the accusations are never meant to form a rational argument. They are meant only to indict.
Both Islamists and pan-Arabists fixated on Jews as the ultimate scapegoat. The tendency to attribute political stagnation, economic struggles, and social turmoil to a singular enemy became deeply ingrained over the last century. As Western Islamism emerged, as a result a mass-migration, this strategy evolved to fit new realities. Open antisemitism, still burdened by the shadow of the Holocaust, was no longer socially acceptable in the West. Instead, Islamists, much like the Soviets before them, repackaged their hostility as anti-Zionism. The target remained unchanged—only the rhetoric shifted.
Over time, with the unmatched patience that Islamists have perfected, the Western liberal establishment—ever in search of a scapegoat—became primed to join the cause. This shared resentment created an extraordinary opportunity for ideological unity. Now, Islamists stand shoulder to shoulder with Queers for Palestine, bound not by any coherent common ground, but by the intoxicating catharsis of collective blame. The target? Jews, or more conveniently, Zionists.
The Jew is now guilty of the ultimate Western and Islamist transgression—colonialism. And so, in the pursuit of absolution, the Jew is offered as the sacrifice.