A cultural coup of anti-laws against democratic laws is ongoing. To tell the difference and protect tolerance is paramount for the survival of freedom. Israel is a battleground.
A hundred years ago, a series of coups d’état in Europe toppled old monarchies and young democracies born in the 19th century. Those revolutionary forces proclaimed themselves to be on the extreme right or the extreme left of the political spectrum. Both were convinced of the shortcomings of the democratic process and its iniquities.
The extreme left claimed the democratic process was merely a veneer to cover the power grab of capitalists against the working man. The French Revolution, which had set all these political and social changes in motion in 1789, had to come to its logical conclusion and grant authority to the workers and peasants, who made up most of the population anyway.
The extreme right, in essence, made the same claims; it only emphasized the importance of national interests over those of “lesser nations.” Both stemmed from the same tradition. Both Lenin and Mussolini hailed from the socialist party—one to become a communist, the other a fascist.
Their revolutions were also parallel: a small group issued laws that would change the country. The laws, in form and shape, were the same as those of democratic nations. However, the key difference was that the laws of democratic countries were born out of an open process in Parliament. They were the fruit of compromises and agreements that tried to bring together all the forces represented in the assembly.
The fascist and communist laws were conceived behind closed doors by the supreme leader and a few of his minions to fulfill an ideological dream. Laws were the same in democratic and undemocratic countries. But in one place, they could be openly discussed and checks and balances limit their application. In the other, they couldn’t. One was a rule of law. The other was a rule by law.
In one place, the people who issued the laws were subject to them; in the other, the people who drafted the laws were above them. This distinction led to a critical difference. Because there was no discussion and no need to take into account the interests of others with different ideas, laws became convenient tools to establish and organize societies that, under a semblance of normality, carried out hidden perversions.
Democracy is a fragile plant that needs to breathe tolerance for different opinions but cannot survive if it tolerates intolerance. It requires a balance of powers that respect but also limits the power of the vote. In this narrow space, democracy is always in danger. Hitler won a democratic election and then broke every balance and check.
The opinions excluded from Parliament and the discussion of laws were forcibly eliminated. The concentration camps, the internal confinement of political dissidents in Russia, Germany, and Italy, and the special tribunals for “lesser people” provided the instruments that offered democracies a mirror in which they could see themselves in a distorted reflection. It was all helpful to confuse people, both inside and outside democracies, about actual realities.
“Laws” against Laws
The ongoing cultural war about the issue of the “genocide” in Gaza seems to hark back to earlier times. The killing of approximately 2,000 Israelis on October 7 is “equalized” to the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza. The same word is used, but only their different numbers count. On the one hand, there are 2,000; on the other, there are 30,000 or 40,000. The protests and demonstrations of those who want to abolish the Western legal system in favor of Sharia law are allowed in the name of freedom of speech and the rule of law. It is the night when all cows are black.
Yet the difference is abysmal, more significant than the word separating a bug from a butterfly. Hamas does want the genocide of Jews and the end of Israel. It says so time and again. It holds demonstrations celebrating the death of Israel; it raises children as assassins of Jews and Israelis.
Their supporters in Western countries enjoy the freedoms of their host nations, but some make no mystery about their hostility to these laws and customs. The distortion of laws and norms, deprived of the tolerance and compromises of the parliamentary system, is used against the laws and standards born out of that tolerance and compromise.
Democracy and the rule of law are under a subtle yet profound attack: distorted images of legality and democracy are used to crush and burn democracy and tolerance.
Death is death, and it is always horrible. However, the manners of death do matter and are not irrelevant. The 2000 Israelis killed on October 7 were slaughtered with medieval ferocity and the sole goal of starting a war against Gaza. Hamas’s objective was to have Israel attack Gaza to rescue the hostages and, in the process, have Israel kill as many Palestinian human shields as possible to then show the “cruelty” of Israel to the world.
It was Hamas’s plan – to stage a global “sh…t show” to smear and, from there, culturally and eventually politically isolate Israel.
Israel fell for it, starting a war without proper cultural groundwork. Yet the game of smoke and mirrors shouldn’t confuse the reality. The responsibility for the killing of both Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza lies not with Israel but with Hamas.
Today’s confusion about Hamas mirrors the confusion 100 years ago with fascists or communists. The Western world cannot and should not be duped and deceived every hundred years by the same distortions. Tolerance cannot be tolerant of the intolerant. Otherwise, everything falls apart. The balance is hard to maintain.
Today’s extreme left, radical wokists support Hamas’s barbaric cruelties. In this way, westerners are hoodwinked by Hamas’s game of smoke and mirrors. The mistakes, errors, and stupidity of some actions by the Israeli government should not be confused with Hamas’ planned and determined ideology of destruction of tolerance.
Challenges to tolerance also come from elsewhere, from extreme rightists preaching nationalist ideas which today are against Islam per se, but tomorrow can turn against other minorities and groups, possibly against Israel and the Jews.
Techno billionaires from the West, growing under the power of governments, might resemble oligarchs, goosestepping behind Russian President Vladimir Putin. It’s necessary to be careful and subtle.
It is essential to reach out and talk to everyone to understand the reasons of the people who support and supported the intolerant. About 100 years ago, Gramsci wrote that the biggest mistake of the young Italian democracy was not understanding the grievances of the veterans and being dismissive of their plight. It pushed the veterans among the ranks of the fascists.
Democracy should not make the same mistake now. It is necessary to talk and reach out to the ordinary people of Gaza or the western suburbs. It might be inescapable to deal with Hamas and its leaders, but one should not condone their ideology or propaganda and give it equal status in tolerant countries; otherwise, everything will be turned upside down, and intolerance will break the floodgates of democracies.
Here, the work of the Pope is of immense value, but this doesn’t mean opening one inch to tolerance for intolerant ideologies. People and ideas have to be kept apart.
