Dr Paul Allen

Moral equivalence has two purposes.  One is to enable the morally confused to hide their confusion.  The other is to allow the immoral to hide their immorality.  Here are two examples as applied to the Israeli-Arab conflict: 1. One is the assertion we hear regarding the latest Israel-Hamas war by members of the Western Left, Muslim supporters of the Palestinians and even by a few individuals on the right: “Palestinian babies are as precious as Israeli babies.” Professor Cornel West, a lifelong progressive running for president as a Democrat: “As I have said for the past 50 years, a precious Palestinian child has the same value as a precious Israeli child.” David Cronin, an editor at Electronic Intifada, a large pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel website: “Palestinian babies are just as precious as my new daughter.” Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called the hospital blast a "devastating loss of innocent life".  Anthony Albanese calls for the protection of Israeli and

In the complex realm of international conflicts, seeking a simplified narrative that paints all parties with the same brush is often tempting, leading to the dangerous notion of moral equivalency. We saw this on the weekend rallies by Palestine supporters marching and chanting death to Israel in Melbourne and Sydney. Politicians, police and the media chose moral equivalency.  This concept suggests that both sides in a conflict are equally responsible for the violence and suffering without delving into the nuances and historical context of the situation. One case where this myth often surfaces is in discussions about the Hamas attack on Israel. Understanding the Conflict The conflict between Israel and Hamas has deep historical and political roots that extend far beyond the headlines. It is vital to recognize the complex backdrop against which these incidents occur. The modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back to the early 20th century, and its root causes include land disputes, n