The ‘Both Sides’ Fallacy
After the Unite the Right rally, many progressives and liberals rightly argued that there are moments when “both sides” is not a morally adequate response. When white supremacists marched with tiki torches chanting, “Jews will not replace us,” they insisted that moral clarity — not moral equivalence — was required.
I agreed then. I still do. I shared their outrage.
So why, when it comes to antisemitism, antizionism, and the rise of Islamist extremism, did “both sides have a point” become the preferred response?
Yes, innocent Palestinians deserve peace, dignity, freedom, and hope.
Yes, innocent Israelis deserve exactly the same.
That has never been the issue.
The issue is whether we are willing to distinguish between those who seek peace and coexistence and those who glorify terrorism, celebrate the murder of civilians, and subject not only Jews, but anyone who rejects their worldview, to an ideological or religious purity test.
One vision imagines Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in peace — if only the ugly vitriol, incitement, and promises of more violence would stop.
Since October 7, many who once believed that vision was within reach have come to question whether it is possible without a profound transformation in the ideology, leadership, and behavior that continue to glorify terror and reject coexistence.
The other side has too often elevated, excused, or remained silent about Islamist movements whose stated objective is not coexistence, but the destruction of Israel and the elimination of those they deem illegitimate.
There is no moral equivalence between defending a democratic society — even one whose policies can and should be debated — and celebrating or excusing an ideology that glorifies terrorism and the murder of civilians.
This is not about choosing between Israelis and Palestinians.
It is about choosing between pluralism and fanaticism. Between democracy and Islamist extremism. Between those striving for peace and those who reject peace unless everyone submits to their ideological or religious purity test.
History teaches that neutrality in the face of extremism is rarely neutral at all.
Sometimes “both-siding” an issue is simply a way of avoiding the harder moral choice.
Moral clarity is not bigotry.
It is the willingness to say that some ideas are incompatible with a free and humane society — and to say so consistently and unequivocally.
I do apologize and I do understand what you have done since the October 7 massacre. At the same time the narrative around Unite the Right is filled with inaccuracies and misstatements. I have listened to the tapes - multiple - Jews had nothing to do with those issues and this “Blood and Soil” issue may have been present but it was not a focus. The focus or excuse was the statues. It then became a bludgeon with lots of accusations and narrative twisting. Go back and listen again. I am not the only one saying that it was YOU WILL NOT REPLACE US. ie, you’re taking down our confederate hero’s and putting up something to bury the civil war. And as you should acknowledge they didn’t stop there. Mixing that night with where we are now doesn’t work well. There has always been some antisemitism in this country. What we have today is reminiscent of 1933 Germany. That rally was something else entirely. Even though there were antisemitic allusions.
Only one comment. Go back and listen to the videos of the marchers chanting. They were NOT saying Jews will not replace us. What did Jews have to do with statues which is what the United the Right Rally was about? Absolutely nothing. What they were clearly saying is, "you will not replace us" meaning you will not replace our historical statues of the civil war with whatever. Take another listen. Unite the Right had nothing to do with Jews - had to do with statues. Antisemitismm wasn't a Tucker Carlson - Megan Kelly - etc. approved narrative then. Try to engage in a bit of critical thinking.