The West’s Dangerous Need to Feel Innocent

I am a fighter, but I believe in peace first. I believe in discipline, repetition, and challenging people’s limits. But experience has taught me something uncomfortable. Even when I strongly believe in what I’m teaching, I have to recognize when my methods aren’t working. Sometimes, the hardest thing to question is something you still believe in.

I see the same weakness developing across Western societies today, and I believe we’re approaching a point where the consequences may become impossible to reverse.

The West has built much of its moral identity around tolerance, equality, and correcting the injustices of its past. Slavery, colonialism, discrimination, and the persecution of minorities have left a deep sense of responsibility. That history deserves serious examination.

But somewhere along the way, that responsibility became tied to the need to feel morally innocent. What people call white guilt has become a powerful influence on how Western societies understand themselves and judge their decisions.

Radical Islamist movements understand this weakness and can exploit it.

They know that Western democracy offers freedoms they can use to advance their political ambitions. Religious freedom, protection from discrimination, and the right to participate in elections provide opportunities to organize and gain influence. Movements seeking to place religious authority above democratic institutions can use those same institutions to pursue their objectives.

And history has already shown us how dangerous that process can become.

In the early 1980s, an Indian spiritual leader known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh established a religious community in Oregon. His followers used local elections to gain control of the small town of Antelope, eventually renaming it Rajneesh.

Their ambitions grew. In 1984, the movement brought thousands of homeless people into the area as part of an effort to expand its voting power and gain control of Wasco County’s government.

Meanwhile, the movement’s separate city, Rajneeshpuram, had become the subject of a constitutional dispute. Oregon’s attorney general argued that the combination of religious authority and municipal government violated the separation of church and state.

The same American Constitution that protected the movement’s religious freedom also placed limits on its ability to turn religious authority into government power.

American institutions eventually resisted the movement’s political expansion. But consider what had already happened. A religious organization gained control of an American town through elections and attempted to extend that control over an entire county.

The Rajneesh movement had nothing to do with Islam. Its history demonstrates a vulnerability that can exist in any democracy. The freedoms protecting religious communities can also provide opportunities for movements seeking political control.

Today, I believe radical Islamist movements present a far greater concern.

In Belgium’s 2012 municipal elections, a party called ISLAM won two council seats. Its ambitions included establishing an Islamic state, and its proposals included separating men and women on public transportation.

The party lost its representation in 2018, but its earlier success demonstrated that an openly Islamist political agenda could gain elected representation inside a Western democracy.

Britain’s 2024 general election revealed another form of political influence. Five independent candidates who prominently campaigned on Gaza won parliamentary seats where Labour finished second. Those results alone don’t establish support for Islamist government. They demonstrate how political demands connected to Middle Eastern conflicts can influence Western elections.

Political parties understand what costs them votes. When organized movements establish electoral influence, their demands begin to shape political decisions, sometimes well beyond the number of seats they control.

The danger grows when politicians become more concerned about accusations of intolerance than about examining the ideas and objectives of those seeking influence.

And this brings me back to the problem of good intentions.

A person can be completely honest about their intentions while remaining dishonest about the full reasons behind their behavior. We may genuinely want to protect minorities while also enjoying the moral satisfaction of being seen as tolerant. We may oppose discrimination while fearing that questioning certain political or religious ideas will damage our own reputation.

Everything we tell ourselves may be true, while the full explanation remains incomplete.

Once morality becomes part of our identity, criticism starts to feel personal. Evidence that a decision has produced dangerous consequences becomes an accusation against the people who supported it. We defend our intentions before examining the results.

I believe this is happening across Western political culture.

As an Israeli, an IDF veteran, and a father, I take the stated ambitions of radical Islamist movements seriously. I’ve seen enough to understand why freedom must be defended, including against those who seek to use it to gain power over others.

I’m subject to the same weakness I’m describing. My convictions can make it difficult to recognize my mistakes. That’s precisely why I have to examine the results of my decisions, especially when I believe my intentions were right.

The West must be willing to do the same.

A bad outcome doesn’t automatically prove the original decision was wrong. But once new information becomes available, continuing to defend that decision simply because the intentions were good becomes self-deception.

The West knows that religious movements can use democratic elections to pursue power. Its own history provides the warning. It also knows that some Islamist movements openly reject the individual freedoms and equal rights on which Western democracy depends.

Yet the fear of appearing intolerant continues to influence which threats Western societies are willing to confront.

I believe we’re watching a civilization become so committed to its image as tolerant and morally responsible that it risks losing the ability to defend the freedoms that made it worth protecting.

White guilt, left unexamined, will eventually kill democracy.

I don’t know how much warning the West will need before it recognizes the danger. What concerns me most is that recognition may come only after the institutions capable of resisting it have already been weakened.

Do something amazing,
Tsahi Shemesh