It is always interesting to see how human right’s activists whitewash the sins of those vowing to obliterate them.
The moral argument presented by Israelis who justify terrorism goes like this: The real terrorists are the occupiers (victimizers). The occupied (victims) have every right to free themselves by any means from the evil that subjugates them.
Therefore, when choosing between these two evils, the human right’s movement, who by definition are morally-superior, opt for the “victim.”
Most Israelis who support this moral argument willingly ignore the Palestinian/Muslim position that the entire Land of Israel is occupied territory.
In other words, if a Palestinian state does come into being, the very same Israelis who now support the fight to free the West Bank will find themselves pained into corner. They’ll be morally-obligated to likewise justify the “victims” in their continued fight against the “victimizers” until the entire “land of Palestine” is free from Israeli occupation.
Even if we accept the faulty post-modern notion of an always-moral victim and an always-evil victimizer, Israelis who support today’s victim are also supporting their own future victimizer, and that of their children.
Therefore, even by post-modern standards, the argument is inherently immoral.
The Whitewashing of Qasem Soleimani
This same moral argument is now being used by some Israelis to criticize the killing of Qasem Soleimani.
This can be seen in articles by, for example, the daily Haaretz, and foreign newspapers like the New York Times. These publications and others have dedicated “obituaries” to Soleimani extolling his “accomplishments.”
“The 61-year-old father of five,” writes Haaretz, was a charismatic, outstanding military leader who (by the way) “has been linked with several attacks and attempted attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets worldwide, including the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.”
What Haaretz chooses to omit is that 85 people were killed and 300 wounded in that attack.
Haaretz and the others have also turned a blind eye to the untold number of Muslims slaughtered in Syria and Iraq by this “outstanding” military strategist.
Defining Friend as Foe
Thus portraying a brutal, ruthless man like Qasem Soleimani simply defies common sense. Unless, that is, one considers the US to be an even greater evil.
Haaretz wasn’t willing to explicitly say as much, but others did.
Published by Zman Yisrael, the Hebrew offshoot of The Times of Israel, Nimrod Gez-Haver’s piece entitled “The Elimination of the Iranian General” opens with:
“The elimination of the secular, stately and a-political Iranian general who fought alongside the West and defeated ISIS … came to serve as insurance for the American Right.”
This unmitigated rant continues:
“The American Alt-Right serves the interests of the corrupt ruling Republican oligarchy that can beat the peace-seeking Democratic Left only through intimidation and unjust wars.”
The bizarre twist that Gez-Haver and others are trying to promote is that Soleimani was some kind of secular reformer. And that killing him has robbed the Iranian people of a potential national savior, all to serve the interests of the true victimizer, Trump’s America.
Presented as some sort of Robin Hood, Soleimani’s victims are thus swept under the rug as unfortunate collateral damage in his battle against the true villains.
And so an arch-terrorist who cared nothing for his victims has become a role model for those who claim the moral high-ground, those who are themselves willing to become victims for the sake of their future victimizers.
The meltdown of morality is complete.