How to cover up religious hatred using geopolitical terminology

Modern liberalism has rationalized bigotry by establishing laws that seem fair at face value but are often subjected to double standards. Laws that are disproportionately and conveniently utilized by the powerful to justify the unjustifiable.

Let’s take a closer look at the predicament of Israel, an illegal state born out of colonial pity that has been occupying the West Bank and depriving the human rights of the people of Palestine since the 1950s.

Any sort of retaliation and criticism of this heinous act is countered by the West in the form of this question: “ Do you think the State of Israel has a right to exist?” As if any criticism is an automatic confession of anti-Semitism and a declaration of the illegitimacy of the occupying Jewish state.

Using this word game to perfection, every permissible human rights violation was “condemned” and overlooked by the international community. How convenient that during the most heated domestic political turmoil in Israel’s history, a certain boogie man found his mark and penetrated the most protected “Dome” and outsmarted one of the best intelligence agencies of the world. A precise enemy was suddenly powerful enough to relocate the focus of an entire population, rightfully so, but it begs to question, how did they suddenly become smart enough to infiltrate your premises?

These questions are not asked in order to dismiss the atrocities done by Hamas, but it is also sad that asking these questions won’t change the opinions of “anti-Semitism” activists. The anti-Semites as well as the Zionists are characterizing this as a clear provocation of war. They do not consider it as an act of retaliation. Because to the powerful, it is a religiously motivated attack, an act of pure evil manifesting in the form of terrorism.

Which may be true when only observed at face value. But ignoring history is ignoring reality. The motivation was clearly born as an answer to another form of religious persecution known as Zionism. Zionism is inherently provocative, because in order for Zionism to prevail, it needs land that it doesn’t have, but Zionism justifies this claim through historical means, and the current residents are seen as invaders from the start. Zionism can not manifest itself without the holy city of Jerusalem, and the holy city can not be infested with termites known as Muslim infidels. Therefore the littering of Muslims is a direct hindrance to the existence of Israel. And everyone obviously believes that Israel has the right to exist.

This illogical rationale is well established in the geopolitical landscape today. Thus any action in the name of upholding Zionism is not seen as religious persecution but as an act of self defense, an act of protecting the Jewish minority.

The modern world therefore has to change their standards when giving titles like “provocateurs” and “victims”. Terrorism is an act which manifests without any provocation, thus terrorism is a pure act of evil. But acts of retaliation are not seen as terrorism because those who are victims have the right to retaliate. The west decides who are the agents of provocateurs and who are the victims, who acts with only evil motivations and who was forced to act in the name of retaliation.

Obviously human rights laws don’t apply to retaliators, the heroes who only attack in the name of self defense. But it often applies to victims of retaliation. Because it is always a game of which came first? The Chicken or the Egg?

As of today, Israel is seen as the victim, it seems the west has decided that the chicken is born without considering how the egg was manufactured in the first place. Israel is the victim because the attack from Hamas was clearly unprovoked, the production of the egg is therefore negligible, suddenly occupation and human rights violation of the last seven decades doesn’t qualify the Egg to be crowned as the victim.

Why should we consider the people living in occupation as the victims? When clearly the provocateurs are pre determined? Clearly this is a rigged game.

No amount of logical word play can justify murder, but rationale must be the deciding factor when assessing titles such as “victims” and “provocateurs”