Q: When is it wrong to rid the world of two major terrorists? A: When Israel does it.

In the juxtaposition of good and evil, Israel has to be the evil one. So anything juxtaposed to Israel must necessarily be good. Read “oppressed” and “oppressor”. No one who holds to this construct could find fault with Hamas since 7 October, since the slaughter and rape Palestinians had perpetrated under its vanguardship had to be cast as good. And so it was: the Simchat Torah massacre was a natural and completely understandable response to seventy-five years of Israeli oppression of Palestinians. In the oppressor/oppressed paradigm, being the other of Palestinians renders you evil by definition before you’ve done anything at all. The only thing you can do to cease being evil is to cease existing. Hence even the slightest sympathy for “the Palestinians” must necessarily mean a readiness to see the complete extermination of the Jews.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, will be deeply offended to be confronted with the previous sentence, but events will inexorably drive them towards giving effect to it. When the assassinated boss of the organisation that spearheaded the mass-slaughter, mass-rape, mass-dismemberment, mass-immolation and much more besides of 1,200 Israelis in one day drives Palestinian sympathisers to describing such a barbarian chieftain as a good man, they are one step closer to voluntarily terminating their own existence.

Many were rightly outraged when a number of media personalities in the days following Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination by Israel described him as a “moderate”.

Alex Crawford, a correspondent for Sky News, has the dubious honour of setting the whole thing off when she described Ismail Haniyeh as “a very moderate leader of Hamas”. The list of wrongs that Israel had made herself guilty of in these attacks first in Beirut, then in Tehran, is laid out in a tone of disbelief. Israel had led everyone to believe, she complained, that this was going to be a limited attack, but instead, they killed two terrorists (with pinpoint accuracy), each in a different capital city. Three civilians killed in Beirut, one bodyguard killed in Tehran. Shocking! She struggles hard to elevate one of the terrorists:

These are key people, particularly Ismail Haniyeh. He travelled around the region, including to Turkey. He was visiting Turkish officials, the Turkish President a few months ago, if not more recently, and filmed and photographed doing that. So he was also considered a very moderate leader for Hamas. He had survived previous assassination attempts and he was very much involved in the negotiations. ...They may take some time to find other people to lead those negotiations.

Crawford goes on to imply the Israel is responsible for what might now happen to the eighty or so hostages “who are still believed to be alive in Gaza”. In her entire four minutes and twenty second report, there was no mention at all of why Israel might have wanted these two men dead. There can be no reason other than that Israel is evil. What could be more obvious?

Since Israel is evil, the one who stands opposite to Israel, must be made good, even if you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to achieve that, a futile exercise given that there was never anything in the barrel to begin with. The man was the boss of a vicious, barbaric terrorist organisation. He cannot be redeemed, no matter how many “journalists” scrape that barrel. Here, e.g., are Krystal and Saagar of Breaking Points, the “fearless anti-establishment Youtube show and podcast,” parroting the same line:

[Ismail] Haniyeh was one of the key figures in Hamas who was actually pushing for a deal against Yahya Sinwar and some of the other more hardline Hamas members. So Israel has effectively assassinated the top negotiator in those ceasefire negotiations.

Even amongst Jews in Israel, such sentiments and disconnects from reality can be heard. The infamous Gideon Levy offers his insights:

For Israelis, he is a terrorist, nothing else. But this Israelis don’t want and are not capable of differentiating: between a modest (sic) Hamas leader and an extreme one; a political leader of Hamas and a military leader. For most of the Israelis: all Palestinians are the same; for most Palestinians, all Gaza is Hamas; and Hamas is Nazism or whatever you want to call it. Israelis are not getting into those nuances.

If Jews like Gideon Levy were around in the 1940s, they would be “getting into the nuances” and differentiating between moderate Nazi leaders and extremist Nazi leaders. In other words, “moderate Nazis good; extremist Nazis bad.” Does that ring a bell? We might well find incredible such desperate searching for a section of evil to sanctify and give our blessing to, but this is not new; we are well-familiar with it.

Long have I inveighed against the contrivance of “moderate Muslims” out of a population that defines itself by its attribute of being permanently at war with that which is not, and those who are not, Muslim. This website goes to great pains to explain that yes, there are indeed peaceful Muslims, and they are differentiated from the violent ones. But this is also a gross and dangerous over-simplication.

Islam itself differentiates between those Muslims who “give their blood and their wealth” to “wage war in the cause of Allah,” and those Muslims who “sit at home”. The Qur’an acknowledges that some Muslims like war, fighting and killing, while others dislike it. But Shari’a is highly sophisticated in its barbarism. It does not make this distinction to excuse those who will not kill and wage war from the obligation on Muslims to do so. It makes “waging war in the cause of Allah,” i.e., jihad, a communal obligation on Muslims. In other words, not every Muslim has to wage war in the cause of Allah, but if none of them do it, then all Muslims are guilty of sin. Naturally, no Muslim, especially one who sits at home, is going to get in the way of a Muslim who wants to go fight in jihad, if anything, they will do everything to encourage and assist such Muslims, including hide them, feed them and drive them to where they intend to do the killing, so they will be free of sin.

But along with this stick, there is also a carrot, or more precisely, a bunch of carrots of different sizes. Muslims who fight and kill in the cause of Allah and die during killing, are rewarded with immediate entry to Heaven, seventy-two virgins and a permanent erection, while those who fail to die are consoled with a share of the spoils: money, luxuries, animals, slaves (women and children), etc. Those who sit at home are rewarded for their diminished contribution to jihad by acceptance of a larger or smaller partial jihad, depending on what, specifically, they did to protect and assist the killers. The point here is that the so-called “moderate Muslims” that liberals, spineless ex-Muslims and Left-wing Jews are so keen to bless, are an indispensable part of killing and being killed in the cause of Allah.

We are fools, blind deluded fools, to talk about “Muslims” in contradistinction to “Islamists,” the supposed ones who want to take over the world and subject it to Shari’a. It is true that a segment of so-called moderate Muslims do not want to take over the world and subject it to Shari’a, but they will fall in line and play their part the moment other Muslims confront them on it—and they will. All Muslims defend Islam no matter what, for to fail to do so is to cease to be Muslim, and that is something that neither they, nor those kufaar so desperate for “moderate Muslims,” can countenance.

The sanctification of moderate Muslims is a losing battle, constantly beaten back by the latest jihad outrage and the moderate Muslims’ reticence, while perplexed kufaar plead with them to condemn it, both unwilling and unable to grasp that those silent Muslims are an integral part of jihad. The language that has been set up to differentiate between “moderate Muslims” and “extremist Muslims” must constantly be refined to keep up with the increasingly undeniable unity between moderate and extremist Muslims, the corollary being "moderate Islam" and "fundamentalist Islam".

The evolution of this language, "moderate Islam" as distinct from "fundamentalist Islam," must constantly change to maintain that distinction: extremist Islam > violent extremism > radical Islam > political Islam > Islamism > radical extremism > extremist political Islam > jihadism > violent jihadism, etc., inexorably leading to “moderate terrorism” as distinct from “extremist terrorism”.

It was precisely in a Muslim attempt to bring about the ultimate act of jihad, the complete annihilation of the Jews, that the essential unity of “moderate Muslims” and “extremists Muslims” came into the open in worldwide moderate Muslim celebration of the extremist Muslim slaughtering and raping of Jews. It was in that desperate need to preserve the contrived distinction moderate Muslims as distinct from extremist Muslims, or “Islamists,” in the face of reality’s profound negation of that distinction, that such obfuscators end up with no option but to differentiate between “moderate terrorist” and “extremist terrorists.”

They started out desperate for "moderate Muslims," now they are desperate for "moderate terrorists."

Picture credits:

Council.gov.ru, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=105291603

https://x.com/Q8_77777777/status/1799194011581755414/photo/1

Guilherme Paula, Oren neu dag - self-made, based in Image:Hamas flag2.png, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2741983

Comments:

On 3 August at 7:53, Ben Dor A. wrote:

Dear Anjuli Pandavar

Thank you for posting this important information about Islam.

Regretfully many in the West haven't got a faintest idea what Islam is and they don't even bother to read the Quran.

Best Regards
Ben Dor A