Is Standing in the Middle the Most Moral place to be?
The morally idiotic attempt to regain a high ground via a falsely restored moral equivalence
Please read to the end and watch Maim Bialik's video.
Standing in the middle can seem like taking the moral high ground. It gives the illusion that you are being neutral, seeing nuance and involvedness, whereas others see black and white.
The middle is safe — no one dislikes your perspective enough to make you their opponent, yet you get to stand apart from everyone, speaking from both sides of the mouth.
For decades, when it comes to Israel and its terror-backing enemies, the West has taken precisely that position.
Sure, Israel should be able to defend itself, they say.
But, but…. please, not too much.
Yes, Israel has the right to exist.
But it must make concessions to those who pursue Israel’s obliteration.
When Israel’s enemies pursue the worst atrocities in four generations, it’s challenging to maintain that position of neutrality, in which attacks on Israel are chalked up to political differences and shrugged away.
It turns out that scenes of brutally massacred children, women, and men tend to upset the moral stomach.
But eventually, the pacified normalcy returns.
All it takes to resume that refined impartiality is a few fabricated platitudes and comforting lies.
Those lies have been supplied in substantial supply by the hard Left and its minions in the media.
The first lie is that Israel must be warned not to engage in human rights violations.
We often hear this recipe from the president of the United States, the United Nations, and the media. The idea is that if Israel’s leadership isn’t pressed in the wake of the worst pogrom since the Holocaust, those damn Jews might just try to defend themselves.
Every country on earth can defend itself except for Israel.