The Paradox of Western Morality: To kill or not to kill?

Among the destruction of tens of thousands of human lives, the death of Western morality has been a particularly noteworthy event following October 7 2023. 

For centuries, and especially since the Second World War, the Western world has claimed its esteemed position as the pioneer of human rights and civilisation. 

Yet despite succeeding a long history of colonisation, war, apartheid and slavery, Western nations have admittedly been at the fore-front of remarkable developments in human rights and freedoms. 

Democracy. Feminism. Liberty. 

These are concepts purportedly conceived and protected by Western society, and fervently championed by its leaders. 

From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the controversial yet robust Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court, the achievements of the Western world in the sphere of international law have been profound. 

But it begs the damning question: 

Why has the line been drawn with Gaza? 

This was the intrusive thought that led me to dissect the very essence of the Western moral code, which appears that which it is often not at all. 

October 7 was a day marked in headlines as 'the worst attack on Western civilisation since 9/11'. News outlets were immediately flooded with incredulous reports of torture: mass rape and 'beheaded babies in ovens' only scratched the surface of a horrifying terrorist attack. 

These reports were shocking and devastating, for indeed the loss of any human life is a loss suffered by humanity at large. 

So when the death toll in Gaza climbed from a few thousand, to tens of thousand and eventually now reported as at least 40, 000, I naively expected similar public discourse. But the waves of shock that sent media platforms into frenzy on October 7, no longer seemed to produce an instant effect. 

This was confusing as the events immediately following October 7 were significant.

New and unprecedented forms of war crimes, starvation and booby traps in civilian areas, were dangerously invoked in the region and neighbouring countries. Women and children were disproportionally targeted and impacted. Insider reports of gross misconduct by Israel military personnel against civilians and prisoners slowly rose to the surface. 

Yet there remained a strong trend when discussing Gaza in Western media and political conversation. When questioned on their views on Israel and Palestine, I noticed that most individuals resort to euphemisms like, 'it's a complex situation' and or preferred 'not to take sides'. Remaining 'neutral' seems to be the only politically correct approach.  

The deafening silence of mainstream media outlets was compounded by a persistent deflection of Gazan casualties. Those adopting a strong stance for the Palestinian struggle were almost always called to account for their views. In the face of massive civilian casualties, introductory questions such as 'do you condemn Hamas?' and 'does Israel have the right to defend itself?' were at the forefront of media discussions with Palestinian activists. 

Why did the well-established rules of war and robust human rights frameworks appear to suddenly dissipate upon the plight of Palestinian people? 

It was because October 7 was the 'the worst attack on Western civilisation'. 

The great Western moral code appears to only extend to individuals caught within the bubble of its own existence. Enemies of the West, were apparently enemies of humanity but this sentiment did not apply to the countless States that suffered greatly and continuously at the hands of Western allies. 

Recently, on Piers Morgan 'Uncensored'  prominent political commentator Ben Shapiro confidently asserted that terrorism must be combatted with disproportionate response and civilians were unfortunately, collateral damage in the effort to achieve that greater good. Indeed, the brutal killing of tens of thousands of civilians, largely women and children can best be categorised as merely fleeting 'collateral damage. 

In an interview with fellow journalist Mehdi Hasan, Piers Morgan refused to call out Israel for terrorism or genocide, citing that Israel's response was in retaliation to the horrifying and offensive attack to its civilians. Yet again, retaliation and self-defence knows no limits when it is practiced by nations supported by Western powers. 

Shapiro and Morgan revealed that terms such as 'terrorism' and 'genocide' which have originated from an exclusively Western lens, operate only to suit its needs. According to their interpretations, terrorism or genocide do not apply for the approximately the 17, 000 Gazan children killed since October 7. Israel's right to defend its citizens, appears to know no boundaries and the aforementioned rules of war and humane conduct must concede to its political demands.  

The dilemma of to kill or not to kill is one that is not assessed on a set of consistent principles, but rather a matter of geo-political and diplomatic convenience. That is, mass killing or loss of human life is justified where it meets the broader geo-political goals of international giants. 

The paradox of Western morality is therefore, that it operates relatively. It is conditioned by cultural, historical and political context, rather than the universal application it ought to be enforced by. 

The credibility of international superpowers in the realm of human rights and freedoms is waning and the situation in Gaza has revealed that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is at  best 'The  Western Declaration of Selective Humanity'. 

For indeed Gaza is now a graveyard, not only to thousands of innocent human lives lost in the face of a complicit humanity, but also the blurry perception of Western morality that I once believed.