On September 17, 2024, Lebanon experienced a series of explosions as thousands of pagers, used by Hezbollah members, detonated simultaneously across Lebanon and Syria. The attack, supposedly orchestrated by Israeli intelligence, resulted in the deaths of 12 individuals and wounded over 2,750, the vast majority of them Hezbollah operatives. A second wave the next day targeted walkie-talkies and other devices, killing 20 more and injuring over 450. The operation was a resounding success, significantly weakening Hezbollah, with minimal collateral damage. The unprecedented breach left the militia in a state of panic, scrambling to recover from the devastating blow.
While much of the Western media praised the attack as a surgical strike against a dangerous organization, not everyone was so quick to celebrate. Critics condemned Israel’s actions as a disproportionate use of force, accusing the country of escalating tensions. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and politician Cenk Uygur Expressed their outrage, calling the attack unprovoked and reckless act of aggression. AOC as well as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, went so far as to claim that the attack violated international humanitarian law. On social media, anti-Israel sentiment surged, focusing on the deaths of innocent bystanders, and the severe injuries to Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon. Critics argued the attack could lead to regional conflict, supported by Hezbollah’s threats of retaliation. Those condemning Israel suggested diplomatic or containment strategies would have been more appropriate.
All of these claims are overlooking Hezbollah's long-standing threat to Israel’s existence. Hezbollah, a military-grade terrorist militia and Iranian proxy, has been attacking Israel almost daily for over 11 months, launching barrages of missiles, drones, and anti-tank missiles at civilians. Hezbollah initiated these attacks before Israel’s response to Hamas's October 7th massacre of Israeli civilians—mass murder, rape, and kidnapping. Hezbollah’s attacks, including the Majdal Shams massacre where 12 Israeli-Druze children were killed, were far from isolated and part of an ongoing terror campaign.
Viewing Hezbollah’s provocations in this broader context proves that Israel’s response was justified. The argument that Israel acted disproportionately ignores that Hezbollah initiated hostilities. Israel’s response was a calculated effort to neutralize a real and present danger. The accusations regarding the deaths of innocent bystanders ignore the fact that this was one of the most accurate counter-terrorism operations in modern warfare. The argument that Iran’s ambassador was injured by the explosions ironically underscores Iran’s deep involvement in leading Hezbollah’s efforts to destroy Israel.
The notion that avoiding conflict would prevent a regional war resembles the failed policies of appeasement in the 20th century. European leaders believed concessions to Adolf Hitler would prevent war, but this encouraged Nazi Germany and eventually led to World War II and the Holocaust. The lesson is clear: Aggressors must be defeated as early as possible. Appeasement only delays the inevitable and allows them to grow stronger. Given Hezbollah’s aggression, the condemnation of Israel’s actions is strange, to say the least. It is as if the world expects Israel to endure attacks without responding—an absurd double standard when compared to any other nation facing existential threats.
This issue begs the following question: Why is Israel’s right to self-defense so frequently questioned by the West? The answer lies in a deep moral failure: As long as Jews are seen as passive victims, they are met with sympathy. But when they take decisive action to protect themselves, they are condemned, their self-defense portrayed as aggression. In this framework, weakness is virtuous, while strength disrupts the victim narrative. Israel's targeted precision strike on Hezbollah exemplifies how acts of self-preservation are seen as reckless provocations rather than justified defenses.
This mindset is rooted in a broader narrative that celebrates self-sacrifice and victimhood. Israel’s ability to defend itself challenges this, disrupting the preferred view of Jews—and by extension, Israel—as eternal victims. When they reject this role and act as assertive agents of their own destiny, they are vilified. The moral inversion is stark: while self-defense is a natural right, it is demonized when exercised by Israel. This double standard reveals an underlying discomfort with Israel’s success, as the world increasingly fixates on "woke" notions of victimhood as the ultimate moral currency. When Israel demonstrates resilience, it disrupts this moral dogma and faces irrational hostility.
The West’s condemnation of Israel is not merely hypocrisy, it is revealing a deeper morality crisis risking the western world. By embracing a moral standard that punishes self-defense, the West undermines its own future security. The passivity it expects from Israel will soon be demanded of Western nations themselves when they face aggression.
Recent years have seen a rise in Islamic terror attacks across Europe, with cities like Paris, Brussels, and London witnessing horrifying violence. As these threats spread, the West will be forced to confront the same moral dilemma that Israel faces daily. Will it defend itself, or will it fall into the same "strong is wrong" narrative it applies to Israel? The failure to recognize Israel’s right to self-defense sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts within Europe and eventually the whole world.
In condemning Israel’s actions against Hezbollah, the West is establishing principles that lead to its own moral and political collapse. When the time comes to defend itself, it might have already surrendered its moral high ground. If the West continues to vilify legitimate self-defense in favor of appeasement, it will find itself unable to confront threats already manifesting within its borders.
The responses condemning Israel’s "beeper attack" on Hezbollah are not just hypocritical—it is a moral catastrophe. By condemning Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense, the West reveals its willingness to sacrifice moral clarity for the sake of appeasement. This weakens not only Israel but also the West’s future security. As long as the West glorifies victimhood over self-preservation, it will remain blind to the dangers that threaten its existence. The consequences of this moral failure will resonate far beyond the Middle East, endangering the security of the entire world.