Selective empathy: the Western silence on the execution of six Israeli hostages

On Sunday morning, Israel woke up to the heartbreaking news that the bodies of six hostages, abducted alive by Hamas on October 7, had been recovered from a tunnel in Rafah, southern Gaza. Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Eden Yerushalmi, Ori Danino, Alex Lobanov, Carmel Gat and Almog Sarusi were murdered by terrorists shortly before their bodies were found, with multiple gunshot wounds evident. 

The six individuals we are discussing were not soldiers and are not casualties of war; they were innocent men and women who were brutally murdered. This tragedy is akin to the loss of the 1,200 others, including 37 children, who were killed on October 7th while enjoying music or simply being at home. 

In the Western world, the sense of reality is so distorted that the masses rally in protest for the victims of a war initiated by a terrorist group, yet fail to mobilize in the same way when that same group murders six innocent civilians. How can those who show solidarity with Palestinians affected by a conflict (wanted and started by their own leaders) remain so silent when the very essence of humanity – the capacity to demonstrate empathy and compassion but also the principles that should guide our behavior – is at stake? 

When words are just slogans 

Today, it seems the world has become amnesiac, having already forgotten the harrowing atrocities committed by ISIS, who infamously released videos showcasing the brutal beheadings of numerous hostages. Among the most high-profile cases were the executions of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, alongside British aid workers Alan Henning and David Haines. These gruesome acts, intended to shock and spread fear. Ten years ago, the killing of hostages by ISIS has been met with widespread condemnation. Many leaders and organizations across the globe denounced this violence, stressing the urgent need for a unified response to combat such acts of extremism and brutality. Why do the Western world fail this time to condemn the barbaric acts of terrorism when they affect Israelis?

Most of those who believe they have something to contribute on the subject fail to condemn those acts because they hide themselves behind empty concepts : “apartheid” and “resistence”. Indeed, since October 7th, some individuals and groups have interpreted the violent actions as a direct reaction to longstanding grievances related to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the blockade of Gaza, and broader issues of perceived injustice and oppression. They assert that these actions are a form of “resistance” against what they see as systemic injustice and occupation. 

Resistance generally seeks to address perceived oppression or injustice and can include both nonviolent actions, such as protests, and violent tactics. It is true that in more extreme cases, resistance can involve the use of force or armed struggle to combat oppressive regimes or occupying forces. However, when violence is employed, it typically targets military or governmental entities. Terrorism, on the other hand, seeks to instill fear and coerce political change through deliberate violence against civilians or non-combatants. Hamas’s actions do not constitute mere “resistance”; rather, they include tactics such as suicide bombings, rocket attacks on civilian areas, and other forms of violence targeting non-combatants. These tactics align with the definition of terrorism, not with the definition of resistance even in a context of “occupation”. Now, let’s examine the other slogan used as justifications: “apartheid.”

Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination that existed in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. Under apartheid, the South African government, led by the National Party, enforced policies that severely restricted the rights and freedoms of non-white citizens, including blacks, coloreds, and Indians, while privileging the white minority.

In the case of Israel, it should first be noted that the term “apartheid” does not conform to the international legal definition provided by the Rome Statute (Article 7(2)(h)) of the International Criminal Court. While concerns about human rights have been emphasized by various NGOs, the legal and operational framework of Israeli policies does not fit neatly into the definition of apartheid as per international law. The Article 7(2)(h) of the Rome Statute provides the definition of apartheid as follows:

“‘Apartheid’ means an inhumane act of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1 [of Article 7], committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

Indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is grounded in a long history of territorial disputes, wars, and unsuccessful peace efforts, which differ fundamentally from the racial segregation seen in South African apartheid. This conflict is primarily driven by territorial and nationalistic issues, rather than a system of racial supremacy. If we accept that international law deems the situation in the West Bank and Gaza as an “occupation,” it follows that Palestinians in these areas are under military control. As a result, this situation differs significantly from apartheid. 

Therefore, it is legally inconsistent to describe it as both apartheid and an occupation simultaneously. Moreover, unlike apartheid South Africa, where the government enforced a system of racial segregation and discrimination across all aspects of life, Israel has a legal framework that provides citizenship and rights to its Arab minority (around 21% of Israel’s population), who can vote and participate in the political system.

So, what is the actual aim of using such slogans?

Let’s revisit the past: prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran and Israel maintained a notably positive relationship, characterized by robust diplomatic and economic ties. Under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran was among the first Muslim-majority countries to recognize Israel, leading to active trade, military cooperation, and intelligence sharing. Both nations aligned against Soviet influence during the Cold War, fostering a partnership that included joint military exercises and technological exchanges. However, this cordial relationship ended abruptly with the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which vehemently opposed Israel. 

Therefore, after 1979, the regime founded under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini views Israel as an illegitimate state established on what is considered Palestinian land, aligning its stance with a broader anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist ideology. This opposition is today driven by Iran’s position as a champion of the Palestinian cause, where supporting Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah serves both as a religious and strategic move to bolster its influence in the region and assert itself against Western dominance.

In reality, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has evolved into a geopolitical issue. Both Iran and Hezbollah have instrumentalized the Palestinian cause to further their own strategic and political objectives. Iran uses its support for Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad to bolster its regional influence, project itself as a leader in the Muslim world, and challenge Western and Israeli dominance. Similarly, Hezbollah leverages its alignment with Palestinian resistance to enhance its own legitimacy, strengthen its position in Lebanon, and maintain its influence in regional politics. Hamas, for its part, is acutely aware of the influence that both rhetoric and media portrayal can have, especially in shaping perceptions of the Palestinian cause.

Since October 7th, when the conflict in Gaza began, numerous personalities, politicians, and countries have advocated for recognizing the State of Palestine as a solution to the conflict. However, many of these advocates from Western societies seem to overlook the potential consequences of establishing a Palestinian state at this moment. Given the current geopolitical situation, there is a significant risk that Hamas could extend its influence into the West Bank, similar to how Hezbollah gained power in Lebanon after the death of Bachir Gemayel in 1982. Furthermore, the relatively muted response, lack of impactful influence, and absence of condemnation from the Palestinian Authority are also noteworthy.

That’s why, rather than staying silent, the world should unite to condemn these atrocities, that are not acts of resistance or mere consequences of war, but rather acts of pure evil and barbarism. In light of Francisco Goya’s famous adage, “The sleep of reason produces monsters,” Europe and the Western world must awaken to the looming dangers of international terrorism and their selective compassion and empathy driven by slogans, social media, and media coverage before it is too late. 

Regardless of how the rest of the world views it – whether they see it, like it, or accept it – people in Israel continue to uphold their own sense of humanity. The loss of these six hostages has been profoundly devastating for the entire nation because of the deep emotional bonds formed during their months of captivity. For their families, friends, and the broader community, these hostages were not just names or faces, but cherished individuals who, through their ordeal, became like friends or even family. Their tragic deaths are a profound blow, leaving a void that no words can adequately fill and a grief that will always resonate deeply within the hearts of a whole nation who came to know and care for them.