So now we’re not allowed to eliminate terrorists?

Twelve innocent children were killed by Hezbollah at a soccer field in northern Israel. The next day I visited the site. Bloodstained bicycles were still strewn on the ground. I hugged and talked with heartbroken, crushed people. A few days later, Israel eliminated a senior Hezbollah terrorist in a surgical strike in Lebanon in response. Yet, Israel is expected to endure a massive attack from Hezbollah as if this is an inevitable, even justified, response. A few days later, a senior Hamas terrorist was killed in Tehran. Reports indicated it caused “embarrassment to the Iranians.” Again, Israel is expected to face volleys of rockets and drones in response.

Too many are acting as if this is a reasonable equation. The Iranian president has stated that they have a “right to respond” while the leader of Hezbollah said Israel has crossed some sort of “red line” and a response would be inevitable. That sentiment is echoed by a slew of articles across the world on how and when the attacks will occur asserting that “Iran has to respond” and that an “Iranian response is inevitable.”

But why should such a response be “inevitable?” Not only is this deeply flawed moral logic, it also sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world.

When the United States eliminated Osama bin Laden, no one thought it justified an al-Qaeda attack on Washington or New York. When al-Baghdadi was killed in Syria, no one expected the US to calmly accept the inevitable revenge of ISIS. Terrorists thrive because they don’t play by the rules, yet today the world behaves as if their rules are reasonable. The discourse that “everyone has their own narrative” has been transplanted into the war on terror. Even against the world’s most heinous murderers, there’s no longer right and wrong. Those who kill terrorists must consider that their feelings might get hurt and that we have no choice but to accept their revenge.

We have a choice. There is good and evil in the world. Liberal democracies represent justice, morality, and freedom, while terrorists are murderers who want to rob us not only of our way of life but also to slaughter our children. A high moral standard does not include acceptance of their hate-filled narrative. Terrorists have no immunity. They have no right to retaliate. They do not operate within the law. They live and operate outside the rules and we are justified in making them pay the price. Hezbollah and Hamas target innocent civilians, hide behind innocent civilians, and indiscriminately shoot at our innocent civilians. Iran, despite its attempts to portray itself as a normal state, has been and remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The world needs to tell the Iranians that if they don’t want terrorists to be killed in Tehran, they should not welcome them into their homes.

By what moral code should Israel accept rocket barrages from terrorist organizations and rogue states? The narrative is outrageous. It equates a legitimate defensive action by a law-abiding state with the blatantly illegal actions of a terrorist organization. This kind of untenable and unethical narrative is to be expected from fringe groups that rationalize terror, but it can’t be something we accept in mainstream discourse.

And of course, what starts in Israel never stays in Israel. If tolerance for terrorist retaliation becomes the new international norm, sooner or later it will affect everyone. If this narrative takes hold, it will impact any country attempting to fight terrorism. It’s time to put an end to it and take a clear moral stand: Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas cannot attack Israel (or New York, or the London Underground, or music clubs in Paris), and there can be no justification for it. If they do choose to attack, the West should stand behind Israel’s response, because it’s the moral thing to do and because a precedent set in the Middle East never stays in the Middle East.