The Biggest Lie in American Democracy
When terrorism becomes a matter of identity, the United States presents itself to the world as the guardian of democracy and human rights, while the West portrays itself as the pinnacle of civilization, openness, and tolerance. Yet behind this glossy image stands a glaring moral contradiction: when a Muslim is accused, dictionaries of terrorism and extremism are consulted; when a Muslim is a victim, excuses are manufactured, terminology is softened, and euphemisms are sought for the crime. Here, masks fall away, revealing the greatest lie in Western democratic discourse: double standards.
In America and Europe, there are right-wing, racist, and extremist movements and networks whose ideas are no less brutal in essence than those of ISIS: racial supremacy, religious hatred, the dehumanization of the "other," and incitement against Muslims, immigrants, and minorities. Some possess networks for propaganda, recruitment, and funding, using the internet to build entire communities of hate. So why does extremism become "terrorism" when its perpetrator bears a Muslim name, while it transforms into "right-wing extremism" or an "isolated incident" when the perpetrator is Western? ISIS was not terrorist because its members were Muslims, but because its methodology was based on erasing the "other," sanctioning their bloodshed, displacing them, and destroying their lives. Therefore, anyone who adopts the same logic must be held to the same standard, whether they carry a black flag or wear a military uniform, whether they come from the East or the West.
Then came Gaza, exposing this double standard to the world without any filter. Foreigners holding Western citizenships participated in combat within formal military frameworks, coinciding with extremist rhetoric that called for or justified displacement and dehumanized Palestinians, while accusations of genocide, forced displacement, and ethnic cleansing became subjects of major international legal proceedings and debates. Just imagine the image reversed. If Muslims from America and Europe had traveled to fight in a Middle Eastern army, and then politicians and public figures had emerged demanding the emptying of areas of their inhabitants or the displacement of a people, would Western media have labeled them "volunteers"? Or would the words "terrorism" and "mercenaries" have dominated screens within hours? This is the problem: when the fighter's identity changes, the dictionaries change; when the victim's religion changes, moral sensitivity shifts. Muslims are asked to apologize for a crime committed by someone they do not know in another continent, while those spreading hate speech in the West are not asked to explain the crimes of extremists who emerged from their own communities. I do not accuse the entire West; millions of Americans and Europeans of various faiths have stood up in defense of Palestinians and against racism and war. These individuals prove that the issue is not a clash between Islam and the West, but a struggle between justice and political hypocrisy. America cannot teach the world lessons on combating extremism if its standards shift according to the identity of the perpetrator and the victim. Either terrorism is terrorism regardless of who commits it, and a crime is a crime regardless of the victim's identity, or the West must stop exporting lessons on human rights to us. Human rights that require examining the victim's religion before defending them are not human rights... but political privileges worn by their proponents under the mask of democracy.
