In an era of profound global imbalances, where the scales of justice are discarded and “might” dictates “right”, a question arises whether resistance is an act of folly and recklessness? Should the victim be responsible for the wrath of the oppressor? Today, we are witnessing a narrative that seeks, consciously or otherwise, to flip the truth on its head; where the defender of home and honour is branded reckless, while the brutal aggressor is framed as a fact of life that should to be tolerated.

The primary lapse in consciousness we see today is the attempt to blame the victim for the atrocities thereupon inflicted. Commentators emerge, analysing the scene with cold logic, asking: “Why did they provoke the enemy? Why did they bring this destruction upon themselves?” Such reasoning is nothing less than an open partnership in depravity with the aggressor. The fact must remain that the aggressor alone is responsible for their aggression, and the occupier remains the original source of all forms of subsequent violence.

To attempt to hold the victim accountable for their own ruin simply because they chose to say No and to attempt to defy the aggressor, is an affront to human dignity before it is a serious political error. The oppressor requires no pretext to slaughter; their appetite for killing is not satiated by stagnation but rather fuelled by submission. Therefore, the logic that acquits the blade and blames the neck belongs to the subservient; those who delude themselves into thinking peace can be purchased from the hand of the killer through a bow of the head.

READ: Gaza Holds a Mirror to the........

© Middle East Monitor