Both-sides-ism in the Israel context is not a call for balance; it is a rhetorical laundering mechanism that turns terrorism into a ‘perspective,’ recasts victims as participants, and weaponizes moral equivalence to restrain Israel while legitimizing its attackers.

Atrocity, Now With Commentary

In most parts of the world, murder is followed by condemnation. In the case of Israel, it is followed by a panel discussion.

There was a time when moral clarity required no explanation. People were killed, killers were condemned, and the rest of us resisted the urge to reinterpret the murderer’s biography. That simplicity, however, does not survive long in modern discourse.

Because here, the script changes almost immediately.

An attack occurs. Civilians are murdered. Before the facts are even settled, the narrative begins its familiar shift—from clarity to conversation, from outrage to analysis.

And then, almost inevitably:

“Both sides must show restraint.”

As though a family hiding in a safe room and a gunman trying to burn them out are simply two participants in a particularly heated debate.

This is the essence of “both-sides-ism”: a reflexive insistence on symmetry where none exists. It is not confusion. It is a method—a way of editing reality until it becomes easier to discuss.

The Invention of “Both Sides” — Moral Clarity, Edited Out

“Both sides” sounds reasonable—who could object to balance? But in practice, it is less a principle than a performance.

There was a time—not long ago, though it now feels like ancient history—when massacres were treated with a refreshing lack of ambiguity. People were killed, the killers were condemned, and the rest of us managed to resist the intellectual urge to workshop the murderer’s emotional journey.

That era, regrettably, did not survive contact with Israel.

Because somewhere between a bus bombing in Haifa and the livestreamed atrocities of the October 7 attacks, a remarkable evolution occurred in global discourse. Terrorism, we were informed, is no longer an act. It is a conversation. Preferably one moderated by people who weren’t there, don’t understand it, and are very concerned about “tone.”

In conflicts involving Israel, it does not clarify reality; it reshapes it. A terrorist attack becomes a “cycle.” A massacre becomes a “development.” The moral line between victim and perpetrator is blurred just enough to avoid drawing a conclusion. This is a pattern long observed in Media Studies as “false balance”—the artificial equalization of unequal realities. It is not neutral; it is selective framing.

The language does the work. As noted by George Orwell, political language often exists “to make lies sound truthful.” Here, it makes clarity feel simplistic.

And so terrorism is no longer simply condemned—it is contextualized. The result is not balance, but the quiet removal of moral certainty, one carefully chosen phrase at a time.

The Speed of Distortion 

If “both-sides-ism” were merely an intellectual error, it would at least have the decency to arrive late—after facts are gathered, after evidence is weighed, after the situation has been properly understood.

It does not. It arrives early. Unreasonably early. Suspiciously early.

In fact, its most impressive feature is not its logic—but its timing.

Consider the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. As Israelis were still being hunted in their homes, as footage of atrocities was still emerging in real time, as families were quite literally discovering the fate of their loved ones through social media—there it was.

“Both sides must show restraint.”

Not after reflection. Not after investigation. Instantly. Reflexively. Almost as if pre-written and waiting in a drafts folder titled “In Case Jews Are Attacked Again.”

This is the moment where the mask slips—where “balance” reveals itself not as a conclusion, but as a default setting. A pre-programmed response that activates the second Israel is involved, regardless of what has actually happened.

And it is here that the comparison everyone quietly avoids becomes unavoidable.

Imagine, just for a moment, the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks unfolding under today’s rules of discourse. Smoke still rising over Manhattan. People still missing. And somewhere, a panel of very serious individuals urging:

“Both sides must exercise restraint. The United States must consider the grievances of al-Qaeda.”

It sounds grotesque because it is grotesque. It violates something instinctive—something that, in most contexts, we still recognize as basic moral sanity. And yet, when the victims are Israelis, this grotesque instinct transforms into enlightened commentary.

Why the urgency? Why the need to introduce symmetry before the asymmetry has even been acknowledged?

Why They Do It — The Mechanics of Moral Evasion

“Both-sides-ism” does not survive by accident. It works because it performs three quiet functions at once.

First, it humanizes the perpetrator. No one openly defends terrorism; instead, it is “contextualized.” Language borrowed from institutions like the United Nations Human Rights Council and NGOs reframes attackers as “actors” with grievances, rather than perpetrators of deliberate violence. The act doesn’t disappear—it is softened.

Second, it manufactures debate where there should be judgment. Through the lens of Media Studies, this is a familiar tactic: turning moral absolutes into ongoing discussions. Once something becomes debatable, it becomes harder to condemn.

Third, it restrains Israel. By constantly introducing conditions—“restraint,” “proportionality,” “both sides”—the focus shifts from the initial attack to the response. The attacker is no longer the center of gravity; the response is.

In this framework, terrorism becomes survivable—not because it is accepted, but because it is diluted. And that dilution is the entire strategy.

Institutionalizing Absurdity — NGOs, the UN, and the Performance of Neutrality

If “both-sides-ism” were confined to opinion pages and late-night panel discussions, it would be irritating but manageable—a kind of intellectual background noise.

Unfortunately, it has long since graduated.

It now wears suits. Issues reports. Holds press conferences. And speaks in the calm, measured tones of institutional authority. Enter the great referees of global morality—organizations that insist, with a straight face, that their role is not to take sides, but to rise above them.

Which would be admirable, if rising above reality did not so often require distorting it.

Consider the work of bodies like the United Nations Human Rights Council, alongside advocacy giants such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Their reports are filled with the language of balance—carefully calibrated, meticulously symmetrical, and almost entirely detached from the moral asymmetry they are describing.

Violence occurs. Statements are issued. And like clockwork, the phrasing emerges:

“All parties must…”“Both sides are urged to…”“There have been violations on both sides…”

It reads less like analysis and more like choreography.

Now, to be fair, institutions have a reputation to maintain. Outrage is messy. Moral clarity can be politically inconvenient. Neutrality, on the other hand, is clean. Professional. Respectable. And, when applied indiscriminately, completely misleading.

Because neutrality between unequal actors is not neutrality—it is distortion.

When one side deliberately targets civilians and the other responds to stop it, treating them as equivalent is not a sign of fairness. It is a refusal to make distinctions precisely where distinctions matter most.

But the institutional instinct is not to clarify—it is to balance.

Not to say: This is wrong.But: There are concerns on all sides.

Not to identify aggressors and victims.But to dissolve both into “stakeholders.”

And the consequences are predictable.

Reports that mention terrorism almost as an afterthought.Statements that treat self-defense as escalation.Language so carefully neutral that it becomes functionally meaningless.

Because once institutions adopt this framework, it no longer remains a talking point—it becomes a standard. Journalists repeat it. Analysts refine it. Activists weaponize it.

And before long, the idea that terrorism might be a one-sided moral event begins to sound almost… unsophisticated.

After all, the experts have spoken. And they have assured us, in perfectly balanced language, that when civilians are murdered, the most important thing is to remember:

There are two sides to this story.

The Endgame — Turning Self-Defense into Suspicion

Once “both sides” becomes the default frame, something subtle but decisive happens: self-defense starts to look like the problem.

Israel is still “allowed” to defend itself—always prefaced, often qualified. But immediately the conditions begin:

“Proportionality.”“Restraint.”“De-escalation.”

Each word sounds reasonable in isolation. Together, they form a narrowing corridor so tight that responding to an attack becomes morally suspect. In this framing, the focus shifts away from the initial violence—such as the events of the October 7 attacks—and onto the response. The attacker fades into context; the responder comes under scrutiny.

This inversion is the endgame. The more Israel is required to justify its actions, the more the original aggression is diluted.

What should be a simple question—who initiated the violence?—is replaced with a more complicated one: was the response appropriate?

And once that shift occurs, the victim is no longer just a victim.

It is a participant under review.

A World Where Murder Requires Balance

We have arrived, rather impressively, at a point in modern discourse where even the most primitive moral facts must pass through a filter of sophistication before being allowed to stand.

Murder, it seems, is no longer self-explanatory.

It requires context.It requires framing.Above all, it requires balance.

And nowhere is this more rigorously enforced than in the case of Israel, where the expectation is not merely that violence be condemned—but that it be carefully curated into something intellectually palatable.

Not too simple.Not too clear.Certainly not too decisive.

Because clarity, we are told, is dangerous. It risks taking sides.

And taking sides—particularly when one side is being butchered and the other is doing the butchering—is apparently the one thing the modern moral imagination cannot tolerate.

So instead, we are offered equilibrium.

A world in which terrorists are “actors,” victims are “participants,” and the line between them is just blurry enough to keep everyone comfortably uncertain.

A world in which a massacre must share the stage with its explanation.

A world in which the appropriate response to evil is not condemnation, but conversation.

It is, when you think about it, a remarkable achievement. Not of justice, or insight, or even coherence—but of narrative control. Because once you convince people that every act has two sides, you no longer need to defend the indefensible. You only need to complicate it.

And once everything is complicated, nothing is ever fully wrong.

Not the attack.Not the ideology behind it.Not even the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Just… unfortunate. Regrettable. Part of a cycle.

Which leaves us with a rather bleak, if darkly amusing, conclusion. We do not live in a world where terrorism is misunderstood. We live in a world where it is over-understood—explained, contextualized, and reframed to the point that its moral meaning dissolves entirely.

A world where the loudest response to the murder of Jews is not outrage, but editing.

And so the next time the phrase “both sides” is deployed with the confidence of wisdom, it is worth remembering what it actually signifies.

Not balance.Not fairness.Not even caution.

But the quiet insistence that when evil occurs, we mustn’t be too quick to notice.

Because noticing would force a conclusion.

And conclusions, in this particular corner of the world, are the one thing we are no longer allowed to reach.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)