An Israeli soldier stands during a two-minute siren marking the annual Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Day, at an installation at the site of the Nova festival where party goers were killed and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, in Reim, southern Israel, May 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

Soon after the unfortunately named Jihad Al-Shamie’s terror attack on a Manchester synagogue, his father, Faraj Al-Shamie, issued a statement on behalf of the family. The statement distanced the family from Jihad’s jihadi actions, saying that they strongly condemn the “heinous act, which targeted peaceful, innocent civilians.”

That is as it should be. However, it was soon revealed that while Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel was still in progress, Faraj al-Shamie, a trauma surgeon, had praised those undertaking the attack. He had described them as “God’s men on earth.”

That calls into question the sincerity of his attempt to distance his family from his son’s terrorist attack. After all, the vast majority of those killed on October 7 were also “peaceful, innocent civilians.”

Why would somebody condemn his own son’s terror in England, while praising the larger scale terror inflicted by Hamas and other militants in Israel? There are two broad possible explanations.

One explanation is that while he is not actually opposed to acts of terror in the United Kingdom, he has a personal interest in suggesting otherwise.

Being seen to endorse domestic terror, especially if one is an immigrant and a minority in one’s country of adoption, can invite unwanted opprobrium. There are self-interested reasons to avoid this.

The other explanation is that he is opposed to heinous acts against peaceful, innocent civilians only when those civilians are not in Israel. Being in Israel, however, does not make civilians less peaceful or innocent. Nor will it help to suggest that civilians in “settler colonial states” cease to be innocent civilians. First, Jews are indigenous to Israel. Second, under the “settler, colonial” framework, all residents of the US — other than those descended from native Americans — would have no claim against violent terrorism by the indigenous peoples.

Thus, anybody willing to justify the indiscriminate terror against civilians in Israel demonstrates that they are not actually opposed to terrorism.

In this way, somebody’s opinion about terrorism in Israel is the litmus test of how genuine their opposition to terrorism is. If you are not opposed to killing Jews in a synagogue in Jerusalem (or a music festival in the Negev desert, or kibbutzim adjacent to Gaza), then you have no principled reason to oppose killing Jews in a synagogue in Manchester, or office workers in the World Trade Center, or passengers in a flight over Lockerbie. 

We should employ this litmus test more often. We should ask anybody purporting to oppose anti-Jewish and other terrorism in Western countries whether they are similarly opposed to terror in Israel. If they are not willing to state such opposition, they will thereby demonstrate just how phony their opposition to domestic terrorism is.

It is quite possible, of course, that many of those justifying terrorism in Israel would be willing to justify it in other Western countries too. Many of them, even in the US, for example, are happy to call for “death to America.”

Nevertheless, it would be helpful to encourage them, as individuals, to acknowledge this explicitly — rather than hide behind slogans like “globalize the intifada,” which other people, including those seeking public office, attempt to sanitize by introducing ambiguities that are not actually there.

This approach asks us not to restrict their speech (beyond cases of incitement to imminent violence), but rather to encourage them to speak their minds more fully. This is how we can make it clearer to a broader swath of the population exactly what values many of those “social justice” activists actually hold.

Now, it might be said that just as opponents of terror in the West must also oppose terror in Israel, so those who oppose terror both in the West and in Israel should oppose the violence used by Israel and Israelis.

There certainly are cases where this is true. Those opposed to the violent targeting of Palestinians in America, as we all should be, ought also to be opposed to Baruch Goldstein’s murderous rampage, or the terror that a fringe group of the Israeli right visits upon Palestinians in the West Bank. However, that is compatible with recognizing that there is a moral difference between Hamas’ October 7 attack and Israel’s response to it, which sought to prevent another such attack from ever happening again.

British police responded forcefully to Jihad Al-Shamie’s attack, by shooting him, which is exactly what they should have done under the circumstances. That is true even if it turns out that the police should have taken more care not to harm those Jews within the synagogue, two of whom the police accidentally shot. Whether there was any police culpability is a matter for detailed forensic investigation.

Similarly, albeit at a larger scale, one could find fault with some of the ways that Israel has undertaken its response, without drawing a moral equivalence with the Hamas attack. The October 7 attack is manifestly wicked. That Israel responded militarily is the opposite. It had both a right and a duty to protect its citizens from further such attacks. Criticism of the details of that response is a matter for close forensic investigation. However, such an investigation cannot be replaced by memetic metastasizing of the “genocide” accusation.

David Benatar is Emeritus Professor Philosophy at the University of Cape Town. His most recent book is Very Practical Ethics (Oxford, 2024)