“I do not rule out renewed strikes on terrorists in foreign countries. This is what advanced democracies do.” — Sounds noble, until one stops laughing (or cries).
Look, there’s something deeply unsettling in the polished logic of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest sermon to the world: terrorists deserve no sanctuary, so countries that host them must either cough them up or be targets themselves. Because when one wields power, there’s no higher law than “might makes right.”
What he calls “what advanced democracies do,” let’s unpack that. Democracy, in many people’s hearts, promises justice, due process, limits on power—not a carte blanche for extraterritorial strikes. Yet here we have an argument that sovereignty should yield not to diplomacy, not to negotiation, but to the drone-strike, the missile, the secretive kill-mission conducted beyond public scrutiny. Because that, apparently, is the hallmark of maturity: to threaten and act across borders whenever, wherever.
The recent strike in Doha, Qatar, is the poster child of this philosophy: Hamas leaders allegedly there; mediation in motion; ceasefire on the table—but also, apparently, a kill list upstairs somewhere. Five Hamas members dead, a Qatari guard dead, negotiations either derailed or weakened, outrage erupting. Sovereignty trampled. Trust evaporated. Yet Netanyahu proclaims: this is statecraft. Advanced democracy.
And what of the alternative? Qatar’s protests that this was a violation of international law, “state terror,” a betrayal of mediation. Yeah, but—they’re the ones who hosted the so-bad ones, right? So why be upset when Israel takes “justice” into its own hands?
Let’s also talk about consistency. When the U.S. hunted down bin Laden, there was fallout, yes—but there was also a narrative: the 9/11 trauma, the moral panic, sympathetic audiences. Here, it's a different neighborhood, a different massacre (October 7), but the logic somehow must be accepted without question. When Netanyahu says “wherever they hide,” the thought unspoken is: wherever we decide to shoot first, ask questions later.
Here’s the cruel arithmetic not on his podium: mis-targets, civilian suffering, destroyed lives—not just of “terrorists,” but innocents caught in the radius of your bombs. The diplomatic cost, the regional hatred, the undermining of rule of law—it adds up. But “advanced democracy” does risk these things, perhaps. Just with more PR polish.
This is the real question we have to demand answers to, not more speeches: What standard of evidence? What accountability? Who defines the “terrorist” so that the rest of us—millions of people—don’t disappear into their list?
Because in the name of “doing what advanced democracies do,” one might end up claiming moral high ground while stomping over every principle that makes democracy—not dictatorship—bearable.
So yes: strike. Hunt. Pursue. But if you’re going to call yourself “advanced,” make sure you also carry the weight of restraint, transparency, law, and the humanity that doesn’t check out when bombs drop.
Comments