The Reality We Don’t Want to Admit?

For Most people in the West, Peace feels Normal.

Borders are lines on a map. Police arrive when called. Wars happen “over there,” filtered through headlines, statements, sanctions, and strongly worded resolutions. Violence is viewed as a malfunction of the system, rather than a permanent feature of human history. This relative safety has afforded many in the West to not only condemn wars that don't align with their political beliefs but also get on their high horse without understanding historical context or necessity.

That long stretch of relative safety has produced a dangerous assumption: that everyone thinks as we do, wants what we want, and ultimately desires a peaceful, orderly society if only given the chance.

The truth is simpler—and far more uncomfortable.

Most don’t.

Across much of the world, from Russia to the Middle East, strength is not considered immoral or embarrassing. It is revered. Admired. Trusted. In many places, it is the only language that reliably prevents chaos. Boundaries aren’t suggestions. They are enforced—or they disappear.

The West forgot this because it could afford to.

Western elites assume adversaries are motivated by grievances that can be resolved through dialogue, incentives, or concessions. They believe restraint signals moral superiority. They assume de-escalation is always the enlightened choice. They tell themselves that deep down, everyone wants the same liberal, rules-based order they do.

This is where the West is most clueless—especially about the Middle East. And people there know it.

Much of the Arab world does not aspire to Western secular liberalism, procedural compromise, or abstract “peace processes.” Legitimacy is not measured by intentions or moral language. It is measured by outcomes: who wins, who loses, who enforces order, and who cannot. Honor, power, and deterrence matter more than optics. Weakness is not forgiven; it is exploited.

The centrality of honor in Arab Muslim societies cannot be overstated. It is not symbolic or rhetorical—it is lived. Literally every day, people are killed for violating it (mostly women). This isn’t a moral judgment; it’s a cultural reality the West consistently refuses to confront.

So when Western leaders speak the language of restraint and nuance, they hear maturity. Their adversaries hear hesitation.

October 7 shattered this illusion in real time.

Hamas did not miscalculate Israel’s intentions. It calculated Western reactions perfectly. It understood that Israeli force would be condemned, contextualized, and diluted. It knew Western audiences would rush to explain brutality rather than confront it. It anticipated that outrage would shift—from the crime itself to the response to it.

And it was right.

Israel’s response exposed the gap between Western self-image and global reality. The outrage was not about civilian suffering alone—war has produced civilian suffering for all of human history. The outrage was about Israel refusing to perform weakness for Western approval. That refusal is what truly unsettled people.

Russia doesn’t respect moral outrage. Iran doesn’t fear UN votes. Terror groups don’t respond to nuance. They respond to consequences. Every time the West hesitates to acknowledge this, it teaches its enemies something valuable: push harder.

The tragedy is that this confusion doesn’t just endanger the West. It pressures allies to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, to apologize for defending themselves, to prioritize optics over deterrence. It demands that they absorb blows quietly so Western consciences can remain clean.

That’s not virtue.

That’s negligence.

The Reality We Don’t Want to Admit.

 

( This article's origin is lost. If you find the original author, please let me know? )