IT’S NOT TERRORISM WHEN WE DO IT: the plank-eye disease

Matthew 7:5  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 

A principle that has guided much of my outlook on life is a quote widely attributed to Stephen Covey:

We judge ourselves by our motives, but others by their actions.

This quote captures a universal human condition that shapes our cultural, political and religious biases in every form and in every way.

It’s quite simple:  When my actions offend someone, I justify it because my motives and intentions were pure.  When I’m driving to work and I accidentally cut someone off, I immidiately check my motives and can explain it to myself: “I didn’t see them” or “sorry buddy, but I’m having an emergency here.”  My motives and circumstances make my mistake acceptable.

But when others behave poorly, I attribute it to a character flaw.  When someone else cuts me off, I don’t know their story so I fill in the gaps with judgment: “They’re reckless” or “they don’t care about anyone else” or “the people here don’t know how to drive.”

Their actions define them in my mind — even though their motives might be exactly the same as mine.  It is the same behaviour, but with two very different interpretations. My own assessment is one of grace.  Looking at others, it is filled with judgement.

Nowhere is this more evident today than in the narratives we use when speaking about the wars in the Middle East. And this principle was sharply highlighted in a recent article by Nate Bear [1] titled:

It’s Not Terrorism When We Do It

The author argues that the United States and its allies apply double standards when defining terrorism. Violence committed by official enemies is labelled as terrorism, while similar or worse violence committed by Western powers is reframed with sanitized language such as “precision strike,” “defensive action,” or “retaliation.”  Their motives justify their actions while the “enemy” is judged purely by their actions.

The author uses the recent U.S. bombing of Iran’s Chabahar maritime port tower as a case study. The strike destroyed a civilian structure, killed noncombatants, and met several criteria used in international law to define terrorism or a war crime. Yet Western media avoided those terms entirely.  Bear then argues that the  image bore a striking resemblance to the collapse of the Twin towers on September 11^th 2011.  But, unlike the attack on Twin Towers that was immediately labelled as a terrorist attack, the attack on civilian infrastructure in Iran will not be labelled as such by the western media and political class. They will never call it terrorism or a war crime, despite the fact that it was both. Whether a civilian tower, a bridge, or a school full of children, western actions that result in mass murder will always simply be the product of a “strike.”

In the eyes of Western narratives, terrorism and acts of terror are reserved for Hamas and Hezbollah

The article’s deeper argument unfolds in several layers which is important to understand once we apply  the principle of “motives” and “actions”:

1. THE POWER TO NAME VIOLENCE IS A POLITICAL WEAPON

Acts of terror is unacceptable, immoral and inhumane.  Let’s be clear about that.  Whether it happens in Israel, the USA, Gaza, Lebanon or Iran.  It remains unacceptable and should be condemned by all, regardless of geopolitical alliances

But for this to happen, the term terrorism should be applied consistently. It should not be used as a political label that reinforces geopolitical hierarchies:

• When “they” do it, it is terrorism
• When “we” do it, it is security operations

This linguistic asymmetry shapes public perception and moral judgment. It allows Western governments to commit acts of violence without facing the moral condemnation attached to terrorism.

2. MEDIA LANGUAGE SANITIZES WESTERN VIOLENCE

The article critiques mainstream Western media for adopting government-friendly terminology. Words like: strike, precision, targeted operation, collateral damage are used to soften the reality of civilian deaths. The author argues that this language is not neutral — it is part of a system that protects Western legitimacy while dehumanizing victims.

3. HISTORICAL AMNESIA ABOUT “OUR” TERRORISTS

The article points out that before 1948, Western newspapers openly referred to Zionist paramilitary groups such as Irgun, Lehi (Stern Gang) and Haganah as terrorist organizations because they carried out bombings, assassinations, and attacks on civilians. After the establishment of Israel, the language shifted dramatically. These groups were rebranded as “pre‑state militias,” and their actions were reframed as part of a national liberation narrative.

Today, the IDF still carries out bombings, assassinations, and attacks on civilians.  But the moral language has changed.  The actions are no different but the motives are justified and accepted

4. THE MORAL PROBLEM: VIOLENCE IS JUDGED BY WHO COMMITS IT, NOT WHAT IT DOES

The central thesis is that Western governments operate under an implicit belief that: “Our violence is justified. Their violence is evil.”

This belief allows Western powers to bomb civilian infrastructure, kill noncombatants (more than 40,000 children and women have now been killed in Gaza alone), violate sovereignty, and escalate conflicts while still claiming moral high ground.

The article argues that this mindset is dangerous because it erodes international law and normalizes impunity.

5. THE HUMAN COST IS ERASED

The author stresses that the victims of Western violence — whether Gazan, Lebanese, Iranian, Palestinian, Yemeni, Iraqi, or Afghan — are often invisible in Western discourse. Their deaths are reported as numbers, not names. Their suffering is framed as unfortunate but necessary.

This erasure reinforces the idea that some lives are more grievable than others.

6. THE BROADER IMPLICATION: A WORLD WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY

The article concludes that as long as powerful nations can redefine their own violence as legitimate, the global system will remain unstable. Peace becomes impossible when one side claims moral immunity and the other side is permanently criminalized

The author warns that this double standard fuels resentment, prolongs conflict, and undermines any credible path toward justice.

A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

From a Christian perspective, the article exposes a moral problem that Scripture repeatedly warns against: the human tendency to justify our own actions while condemning the actions of others. Jesus calls this hypocrisy — the impulse to notice the speck in our brother’s eye while ignoring the plank in our own.

The prophetic tradition teaches that violence is not judged by who commits it, but by what it does to human beings made in the image of God. When nations sanitize their own aggression yet condemn the violence of others, they violate the biblical call to truth, justice, and humility.

The article’s critique of double standards aligns with the Christian conviction that God shows no partiality, and neither should we. Whether committed by enemies or allies, violence against civilians demands honest moral evaluation. Followers of Christ are called to resist narratives that dehumanize, excuse wrongdoing, or place some lives above others.

In a world where language is used to mask suffering, the church’s role is clear: to speak truth, defend the vulnerable, and refuse to baptize any form of injustice — no matter who commits it.

[1] https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/18/its-not-terrorism-when-we-do-it/?utm_source=copilot.com