Sky News isn’t sure if Sinwar was a terrorist or 'freedom fighter'

A Sky News analysis by international correspondent Alex Rossi on reactions to the video showing the death of Yahya Sinwar resorted to one of the silliest clichés within the canon of moral relativism.

But, before we get to the hackneyed aphorism in question, let’s briefly examine the piece (“How reaction to video of Yahya Sinwar’s final moments reflects the complexities of the Middle East“, Oct. 18). The analysis is framed with the banal observation that “how it’s [the video] being interpreted depends, of course, on who you are, where you come from, and what you believe“, before writing:

Sinwar’s final moments are, for many Palestinians, emblematic of their struggle and resistance against an expansionist and aggressive Zionist state.

For them, he’s a hero, a symbol of steadfastness, dressed in a keffiyeh – a Palestinian headscarf – and carrying a rifle in the face of overwhelming odds.

His rhetoric has often emphasised the Palestinian struggle against oppression and his leadership resonated deeply with those who saw him as a champion of their cause.

“The greatest gift Israel can give me is to assassinate me,” he said in May 2021. “I prefer to die a martyr from an F-16 than to die of coronavirus or a stroke or a heart attack…”

Against that backdrop, the footage has been interpreted as a rallying cry, reinforcing the essential narrative of resistance and sacrifice that is central to Palestinian identity.

He contrasts what he claims is the Palestinian view of Sinwar as a hero fighting ‘Zionist expansionism’, with the putative Israeli view:

In Israel and amongst its allies the image is framed in a very different way.

Yahya Sinwar is branded as a coward and is portrayed as an animal hiding in tunnels and using children as human shields.

They often project a picture of him as someone who is safely hidden away from the bombs and bullets, taking shelter, while his people suffer the consequences of his terrorist ambitions.

In that portrayal, his safety and personal aggrandisement is prioritised over his people.

This is a grossly misleading characterisation of the ‘Israeli view’. It omits the most important fact that shapes the opinion of most Israelis – and Western leaders, for that matter: the fact that he’s a genocidal monster who orchestrated the worst and most barbaric antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust – attacks which included unspeakable acts of cruelty against innocents.

Finally, there’s this:

In essence, how the video of Yahya Sinwar is received reflects the deeply held and complex beliefs and views of the region.

How you see Israel, or Hamas and the Palestinian cause will dictate what those drone images mean to you. The old adage has never been truer: “One person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist.”

First, according to Rossi’s government, and most of the West, Hamas and its leadership are in fact terrorists, and the barbarism meted out to Jews in southern Israel last year was a monstrous act of terror.

But, leaving policy and the law aside, the adage is only true for those who subscribe to moral relativism – the view that there are no absolute truths in ethics and that what is morally right or wrong varies from person to person or from society to society.

However, while it’s narrowly true that many Palestinians see him as a freedom fighter, the liberal universalism that the democratic West is built upon posits that there are basic moral truths which apply to all people at all times. Appeals in the West to such universal principles of morality is what helped end slavery and the subjugation of women. It also is what animates the anti-racism movement, opposition to torture, female genital mutilation and other campaigns dedicated the protection of individual human rights.

If all morality is subjective, then on what basis can we as a society oppose these evils?  Indeed, this is one of the fatal flaws and one of the most dangerous impacts of Rossi’s moral relativism: It has no limiting principles. If we aren’t allowed to morally judge the barbaric acts of Sinwar and his pogromists in Gaza by appealing to universal moral principles, then on what basis can we pass judgement on the infringement of human rights anywhere in the world?

The ‘one person’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter‘ defense can be used to defend any monstrous act, as long as there are some who claim that, in their view, culture of unique set of historical circumstances, such behaviour is justifiable.

Ultimately, what Rossi is trying to elide is the politically inconvenient fact that those Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and Westerners who see Yahya Sinwar as a hero or “freedom fighter” are effectively saying that the mass murder, rape, torture and mutilation of Jewish men, women and children on that dark Shabbat day a year ago was justified. Though Alex Rossi doesn’t believe that the Oct. 7th attacks were justifiable, his Sky News analysis gave a moral pass to those who do.