Why Does the Voice of Ugliness Rise?!

The incident of the Fly Dubai plane, which was headed from Dubai to Tel Aviv, and the reports about the attempted hijacking and downing of the aircraft, brought me back to a question that occupies my mind: why does the voice of ugliness and extremism seem louder than the voice of moderation and centrism? The plane landed safely in Tabuk, and the details of the attack and its motives remain under investigation. Therefore, I will not preempt the results of the investigation, but the incident opens a necessary discussion about the sanctity of human life and our ability to defend it without discrimination.

I believe that the ethical test begins with the question: Does the value of a person change with their nationality? Those who reject the killing of Palestinian civilians cannot justify putting the passengers of a plane at risk of death simply because there are Israelis among them. The Palestinian cause is a just cause, and using it to justify an attack on civilians undermines it. Those who conflate a government with the passengers of a civilian flight absolve themselves of thinking and grant anger the authority to issue judgments. A year ago, sectors of British public opinion sympathized with the Palestinians due to what happened in Gaza, then a terrorist attack occurred on a synagogue in Manchester in October 2025, resulting in two deaths. I do not claim that all British people turned against Arabs, but such a crime gives opponents of the cause an opportunity to mix solidarity with Palestine with hatred and terrorism, pushing the discussion towards another agenda. The killing of a Jew in Britain does not bring back the life of a Palestinian killed in Gaza; rather, it adds another victim to the victims and exposes a just cause to a loss of sympathy that it needs. This blind extremism allows those who want to ignore the suffering of Palestinians to divert attention from it. I believe that those who support Palestine are obligated to condemn it without hesitation, for the sanctity of blood is indivisible, and Jews are not collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government. Perhaps the problem is that the discourse of extremism simplifies the world in a way that entices the weary, defining an enemy and attributing all misery to them, then attempting to rid oneself of them. It does not ask about the consequences or the innocent people who will pay the price. On the other hand, moderation requires its holder to make a more difficult effort: to distinguish, to verify, and to maintain their principles when they are angry. Therefore, the phrase of incitement seems to reach faster than an argument that requires explanation and persuasion.

Loudness does not mean a multitude of supporters; in Diwaniya, the social gathering, one zealous person can spoil an entire discussion, while the others remain silent to avoid conflict. The offender leaves convinced that everyone agrees with him, while the others leave disgruntled with him. This scenario repeats in the public sphere, making the noisy minority seem like the entire community. We err when we consider silence as a constant neutrality, as its practical effect may encourage those who exceed the limits of decency and humanity. I do not absolve some who are considered moderate from responsibility; those who strive to please everyone and hide behind vague phrases whenever a stance is required do not help people distinguish between right and wrong. Moderation does not mean distributing blame equally between the aggressor and the victim; it means, in my understanding, the ability to condemn aggression, regardless of who the perpetrator is, and to uphold the right of the different to live and be safe, without requiring their agreement with us in politics, religion, or sect. In the incident of the plane, saving lives and ensuring a safe landing deserve our attention, as does the investigation awaiting us. The services provided to passengers in Tabuk remind us of the importance of the humanitarian responsibility that the Saudi authorities demonstrated in a moment of danger. Here is a work that should be appreciated: protecting individuals at risk and providing care for them. We need an education that grants our children the ability to disagree without hatred, and media that rewards knowledge more than it rewards quarrels. We also need an individual who says in their gathering that this statement is unjust, and that this gloating is disgraceful. These may seem like small stances, but they break the illusion of consensus that extremists rely on.

And I believe that moderation loses a lot when its proponents are content to be respectful in silence. A society that protects the dignity of the different protects its children and prevents political disputes from becoming an open license to harm people and put them in danger. Humanity has a voice, so do not leave it alone.