The Western double standard on terrorism is an issue that not only questions our collective conscience but, when analyzed with clarity, reveals profound contradictions in the global narrative and the policies adopted by Western nations.
When we talk about terrorism, we refer to one of the gravest threats to international security, state stability, and the lives of millions of people. However, the perception and response to terrorism seem to vary significantly depending on the origin, religion, or ideology of the perpetrators. This discrepancy is not accidental; it results from decades of political, economic, and media choices that have shaped a selective and, in many cases, deeply hypocritical narrative.
A first example of this hypocrisy lies in the very definition of terrorism. While non-Western groups, often associated with the Islamic world, are labeled as terrorists, armed movements originating in Western contexts—such as white supremacist groups or far-right militias—are sometimes described with more lenient terms: “rebels,” “militias,” or even “freedom fighters.” This semantic asymmetry is not innocent. It shapes public opinion, directs security policies, and legitimizes selective military interventions.
A second aspect to consider is media coverage. Attacks carried out by individuals or groups of Islamic origin receive disproportionate media attention, often accompanied by narratives that generalize and stigmatize entire religious communities. Conversely, attacks by white supremacist or nationalist groups, although equally severe, are often downplayed or relegated to local news stories. This disparity not only fuels stereotypes but also prevents a balanced and comprehensive understanding of the actual terrorist threat.
The consequences of this double standard are not limited to the media sphere. They are also reflected in foreign policies and international relations. Take, for example, the Middle East. The West has often used the pretext of “fighting terrorism” to justify military interventions in this region. These interventions, far from combating terrorism, have destabilized entire countries and caused an incalculable number of civilian casualties. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria: recent history is filled with interventions that, instead of solving the problem, have amplified it, creating fertile ground for the emergence and proliferation of new terrorist groups.
A particularly emblematic example is Syria, where the West has often tolerated or even supported extremist groups such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), an organization linked to al-Qaeda, which today has become the de facto government of Syria with the tacit consent of Western powers. The recent developments in Syria underscore this double standard even further. Abū Muḥammad al-Jawlānī, born Aḥmad Ḥusayn al-Shar‘a, has emerged as the de facto leader of Syria following the fall of Bashar Hafez al-Assad’s government on December 8. Long regarded as a terrorist by much of the Western world and the international community, al-Jawlānī has suddenly been portrayed as the “liberator” of Syria from Assad’s oppressive regime—a narrative heavily propagated by parts of the Western media in recent days.
Al-Jawlānī leads HTS, an organization still designated as a terrorist entity by the United Nations and several governments, including those of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Argentina, Indonesia, Turkey, and Russia, as well as the European Union. Despite being listed as one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, with a $10 million U.S. government bounty on his head, al-Jawlānī’s transformation into a more “acceptable” figure is striking. HTS emerged in 2017 from a coalition of factions, primarily the al-Nusra Front, a jihadist group formerly affiliated with al-Qaeda. While HTS formally distanced itself from al-Qaeda, many experts, including U.S. officials, view this separation as a superficial maneuver, with enduring ties between the two groups.
Under al-Jawlānī’s leadership, HTS has committed numerous terrorist acts across Syria, often targeting civilians. These include the April 2015 abduction of 300 Kurdish civilians and the June 2015 massacre of 20 Druze villagers in Idlib province. Al-Jawlānī’s ideological roots are deeply intertwined with those of Ayman al-Ẓawāhirī, the Egyptian terrorist who succeeded Osama bin Laden as al-Qaeda’s leader. In April 2013, al-Jawlānī pledged allegiance to al-Ẓawāhirī, reinforcing his alignment with al-Qaeda’s agenda.
Adding to his complex profile is his historical association with Abū Bakr al-Baghdādī, the former leader of ISIS. Between 2011 and 2013, the two collaborated until ISIS severed ties with al-Qaeda. Al-Jawlānī rejected this schism, maintaining loyalty to al-Qaeda. His past also includes imprisonment by U.S. forces in Iraq from 2006 to 2011, a period that likely shaped his later strategies and alliances.
Despite this background, al-Jawlānī has recently rebranded himself. Adopting Western-style military attire and trimming his beard, he has sought to project a more moderate image. His rhetoric has shifted from advocating strict Sharia governance to calling for national unity, promising protection for minorities such as Christians and Druze. Analysts widely view this transformation as a calculated attempt to gain Western support and ease sanctions on Syria.
This case epitomizes the Western double standard: while some terrorist groups are condemned unequivocally, others are tolerated or even supported when it aligns with strategic interests. The prioritization of Assad’s downfall—due to his alliances with Russia, Iran, and his support for Palestine—illustrates how short-term geopolitical goals often override concerns about long-term consequences.
Another case concerns Ukraine, where some paramilitary formations linked to far-right ideologies have been integrated into the national armed forces and celebrated as heroes in Western narratives, despite their involvement in acts that, in other contexts, would be classified as terrorism.
We must also not forget the Zionist terrorism practiced by Israel against Palestinians, often ignored or justified. Military operations targeting civilians, the destruction of homes and infrastructure, and policies of occupation and apartheid are rarely described with the terms they deserve. This complicit silence epitomizes the double standard that characterizes the Western narrative.
Meanwhile, violent movements operating in contexts favorable to Western interests are often ignored or even supported. Consider paramilitary groups in Latin America or militias in Africa, often funded and armed by Western powers to protect economic and geopolitical interests. This duplicity is one of the West’s greatest contradictions: on the one hand, it proclaims itself the champion of democracy and human rights; on the other, it turns a blind eye—or both eyes—toward violence that serves its interests.
The double standard also extends to the domestic policies of Western countries. In recent years, in response to the terrorist threat, laws have been introduced that drastically limit civil liberties in the name of national security. However, these laws are applied disproportionately, primarily targeting ethnic and religious minorities, fostering discrimination and marginalization. This exacerbates the problem, creating new social divisions and fertile ground for radicalization.
In our view, it is essential to adopt a more honest and consistent approach to defining and combating terrorism. This means recognizing that violence knows no ideological or geographical boundaries and that all forms of terrorism must be condemned and fought with equal determination.
Secondly, the media and institutions must take responsibility for providing a balanced and non-stereotypical narrative. This entails a more accurate representation of the root causes of terrorism, which often lie in social, political, and economic injustices. Only by addressing these roots can we hope to build a safer and fairer society.
Finally, it is crucial to rethink the foreign and security policies of Western countries, abandoning unilateral and interventionist approaches in favor of multilateral and cooperative solutions. The fight against terrorism cannot be used as a tool to justify wars or pursue economic interests. It must be guided by principles of justice, equity, and respect for human rights.
In conclusion, the Western double standard on terrorism is not just a matter of political or media inconsistency. It undermines the very credibility of the values the West claims to defend: freedom, democracy, and human rights. Only through a radical shift in perspective and action can we hope to overcome these contradictions and build a truly safer and fairer world for everyone.