Oman’s principled approach to war

There are times when world events stop feeling distant and affect your personal life. War does that.
Political loyalties do too. And you may have to reconsider friendships which conflict with your moral principles or even choose which country you call home.
Oman is now my home: Oman’s principled approach to this war makes it a bright candle in a region darkened over by violence.
But on a personal level, what happens when someone you know chooses to support, excuse, or ignore something you know is wrong?
Or worse, befriends someone who supports the murder of children? This is a serious moral issue. The kind that forces you to ask whether you can continue as before.
You may have shared years of friendship. He may be family. You may remember who they were before their views changed or before you became aware of them.
People are complicated. Your friend or family member still has good qualities. He may not fully understand the consequences of befriending the supporter of an evil ideology or of choosing to look the other way.
People can be wrong without being immoral. But there comes a point where giving someone the benefit of the doubt becomes a way of avoiding a difficult truth.
If a person continues to support, defend, or fails to condemn supporters of an evil ideology such as Nazism or Zionism, one that intentionally kills children, their position is not neutral. Choosing to overlook wrongdoing, to excuse it or plead ignorance, is unacceptable. “The friend of my enemy is my enemy” is relevant.
You are not being aggressive or unreasonable. You are recognising that principles matter in serious situations. The unprovoked attack on Iran and the murder of 170 Iranian schoolgirls were immoral.
Their suggestion that the missile strike was a mistake deepens the pain of their parents and further demonstrates the perfidy of those responsible.
We know that the majority of those being murdered in Gaza and Lebanon are children and women. The Zionist aim is transparent: kill the children and women to prevent them from having children and make the creation of a Greater Israel a reality. It is nothing less than a policy of extermination. Ironically, the same Nazi policy used to exterminate Jews, 'their final solution.' This does not mean you stop recognising the person’s humanity. It does mean accepting that relationships are shaped by values.
In peaceful times, it is easier to maintain friendships despite disagreement. In times of conflict, those differences become harder to ignore.
If someone supports or aligns themselves with people or ideas that cause harm, then they are not supporting you or what you stand for.
That has consequences for your relationship. You may distance yourself from people you once trusted. There will be a sense of loss.
Ending or limiting a friendship is painful. However, there is also a cost in choosing to ignore the problem. Continuing as if nothing has changed can mean compromising your own principles.
Your values are not just abstract beliefs; they guide your decisions and define what and who you are. It is about recognising that some positions are incompatible with your own.
History has repeatedly shown the consequences of ignoring harmful ideologies or treating them as acceptable, or turning a blind eye.
Sometimes staying true to your principles means distancing yourself from people you once felt close to. It means choosing discomfort rather than avoiding conflict. It means recognising that not all relationships can continue unchanged.
Your decision is grounded in principles rather than in maintaining a relationship at any cost. That is a difficult but honest conclusion.

Karim Easterbrook The writer is a Former Cambridge School Principal and Author