Mossad allowed to kill, therefore it is so good

I once heard it from an ex-KGB officer: every agency kills. But Mossad? Mossad is allowed. Most countries kill and lie. Israel kills and explains. That turns Mossad into something strange: a legalized assassin with a heroic reputation. And since every other agency in the Middle East kills, we are told Mossad must kill to survive. Hopefully this article will not make me disappear.

The only assassin with a badge

CIA? Forbidden to assassinate since 1976. MI6? Operates in silence and full denial. FSB? Known for extrajudicial killings, often using poison, but always denying involvement. Mossad? Authorized. Legal. Funded. Repeated. Assassination is not a scandal. It is policy.

The Israeli government does not merely tolerate these operations—it formalizes them. In 2000, Israel’s Supreme Court acknowledged the legality of targeted killings under certain wartime conditions. Unlike the CIA’s drone program or the Kremlin’s covert poisonings, Mossad operations are, at least on paper, woven into the official fabric of national defense. There are military protocols, government authorizations, legal oversight mechanisms, and even public justifications post-operation. This bureaucratic structure does not sanitize the act—it institutionalizes it.

Mossad: In a region where everyone kills

The Middle East does not run on diplomacy. It runs on fear, memory, and force. While other regions occasionally slip into violence, here, violence is an organizing principle. It decides borders, it ends careers. It writes history. Everyone understands this, even if they pretend otherwise.

You do not need to be a Mossad officer to realize the rules. The former Assad regime in Syria tortured its opponents, often to death, sometimes publicly. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards export violence far beyond their borders, funding militias and orchestrating bombings in Lebanon, Iraq, and beyond. Saudi Arabia sends hit squads to embassies. Egypt “disappears” activists. Turkey hunts Kurds across borders. Even minor players engage in executions, espionage, and covert revenge.

They kill, you must kill too

Therefore, the logic seems unavoidable: if everyone around you kills, you either join the game or lose it. Israel, small in territory but massive in security obsession, did not invent this reality—it adapted to it. Not with words, but with bullets. Not with diplomacy, but with elimination. The Mossad does not merely act out of aggression. It acts out of regional necessity, at least as its defenders claim.

Consequently, the idea emerged that Mossad must kill—not occasionally, not regretfully, but systematically. It becomes not just permitted, but expected. Not just legal, but intelligent. In a region where enemies arm children and preach genocide from pulpits, hesitation is framed as suicide.

Thus, the killing becomes not a crime but a precaution. It is dressed as prevention. But that framing hides something. While Iran kills in chaos and Syria kills its own, Israel kills with elegance—and that is where the admiration begins. Because Mossad leaves no blood on TV, no body in public squares, no message to the masses. Just a disappearance, a broken car, or a silent explosion. And then the silence itself becomes the proof of superiority.

Secret services: Mossad superiority

At that point, the conversation shifts. It is no longer “Is this moral?” but “Was it precise?” No longer “Should a state do this?” but “Did it work?” The neighbors still kill. But Mossad does it better. More discreetly. More surgically. And therefore, more admirably.

This admiration is dangerous. Because the moment we applaud murder done well, we invite others to follow. If precision justifies assassination, then efficiency becomes virtue. And if the region keeps killing, more and more countries will demand their own Mossads. Their own permissions. Their own ways to eliminate threats without trials, courts, or laws.

So the justification goes: the region forces us to kill. But that is only the beginning. Once that logic becomes normal, it never ends. Because when everyone kills, nobody ever feels safe. Not even the killers.

Morality replaced by regional logic

The thinking is brutal but simple: “If Hezbollah assassinates, so must we.” “If Iran sponsors hits, we must counterstrike.” Morality becomes a luxury. Action becomes survival. And permission becomes virtue.

The Mossad therefore embodies not a breakdown of law—but its redefinition. It turns emergency behavior into doctrine. The result is a new form of state morality: one in which actions are not judged by ethics but by alignment with national interest. What is legal becomes good. What is effective becomes holy. Israel’s survival instinct hardens into principle.

Mossad’s image: Clean violence

Western audiences love the myth: quiet, fast, targeted. No civilian deaths (allegedly). No blood in the media. That creates admiration. Other Middle Eastern agencies are seen as thugs. Mossad is seen as elite.

This myth is strengthened by Hollywood, bestsellers, and media leaks that present the Mossad as surgical and restrained. Unlike other regimes that broadcast brutality, Israel wraps its violence in intelligence. The Mossad’s reputation is polished through narratives of cleverness, danger, and righteousness. And it works. The more silent the kill, the more it is admired.

Mossad even profits symbolically from its opacity. When operations are not confirmed, imagination fills the gap. A scientist dies in Iran—Mossad is whispered. A warehouse explodes—Mossad again. Even rumors work as deterrents.

The most dangerous logic in the world

“Everyone else kills, so we kill too.” This is the logic of cartels, mafias, and tribes. It leads to endless escalation. But we pretend it is wisdom—because Mossad wins.

This logic is ancient. Tribes once avenged blood with more blood. Honor was measured by retaliation. Now, modern intelligence agencies replicate that structure with drones, car bombs, and covert agents. The region becomes a web of vendettas, each justified by the previous one. But Mossad stands out—not because it refuses the game, but because it plays it better.

Legal killing, moral collapse

Mossad’s killings are legal under Israeli law. But legality does not equal justice. If all countries wrote laws to justify murder, would that make the world safer? Or just more efficient at disappearing people?

What Mossad normalizes is not merely assassination—it is a worldview. One where killing is policy. Where law adapts to violence. Where morality is replaced by effectiveness. This model, if copied widely, guarantees not peace but perpetual conflict masked as strategy.

Mossad: Power as morality

Mossad is not admired for restraint. It is admired for effectiveness. That reveals something ugly: we respect those who kill well, not those who do not kill at all.

This mindset shapes everything—from public opinion to academic discourse. The conversation stops being about law and becomes about results. In this world, the most dangerous man is not the one with blood on his hands, but the one who makes it vanish so completely that no one asks.

Even former U.S. President Donald Trump once captured this contradiction. When confronted with criticism of Vladimir Putin’s killings, he replied: “You think our country’s so innocent? There are a lot of killers.” That quote, so casual and brutal, reveals a deeper truth: the global norm is no longer ethics—it is hypocrisy dressed as pragmatism. That reveals something ugly: we respect those who kill well, not those who do not kill at all.

What is the best secret service on this planet?

There is no single answer. Each intelligence agency excels in a particular domain. The CIA dominates in global infrastructure and funding. It has bases, black sites, surveillance power, and diplomatic coverage nearly everywhere. Yet its failures—especially 9/11 and Iraq—expose a bloated structure often vulnerable to politics and misinformation.

MI6 operates with discretion and deep integration into allied networks. It relies on diplomacy and alliances rather than brute force. However, its effectiveness remains hidden behind classified curtains, and its budget pales in comparison to its American counterpart.

The FSB, successor of the KGB, uses terror as a tool. It controls its domestic population through fear and its neighbors through destabilization. Technically capable, morally corrupted, and politically enslaved, the FSB is feared rather than admired.

China’s MSS (Ministry of State Security) is growing fast. It excels in cyberespionage, economic theft, and ideological penetration. Its domestic control is terrifyingly complete, but its global influence remains controversial.

France and Germany

France’s DGSE and Germany’s BND have capable units, but they lack global reach. Turkey’s MIT, Iran’s MOIS, India’s RAW—all matter in regional games but rarely shape the planet.

And Mossad? Mossad may be the most mythologized. It is small, focused, agile, and allowed to act where others hesitate. It plays a significant role in the world—but it survives in one of the most dangerous corners of it. That counts. It uses human intelligence more than satellites, it kills when others debate. It is not the biggest—but often, it is the boldest.

So who is the best? It depends on the question. For reach—CIA. And for stealth—MI6; for fear—FSB. For volume—MSS. For myth—Mossad. But if the question is: Who acts with the least restraint and the most praise? The answer is Mossad. That reveals something ugly: we respect those who kill well, not those who do not kill at all.

The financial power behind intelligence agencies

Few people realize the scale of power modern intelligence agencies wield—not just through surveillance, manipulation, or assassination, but through finance. These agencies do not operate on fixed budgets like ordinary institutions. Their financial limits are elastic. Emergency funds, classified budgets, and discretionary assets make their reach virtually unlimited.

Beyond official state budgets, many agencies indirectly control financial capital through proxies. Some maintain stakes in national defense contractors and hold silent influence over central banks. Others run black-market operations or manage offshore funds through layered shell entities. According to various intelligence veterans and leaked investigations, Western and Eastern agencies alike possess equity—often covertly—in major banks, energy giants, and media conglomerates.

There is credible evidence that intelligence-linked structures possess real shares in commercial banks. These holdings are obscured through institutional intermediaries, nominee accounts, or strategic partnerships. In certain cases, intelligence services are said to have embedded funds in major financial institutions operating out of Switzerland, Singapore, Luxembourg, and the Cayman Islands.

Secret service holding shares? Yes

Owning a share in a bank means more than financial return—it means leverage. Intelligence operatives can shape internal credit policies, restrict the flow of capital to enemies, manipulate regulatory frameworks, or simply suppress inconvenient disclosures. In some cases, agencies co-own the very banks that fund arms deals, surveillance infrastructure, or geostrategic infrastructure projects.

With such mechanisms in place, where there is money, there is power. And where there is untraceable money, there is unaccountable power.

This financial machinery enables intelligence agencies to fund global operations, create loyalist networks, and influence foreign governments—without political oversight. They do not answer to voters, they do not face audits. They transcend national borders and domestic laws.

As a result, these services become something more than security institutions. They transform into parallel power structures—financial empires with diplomatic immunity and no press scrutiny.

That is the real reason they cannot be challenged. You cannot regulate what you are forbidden to even question.

Conclusion: Being allowed does not make it right

Mossad may kill because others kill. It may be legal, even logical. But the world it creates is brutal, paranoid, and soulless. When silence becomes a virtue, and vanishing a form of justice, then morality has already surrendered to power.

We should not admire it. We should fear what it teaches us. That being allowed to kill is not the end of civilization. It is just the beginning of a colder one.

This article does not aim to judge the local conflict in the Middle East. It does not side with Israel, Palestine, Iran, or any other actor involved. Rather, it examines a global moral trend: the normalization of state-sanctioned assassination. If one agency is allowed to kill legally and receives applause for it, others will follow—and soon legality will replace ethics worldwide.

All intelligence agencies, not just Mossad, must stop killing. Assassinations solve no root causes. They prolong conflict, destabilize international norms, and reward silence over justice. The future of peace depends not on better killers, but on fewer of them. It may be legal, even logical. But the world it creates is brutal, paranoid, and soulless. When silence becomes a virtue, and vanishing a form of justice, then morality has already surrendered to power.