A war on…

As a viewing universe is confronted by the Israel-Hamas conflict, most individuals find themselves with this default thought — "what is to be said then what is to be done."  While in this orgy, the genocidal rage continues reminiscent of something far worse than the infamous 9/11.

Most everyone from all walks of life enters the derby of what we may call a  "war of statements" that made one keen observer wonder whether, in fact, such "statementese" as much as carries any talismanic power that could stop the bombs. Like it or not, it has become a global exchange of discordant narratives. 

Interestingly for this modest piece, dear readers, by "statementese" is understood to be an idiom in the past tense — "lamenting from afar what cannot be stopped, what has already come to pass. It produces helplessness even as it is conditioned by it" (Sam Adler-Bell). While more can be said, less can be done to end the war.

In terms of timeline, this unholy event appears to be the culmination of a 60-year period after World War II. Let us pluck some scenes of terror that most viewers can "identify" with to put the worldview in context, viz.:

"A bomb exploded at a hospital in Gaza, killing hundreds. Hamas blamed Israel; Israel blamed a wayward rocket fired by Palestinian militants. About 1,400 Israelis were killed in the 7 October attack; the death toll in Gaza has surpassed 4,000."

And the war plays out in yet unseen proportions — "depopulating" as it were not just Israelis or Palestinians but even more so foreign nationals from around the world as innocent victims or collateral damage. Perhaps, just like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, nothing is over until it is.

At the US Congress, it appears that most Democrats stand by the position taken by the Biden administration, that of backing Israel unconditionally via the unprecedented influx of military aid. Still, some members of the House have opted for a ceasefire. One vocal Eva Borgwardt did say thus: "Jews are descending on the Capitol by the thousands, refusing to allow our leaders to use our pain as a weapon against Palestinians."

This may have compelled a State Department official in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs to resign in protest of the Biden administration's approach to the conflict. In a letter in Linkedin, said he: "I cannot work in support of a set of major policy decisions, including rushing more arms to one side of the conflict that I believe to be shortsighted, destructive, unjust, and contradictory to the very values that we publicly espouse."

At whatever stage of the conflict, one thing remains. Both sides of this Israel-Hamas war are far from any agreement on what action ought to be taken as this war intensifies even beyond borders, threatening to spill out to other parts of the region.

It proves disconcerting to realize that the US as the much-vaunted policeman of the world is always at the "scene of the crime." Is the United States of America, from a commanding height and with "moral clarity," to be regarded as the umpire of this armed conflict as it rages on?

A straitjacketed pro-Israeli stance is wrought with the same "rhetorical tics" it professes to avoid. Whether Hamas continues to bomb Israel, or the other way around, what matters are the unintended casualties or victims on both sides of the "ideological divide."

Parenthetically, the little theater in the West Philippine Sea or South China Sea — depending on one's standpoint — is just a ripple in these turbulent times. The US-Russia balance of power can no longer disregard the presence of an equally emerging power with its vast nuclear arsenal. A tripolar problem has arisen in the "nuclear arms race."

There's a broad range of vocabulary in use — "echo chamber-wise" — as if statements can diffuse missiles while airborne to their intended targets in this mindless "ethnic cleansing."