Many world leaders have recycled the word “condemned” Israeli State action, but that condemnation does not go further to condemn Israeli war crimes. It’s the figurative slap-on-the-wrist approach while Israel continues to act aggressively with unchecked power.
Examining the language use regarding this problematic almost century old struggle is always interesting. Leaders of various sovereign nations one and all again recycled their call for a “seize fire”, or “condemned”- depending on which side of the fence they sit – Hamas rocket attacks on innocent Israeli citizen or condemn Israeli attacks on defenseless women and children.
Others a few days ago, like Tony Abbot , flouted words like “Hamas must stop firing rockets into Israel – more than 2600 causalities so far, and Israel must restrain its response, which has cost far too many civilian lives.”
Meanwhile the same day, Obama, according to The Australian has taken apparently a tougher stance, updating the words from “calling on both sides to seize fire” and “the right of Israel to protect its people” to “The Obama administration condemned the deadly shelling of a United Nations school in Gaza, using tough, yet carefully worded language that reflects growing White House irritation with Israel and the mounting civilian casualties stemming from its ground and air war against Hamas.” Apparently this “tough, yet carefully worded language” has sent Israeli media into some spin about growing “tensions” between the father and son. The relationship is “strained”. Daddy (USA) really doesn’t like his son’s (Israel) overt display of power. Israel lacks USA maturity in getting what they really want which almost always starts with carefully worded war of words – namely well executed political/religious/social propaganda – that prepares the way to violent attack on any nation of choice– example Gulf war one and two 1991 and 2003 respectively.
Israel, unfortunately, never learned such finesse.
Three days prior to the USA’s carefully worded statement, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “leveled his strongest criticism yet of Israel’s military operation in Gaza on Monday, accusing Israel of “pummeling” Gazans with “indiscriminate destruction””
Today’s third – or is it forth,(the world is losing count)– shelling of UN school and according to The Independent the seventh attack on a UN dedicated shelter, has seen stronger language use where The Guardian reported the UN Secretary “Denouncing the criminal act”.
While the US moved from carefully worded to “appalled” in one report and “disgraceful” in another report. Most would agree that the more terrifying of all words was when the UN Secretary strung his noun groups to produce a lexically dense emotive phrases, “the criminal act is a moral outrage”. The report went as far as to quote The Secretary who “condemned (the attacks as) unjustifiable and shameful” – more powerful impressive adjectives – or outrage pro Israeli – readership.
The readers are even more encouraged to read that this seventh attack finally “drew an unusually severe rebuke from the Obama administration.” Surely a severe rebuke from Obama and his admin staff is enough! I’d be quaking in my shoes!
Now we’re there at last, they have promoted the language from condemning – which is the ultimate token slap on the wrist to a very naughty bully- to the now scary noun groups and adjectives like “appalled” “disgraceful” “unjustifiable” “shameful” and the big guns of “Moral outrage”, because that’s how the good ol’ world is governed; by ever shifting and changing human conceptual morality of right and wrong and karma. No lines blurred there. Reading all these adjectives lets one think that these leaders are moving to a new stance against this rogue nation.
In fact look closely neither Obama nor The Secretary-General condemned Israeli war crimes or condemn Israeli attacks as crimes of war, in breach of all kinds of international law.
Still we are hopeful that commonsense and justice will somehow prevail.
Hopeful that this bully might be condemned for its crimes of war?
The national and international public stirs and asks, are they going to investigate? No, they are yet to “investigate Israeli war crimes”, but the UN Secretary General “demanded a quick investigation”.
Again we are hopeful but ask about this call to investigate? What does it mean? How does that work? Whose minions are sent to investigate recent Israeli war crime? No, no we have to ask who calls such investigation? Last time we checked it was the UN, but the UN is calling to investigate illusive war crimes, not the imperative of Israeli “war crimes will be investigated”. However they are also calling for a “quick investigation”.
Can war crimes be investigated in a matter of weeks, months? I mean surely one such investigation will need years and in the case of this almost century old struggle; decades.
There we have it, international leaders exercise in language manipulation is symptomatic of their reluctance to truly, once and for all condemn Israeli war crimes and try Israeli war criminals in the international court in the Hague. Will this rouge state ever be made to account for its war crimes?