This essay will be brief. At first, I had not contemplated writing about the ensuing conflict in Gaza. Partly because of the complexities, it is evident that the overall situation is changing with each passing day. Yet, previously I had exuded a sense of hope—though for a brief period, when there were signs of a legitimate cease-fire. Alas, it did not come to fruition, and the crisis, particularly for the inhabitants, has deteriorated.
Keeping political rhetoric at bay. It is imperative to, in the offset, have a unanimity that crosses beyond one’s political or ideological predilection: the agency to kill is morally repugnant. The idea of having to commit gross acts for some large grand scheme, bluntly speaking, is bogus.
Just as I had conveyed my view during and subsequent to the conflict that took place between two warring nuclear states, India and Pakistan, at its core, religious fundamentalism, fueled by both sides, further exacerbates any situation, particularly those surrounding territorial disputes, as elucidated from Gaza and South Asia. Conflict under the guise of such a potent attribute gravitates the discourse from the trivialities behind death and ultimately entrenches moral superiority as a pretense of furthering animosity towards the other.
The inevitable compartmentalization of a novel instance (any topical event), especially after the advent of social platforms, makes even an iota of reconciliation between two large swaths of groups too idealistic of an endeavor. Suffice to say, this served as the focal reasoning behind my insistence on refraining from indulging in a conflict, which, needless to say, already had plenty of cacophony: from acrimonious targeting of Jewish and Muslim people on the internet to castigating students on campus—just due to their religious association; after all, it need not have another one, that from me.
Having said that, as I have previously written, our society is not static, except, “our social reality is a continuum.” Which is why, parallelly, with the passage of time and the extent to which the conflict has stretched, it is imperative, as members of the global community, to, at most:
In the fullness of time, forfeit our political lens—stop hating the other; perpetually labeling (Zionist or Hamas [a terrorist organization] sympathizers) is extremely counterproductive to solidarity, as it is the words that are uttered and thereafter implanted onto others that aggravate our angst, eventually giving credence to our ghastliest impulses. That is to say, language, and also hate speech, is an effacing of compassion, an act or gesture of kindness, and, most important of all, self-restraint—to not be voracious for attention is sacrosanct; performative outrage is a misnomer for the cause of humility.
The number of lives that are being both annihilated and separated is astounding, from Gaza and Sudan to Ukraine. It is a travesty that each idiosyncratic life is caricatured as a death count.
Likewise, our ability to act is encumbered, which is why the particularities behind ways in which the conflict could end are beyond either my expertise or position. But we can instill in ourselves virtues that by and large lament the killing of others; be it towards our kin or otherwise, we all just envision living our mundane lives peacefully. The common citizenry—us—are mostly bereft of adhering to stringent ideological convictions; it is the malice and ego of the few that culminate in the disaster for all.
Rather, let’s adapt and have contingent upon us a singular dictum: killing, in any shape or form, is repulsive.
