Words and Warfare

Like everyone else, I have been closely following the news about Israel’s action in Iran when I heard a news broadcast describing “tit for tat” responses by Israel and Iran, which sounds like a judgment of equivalency of a minor dispute, leaving a false impression on the listener. The reporter was both misinformed and inherently biased. Comparing Israel’s precision strikes on military targets to Iran’s targeting of civilians, some of whom have been killed or injured, assumes that the public is lacking a sense of morality.

Other common terms to describe the situation are “conflict” and “clashes”; neither measures up to a dire life-and-death situation with sleepless nights in bomb shelters. They sound more like a minor personal dispute between neighbors. As Iran attacks civilians in their homes and on their streets, calling it a conflict sounds like a gross understatement. As we have seen with the October 7 massacre, descriptive terms affect public-opinion like calling terrorists militants and those terrorists considered by many misguided individuals as the victims while demonstrating on their behalf.

The U.S. mainstream media bias attracts different segments of the viewing public. Many viewers  have their favorite news network, like CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, which each have their own political bent. This phenomenon called confirmation bias drifts away from real news since the consumer is seeking agreement with their already established opinions, which probably gives them comfort. For this reason I have reduced my viewing of network news and rely more on social media, mainly X. I don’t agree with the owner’s views, but there are representatives from every news source, including newspapers, broadcast networks, independent journalists, original video, and experts in any field imaginable. Yes, there are sources that can be discarded, but there is more useful information with different points of view to help the consumer develop an informed opinion. It also makes it easier to corroborate stories since there are so many sources available. 

The Iranian Ayatollah has called for Israel’s destruction on numerous occasions. He has already tried to start the process by arming proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, and is now culminating with the development of a nuclear bomb, obviously an existential threat to Israel. These types of threats must be taken seriously. The only choice for Israel was a preemptive strike on Iran. No other country would have acted first. 

Politically, many European and Middle Eastern countries have called for a ceasefire, but they know that Israel is helping them in the long run by taking this action. Most Middle Eastern  Arab countries condemned the attack on Iran’s nuclear installations with similar language, but at the same time it appears that countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan allowed Israel to use their airspace. 

Recently the U.S. and European countries have wavered about giving the diplomatic process a last chance to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapon capability. Having one party in a negotiation, Iran, with a goal of eradicating the other party, Israel, should be a dealbreaker. It seems like this lesson should have been learned through all of the proposals rejected or ignored by Palestinians in two-state-solution negotiations. Some learning takes much repetition. 

In the long run most nations of the world want peace and stability for their people. Their leaders may not vocalize it, but I’m sure they would be relieved when an unstable country no longer possesses the ability to threaten the rest of the world. May that relief come to the people of Israel soon.