Daily Times

In a harrowing escalation of violence, Israeli military operations in Khan Younis have resulted in the loss of 170 lives this week alone: a grim statistic that takes the Palestinian death toll to a staggering 40,000 in the last 10 months and adds to the mounting macabreness of conflict in the region. As mourners pray over victims and a mix of strong and laced-with-buzzwords condemnations trickle in, the international community is faced with a stark reality: its profound silence raises troubling questions about the principles that guide their advocacy for the nation.

The humanitarian cost of the ongoing conflict has become an undeniable fact. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans have been displaced, fleeing their homes in search of safety amid relentless bombardment and military offensives. Entire neighbourhoods have been reduced to rubble, leaving families with nothing but the clothes on their backs. But while the scale of human suffering is almost unimaginable, it appears that a significant portion of the Western narrative remains conspicuously focused on justifying military actions rather than addressing the largest human tragedy in the recent past. One need not look any further than the enthusiastic applause and warm reception given to Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by not only the American Congress but also various industrial tycoons. Amidst the hushed-hushed calls for a ceasefire, Democratic candidate for the US presidency and Vice-President Kamala Harris made a heroic entrance, stressing a forceful case for spelling an end to Gaza’s suffering. However, there are not many who share her conscience as the silence from supporters of Israel in the West remains just as striking in this context. As reports of civilian casualties emerge, the absence of vocal condemnation or widespread, state-level calls for restraint stands in parallels to the outcry often associated with similar tragedies in other parts of the world. This selective empathy raises critical ethical questions: Are the lives of Gazans viewed as less valuable? Is there an implicit endorsement of their suffering as collateral damage in a broader geopolitical struggle?

Moreover, the response-or lack thereof-from Western nations and their representatives can often appear as tacit approval of aggressive military tactics that prioritize political objectives over the sanctity of human life. This silence has implications that extend beyond the immediate context; it fosters a narrative that diminishes the urgency of addressing humanitarian needs and undermines the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the conflict. Until now, the strongest acknowledgement of the nightmarish ordeal of the Palestinian people has come from surprising quarters. It has largely been the masses whose boycott movements and constant, determined demonstrations have carried the right message along. Sadly, there’s only so much that the common man can do. A gush of fresh air from the British policymakers suggests that unless those leading the free world acknowledge Israel’s active genocide and how it has been allowed to continue for far too long, no serious efforts can be made to foster a sustainable dialogue, which, in turn, may pave the way for lasting peace. *