by Miceál O’Hurley
GENEVA — Even the most cursory perusal of recent headlines in the morning news feed provides enough fodder to shock the human senses: “Israeli Strike on Shelter Kills 31”; “Death Toll Rises Above 13 as Putin Renews Russian Missile Strikes on Kyiv Civilians”; “Air Strike on Mynmar School by Ruling Junta Kills 25”; and “UNHCR Fears Extreme Desperation Led to Deaths of 427 Rohingya at Sea”. News consumers’ appetite for such suffering has seemingly surpassed its apex The misery in Haiti has been displaced by the conflict of South Sudan. Regrettably, suffering in these regions too easily slipped from the broadsheets when evil of greater proportions drew our attention to conflicts in Gaza, Myanmar, Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is the way of the world that with increasing inhumanity the public’s tolerance for confronting the cycle of death of unceasing conflicts almost always transitions from shock, to interest, horror, frustration, acceptance and inevitably, indifference.
The public seems to have completed the cycle. The culture of death in numerous conflicts across the globe that pervades the news has given way in the minds of the public to more parochial concerns. Trade, taxes and toxic politics now get more column inches in broadsheets, on radio and television news programmes that the devastation of conflicts that cause thousands of deaths each day around the globe. One need only compare how the increase in stories of scandal, sex and celebrity are displacing war, suffering and politics. News editors know how to read polls and clearly, the public has had enough and grown indifferent.
Even the termination of life-saving programmes and policies that will result in the loss of lives across dozens of countries has received scant protest. The cessation of billions of dollars in USAID funding by the the world’s wealthiest nation meant to address the kind of suffering in the world that has too often led to conflict has gone with only the slightest whimper of protest. It is official – the world has become indifferent.
Long-durations conflicts are especially prone to news consumer saturation. Putin’s decision to send missiles flying over Kyiv with deadly effect rather than join a team of negotiators in Türkiye to bring an end to the war has confirmed what the public has always known and U.S. President Trump has only begun to grasp – Russia has no intention of entering into a ceasefire or giving up on their quest to topple the Ukrainian government and end its sovereignty. Consequently, the public seems to have resolved to turn their faces from the conflict expecting it only to deliver more of the same misery. President Zelenskii was right when he decried the silence from the West following these latest missile attacks on Kyiv’s civilians. In the aftermath of Viktor Sobolev, a member of the Defence Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation stated, “The new goal of the Special Military Operation is to create a united state of the Union of Russia… [which would represent] the restoration of the Russian World within its natural borders,” it barely was mentioned in evening news cycles, if it was at all. Humanity has come dangerously close to the event horizon where empathy, sympathy, remorse, horror and even anger over continuing violence cannot escape the black holes that these conflict theatres represent.
The depth and breadth of this indifference has ramifications. Widespread indifference tolerates the vacuum of inevitably filled by violence. Both State actors and militants know this and use it to their advantage and humanity’s detriment. During a televised Channel 12 panel programme earlier this month Religious Zionist Member of the Knesset, Zvi Bukkot, bragged that Israel’s military has been spectacularly more effective in light of the public’s fatigue with daily misery. Claiming the level of wanton force wielded by Israeli forces could not have possibly been imaged at the outset of Israel’s response to the October 7th Hamas attacks was due to public indifference that almost translates to permissiveness, Bukkot said, “Last night, almost 100 Gazans were killed. And the question you asked me just now had nothing to do with Gaza. Do you know why? Because it doesn’t interest anyone. Everyone has gotten used to [the fact] that [we can] kill 100 Gazans in one night during a war and nobody cares in the world.”
It shouldn’t be surprising that misery fatigue is setting-in in Gaza, Ukraine, Myanmar, South Sudan and elsewhere. The hoi polloi are increasingly becoming either emotionally immune or indifferent to modernity’s culture of acceptable levels of death. The willingness of the general public to accept waging brutal warfare as opposed to pioneering palatable peace has come to define this generation in the way the anti-war movement marked the 1960s – early 1970s. And here lies the problem – the more the public becomes indifferent to war the more likely is that governments and militants willing to wield it so rapaciously will do so. When governments embrace violence as a means of achieving goals we shouldn’t be surprised when individuals like the gunman that assassinated to young Israeli Embassy staffers will feel justified in carrying-out individual acts of violence and even political assassinations.
History during our lifetimes would show that the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Malcom X, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy arose within the context of the Vietnam War saturating the evening airways. Unchecked, this dynamic of indifference may be a harbinger for things to come. In the face of the shooting death of two Israeli Embassy staffers it was particularly disconcerting, therefore, to see video of Israeli Defense Force personnel firing “warning shots” at a delegation of European Diplomats visiting the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank at the request of the Palestinian Authority. Israeli claims firing live rounds at European diplomats was necessary because they “deviated from the approved route and entered an area where they were not authorized to be [requiring] warning shots to distance them away” rings hollow. This was borne out by Israel’s belated apologies. Still, the idea that Israel Defense Forces thought firing live ammunition at European diplomats on a coordinated fact-finding mission was a reasonable act is chilling. It was, in the final analysis, an act borne out of a culture of contempt for seekers of truth and agents of peace.
The assassination of two staffers of the Embassy of Israel staff in Washington, D.C. last week arises from both public indifference and individual frustration with imposing peace with the same zeal with which war is waged. Such assassinations are especially despicable and dangerous because they never bring about the change the murderers fantasize will occur. The murder of consular staff and diplomats is always shocking – diplomats aren’t generally perceived to be merchants of death or legitimate targets of violence. It was a senseless act arising from frustration from the unceasing violence to which the Palestinians have been subjected for more than a century.
Admittedly, the killing of two young Embassy staffers on the streets of the U.S. capital seems relatively inconsequential when compared to the thousands of Palestinians who have died already in Gaza. And yet we should take notice. Those two deaths carry the potential of having a profoundly chilling effect on attempts to reduce the conflict by achieving a sustainable ceasefire. After all, if two young functionaries at an Embassy can be targeted for assassination by an individual it would suggest any diplomat or consular official that is even remotely associated with the conflict are legitimate targets for violence. They aren’t and shouldn’t be. It would be folly to believe this will be the last attempt at violence in diplomatic circles. Only 2-years ago April I reported the following: “Evidence indicates attacks on diplomatic missions have not only escalated in numbers in recent years but in lethality as well. The 169-reported attacks on diplomatic missions over the past 50-years stands in sharp contrast to the comparatively small 32-reported attacks upon diplomatic missions occurring between 1923-1973. That period records 32-attacks resulting in 11-deaths and 69-injuries“. These figures have grown disproportionately in the context of all of the conflicts raging across the globe.
In the aftermath of individual violence inflicted on members of the diplomatic corps we cannot expect diplomats who advocate for the plight of Palestinians, or in favour of Israel, to do anything but retreat behind embassy walls and shrink from the public sphere. There are legitimate fears diplomats, policy makers, politicians and civil society actors are now legitimate targets to be pursued in their twisted hopes of achieving either revenge or peace. Making diplomats and advocates targets in the minds of equally radicalised persons forfeits the realm of civil discourse to proponents of violence. For diplomats, whose ‘stock and trade‘ are words and relationships shared face-to-face, the prospect of violence and the necessity to shun public events and otherwise retreat behind the high walls of embassies or office buildings with strict security cordons cannot be ignored.
We have already seen how public appearances by Mission personnel from Washington, D.C. to European capitals have been cancelled, scaled-back or With heightened concern diplomats inevitably withdraw to the confines of their Missions. Public appearances become less frequent. Overall, dialogue and the pursuit of peace take second-seat to nationalist politicians and militarists whose daily engagement with the media begin to overtake diplomacy in the public sphere. Without robust dialogue and peace building activities promoted by diplomats engaging in interpersonal communications, even briefly in ‘brush-by diplomacy‘ the potential for peaceful resolutions are diminished.
While diplomacy is often unsuccessful in preventing wars it always plays a role in ending them. An attack on diplomats by State or individual actors is always unacceptable. Justice cannot be achieved by individuals taking the law into their own hands. If the cycle of violence and recrimination that marks all of the conflicts raging around the globe is to end it must begin with a renewed effort to ensure diplomats enjoy a real sense of safety. The consequence of abandoning the higher principles of cordiality and security with regard to diplomats will only have a chilling effect on any chances for peace initiatives to succeed.
All this will require re-engaging the public in meaningful ways such that the way we report on conflicts is less voyeuristic and more meaningful. The fault of indifference is not merely a defect in the human condition. It is one of the intended consequences of those with power. In 1951, Ray Bradbury’s ‘The Pedestrian‘ explored a the idea that a government wanting the public to look to media outlets only for entertainment – not for news content. The motivation is simple – if the public doesn’t engage they are easier to control. He was not entirely wrong. The ‘big media‘ outlets shape our views by editorial content. Instead of presenting programming with thoughtful and informed discussion which gives the public fodder to feed inquisitive and active minds we are bombarded with news as entertainment. Today’s news is meant not to inform the public but generate revenues for shareholders. Editors have given way to producers who create content where pictures of the horrors of war are considered for their artistic merit if not “beauty” and where staged shouting matches as news entertainment present issues in ways that lead consumers to engage because it feeds into their echo chamber of self-satisfaction. If we want a to confront war and violence and create a more just and humane world we must have news that informs and teaches instead of entertaining and reinforcing our prejudices.
We owe it to victims of war and violence to do better in engaging the public. If content is lulling the public into a sense of indifference we only serve the merchants of war and inevitably more diplomats will become victims of violence.
