In the language of the time, the 1945 UNESCO constitution reminds us of something fundamental about conflict: that "since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed." 

Judging by much of the commentary in this newspaper and elsewhere, for some this truth carries no meaning.

Too many are prepared to say whatever comes into their heads on any given day, without a care for its consequence or impact on others. The keyboard affords us protection, something viciously denied to others.

As a result, the price paid by many entirely innocent and guiltless people and their communities remains exorbitant. Nowhere more so than in the context of the current conflict in Palestine and Israel, and the mass killing that now dominates.   

As a product of the still-recent peace process in Ireland (and of the conflict process that preceded it), I am acutely aware of the importance of words and sentiments that underpin conflict and peace and all that surrounds them. And of our personal responsibilities in that regard.

In that context, it remains deeply disturbing to encounter (and then think on) the diverse justifications for the killing and abuse agendas that have dominated news about Gaza and Israel over the last number of weeks. The ethical and verbal sophistry that many engage in, including on Times of Malta’s comment platform, has been truly sickening to see.

In many ways they reflect and in turn re-enforce ethical, moral, and political gymnastics of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Israeli government, and its many allies, most especially the United States.

A threshold of un/acceptable levels of killing, including large numbers of children has become a primary focus of debate. To hear world leaders, commentators and armchair warriors talk of taking care not to massacre “too many” civilians is depraved. 

Despite verbal and moral contortions, nothing can ever justify what is happening now in real time. No labelling, history, ideology, grievance or invoked ‘self-defence’ can begin to offer justification. 

Even with a limited, tortuous and temporary ceasefire (described by Biden’s press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre as ‘wrong’, ‘repugnant’ and ‘disgraceful’) to allow basic humanitarian care to engage with the direst of human need and to negotiate hostage exchanges, the conflict mongers and hawks barely stopped for breath. 

It comes as a given that many deny, twist, contort and mash politics, history, faith, religion, culture, and morality in their rush to justify and defend the killing.  And then, in an act of supreme perversion, they condemn others for doing precisely the same. In the name of condemning ‘their’ violence and injustice, they condone ‘ours’.

All of this was predicted with extreme accuracy, all known in advance, all avoidable but all shamelessly justified or ignored. Without exception, almost every outcome of this killing agenda is overwhelmingly negative for all involved, including Israel and Israelis. The results are everywhere to be seen, even by those who choose to look away.

Worst of all, they (intentionally) feed the hatred and fury that has brought immense suffering and death to families inside Israel and Gaza and elsewhere, in past as well as present rounds of ongoing violence.

Some seem to believe that we should silently watch on as a whole society is annihilated in a most brutal and vengeful fashion, in response to the inhuman and indefensible atrocities of Hamas on October 7 (and before). Talk of human shields, hostages, ‘command centres’, warning leaflets and phone calls, ‘zones of safety’ and, of course, the right to no limits ‘self-defence’ apparently justifies it.  

All Gazans must apparently ‘pay’ for the many indefensible sins of Hamas, now and endlessly into the future. And if hard-won international law stands in the way, or even the UN, they must be summarily dismissed.  Apparently ‘there is no alternative’. 

War must be allowed have its way.

The scale and depth of the hypocrisy on display knows few limit. Calling ‘stop’ is deemed to be naïve at best and devious at worst. It is dishonestly considered to amount to support for the murderous agenda of Hamas or that of many in the far-right of Netanyahu’s cabinet or among illegal settlers.

I am immediately reminded of a poster with which I was involved during the peace process in Ireland. Its caption read ‘Peace: Everyone is for it. Dying for it, killing for it’.

In the clamour and tumult of mutually hostile voices, there appears little room to listen to those who have suffered deeply.  Voices such as that of Rami Elhanan (an ex-Israeli soldier whose 14-year-old daughter, Smadar, was killed by a Hamas suicide bomber) and subsequently became co-director of reconciliation organisation Parents Circle:

‘…it will not stop unless we talk…we are doomed to live together, and we have to choose whether to share this land or share the graveyard under it’.

Co-director Bassam Aramin (whose daughter Abir was killed by a bullet fired by an Israeli soldier) echoes this:

‘In the end there will be a peace agreement. That is absolutely clear.  It will happen at the moment when the price of not having peace exceeds the price of having peace.’

Promoting peace as against conflict is not immediately about trying to change the external world (as Elhanan and Aramin achingly acknowledge) but is about discovering and strengthening our own moral framework.  Being prepared to declare that morality publicly and then building common cause with similar others. 

It is about imagining a better, much less violent, and hateful future. As we know from other peace processes worldwide, it is about counter-proposing inspiration, energy, and alternatives.  Ultimately, it is about offering hope in place of despair, life in place of death. 

Each of us engaging with this human tragedy in the context of Times of Malta and that of Christmas would do well to reconsider the argument from the UNESCO Constitution.

As Elhanan and Aramin ask ‘why are men so angry that they kill children to get what they want?’  To which we can only wonder why are others so angry that they approve of such killing?