Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist, engineer, and industrialist who invented dynamite and other powerful explosives. In 1888, a French newspaper mistakenly reported Alfred's death, writing, "The merchant of death is dead," and criticised him for making a fortune by finding ways to kill more people faster. Shocked by this portrayal and horrified at the thought of being remembered for his fortune made from inventing dynamite and weapons, Nobel sought to dedicate his wealth to honour individuals who provided the "greatest benefit to humankind" in science, literature, and, specifically, peace. Thus, for great and sagacious people, it ultimately becomes a question of how they will be remembered and judged by history.

However, for others with a more myopic view, driven by absolute power and self-interest, legacy and statesmanship are not factors: the present becomes the past and the future as well. The most recent example is the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza and, to a lesser extent, in what remains of the West Bank. For more than two years, Gazans have been subjected to daily bombardment, sniper fire, famine, and disease. Even hospitals have not been spared from bombing. Foreign journalists have not been allowed to report on the devastation on the ground. Even during attempts to airdrop relief, no one has been permitted to film the destruction from the air. Local journalists and social media activists have been targeted and eliminated to minimise the flow of information. Meanwhile, as this ethnic cleansing is broadcast live on social media, world capitals watch in silence, with no meaningful calls to stop the massacre, which continues to this day and has extended to Lebanon. Instead, active military and intelligence support has been provided to the Zionist, apartheid state to carry out the genocide.

Further, to support this apartheid state, freedom of speech has been curtailed in the West, and demonstrations condemning the massacre and supporting Palestinians are demonised. Phrases such as ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ have been labelled anti-Semitic, and organisations advocating Palestinian rights have been categorised as terrorists. Yet, concern in the West rose sharply when the Houthis attacked shipping lanes in the Red Sea in support of Palestinians, disrupting global supply chains. Meanwhile, Muslim and Arab states have pledged funds for Gaza’s reconstruction without condemning the aggressor or severing ties with it.

At present, the ‘Zionist thug’ of the Middle East has drawn the region into a wider war by attacking another Muslim state. Given that the Middle East supplies a significant portion of the world’s oil, the resulting squeeze has triggered a global frenzy to control and limit the conflict, carefully avoiding calling it an invasion or condemning it as such. Now, every state seeks to participate in diplomatic efforts to manage this ‘war’ without clarifying what leverage, if any, they hold over the aggressor, the apartheid Zionist state of Israel.

The Achilles heel, the Strait of Hormuz, is being choked by Iran, which, like any nation, has the right to defend itself against aggression, as enshrined in the UN Charter. Consequently, Gulf countries have proposed a force to reopen the Strait, accompanied by intense diplomatic activity. Yet the central question remains: what are these diplomatic efforts meant to achieve? Are they aimed at pressuring the aggressor to halt its invasion and the killing of civilians, or at persuading Iran to stand down, or simply at ensuring the uninterrupted flow of oil while support for the aggressor continues?

In such a moral climate, where human lives are expendable and political expediency overrides human tragedy, the word ‘aggressor’ disappears from the vocabulary, and events in the Eastern Hemisphere draw attention only when oil is at stake. Humanity, it seems, has reached a new low. To add insult to injury, rather than meaningful action, some seek to cement their legacy through the forced acquisition of awards and titles. Yet history is unforgiving: it has already judged the pied pipers of Iraq and Libya, and their names remain etched in the annals of infamy.

Ahsan MunirThe writer is a freelance columnist.

© The Nation