Words are not neutral; they shape our understanding of events, define narratives, and influence outcomes. In the context of war, oppression, and systemic injustice, language is often weaponized to obscure truth, shift blame, and sanitize harm. One such example is the use of the term “ceasefire.”
The Problem with “Ceasefire”
“Ceasefire” suggests a mutual and equal agreement between two parties to temporarily halt hostilities. It implies a symmetrical conflict in which both sides are equally responsible for the violence and equally capable of stopping it. However, this framing is deeply misleading in contexts where power is profoundly asymmetrical.
Neutralizing Responsibility:
“Ceasefire” erases the culpability of the aggressor and equates the actions of the oppressor with the resistance of the oppressed. It implies that both parties are equally at fault and equally empowered to end the violence.
Masking Structural Violence:
The term narrowly focuses on the suspension of direct physical violence while ignoring ongoing structural and systemic violence, such as blockades, apartheid policies, or occupation. A “ceasefire” might stop the bombs but leave the systems of oppression fully intact.
Legitimizing Harm:
Declaring a ceasefire after one side has devastated the other creates the illusion of peace while the harm remains unresolved. It allows perpetrators to portray themselves as peacemakers, obscuring their role in causing the destruction in the first place.
In this specific instance...
A Nuclear Power vs. an Occupied Population:
One side wields a highly advanced national military, including nuclear capabilities (widely believed to exist, though undeclared), while the other is a stateless, occupied population living under siege.
Global Superpower Backing:
The occupying power is supported by the United States, the world’s largest superpower, which provides billions of dollars in military aid annually, including advanced weaponry, diplomatic cover, and veto power in international forums.
Disparity in Resources and Impact:
The disparity in military strength, resources, and global influence results in vastly disproportionate destruction and loss of life. The occupying power maintains international legitimacy and the infrastructure to rebuild and sustain its war efforts.
By framing these dynamics as a “conflict” between two equals, the term “ceasefire” erases these fundamental asymmetries. It shifts focus away from the systemic oppression and disproportionate power wielded by one side, equating the actions of the oppressor with the resistance of the oppressed.
Masking Structural Violence
The focus on halting overt violence also ignores the ongoing structural violence endured by the occupied population:
- The siege that blocks access to food, water, electricity, and medical supplies.
- The occupation that controls every aspect of daily life through checkpoints, walls, and apartheid policies.
- The dispossession and displacement of entire communities, sustained by illegal settlements and systemic injustice.
A “ceasefire” may stop the bombing temporarily, but it does nothing to dismantle these oppressive systems. It allows the occupying power to consolidate its position while presenting itself as a proponent of peace.
How Language Is Weaponized to Obscure Power and Responsibility
Language is weaponized when it is deliberately constructed to conceal power dynamics, blur accountability, and control perception. It can transform perpetrators into victims, resistance into aggression, and systemic oppression into an unavoidable conflict. By using language that appears neutral or equitable, those in power can manipulate public opinion and deny the oppressed the legitimacy of their struggle.
The mechanics of this manipulation rely on erasing the asymmetry of power and responsibility:
- By framing an overwhelming military campaign and occupation as a “conflict,” language suggests parity where none exists.
- By describing disproportionate violence as “clashes,” it minimizes the scale of harm and obscures accountability.
- By calling for a “ceasefire,” it implies equal culpability between aggressor and oppressed, while ignoring the structural violence and systemic oppression that continue unabated.
When these narratives are absorbed without question, the reader or listener is unwittingly drawn into a framework that legitimizes oppression and erases injustice. The choices presented to them are shaped entirely by the manipulator’s agenda, leaving little room to consider alternatives rooted in justice and liberation.
Do you know when language is being weaponized against you?
Language To Use Instead
To align with the principles of justice and truth, we must reject terms, like “ceasefire,” that obscure responsibility and asymmetry. Instead, we must adopt language that reflects the reality of power dynamics and centers accountability.
- “End The Occupation”: By addressing the root causes of violence, this language emphasizes dismantling the systems that sustain harm. “
- Justice and Accountability”: Rather than framing peace as the mere absence of violence, this language highlights the need for reparations, systemic change, and lasting solutions.
- "Stop the Genocide": That's it.
These examples communicate more precisely and present a stark contrast to "ceasefire" as a plea for both sides to settle down and get along.
Conclusion
Language matters because it frames how we understand conflict and justice. To call for a “ceasefire” is to accept a false narrative of equality between oppressor and oppressed, erasing responsibility and perpetuating injustice. Instead, we must demand language that exposes the asymmetry of power, centers accountability, and lays the foundation for a peace rooted in justice and liberation.
