51吃瓜

Three decades ago, the late OJ Simpson promised the authorities that he would launch his own investigation to find the actual murderer of his wife and a male friend. The Los Angeles police nevertheless insisted on arresting and made him stand trial. OJ was acquitted, proving to the authorities and the outside world that it鈥檚 never a good idea to jump to conclusions. However, despite all his subsequent efforts, he never managed to identify the real killer.

Can a similar logic about murderous behavior be playing out at the blob in Washington, DC?

At last week鈥檚 press briefing focused on the latest massacre by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller expressed his predictable regret for any damage that may have occurred to the wellbeing of innocent Palestinian civilians. He did so while reminding the press of the administration鈥檚 commitment to respecting the Jewish state鈥檚 legitimate exercise of 鈥渟elf-defense.鈥� This session took place several days before a more spectacular massacre of at least 274 Palestinians the IDF conducted in its successful operation to release four of the October 7 captives. This included 鈥渄ozens of children.鈥�

In his usual manner, Miller seeks to reassure visibly troubled journalists, whose professional interest in documented facts has made them allergic to relying on bureaucratic hearsay. Alas, in this conflict, facts have consistently taken a back seat to Israeli promises of transparency at some unspecified date in the future. Here are Miller鈥檚:

And so the Government of Israel has said that they are going to release more information about this strike, including the names of those who died in it. We expect them to be fully transparent in making that information public.

罢辞诲补测鈥檚 Weekly Devil鈥檚 Dictionary definition:

Fully transparent:

Full of carefully adjusted formulations and explanations that incontrovertibly reveal and make visible the capacity to establish lies as the only truths to be retained.

Contextual note

Miller literally needs to append the adverb 鈥渇ully鈥� to transparent because for the transparency to be full, a lot filler is required. And Israel has proved itself expert in offering filler. For example, it to have 鈥渢he most moral army in the world.鈥� Nobody in the State Department鈥檚 briefing room appears to believe that kind of transparency or the Biden administration鈥檚 repeated claim that they have not seen any evidence of human rights violations on the part of Israel.

Despite all that obvious doubt, the briefing continues with Miller鈥檚 insistence on the his faith in Israel鈥檚 future transparency. 鈥淪o that鈥檚 why we are pressing the Government of Israel and the IDF to be completely transparent about what happened here. We want to know the facts as much as anyone.鈥�

A bit later, we hear this: 鈥淎s I said, we need to see what the facts are, and we expect them to make those facts public and be completely transparent about it.鈥�

One journalist, noticing the obsessive use of the term, ended up calling into question the very idea of transparency in the following exchange:

QUESTION: You鈥檝e said repeatedly 鈥渢ransparent,鈥� that you鈥檙e looking for 鈥� for the Israelis to be transparent. I mean, the Israelis are basically saying that militants were killed. So I mean, do you expect them to investigate beyond that to see whether children were killed, civilians were killed? And is there a track record of Israel actually investigating that on the ground?

MR MIILLER: So two things. One, with respect to transparency, they have said that they will release the names of those who were killed.

QUESTION: The names of the militants or the names鈥�

MR MIILLER: That is what they have said, and we鈥檙e going to watch and see what they do. If we think any further investigation is warranted after we see the results of what they announce first, we won鈥檛 hesitate to call on that, as we have in the past. 

But after Miller responds with more meandering, the journalist keeps up the pressure.

QUESTION: And just to put a point on that, I mean, do you think it鈥檚 鈥� are you basically calling on Israel also to identify those who were killed who were potentially noncombatants, who were children? Do you expect Israel to do that?

MR MIILLER: So we want to 鈥� so I don鈥檛 know if they have any ability to do that, right, if they鈥檙e not there on the ground. But we want to know exactly what happened, and we鈥檙e willing to look at all sorts of information to determine that.

QUESTION: I鈥檓 sorry if you covered this before, but I mean, is 鈥� how are you going to know if the list of names that they release is accurate?

MR MIILLER: So we will 鈥� I don鈥檛 want to prejudge 鈥� it鈥檚鈥� it is鈥�

QUESTION: I mean, I could make up a bunch of names right now and tell you鈥�

MR MIILLER: It is 鈥� it is a good question.

And, of course because it鈥檚 a 鈥済ood question,鈥� there will be no response, transparent or opaque.

Historical note

State Department press briefings tend to resemble the plot of the famous Bill Murray , Groundhog Day, where Murray鈥檚 character, a television weatherman, experiences the identical events of a single cold day in February over and over again. The endless series of State Department briefings on the war in Gaza is also a history told with a marked stutter. The only visible difference is that Murray鈥檚 character evolves in the course of the movie. The Biden administration鈥檚 doesn鈥檛. It robotically repeats itself.

In Miller鈥檚 briefing, another journalist points to the fact that, throughout the long months since October 7, the State Department has built a history that consists of kicking the can down the road on the basis of an 鈥渆xpectation鈥� of transparency in the future investigations Israel systematically promises.

Miller even appears to be aware of the Groundhog Day-esque dimension of the issue, but he is clearly far less troubled about it than Murray鈥檚 weatherman.

QUESTION: And so, what is their response these past two attacks that have used what they say are precision weapons but have been very destructive?

In his response, Miller acknowledges that Israel鈥檚 鈥渃laim is that they are using precision weapons and that they are using the smallest weapon possible to achieve the target. That said, we have obviously seen the reports of civilian harm.鈥� He then even cites the horrendous details related to a recent atrocity, but this leads to the following reassuring comment: 鈥淭hey have an ongoing review of that. As far as I鈥檓 aware. It鈥檚 not been concluded yet. I know we haven鈥檛 been briefed on any review yet. And with respect to this one, we 鈥� as I said, we need to see what the facts are, and we expect them to make those facts public and be completely transparent about it.鈥�

When he invokes the 鈥渙ngoing review鈥� and adds 鈥渁s far as I鈥檓 aware,鈥� it becomes clear that the motivation to become aware is not a priority. There is simply some kind of ill-defined expectation that Israel one day will be 鈥渃ompletely transparent about it.鈥� Miller then offers a bit of reasoning that can be called an extreme example of may be termed a 鈥渉yper-conditional鈥� sentence, introduced with no less than four 鈥渋fs鈥� followed by the conditional clause, 鈥渢hen we would fully expect鈥︹��

They have said to us that they are going to release information about鈥�what the result of the strike was and who it was that was killed in the strike. I don鈥檛 believe they鈥檝e announced an official review yet, but if they 鈥� if there 鈥� if it is shown 鈥� if there are shown to be civilian deaths, as the reports on the 鈥� from the ground appear to show, then we would fully expect them to review that, consistent with their code of conduct.

Miller and the State Department literally have 鈥済reat expectations鈥� on a Dickensian scale, though the historical rather than fictional context is closer to senseless tragedy than to Victorian melodrama. It鈥檚 telling however that the Biden administration has so much confidence in the 鈥渆xpected鈥� results of 鈥減romised鈥� investigations that can be counted on for their transparency.

The problem of transparency is that it is only real if it exists in the present. Future transparency is, by definition, a form of mendacity.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil鈥檚 Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51吃瓜 Devil鈥檚 Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.