Wars are always “showcases” for technological products: weapons, control systems, early warning systems, etc. The fact that this is the case has been recalled in the mass media since the beginning of October.
On the one hand, highly sophisticated AI technology (“We don’t know how Israel’s military is using AI in Gaza, but we should”, LA Times), and on the other hand, highly sophisticated guerrilla technology (“A spider’s web of tunnels: inside Gaza’s underground network being targeted by Israel: Gaza’s underground network being targeted by Israel”, Guardian).
This “showcase” serves a predominantly male-coded interest in technology, machines and gadgets in general. Something that boys develop “naturally” at sandbox age, for example when they re-enact or play wars.
The interested but uncritical look at this “shop window” is a cool, pitiless one. As cold and pitiless as the view of technology itself, which can make war appear to be an exchange of blows between quasi-neutral and objective technological systems and solutions.
Human life and human suffering hardly play a role at this level. It is a dehumanized discourse of technological dominance.
Despite all the naive and supposedly childish interest in the “technical solutions” of the warring parties, we have to ask ourselves how this dehumanized discourse about technological dominance underpins and secretly shapes the polarizing and polarizing war discourse about the “right position” and “wrong solidarity”?
Is sincere empathy still possible? Can we still listen and educate ourselves before taking a stand? Or do we have to admit that we have long been looking through the lens of technology and have lost the human connection to war?