> _Let's be clear, this is about the legality of the situation. And let's be
> clear that if this operation begins, and it will, then it will end_ And
> *that was it.
> What was he talking about? (rhetorical question)
Well, one can try parsing the rhetoric. So, ignoring the rhetoricality
of your question, and at acknowledged risk of stating the bleeding
"Let's be clear" (twice) is defensive. What kinds of unclarity is it
trying to ward off? Unclarity with regards to motive: "this is
about...legality" and not, for example, cash or crypto-racist
nimbyism. Unclarity with regards to the projected outcome: "it will
end" as intended rather than abort or be turned back.
But the situation *is* unclear. The fog of war's come down. "The
operation" is going to be a mess, or made a mess of. The arguments
around the rights and wrongs of it are not going to be decisively
settled, to general agreement, in favour of either side. Their
respective polemics will strive mightily to banish unclarity, but
unclarity is going to win.