I have rewritten this piece over and over through ongoing cycles of sadness, anger, guilt, hopelessness, and confusion. I would take breaks or “meetings” from work to cry. I saw friends unfollow me because of my posts advocating the end of murdering children. I felt like I was wearing a mask, pretending business as usual with friends who seemingly haven’t been impacted by the atrocities of what’s happening daily.
But I’m alive, and that’s unfortunately more than too many innocent Palestinian lives lost can say. While the suffering endured by Palestinians isn’t new, this past year shed light on an old wound and changed how I look at humanity, others, and myself.
How does one put into words the visceral feeling of seeing children without limbs? The loss of innocence? The absurdity of its justification?
Well I can’t. And I’ve been trying for a year - and looking at my notes - for several years.
I am a firm believer in the power of language and a strong advocate for reframing, which I’ve written about in terms of personal development, race, and religion. I believe people are fundamentally good and that the root of many social issues is based more on the nature of the conversation and defining the problem than on contradictory values. I took a similar approach as it relates to Palestine, writing 10 pages on how sides (e.g. Pro Palestine, Pro Israel, Muslim, Jewish) distract and we should consider another frame around the Stage (what’s happening), the Spotlight (what’s highlighted), and the Audience (who is watching and how information is internalized). But after finishing it, I saw images of more amputated and murdered children. The article felt overly intellectual and didn’t encapsulate my emotions. My cousin, a writing instructor at Columbia, also posed 3 questions to me:
After wrestling with it more, I was on the verge of just dropping it. It’s been over a year, thousands have been killed, and I can’t even articulate my feelings or something of value to others.
But then I started reading The Message by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and 1 passage stuck out to me in particular:
“I think this tradition of writing, of drawing out a common humanity, is indispensable to our future, if only because what must be cultivated and cared for must first be seen.”
That excerpt started to crystallize my thoughts.
So far, this whole article has been about trying to write this article. And with that, I’ll cut straight to the questions, which I think of in terms of the following:
I took a pottery class in Mexico City recently. When I went to pay, the owner told me she’s Israeli and began asking about my background. What initially was intended to be a 1-minute transaction turned into a 1-hour conversation about Palestinian rights, Israeli’s sense of security, and US foreign policy.
While we agreed on several areas, there was a disconnect around information inputs. She was quoting the IDF while I was referencing Save the Children.
It’s no secret that social media has turned our feeds into echo chambers, of which we’re all victims. Broadly, the sources of information I think of are:
Each group has varying degrees of:
We place a certain amount of trust and authority on each of these inputs. From my conversation, it was clear the owner had complete trust in the IDF and the Israeli government press. I asked directly "do you think the government has or ever would mislead?" to which she said no. When considering vested interest and resource allocation, I’m personally skeptical of any government being entirely truthful. I’ve found that NGOs like Save the Children and Human Rights Watch or individuals like medical doctors who are typically trusted, are now questioned when it comes to their accounts of Palestine.
On another occassion, late in October 2023, I was co-working with one of my best friends. I was emotionally all over the place and coming in and out of the room. Towards the end of the day, I mentioned I was leaving again to talk to someone about Palestine when he erupted: “Enough of this Palestine. Why do you keep talking about this? What about other stuff happening in the world? Can we stop with this?”
I was dumbfounded. The horror and impact were so clear to me but lost on him, someone I know of similar morals and values. A few weeks later, he told me how his Instagram feed had changed and he was now seeing firsthand accounts of destruction on the ground. His information inputs changed, and as a result he now actively recognizes and advocates for Palestine.
Ideally, we’re exposed to all the groups and their perspective to get a holistic understanding. I recognize the difficulty in that, and more information doesn’t necessarily change our minds. As humans we’re wired to be right instead of being truthful. Instead, proactively asking ourselves and others 1 question can help cut through any cognitive dissonance and noise:
What additional information or evidence would I need to make me think differently?
Do I need the government to directly state they are committing a genocide? (beyond statements such as claiming this is a “war against children of darkness”)? Is there a certain organization that I trust in any situation that needs to make a statement? Do I need to experience some direct impact on my personal livelihood?
This leads directly to section 2: “At What Point?”
In September 2024, I was at a destination wedding with longtime friends I hadn’t seen in years. I noticed one of them brought a book about the history of Ukraine. With the ongoing war, he wanted to learn more about the context. I asked him about Palestine and he recognized the issues but admittedly did not feel as compelled to act.
After some time, I found that for him, the war in Ukraine felt closer, not geographically but emotionally. An attack on the “Western world” was more relevant than those in the Middle East.
I recognize people are inherently tribal. It is easier for me to see myself in Palestinians, especially when going to protests and seeing a list of children murdered, with "Ibrahim" listed more times than I could count before even reaching victims over 1 year old.
Beyond our biases and initial predispositions of who and what we’re naturally drawn towards, we are ultimately human. Historically there have been “matchsticks,” an image or story that ignites public outrage and moral outcry. Consider Muhammad Ali’s recollection of Emmett Till:
Although I didn't know Emmett Till personally, from that day on I could see him in every black boy and girl. I imagined him playing and laughing. As I looked at his picture in the paper, I realized that this could just as easily have been a story about me or my brother.
Emmett's mother said, "When something like that happened to the Negroes in the south, I said, 'That's their business, not mine.' Now I know how wrong I was. The murder of my son has shown me that what happens to any of us anywhere in the world had better be the business of us all." - The Soul of a Butterfly, Muhammad Ali
Similar to Emmett Till in relation to civil rights in the United States, we have seen defining stories like the murder of Hind Rajab and countless others in Palestine. There have been enough - too many - stats and stories. There are maps overlaying Gaza on US cities, charts quantifying deaths in terms of “9/11’s”, and countless other examples trying to bridge the “tribal divide” to resonate with others.
Attention wanes. We become desensitized. We’re faced with a constant stream of “Emmett Tills” on the news and social media. 10 becomes 100, then 1,000, then 10,000, and we can’t process the difference. Each of us has a different starting point and a different matchstick that ignites change. I don’t believe that most people’s morality is conditioned on their tribe. So for ourselves and when seeking to rally others, consider the following questions:
I spoke to a friend born, raised, and living in Israel. We had extremely differing perspectives on Palestine, but what started as a heated discussion ended in a deeper conversation where we both had a broader understanding and agreed on most moral ideals and points:
“I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” - Malcolm X
Back to the idea of reframing, I find that we can clear up our internal dialogue and external conversations by starting at first principles, at people without demographic and social attributes to focus on humanity, e.g. the rights and needs of any human.
Otherwise, we get trapped in what-about-isms and turn the situation into a binary spectrum, creating a zero-sum game or convoluted situation where being “pro-Palestine” somehow means anti-semitism.
A child buried underneath rubble isn’t thinking in those terms, nor should we.
I ask myself and all of us to think in terms of a hierarchy of needs vs. a priority of populations.
My desired end state is a more just and equitable world, and while there are other roadblocks both in that region and across the globe, I believe we all have a responsibility to advocate for Palestinian self-determination, liberty, and dignity.
Regardless of where you stand, I’d love to continue the conversation with you (especially if we have differing viewpoints or Palestinian liberation is not top of mind for you). It is a privilege that you and I get the luxury to reflect while others are killed, and I hope we use that opportunity to become more self-aware, empathetic, and turn that intentionality into action.
