Israel, Palestine, and the Accusation of the Unequal Application of Grief
After the terror attacks carried out by Hamas on October 7th and Israel’s subsequent assault on Gaza, the world has been awash in images of death and destruction. Grief and rage have followed close behind. Some have found solidarity in their pain. However, grief and rage over each tragedy are increasingly being pitted against each other. A chance for solidarity has been ceded to hatred. This only serves those that want violence.
A recent example of this division occurred at a townhall event for Rep. Dean Phillips, a long-shot challenger to President Biden in the Democratic Primary. There, a participant asked Phillips to support a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war. Instead of answering directly, Phillips wanted to know whether the participant cared about the Israeli’s killed and kidnapped by Hamas. Implicit here is the idea that calling for a ceasefire to protect innocent Palestinians means you don’t care about dead Israeli’s. Worse, perhaps you even condone Hamas’ actions. It is mistake or, more cynically, a tactic used to discredit Palestinian supporters in favor of a cease-fire.
This framing has power because, at face value, it seems to make sense. It stems from a basic question of compassion: If all human life is equal, shouldn’t everyone try to care about all life equally? It is one reason why some are ripping down posters asking for the return of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas. The posters are, for some, one-sided as they do not advocate for the lives of the Palestinians being bombed. As with Phillips, there is the suspicion that the grief is one-sided.
If you look beyond the understandable emotions, the logic doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. People do not grieve and rage equally. They advocate most passionately for what they feel closest to. And, even if this wasn’t true, there are, sadly, far too many humanitarian disasters across the world for everyone to care about them all equally. Right now, Pakistan is expelling 1.7 million Afghans. Right now, after the devastation wrought by Hurricane Otis, Acapulco’s poorest are still without necessary supplies. Right now, there is ongoing violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo initiated by Rwanda-backed M23 rebels, that, in February, displaced 520,000 people. I could link to hundreds, if not thousands, more events worthy of grief and rage. It is both unreasonable and unfair to imply that the people focused on Israel and Palestine condone the suffering of these people.
If we demand everyone care about everything equally, if we pit just causes against each other, we risk accomplishing nothing. This is especially tragic when the solutions to so many different problems are interlinked. Addressing poverty can help reduce crime. Addressing climate change can help mitigate natural disasters across the world. Helping countries deal with violence and poverty means their citizens don’t become refugees forced to flee to other countries.
The same is true when it comes to the war between Israel and Hamas. A cease-fire is so often portrayed as something that pits a pro-Palestine side versus a pro-Israel side. And yet, a cease-fire, or even any form of truce, would help both Hamas hostages and Palestinian civilians. It would allow food, medicine, and other vital supplies to reach Palestinians in Gaza that desperately need them. And it would allow time to negotiate for the hostages. The Biden administration has called for pauses in the war to accomplish this exact goal. According to a report in The Guardian, Netanyahu turned down a deal that would have freed many of the hostages in exchange for a ceasefire. Freeing the hostages and getting Palestinians vital aid are not intrinsically at cross-purposes with each other.
It is easy to view Palestinians and their allies and Israelis and their allies as enemies. The vileness spread across the internet — antisemitic, Islamophobic, and just plain blood-thirsty — makes it all too tempting. Hatred is often easier to bear than pain. A simple picture that pits side against side and hurt against hurt is often easier to grasp. However, this mindset will only feed into more death and destruction, ultimately aligning with the architects of this current violence — Hamas and Netanyahu’s government. For, clearly neither want peace, only able to see a solution that involves the destruction of the other at monumental human costs. Netanyahu deliberately propped up Hamas to sabotage any chance at a two-state solution. And Hamas deliberately staged their attack to create a “permanent state of war”.
The only way to disrupt the cycle of violence is to adopt a different mindset, to realize that a peaceful future must consider the needs of both Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu’s hostile policies towards Palestinians did not make Israelis safer. There must be a shift now, a push to minimize civilian casualties and a path to end the brutal oppression that makes some Palestinians sympathetic towards Hamas. Perhaps you disagree with my analysis, think it lacks nuance or is unnecessarily slanted. It almost certainly is in some areas. But what I do know with absolute certainty is that the path the Israeli government and Hamas are on currently will not lead to peace. Entrenched views have not led to peace for 75 years. We must not let our pain be used to turn us against each other. It should unite us instead. And we should find and demand better paths forward for the sake of everyone.
