They shot dad, they shot mom and they shot Avigail” said Michael (9) to his uncle on the phone. On October 7th, when Hamas terrorists invaded their home in Kfar Aza, Michael and his 6 year old sister Amalia were hiding in the closet. Their dad carried their 3 year old sister, Avigail, and run out of the house, when the terrorists murdered him. For 14 hours Michael and Amalia were closed in the safe room together with the body of their dead mother. Little Avigail managed to release herself from her father’s dead hands and was found by neighbors, only to be kidnapped along with them into Gaza.
Habiba (8) had big hopes for the future. She grew up learning about the international convention of children rights, including the right to education and the right to health. When the airstrikes on Gaza started, Habiba couldn’t stop trembling in fear. On the morning of October 14th she finally appeared more composed. At the sound of explosions she consoled her mother, saying, “Don’t be afraid”. She picked her colors and began drawing the TV as it was reporting the news about the war. An hour later an Israeli missile struck the family home, injuring everyone inside and ending Habiba’s short life.
It shouldn’t be hard to empathize with the pain of the Israeli victims, or the pain of the Palestinian ones.
But paradoxically, it seems almost impossible to empathize with both sides at the same time. Why is that?
This question, apparently is not exclusive to this conflict. In a study focusing on stories of starving children, participants showed a distinct drop in empathy when asked to assist two identified victims as opposed to just one.
Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that empathy is indeed a treacherous path, likening it to a spotlight that illuminates one individual, leaving others in the dark.
According to Bloom, we are more likely to direct the spotlight of empathy toward those we perceive as more similar to us. This tendency plays a significant role in both parent-child bonding and the ugliest forms of racism. The light we shine on those we identify with and consider more deserving of our care casts a shadow on the suffering of others.
Moreover, cognitive empathy is a form of intelligence that even psychopathic murderers possess. The Hamas terrorist who streamed the killing of an elderly woman on Facebook Live did it exactly because he cognitively empathized with the pain it would cause her family, who indeed found out about her death by witnessing her recorded execution.
In his book “Against Empathy” Bloom goes further to argue that empathy should not serve as a moral compass. Instead he advocates for compassion which goes beyond feeling another’s pain; and involves a deep sense of concern and a genuine desire to alleviate suffering.
Lost Souls
Ten days after the Hamas attack, philosopher Slavoj Zizek delivered a powerful address at the Frankfurt Book Fair. Zizek not only condemned Hamas unequivocally but went further to justify Israel’s right to retaliate.
Despite some protests from the audience, he dedicated most of his address to exploring the background of the occupation and the Israeli government’s ongoing systematic oppression of the Palestinian people.
Without siding with either Hamas or the Israeli government, Zizek managed to present a crucial analysis of the current situation and its history. He went on to argue:
“The moment you accept that this is not possible, to fight for both sides at the same time, you lost your soul.”
While I sympathize with the message, I’m afraid that most Israelis and Palestinians will find it very difficult to simultaneously advocate for both sides right now. Tortured souls are not necessarily lost, but they are overflowing with stress, fear and grief.
Can anyone really expect us, Israelis or Palestinians, to shine a wide ray of empathy while we’re still in the dark, under attack, burying our dead, unable to know if our loved ones are dead or alive, and fearing our own children will be next?
With so much pain, how should the international community respond?
- Does “standing with Israel” and removing Hamas from power justify the destruction of Gaza and the thousands of casualties in this unprecedented humanitarian crisis?
- Is that truly a means to ensure a secure future for Israelis?
- does “solidarity with Palestine” necessitate turning a blind eye, downplaying, or sometimes even justifying Hamas’s crimes against humanity?
- How does endorsing bloodthirsty nihilists contribute to the broader Palestinian cause?
3 common responses
It might have been magnitude of the attack, the brutality, and the graphic documentation of violence, or perhaps the sheer intensity of human tragedy, but there is no denying that the world did not turn a blind eye to this war.
- Leaders condemned,
- protests filled the streets,
- funding and military support was provided,
- and social-media flame wars erupted.
The responses have mostly been either of three types:
1. YES / NO
To judge by social media, the world is divided to good and evil.
No nuances, no context, no gray areas.Thus, to truly eradicate evil one must make a clear cut and choose a side: you’re either with the victim or you’re with the perpetrator.
Sadly, this blanket refusal to acknowledge complexity is intensified by the algorithmically induced cycles of engagement / enragement.
The more extreme your position, the more tweetable or instagramable it becomes, and the more likely it is to be shared and go viral.
And conversely, the more nuanced and devoid of catchy slogans your stated position is, the more it gets suppressed by the algorithm.
- Does likening Hamas to ISIS imply it should be eliminated “by any means necessary”?
- Does drawing parallels between the Jewish victims of Hamas and those of the Nazis in the Holocaust justify the “Dresdening” of Gaza
- Moreover, how can we anticipate genuine concern for Israeli lives without demonstrating sincere concern for Palestinian lives?
And what compelled the respected artists who signed the open letter advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza to overlook Hamas’s rampage of slaughter and rape?
Did they believe that acknowledging these horrific crimes could somehow justify the destruction of Gaza?
How would a plea for the release, or at least an acknowledgment of, the hundreds of Israeli civilians held hostage in Gaza, including many children, detract from their commitment to the Palestinian cause?
2. YES, BUT…
Yes, the world is indeed complex and cruel, there are innocent victims on the other side, BUT…
…- …but they voted for these leaders and continuously support them
- …but they educate their children to hate and kill
- …but they constantly lie to the international community
- …but they get enough support from the super-powers backing them
- …but they systematically missed every opportunities to sign a peace agreement
- …but they actively sabotage any peaceful solution to the conflict
- …but they call for annexation and genocide, and are actively pursuing it
This line of reasoning is compelling and can be used, to a certain degree, against any sides in this conflict.
It paints a grim picture of the world that destines us, as my father often says, to forever live by the sword.
Both sides are corrupted by the conflict, and both sides suffer;
however, any acknowledgment of the other side’s pain is accompanied by a significant “BUT…”.
Though it doesn’t fully see the world as one-sided, it unmistakably demands one-sided actions.
If “YES / NO” is a clear binary division, “YES, BUT” presents a range of arguments that ultimately leans towards justifying one side.
In many cases, it still results in the same one-sided call to action and seldom provides a sincere account that considers compassionate concern for the other side.
3. OH DEAR…
Choosing a side to empathize with and to fight for provides an engaging reaffirmation of one’s own morality. Fighting the good fight and protecting the good victims from the evil perpetrators is indeed a noble thing to do. But what if the lines between good and evil are not so easily drawn? The biggest danger in acknowledging complexity is resignation. And indeed we know too well, that as the war goes on, the media attention fades away, and the public, no longer motivated to fight the good fight, (especially when it isn’t purely good) moves on to find other things to care for.
Documentary film maker Adam Curtis described this phenomenon as “Oh Dearism”, in a short opinion video clip he claims that:
“Political conflicts around the world, from Darfur to Gaza, are now portrayed to us as simple illustrations of the mindless cruelty of the human race, about which nothing can be done, and to which the only response is:Oh dear.”
A few weeks in, we’re already beginning to see this happen. The newspapers front pages move on to cover other things, and the self-righteous slogans and tweets feel repetitive and futile.
If this horrible war will end with another “OH DEAR”, we will be bound to repeat it again and again. We will forever “live by the sword” until we’re left to fight with sticks and stones.
Bonus Round: YES, AND…
Complexity is indeed hard and acknowledging it is generally unrewarding, but I want to suggest it is not impossible, and that it is indeed essential.
A fourth potential response to the war is to replace any “YES, BUT” with a “YES, AND…” Although they may sound similar, they do not negate or justify each other, nor do they compete on an imaginary unified scale of righteousness. Instead, they coexist as truthful statements, serving as adjacent factors to be addressed both separately and simultaneously.
- YES, the Hamas attack against civilians in Israel is an indefensible crime against humanity, AND nothing can justify the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Gaza.
- YES, the occupation cannot be ignored as the context for this violence,AND Israel has the right and the duty to defend its citizens.
- YES, IDF bombing cause un-proportional damage leaving Palestinian defenseless against it, AND Hamas continuously shells Israeli cities and holds hundreds of civilians hostage.
- YES, Hamas cannot be trusted for cease fire negotiations, AND a cease fire may be the only way to stop the indiscriminate killings and release the hostages.
- YES, Palestinians will be forever traumatized by this war, AND Israelis will be forever traumatized by this war
- YES, trust between Israelis and Palestinians is at an all time low,AND diplomacy and trust are required to achieve conflict resolution, security and justice.
Many of us may not find the emotional energy to contain a “YES, AND” approach, especially not now. But we must uplift those who can. We need “YES, AND” leaders, and indeed we should demand “YES, AND” policies. If anything, we should at least think twice before demanding everyone aligns neatly to our one-sided lowest common denominator.
Pro-Palestinian protestors have been chanting: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Since the 1960s, this phrase has been associated with calls to dismantle the Jewish state. Specifically, Hamas employs the phrase in advocating for ethnic cleansing and the genocide of Jews in favor of an exclusive fundamentalist Muslim state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
- YES, this is actually what some protestors on the Pro-Palestinian are actively advocating, AND most protestors do not equate Palestinian freedom with Israel’s destruction.
- YES, Israel’s founding addressed a prolonged historical injustice, AND Israel’s founding caused another grave historical injustice.
For ten months before the war, we Israelis have been protesting against our government’s attempt to change the rules of the democratic game and overhaul the judicial system.
Many of us in the Anti-Occupation Block insisted on highlighting the connection between the anti-democratic turn within Israel and the ongoing anti-democratic occupation of the West Bank and the blockade on Gaza.
We see Palestinian freedom not as a danger but indeed as an essential condition to Israeli democracy.
And hence, one of our most prominent chants was:
“From the river to the sea, we all deserve democracy” (rough translation, it rhymes better in Hebrew).
This is our darkest hour, for me, my children, my loved ones. We, Israelis and Palestinians who believe in a shared equal society are grieving, we are violently attacked by the warmongers on both sides, and we are rejected by our international allies for not turning our backs against each other.
We need your help, not through short-sighted one-sided empathy, but through sincere, stubborn and hopeful compassion.
Progressive politics is rightfully demanding to think beyond binaries. And while this non-binary “YES, AND” may be harder and more tasking, it is urgently required:
YES, our past is ridden with injustice, with villains and with victims,
AND YES, our present is bleeding,
AND YES, our future will depend on whether we bend the arc of the universe towards justice, or away from it.
So let me suggest we start here:
YES, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, AND so would Israel.
A Land for All — Two States, One Homeland
This is our ”YES, AND” proposition for ending the conflict. A Palestinian/Israeli political movement calling for an end to the occupation by establishing a Palestinian/Israeli confederation that shares the homeland from the river, to the sea. (I am proud to be a member of the council of this movement)
Here’s the Least Bad Option for Gaza After the War Ends
Dahlia Scheindlin, A Land for All board member, in an eye-opening article:
“The moral force and the historic role of the international community — if the term is to have any meaning — depends on that community proving it can help build a better path for the future.”
She Polled Gazans on Oct. 6. Here’s What She Found.
On the eve of the Oct. 7 attacks, Amaney Jamal asked Gazans what they thought about Hamas, their economic circumstances and their hopes for long-term peace.
‘We Need Peace’: Israelis Who Survived or Lost Loved Ones in Hamas Attack Speak Out Against War
Many examples of “YES, AND” from those who payed the highest price and refuse to give up on the hope.
“YES, AND” improv
“YES, AND” is a known improvisation technique to build on top of each other’s storytelling. It could be a good exercise for thinking beyond the politics of division.
I want to thank Jacques Servin, Maya Van-Leemput, Steve Lambert, Julian Oliver and especially Uri Zer-Aviv for providing sensitive and crucial feedback on the drafts towards this post.
