Nearly two years into the unrelenting war between Palestine and Israel, a chilling announcement of famine in northern Gaza comes to most as unsurprising and a grim inevitability. 

Between the lines of our luscious lives, far removed from the daily horrors of war and famine, we often disregard the “noise” of humanitarian crises. It’s not that we don’t care — it’s that we have never experienced anything like it. 

It’s easy to treat a war like this as a debate topic; we have no tangible experiences to compare it to.

Instead of grappling with the human toll, we reduce this conflict to sides: Who’s right? Who’s wrong? We debate, we post, and we argue; In doing so, we lose sight of the actual suffering. 

A common reaction is to turn this into a fighting point, and after expressing our opinion, we open ourselves up to someone inevitably disagreeing with us. 

This war, which has plagued cities and millions of people in Gaza, stems from centuries of strife and conflict.

The average person cannot grasp the entirety of this, nor would they be willing to address this topic with open-mindedness. 

Instead, we declare allegiance to whatever “sounds better”. 

But what happens when all of it, for lack of better words, sounds bad?

Whether you support Palestine or Israel, one truth remains: People are starving from famine, dying in the crossfire, and fleeing their homes. 

Men, women, and children actively fear for their lives, and we Americans decide to fight over our opinions in social media comment sections?

In NPR’s most recent announcement about the famine, it’s estimated that over half a million people are actively starving in Gaza. 

The Associated Press reported in June that over 55,000 Palestinians had died in its 20-month duration. 

There are an eerie number of figures, data, and statistics I could continue with, yet that’s not exactly my point. 

These are hard facts of this conflict — and regardless of a half-educated opinion — can we not agree that this is all inherently bad?

Instead of blaming, excusing, and debating the “greater evil”, why not agree on something simpler and more urgent: that peace and protection of innocent lives should be the priority? 

Can we refute the idea of being a keyboard warrior and redirect that concern and energy toward encouraging governmental aid or humanitarian corridors? 

Can we rethink our opinions and see peace, not as a passive neutrality, but as an active advocacy for saving lives?

Peace shouldn’t be a vague idea; it’s a way of life that we as Americans often take for granted. It should not be the luxury of the privileged, and should be the right of every human. 

While we argue over who bears more blame, families in this region are praying to survive another day. 

If we truly value human life, then our responsibility is clear: to shift our energy from online outrage to tangible advocacy, to pressure leaders for humanitarian relief, and to support efforts that save lives rather than divide us further. 

Wars may be complicated, but compassion is not — and if we cannot agree on peace, then what does that say about us?