A year of this war has taught me to flinch at a word I used to trust, the word "both." Both sides. Both peoples. Both entitled to safety, both scarred, both grieving. On the anniversary of October 7 it is everywhere, in every measured statement and every appeal to reason, and I want to do something more useful than either embracing it or rejecting it, which is to separate the "both" that tells the truth from the "both" that hides it, because they wear the same face and do opposite work.
Frantz Fanon, writing from inside a colonial war, insisted on a distinction that the language of symmetry is built to erase: that between the violence of the settler and the violence of the native there is a relation, but not an equivalence, because one violence founds and maintains a situation and the other responds to it, and to describe them in the identical vocabulary of "both sides resorting to force" is not neutrality but a specific falsehood, the falsehood that flattens the asymmetry of power into a symmetry of behaviour. This is the analytic knife I want to use, carefully, because it cuts in ways that can be abused. There is a genuine "both" and a false "both," and the difference is whether the word acknowledges the asymmetry underneath or conceals it.
Let me build the honest "both" first, and mean it, because I am about to be accused of denying it and I will not have that be true. Both peoples are real. Both fears are real. The Israeli child and the Gazan child are equally, infinitely grievable, and any account of this war that can weep for one and audit the other has failed the most basic moral test, as I have argued in this paper before and will again. At the level of the human person, the level of grief, "both" is not evasion; it is the whole of the truth, and the refusal of it is the engine of the atrocity. Here I will hold the word and defend it against anyone, on either side, who wants me to ration my mourning.
But there is a second "both," and it operates one level up, at the level not of grief but of power, and there it lies. When "both sides" is used to describe not two griefs but two forces, as though a state with one of the world's most advanced militaries and a nuclear arsenal and the backing of the greatest power on earth were symmetrically situated with a besieged and stateless population under occupation, the word stops describing reality and starts distorting it. It converts a relationship of vast asymmetry into a spectacle of two comparable combatants, and in doing so it quietly assigns equal responsibility for an unequal situation, which is the oldest way to side with the stronger while claiming to side with neither. The counterargument, and it is fair, is that Hamas is a real armed force with real rockets and real atrocities to its name, that the asymmetry of state power does not make the weaker party innocent, and that "both bear responsibility" is sometimes simply true. Granted, fully. The weaker party is not thereby the just party, and I have spent this year refusing to pretend otherwise. But responsibility distributed as though the power were equal is responsibility misassigned, and a "both" that ignores who holds the guns, the borders, the water, and the world's protection is not balance. It is the scale with a thumb on it, and the thumb is disguised as the very act of weighing.
I claim some right to this distinction from my own life, because I have watched "both sides" deployed against my people for a quarter century as the reasonable person's way of declining to notice who was occupying whom. The word arrives sounding like fairness and functions like anesthesia. And the tragedy is that it poisons the honest "both" along with the false one, so that those of us who insist, truly, that both peoples are grievable get folded in with those who insist, falsely, that both forces are equivalent, and the whole vocabulary of shared humanity gets discredited by its misuse as a vocabulary of false equivalence.
So I will keep the word and discipline it. At the level of the child, the grief, the person: both, always, without ration or audit, and I will fight anyone who tries to make me choose. At the level of the tank, the border, the arsenal, the superpower's veto: not both, not equally, not without naming who holds what. The single word carries both a truth and a lie, and a year of watching it work has convinced me that learning to tell which is which, in each sentence it appears, is not pedantry. It is the difference between mourning the dead and being recruited to excuse how they died.