12/06/2025
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐳𝐚 𝐖𝐚𝐫: 𝐒𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐊𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐔𝐬
Contempt kills conversation. And in the Gaza debate, it’s doing worse. It is splitting societies that aren’t even in the firing line.
Psychologist John Gottman calls contempt the “sulphuric acid” of marriage; it’s his most reliable divorce predictor. Eye-rolling, sneers, moral one-upmanship. Once these things seep in, the relationship breathes its last.
If contempt will kill a blood-bond as close and sacred as a marriage, what do you think it will do to mere community ties, where something only as thin as shared experience and maybe a nice little red passport bonds us?
𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐩 𝐀: 𝐆𝐚𝐳𝐚 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭
Those who sympathise with the Palestinians see an overwhelming power gap. F-16s versus handmade rockets, M-16s against slingshots and Tel Aviv’s Washington allies versus Gaza’s rubble. And all this is against an evocative historical narrative of injustice through displacement and occupational heavy-handedness. It's all very evocative. Sympathy flows to the underdog.
Fair enough.
Unfortunately, this well-meaning sympathy slips all too easily into simplistic grievance when Palestinian weakness is mistaken for innocence. It’s a Marx-tinged move: oppressed equals virtuous, oppressor equals wicked. Critical-theory vibes.
𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐩 𝐁: 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭
This camp backs Israel’s right to defend itself, but it isn’t blind. They’ve watched Israel fight for survival in ’48, ’67, ’73; they recall peace offers spurned; they know the centuries‑old hostility that predates the state. And they still flinch at every image of dead children.
Crucially, they try to hold space. They weep for Palestinian civilians who want no part in this war and even extend reluctant empathy to Gazans who cheered the 7 October abductions, seeing them as products of relentless ideological grooming. Victims come in layers, they argue, but that doesn’t exonerate militants or overseas activists who bay for Jewish blood.
What grates most is Camp A’s blanket narrative of universal Palestinian victimhood, a slogan that sweeps Hamas - the gunmen who filmed themselves murdering teenagers - into the role of “resistance fighters.” Any hesitation to applaud is framed as cruelty.
Add the media's bias where reports routinely and uncritically cite “Gaza health officials” as if they were the WHO. Frustration deepens. Politicians repeat “cease‑fire” without mentioning the 130 hostages still underground or the rockets that keep flying. Meanwhile, Palestinian deaths have passed 55,000. Holding all those truths in one head is also emotionally exhausting.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐁𝐨𝐦𝐛: 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲
Everyone insists they’re the level‑headed one. That's the story we tell ourselves. We posture as neutral arbiters while marinating in feeds tuned to our bias. If we won’t admit our own tilt to ourselves, how can we be honest in public?
When disagreement mutates into “I’m good, you’re evil,” contempt metastasises. That corrodes the social compact as fast as it undoes a marriage. Multi-faith Singapore cannot afford that rust.
Worse, passion rewires perception. Friends we once trusted for their cool‑headed rigour: lawyers, researchers, teachers, now repost shrill infographics and other-demonising memes where arguments used to be. One catches themself wondering: "If they can’t see kidnapping and indiscriminate rockets as clear-cut wrongs, am I the one out of step?" Meanwhile, from Camp A’s screen, another voice mutters: If basically carpet bombing Gaza isn’t clearly genocide, have we traded conscience for ideology?
We scroll different algorithmically curated, bias-feeding timelines, cite clashing casualty tallies, apply incompatible moral yardsticks. The floor for any shared conversation simply collapses.
𝐒𝐨 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐖𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐓𝐨 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐦?
If you still want dialogue, try this— and good luck.
1️⃣ Lead with your lens. Admit your bias up front. It signals honesty, lowers shields.
2️⃣ Steel-man first. Then offer your view.
3️⃣ Ask, don’t jab. “What shaped that view?” beats “Explain yourself.” Curiosity beats contempt.
4️⃣ Name the pain. Grief for Palestinians, trauma for Israelis—validate both before debating.
5️⃣ Use stories over stats. One hostage’s diary or one Gazan doctor’s log cuts through number-numbness.
6️⃣ Meet offline. Algorithms reward outrage; kopi-c-kosong rewards civility.
7️⃣ Keep verbs hard, adjectives soft. “Rockets hit Ashkelon” is clearer (and kinder) than “brutal Zionist assault”.
8️⃣ Hold the tension. Complex conflicts stay complex. Sit with it; don’t rush for neat endings.
9️⃣ Guard common ground. Free worship, zero hate speech and civic peace. Frame every point inside those values.
🔟 Recruit bridge-builders. Clergy, teachers, and union leaders and people trusted across lines. Can model calm disagreement.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐥𝐤 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐅𝐢𝐱 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬?
Is neighbour‑to‑neighbour dialogue enough? Bridging a Gaza‑sized gulf demands the unglamorous labour of muzzling our own outrage and listening across the aisle. In Singapore, raised on a paternalistic, father‑knows‑best government, grassroots deliberation isn’t exactly muscle memory. How realistic is a nationwide, ground‑up effort?
Maybe the state must step in again—not with press releases or ministerial venting sessions, but with clear, firm lines: stop the divisive theatrics, protect minority communities, and map a fair way forward.
Yes, the teenager nation in us resists more paternalism. But if we want to survive this season before contempt metastasises into something much darker, perhaps idealism can take a backseat while pragmatism leads for now.
If contempt wins, we don’t just lose an argument; we risk the society we’re trying to protect. Perhaps if we all tried less to be spokespersons for our tribal alliance, and remember that we were all friends once upon a time, we might come out of this with our nation intact.
