Some of it? Is simple.

Religion, politics, alliances, allegiances, complex histories — those are all tricky.

Saying “chopping off a woman’s breast in front of her children, while they’re all conscious, then executing her is NOT ok?” I don’t see what’s complicated about that.

I remember when (former US Senator and First Lady) Hillary Clinton was running for President, and I felt hopeful, but nervous. It felt like a bubbling revolution that we and our daughters finally deserved. But instead of getting an intelligent, experienced president who happened to be a woman, I was met with profound disappointment and disgust. Because our social media communities are not a sampling of the voting population, and my bubble of liberal-minded friends or even those open to conversation and logic does not represent all those who vote. And each time, anew, my heart breaks for the impact these choices have on coming generations.

I’ve read that people have “unfriended” in both a literal and “social-media-button-clicking manner” people as a result of understanding in times of conflict that opinions differ way too much on things that are way too important to overlook. I haven’t had too many reasons or experiences that have led me to do so, as I tend to really socialize in circles of educated people who can at least respect or discuss differences. And or who share my values.

But these days, while I feel fortunate to see content that I support circulating and am appreciative for it being disseminated, I feel like it’s preaching to the choir, and sadly not exposed to those whose minds could be changed. And I’m appalled that in the face of overwhelming evidence of unparalleled atrocities beyond those seen by humanity, proudly live streamed by the perpetrators themselves, people can turn a blind eye, and many point an angry finger instead of offering an empathetic hand. This isn’t about whether you believe anyone has a right to which land. This is about whether you think it’s ok to gang-rape a woman in front of her partner and then shoot them both. Is that a difficult question? This isn’t about who should be in charge of ruling where. This is about whether human life has value, and who feels that way and guards it, and who goes out of their way to demean it.

And to call the return of a toddler for a release of convicted terrorists a hostage exchange? Let’s not get into that. But the fact that the whole world is not up in arms for the unconditional release of all the innocent civilian hostages? Appalling. A child taken from a stroller is not a bargaining chip. A child should be off-limits. If you choose to put guns in the hands of yours, or operate out of a school, that is disgusting, and it’s on you. But I want my girls to simply be able to feel safe living their lives in the best way possible. I don’t see what’s insane about saying “I expect that people would be upset if someone came into my house while we were all sleeping and stole my kids from their beds, I would expect that people would revolt and insist that I get them back” and not expect that to be a politicized issue, and certainly not be called an occupier when I’m just asking for war crimes to be condemned? That the UN and women’s organizations may care about documented crimes against women, humanity, decency?

While I lean left, I am open-minded. But I believe in basic rights, human rights. I believe in the good in people and I believe in education. I believe in freedoms including freedom of choice and freedom of expression. I believe in democracy. I believe in holding the RIGHT people accountable, but enabling the common people to seek out the best conditions they can have. And I believe in civil discourse. And in researching and finding out more information to understand the background and other potential opinions.

I believe in logic, and good judgment. I would like to think also that given the right information, most people would be willing to come to different conclusions than the ones they reached without background information, and admit if and when we were wrong, and delve into nuance and complexity and understand that the world is dynamic and ever-changing and it’s ok to form an opinion and then reassess. And that standing for more than one thing doesn’t have to be disparate or conflicting. I stand for Palestinians who want peace and their autonomy to find a way to do so under a ruling body that has their best interest at heart and cares more about their well-being than our deaths. I am waiting hoping praying for peace. But I can want Hamas removed from power, because that doesn’t contradict my desire for live and let live. That reinforces it. And as someone who has stood with others when I see hardship, or believe in them and their beliefs, I expect that in the obvious “murdering innocents is bad,” we would have allies.

Recently I reached out to a friend. Well, I consider him a friend though we haven’t truly spoken or hung out in ages.

I respect his opinion and think he’s a great guy. And he’s a form of talking head or political commentator. Very well respected in certain communities and hosted on various forums channels news shows and stations, and a pundit. I won’t get into more than that because the goal is not to reveal too much, but simply set up the situation.

I said, “I often see you standing your own so well against people with disparate opinions to yours, and always find you very well-spoken. I’m just wondering why, as a liberal and thought leader with a large following and a role of influence, you haven’t said anything about the situation in Israel with Gaza.” His response was, “The Middle East isn’t my area of expertise, I don’t go on shows for that topic.” I said, “I meant as a person, not as an invited guest on a show for those bits.” Silence. I said, “It’s fine, I get it.”

But a few days later, I wondered to myself, “Wait, do I get it? What do I get?”

Time passed since that brief exchange. And last night I found myself in bed remembering, and becoming angry.

Do I get it? What’s to get? Is it wrong to express sympathy for victims of terror? Does it contradict any liberal ideas to express anger at babies being baked alive in the oven? Which base are we risking alienating if we say it’s not ok to kidnap kids from their strollers in their neighborhoods? Which core human values are we in conflict with if we say “Mutilating an entire family in front of each other at the table and then executing them before sitting down to their meal is wrong?” Is there something fundamentally insane in saying “Innocent civilians taken from their own homes are not bargaining chips but should be returned without the need for intervention and negotiations?”

What am I missing here?

I am not, G-d forbid, trying to oversimplify a decades(++)-old conflict. I am not excusing Bibi (believeeeee me). I am not saying let’s get into the politics of it. I’m not saying the death of civilians or collateral damage is not heartbreaking. I am not saying let’s not care about Palestinian lives. I am not even saying (here) that Hamas doesn’t care about Palestinian lives. I’m not saying let’s launch into an explanation of how the fault for loss of life in Gaza is Hamas’s, or ranting about how their leaders want to line their own pockets as they sit in safety and luxury abroad or hide out. None of that is relevant to the very base of do you stand for murder and war crimes or do you stand against it? Do you believe women, and mean “me too” or do you mean with exception because of blind hate? Does the kidnapping of innocents from their own homes anger you, or are you willing to turn a blind eye?

To me, in a world that is full of complicated and nuance — that’s as simple as can be.