For some, the headlines have passed but for many, the heartache remains.
As protests and deadly missions erupted over Trump’s gall to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, horrible things happened.
Israel slaughtered around sixty Palestinians and wounded even more.
And with the split screen of pummeled Palestinians, I heard over and over how “Israel has the right to defend itself.”
Politicians and pundits recycle and repeat these same talking points like it’s their favorite song.
Politicos “jam out” to that jam to get them out of a jam. But I don’t nod and bob my head to this one.
The lyrics are not music to my ears because the message is morbid. I don’t enjoy these songs and dances so I insist on a new song and moves.
These talking points are nothing but go to phrases to hunker down on positions and shield against any fallout.
So, whenever talking points spin overhead like blades from an attack helicopter, I must take a shot at them.
Because, Israel has the right to an array of other “D” words, too.
How about defuse?
How about de-escalate?
How about dialogue?
How about diplomacy?
So, why do we only focus on the defensive word?
I hate these headlines and I bet you do too. But these headlines recycle because our talking points recycle, it really is a vicious cycle.
We live in an echo chamber that’s not only hollow but harmful.
These talking points and headlines overseas concern me.
But, I’m also troubled by these talking points and headlines at home.
So, here’s my question — are these talking points in American life too?
The “right to defend” is a “Stand Your Ground Law.”
The thought behind the “Stand Your Ground Law” splits the seam that holds together our sensibilities.
The “right to defend” is a license to kill.
The “right to defend” is the same cry as, “I feared for my life.”
We know that’s a cry that “justifies” the blue for bloodying and bruising the Black.
But, “justifiable homicide” is still a homicide. Killing someone is still bad.
“Justifiable” is subjective, but it never makes death better for everyone.
And, don’t kill me but the “right to defend” is also what a dad tells his son before his son goes to school.
We know even Trump calls himself a “counterpuncher” with a “right to defend” himself.
Trump can say and do whatever the hell he wants because he has the “right to defend” himself.
He has a license to kill institutions, reputations, the facts, and the truth.
Have you heard Sarah Huckabee Sanders parrot and parade this talking point too?
I remember when she said, “Look, the president has a right to defend himself.”
And, “the American people elected a counterpuncher, he hits back.”
Do those statements say something to us? They should, because they say something about us.
Standing up for yourself doesn’t have to mean putting others down.
But, these violent responses are at the heart of our belief systems.
They come from the same artery that beats with and beats for blood.
And this bad blood type is oh so negative because we all have more than one right we can exercise.
Some violent acts occur because people only focus on one right — the right to fight a slight.
People rage when they drive and I’m guilty of rage online.
But you remember what former First Lady Michelle Obama said, right?
“When they go low, we go high.”
Now, that’s a talking point that should continue to be in the rotation.
Let’s move to that because that’s my jam. And, it too will get us out of many jams in life.
Who’s going high in life?
Political campaigns come and go, but we still need people to go high. Because, too many people go down because no one wants to go up higher.
We should examine how this defensive and attack back culture is in us.
Because, the same talking points for conflicts abroad will ricochet and reverberate back home as sticking points.
We must emphasize conflict-resolution strategies, techniques, and options, too.
Why don’t we talk up all those other rights?
Our rights do not absolve us of our responsibilities, they enhance them.
And sometimes it’s our very capability to make a better choice that makes us culpable.
So, let’s urge ourselves, others, and nations to exercise as many rights and responsibilities as they can.
It’s always better to save lives on all sides and we should all want to be better.
We might even call that a win-win deal.
I just wish we’d choose “eye to eye” over “an eye for an eye,” each and every time.
I know, I know, don’t we all.
For my latest content, sign up for my newsletter, On Equal Terms.
