Ground Zero: On Belonging, Justice, and the Measure of Coexistence

Where Do You Go When You’re Erased?

I was born in Jerusalem. But through Israeli laws that elevate Jewish identity while stripping Palestinians of rights, my family became “illegal residents” in our own homeland. The law didn’t just displace us, it redefined our existence.

Now, as a U.S. citizen, I’m routinely told to “go back to where you came from.” But where is that, exactly? The place I came from has been legally restructured with US support, and taxpayer money, to exclude me. The place I live now questions my presence. So I ask: what does “home” mean when every system insists you don’t belong?

The Politics of Grief

As we commemorate 9/11, we must also ask: how many 9/11s have Palestinians endured? Not metaphorically—but in the scale of trauma, destruction, and loss. Entire families erased. Cities reduced to rubble. Generations growing up under siege.

The difference is not in the suffering, it’s in the recognition. Palestinian grief has been normalized, minimized, and politically inconvenient. But grief is not a zero-sum emotion. To honor one tragedy while ignoring another is not remembrance, it’s selective empathy. It’s our pain is valid and real, and yours can be dismissed.

Justice Under Siege

The U.S. has sanctioned Al-Haq, Al Mezan, and PCHR—organizations working with the ICC to investigate war crimes in Gaza. This isn’t just political maneuvering. It’s an assault on the infrastructure of justice.

Israel has bombed offices, killed colleagues, and silenced journalists. Now, its allies are targeting the survivors who speak. When human rights defenders are punished for seeking accountability, the message is clear: justice is conditional. Conditional on who you are, who you accuse, and whether your suffering fits the dominant narrative.

Justice Engineering: Reversing Reason

We are witnessing a phenomenon I call “justice engineering.” The conclusion—who is guilty, who is innocent—is decided first. Then the laws, the arguments, the evidence are bent to fit that outcome.

This is not rule of law. It’s retrofitted domination. Legal frameworks, moral principles, even religious texts are reinterpreted to justify power, not truth. When the tools of justice—law, rights, faith—are weaponized to conceal oppression, we must ask: what remains sacred?

Free Speech or Shadowboxing?

The Free Speech Fallacy is the illusion that free speech is meaningful without mutual access. It critiques platform asymmetry—where one side speaks loudly about the other, while that other is silenced, misrepresented, or criminalized without due process. This imbalance isn’t just unfair—it undermines the ethics of discourse itself.

I coined this term in response to criticism of Islam and of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him. My aim is not to legislate censorship or suppress dissent. Rather, I call for a deeper understanding of the fallacy: that speech without reciprocity is not dialogue or criticism, it’s domination. A case in point is Elon Musk’s critique of anything Islam and Muslims lack accountability. If his platforms amplify his voice while silencing those he targets, it’s not free speech. It’s shadowboxing: resistance without risk, criticism without reciprocity.

True discourse requires moral courage—not just to speak, but to listen. If you’re bold enough to challenge our beliefs, then be bold enough to hear our answers. Anything less is not conviction, it’s cowardice.

The Prophets and Messengers of God, peace and blessings upon them, did not shy away from challenging dominant beliefs. But they also listened. They did so not from thrones or pulpits of power, but as underdogs: opposed, marginalized, and often persecuted. Their strength was not in domination, but in the integrity of their witness and their willingness to hear.

They most certainly were not shadowboxing, a term I coined to describe the illusion of critique without reciprocity. They engaged with truth, even when it cost them everything.

So when platforms, governments, or ideologies silence critique and refuse reciprocity, they are not defending truth, they are shadowboxing with it. And history, scripture, and conscience all testify.

Truth does not fear scrutiny. Falsehood does.

Mirror:

• Wrestling with Jerusalem: A play where one actor plays all roles, symbolizing a monologue disguised as dialogue. It’s a metaphor for ideological control—where the critic controls both the question and the answer.
• Waiting for Godot: A play about endless anticipation and existential futility. Endless playing with doubt, contesting, disputing, and criticism without ever understanding anything so one can recognize it, should it ever appear.

The Right to Contest

Everyone has the right to contest, to dispute, to resist. If you reserve that right for yourself—whether it’s to challenge laws, elections, ideologies, or historical narratives—then you must accept that others have that same right.

Palestinians have the right to contest the theft of their homeland. Muslims have the right to dispute whether Zionism or Western ideologies are compatible with Islam or the rest of the world. Critics of Zionism have the right to question its impact on indigenous populations.

Who decided the Western way of life is the universal benchmark? Was it the legacy of enlightenment—or the legacy of empire? Was it the pursuit of liberty—or the trail of bloodshed left behind in colonized lands?

Rejecting Exceptionalism, Not Values

This is not about rejecting Western values—it’s about rejecting Western exceptionalism. The conversation must be mutual, not hierarchical. And until that mirror is faced, the West will continue to preach freedom while practicing domination and supremacy.

If we are serious about building a just and peaceful world, then we must agree on a universal benchmark—one rooted in sanctity of life, dignity, reciprocity, and accountability. Not one imposed by power, but one upheld by principle.

The Test of Transformation

If Islam could transform the Mongols—one of history’s most brutal empires—into patrons of justice, scholarship, and spirituality, then the West, with all its power, institutions, and claims to moral leadership, must ask: Why has it failed to transform anyone?

I do not absolve myself, my community—whether in faith or heritage—from criticism. If as Muslims we practiced Islam as Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him, practiced it, we would have transformed the Zionists, as Muslims previously transformed the Mongols.

True integrity means holding oneself—and one’s own—to the same standards we demand of others.

The Universal Benchmark: Coexistence

The universal benchmark is coexistence. Not dominance. Not lethal power to destroy and erase from history. Not conquest.

Coexistence is the measure by which all ideologies, systems, faiths, and civilizations must be judged.

I may disagree with many ideologies and ways of life, but I do not believe in erasing them from history. Every worldview deserves to be examined and understood—whether we embrace it or reject it.

The Double Standard of Coexistence

For decades, Western societies have asked: Can Islam coexist with the West? Can Muslims integrate, assimilate, adapt? These questions are often posed with suspicion, as if Islam is inherently incompatible with modernity, democracy, or pluralism.

Muslims are expected to prove their loyalty, moderate their beliefs, and reshape their identities and faith to fit Western norms. But rarely—if ever—is the same scrutiny applied to Zionism and Zionists in the Middle East.

Why don’t we ask: Can Zionism coexist with the region it dominates and seeks to steal? Can Zionist settlers integrate into the cultural, religious, and historical fabric of Palestine and its neighbors?

Instead, Zionism is treated as a permanent fixture, while everything else—including God or a livestreamed genocide—is contested. Palestinians are asked to accommodate their own dispossession. This is insanity, not reason.

Ground Zero

This distorted framing places the burden of coexistence entirely on the colonized who are facing ongoing land theft and ethnic cleansing—never the colonizer.

If Muslims are interrogated for their ability to live peacefully in the West, then Zionists and Western nations must also be asked whether their ideologies and practices allow for peaceful coexistence in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

And if their answer is that “everyone wants to destroy us,” then perhaps the region is not rejecting their existence as people of any faith or none—but rejecting the terms of their domination and supremacy.

Coexistence is not a one-way demand. It must be mutual, just, and rooted in respect—not supremacy. Until that standard is applied equally, the conversation remains fundamentally dishonest.

We are at ground zero. Palestine is colonized by foreign invaders that the region rejects.