Week 10’s discussion was one I found particularly interesting, especially since I was facilitating, alongside my partner, of course. I think the idea of reading our Professor’s writing added that extra spark of excitement that wouldn’t otherwise be there, and so I’d like to take the time to delve into it a little more.  Hermez focuses on the process of dehumanization, and whether it is war that leads to dehumanizing a soul, or if it is a dehumanized soul who creates war. The question being considered is one that loops endlessly with no certainty on either end — no definitive answer but rather just another wave on the surface of existence. 

     In one of Hermez’s first interviews, he touches on the response of Abu Elie, his interviewee, as to why an armed man would have the guts to kill an unarmed woman or dozens of innocent children; with no form of guilt or regret. How is it possible that one’s humanity stoops so low — so low that their sins seem to be the pedestal of their growth? How is it possible to ruin the lives of those with childlike innocence, whilst one stands on the other end, in blood covered clothes, letting out a sigh of relief expressing their joy in survival? I continue to wonder as I read his response, “To be or not to be” (Hermez, 2019, p. 584). 

     I sat there in a state of confusion, for quite some time, to try and understand what can be meant by the phrase “to be or not to be,” and how it can possibly give so much insight in such little content. In my perspective, it almost accurately translates to “to kill or to die”. To elaborate, in the context of war, I refer to how one has no option but to kill if they have the will to survive, and if not, then they must be prepared with the bravery to die. Of course, I know nothing of what life is like in the midst of a war zone, and I hope to never understand it fully, but from the standpoint I’m currently in, it’s incredibly difficult to imagine the strength, or should I say the weakness, it takes to commit to the horrors of killing, and rather than breaking apart, to be celebrating the victory of my own survival. One who may have had to experience the trauma would likely call me naive, which I would understand and accept, but I wish to grasp the perspective of the opposing side, one that is often not spoken about — the experience of the survivors of war from the eyes of the killers.

     I learned quite a lot in this week’s discussion group, and especially from the groups’ thoughts regarding the phrase discussed above, and what they think it might mean. One response I found incredibly interesting revolved around similar ideas I had, but in much more detail than I could’ve imagined. The example given was about an armed man killing an unarmed pregnant woman, and the possible reasoning behind it. Let’s put it this way: if the man were to let the pregnant lady live, then one day, when the unborn child becomes an adult, they will likely take the life of that man away. The logic behind this is messy, in my opinion, but it definitely intrigued me and left me questioning more than I did before. Who’s to say that the unborn child will grow up to be a killer themselves, and who’s to say that they’ll continue to be on the opposing side of the man? 

     Overall, I still feel as though I need answers to a lot of questions I have, even though those are answers I likely won’t receive, but I’m still baffled by the idea of having to kill to survive, and the general concept of war and the trauma that almost always comes with it, in one sense or another. My thoughts on this feel very messy, but I hope to read more on the topic to try and better understand it. I also hope that those who struggled with the losses of the lives at stake during times of war get the help they deserve to receive.